Free vs. Well-Fed

[Soph the vet]

I heard someone on the radio mention the role of our founding government and how it was to "keep us free, not well-fed". It seems to me that today we want to give up liberties in order to be better "taken care of". Do you agree or disagree? Please do not make this political by mentioning parties, politicians, specific legislature, or anything that will get this thread quickly deleted. I am more interested to see your views on the role of federal government now vs. 230 years ago.

[athena1277]

I heard someone on the radio mention the role of our founding government and how it was to "keep us free, not well-fed". It seems to me that today we want to give up liberties in order to be better "taken care of". Do you agree or disagree? Please do not make this political by mentioning parties, politicians, specific legislature, or anything that will get this thread quickly deleted. I am more interested to see your views on the role of federal government now vs. 230 years ago.

 

I had not heard that before, but it sounds quite true. The founding fathers wanted freedom to work, worship,etc. as they saw fit. Now people want to govt. to give them a handout if their life is not picture perfect.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I heard someone on the radio mention the role of our founding government and how it was to "keep us free, not well-fed". It seems to me that today we want to give up liberties in order to be better "taken care of". Do you agree or disagree? Please do not make this political by mentioning parties, politicians, specific legislature, or anything that will get this thread quickly deleted. I am more interested to see your views on the role of federal government now vs. 230 years ago.

 

That is interesting. My opinion is that people who are not well-fed (or do not have the opportunity to become so) are the very ones who are vulnerable to tyrants and despots. A hungry, hurting populace is more liable to be swayed by an exploitive leader promising a chicken in every pot.

 

Better a society who allows freedom to achieve a well-fed state with a net in place to avoid starvation for "the least of these."

 

It's complicated. And it's certainly better achieved in a homogeneous society with all the citizens having similar values and work ethic. Harder in one where there's a strong sense of entitlement and highly comflicting values, low education, and a low common moral/ethical foundation.

[PariSarah]

For them, freedom was the freedom to do what was in their own best interests. Rightly or wrongly, they believed that humans working in their own best interests would muddle along fairly well, all things considered, and didn't need an intrusive government regulating the details. People were free to work hard at making a living, and to suffer for their own stupidity.

 

I think for us, freedom means freedom from any kind of constraint, up to and including the constraint of the human condition. Yes, we're super-attentive to an overbearing government, and so we protect our liberties. But we also want to protect ourselves from any kind of pain. Being human involves some kind of pain--from the relatively modest pain that's called "work," to the logical consequences of our actions, like hunger or incarceration, to the sorts of pain we can't control, like illness and random violence.

 

It's not so much that we're giving up our freedom in order to get fed; I think we're willing to give up our freedom (meaning freedom-to-be-responsible-for-ourselves) in order to keep from having any kind of constraint--be it pain, suffering, inconvenience, whatever.

[Highereducation]

I heard someone on the radio mention the role of our founding government and how it was to "keep us free, not well-fed". It seems to me that today we want to give up liberties in order to be better "taken care of". Do you agree or disagree? Please do not make this political by mentioning parties, politicians, specific legislature, or anything that will get this thread quickly deleted. I am more interested to see your views on the role of federal government now vs. 230 years ago.

 

I like this question and I need to give it more thought, but off the top of my head I will say that I think the issue was far more cut and dried 230 years ago. Back then the standard of living was survival. Today, people have come to expect to do at least better than their parents did. So perhaps there is more of a sense of entitlement now, and that impacts just how much people are willing to give up in order to live well. Also, many times I am disheartened to find how many people don't pay attention to things like the Constitution at all and have no interest in contemplating the kinds of issues brought up by questions like this so long as their creature comforts are not affected!

[PariSarah]

Better a society who allows freedom to achieve a well-fed state with a net in place to avoid starvation for "the least of these."

 

The "we" that I meant in my post is a relatively stable "we," capable of earning their living but choosing not to. I'm not referring to those who genuinely need assistance.

[Peek a Boo]

That is interesting. My opinion is that people who are not well-fed (or do not have the opportunity to become so) are the very ones who are vulnerable to tyrants and despots. A hungry, hurting populace is more liable to be swayed by an exploitive leader promising a chicken in every pot.

