In light of the nation’s 230th birthday I reflected on some of the ways that this great nation is decaying from the inside out… so I decided to list some of them… many of which are already underway and getting worse. (Wallpaper from my favorite wallpaper site, Digital Blasphemy)
- Let beggars be choosers. Let those who don’t have a job get to spend other people’s money if there aren’t any “desirable” jobs they feel like doing. Do this even if there are those who have willingly worked those same “undesirable” jobs for years to make ends meet and feed their families. In fact, in a show of utter idiocy, make those workers doing the “undesirable” jobs give spending money to those who feel “too good” to do those same “undesirable” jobs. And keep raising that minimum wage because you have to have the latest IM-capable cellphones, you know.
- Value esteem over excellence. Don’t speak any truth that will possibly offend anyone, ever. Never imply that anyone is better at anything than anyone else. Don’t fall prey to the twisted notion that there are absolutes. Standardized tests are evil devices designed to artificially lift up those who are good at learning information and applying that information under pressure… and this is bad because nowhere in life will you ever have to know any information, nor will you ever be under any pressure, so these tests are all unrealistic and divisive. In fact, all tests, grades, scores, and ratings are evil and divisive.
- Take money from the few to buy votes from the many. Since most of the wealth in the US is in the hands of just a few at the top… take their money, label this theft as “fair”, and use the money to buy the votes from the much larger number of people at the other end of the economic spectrum. Be sure to hide the fact that they, at the lower end, are still wealthier than most of the rest of the world… and don’t tell them that if they are fat, have cellphones, wear gold chains, and watch multiple TVs in the apartment then they probably are doing well enough. Oh yeah… also fudge the numbers so that nobody realizes money taken from the top hurts job growth and economic development in the middle and the bottom. In fact, burn every economic book you can find… then buy yourself some votes while you dine for $125 a plate and smoke Cubans in your jet.
- Offer free health care. Especially offer free health care to those who prefer to spend their money on chips, cellphones, gold chains, and TVs. Make sure that there is no incentive to stay healthy. And in the spirit of “beggars being choosers” let them demand the most expensive pharmaceuticals that they see commercials for while watching soaps on their multiple TVs during what we would call the “working hours” of the day because there are no “desirable jobs” for them. Of course… not everyone would get free health care… I mean, it’d be free on the surface, but you’d have to tax the heck out of everyone to pull it off. And pay no attention to the politicians paying big bucks to go to private hospitals to see private doctors… the Canadians don’t. After all, nobody pays attention to US politicians sending their kids to private schools while trumpeting the value of public schools.
- Judge by emotion. If someone was killed, they’re dead. They’re gone. Don’t dwell on ghosts… but show compassion to the poor murdering rapist who now must suffer with that guilt. Not only do they have to suffer the guilt of knowing they stabbed and raped twelve pre-teen girls… but then you want to further torment them by locking them in what amounts to an animal cage… to be mocked and taunted by REAL animals like crooked CEOs. Pay no attention to that middle finger the court camera caught them pointing at the victims’ families… that’s just their guilt and pain cruelly bubbling to the surface. You need to understand the society that drove them, against their will, to that unfortunate end… otherwise you’ll lose fact that they have rights and dirty cops want to take those rights away. Thank goddess for the ACLU that protects the rights of murdering rapists because who knows what this country would be like if we got medieval on them.
- Maintain two political parties. Only two. First of all, you’ll only have to make sure that there’s more people who like you than like only one other person. That’s pretty easy… and you can always make up good stuff that you’ll do if you need a boost to your likability. And with just two parties, when one loses, the other wins… and vice versa. This ensures that you don’t have to stand FOR anything as long as you can stand AGAINST what the other guy is for… then if you win you won’t have to DO anything… you just have to NOT DO what the other guy was going to. How joyous for you that you get to WIN and NOT DO anything!
Web designer and developer. Loud discerner. Software engineer and 
Amazing. You have single handedly created one list containing both the most absolute of truhts and a complete bag of BS, all wrapped up in one neat package. I’ll go point by point here:
“Let Beggars be Choosers” — Completely agreed. There’s no such thing as a job you’re too good to do, and no reason the president should go on TV claiming that “imigrants will do jobs Americans won’t do.”
