If you want a Waiver go here

[felicie]

The Obama healthcare law shreds your constitutional rights, interferes with your doctor’s decisions, and robs you of your medical privacy and control of your healthcare.

The law forces you to enroll in a one-size-fits-all, government-designed health plan, whether or not you want it or can afford it. And it empowers the IRS to track you down and penalize you if you don’t comply. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to force you to buy anything, and if government can compel you to buy insurance, there will be no limit to what the federal government can do to you or take away from you.

Worse still, for the first time in history, the Obama healthcare law puts the federal government in charge of your doctors’ decisions; Sec. 1311 of the law bars your insurer from paying doctors unless they implement whatever dictates the federal government imposes in the name of “quality.” That covers everything in medicine, when your cardiologist recommends a stent or when your ob/gyn does a Cesarean section.
(The following is actually a place to Demand your Waiver Not Get one.)

Now President Obama is granting waivers – already over 1,300 – to certain companies and unions exempting them from parts of the law the rest of us are compelled to obey.

Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district secured 20% of the waivers granted in April. One congressional district! The rule of law is being destroyed and replaced with cronyism. They believe the healthcare law should control you and me, but not them. It’s the height of hypocrisy – and it’s only the beginning.

In the United States, no one should have to slither to the White House for an exemption. The rule of law is king here, not Mr. Obama. If you don’t have a high paid lobbyist or an EZ Pass to the White House, come to the defendyourhealthcare.com to demand your waiver. Betsy McCaughey, president of Defend Your Healthcare, will be going to Washington, DC to demand waivers for all the hard working, tax-paying Americans who want their healthcare rights protected. All of America wants a waiver.


(Note - The above is actually the place to go to Demand your Waiver not to Get one)

 

[kauphy]

The Obama healthcare law shreds your constitutional rights, interferes with your doctor’s decisions, and robs you of your medical privacy and control of your healthcare.

The law forces you to enroll in a one-size-fits-all, government-designed health plan, whether or not you want it or can afford it. And it empowers the IRS to track you down and penalize you if you don’t comply. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to force you to buy anything, and if government can compel you to buy insurance, there will be no limit to what the federal government can do to you or take away from you.

Worse still, for the first time in history, the Obama healthcare law puts the federal government in charge of your doctors’ decisions; Sec. 1311 of the law bars your insurer from paying doctors unless they implement whatever dictates the federal government imposes in the name of “quality.” That covers everything in medicine, when your cardiologist recommends a stent or when your ob/gyn does a Cesarean section.
(The following is actually a place to Demand your Waiver Not Get one.)

Now President Obama is granting waivers – already over 1,300 – to certain companies and unions exempting them from parts of the law the rest of us are compelled to obey.

Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district secured 20% of the waivers granted in April. One congressional district! The rule of law is being destroyed and replaced with cronyism. They believe the healthcare law should control you and me, but not them. It’s the height of hypocrisy – and it’s only the beginning.

In the United States, no one should have to slither to the White House for an exemption. The rule of law is king here, not Mr. Obama. If you don’t have a high paid lobbyist or an EZ Pass to the White House, come to the defendyourhealthcare.com to demand your waiver. Betsy McCaughey, president of Defend Your Healthcare, will be going to Washington, DC to demand waivers for all the hard working, tax-paying Americans who want their healthcare rights protected. All of America wants a waiver.


(Note - The above is actually the place to go to Demand your Waiver not to Get one)

gezzzzz seems i said that this was a bad thing from the start. but hey if you say

anything against king obama then your a hater or racist. the man is bad very bad and he will make the u.s fall if people don,t wake up soon.

or maybe the u.s will just turn into anoughter muslim ran counrty and if i insulted anyone

oh well you can please some of the people some of the time but you can,t please everyone all the time.

and i,m sick to death of having to watch what i say but its o.k for other people to say what they like.

i won,t bow down and kiss anyones ass anymore about the crap that is going on in this country.

its bad and it will get worse if we don,t make a stand soon.

but then i,m sure this will get taken off caz of the choosen few who get their panties

in a bunch when anything is said that they think is racist or against king obama.

so be it and while you at you can just close my account too caz if you can,t have freedom of speech on a forum while others are allowed to say what they think then i don,t want to be a member of that forum.

 

[felicie]

Yeah you go girl!

 

[Nifty29]

Excuse me for asking, but you said that you can't say anything about Obama without being called a racist etc, but then you went on to say that the US will just become 'another Muslim run country'.....are you saying Obama is a Muslim? If he is, he's the only one I know that frequents a Christian church. Or were you referring to someone else?

I'm not trying to start anything, just wondering why you seem to have a problem with Muslims? It certainly is completely unrelated to felicies interesting post about health care.

 

[felicie]

I'll just say one thing so as to also not start anything and that is kauphy with her very strong feelings about a lot of things also has a very big heart once you get to know her a little as I have this past year and I believe from the little I know about you Nifty, that you can appreciate that in a person. Thank you.

 

[jetset]

I'm guessing that the use of 'exemptions' will be defended by arguing that no law should be inflexible, but it nevertheless leaves one with the feeling that it's a tactic that is open to abuse.

We all have had experience of legislative 'carve-outs' in internet gambling with the protectionist exemptions for state lotteries, fantasy sports and particularly horse racing ever more frequently deployed.

 

[Nifty29]

I'll just say one thing so as to also not start anything and that is kauphy with her very strong feelings about a lot of things also has a very big heart once you get to know her a little as I have this past year and I believe from the little I know about you Nifty, that you can appreciate that in a person. Thank you.

Yes I absolutely do appreciate it.

However, I draw the line at racism and discrimination especially when used to support or reinforce political opinions. Unfortunately, a lot of this kind of thing is generated by agenda-laden media and perpetuated by the ignorant.

As an outsider looking in, it is very blatant.

I would like kauphy to answer the question though.

 

[felicie]

I'm guessing that the use of 'exemptions' will be defended by arguing that no law should be inflexible, but it nevertheless leaves one with the feeling that it's a tactic that is open to abuse.

We all have had experience of legislative 'carve-outs' in internet gambling with the protectionist exemptions for state lotteries, fantasy sports and particularly horse racing ever more frequently deployed.

I don't know what 'carve-outs' are unless you mean like a waiver? lol Apparently what few waivers have been or will be issued, will be to companies not individuals but there are groups forming like the one I posted above that are seeking to demand waivers for individuals also. And there is abuse alright in so many ways. I personally will fight this to the end and will not comply with any forced healthcare plan or any plan for that matter that goes against my Constitutional right to live and choose freely as I see fit. And within the law of course. I am without any health care coverage right now knock on wood.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't know what 'carve-outs' are unless you mean like a waiver? lol Apparently what few waivers have been or will be issued, will be to companies not individuals but there are groups forming like the one I posted above that are seeking to demand waivers for individuals also. And there is abuse alright in so many ways. I personally will fight this to the end and will not comply with any forced healthcare plan or any plan for that matter that goes against my Constitutional right to live and choose freely as I see fit. And within the law of course. I am without any health care coverage right now knock on wood.

I think this is what this law is supposed to stop. Everybody will be required to have a set minimum level of healthcare. Those who are healthy and would prefer to pay "per illness" rather than be covered by a plan are the ones being "nannied" by this law, as they lose this freedom to assess the risks themselves, and decide whether they are prepared to take them.

