The "Denmark" gambit....

Just got a Occupy Wall Street sent on Facebook to me....never asked for their site to send me their 'stuff'....cough,cough....thanks Facebook.

It showed pictures of happy people promoting their version of Socialism. Citing free medical, free education...frankly, a much more stress free society.....Except many are aware there's no such thing as 'free'....

I also receive, by choice, The federalist Papers, and other 'right' sites. They've been painting a slightly different picture. Around a 40% minimum tax rate. A 25% sales tax rate. If you earn 80K per year, you pay around a 66% tax rate. A 180% tax on vehicles where a 20K Honda in the U.S. costs 50K in Denmark. The few who can afford a car or house is now largely owned by the very Wall St. crowd....Banks...for life paying immense amounts for the very items that we measure 'upward mobility in the U.S..

I can't argue that the so-called upward mobility is disappearing here, but is the Socialist approach viable here? Is it viable in Denmark or is it so much 'bull'? I also understand that Sweden is in deep doo doo, financially as well.( Not that we're not...)

Let's dissect this...

Thoughts?

Both sides can be assumed to exaggerate their claims, so let's address it.

I bought my car with cash, costs me about 12000$ and I didnt need to borrow any money for my car. But of-course if I wanted to buy a new car, then yes. But that I cant afford. (Very important word, afford)

You know, most in Denmark have money. But yes, if we buy a house we will be in debt for a looong time. But that depends on how you live and how much luxuary you want. I for one, dont need all kind of #ty items that I dont use after 1 week.

Oh and you know what? Our government have just wasted around 20 BILLION of OUR tax, ON NOTHING, just gone.

20billion we wont ever see again.
We are 6 million citizens... Freaking 20 billion danish crowns is gone for ever. Man, bullocks.

originally posted by: nwtruckerIt showed pictures of happy people promoting their version of Socialism. Citing free medical, free education...frankly, a much more stress free society.....Except many are aware there's no such thing as 'free'....

Free healthcare and education ain't socialism. You pay for it through your taxes anyway. My taxes are OK too.

Probably the average US person would benefit from free healthcare al la the "socialist" model, as the healthcare insurance system in the States is just a massive money spinner, meaning you pay twice as much as the average Brit, but have worse clinical outcomes. Health should not have a profit motive to the extent that it exists in the US, but that's up to you Americans work out and address.

a reply to: ypperst

Well, apparently wasting Billions is a common denominator in any form of gov't....

What kind and year car did you get?

You say most in Denmark have money. Is that based on frugality? A healthy economy? Both?

Do you feel your system with a population of 6 million is workable in a nation of 330 million?

a reply to: nwtrucker

The most obvious thought here is if the Dane's were unhappy about their economic/social model then they would vote to change it. That does not seem to be the case so I assume as a nation they are generally happy with things as they are.

Not everyone views quality of life and affluence determined by the shiniest new car and the ability to buy it by denying their citizens free health care. That is a uniquely US thing as far as I see it.
Me, I like the NHS in the UK, been fixed many times over the years. I'd pay an extra 5% in income tax if it was dedicated to improving free heathcare for my country folk...but then I'm not a right wing person from the US.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: nwtruckerIt showed pictures of happy people promoting their version of Socialism. Citing free medical, free education...frankly, a much more stress free society.....Except many are aware there's no such thing as 'free'....

Free healthcare and education ain't socialism. You pay for it through your taxes anyway. My taxes are OK too.

Probably the average US person would benefit from free healthcare al la the "socialist" model, as the healthcare insurance system in the States is just a massive money spinner, meaning you pay twice as much as the average Brit, but have worse clinical outcomes. Health should not have a profit motive to the extent that it exists in the US, but that's up to you Americans work out and address.


Free health care and education may not be clear cut socialism, but it sure not free enterprise either. I'd question the worse clinical outcomes, as well. That's neither here nor there as no system for health is even approaching an ideal....unless your definition is nothing out of your pocket...directly.

Either way, thanks for the feed-back.

a reply to: grainofsand

I'm not disagreeing one way or the other. After all, we've learned over the centuries on this side of the pond that you Brits can do no wrong and your system is, per force, ne plus ultra.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grainofsand

I'm not disagreeing one way or the other. After all, we've learned over the centuries on this side of the pond that you Brits can do no wrong and your system is, per force, ne plus ultra.....

