| sc94597 said: 1. Of course they do, they give more power to the federal government over our lives. Particularly the health care, but also taxation exceeding that of the states by vast amounts. 2. Did I, sorry this conversation is everywhere so I get lost a bit? :) I said I liked the social security system with the employer putting money in the bank instead of a tax by the government which is then rewarded later in their life. I say this, because then it adjusts for generation differences, such as the baby boomers. I'm not sure if I feel that people who don't want healthcare should be forced to have it. But like you said, I dislike Obamacare even more because instead of taking a tax out and providing a service, in this case somebody is punished for not purchasing a service themselves. It might not seem much different fiscally, but it certainly is a bad position when you have a government telling you what to buy. But if it's something standalone, and it doesn't lead to other legislation of its kind I guess it is like you said, a necessary evil - much like the government itself (as Thomas Paine did say.) If he is going to go this path he might as well just go for ful universal healthcare. As for Medicare, I realize that it's limited to a specific demographic with a greater propensity for health risks. I don't let my ideology choose my stance on all decisions. So I understand that there is a huge difference between enabling a single-payer public system to the elderly and giving it to an entire population, regardless of their health. Understandable. So what's covered in Australia's basic universal healthcare package? What do private options add? What happeneds if the economy weakens and the government can't afford both the fewer taxes and the increased health risks caused by more poverty? 3. The education and infrastructure (excluding interstates) are mostly provided by state and local governments, but the federal government has increased its influence. The problem is that this gives the federal government more say in local matters and hence states have less autonomy if the federal government enables assistance. For the people, this isn't a good thing as it inhibits freedom. 4. Considering how one-hundred years ago the U.S government spend less than 10% it certainly is quite high. As for Norway, it is the closest thing to a socialist state a mixed economy can become. The public sector is very influential there. Contrastly, the public job sector in the U.S is measly, therefore less spending should occur. I'm not sure how true this is for the others. 5. Unemployment fraud and working the system is so common in very common here, because in certain state there are lenient systems in which the "proof" of looking for work is far from rigorous, the time limit is absolutely necessary, at least in my state that's the case. I'm not sure about other states though. There is absolutely no excuse to not have a job, even if it is fast-food or factory work. Both of my parents have been on unemployment multiple times and even today in the hard economic situation they were able to find jobs, and my mom doesn't even have a high school diploma. Six months (with a possible extention of two more) is plenty of time to get things in order. The only reason I'd think an unlimited time span would be good is for the middle-class workers who don't want to do anything but their specific occupation. Unfortunately, the most unemployed are the working class who have no choice but to take any job that is available. I'm not sure how many people last an entire six months, but I doubt it's vastly more than the numbers show. 6. I said "fascist-like" which it is true that fascist governments use interventionalist policies to benefit one company over the others, and hence create monopolies. Most fascist governments also have mixed economies. Even the word refers to Roman magistrates. In this instance, the government acts as a magistrate to influence the economic outcomes. And if it was a standalone occurance I'd not use the word, but they do it quite frequently. |
Before I start responding - please, use the numbers I've put in, rather than inserting your response into my post. Otherwise, it just gets too messy with all of the nested quotes and adjusted replies, etc. And it takes me more time to filter through it to realign it as you see above.
1. What control is it taking over your life? It's easy to proclaim that the government is trying to take more control, but the fact of the matter is, there is very little control that America is taking over the lives of those who don't want any interference at all. Mandatory insurance is like regular income tax - it's a way to make sure you pay for things you use, as well as helping to cover those who can't afford it. The alternative would be to let many poor people die due to lack of healthcare. The difference with the Obamacare fine is that you only have to pay it if you don't have private health insurance. I really fail to see the harm in that.
2. I spoke about Australia's Medicare system, and you responded "Seems like a solution to the concern I just brought up".
Regarding the Obamacare fine, you don't seem to understand. The government is already providing you the service. They already pay the costs of emergency healthcare for people who don't have private health insurance. This is just the government finally saying "if you can afford it, then you aren't getting a free ride anymore". Indeed, what it's doing is means-testing this public health insurance that is secretly lying underneath your system, to keep it from completely failing. And stop saying that they're being "punished". They're being expected to pay for a service they're already getting. Also the government doesn't tell you WHAT to buy - they just require that you have some sort of health insurance. If you aren't going to buy private health insurance, then you're going to pay for public health insurance. Why? Because you're already getting that insurance, by virtue of living in America. The alternative would in fact be DEATH PANELS. People whose job it is to determine, when someone is brought into an emergency room, whether they have the insurance or money available to cover the costs of saving their life. Does that sound reasonable to you?
As for how Australia's government handles the situation if more poverty occurs... well, it's the government's job to work on reducing poverty, so if they're failing that, the result will actually be that the government gets voted out at the next election, well before poverty gets so high that it's a huge burden on the system. Stop blaming your government for doing things for you (as a nation, not as an individual), and start blaming them for when they fail to do so. As for what's covered by public health insurance, look here.
3. Americans are too obsessed with concepts like "federal government means less freedom". No, it f'ing doesn't. The federal government is by the people, for the people. YOU (as a people) get to choose who runs your government, and federal influence is a way to help to STANDARDISE things so that things get better for everyone. Let me give you an example of a failure of state governments in Australia, to make my point. New South Wales built a rail system. Queensland built a rail system. The two states, idiotically, chose two difference gauges for the tracks. As such, there cannot be trains running from Brisbane to Sydney - you have to change trains at the border (and they're only now working on setting that up - there's no joint station, yet). Had the federal government been involved, they would have made sure both states used the same gauge, and it would have been a better result for everyone.
State government is supposed to deal with things that naturally vary between states - things like different makeup of the economy, different environmental concerns, etc. Education is a universal issue, and the federal government SHOULD be interfering. So again, I say it - stop blaming the government for trying to do things for the people, and start blaming them for when they fail to do so.
4. 100 years ago was a very different situation. There was barely a police force. Education was low quality with most girls not even getting an education. Health care was limited at best. There was no internet, no phone, no power system. Economies were primarily local, and international economic activity was barely even heard of. Tourism was uncommon, it took months to travel overseas, and the population was much, much smaller. Obesity was extremely rare, most food was organic and direct from the farm, and there wasn't much by way of a banking system, just individual banks servicing local areas. It's a completely nonsensical comparison to make.
As for Norway, yes, it's fairly close to being socialist, by American standards (it's actually nowhere near socialist, since the government isn't in control of the economy any more than America's is). And they outperform America on almost all measures, including education, health, workforce participation, social equality, financial equality, crime rate (lower, that is), and happiness. Perhaps you should stop getting hung up on terms that aren't even being accurately applied, and instead look into the nations we're talking about before dismissing them.
5. So what you're saying is that the time limit is a patch on a hole left by your state government? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply make the conditions more rigorous? Unemployment fraud isn't solved by putting a time limit on it. Indeed, all it does is punish those who legitimately are having trouble finding work. Those who are intent on defrauding the system will find a way around something as trivial as a time limit.
6. I'm not going to continue arguing over the semantics. I'll just emphasise that it's not fascist, and "fascist-like" is really just a weak way to say "fascism, but not quite as bad as real fascism". So my concern was more for the implication than the term itself. Choice of words can have a significant effect on the implicit meaning of something, even when explicitly it's the same thing.