“And keep raising that minimum wage because you have to have the latest IM-capable cellphones.” Complete bull. Yes, I can understand this if you’re talking about teens working at McD’s making the minimum. Sadly, while minimum wage is not supposed to be used to live on, that’s exactly what’s happening. Why is it that our politicians have given themselves $30,000 in raises over the past 10 years while minimum wage has stayed the same? Anyone remember this little thing called “Inflation”? Granted, minimum wage isn’t something you should stay at forever, but why should someone entering the minimum wage workforce now — say, a 67 year old who was forced to retire or who somehow lost his pension — be paid less (in real dollars) than someone who entered it 10 years ago? Sounds like a nice, right-wing oversimplification and demonization of the poor. I support raising minimum wage, but I also support a two-tier system which accounts for people who don’t need it and are using the money to supplement their wants (teens working at McD’s) and those who are working because they actually need to make a living (67 year olds working at McD’s).
- “Don’t speak any truth that will possibly offend anyone, ever.” Completely agree. People will care about what you do before they care about how you feel. Although self-esteem is important, there is built within all of us the need to earn the right to feel good about ourselves, and that comes only through accomplishment, which comes only through work done before you have the right to feel good about yourself. Undeserved praise is a self-esteem killer.
- “Offer free health care. Especially offer free health care to those who prefer to spend their money on chips, cellphones, gold chains, and TVs.” Another right-wing oversimplification. It’s easy to downplay the fact that insurance rates have been rising faster than inflation, and that wages haven’t caught up, so while the average 25 year old with no kids might have been able to afford insurance on $25k/yr 10 and 15 years ago, someone entering the workforce now under the same conditions — which is often the case — can’t. Let’s not even talk about those who have kids and end up being downsized, only to be out of work for a year, or stuck in minimum wage jobs — as in “more than one” — just to make the ends meet (because, let’s face it, Unemployment only goes so far). Then, those same parents going out working multiple jobs to feed their family and get health insurance are maligned for not spending enough time with their kids and letting them go astray. (The moral obligations of one generation should not be imposed on another nor should judgement using those rules be made when all other factors work against those being judged.) Universal health insurance would end up allowing American companies to stay competitive in the market place, by not burdening them with having to offer health insurance to their employees (an advantage MANY competitors already have). America already spends more per person on health care than any other country — if you take into account EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN, not just those WITH insurance — and what do we have to show for that? Bigger medical bills and $7 out of every $10 in health care going to beaurocracy. Oh yeah, and in countries with universal health care the average lifespan is longer. (And don’t give me that bull crap argument of “Well, why should I pay for some guy who won’t stop eating steak?!” We already pay for those people, but we also pay a bunch of managers along the way.)
- “Take money from the few to buy votes from the many.” I would agree with you here, save for this little tid-bit: “Maintain two political parties. Only two.” Unfortunately, its the first system that’s supporting the second. So, which will it be: publically funded elections or a two-party system? Frankly, I’d love to see a two-tier election system: the first tier is uses public funding and all parties involved run on an equal basis. This allows poeople to vote for what they want — their hopes — as opposed to vote against what they don’t want — their fears. After those results come in, the top 2 or 3 have a run-off election, using the current system of private funds + matching funding (or just private funds — whatever), and then people vote from those, knowing full well that if they can’t vote for their first choice, they can vote for their second (or third). Oh, and get rid of that damn electoral college, or at least make it uniformly partial, as opposed to the “all or nothing” system we have set up.
- “Thank goddess for the ACLU that protects the rights of murdering rapists because who knows what this country would be like if we got medieval on them.” Agreed. While there are cases where “society” drives people to do something, the fact of the matter is that an act should be punished accordingly. Frankly, I just wish executions would be public. That way the death penalty would actually act as a deterrent, and not just as some idle threat. I also wish that monsters who leave no question of their guilt (such as hard DNA evidence or maniacs like Charles Manson) would be killed quickly, instead of being kept alive for years on end using funds that could be used for public health care.
