It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Woman shoots herself over foreclosure

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by Rinorino2

The reason why American socialized medicine would be screwed up is that the American Government's culture of civil service despicable. The American Government's workers are generally lazy, inefficient, and inflexible. Government workers are for the most part guaranteed a job for life (barring an extreme act of incompetence or recklessness) and do not have to work to maintain their positions. Let me provide an example to illustrate the difference between Australian and US government civil service culture.

When I visited Australia and got off the plane I was in the custom's que. There was a que for non-Australian citizens and a que for Australian citizens. The line for non-Austalian citizens was quite long, but nobody was waiting in the Australian Citizens que. The customs official in Australian citizen's que beckoned at my party to come to her, and she began processing non-Australians.

In America, the situation would be quite different. First, half the people at the ques would be on break. Second, if workers who were not on break were idle, they would not act affirmatively to find people to help. Finally, the workers would use "the rules" as a shield to protect them from labor.

If socialized medicine is going to work in the US, the US needs to drastically reform its civil service culture. The US will need to demand efficeincy, productivity, and excellence out of its workers. Agencies will not only need the flexibility to fire workers, but they should be required to fire under-performing workers. Bureacracy will also have to be slashed.

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by carewemust

I agree with your assessment of McCain's rebate. Rebates are over-rated. Lump sums are far less effective than actual increments. I'd rather get more money on my pay check than a one-time check.

I also understand what you are saying about who picks up the unpaid bills. That makes sense. But doesn't this also make sense:

We are expected to believe in trickle-down economics. That if we give tax breaks and help corporations in every way, they will pass saving onto the consumer. Any extra money they will use to create jobs. Now, I'm not saying I agree with that theory, because I think greed ends up trumping the end result, but I do agree that cost gets passed down.

In fact, I am 100% sure that the more tabs these companies have to pay, the more cost they are going to pass down. So the company and the consumer (the tax payers) are sharing this cost. In essence, we are already paying for it.

And you have to factor in the me factor also. I'm 25 years old, and not too bad off. I do okay. But I am currently back in school and working just under full time so I don't receive any benefits. My school isn't providing them and I certainly can't afford paying more for my health insurance than I do for my rent.

So even though I have a nice little apartment that I pay for, a nice little car that I make on-time payments on, a good job, and I'm going to school, if I get sick, there is nothing I can do. The hospital will have to take care of me and I won't ever be able to pay the excessive tab.

The current health care system we have doesn't just effect the lower-class anymore. It is creeping up and hurting all of our wallets and keeping people like me from being protected.


I missed the part about the current system. It's not regulated properly. As a previous poster showed, Canada and other countries have socialized health care set up and running well. Doctors can still be well paid, lines don't get any more excessive than they already are, and people can get the care they deserve.

Even if it did tack on a few extra dollars per week to the more wealthy citizens of this country, it would be completely worth it because it morally and ethically the correct move to make.

Looking ahead, do you believe the more advanced societies of the future will supply health care to all comers, or do you believe the current system of "only the good die young" will continue to thrive?

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by MJND1990

If a 90 year old person stole your car, would you call the cops to report it stolen or just let them have it and buy yourself another car?

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:18 PM
On one level, I can sympathize with the lady, but we must keep in mind two things.

1. Nobody forced this lady to shoot herself, she shot herself on her own volition.

2. Nobody forced this lady to get into a bad loan.

People need to take the good with the bad. If we are going to live in a society where adults are free to make contracts and make money, people are going to have to accept the consequences of the contracts they make and pay for the losses they incurr.

If we want the government to protect our losses, it must also take our gains or we will become broke. If we want the government to protect us from "unfair" contracts, then the government will need to create all sorts of regulations that will not just "protect" the people, but limit their actions.

My proposal to this mess is to allow people to elect to pay an "idiot tax" when they reach a certain age. Those that elect to pay the "idiot tax" will be taxed at a higher rate. They will be "bailed out" any time they make a bad decision. They will also get the benefits of a host of regulations that will protect them from "unfair" deals.

Those that do not pay the idiot tax will be on their own. They will not be allowed to have their debts foregiven by bankruptcy. If they loose money, they will not have their losses protected. If these people mess up, they will literally risk being thrown out of their homes without the shirts on their backs.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in