Should we have single-payer healthcare?

[Mad Jack]

@efle has entered the thread!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lawpy]

Depending on how this thread goes, i'll probably enter it from a nihilist perspective (sorry @Nietzschelover )

 

[Mad Jack]

The solution to the problems mentioned there isn't necessarily to kill off free tuition. You could say only the first 4 years are covered to fight moral hazard. You could offer it only to people who earn admissions - I'm also of the opinion far fewer people need/use their degree than have it, so I'm fine with this meaning many people who would currently go to college dont.

I still don't see why college should be free. At no point in the history of humanity has career training not been either paid for in labor or paid for with cash. You have the right to obtain the training you can afford, be it with your service or with your cash. The government paying for things tends to both make people feel obligated to their government (which they shouldn't, because they were never given the option to not have such an obligation) and tends to give the government far too much control over the lives and careers of those that it pays to train. Look at most European university systems- they will give you a free education, but they're only funding X engineers, X physicians, and X physicists per year. Here, you can get whatever training you want if you're willing to put up the money. And if we were to pull the government out of student loans, then the amount of money you'd have to put up would be substantially less due to massively decreased artificial demand.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

Is the student loan situation in the US sustainable, yes or no?

As I've mentioned before. The current student loan situation is bad because the government gives out loans really easy and that in turn leads to colleges increasing tuition which leads to government increasing loans. If loans were capped at a certain amount pegged to inflation, then you wouldn't see such rapid increase in tuitions.

Big Government is the problem here.

 

[deleted480308]

As I've mentioned before. The current student loan situation is bad because the government gives out loans really easy and that in turn leads to colleges increasing tuition which leads to government increasing loans. If loans were capped at a certain amount pegged to inflation, then you wouldn't see such rapid increase in tuitions.

Big Government is the problem here.

I'd go farther and say they don't need to be capped or inflation limited at all.....make them dischargeable like any other debt in bankruptcy and let the market determine the rate based on risk of repayment

You got into a med school and expect a salary of 200k? here's your loan at a reasonable rate
You want a 200k degree in french women's haiku? you'll need some collateral and that rate is going to be higher

 

[Mad Jack]

It should also be noted that in the pre-Medicare environment, physicians actually earned substantially less than they do today. Government intervention is what made health care so expensive and led to massively expanded physicians salaries, now the government is trying to legislate away the problem that they caused in the first place. Simpler solution: just scrap all government insurance, or replace it with enforced savings plans that place all of those medicare taxes into private accounts that can be invested and used to buy health insurance or health care services when needed.

Is the student loan situation in the US sustainable, yes or no?

And I'm still waiting for this guy to explain how he intends to force people to provide health care services if health care is a right, without infringing on the rights of health care providers to, you know, not be forced to work for the benefit of another person if they don't want to.

And yeah, student loans are unsustainable because the government has inflated the amount of loans we are allowed to take out.

 

[coldcase331]

I'd go farther and say they don't need to be capped or inflation limited at all.....make them dischargeable like any other debt in bankruptcy and let the market determine the rate based on risk of repayment

You got into a med school and expect a salary of 200k? here's your loan at a reasonable rate
You want a 200k degree in french women's haiku? you'll need some collateral and that rate is going to be higher

The problem is that Clinton passed some kind of equal credit opportunity act that means you can't give different loan rates like that because it is "discriminatory"

 

[Mad Jack]

The problem is that Clinton passed some kind of equal credit opportunity act that means you can't give different loan rates like that because it is "discriminatory"

The problem is everything. The problem is that the loans can't be discharged, that your credit can't be taken into account, that the rates are fixed, that majors don't matter, that the government backs them- the whole thing is a damn mess.

Basically it's the same thing that's happened with healthcare- the government intervenes more and more until something is broken, then offers to swoop in and take it over with a "better" government system because this thing that they broke clearly can't be left to the markets to handle.

 

[deleted480308]

The problem is that Clinton passed some kind of equal credit opportunity act that means you can't give different loan rates like that because it is "discriminatory"

you misunderstand what that act is about....

 

[coldcase331]

you misunderstand what that act is about....