Finally, before you start making all these blanket statements which demonize the poor and belittle the *fact* that project neighborhoods are often economically isolated, I strongly suggest you listen closely to Majora Carter, what she’s had to go through and what she’s done about it. It’s not as black and white — no pun intended — as people make it out to be.
Ahhh… discourse… I love it. Here we go.
I’ll first mention that labeling my honest observations as “right-wing oversimplification” might be comfortable for being secure in one’s own position if it is different from mine… but it also can appear as a tactic to belittle my opinion because there’s no excuse or defense for the lunacy I’m pointing out.
Case in point… I’ve watched people pay for junk food with welfare and then pull out a wad of cash to pay for cigarettes and the National Enquirer. This person needed a smack in the head, not other people’s money. I have traveled across the planet. I have seen how other people live. The “poor” in this country live in luxury compared to most people. Maybe only 1% of our citizen population here is “truly” poor… yet a much larger percentage than that are spending other people’s money… on things like cigarettes.
And that’s not even touching on people here criminally who are inexplicably able to walk into our hospitals and use our health care system FOR FREE!?! My wife works at a hospital… and I know many people who are in health care… and on the whole people without insurance come into the hospital for the stupidest reasons (like a stomach ache or a headache). Well, because they don’t have to pay for it, of course… there’s no feedback mechanism because to them it’s free. This also has the unfortunate effect on these freeloaders of thinking the hospital staff are their personal servants… and thus they are known for being the most rude and disrespectful to nurses and doctors alike.
And yes, health care costs are rising… and if people don’t have to pay for themselves they won’t start taking measures to limit their own health care spending. To them it’s like a free service they are owed. The only real winners of health care costs rising are lawyers… with a small ancillary benefit going to insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.
And I don’t like artificially setting wages because we feel sorry for people who don’t have skills to make a good wage. That’s the real “bull” you should be speaking of. Instead of screwing over small business owners, and ultimately unskilled workers who now either can’t be afforded or who have to work “off the books”, a better way would be to provide some small incentive for unskilled people to learn a skill that pays more. But don’t just make everyone pay them more because you feel sorry for them. And the incentive provided should be small because ultimately everyone should be 100% responsible for the decisions they’ve made throughout their lives that have led directly to their present circumstance. If a volcano consumes all the earthly possessions of an already humble widow… then fine, let the government hook her up. But if the wheelchair bound (skydiving accident) guy who decided to blow his life savings on race horses, and then wants a new house because his current house (which was worth three times mine) was smacked by a hurricane (maybe because he lives where hurricanes are common) and then wants federal dollars (other people’s money) to cover him… that’s truly utterly insane.
I know there are exceptions to every rule and that there are some genuinely needy people. But our system almost recklessly tosses money to everyone without a careful and scrutinous eye at how those people spent their money BEFORE they were in need… and what do they spend their free money on PRESENTLY to necessitate this need?
Mr. Gnorb:
You had some interesting points, but before you talk about other belittling and demonizing, maybe we could stop short of referring to someone’s (and in this case our host’s) opinions as BS as a first step in discourse. Your big problem with the minimum wage bit is that your idea relies on the government correctly identifying worthy individuals to receive the “higher” wage. And if our social services have shown us anything, it’s that the government has very little idea who deserves to do what and have what done to them. We can’t even figure out who can vote. And you want them to pick deserving individuals to make more money. Not to mention the outcry from the ones who know they are undeserving and are just greedy.
Socialized health care, which is what I think you’re endorsing doesn’t appear to be the picnic you might believe, either. Sure, Canadians and Europeans chuckle in glee because they don’t pay for it. And you’re right, I’ve seen statistics that imply it’s working better. But then there are the down sides, which I would be willing to ignore if I were sure I’d be healthier, like the ridiculous wait times to see a doctor. But I’m not sure. I firmly believe our system can be improved and improved a lot. But there is only so much money. And shifting the burden from me and my employer directly to the government is just passing the buck. It’s still going to be my money, and ultimately my employer’s, paying for it. And since I already pointed out that the government isn’t so good at knowing who needs what, putting my money in their hands doesn’t appeal to me.