Haha no! There's plenty broken in the UK but I'm happy to pay taxes so that everyone gets health care/treatment/medicine, even if you are homeless without two pennies to rub together.

What is to dislike about that?

a reply to: nwtrucker

No it would not work on a fedral level in the USA.

You have to many layers of beurocracy and government plus a vast population with crumbleing infrastructure it would collapse in a financial wreck.

It works in Denmark, Sweden and Norway due to there small size and small homogeneous population.

As for sweden its actually doing rather well as they are not in a deficit like us. Nor is Norway I believe. I think denmark has a small deficiet but it should be gone in the next few years.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grainofsand

I'm not disagreeing one way or the other. After all, we've learned over the centuries on this side of the pond that you Brits can do no wrong and your system is, per force, ne plus ultra.....

Haha no! There's plenty broken in the UK but I'm happy to pay taxes so that everyone gets health care/treatment/medicine, even if you are homeless without two pennies to rub together.

What is to dislike about that?

Take it as a culture thing mate.

Over there health care is a privilege not a right.

Here its a right.

Its two diffrent minds of thinking. I doubt you can convince some American s healthcare is a right anymore you can convince a Saudi a woman has rights.

a reply to: grainofsand

The view here is there's always a 'price to be paid' and it's more than the 'dollar issue'-after all, the healthy always pays for the treatment of the ill, one way or another- for example, what care I can get, the degree of it before some 'committee' decides whether I merit it, cost-wise, or not.

The political infusion into what should be a medically controlled issue. My health care options are now diminished, the coverage cost much higher and I am without the options in both the level/type of coverage I receive and it's forced on me.

I-and the majority of U.S. citizens, 70% plus- have a problem with that. We didn't vote for it, it wasn't any campaign issue that was agreed to by the majority.

Bottom line is the enforcement of it. It should be, in my view, a State by State issue. Those that want it can vote it in. Those States that don't, prefer the original system, can say 'pass'. That follows the intention of the Constitution which restricts Federal interference in State issues.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
It should be, in my view, a State by State issue. Those that want it can vote it in. Those States that don't, prefer the original system, can say 'pass'. That follows the intention of the Constitution which restricts Federal interference in State issues.

Interesting you say that because I was thinking exactly the same just now.
I wondered if a state held a referendum about becoming exempt from the ACA and instead increasing taxes to fund universal state health care would turn out?
It could work at a state level but then the obvious potential problem would be poor people from other states moving there to take advantage of it.

I take no pleasure out of discussions about US health care or lack thereof. I have often felt sad for ATS members when I read their stories of pain and suffering because they cannot afford their medication or a simple operation which could change their lives.
It is tragic that so many of your countryfolk still have effectively no healthcare, scandal is probably the correct word though.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Everyone will get ill at some point.

Actually your more likely to get a committee decide your fate in the USA through the insurance companys than here.

Here you only get a "committie" if the treatment is experimental or your dying and the treatment is highly unlikely to work. IE you have stage 4 cancer and the treatment only works for stage 2 breast cancer.
Apart from that you get treatment no questions asked and no committie. I have two aunts receive the latest anti cancer drugs with no committee's or forms or panels.


And like the US if you dont like tge NHS you can pay to go private and get whatever treatment you so desire.


Dont believe everything you hear off fox "news".

a reply to: grainofsand

Much hyperbole on the poor not getting coverage or medical services.

About 5 years ago, I was driving for a company that had no insurance for it's workers....very small. I developed a fairly rare form of lymphoma, a large-celled skin lymphoma. I had zero insurance or means to cover the treatments.

To make a long story short, The State of Washington had it's own form of umbrella to cover cases like myself. I received the needed help and my bill was far smaller than what the average person would receive that had coverage with a co-pay.

There was no hoops to jump through. I received the treatment virtually without question. Automatically.

The numbers cited without 'health 'insurance' did not exclude those that qualified for health 'coverage' via Medicare or State programs. The number of 30 million 'uninsured also included the illegals that where without coverage....well over 10 million.