It was a bill like that regarding bank loans, I wasn't say THE equal credit opportunity act.

 

[deleted480308]

It was a bill like that regarding bank loans, I wasn't say THE equal credit opportunity act.

you'll need to more accurate/specific then if you want to reference it.....link?

 

[efle]

At no point in the history of humanity has career training not been either paid for in labor or paid for with cash.

That something (tax funding) is new is not an argument against its quality. You want to look at the history of humanity and tell me the level of education children born in poverty received sounds like a great idea for modern America, then we've nothing to discuss! The arguments for college apply just as well to high school and even earlier. Surely you don't think it was a great system in historical urban America when the free market had poor children working full day shifts in dangerous conditions while the rich had great private educations.

Look at most European university systems- they will give you a free education, but they're only funding X engineers, X physicians, and X physicists per year.

I do not see a problem with this. You make it sound like it's antithetical to American values, but I really don't think it is. People don't get to be physicians here unless they make an admissions cutoff - does that fact that not everyone with money can make themselves a doctor give Americans a low opinion of the profession? Of course not. Imagine MSTP but for engineering - no cost to you if you make the cutoff, but very hard to make the cutoff. There would not be riots in the streets.

And if we were to pull the government out of student loans, then the amount of money you'd have to put up would be substantially less due to massively decreased artificial demand.

We're in agreement that the current loans situation is an inflated mess and impending catastrophe

 

[Mad Jack]

That something (tax funding) is new is not an argument against its quality. You want to look at the history of humanity and tell me the level of education children born in poverty received sounds like a great idea for modern America, then we've nothing to discuss! The arguments for college apply just as well to high school and even earlier. Surely you don't think it was a great system in historical urban America when the free market had poor children working full day shifts in dangerous conditions while the rich had great private educations.


I do not see a problem with this. You make it sound like it's antithetical to American values, but I really don't think it is. People don't get to be physicians here unless they make an admissions cutoff - does that fact that not everyone with money can make themselves a doctor give Americans a low opinion of the profession? Of course not. Imagine MSTP but for engineering - no cost to you if you make the cutoff, but very hard to make the cutoff. There would not be riots in the streets.


We're in agreement that the current loans situation is an inflated mess and impending catastrophe

America is about self determination not government intervention guiding society. Look at law schools- in many countries, they say "we shall educate X lawyers" and that is the number they get. Here, as many people can become lawyers as are willing to pay to do so, and, care of this, two things have happened: the most competent people with the credential rise to the top, and once demand slowed, schools have had to close or cut class sizes. It's dynamic, and allows people to participate to the level they are willing to pay and get results equal to their ability. Another major problem with European systems is that they very rarely allow for reinvention- you get your shot at college, and if you choose not to take it or screw it up, the state isn't paying for you to go back. In America, that's an option if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. I wouldn't be where I am today if not for such chances.

As to the American medical education system- supply has not yet reached demand, and the number of physicians we train is not set by a quota (though our residency positions are, which is the whole reason there aren't more medical schools in the first place- the LCME was protecting their own interests rather than trying to encourage expansion of medical school classes enough to meet the country's needs). Sometime in the near future, supply will exceed capacity, which will diminish job prospects, then likely result in some schools closing down or cutting back their enrollments. That's how things should work, and I welcome it.

Now, as to the issue of public education- it's already largely financed by local taxes. It's already a three tier system (private schools, wealthy public schools, poor public schools) that rewards one making enough income to move to an area that will better educate and prepare their children. The American system is, therefore, set up just fine in that regard- do better so the next generation after you can do even better than you.

 

[Nietzschelover]

America is about self determination not government intervention guiding society. Look at law schools- in many countries, they say "we shall educate X lawyers" and that is the number they get. Here, as many people can become lawyers as are willing to pay to do so, and, care of this, two things have happened: the most competent people with the credential rise to the top, and once demand slowed, schools have had to close or cut class sizes. It's dynamic, and allows people to participate to the level they are willing to pay and get results equal to their ability. Another major problem with European systems is that they very rarely allow for reinvention- you get your shot at college, and if you choose not to take it or screw it up, the state isn't paying for you to go back. In America, that's an option if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. I wouldn't be where I am today if not for such chances.