And lastly I come to the political system. Your election scheme seems needlessly complicated. I cannot be convinced that we need something squirrelly like that to escape the two-party system. If anything, I think that third parties are on the cusp of becoming viable all by themselves. Not to mention, I’ve seen data that indicates you can’t by an election, anyhow. Mostly, people either like you or they don’t. Money can’t make you palatable. Check out Freakonomics. In any event, when Steve mentioned buying votes, he was actually talking about welfare and other such handouts. If you promise voters they will get a free ride, that’s a good incentive for them to vote for you.
You know, if we really want to fix American health care, minimum wage and poverty issues we could just nationalize all industries, move to a planned economy and arrest the upper class and dissenters and ship them off to forced-labor camps.
Oh, wait, that was tried already.
Socialized medicine has been too, and there are a lot more minuses than pluses in my opinion. I lived in two countries (Canada and Russia) that “enjoy” such systems, and I heard nothing but complaints as I waited in thos long lines on doctor visits. The doctors don’t seem to care as much, either.
Oh man, I really enjoyed that. One of the best blog post I have read in awhile.
“Those who do not work should not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) I realize that there are exceptions, but I believe God calls us to work…
“Value esteem over excellence…” My friends kids just had field-day awhile back and I asked him how they did, what color ribbons did they get. He said, “Oh, they don’t give ribbons anymore.”
And my nephews in their soccer tournaments - ALL teams now get the same trophy no matter how you finished.
Why don’t we just lower the bar so all people can just stumble over it…
Yae! I’ve become the object of admonition! “Better to be talked about badly than not to be talked about at all” (Oscar Wilde).
*clears throat* Here we go…
“but it also can appear as a tactic to belittle my opinion because there’s no excuse or defense for the lunacy I’m pointing out.” Not a tactic to belittle your position. The problem is that I always hear the same examples from right-wingers (and I hessitate to use “conservatives” here as it tends to be a political statement and not a sociological one). I always hear about the dude driving the Dodge Magnum buying booze with a wad of cash and paying for the rest of the food with food stamps. I never hear about the family who uses the food stamps to ensure they can feed their kids. I speak here from experience. When I first moved to this country (from Puerto Rico, so yes, full citizen) my dad was working as the manager of a Little Ceasar’s. My mom had never before worked a job — at least not since we (her 4 kids) had been born — and that first year, we needed to get food stamps. (No, never the welfare thing. I have my own opinions on that and I suspect they align with yours.) There were more people like us than there were the scum that you describe. This is why I call it a “right wing oversimplification.” I’ve never seen the sociological argument applied by right-wingers, only the example of the person abusing it and the call for its elimination instead of reformation.
“The “poor” in this country live in luxury compared to most people. Maybe only 1% of our citizen population here is “truly” poor” Ah, I see. So before we begin to offer help we should make sure they’re in abject poverty? Sadly, that *is* a simplification, a way of wiping our hands clean of the horrifically bad economic planning that we have tried to institute. (Yes, I know that’s not the only thing that affects all of this. Culture is a big one here, but culture is something we can help shape.) A friend of mine once put it this way, which I thought was wonderful. (We were talking about Universal Health Care) “The problem isn’t [health care], the problem is that our government has a horrific track record when it comes to social programs, and this is the motherload.” I’m not a big advocate of a top-down economic approach, where it’s the rich’s mandate to uplift the poor. I am, however, an advocate of democratizing empowerment, where all parties involved are brought in at the decission making process (this case being in the economic decelopment policy). Unfortunately, this *is* a complicated issue. It is *not* a simple “well, money’s being wasted to we’ll cut this off. Bye!” As for the poor living better than in the rest of the world, that’s great and fine, but our current policies and systems aren’t making it any better. Money is being flushed down the toilets *giving* people things instead of enabling them to fix things for themselves with the help of those who have already overcome the issues.