The UK has had this "compulsory insurance" since the 1940's, with the introduction of the "National Insurance Stamp". We all have to pay it from our earned income, and those on benefits are given a notional credit.
The problem with the UK system is that the money was NEVER actually put aside to provide any kind of care, and the government have always used it as an extra tax, and spent the money how they saw fit. Now, this has bitten them on the ass, and HARD. They can no longer afford to pay the pensions that were promised, yet it was COMPULSORY to contribute to this national plan throughout our working lives. They are now having to admit that what people THOUGHT they were paying into for the last 40 odd years was a FAKE! All the payouts were coming from current taxes and borrowing, rather than from any kind of "plan" being run with the money. We are now being asked to pay TWICE over for what we thought we were going to get.

The health part of this tax (well, let's be honest, it IS a tax, not a "social care plan") may well give us "free healthcare", but recently a large number of sneaky charges have been added, especially to hospital care, which means that it is NOT actually "free" when you come to use it.
It also suffers from government interference in the clinical judgement of doctors. Often the most suitable treatment for an illness is NOT given because it is "not affordable", and the doctor has to pick a cheaper, but in his/her view, less suitable alternative.

The US system is likely to suffer from similar problems, and in time there will be opportunities to say "we told you so" to an embarrassed government.

The best point to raise at the moment is that if this new plan is so GOOD for the country, why this stampede for "waivers"?

2012 might be a good year to ask such questions, so that Obama knows that if he gets this wrong, he will be out of a job come January 2013. This often works on OUR politicians A "U-turn" sometimes follows a hammering in local elections that preceed the general election. Local elections are fixed so that every two years half the authorities have to go to the vote, but the government only has to go to the vote every 5 years, and since the party in power gets to choose the date, the set of local elections about 3-4 years in to a period of government are VERY important in this respect.

 

[GrandMaster]

As usual, Fox News or wherever the information is coming from, is not telling the whole truth.

The waivers are only temporary waivers and they don't allow businesses to completely opt out of offering healthcare benefits, only to allow them to continue to offer their existing plans which do not meet the requirements of the new law. One of the common reasons is that the law requires no cap on benefits, but many plans apparently have a $750000 cap and business owners claim it would cost them too much to arrange a healthcare plan with no cap and the alternative would be to provide nothing. There are some dubious cases, some of these businesses are upmarket restaurants in SF.

 

[vinylweatherman]

As usual, Fox News or wherever the information is coming from, is not telling the whole truth.

The waivers are only temporary waivers and they don't allow businesses to completely opt out of offering healthcare benefits, only to allow them to continue to offer their existing plans which do not meet the requirements of the new law. One of the common reasons is that the law requires no cap on benefits, but many plans apparently have a $750000 cap and business owners claim it would cost them too much to arrange a healthcare plan with no cap and the alternative would be to provide nothing. There are some dubious cases, some of these businesses are upmarket restaurants in SF.

So, why should they even get a TEMPORARY waiver just so they can offer a substandard plan.

The law should be for EVERYBODY, and it should NOT be possible for a few businesses to opt out of obeying a law that is supposed to apply to EVERYBODY.

If the government accepts that affordabilty is an excuse for NOT complying with the law, then EVERYONE should have the right to take affordabilty into account when considering obeying the law.

"temporary" has a habit of becoming permanent, and having obtained waivers, they won't give them up without a struggle. Threatening to provide "nothing" is nothing less than BLACKMAIL in order to make the government give in to them.

The new rules should apply to EVERYBODY, and apply across the board from the same date. If necessary, implementation should be deferred in order to sort out these issues.

One way would be to force businesses to contribute a set amount per worker towards their plan, leaving the worker to add more to bring it up to standard. This will deprive businesses of the opportunity to threaten to provide nothing at all.

A similar type of pension law has recently been brought in here, and employers have to make a set minimum contribution to an approved pension scheme, leaving the employee free to add more if they want. This is to stop businesses continuing to pull out of offering pension benefits because they are "unaffordable".

I believe this has been set at 3% of salary, and the firm either has to provide it's own compliant scheme, or pay this amount into a government approved external scheme. The law also aims to compel workers to contribute a set amount into the scheme. The amount is calculated so that a set minimum amount of provision is achieved upon retirement. Anything above this will still be voluntary.

These changes were only brought in last April, so have barely been running for 2 months, and not every part of it is up & running.

Employers will screw over the workers given half a chance, even the best ones will put profit before extra benefits for the workers. Top executives ALWAYS seem to get "waivers" from such cost cutting reductions in employee benefits, and if anything the gap WIDENS as the executives award themselves ever better packages and bonuses.

 

[greasemonkey]

Every big govt. social expirement has been a failure with gross abuses and massive bureaucracies. They are inefficient and usually harm those it was intended to help and of course, harm those it was intended to harm as well.
The argument shouldn't start at who gets an exemption or waiver. The argument should start at why take the govt. and use it as a tool to steal from some and benefit others? Why do some beleive it is their right to have the govt. steal from others on their behalf and be the beneficiaries of this?
I own several rental units (flats,apartments whatever you call them where your from). They are in an old part of town and 80% of the residents are on some sort of govt. handout. In America now, these people get money for Rent, Money for utilities, money for food, (already) money for healthcare plus the general monthly welfare payments. They get all of this (and more) for doing nothing more than being alive. They don't live in the nicest area of town but they also don't need to awake with an alarm clock every day and work. They have no jobs, yet they are able to live as if they do because of the handouts. Of course they sometimes do work 'under the table' and don't report that or their govt. money would be less.
My point in all this is that the govt. is so grossly inefficient that these people live like this their entire lives. Never "wasting" their time at a job to get the same money. Also, every single one of these people are somehow able to afford Cable (Television service), Cell phones, home phones, have a car(s) and eat fast food and delivered food.
They are enabled to do this because of big govt. programs such as this obamacare bill.
There definitely is a cost problem with health insurance. That should be addressed. Making it free to some and super expensive for others is NOT the answer. Making a govt. mandate forcing people to do something is NOT the answer. It will simply cause more problems and be more expensive down the line. Probably why most of this doesn't even kick in until after the next presedential election. The real costs and confiscations of money will be happening at that time... Nice timing on that end of it.

 

[GrandMaster]

Without the government handouts you are complaining about, you would only be able to rent your rental units for less or perhaps not at all, so you may benefit more than the actual recipients.

 

[luarod]

Without the government handouts you are complaining about, you would only be able to rent your rental units for less or perhaps not at all, so you may benefit more than the actual recipients.

totally agree.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I still believe in the welfare state.

 

[Nifty29]

Without the government handouts you are complaining about, you would only be able to rent your rental units for less or perhaps not at all, so you may benefit more than the actual recipients.

Sorry GM, but these people should be forced to give up things like TV, takeout, cars and anything else that might make life enjoyable or even bearable, and just be made to pay higher rents and exist on bread and water - especially the sick and old, they are just a burden on the healthy and wealthy. Better still, why not just put them out of their misery and save on healthcare!

Mind you, its not the first time in history that this doctrine has been implemented.

Also, please refrain from making valid points about how everyone has a part to play in the economics of a nation, as we don't want this argument to be about facts. I mean, otherwise we might have to discuss how governments "steal" to fund overseas invasions and such.....

 

[felicie]

I think this is what this law is supposed to stop. Everybody will be required to have a set minimum level of healthcare. Those who are healthy and would prefer to pay "per illness" rather than be covered by a plan are the ones being "nannied" by this law, as they lose this freedom to assess the risks themselves, and decide whether they are prepared to take them.

