How many of you are really prepared for the Dog Eat Dog society you relish and preach on this site?

reply to post by burdman30ott6


You are specifically discussing the disabled which is why I am bringing this up.

SSDI is not an "entitlement" - it is an insurance program. It's mandatory, but it is still an insurance program. You need to be enrolled in it for a period of time to become vested in order to even qualify for a claim, and if you are awarded one the amount is based on how much you paid into it prior.

I've been working since I was twelve, and even then I was not excluded from having to make contributions to it.

The private DI I enrolled in at the company I last worked for was voluntary but the premise is the same.

If you were not aware of this angle regarding the disabled, then no harm, no foul, but if you were it is coming across as a bit abrasive to people like me.

Originally posted by crazyewok
Im defending those who either CANT work or want to work but need a little help be it the healthcare needed to make them well enough to work or help finding or creating work in a area where there is NO work.

Fine, then advocate passing some laws that require a certain level of pro-bono work be done by health care professionals, housing contractors, licensed individuals, etc. Most professional license holders are already subject to a certain level of expected civil requirements to retain their licenses each licensing period. It would not be at all difficult to mandate that every licensed physician and nurse be required to serve 40 hours per year of gratis care. Develop some laws to protect health providers from haphazard litigation and some of the costs would go down there, too. Go after the stop-loss policies of chains like Walmart that require the stores throw out tons of perfectly good food rather than delivering it to food services to be distributed to the needy. Push for better tax breaks for people who donate to human alms trusts and then assign a board of trustees to invest those alms to create a fund that the impoverished can draw their needs from.

These are all things which would absolutely work and would work better than the current system. They aren't enacted because they fail to reinforce the concept that the middle class is nothing more than a goddamned pawn in a game between the two political colleges in this country. We're hammered with it from paycheck #1 to our final retirement disbursment before death, then hit doubly after death with the death taxes and whatnot. The message is "We exist to feed the machine." At some point the gravy train MUST end and a sensible fair system must be put into action. If it doesn't happen the middle class will die and then this "Dog eat Dog" concept the OP presented will actually come to pass, but we'll all be down in the sewage slugging it out for crumbs. That scenario can't happen if the teat is withdrawn while there's still milk available, but it damn sure will occur if the cow is milked bone dry.

reply to post by crazyewok


A little story, ewok.

Last year, October'ish. One Sat. night, I went through 6 1/2 hrs of the worse pain in my life. Right in the middle of my chest. Didn't know what it was. Heart attack? Didn't seem right. Actually decided to take myself to the ER after about 4 hrs. Of course, as everyone knows, go with clean underwear, so I took a shower first. That took an hour. Sat down after dressing and felt it start to ease a bit, so waited. End of that 6 1/2, decided I was ok to just go to bed. It was 4:30 AM.

Next 2 weeks, felt a pressure in my lower chest, but wasn't anything I couldn't deal with, until one night at work, my co-workers looked at me and said HOLY ^%$(!!!!

Apparently, over the course of about 2 hrs. I'd turned a nasty shade of yellow. AKA ... Jaundice. Started feeling nauseous too, so went home. To the clinic next morn., where I found, after several tests at two different hospitals, that I had a gallstone lodged in my bile duct. The pain I felt those 2 weeks earlier were because of biliary colic. I'll let you look that up.

I was immediately pointed toward Hanover NH, and Dartmouth Medical Center. Told I needed emergency surgery to remove my gallbladder, and clear the blockage before it 'killed my pancreas'. Doctors words, not mine.

Story shorter. I had no insurance. Obviously couldn't afford the operation. Dartmouth decided the gallbladder didn't need to come out, but they did go in and remove the stone/block. Outpatient, two days later. 3 1/2 hr. procedure. Thankfully, I was out, as they went down my throat with 2 rather large tubes.

Didn't cost me a thing. After filling out the necessary forms for financial aid, they determined that I qualified for 100% writeoff. Didn't hurt too that Dartmouth is a teaching hospital, with billions in endowments.

I DID have to pay the other two smaller hospitals bills, and well as one from a radiology service. Out of pocket. I didn't complain.

Point is, there is a way. You just have to find it.

I'll also add. Now that I'm working and making decent money again, I'm slipping a check to Dartmouth every so often. When I get, I like to give back.

I'll also add again... The bill for the above, if I did have to pay it, was over $12,000, not including the 4 office checkups afterwards.

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
You are specifically discussing the disabled which is why I am bringing this up.