And that’s not even touching on people here criminally who are inexplicably able to walk into our hospitals and use our health care system FOR FREE!?! In this one I agree with you. Although (I believe) it is the responsibility of one person to take care of another when in need (to the best of their ability), it is not the responsibility of the state to take care of those not under their protectorate. I’m not a fan of illegal immigration (and we could take this in an entirely other direction with this), but what I was talking about is health care for citizens, not for illegal immigrants.
and if people don’t have to pay for themselves they won’t start taking measures to limit their own health care spending. A good portion of the spending right now goes to *private* administrative costs, not to actual health care, many of the decissions for which are made by people with no medical training. We’re already footing the bill for universal health care. The problem is that the current health industry model rewards sickness among the populace. (Doubt it? Read the book “The Next Trillion” by Paul Zane Piltzer, who was an economist working in *I believe* the Reagan administration (may have been Bush 1). People will take care of themselves to have better health. There are not many people who purposely seek to be sick, and when given the incentive, people will chose to stay healthier.
But if the wheelchair bound (skydiving accident) guy who decided to blow his life savings on race horses, and then wants a new house because his current house (which was worth three times mine) was smacked by a hurricane (maybe because he lives where hurricanes are common) and then wants federal dollars (other people’s money) to cover him… that’s truly utterly insane. Ah yes, as opposed to the wheelchair bound (due to a car accident) guy who decided to blow his life savings on medical expenses, and then wants a new house because his current house (which was worth three times yours, but was half your house’s size) was smacked by a hurricane (maybe because he lives where hurricanes are common) and then wants federal dollars (other people’s money) to help him because he doesn’t have the resources to move or make much of a living… Or should we make sure he’s in abject poverty before we help him? (See, I can pull random examples out of my hat that are just as valid, too. )
And I don’t like artificially setting wages because we feel sorry for people who don’t have skills to make a good wage. Ah, I see. I take it you’ve never had a down turn in your industry, where suddenly your skills are no longer applicable. In the mean time, while you’re picking up new skills, you can only pay your bills by working at the local gas station as a fuel replacement engineer, where a 14 year old kid is making just as much as you, but using it to pay for taking his girl out to the movies. Granted, I’m not a fan of keeping people at the minimum wage, but I would rather give a business owners tax advantages to pay those employees in need more than to have that employee suckle of the tit of welfare while he gets his life in order.
But our system almost recklessly tosses money to everyone without a careful and scrutinous eye… I’m in complete agreement here. These systems need MAJOR overhauls, but eliminating them altogether is *not* the answer.
John: I agree with you on the whole health care thing, but the problem is that the system is *so* full of people profiting needlessly off the system that the costs have become staggeringly high. I don’t have ANY problem with people making profits (I’m a business owner myself, believe it or not), but I do have a problem when I see a very large amount of what’s tantamount to corporate welfare being passed on from many of these HMOs and pharma companies onto the government, the doctors, and patiets. It’s kind of like the problem I have with the current sky-rocketting costs of oil and the suddent, unexpected record profits oil companies are making. Not a problem with them making money, it’s a problem with them abusing the current system to the detriment of the intended audience.
And lastly I come to the political system. Your election scheme seems needlessly complicated. I cannot be convinced that we need something squirrelly like that to escape the two-party system. What’s so squirrely about a run-off election?
If you promise voters they will get a free ride, that’s a good incentive for them to vote for you. You know, that wouldn’t be much of a problem if elections were solution focused as opposed to mudflinging fests between two parties. The current system, as is, is almost entirely impenetrable by a third party. It wouldn’t be the case if someone with enough money came in (ex: Ross Perot) who could actually get into the public debate process (ex: like Perot, unlike Ralph Nader), but as it is, the two parties have become really good at getting squashing any competition to THEIR two-party system. A run-off system would come a *long* way in helping brake the two party duopoly. Remember: the constitution has in it clauses for cases where there are SEVEN OR MORE people running for one office on equal footing. When was the last time you heard that in high school civics?