As to the American medical education system- supply has not yet reached demand, and the number of physicians we train is not set by a quota (though our residency positions are, which is the whole reason there aren't more medical schools in the first place- the LCME was protecting their own interests rather than trying to encourage expansion of medical school classes enough to meet the country's needs). Sometime in the near future, supply will exceed capacity, which will diminish job prospects, then likely result in some schools closing down or cutting back their enrollments. That's how things should work, and I welcome it.

Now, as to the issue of public education- it's already largely financed by local taxes. It's already a three tier system (private schools, wealthy public schools, poor public schools) that rewards one making enough income to move to an area that will better educate and prepare their children. The American system is, therefore, set up just fine in that regard- do better so the next generation after you can do even better than you.

Any of us can offer a grand, sweeping soundbite about what America is, with a pic of some symbolic memorabilia in tow.

Here's mine....America is about ALL of its citizens getting a fair and reasonable shot at self determination, the pursuit of liberty, happiness, justice, and all the rest, and providing at or above threshold things like healthcare and education is ESSENTIAL towards that end.

 

[deleted480308]

Any of us can offer a grand, sweeping soundbite about what America is, with a pic of some symbolic memorabilia in tow.

Here's mine....America is about ALL of its citizens getting a fair and reasonable shot at self determination, the pursuit of liberty, happiness, justice, and all the rest, and providing at or above threshold things like healthcare and education is ESSENTIAL towards that end.

self-determination and "providing at or above threshold things" are specifically at odds.....I can't be both self-determining and forced to provide for others

 

[efle]

America is about self determination not government intervention guiding society.

The government doesn't tell high schoolers in Europe what to study. People try to study what they want. Some don't get to because they lack the competitive qualifications. It's similar logic to selective cuts made here. Someone might want to study at Berkeley, doesn't get in, and ends up at Santa Barbara instead. This isn't "government intervention" in their life. Someone might want to go MSTP. If they don't get in and have to go do something else instead, it isn't "government intervention" in their life.

As for reinvention, I'm fine with private options existing where people can study whatever they want if they have the resources to try again after their first big opportunity. I just believe there should be a decent public option available to everyone for that first chance. (Similar for healthcare, I think it's great to keep a small private sector for those who want to pay extra for what the public system won't provide).

The American system is, therefore, set up just fine in that regard

The true free market system is more binary, where you either get rich high quality education or you get to work instead of being in school. It was only through forcing massive tax $ and legal protections that we got to where we are now where everyone at least gets to go to a school, even if it's a poor public one. I fail to see how the logic changes between high school and college levels. If it's wrong in one case to force the wealthy to pay for education of the poorer, it's also wrong in the other.

self-determination and "providing at or above threshold things" are specifically at odds.....I can't be both self-determining and forced to provide for others

Now this is just arguing semantics. Self-determination is of course not literal, total freedoms. The government stopping you from sadistically torturing animals for fun is technically a limit to your control over your life, but obviously isn't what people mean when they talk about everyone being able to pursue happiness. Sending kids to school instead of a factory is protecting a child's pursuit of opportunity/goals. Someone else making 9.99 million this year instead of 10.00 in exchange is not really at odds with this.

 

[Nietzschelover]

self-determination and "providing at or above threshold things" are specifically at odds.....I can't be both self-determining and forced to provide for others

You don't understand the meaning of self determination and community. It's not just about your self determination. Individual rights in a complex society is different than individual rights in a non-existent solipsistic vacuum.

 

[deleted480308]

Now this is just arguing semantics. Self-determination is of course not literal, total freedoms. The government stopping you from sadistically torturing animals for fun is technically a limit to your control over your life, but obviously isn't what people mean when they talk about everyone being able to pursue happiness. Sending kids to school instead of a factory is protecting a child's pursuit of opportunity/goals. Someone else making 9.99 million this year instead of 10.00 in exchange is not really at odds with this.