The UK has had this "compulsory insurance" since the 1940's, with the introduction of the "National Insurance Stamp". We all have to pay it from our earned income, and those on benefits are given a notional credit.
The problem with the UK system is that the money was NEVER actually put aside to provide any kind of care, and the government have always used it as an extra tax, and spent the money how they saw fit. Now, this has bitten them on the ass, and HARD. They can no longer afford to pay the pensions that were promised, yet it was COMPULSORY to contribute to this national plan throughout our working lives. They are now having to admit that what people THOUGHT they were paying into for the last 40 odd years was a FAKE! All the payouts were coming from current taxes and borrowing, rather than from any kind of "plan" being run with the money. We are now being asked to pay TWICE over for what we thought we were going to get.

The health part of this tax (well, let's be honest, it IS a tax, not a "social care plan") may well give us "free healthcare", but recently a large number of sneaky charges have been added, especially to hospital care, which means that it is NOT actually "free" when you come to use it.
It also suffers from government interference in the clinical judgement of doctors. Often the most suitable treatment for an illness is NOT given because it is "not affordable", and the doctor has to pick a cheaper, but in his/her view, less suitable alternative.

The US system is likely to suffer from similar problems, and in time there will be opportunities to say "we told you so" to an embarrassed government.

The best point to raise at the moment is that if this new plan is so GOOD for the country, why this stampede for "waivers"?

2012 might be a good year to ask such questions, so that Obama knows that if he gets this wrong, he will be out of a job come January 2013. This often works on OUR politicians A "U-turn" sometimes follows a hammering in local elections that preceed the general election. Local elections are fixed so that every two years half the authorities have to go to the vote, but the government only has to go to the vote every 5 years, and since the party in power gets to choose the date, the set of local elections about 3-4 years in to a period of government are VERY important in this respect.

Thank you all for some really good thoughts on this somewhat heated subject. I've been hoping one of these rants would get someone with personal experience to open up about it. I admit I haven't looked at our health care bill since last year but I believe it is over 1000 pages long lol so having someone that's lived thru a similar type of program put their thoughts down on paper that even I can understand without a lawyer is greatly appreciated. I am wondering do you have anything positive to say about your program or can I assume you feel it's failed completely.

My personal experience with how I think health care should work comes from the birth of my girl in 82. I worked for and please don't shoot me, one of the American oil companies where I started as a file clerk, second only to the receptionist. Back then you could still work your way up the line without a degree but unfortunately that ended in this particular company right about the time I got pregnant. I was now a Geo Tech and without further education, that's where I was going to stay. Back to subject sorry.

I had health coverage of about 80% plus a stock savings program in which anything I contributed each month was matched by the company. I felt pretty good about our future, especially after seeing the bill for my daughter which was $2500 and I only had to pay $125 out of my own pocket. I got 6 weeks off for maternity leave with full salary. Like I said I felt like we were good to go. Clueless or what.

And then the conservationist finally got their way; drilling and exploration stopped. My insurance cut back to under 50% and daughter even less. The stock of course went down but the company still matched my monthly contribution thank goodness. The next pregnant woman at that company only got half the pay and half the leave for her child and I can imagine a lot more out of her own pocket. It wasn't long before the company packed up and went back to yes Texas.

Good to go was now in deep sh-t. With a 5 year old daughter. I wont bore you any longer except to say we made it thru the years (she's 28) with the grace of God, a couple different insurance plans including deductibles that ate my lunch, a good family doctor with reasonable rates and 1year on aid from social services which btw, gave my father good reason or so he thought, to take me out of the will.

For me I guess the good old days were definitely the 80's but I'd like to think it could be that way again in this country with new technology and plenty of jobs and companies handing out cars to employees lowest on the totem pole even, but if this healthcare goes through, we will never see those days again and along with it, the hope of a good future for our children and grandchildren. thanks guys

 

[felicie]

Without the government handouts you are complaining about, you would only be able to rent your rental units for less or perhaps not at all, so you may benefit more than the actual recipients.

How do you get to that conclusion if you don't mind my asking?

 

[felicie]

totally agree.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I still believe in the welfare state.

Hold on now luarod may I refer back to another thread started by chuchu this past week regarding payouts and casinos holding all the power? do want your govt. to also hold all the power? No you don't.

 

[felicie]

Whether any of you agrees with me or not, I still value and enjoy every one of your posts individually for quite awhile now but could some of you please not turn this into a bitch slapping and/or boxing match? I'm actually learning something from it and maybe someone else might also. thank you

 

[luarod]

Hey,

The problem is the government has already all the power... (obviously is a little bit different the way they use the power depending on the country). They do every day whatever they want, we can only complain and wait to the next election to vote (to other guys that will do the same, that is in the countries where we are lucky and can vote).

I'm not saying that I agree with the Obama healthcare plan, because I don't think it's the best way to solve the issue. What I meant is that I believe that the government needs to make sure that its citizens have their needs covered (for that you are paying taxes and not only to cover your needs but to help out the ones in worse conditions). They need to provide certain services accessible to EVERYONE, healthcare is just one of them. That is the theory, making it real is the difficult part, more in a country as big as the US.

Keep in mind that my perspective is tainted by the spanish revolution and that I come from a country where I don't have to worry about hospital bills or having an insurance plan. I have already payed for all with my taxes. (Not that the spanish system is perfect, it's slow as hell...)


Cheers!


Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

[lamarsh]

To nifty,

It is extremely interesting to read your points. It seems as though you believe that other citizens owe those with less income the same lifestyle as their labor earns them?
I am totally on board with greasemonkey on this. If you are so poor that you need government assistance to pay rent and utilities and eat then what in the world are you doing with take out food and cell phones and vehicles? You garnered these items by having it taken from those that earned it. Certainly you should do without all things except the essentials. If you have the minimum amounts of food, clothing and shelter needed to live that is all you need. The other things are not needed and unless someone gives them to you via charity then you would have no rights to them unless of course you went out and earned them yourself.

To Grandmaster,

If your tax system works as I am of the assumption then wouldn't greasemonkey be the victim rather than the winner? Perhaps not. I would assume that greasemonkey would be the one having to pay all the taxes in order for these people to live free of charge in his flats.

To Greasemonkey,

Do you actually gain from these people having the government pay for their lives or does it cost you in the long run?

 

[Nifty29]

To nifty,

It is extremely interesting to read your points. It seems as though you believe that other citizens owe those with less income the same lifestyle as their labor earns them?
I am totally on board with greasemonkey on this. If you are so poor that you need government assistance to pay rent and utilities and eat then what in the world are you doing with take out food and cell phones and vehicles? You garnered these items by having it taken from those that earned it. Certainly you should do without all things except the essentials. If you have the minimum amounts of food, clothing and shelter needed to live that is all you need. The other things are not needed and unless someone gives them to you via charity then you would have no rights to them unless of course you went out and earned them yourself.

To Grandmaster,

If your tax system works as I am of the assumption then wouldn't greasemonkey be the victim rather than the winner? Perhaps not. I would assume that greasemonkey would be the one having to pay all the taxes in order for these people to live free of charge in his flats.

To Greasemonkey,

Do you actually gain from these people having the government pay for their lives or does it cost you in the long run?

You're right of course.

Put the disabled, sick, frail and poor in camps where they can be provided with the UN minimum calorie requirement, and have all of them over the age of five work twelve hour shifts in, oh let's say, a manufacturing plant to cover the "cost" of keeping them alive. Once they reach a stage where they require hospitalization, just put them on a train to another special camp where they can be "humanely euthanised".

I mean, if someone can't work then they don't deserve to live. "These people" should not be permitted to transport themselves, watch television, communicate with loved ones, etc as they aren't making anyone wealthier. Money and profit is far more important than human life, on that point we can agree.