Mike
I’d ignore your comment save for the last bit with Russia and Canada. At least in Canada (I’m not sure about Russia), people are generally healthier and have longer lifespans on the average. Call it a hunch, but I don’t think it’s because you get to spend more time waiting in line, so you get an extra lease on life. I’m guessing it’s because you can go to the doctor before the simple flu turns into walking pneumonia.
Mark
“Those who do not work should not eat.” — You’re right, God DOES call us to work. But what happens when you work and are still not able to feed your kids? I’m not a fan of welfare — I’m really not, although it is in cases a necessary evil (few cases) — but food stamps and welfare are two different things. Maybe by adding a requiirement that people or welfare and foodstamps keep accurate financial records in order to (1) eliminate abuse and (2) help people make the best of what they’ve got we could curb the rewarding of lazyness while not punishing those who are truly in need.
–
Anyway, WarAxe, I gotta say I did enjoy the post. Heck, if I didn’t enjoy your writings (and think enough of them to comment), I wouldn’t even be reading your blog on a regular basis. Nevertheless, when I see something that seems like an oversimplification of an issue, especially when it results in a specific group getting needlessly maligned, I do take issue with it and I’ll call it out. Overall, keep up the good work here. I may not agree with you 100% of the time (only about 80% of the time), but if two people agree all the time, one isn’t needed.
Gnorb ::
Discourse is always welcome here… and so are you.
Did you *really* have to put the ellipses? It seems somehow… like you’re… hessitating the “so are you part.” (I keed! I keed!)
As far as I can tell, the price of gasoline is most affected by two things the oil companies have no control over. Taxes and the price of crude oil. Beyond that, I don’t know what to tell you. There’s no law against making money. The problem with anything making more money this year than the last or whatever is that there are more people spending more money every year. That’s why the highest grossing films are always recent ones. Even though ticket prices are higher than ever, too. And I know movie theaters are ripping us off. I hope you’re doing your share to reduce oil prices by driving a vehicle with good fuel economy. I drive a Grand Cherokee. It’s only the six cylinder but it still burns the gas like nothing. And I don’t like high gas prices. But I also don’t like little cars. So I suck it up. I pay the price. I am pickier about how much I drive. And life goes on.
We already have two phase voting system, at least for some elections. Primaries and then the general election. It’s a radical step to do away with primaries and let everyone run in the first stage And it’s squirelly to keep the primaries and make it effectively a three-step process.
1) Production price of oil is approx $20/gal (this includes production costs), yet the futures market has it at $70/gal. (Compare to the late 1990’s when production costs and price were in line at about $10-$15/gal. Considering that the oil companies price along the lines of the futures market instead of the actual price of oil, you have to wonder how the heck the price shot up from $30 to $70 so incredibly quickly. Hmm… no no no — we can’t even concede the idea that there might be some price fixing going on, could we? I mean, energy companies — who have absolutely no sway with government, especially the current administration — would never do anything which could possibly be construed as price fixing or creating a fake supply crisis a-la California c. 1999, would they? No, there isn’t a law against making money, but there are laws against price fixing and price gouging. (As for cars, yes, I drive a fuel efficient car which gets approx 40mpg.)
As for the voting, I never said get rid of the primaries. How is it squrrely to have a 3 step process? If anything, that 3-step process would help decrease the shier apathy the American voter displays these days. Remember that whole “must be polling at 5% in order to debate nationally” rule? That was made up in 2000 by the Dems and Reps and signed into law in order to keep at that time Ralph Nader off the debates. (They tried with Perot, but he was polling way too high, near 35% at the time, before he quit and came back.)
Sadly, American politics is no longer a matter of discourse, it’s a matter of showy, 30-second blurbs and catchy phrases. Americans who realize (all 20% of us — I’m betting this includes you) are seriously ashamed by this, that our fellow citizens could have become such complacent sheep. Multi-party elections (with more than just the Demicans and the Republicrats) would engage the American voter in a way not seen since the early 1900’s when Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party almost took the White House.
