Machiavellian said:
Single payer would be great, the reason it will probably never happen in the US is because none of the big insurance companies want it and they will make sure they spend a lot of money to make sure it doesn't happen. |
Indeed. Emulate what works for other nations.
Having a single payer generally means they are able to argue for the lowest price possible.
| jason1637 said: 2. Saving is not impossible. It can be hard like many other things but definitely not impossible. If we transition to a world with no social security people would have to save so they would not die lol. |
I highly doubt anyone who earns a paltry $7.25 an hour is going to be channeling hundreds of thousands into a bank account for retirement.
...Yet those individuals are also a necessity as they take on jobs that others don't have any desire for.
| jason1637 said: 1. In a way it is but people are basickly paying for each others saving. Instead we should be responsible for how much we save by ourselves. |
Nah. Because money gets stolen, Investments can go bust, people loose their jobs so need to live on savings, cars break down that need repairing.
What you are speaking of just doesn't happen on the lower-tiers of society in the USA... And there are inherent logical reasons why that is the case.
In Australia what we have is a "Super Fund". - Basically it's a bunch of arrangements that are required by law for employers to dump money into on top of wages so that employees will have finances for the future. - There are also big incentives (Tax and otherwise) for you to make regular contributions into said fund by yourself... And as a result, we have the 4th largest pension fund in the world, which isn't bad considering our population is ranked 53rd.
There are also a ton of restrictions on how and when you can draw from your super fund as well.
But what makes all of that entirely possible is that... We have a $18.93 minimum wage (With Super being extra on top) with talks of that increasing again, it's much more difficult on the USA's pathetic $7.25.
| jason1637 said: Well if you don't have a family (which is rare) then you should simply just save more. It's really not that hard. If people can't do something as basic as saving then they don't deserve help from the government. There are exceptions though like the disabled. |
It's impossible to save if you are one of the 13+ million US citizens who don't have a job.
Regardless of the economic output of a nation, there is always the unemployment rate, you will always have people who are unemployed for a variety of reasons...
During the Great Depression for example, 25% of the nation was unemployed. - How do you expect 25% of the nation to save money for retirement if they don't have a job?
Worst yet, how do you expect for a large percentage of the remaining work force who are on $7.25 wages to save?
| jason1637 said: The pharmaceutical industry has taken advantage of us in some ways but at the end of the day it comes down to the persons choice to continue to take these drugs. There are so many organizations out there willing to help people that are addicted. It is their fault. |
Yes. Because a diabetic should go without insulin... Someone suffering from cancer should go without Chemo... Someone going blind not having their cataracts done... Someone with HIV/AIDS not having the appropriate medication... Someones child suffering bronchitis should just walk it off... I see your point. They should go without.
I have to ask, are you trolling? Where is your compassion and empathy for other human beings?
| jason1637 said: This is why we should invest more in communities to push people towards a higher standard of living instead of giving them money in social security. This way they would be able to save more money for themselves. It comes down to being responsible for yourself, something that is lacking in society today. |
Do both. It's no good just giving social security if there are inherent structural problems which will continue the current status quo and not lift people out of poverty/low standard of living.
But just investing more in communities doesn't mean a mother is going to put food on the table or an elderly lady is going to be able to buy insulin to keep herself alive.
You need both. My country does both. It works.
| jason1637 said: In high school I had to volunteer in a soup kitchen and there were some people that needed help but a lot of them were just lazy and were hustling their way through life. I respect their hustle but they are still not trying hard enough to change their situation. |
Some being the key operative word.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