It would probably be better also if cities were "fenced off" so that only those earning above a certain wage could live within it without fear of being in contact with "these people".

It's the poor's fault that they're poor, just like its the sick's fault that their sick. Don't give 'em jack as they haven't earned it. Keep yourself healthy and wealthy or take a hike.

"The land of the free....if you can afford it"

 

[jetset]

Whoa! I normally have respect for most of Nifty's posts but this is radically overstating the case and deliberately misinterpreting the views and intentions of those with a different take on matters social, imo.

I don't believe that sort of exaggeration really enhances a debate like this, even if designed as rather cruel satire.

 

[greasemonkey]

To Greasemonkey,

Do you actually gain from these people having the government pay for their lives or does it cost you in the long run?

Of course not. My taxes far exceed any perceived benefit from having these people pay with govt. money. Firstly they actually are paying me with my own tax money. Also, My prices are actually held lower since the govt will only pay a given amount. So rent is held artificially low and if I don't keep pace I may get a better tenant but likely I will watch as the govt. housing takes in all of these people and leaves me with no tenants at all.
I am not against helping those that are destitute at all. I am against giving them extra things that they don't need. If they are so poor that they cannot afford their own shelter or food then they need my money I suppose, but they don't need my money for takeout food, cell phones and television. Those are luxuries that they need to earn, not be handed from my pockets.

 

[greasemonkey]

Whoa! I normally have respect for most of Nifty's posts but this is radically overstating the case and deliberately misinterpreting the views and intentions of those with a different take on matters social, imo.

I don't believe that sort of exaggeration really enhances a debate like this, even if designed as rather cruel satire.

Thank you.

"The land of the free....if you can afford it"

This is just it, Nifty. It is the home of the FREE supposedly. Money has nothing to do with how free you are. You are free to make your own choices. Free to succeed and free to fail. Affording it has no bearing.

FREEDOM is not having a big screen TV and eating takeout while talking on your cellphone. That is not freedom. Freedom is making the choice between these luxuries or paying your rent. Freedom is the right to go out and work extra or 2 jobs or try to get ahead.... or not to do those things and not get ahead if you so choose... Freedom is the right to earn money without having it stripped from you for somebody elses use.

It is not Freedom to live the same way as someone else or have all the luxuries they have. Freedom is the RIGHT to try and get those things of your own accord. It is not your right to have them. Just your right to pursue them. If you should achieve them then it is your right to keep them.

 

[same_old]

Whoa! I normally have respect for most of Nifty's posts but this is radically overstating the case and deliberately misinterpreting the views and intentions of those with a different take on matters social, imo.

I don't believe that sort of exaggeration really enhances a debate like this, even if designed as rather cruel satire.

I take it he was just being sarcastic Jetset.

Personally don't think Nifty is that harsh.

 

[jetset]

And I'm just going to respond to that by repeating the last sentence of my post:

I don't believe that sort of exaggeration really enhances a debate like this, even if designed as rather cruel satire.

 

[Glunn11]

It's quite nice to see a thread on the political forum that I'm not terrified to pop my head into. I'd just like to give mostly everyone kudos for being more respectful in a political thread than we can find in the vast majority of the casino-themed threads lately. Thank you felicie, and let's not ruin it!

There does seem to be a big strawman that everyone is attacking, though. I'm not going to make any statements regarding the idea of welfare as a whole, whether people "deserve" things or not, or the extent to which the government should redistribute income.

Anyway, philosophically, I'm of the opinion that healthcare is something that should be thrown under that "general welfare" mentioned in the Constitution. It's a real issue (and in my opinion the issue) in the United States. Am I educated enough to form an opinion as to what the best means of accomplishing that are? No. I haven't a clue. The hard economics and political actions that need to be taken to get the optimum result are a mystery to me.

I just don't understand why someone's life should be ruined if they develop a potentially costly disease. I would think that providing them with the resources they need to continue their lives is simply the right thing to do. Taxation seems to be the easiest way to handle this.

Of course, this is all philosophical, and as such, my "arguments" are pretty worthless. If I get ambitious, I'll start digging into the precedent, facts, and numbers. This could be a good learning experience!

As a side note, I have particularly enjoyed vwm's posts. I've been wanting to try out living in the UK for a while, and it's still on the agenda, but it appears as though you can't stop politicians from screwing up anywhere you go. I hope they get their ducks in a row before things start to turn too sour.

 

[same_old]

And I'm just going to respond to that by repeating the last sentence of my post:

I don't believe that sort of exaggeration really enhances a debate like this, even if designed as rather cruel satire.

Sorry mate, I skimmed over that bit. Compltetly understand your response.

Sorry to butt in.

 

[Nifty29]

Whoa! I normally have respect for most of Nifty's posts but this is radically overstating the case and deliberately misinterpreting the views and intentions of those with a different take on matters social, imo.

I don't believe that sort of exaggeration really enhances a debate like this, even if designed as rather cruel satire.

Yes it was meant to be a cruel satire, and it was deliberately overstated.

The point I was trying to make is that if a society starts dictating that you can't have xxxx because you don't "deserve" it or other people who need it start deciding that YOU don'ts need it then its the beginning of a very slippery slope and every example in history has shown that oppression of this kind results in huge class divisions and the de-valuing of human life.

Should those on benefits have plasma tvs and $30k cars and iphones? Well of course not, as its most likely their kids are suffering as a result or their own health even, but tv isn't a luxury these days and neither is a vehicle. It's not the 1900's.

It's also important to remember that not everyone on benefits is living like this, which is another reason we should not be generalizing in that regard, but rather dealing with those who abuse the system. If benefits were to stop tomorrow, I guess its possible that unemployment would drop.....but so would wages as bosses know the predicament these people would be in and would take full advantage. A fair days pay for a fair days work would be a far better incentive. For those who choose not to be used as slave labour,they would most likely turn to crime and that ends us costing everyone anyway.

It's a debate that will always have polar opposites, but somewhere in the middle there must be basic respect for human life.

P.S. I am not harsh or cruel....quite the opposite in fact. It was a political rant....just like the name says

 

[vinylweatherman]

Every big govt. social expirement has been a failure with gross abuses and massive bureaucracies. They are inefficient and usually harm those it was intended to help and of course, harm those it was intended to harm as well.
The argument shouldn't start at who gets an exemption or waiver. The argument should start at why take the govt. and use it as a tool to steal from some and benefit others? Why do some beleive it is their right to have the govt. steal from others on their behalf and be the beneficiaries of this?
I own several rental units (flats,apartments whatever you call them where your from). They are in an old part of town and 80% of the residents are on some sort of govt. handout. In America now, these people get money for Rent, Money for utilities, money for food, (already) money for healthcare plus the general monthly welfare payments. They get all of this (and more) for doing nothing more than being alive. They don't live in the nicest area of town but they also don't need to awake with an alarm clock every day and work. They have no jobs, yet they are able to live as if they do because of the handouts. Of course they sometimes do work 'under the table' and don't report that or their govt. money would be less.
My point in all this is that the govt. is so grossly inefficient that these people live like this their entire lives. Never "wasting" their time at a job to get the same money. Also, every single one of these people are somehow able to afford Cable (Television service), Cell phones, home phones, have a car(s) and eat fast food and delivered food.
They are enabled to do this because of big govt. programs such as this obamacare bill.
There definitely is a cost problem with health insurance. That should be addressed. Making it free to some and super expensive for others is NOT the answer. Making a govt. mandate forcing people to do something is NOT the answer. It will simply cause more problems and be more expensive down the line. Probably why most of this doesn't even kick in until after the next presedential election. The real costs and confiscations of money will be happening at that time... Nice timing on that end of it.