You don't understand the meaning of self determination and community. It's not just about your self determination. Individual rights in a complex society is different than individual rights in a non-existent solipsistic vacuum.

so both of you.....articulate the line where you think my rights to property end.....if you can seize 1%, why not 30%, why not 70%, why not 100%. And further, how exactly did you gain rights to any of it?

 

[Panteleimon]

The good thinker in me is saying to read through the past posts, but I'm lazy and have other stuff to do, so I'm going to drop my opinion anyways. The US is an interesting place. In smaller, more "focused" and newer countries like those in Europe, it's easier to pass such substantial reform. In the states, there is a mechanism that has been growing ever since the 19th century. Our health care system is older than most European nation states. Layers added on layers with all kinds of gears and bolts. Just because law and society are human by-products/creations doesn't mean we can change them as we like. We created a monster, for lack of a better term. Good leaders will learn how to tame that monster to provide healthcare for everybody in an efficient manner. I heard a talk given by a professor from Harvard that wrote a book on the subject. She spoke with me and seemed to believe that the current pathology of the issue is that the states will take care of it, sure, but that you will see local organizations of states coming together to provide the infrastructure. It's riding the wave man, riding the wave.

 

[efle]

so both of you.....articulate the line where you think my rights to property end.....if you can seize 1%, why not 30%, why not 70%, why not 100%. And further, how exactly did you gain rights to any of it?

You already know my positions here. The seizing is justified when it will bring about a net gain in community health and happiness. Whether that means taxing billionaires at 2% or 90% the logic remains the same - feeding, teaching, healing the poor is morally better when it is reallocating excess.

We can just skip to the end where I say stealing from a feast to save a starving person is morally right and you say it's morally wrong. Neither of us is going to change our ideas about the intrinsic worth of property rights vs human health and happiness.

 

[Mad Jack]

Any of us can offer a grand, sweeping soundbite about what America is, with a pic of some symbolic memorabilia in tow.

Here's mine....America is about ALL of its citizens getting a fair and reasonable shot at self determination, the pursuit of liberty, happiness, justice, and all the rest, and providing at or above threshold things like healthcare and education is ESSENTIAL towards that end.

Self-determination applies to the individual- you can determine your way to success, or determine your way to failure. Without the ability to fail, you do not have self-determination.

 

[Mad Jack]

The government doesn't tell high schoolers in Europe what to study. People try to study what they want. Some don't get to because they lack the competitive qualifications. It's similar logic to selective cuts made here. Someone might want to study at Berkeley, doesn't get in, and ends up at Santa Barbara instead. This isn't "government intervention" in their life. Someone might want to go MSTP. If they don't get in and have to go do something else instead, it isn't "government intervention" in their life.

As for reinvention, I'm fine with private options existing where people can study whatever they want if they have the resources to try again after their first big opportunity. I just believe there should be a decent public option available to everyone for that first chance. (Similar for healthcare, I think it's great to keep a small private sector for those who want to pay extra for what the public system won't provide).


The true free market system is more binary, where you either get rich high quality education or you get to work instead of being in school. It was only through forcing massive tax $ and legal protections that we got to where we are now where everyone at least gets to go to a school, even if it's a poor public one. I fail to see how the logic changes between high school and college levels. If it's wrong in one case to force the wealthy to pay for education of the poorer, it's also wrong in the other.


Now this is just arguing semantics. Self-determination is of course not literal, total freedoms. The government stopping you from sadistically torturing animals for fun is technically a limit to your control over your life, but obviously isn't what people mean when they talk about everyone being able to pursue happiness. Sending kids to school instead of a factory is protecting a child's pursuit of opportunity/goals. Someone else making 9.99 million this year instead of 10.00 in exchange is not really at odds with this.

As I said in regard to local school systems, the majority of funding does not come from the federal government, it comes from local taxes. Rich people tend to not live in poor areas, so they tend to not pay for the education of poor children. Personally I'd prefer to live in a district with no school, since I've got zero kids, but those are few and far between lol.

 

[efle]

Self-determination applies to the individual- you can determine your way to success, or determine your way to failure. Without the ability to fail, you do not have self-determination.