SSDI is not an "entitlement" - it is an insurance program. It's mandatory, but it is still an insurance program. You need to be enrolled in it for a period of time to become vested in order to even qualify for a claim, and if you are awarded one the amount is based on how much you paid into it prior.

I am not referring to Social Security or SSDI. I am referring to entitlement programs in which people are allowed (and even encouraged) to consume more than they contributed from the money pile. Sorry if that confusion was my fault, I probably should have explained that better along the line. My beef is with welfare, Obamacare, endless unemployment benefits (again, beyond what the individual has paid into the system), etc.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

...and in that entire string of words you just typed, still not a single attempt to actually answer the question I have been asking over, and over, and over, and damned over in this thread.
Again, explain why it is my or any other taxpayer's place to financially support anyone outside of my own?

Well if you stopped your black and white mentality and jumping on all those that actually defend some social programs as "librals" , "progressives" and "commies" we could sit down and have REAL dialog and try andactually find a good solution.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
can you maybe offer an actual answer to the question that has sat for 19 pages completely unanswered?

I did come up with a couple of Idea a few pages back.

1) To offer welfare to those able to work as no intrest goverment loans you pay back at a responible rate once you start working. Therefore those that take welfare are the ones who end up paying for it. And have strict moniteering so if someone keeps takeing these loans for more than 6 months they need to dam well show WHY or lose all there bellonging and get thrown onto the street.

2)Of couse there will aways be some too ill to work but they are a small minority so the bill to help these wont be large.

3) Any CEO, politician or Banker who lossed large sums of money or makes a action that results in large jobs losses has to face a tribunal and if found guility of fraud, corruption or deleibrate negligance have all there assets conficated and thrown on to the streets.

4) Laws stopping Large companys from makeing redundacys while they are drawing large profits or there CEO are drawing large bonuses unless they can demonstrate that not doing so with cause damage in the long term.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
What rationale is there to expecting members of the middle class to foot the bill for anyone outside their own household?

No I agree 100% the middle classes and lower working classes are footing too much of the bill. The responsibility should be shifted elsewere. There are other options.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
How can it possibly be "fair" to push down upon an entire swath of the populace in the name of subsidizing another swath?

No I agree a more fair arranngement needs to be made. But no one seems to want to sit down and talk.

I am guessing the ruleing classes and corrupt mega rich like it that way. divide and rule......and you and all the other closed minded right wingers as well as closed mined librals are all falling for it.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Apologies to you then good sir, and thanks for clearing that up.

(I also have beefs with a lot of those things too, you are correct in one of your earlier posts that they are in dire need of an overhaul.)

Originally posted by opethPA

Originally posted by Bone75
That's why we need to construct a society that gets rid of money and rewards those who eliminate jobs rather than those who "create" them.

So how does that help or reward the millions of people that having rewarding and fulfilling jobs?

For 40-50 hours a week I am being challenged mentally in a job that is rewarding on multiple levels. I enjoy getting up every morning and going to where I work, like the 13 other people on my team and the hundreds of others in my department and the thousands of others where i work

That doesn't make me or any of the people that create those jobs a bad person.

If you really wanted to be extreme you could have separate cities. One for those that create jobs and the people that enjoy working them could exist in one city and those that don't like working and don't create jobs in the other ..

oh wait..that wouldn't work so maybe things should just be mixed like they are because their is no one right solution to the equation of what makes a person happy.

My plan is to eliminate money and redistribute the work. When you get rid of the financial sector and the millions upon millions of jobs that support it... there's really not much left to do.

With the work that remains, we could set the retirement age at 50 and require every able bodied man and woman to work 3 days a week. If you can come up with a way to eliminate your job using technology or a better system, then you get to retire from your next job early. Come up with a way to eliminate that job, and you get to retire from the next even earlier. And so on...

If you choose a job that requires a longer work week, then every extra day you work is taken off of your retirement age.

Only 408,000 people in the United States produce enough food to feed our entire country and provide grains and meat to many third world countries around the world. Just imagine what we could do if we wake up and realize that the way we are doing things is stupid and backwards. You would have the time freedom and the resources to do whatever you want.

This WILL work, and it is going to work. Its only a matter of time.

Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by crazyewok

 

A little story, ewok.

Last year, October'ish. One Sat. night, I went through 6 1/2 hrs of the worse pain in my life. Right in the middle of my chest. Didn't know what it was. Heart attack? Didn't seem right. Actually decided to take myself to the ER after about 4 hrs. Of course, as everyone knows, go with clean underwear, so I took a shower first. That took an hour. Sat down after dressing and felt it start to ease a bit, so waited. End of that 6 1/2, decided I was ok to just go to bed. It was 4:30 AM.