This is a problem over here too. It leads to a life of dependency on benefits, and thus no incentive to take work that becomes available. The transition between welfare and work is the most "broken" part of the UK system, and many people end up getting PUNISHED severely for having the nerve to try to move off benefit and into work. The problem is caused by the nature of the system, since although you may start work, your employer will not pay your first wage for several weeks, depending on when in the salary cycle you started. The current system seems to assume that when you start work you can simply defer all your bills, food expenses, etc for a few weeks until you receive your first wage. This may keep the bureaucrats happy, but this is NOT how the real world works, and bills still have to be paid, food bought, etc in the few weeks when you are working before getting your first pay packet.

Not only are people who get a job punished in this way, but those who resist getting a job, but work hard at manipulating the complexities of the system, can reap considerable rewards.
The system gives out money, but no controls are in place to ensure it is spent responsibly by the recipient. This can lead to some considering their SKY television package more "essential" than paying the rent, since SKY will cut off the service soon after non-payment, yet non-payment of rent has a delayed consequence, which can build over time into a very serious problem whilst the claimant carries on enjoying their SKY package. People on benefits should not expect to be able to afford the luxury end of such services, but should expect to have the "basic" packages. Instead of SKY, they should have "Freeview" - get a second hand set, and stick up an aerial, and no more payments other than the annual TV tax need be made. The internet can work pretty well on a basic, and even second hand, PC. There are also basic internet packages that are more or less free with a basic phone package. This is enough to use the internet to look for work, and to phone up for application forms. There is even free internet provided by local councils for people too poor to have their own home system - this is also good enough to look for jobs.

Changes have recently been brought in that will make it far harder to sit around on benefits, but again they don't all work in the "real world" situation, because the main aim is to cut the money being spent on welfare, rather than genuinely help people get jobs. Many schemes designed to help people get back into jobs are being CUT, yet access to such schemes can vastly improve the chances of finding, and getting, a job.


The best way to measure the success of such schemes is by the number of unfilled vacancies. So long as vacancies exist, there are jobs for the taking. The target should be to work towards bringing down the number of long term unfilled vacancies by improving the matching of benefit claimants to the jobs available.
One problem is that many consider certain jobs "beneath their dignity", so they will not even take them if they are given them, making such vacancies hard to fill. Immigrants on the other hand, are more than happy to fill these "undignified" roles, which then leads to the accusation that they "come over here and take all our jobs", whereas they are really taking the jobs that no-one else will take anyway.

The health system works in that anyone can see their doctor and get treated for an ilness without having to worry about the cost. The problem is that there is a notional "cap" on everyone's benefit, and this means that some clinically valid treatments are not available because "other people" have already used the money for that year getting their ailments treated. This leads to treatments being available only in some parts of the country, and where you live can alter your chances of getting the best treatment for your illness.
There are some services available on the health system that are NOT even necessary for life and good health, and these include cosmetic surgery and fertility treatments. These become an issue when people die early because there isn't the money to give them treatment to save their lives, yet there IS money for a cosmetic procedure on someone else, or fertilty treatment for someone wanting to start a family. Whilst desirable, such treatments should NOT be offered when there isn't even enough money in the system to save lives in some cases. There IS a private health sector, and it is they who should be doing these "lifestyle" treatments on either an insurance plan, or pay per treatment basis.

All this is taking place in a developed world that is close to being bankrupt, and only being kept afloat by a series of international bail-outs. If no changes are made, the long term outcome could be even WORSE than seems likely under these changes, and it will be an outcome FORCED on countries, and not something they can control through various schemes.

 

[greasemonkey]

VWM, brilliant post.

Regarding the "beneath them" jobs that you refer to....your spot on. Somehow it happened that some jobs are "beneath" some people but getting a handout is not. That was just the opposite when I was a child. It was looked down upon to receive a handout and only those desperate for it took it. Now it is a race to see who can take the most of it... it is ludicrous to me that a handout is ok but some jobs are undignified. Unreal.

 

[4 of a kind]

I find reading threads like this one extremely interesting. This thread says a lot about many members within this forum. Not only are the posts coming from all over the world, they also prove how well informed so many are here, and their personal dedication to convey and discuss with each other their own different points of few.

Unfortunately, like any other debate, opposite opinions always quickly find their way to the "extreme". It's interesting when people believe so strongly that how they interpret whatever it may be that's brought to the table is the right way, their willingness to quickly accelerate to the "extreme" completely disregarding another persons view as completely wrong.

My personal opinion of what I read so far, vinlyweatherman brings forward great points backed by history and facts, and in my opinion worthy of endless debates.

It's also interesting to read posts from the likes of Grandmaster, a long time respected, educated, and well written member of this forum. He cleverly brings forward points not confirmed as fact yet, that fit his believes. I think vinylweatherman addressed the comments below well.

As usual, Fox News or wherever the information is coming from, is not telling the whole truth.

The waivers are only temporary waivers and they don't allow businesses to completely opt out of offering healthcare benefits, only to allow them to continue to offer their existing plans which do not meet the requirements of the new law. One of the common reasons is that the law requires no cap on benefits, but many plans apparently have a $750000 cap and business owners claim it would cost them too much to arrange a healthcare plan with no cap and the alternative would be to provide nothing. There are some dubious cases, some of these businesses are upmarket restaurants in SF.

This comment below I believe is just misinformed.

Without the government handouts you are complaining about, you would only be able to rent your rental units for less or perhaps not at all, so you may benefit more than the actual recipients.

Like jetset says below Niffty, I to have respect for many of your posts, even though we crossed paths many times in the past. Yet, your passion for what you believe to be correct is so overwhelming, you tend to come out of the gate extreme. The post jetset is referring to below exposes your willingness to be arrogant, belligerent, and somewhat obnoxious, in your attempts to convince others how right you believe you are.

These same arguments showing unwillingness to communicate even half way, is the same reason things are the way they are all over the world. Sadly, I don't see things changing much in the near future.

Unlike me, jetset below shows a lot of class getting the same point across nicely.

Whoa! I normally have respect for most of Nifty's posts but this is radically overstating the case and deliberately misinterpreting the views and intentions of those with a different take on matters social, imo.

I don't believe that sort of exaggeration really enhances a debate like this, even if designed as rather cruel satire.

 

[Nifty29]

I find reading threads like this one extremely interesting. This thread says a lot about many members within this forum. Not only are the posts coming from all over the world, they also prove how well informed so many are here, and their personal dedication to convey and discuss with each other their own different points of few.

Unfortunately, like any other debate, opposite opinions always quickly find their way to the "extreme". It's interesting when people believe so strongly that how they interpret whatever it may be that's brought to the table is the right way, their willingness to quickly accelerate to the "extreme" completely disregarding another persons view as completely wrong.

My personal opinion of what I read so far, vinlyweatherman brings forward great points backed by history and facts, and in my opinion worthy of endless debates.

It's also interesting to read posts from the likes of Grandmaster, a long time respected, educated, and well written member of this forum. He cleverly brings forward points not confirmed as fact yet, that fit his believes. I think vinylweatherman addressed the comments below well.



This comment below I believe is just misinformed.



Like jetset says below Niffty, I to have respect for many of your posts, even though we crossed paths many times in the past. Yet, your passion for what you believe to be correct is so overwhelming, you tend to come out of the gate extreme. The post jetset is referring to below exposes your willingness to be arrogant, belligerent, and somewhat obnoxious, in your attempts to convince others how right you believe you are.