You certainly still have the ability to fail in proposed systems though. You can't stop someone from dropping out. If someone old enough to make the decision would rather dig ditches, then so be it. The problem is when they don't even have the option to go to school, because they have to dig ditches all day to help their parents pay for their food.

 

[efle]

As I said in regard to local school systems, the majority of funding does not come from the federal government, it comes from local taxes. Rich people tend to not live in poor areas, so they tend to not pay for the education of poor children. Personally I'd prefer to live in a district with no school, since I've got zero kids, but those are few and far between lol.

You know this isn't really a dodge to the core issue though. The money for schools full of impoverished kids comes from somewhere, and it isn't from their impoverished parents. I want to understand how it's OK to fund their education with other's money, but only until 12th grade.

 

[Mad Jack]

You know this isn't really a dodge to the core issue though. The money for schools full of impoverished kids comes from somewhere, and it isn't from their impoverished parents. I want to understand how it's OK to fund their education with other's money, but only until 12th grade.

I would prefer the federal government weren't involved at all and it were a state and local government thing myself, but I digress.

 

[Nietzschelover]

so both of you.....articulate the line where you think my rights to property end.....if you can seize 1%, why not 30%, why not 70%, why not 100%. And further, how exactly did you gain rights to any of it?

In full disclosure, I'm heavily influenced by your avatar when I read your posts. Taken together this time I see an old codger with unkempt beard holed up in his beaten down two room ranch home on a prairie in Wyoming with the nearest gas station 2 hours away while you're staring at your door with a rusted rifle in your hands. Usually I see a very conservative, uptight white guy struggling with a pretty significant hemorrhoidal prolapse (re: the avatar).

 

[efle]

I would prefer the federal government weren't involved at all and it were a state and local government thing myself, but I digress.

But you know that this would lead to no schools in the poorest locations, because no one there can fund it.

 

[Mad Jack]

But you know that this would lead to no schools in the poorest locations, because no one there can fund it.

It would be on the states to sort it out, along with local municipalities. Not my problem.

 

[efle]

It would be on the states to sort it out, along with local municipalities. Not my problem.

So when the poor districts in your state decide to come knocking at your door for the $$, is it your problem then?

 

[Mad Jack]

So when the poor districts in your state decide to come knocking at your door for the $$, is it your problem then?

Then I leave the state for a state that is more in-line with my economic interests.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Self-determination applies to the individual- you can determine your way to success, or determine your way to failure. Without the ability to fail, you do not have self-determination.

Should the standard for the test of having a reasonable shot at self determination AND succeeding be based only on the most exceptional (and unlikely) examples like yourself?

 

[efle]

Then I leave the state for a state that is more in-line with my economic interests.

Which state in our nation does not fund things for the poor with $$ taken from another wealthier place?

 

[Mad Jack]

Which state in our nation does not fund things for the poor with $$ taken from another wealthier place?

There are states that take substantially less. You can pay exactly zero income tax in several. And, for the record, I'm okay with states levying flat sales taxes, so if they want to take money from me in that way, that's fair. But I don't really spend much, so good luck bleeding me dry in that regard I guess...

 

[WedgeDawg]

Hi everyone. In order to keep pre-allo as focused on topics regarding the medical school admissions process as possible, this thread will be moved to the Topics in Healthcare forum. Please continue discussion there! Thanks!

 

[efle]

There are states that take substantially less. You can pay exactly zero income tax in several. And, for the record, I'm okay with states levying flat sales taxes, so if they want to take money from me in that way, that's fair. But I don't really spend much, so good luck bleeding me dry in that regard I guess...

Now that's interesting. If the wealthy paying a little extra for gas to buy the poor kids textbooks doesn't bother you the same way their income being taxed does, then you can be at peace.

 

[efle]

Hi everyone. In order to keep pre-allo as focused on topics regarding the medical school admissions process as possible, this thread will be moved to the Topics in Healthcare forum. Please continue discussion there! Thanks!

RIP thread

 

[WedgeDawg]

RIP thread

There's still a redirect in pre-allo

 

[Mad Jack]

Now that's interesting. If the wealthy paying a little extra for gas to buy the poor kids textbooks doesn't bother you the same way their income being taxed does, then you can be at peace.

