Not true, every one can afford social sercicing because it's a small fee to pay.
Not on those silly minimum wages in the US.
Not everyone is going to get sick or you would have a national emergency from a disaster or a war where everyone would pitch in with a helping hand
anyway.
How well did that work during the great depression?
The price for social servicing is lower as more people participate in it. You would say that.. why should I pay for others but you pay anyway way more
for the insurance company than you would pay for anyone else
But when those most needing it in bad times are even poor in good times, the system won't work, because the poor can't pay into it and the rich
won't pay into it.
, but I agree that social service should be optional, just for the people who would want it.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that, so there is nothing for you to agree with.
I would say the insurance company can't do what a bunch of people can do when they stick together.
What insurance company is going to compete with milions of individuals when it comes to funding.It's simple the insurance company would colapse and
can't compete with the horde, it takes alot for some company
to compete since they are a few at the top against a mass of people who would only pitch in with a few bucks making out what the other side manages
with alot of effort.Cash would come in in small quantities but from alot of people so I don't see why it would not work.How does a hive work?
You wrote that taxes should be for poor people only, for those who wanted social services. Well, the rich don't need them, so why should they pay
into the system. This leaves only the poor who can't afford to pay into the system. A system like that would go bankrupt every time the economy went
into recession.
For people complaining and that are against socialising some things and making them public I agree, they should be able to chose if they want in.
Only poor people would want to join and we are back to bankruptcy again.
Since this eliminates competition socialisation should only be aplied to basic needs, there should be a minimal level where everyone could get a
helping hand.
competition hasn't benefitted the average american in relation to healthcare. The average US healthcare costs pr person are twice those of the
average european healthcare costs pr person, and the performance is generally better in europe.
For example I would be against giving money to people that can work but do not work at all because they just don't feel like working,
AFAIU most unemployment systems function on a performance basis, ie. if you can document that you are applying for x number of jobs per week you are
still in the system, if you don't apply for x jobs a week, you are out of the system.
but I would participate in a program of "what if something happens to you and you can't work" Social values should help people who can't really
compete due to diferent issues and there should be a limit. Maybe you came from a poor family with no chance of making it out.And even if you will do
your best maybe you will have what you want but only after 35,40 years of age, you have to work on that hard.Until then you should have basic needs in
case something happens to you.
Congratulations, you have just described how things work in every scandinavian and european welfarestate.
The only problem with social servicing is managment, if things are optimised then it will work in an efficient mode.
Actually, management can do alot of harm to efficiency. A healthcare system should not be run as a business, it should be run by administrators, not
managers.
[edit on 23-11-2008 by aaa2500]