 

Better a society who allows freedom to achieve a well-fed state with a net in place to avoid starvation for "the least of these."

 

It's complicated. And it's certainly better achieved in a homogeneous society with all the citizens having similar values and work ethic. Harder in one where there's a strong sense of entitlement and highly comflicting values, low education, and a low common moral/ethical foundation.

 

 

i agree that society is better when it is the freedom itself that provides the well-fed safety net, instead of the tyrants and despots providing it. Otherwise you'll have a lot of people not willing to bite the hand that feeds it, especially if that feeding is at the end of a 'safety' chain in a well-furnished kennel.

 

I have said previously that if you don't have the freedom to fail completely then you're not completely free. I would prefer the struggle of true freedom.

[pqr]

The less educated the populace the more they can be led to believe that the roll of the government is to "feed" the people rather than give them the opportunity to "feed" themselves. In other words, as we move to a society that does not understand the basic concept of freedom the more we believe in entitlement and the more we move to a Nanny State.

 

To answer your question…Yes, opinions appear to have changed and yes we become less free as we become more dependent.

[clwcain]

The foundation of the United States is rooted in the bad anthropology and bad metaphysics we get from the so-called Enlightenment. It is doomed to failure.

 

We're seeing how that failure will come about.

[LaxMom]

I heard someone on the radio mention the role of our founding government and how it was to "keep us free, not well-fed". .

 

Isn't this the guns vs butter debate from Econ 101? If I recall correctly, that involves balance, not focus on one or the other exclusively, and it's (at least in the econ context) fluid.

[WTMCassandra]

The foundation of the United States is rooted in the bad anthropology and bad metaphysics we get from the so-called Enlightenment. It is doomed to failure.

 

We're seeing how that failure will come about.

 

What do you mean? What bad anthropology? What bad metaphysics? (I'm not saying this with a "tone;" I really am honestly asking.)

[OhM]

...if you don't have the freedom to fail completely then you're not completely free. I would prefer the struggle of true freedom.

 

I love this. Somewhere along the line we became insulated from (or at least desired to become insulated from) failure. And isn't failure in itself valuable?(Related to education - this could easily become a discussion about grade inflation and how it deprives students the exprerience of dealing with and bouncing back from failure.)

 

It seems like governance and parenting both have the same pitfalls - doing what's best for the populace (child) isn't always going to be perceived as favorable by the populace (child). But politicians need to win elections. If they've been eat your vegetables/do your chores/curfew is at 9:00 instead of junk food/TV/here let me do that for you, what are the chances they'll be re-elected?

[Soph the vet]

Isn't this the guns vs butter debate from Econ 101? If I recall correctly, that involves balance, not focus on one or the other exclusively, and it's (at least in the econ context) fluid.

I had Econ 101 over 20 years ago but the guns and butter sound familiar:D. I am just impressed by all the thoughtful responses so far.

[Dawn E]

i agree that society is better when it is the freedom itself that provides the well-fed safety net, instead of the tyrants and despots providing it. Otherwise you'll have a lot of people not willing to bite the hand that feeds it, especially if that feeding is at the end of a 'safety' chain in a well-furnished kennel.

 

I have said previously that if you don't have the freedom to fail completely then you're not completely free. I would prefer the struggle of true freedom.

 

I wish I could have said it first, but I didn't. So, I will say :iagree:

[laughing lioness]

My dh and I found during the fall as we interacted with people about the election that there was a lot of verbage to the effect that we are entitled to free health care, jobs, education, and a standard of living based on our abilities. What always came to mind for me was "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

Yes, I think that our government is shifting radically in the role it plays. I think that the people are endorsing this change through election. My general experience is that many people would prefer a well-fed, complacent life than one with more risk and greater potential for failure or success.

[Peek a Boo]

What do you mean? What bad anthropology? What bad metaphysics? (I'm not saying this with a "tone;" I really am honestly asking.)