I am NOT saying there was those that didn't receive proper care or care at all. Obviously, there were. I AM saying it was as much a political effort and as such exaggerations were/are then norm.

So the United States debt is 18,157,779,717,178 as I type and someone says Sweden is in the s3it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the US debt 73% of GDP, whereas Sweden is only 40%???

And that is comparing two different countries, were without I shadow of doubt I would rather bring my kids up in Sweden and not the USA.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grainofsand

To make a long story short, The State of Washington had it's own form of umbrella to cover cases like myself. I received the needed help and my bill was far smaller than what the average person would receive that had coverage with a co-pay.

So you still had to pay then? What if you were homeless and didn't have two dimes to rub together, would you still have had the treatment?

Here in the UK yes definitely, and the homeless person would receive whatever expensive drugs they needed without having to pay anything.

If that is the case in the US then I'll accept the claim of hyperbole, but if a citizen with no money is required to find money for medical care then hyperbole it ain't.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nwtrucker

And like the US if you dont like tge NHS you can pay to go private and get whatever treatment you so desire.

True, a mate of mine with private health insurance was gutted when a procedure the NHS doctors advised needed carrying out was done free of charge through a contract arrangement at a hospital owned by his insurance company.
I took the piss, laughingly asking why does he bother paying to have that private healthcare lol.

a reply to: crazyewok

In the current debacle that is the ACA-I turned 65 three days ago- any major treatment expense automatically goes before what is politically labelled the "death committee" at age 67. They decide, based on the overall cost of the treatment and life-expectancy whether you merit that service.

No I do not have an option to private coverage. At my age, and I am required to use the ATA sited to prove coverage, I am sent to the Medicare site. I am not permitted private coverage options that I am aware of...believe it or not.

I would also disagree in that if I had private coverage that covered my serious illness, they'd cover that expense otherwise find themselves with a line of law-suits sitting at their doorstep.

Realize that the ACA is NOT socialized medicine. It is enforced private coverage....unless you reach senior status like myself. As each person gets to that age they are moved to Medicare with no further option.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Healthcare & primary education are already socialistic programs right here in the good ole USA, it's just that many people have a hard time admitting that fact. It's no different when it comes to firefighting, law enforcement, etc..

When it comes to our healthcare system here in the USA, who do you think picks up the tab when the uninsured show up in our emergency rooms for treatment? Answer: The taxpayers or "society." It doesn't matter whether it's paid for through Medicaid or property taxes that fund county hospitals etc., it's at taxpayer expense.

For me, the question isn't about the necessity of a certain amount of socialism in every civilized society.

It's more of, are we getting the "biggest bang for our buck" with the program's we utilize?

When compared to other advanced nations, is our current system here is the USA the most efficient and cost effective? NO!

Does our current system produce the best statistical outcomes? NO!

Does our current system protect it's citizens from healthcare related bankruptcy? NO!

If we're paying for it anyway, why not strive to see that the system we utilize is the most efficient and productive on the planet based on practices that are proven to work?

When it comes to whether or not a healthcare system would work the same for a nation of 300 million people compared to one with only 6 million, I have to ask;

When I'm debating someone about small business vs. big business, the common argument (that I don't necessarily disagree with) is that big, large volume, businesses have an edge over their smaller, mom & pop competitors.

Why wouldn't the same principles hold true with respect to healthcare?

Especially when it includes recapturing funds that are currently used by private healthcare insurance providers to fund entire depts. whose sole purpose is to deny claims and generate profits off of someone's misery.

At the very least, you'd think we could do as good as those other developed nations.

originally posted by: grainofsand
And like the US if you dont like tge NHS you can pay to go private and get whatever treatment you so desire.

True, a mate of mine with private health insurance was gutted when a procedure the NHS doctors advised needed carrying out was done free of charge through a contract arrangement at a hospital owned by his insurance company.
I took the piss, laughingly asking why does he bother paying to have that private healthcare lol.

Yep. Private does not always mean better.

I found that out the hard way after spending 3,000 on private dentists for 7 years. Only to be absolutely p7ssed off with the treatment I received that I thought, I'll just go on the NHS. The difference was that my current NHS dentist is better.