These same arguments showing unwillingness to communicate even half way, is the same reason things are the way they are all over the world. Sadly, I don't see things changing much in the near future.

Unlike me, jetset below shows a lot of class getting the same point across nicely.

I explained why I said what I said. It was tongue-in-cheek and meant to show just extreme things can, and have in some countries, become.

Once we start assessing the rights of a person based on how much money they have or how able they are, you lose the right to call ourselves a compassionate, democratic society and become no better than the Asian dictatorships we are always lecturing about "human rights". I think the problem is that we all have different ideas about what these rights are.

I apologise if I offended anyone with my post. I said things that way, as i said, for a reason but I would, upon reflection, have expressed it differently. I'm sure I'm not the first person to do it here in this area of the forum, and I won't be the last. As usual, however, I'm not THAT arrogant that I can't admit my mistakes.

 

[4 of a kind]

Once we start assessing the rights of a person based on how much money they have or how able they are, you lose the right to call ourselves a compassionate, democratic society and become no better than the Asian dictatorships we are always lecturing about "human rights". I think the problem is that we all have different ideas about what these rights are.

I don't think we are assessing the rights of people based on money, or how able they are. I believe democratic society's have more then proved in the past their willingness to help and provide for the unfortunate circumstances that would make one needy.

It's these same democratic society's that do nothing to prevent the fraud and abuse of these same programs that are making them unaffordable for the more fortunate people that ruffle my feathers.

 

[vinylweatherman]

VWM, brilliant post.

Regarding the "beneath them" jobs that you refer to....your spot on. Somehow it happened that some jobs are "beneath" some people but getting a handout is not. That was just the opposite when I was a child. It was looked down upon to receive a handout and only those desperate for it took it. Now it is a race to see who can take the most of it... it is ludicrous to me that a handout is ok but some jobs are undignified. Unreal.

Well, there is a 4 part series on our Channel 4 called "The Fairy Jobmother" (available on freeview of the unemployed, as well as on SKY).

Each week, she runs a job club where long term benefit claimants are helped to change their attitudes and prepare themselves to shine at job interviews. She has a pretty good success rate in getting the majority of participants a job each week, and these are people who thought there was "no chance" for them, and gave up trying.
The idea is to show people how to get moving before they are pushed by the changes. Those who move first will have the advantage over those who hang on until they are pushed.
If such schemes were available to everybody on benefits, the number of unfilled vacancies would be nearly zero. The problem is that the aim is NOT to get people into jobs, but to cut the costs of the system. Running intensive job club schemes for all long term claimants will end up costing MORE than continuing the handouts.

The prime minister has said that the aim of the new rules is that you will NEVER be better off on benefits than working. He just has to deliver this.

Every claimant of every non-working benefit is going to have their case reviewed under the new criteria, and this will even include ME in the next few years. I was signed off on medical grounds "for life" in 2000 under the old rules, but the NEW rules have different criteria regarding whether someone can or cannot work, and what type of work they can and cannot do.

I may well end up having a second career, and if it pays £100 a week, I will start being better off than if not working. Even a "McJob" pays more than this, so it seems likely that the promise made by the PM is deliverable in theory.

I could even create my own job, something many casino affiliates do, although not necessarily all do well, and with a good ethical attitude.

The system also has a system of benefits designed to make part-time and low paid work more palatable, although this raises the argument as to whether the taxpayer should be subsidising private businesses by allowing them to pay less than a living wage, and expect the state to top it up for them.

The problem of "dignity" that makes people say some jobs are "beneath them" is related to the PAY for these jobs, rather than their value to society. This leads to jobs that are REALLY important to the functioning of our modern way of life having a very low social standing, yet jobs that no-one would notice not being done have a very HIGH social standing because they pay well, and allow the employees to mix with others of a high social standing.

Examples.


1) Refuse. Would we notice if all the binmen, sewer workers, etc all stopped work?

These jobs often have the lowest social standing, and relatively low rates of pay.

Other jobs such as cleaning and caring for others also fit into this category.


2) The city high flyer who designes complicated financial instruments that can either create money out of thin air, or bankrupt the planet.

They are paid well, and when they are doing well have a high social standing. When they screw up, do they lose their OWN money?

If we just had "normal" banks, those that only dealt with money that actually exists somewhere, would our lives be WORSE for it.

The problem is that SOMEBODY has to do the lower class jobs, and the current social class system is what deters people from seeing such jobs as worthwhile contributions to society.

Not only does the system need to change, but attitudes to jobs and class need to change so that people are judged by the value of what they do for the rest of us, rather than what they are paid to do it.

The HIGHEST social standing should be given to those who work for charitable enterprises, doing work that the state is not prepared to fund, and often for NOTHING.

 

[Nifty29]

Well, there is a 4 part series on our Channel 4 called "The Fairy Jobmother" (available on freeview of the unemployed, as well as on SKY).

Each week, she runs a job club where long term benefit claimants are helped to change their attitudes and prepare themselves to shine at job interviews. She has a pretty good success rate in getting the majority of participants a job each week, and these are people who thought there was "no chance" for them, and gave up trying.
The idea is to show people how to get moving before they are pushed by the changes. Those who move first will have the advantage over those who hang on until they are pushed.
If such schemes were available to everybody on benefits, the number of unfilled vacancies would be nearly zero. The problem is that the aim is NOT to get people into jobs, but to cut the costs of the system. Running intensive job club schemes for all long term claimants will end up costing MORE than continuing the handouts.

The prime minister has said that the aim of the new rules is that you will NEVER be better off on benefits than working. He just has to deliver this.

Every claimant of every non-working benefit is going to have their case reviewed under the new criteria, and this will even include ME in the next few years. I was signed off on medical grounds "for life" in 2000 under the old rules, but the NEW rules have different criteria regarding whether someone can or cannot work, and what type of work they can and cannot do.

I may well end up having a second career, and if it pays £100 a week, I will start being better off than if not working. Even a "McJob" pays more than this, so it seems likely that the promise made by the PM is deliverable in theory.

I could even create my own job, something many casino affiliates do, although not necessarily all do well, and with a good ethical attitude.

The system also has a system of benefits designed to make part-time and low paid work more palatable, although this raises the argument as to whether the taxpayer should be subsidising private businesses by allowing them to pay less than a living wage, and expect the state to top it up for them.

The problem of "dignity" that makes people say some jobs are "beneath them" is related to the PAY for these jobs, rather than their value to society. This leads to jobs that are REALLY important to the functioning of our modern way of life having a very low social standing, yet jobs that no-one would notice not being done have a very HIGH social standing because they pay well, and allow the employees to mix with others of a high social standing.

Examples.


1) Refuse. Would we notice if all the binmen, sewer workers, etc all stopped work?

These jobs often have the lowest social standing, and relatively low rates of pay.

Other jobs such as cleaning and caring for others also fit into this category.


2) The city high flyer who designes complicated financial instruments that can either create money out of thin air, or bankrupt the planet.

They are paid well, and when they are doing well have a high social standing. When they screw up, do they lose their OWN money?

If we just had "normal" banks, those that only dealt with money that actually exists somewhere, would our lives be WORSE for it.

The problem is that SOMEBODY has to do the lower class jobs, and the current social class system is what deters people from seeing such jobs as worthwhile contributions to society.

Not only does the system need to change, but attitudes to jobs and class need to change so that people are judged by the value of what they do for the rest of us, rather than what they are paid to do it.

The HIGHEST social standing should be given to those who work for charitable enterprises, doing work that the state is not prepared to fund, and often for NOTHING.

Well said.