I think John’s point was that most of the big gas companies don’t literally fix the price of gas to what they want. It’s on the commodities market and the price is set by you and me… well, maybe not you but definitely me… as soon as everyone got jittery about energy I started buying up energy-heavy funds like it was heroin… and now I’m smiling. And also don’t forget how long the Middle East cartel has been controlling oil output to carefully keep the price how they want it… except it’s burning them now because there is a general inability for them to pump enough to maximize the demand. Not a shortage, mind you… but just not supplying enough to hit that sweet spot on the supply/demand curve.
I do have to say that I would abhor a three-tier election process. But I understand what you mean abou the 5% poll to debate. I agree that you want to keep any old schmutz from getting his/her mug on the debate floor… but to blacklist Nader, regardless of how much I disagree with him, only buttresses what I was saying about the two party system.. Those two parties know that it is in their best interest to keep it that way… and that’s the rub.
OOoohhh… as far as voting, I wish voting was wicked difficult. I always hope for golfball sized hailstones on election day. The kind of people I want voting are the ones who care the most and have the most initiative and drive to do it. That type of get-off-the-couch thinking naturally elects leaders whose policies disfavor the lazy (on the whole). Now, of course there should be exceptions for elderly, infirmed, disabled, and deployed soldiers.
In regards to healthcare. I have not found many countries who have a well structured and very efficient healthcare system, but I think South Korea has come pretty close.
Koreas Health Insurance Plan is soley run by one corporation and I believe this is one of the only plans in the world that covers almost the total population of it’s country (96.9%). The remaining 3.1% are in the low income bracket and are covered by a medical aid program. So the 96.9% of the people that can afford it, pay into the National Health Insurance plan and it is divided up so that everyone has the same benefits and pays the same co payments. There is also a ceiling limit on co payments. If someone exceeds the maximum limit of the co payment ceiling then they are reimbursed so that there is no financial burden to people who have diseases or need long term care. It’s actually a great plan. You pay a set percentage (which is the same for everyone) based on the amount of money you make. So the government is not just providing “free healthcare” and there is no “shifting the burden from me and my employer”. There is enough money to cover costs, because co-pays and money going in and going out is recalculated every year to meet the peoples needs. The healthcare is quality healthcare, there are hospitals and doctors all around and since they all charge the same amount (except international hospitals) and the copays are all the same, care is pretty consistent across the board.
Here’s an excerpt from the document…
For the employee insured, the contribution amount shall be calculated by monthly salary contribution rate currently 4.48% and be deducted from the monthly salary (50% of which is shared by the employer). Irrespective of the actual date of enrollment, the obligation of contribution payment is retroactive up to the date the enrollee was employed.
For the self-employed insured, the contribution amount for those who have income shall be calculated by monthly income contribution rate and, for those who have no income, shall be the equal amount to the¸average monthly contributions of the Korean self-employed in the previous year, which amounts to about 48,000 won. The obligation of contribution payment is retroactive up to the date the enrollee was registered as an alien in Korea. For foreign students covered, 30% of the normal contribution can be reduced and the contributions shall be paid in advance every three months.
The problem with any program where everyone gets the “same” care is that not everyone has the same desire to receive the same care. The rich, self-absorbed actress who has millions in chump change might want a higher level of care… and thus the privatized medicine industry begins. In Canada the rich go to private hospitals and see private physicians who get paid the most and they receive the best care (generally). As long as 96.9% of the population are different (different eating habits, different risk taking, some smoke, some drink, some have risky sex) then I do NOT think they should all get the same care.
Now, I don’t think people who fall on bad circumstances should be left to suffer… but I don’t think it’s any of the government’s business, especially not the federal gov’t. Give people back the tax money intended for these entitlements… and let them use it towards charities they believe in… and then the charities can put a discerning eye on anyone in need.
cheers on some great points here! I was just cruising around looking for some wallpaper when I stumbled across this post. when I first started reading it, I expected it to be a bunch of liberal garbage. this was refreshing for a change!
One Trackback
[...] Frankly, this is a discussion you should see for yourself and, if so inclined, one where your input would be appreciated, regardless of whether you agree with me… [...]