I mean, if we're talking fair taxes... Yeah, governments gotta run, but taxing those that work hard to ridiculous degrees isn't something I'm okay with. Taxing mindless consumption is perfectly fair.

There should be tax breaks on food, clothes, and other essentials. But everything else should be taxed at the same rate to pay for the state and local government.

 

[Mad Jack]

Should the standard for the test of having a reasonable shot at self determination AND succeeding be based only on the most exceptional (and unlikely) examples like yourself?

The ability to succeed is measured by the exceptions. Success is generally an anomaly- the vast majority of people are destined for mediocrity, while a minority of people are destined for abject failure. And I use "destined" in the sense of "that's where they'll end up," not in the sense of predestination.

You certainly still have the ability to fail in proposed systems though. You can't stop someone from dropping out. If someone old enough to make the decision would rather dig ditches, then so be it. The problem is when they don't even have the option to go to school, because they have to dig ditches all day to help their parents pay for their food.

You guys are proposing that someone has the right to free healthcare and free education. That means that they can not work, live off of welfare, enjoy their free four years at college barely scraping by with Ds while they party, and enjoy the same education and health care that I got all on my dime. That isn't failure, that's succeeding at getting by with zero effort, and there's plenty of people that view milking the system for every dollar they can as "success" and view the government as nothing more than a source of handouts.

 

[efle]

I mean, if we're talking fair taxes... Yeah, governments gotta run, but taxing those that work hard to ridiculous degrees isn't something I'm okay with. Taxing mindless consumption is perfectly fair.

There should be tax breaks on food, clothes, and other essentials. But everything else should be taxed at the same rate to pay for the state and local government.

Sure would be nice to get to keep all this $$ in Cali instead of having to send it to support the South

I don't suppose you could tell me how a state like Mississippi is so firmly in the small government camp while taking in so much federal money. Like do they not realize, or somehow they justify it to themselves?

 

[Mad Jack]

Hi everyone. In order to keep pre-allo as focused on topics regarding the medical school admissions process as possible, this thread will be moved to the Topics in Healthcare forum. Please continue discussion there! Thanks!

Should've moved it to the SPF for the lulz.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Should've moved it to the SPF for the lulz.

Trying not to engulf all of SDN in the fury of a nuclear explosion

 

[Mad Jack]

Sure would be nice to get to keep all this $$ in Cali instead of having to send it to support the South

I don't suppose you could tell me how a state like Mississippi is so firmly in the small government camp while taking in so much federal money. Like do they not realize, or somehow they justify it to themselves?

They should lose their federal funding, because they're run by Republicans that don't know what "small government" should be. As to many of the less federally dependent states, they also tend to be some of the states with the largest state taxes in the nation- New Jersey, Connecticut, California, and New York are all in the top 5 highest state tax burdens in the nation, for instance. So they cut their dependence on federal funding, but largely by taxing their citizens like ****ing crazy to do so.

 

[efle]

That means that they can not work, live off of welfare, enjoy their free four years at college barely scraping by with Ds while they party, and enjoy the same education and health care that I got all on my dime.

You can dismiss people for ****ty academics. You can limit them to 4 years and one attempt, to avoid moral hazard. You can have a small copay at GP access if you want to reduce moral hazard in healthcare too, etc. As for people being able to sit at home getting high on free money, sure it sounds scary, but in reality there are nations that run just fine with much more generous welfare than we have. Give people the opportunity and they tend to take it. I'm more concerned with antics like Walmart, paying people so they end up getting aid in essentially a tax subsidy to boost their profits.

So they cut their dependence on federal funding, but largely by taxing their citizens like ****ing crazy to do so.

Which would leave you happier though right? Since for you, having the city take from the rich to pay for the poor feels better than the same process federally

 

[Mad Jack]

You can dismiss people for ****ty academics. You can limit them to 4 years and one attempt, to avoid moral hazard. You can have a small copay at GP access if you want to reduce moral hazard in healthcare too, etc. As for people being able to sit at home getting high on free money, sure it sounds scary, but in reality there are nations that run just fine with much more generous welfare than we have. Give people the opportunity and they tend to take it. I'm more concerned with antics like Walmart, paying people so they end up getting aid in essentially a tax subsidy to boost their profits.