Nobody likes to be, or deserves to be, looked down upon because of their occupation.

 

[jetset]

Nor should they be. Every job done well has dignity in my view, although that does not necessarily gel with today's often materialistic culture where conspicuous consumption and addiction to big name brands is so rampant.

One of my favourite hobby horses when it comes to discussing the 'value' to society of certain jobs is the almost universal practice of underpaying people who are absolutely vital to our society and oft times our actual lives.

What could be more important than educating our kids, keeping us healthy and ensuring anarchy does not reign in our communities? I'm talking about nurses, teachers, police and firemen here who literally at times are responsible for our very lives.

I do not belong to any of those essential and honourable professions, but it bugs me when they are underpaid and in some parts of society even (to quote VWM) "looked down upon."

What makes a canny banker or investment adviser "superior" to these elements in society? They can generate wealth as well as economic crises, but can you compare that with being practically and directly responsible for real lives?

I believe a caring society has to be one where a fair balance is struck between looking after the indigent and creating an environment that encourages idleness or abuse of the system.

To my perhaps simplistic way of thinking, politicians everywhere are getting their nations into unmanageable debt by overspending. It seems that governments regard themselves as exempt from the normal tenet of living within your means...perhaps because they believe they can always increase taxes or cut services and raise the cash if need be.

More attention to financial responsibility and less to getting your party re-elected might be a good start LOL

 

[Nifty29]

Nicely said jetset as usual.

My wife is a specialist nurse manager in aged care and the money she gets is ridiculous, given she is contracted for 40 hours and averages about 60. Still, she is such a fantastic, caring nurse who inspires the nurses in her charge to be the same. She holds the lives of the old and dying in her hands and does everything and more to make their twilight years as happy and comfortable as possible. The work takes its toll, the death and suffering, the tears and sadness all come home with her. People like this are just as deserving as those who trade shares or milk the justice system IMO.

Mind you, she would do her job if she never had another pay rise or even had a reduction....and that is part of the problem, as aged care companies and other stakeholders know this.

 

[jetset]

And there's the saddest part of all - society tends to take advantage of many of these dedicated people whose priority is their commitment to their calling and service rather than the more mercenary and single minded pursuit of dosh.

It's a pity that a compromise between the two seems to elude most employers.

 

[EndofEsau]

Excuse me for asking, but you said that you can't say anything about Obama without being called a racist etc, but then you went on to say that the US will just become 'another Muslim run country'.....are you saying Obama is a Muslim? If he is, he's the only one I know that frequents a Christian church. Or were you referring to someone else?

I'm not trying to start anything, just wondering why you seem to have a problem with Muslims? It certainly is completely unrelated to felicies interesting post about health care.

LOL...

 

[Nifty29]

LOL...

What are you trying to say?

Everyone else is taking the time to voice their opinion and all you can manage is "LOL"??

Sheesh.

 

[felicie]

Thank you.



This is just it, Nifty. It is the home of the FREE supposedly. Money has nothing to do with how free you are. You are free to make your own choices. Free to succeed and free to fail. Affording it has no bearing.

FREEDOM is not having a big screen TV and eating takeout while talking on your cellphone. That is not freedom. Freedom is making the choice between these luxuries or paying your rent. Freedom is the right to go out and work extra or 2 jobs or try to get ahead.... or not to do those things and not get ahead if you so choose... Freedom is the right to earn money without having it stripped from you for somebody elses use.

It is not Freedom to live the same way as someone else or have all the luxuries they have. Freedom is the RIGHT to try and get those things of your own accord. It is not your right to have them. Just your right to pursue them. If you should achieve them then it is your right to keep them.

I have to 'spread my thanks around' - hope you've all had your shots. haha 'right to pursue'

 

[lamarsh]

fabulous idea for a post, Felicie.

Eloquent greasemonkey and vinylweatherman, just excellent.

it is great to see most be so civil on such a hot button topic.

 

[felicie]

This is a problem over here too. It leads to a life of dependency on benefits, and thus no incentive to take work that becomes available. The transition between welfare and work is the most "broken" part of the UK system, and many people end up getting PUNISHED severely for having the nerve to try to move off benefit and into work. The problem is caused by the nature of the system, since although you may start work, your employer will not pay your first wage for several weeks, depending on when in the salary cycle you started. The current system seems to assume that when you start work you can simply defer all your bills, food expenses, etc for a few weeks until you receive your first wage. This may keep the bureaucrats happy, but this is NOT how the real world works, and bills still have to be paid, food bought, etc in the few weeks when you are working before getting your first pay packet.

Not only are people who get a job punished in this way, but those who resist getting a job, but work hard at manipulating the complexities of the system, can reap considerable rewards.
The system gives out money, but no controls are in place to ensure it is spent responsibly by the recipient. This can lead to some considering their SKY television package more "essential" than paying the rent, since SKY will cut off the service soon after non-payment, yet non-payment of rent has a delayed consequence, which can build over time into a very serious problem whilst the claimant carries on enjoying their SKY package. People on benefits should not expect to be able to afford the luxury end of such services, but should expect to have the "basic" packages. Instead of SKY, they should have "Freeview" - get a second hand set, and stick up an aerial, and no more payments other than the annual TV tax need be made. The internet can work pretty well on a basic, and even second hand, PC. There are also basic internet packages that are more or less free with a basic phone package. This is enough to use the internet to look for work, and to phone up for application forms. There is even free internet provided by local councils for people too poor to have their own home system - this is also good enough to look for jobs.

Changes have recently been brought in that will make it far harder to sit around on benefits, but again they don't all work in the "real world" situation, because the main aim is to cut the money being spent on welfare, rather than genuinely help people get jobs. Many schemes designed to help people get back into jobs are being CUT, yet access to such schemes can vastly improve the chances of finding, and getting, a job.


The best way to measure the success of such schemes is by the number of unfilled vacancies. So long as vacancies exist, there are jobs for the taking. The target should be to work towards bringing down the number of long term unfilled vacancies by improving the matching of benefit claimants to the jobs available.
One problem is that many consider certain jobs "beneath their dignity", so they will not even take them if they are given them, making such vacancies hard to fill. Immigrants on the other hand, are more than happy to fill these "undignified" roles, which then leads to the accusation that they "come over here and take all our jobs", whereas they are really taking the jobs that no-one else will take anyway.

The health system works in that anyone can see their doctor and get treated for an ilness without having to worry about the cost. The problem is that there is a notional "cap" on everyone's benefit, and this means that some clinically valid treatments are not available because "other people" have already used the money for that year getting their ailments treated. This leads to treatments being available only in some parts of the country, and where you live can alter your chances of getting the best treatment for your illness.
There are some services available on the health system that are NOT even necessary for life and good health, and these include cosmetic surgery and fertility treatments. These become an issue when people die early because there isn't the money to give them treatment to save their lives, yet there IS money for a cosmetic procedure on someone else, or fertilty treatment for someone wanting to start a family. Whilst desirable, such treatments should NOT be offered when there isn't even enough money in the system to save lives in some cases. There IS a private health sector, and it is they who should be doing these "lifestyle" treatments on either an insurance plan, or pay per treatment basis.

All this is taking place in a developed world that is close to being bankrupt, and only being kept afloat by a series of international bail-outs. If no changes are made, the long term outcome could be even WORSE than seems likely under these changes, and it will be an outcome FORCED on countries, and not something they can control through various schemes.