Next 2 weeks, felt a pressure in my lower chest, but wasn't anything I couldn't deal with, until one night at work, my co-workers looked at me and said HOLY ^%$(!!!!

Apparently, over the course of about 2 hrs. I'd turned a nasty shade of yellow. AKA ... Jaundice. Started feeling nauseous too, so went home. To the clinic next morn., where I found, after several tests at two different hospitals, that I had a gallstone lodged in my bile duct. The pain I felt those 2 weeks earlier were because of biliary colic. I'll let you look that up.

I was immediately pointed toward Hanover NH, and Dartmouth Medical Center. Told I needed emergency surgery to remove my gallbladder, and clear the blockage before it 'killed my pancreas'. Doctors words, not mine.

Story shorter. I had no insurance. Obviously couldn't afford the operation. Dartmouth decided the gallbladder didn't need to come out, but they did go in and remove the stone/block. Outpatient, two days later. 3 1/2 hr. procedure. Thankfully, I was out, as they went down my throat with 2 rather large tubes.

Didn't cost me a thing. After filling out the necessary forms for financial aid, they determined that I qualified for 100% writeoff. Didn't hurt too that Dartmouth is a teaching hospital, with billions in endowments.

I DID have to pay the other two smaller hospitals bills, and well as one from a radiology service. Out of pocket. I didn't complain.

Point is, there is a way. You just have to find it.

I'll also add. Now that I'm working and making decent money again, I'm slipping a check to Dartmouth every so often. When I get, I like to give back.

No nice story and glad you got that sorted out! Fact is you GOT treatment.

Thing is as you said you did get " financial aid". The way some on here are talking they would have taken that away.

reply to post by crazyewok


But that aid DID NOT come from the government. It came from the people that provided the service. Very big difference. They did not 'steal' from others in order to give to me.

In terms of healthcare, the approach taken to solve the problem of high prices was to;
Create Obamacare in order to pay for the high prices INSTEAD OF LOWERING PRICES!

In terms of taking care of people who can't work;
We used to do that. Neighbors used to help out neighbors. Towns and villages used to help out people. Brothers keeper and all that.
Then government stepped in to shoulder the onus of taking care of those who couldn't work by taking our money and distributing it. Now the government does the same for people who DON'T want to work.

The lines have become blurred. Critics are now faced with the accusations that they "don't care". That they are "greedy". All because they don't want to pay more into a system that works on wealth distribution.

The system is rigged. We're basically screwed. Those of us who earn and make money will be bled dry by a system that'll suck every penny out of our pocket.

*meh*

I've come to terms with the fact that the system is rigged. That there is no way we can escape the sucking vortex of entitlements.

I'm saving what I can, preparing when I can; for the day when I can say to everyone, "#### off!" And get off the grid.

Until then, the leach-government will continue to bleed me.

What bothers me most of all in this is it seems like a certain segment is chomping at the bit to oppress others. In my opinion this coupled with the anticipation for such a world is sickening.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by opethPA

Originally posted by Bone75
That's why we need to construct a society that gets rid of money and rewards those who eliminate jobs rather than those who "create" them.

So how does that help or reward the millions of people that having rewarding and fulfilling jobs?

For 40-50 hours a week I am being challenged mentally in a job that is rewarding on multiple levels. I enjoy getting up every morning and going to where I work, like the 13 other people on my team and the hundreds of others in my department and the thousands of others where i work

That doesn't make me or any of the people that create those jobs a bad person.

If you really wanted to be extreme you could have separate cities. One for those that create jobs and the people that enjoy working them could exist in one city and those that don't like working and don't create jobs in the other ..

oh wait..that wouldn't work so maybe things should just be mixed like they are because their is no one right solution to the equation of what makes a person happy.

My plan is to eliminate money and redistribute the work. When you get rid of the financial sector and the millions upon millions of jobs that support it... there's really not much left to do.

With the work that remains, we could set the retirement age at 50 and require every able bodied man and woman to work 3 days a week. If you can come up with a way to eliminate your job using technology or a better system, then you get to retire from your next job early. Come up with a way to eliminate that job, and you get to retire from the next even earlier. And so on...

If you choose a job that requires a longer work week, then every extra day you work is taken off of your retirement age.

Only 408,000 people in the United States produce enough food to feed our entire country and provide grains and meat to many third world countries around the world. Just imagine what we could do if we wake up and realize that the way we are doing things is stupid and backwards. You would have the time freedom and the resources to do whatever you want.

This WILL work, and it is going to work. Its only a matter of time.