Which would leave you happier though right? Since for you, having the city take from the rich to pay for the poor feels better than the same process federally

Except they do it via "progressive" income taxes, which I completely disagree with.

As to the "other countries do it and they're fine!"- Have you looked at projections for Europe's economic future? They're bleak on all accounts, and it is entirely because of their entitlement spending.

 

[efle]

Except they do it via "progressive" income taxes, which I completely disagree with.

As to the "other countries do it and they're fine!"- Have you looked at projections for Europe's economic future? They're bleak on all accounts, and it is entirely because of their entitlement spending.

Eh, makes sense to me. 2k more on a 20k income is going to change quality of life much more than 20k more on a 200k income.

I'd love to read some infallible, unanimous economic prediction that welfare queens in Europe are about to solely cause economic collapse. Unless you mean like $$ going to immigrants which doesn't quite jive with the logic of our discussion prior - those arent people that grew up in the society being given the opportunities I advocate for. I'm not one of the insane far left people that thinks we should try to stuff everyone that wants to come into Germany and give them all the same life quality as an unemployed German citizen

 

[Mad Jack]

Eh, makes sense to me. 2k more on a 20k income is going to change quality of life much more than 20k more on a 200k income.

I'd love to read some infallible, unanimous economic prediction that welfare queens in Europe are about to solely cause economic collapse. Unless you mean like $$ going to immigrants which doesn't quite jive with the logic of our discussion prior - those arent people that grew up in the society being given the opportunities I advocate for. I'm not one of the insane far left people that thinks we should try to stuff everyone that wants to come into Germany and give them all the same life quality as an unemployed German citizen

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/reforming-the-european-welfare-state/
A brief but good article on the topic from UPenn. Europe has 25% of the world's GDP, but 50% of its social spending, with a declining population and a growing immigrant underclass.

Such systems are sustainable, but only in periods of both population and economic growth. The worker to beneficiary ratios are getting to slim, and they grow slimmer still as our populations are reaching the point of decline- https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

Now, in a society in which there's 10 workers for every beneficiary, giving a person the average check of $1,180.80/month plus the average medicare benefit of $18,017.19 per year doesn't seem too crazy, society can swing it. But we've got a 2.8 worker:beneficiary ratio. That comes to $32,186.79 average, per retiree, which comes down to $11,495 per worker, who earns an average of $51,939. So, before we've given medicare to everyone, before we've given college to everyone, the average worker is paying nearly 11.5k of their 55k salary to support others. Now give MILLIONS of more people healthcare, and spend BILLIONS more on school. It just isn't doable unless you've got a large middle class that is expanding at a constant rate, with a high income and worker:benefit ratio. Eventually you run out of money to take, and the system goes bankrupt, as happened in Greece.

As to European welfare queens not abusing the system, look no further than Greece for what happens over there: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577263863362854348

 

[deleted480308]

In full disclosure, I'm heavily influenced by your avatar when I read your posts. Taken together this time I see an old codger with unkempt beard holed up in his beaten down two room ranch home on a prairie in Wyoming with the nearest gas station 2 hours away while you're staring at your door with a rusted rifle in your hands. Usually I see a very conservative, uptight white guy struggling with a pretty significant hemorrhoidal prolapse (re: the avatar).

No self respecting man leaves his rifle rusted

And you ducked the question

 

[johnfree7]

. It just isn't doable unless you've got a large middle class that is expanding at a constant rate, with a high income and worker:benefit ratio. Eventually you run out of money to take, and the system goes bankrupt, as happened in Greece.

So you have the well-off who make 200k or more contribute a little more taxes. They can afford it.

 

[coldcase331]

So you have the well-off who make 200k or more contribute a little more taxes. They can afford it.

That's not your call to make, many people who reach that level of income had to put in years of hard work either through climbing the corporate ladder, or invest a lot of money to fund education or build a business. Those in that income bracket already contribute 30%, AND taxes from investments on top of that. Then let's not forget state and SS, etc. taxes on top of that as well


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app