I read recently 51% of Americans are on some kind of welfare/social service. That includes stamps, cash, housing, medicaid and unemployment. In the last 20 years or so of my life I have met or become acquainted with many people from different walks of life, of course we all do but the percentage of them on some kind of aid is incredible when I think about it. Maybe because it's a small town in so. Calif. lol (they didn't call it the welfare state for nothing). It's not just on the other side of the tracks either. It's in every neighborhood, schools, west side, east side and the biggest abuse I've seen is those on disability in their 30's, with bad backs or repetitive wrist movement. Everywhere you go there is someone waiting on their settlement (it's my money and I need it now) attorneys are all over the place. I know people that have been on unemployment longer than they've worked in their whole life. How do they even get it? After awhile you realize hey there's a pattern here. They say things like 'I'd go to work but it will screw up my chances for disability' Then the settlement comes and within a year or less it's gone so they have to go back to work again maybe for 6 months or until they figure how to work the next one.

That's why cuts need to be made because there isn't enough working people to support the whole thing. I don't believe there is a job shortage when half the country stays home every day. We have all kinds of work programs in existence to curb the abuse but many just work around them or get more clever. Or move on to an easier program to 'play'. I figure if I can see such obvious or questionable abuse in so many places around me so can everyone else. And no I wont report them because I hate that even more. The ironic thing is often they tell on each other I think.

 

[felicie]

VWM, brilliant post.

Regarding the "beneath them" jobs that you refer to....your spot on. Somehow it happened that some jobs are "beneath" some people but getting a handout is not. That was just the opposite when I was a child. It was looked down upon to receive a handout and only those desperate for it took it. Now it is a race to see who can take the most of it... it is ludicrous to me that a handout is ok but some jobs are undignified. Unreal.

I don't see how any job could be beneath anyone at our minimum wage but we already did that one. oops. : )

 

[felicie]

Sorry GM, ----------------

"how everyone has a part to play in the economics of a nation," as we don't want this argument to be about facts. I mean, otherwise we might have to discuss how governments "steal" to fund overseas invasions and such.....

How can everyone play a part if half the country stays home unemployed? And please try not to take it personal. We all need help at times and if you know in your heart that you need help then there is no need to feel defensive because I think we all are talking about abuse to the systems and not by the people that really need help. Maybe our govts want us all to be on aid and be totally dependent on them. By the sounds of it in other countries they do and that is not much different than arresting us all and confining us to house arrest with id anklets. And btw I'd love to go on an oversea invasion and party lol.

Thanks everyone. I'll be gone for awhile so let's try to keep it civil if you keep it going. (I need a laptop)

 

[luarod]

First, I have to say that I really like this thread and the fact that people are not killing each other (yet ) over a political/social issue.

I wanted to add something that may sound weird as it's kind of translated from a spanish saying: "who made the rule set the trap". That doesn't mean that the rule is not necessary. Any rule/law/welfare system isn't perfect, and there is always someone that is going to try to abuse it, the same as corrupt politicians stealing tax payers money or someone trying to pay less taxes that they should.

And please send some jobs to Spain if you have some extra in your country! here we sure need them.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I read recently 51% of Americans are on some kind of welfare/social service. That includes stamps, cash, housing, medicaid and unemployment. In the last 20 years or so of my life I have met or become acquainted with many people from different walks of life, of course we all do but the percentage of them on some kind of aid is incredible when I think about it. Maybe because it's a small town in so. Calif. lol (they didn't call it the welfare state for nothing). It's not just on the other side of the tracks either. It's in every neighborhood, schools, west side, east side and the biggest abuse I've seen is those on disability in their 30's, with bad backs or repetitive wrist movement. Everywhere you go there is someone waiting on their settlement (it's my money and I need it now) attorneys are all over the place. I know people that have been on unemployment longer than they've worked in their whole life. How do they even get it? After awhile you realize hey there's a pattern here. They say things like 'I'd go to work but it will screw up my chances for disability' Then the settlement comes and within a year or less it's gone so they have to go back to work again maybe for 6 months or until they figure how to work the next one.

That's why cuts need to be made because there isn't enough working people to support the whole thing. I don't believe there is a job shortage when half the country stays home every day. We have all kinds of work programs in existence to curb the abuse but many just work around them or get more clever. Or move on to an easier program to 'play'. I figure if I can see such obvious or questionable abuse in so many places around me so can everyone else. And no I wont report them because I hate that even more. The ironic thing is often they tell on each other I think.

Part of this is due to wages being too low to survive on, and having to be topped up by the state. In effect, the state is subsidising private companies to make a bigger profit than they deserve for the services being rendered. This also drives up prices, putting even MORE people in need of the subsidy.

Businesses should be forced to pay their way, and ONLY be given subsidies where they provide a social service on behalf of the state that would not normally be provided because it isn't profitable to do so for any business. An example would be running busses on unprofitable routes in order to give the disadvantaged access to transport links.

 

[footdr]

As usual, Fox News or wherever the information is coming from, is not telling the whole truth.

The waivers are only temporary waivers and they don't allow businesses to completely opt out of offering healthcare benefits, only to allow them to continue to offer their existing plans which do not meet the requirements of the new law. One of the common reasons is that the law requires no cap on benefits, but many plans apparently have a $750000 cap and business owners claim it would cost them too much to arrange a healthcare plan with no cap and the alternative would be to provide nothing. There are some dubious cases, some of these businesses are upmarket restaurants in SF.

You are correct, but even this type of waiver is unfair to small businesses whose plans don't meet the regulations and are unable to get waivers because they aren't big endorsers of Obama or don't contribute enough to campaigns or can't afford lobbyists.

Secondly, HHS has still not released guidelines on what plans must include. What is they require certain coverage provisions that are not needed. Such as pregnancy coverage, delivery and coverage for newborns when none of your employees are anylonger of childbearing age? Or if they are, they are already covered under their spouses health insurance and have opted out of their employers plan. this would be the case for our small business that employees 5 females.

What should really concern the public. What if you don't qualify for a "subsidy", assistance with your premium and you currently are not insured for what ever reason? The formula they will use will not take into consider your expenses. It is not income-minus expenses. It is based on you modified adjusted gross income. So they say you can afford it, but after paying you non-deductible expenses such as credit card bills, car payments, electric, gas, you kids college costs, and other non-tax deductible expenses'; you are left with enough to save alittle and see a movie; THEY will make you spend your last available cent on Health Insurance or pay a penalty. Yes, this is the truth, look it up in the law.

Also, do you really think after cutting medicare and medicaid reimbursement to doctors and hospitals 29% as mandated in 2012, there won't be an exodus by a huge majority of doctors from these programs. My husband is already being reimbursed less than it costs to care for these patients, but due to the Private Insurance Companies is at this time still able to care for these patients. After the 29% cut, he will be forced to opt out.

The Feds idea of cutting costs is to cut the fees paid to doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers. The doctors are not causing rising costs, it is hospitals that are forced to admit those that can't pay and must recoop the loss by charging others more. It is the advancement in technology and costly equipment. The advancement in drug and theraputic research which the cost is recooped during the period where there are no generic drugs allowed.

Technology and new surgical techniques and therapies that require additional skills and training and are initially costly will increase health care costs.

Do you want continued research, training and availablility of the newest treatments? If so, there is a cost. It is obvious that the Government can not pay for these costs.

My idea is this. For those that have pre-existing or can't affor individual coverage there should be an extension of Medicare. Say Medicare part E that would cover these individuals at a cost twice the cost of current Medicare Monthly premiums.

The PPACA as written will increase the costs of those with current group coverage, increase the number of workers that must find their own coverage through the currently non-existent "exchanges"(which nobody knows what these plans will cost). And cause patients to wait much much longer to see a doctor or have surgery.