And yet you still have a ruling class. Who decides who does what job. Who decides where people live? Who decides if you really DO get those resources to do whatever you want

I'm assuming that without money, everyone would have free housing, food, etc. What happens when the doctors get jealous of the janitor for receiving the exact same benefits? What happens when those that work harder don't get the recognition they feel they deserve? What happens when some decide to not work, because they get everything for free anyway?

Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by crazyewok

 

But that aid DID NOT come from the government. It came from the people that provided the service. Very big difference. They did not 'steal' from others in order to give to me.

No but the aid was there.

Thats thing. I am not defending the wellfare systems as it is. It all needs reform in the USA and UK.

Thing is its reforming it all as long as aid and help is always there. As long as sick people get the best treatmnet. People from all walks of life have access to the best education and social mobility through hard work is as efficiant and as good as it can be.

What I dont want is a return to victorian era days were the poor sick and disabled are left to die in gutters. Good education is only for the wealthy so proffesionals are only confined to the upper classes and if you loss you job its off to the work house. And chances are you will die in the class you were born in no matter how hard you work.

No heavly taxing the middle classes is the wrong way to go. And so we should be looking to other options.

As you said your hopsital provided your treatment. Now last time I checked some of these healthcare providers and pharma comapnys make billions in profit. Maybe make them pay for it. Legislate it that for every billion they make they have to treat so many thousands of under priverlaged people for free.

reply to post by crazyewok


What did you not understand. I told you of one hospital. Billions in endowments, and if a person qualifies, they DO get their treatment for free.

NO government involvement. NO legislation.

That was one hospital. How many others there must be.

I used to work seasonally. Ski area in the winter, golf course in the summer. Since I wasn't year round at either, I didn't get insurance. The couple times that I had to go to a clinic or hospital for something, (bronchial spasms once, severe dehydration due to flu once) I received, THROUGH THE SERVICE PROVIDER, a discounted rate, based on income.

Again. NO government. NO legislation.

Let it happen in the private sector. It has. It does. And it will in the future, if only the government gets out of the way.

reply to post by Bone75


Here's why that model equals epic failure:
I'm an engineer by profession. I enjoy engineering immensely and I am very good at what I do (not bragging, just stating a fact). I can't think of any other profession I'm better qualified for and would enjoy doing and make the same level of income at than engineering. Take money out of the equation? Fuggettaboudit, I'm out the door. As much as I enjoy engineering, there are many hobbies I enjoy far more, any of which I could easily justify turning into a career if economics were removed from the picture. I could easily tie flies for 3 days a week and never once wish I was elsewhere. I could be a hunting or fishing guide for 3 days a week with equal ease. I could be a commercial fisherman. I could make woodcarvings. I could build furniture. I could make lures. I could reload ammunition. I could draw. I could taxidermy. I could work with leather. I could be a metal guitar player. I could make jerky. I could make welded metal artwork. I could be an outdoor gear tester. I could work on trucks. I could write books. These are all things I currently do in my free time that others do today as their source of income, because the money they make from these passions is adequate for their situation in life whereas it is inadequate for my current situation in life.

Mankind must have a tangible benefit from their gainfull labor other than just warm fuzzies and a feeling of accomplishment. Take away the benefit (money) and suddenly we have a world in which nobody takes out the trash, cleans toilets, works as a roughneck in the oil fields, harvests crops for more than just his own family and friends, or, dare I say it, designs highways and transportation facilities for the community. Instead everyone will simply turn their passionate hobbies into their careers, because the only benefit they are seeking is personal happiness and satisfaction. THAT is the nature of mankind and nature doesn't change, regardless of how many times KumBaiYa is sung out of tune around a communal campfire.

Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by crazyewok

 

What did you not understand. I told you of one hospital. Billions in endowments, and if a person qualifies, they DO get their treatment for free.

NO government involvement. NO legislation.

That was one hospital. How many others there must be.

I used to work seasonally. Ski area in the winter, golf course in the summer. Since I wasn't year round at either, I didn't get insurance. The couple times that I had to go to a clinic or hospital for something, (bronchial spasms once, severe dehydration due to flu once) I received, THROUGH THE SERVICE PROVIDER, a discounted rate, based on income.

Again. NO government. NO legislation.

Let it happen in the private sector. It has. It does. And it will in the future, if only the government gets out of the way.

Yes it works all fine and dany in your region or state. But there are plenty of areas were it does not work like that. Thats the problem its not garenteed and is unpredictable.

I dont see the problem of a solution if its low cost to the everday hard working people.......

Now I dont agree with you it should be 100% in the private sector and up to the invidual hospital. I never will agree with you ever (what part of that dont you understand).

Nor do I agree with with it being 100% Goverment run.

There needs to be some comprimise or we just end up divided and at each others throats which those in power want.

As I said "What I dont want is a return to victorian era days were the poor sick and disabled are left to die in gutters. Good education is only for the wealthy so proffesionals are only confined to the upper classes and if you loss you job its off to the work house. And chances are you will die in the class you were born in no matter how hard you work."

Im not botherd how that is done as long as it done in a cost effective manner and those who are hard working and law abbiding are effected as little as possible.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I'm all for a meritocracy too but the only problem with it is the presence of cronyism and corruption - it seems that these elements are also an inherent trait in the human condition or it wouldn't keep coming up. It would be great if there was a way to easily and effectively deal with these problems but so far empire after empire have been left in its wake.

If you don't like the dog eats dog society then stop participating in such behavior. See where you have taken advantage of people in this manner (whether it be financial or just social values) and then don't do it again or make amend. If all did this, the "dog eats dog" society would be transformed on its own.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
I sense a certain attitude in many posts here at ATS. It's an attitude that shows no sympathy for those viewed as lesser than yourselves.

Many feel that the homeless, welfare, drug addicts, and other bottom of the barrel people are getting what they deserve and shouldn't be a drain on the rest of society.

What you are preaching and asking for is a dog eat dog world. A devolution from our civilized society. You wish to return to when everyone cared for just their immediate family and damn everyone else.

Why do so many wish to return to such a time?

I ask are all of you (who will probably be too shame to post in this thread) REALLY built for such a society? I don't think so, you actually want a society that's half civilized and half savage. Especially when it comes to yourselves.

How many of you are young, strong and trained to survive in such a savage society? I'd wager that there is a percentage who spew they want such a society but they would be among the first to expire should we return to such savagery!

Many of you speaking of all this heartlessness are out of shape and may even have disabilities. You would be among the FIRST to expire. You should want this society to be as civilized as possible. You are all hypocrites!

We already live in a society where no one gives a rats ass about anyone else it's all about numero uno. America is the most greedy self centered society on the planet. Even our own government refferes to as consumers. Live on less then $10,000 a year and you'll find this out real quick.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by Bone75

 

Here's why that model equals epic failure:
I'm an engineer by profession. I enjoy engineering immensely and I am very good at what I do (not bragging, just stating a fact). I can't think of any other profession I'm better qualified for and would enjoy doing and make the same level of income at than engineering. Take money out of the equation? Fuggettaboudit, I'm out the door. As much as I enjoy engineering, there are many hobbies I enjoy far more, any of which I could easily justify turning into a career if economics were removed from the picture. I could easily tie flies for 3 days a week and never once wish I was elsewhere. I could be a hunting or fishing guide for 3 days a week with equal ease. I could be a commercial fisherman. I could make woodcarvings. I could build furniture. I could make lures. I could reload ammunition. I could draw. I could taxidermy. I could work with leather. I could be a metal guitar player. I could make jerky. I could make welded metal artwork. I could be an outdoor gear tester. I could work on trucks. I could write books. These are all things I currently do in my free time that others do today as their source of income, because the money they make from these passions is adequate for their situation in life whereas it is inadequate for my current situation in life.

Mankind must have a tangible benefit from their gainfull labor other than just warm fuzzies and a feeling of accomplishment. Take away the benefit (money) and suddenly we have a world in which nobody takes out the trash, cleans toilets, works as a roughneck in the oil fields, harvests crops for more than just his own family and friends, or, dare I say it, designs highways and transportation facilities for the community. Instead everyone will simply turn their passionate hobbies into their careers, because the only benefit they are seeking is personal happiness and satisfaction. THAT is the nature of mankind and nature doesn't change, regardless of how many times KumBaiYa is sung out of tune around a communal campfire.

Our workforce will be divided into sectors...

Food
Energy
Construction
Healthcare
Manufacturing
Transportation
Mining

Each sector will have its own engineering, education, and childcare departments. We will conduct a survey in which every able bodied man and woman will choose one primary sector to work in and 2 alternate sectors. The overall goal of each sector will be to collectively reduce the workload within that sector. Those who contribute the most to this goal are rewarded with time rather than money.

Being an engineer, you would already have a headstart on the rest of us. The hobbies you listed are just that... hobbies. If you'd like to be a hunting or fishing guide in your free time, then have at it. But consider this... what could they give you in return that wouldn't already be available to you?