 

Chris is a Catholic monarchist ;)

[Remudamom]

i agree that society is better when it is the freedom itself that provides the well-fed safety net, instead of the tyrants and despots providing it. Otherwise you'll have a lot of people not willing to bite the hand that feeds it, especially if that feeding is at the end of a 'safety' chain in a well-furnished kennel.

 

I have said previously that if you don't have the freedom to fail completely then you're not completely free. I would prefer the struggle of true freedom.

 

Hallelujah child, preach it. I'll take the struggle too. I'm a little too well fed anyhow.

[Cheryl in NM]

I think our founding fathers would start a revolution in today's society. I think they would be astounded at all our industrial and technological advances. That being said, it's those same advances that are causing a complacent society. When you no longer have to actively put food on your table, a roof over your head and clothes on your back you take advantage of them and feel entitled to them. If your job were truly life or death for you and your family you bet you wouldn't be looking to the government to take care of you; you wouldn't have time. Of course, I'm talking about the proverbial you. People used to take pride in being able to take care of their families. Families, churches and communities helped people get back on their feet and took in orphans. I agree with the pp that said the breakdown of our family and community is a major cause of the current sense of entitlement. I too often see people who can't "afford" to heat their house but have leather furniture, big screen tvs and satellite dishes. As a country our priorities are a bit out of shape.

 

I think our government should be there to protect the country as a whole from other countries, the supreme court should function as stated in the constitution and our congress should have careers other than politician. Congress should be a volunteer position and they shouldn't be allowed to live full-time in DC. I think that would make the congressman make better decisions that would benefit their constituents. Basically, like Peep said, we should have the freedom to fail.

[T Baer]

I heard someone on the radio mention the role of our founding government and how it was to "keep us free, not well-fed". It seems to me that today we want to give up liberties in order to be better "taken care of". Do you agree or disagree? Please do not make this political by mentioning parties, politicians, specific legislature, or anything that will get this thread quickly deleted. I am more interested to see your views on the role of federal government now vs. 230 years ago.

here to feed them not fill them.

[laylamcb]

Hallelujah child, preach it. I'll take the struggle too. I'm a little too well fed anyhow.

 

:D

[Liz CA]

Better a society who allows freedom to achieve a well-fed state with a net in place to avoid starvation for "the least of these."

 

 

 

It's a fine balancing act but yes, freedom should enable those who want to succeed (be well-fed) and want to work hard enough to accomplish this goal.

There will always be hurdles but refinement in character, unfortunately, mostly comes through stretching beyond one's limits and struggling a little.

 

I think there is a valid point to be made that many people nowadays would rather look to the government for help than exhaust themselves. When I hear stories about people getting by during the depression era and later WWII, I think, as a society on the whole, we have lost some of that intiative to pull through the tough times.

 

How much are we willing to suffer to preserve freedom or would we rather suffer less and have also less freedom?

 

 

[Parrothead]

The "we" that I meant in my post is a relatively stable "we," capable of earning their living but choosing not to. I'm not referring to those who genuinely need assistance.

Those that are taking advantage of the system by choosing not to work are the ones that really get my blood boiling.

 

I don't have a problem with feeding the truly needy, but I do feel that we have and are giving up a lot letting the government "take care of us." I hope we don't go the way of Rome.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It's a fine balancing act but yes, freedom should enable those who want to succeed (be well-fed) and want to work hard enough to accomplish this goal.

There will always be hurdles but refinement in character, unfortunately, mostly comes through stretching beyond one's limits and struggling a little.

 

I think there is a valid point to be made that many people nowadays would rather look to the government for help than exhaust themselves. When I hear stories about people getting by during the depression era and later WWII, I think, as a society on the whole, we have lost some of that intiative to pull through the tough times.

 

How much are we willing to suffer to preserve freedom or would we rather suffer less and have also less freedom?

 

Had you been around during the Great Depression, would you have opposed government relief programs such as those outlined here?

 

Or was this ok, based on the desperation of the times? And where do we draw the line?

[Zelda]

My dh and I found during the fall as we interacted with people about the election that there was a lot of verbage to the effect that we are entitled to free health care, jobs, education, and a standard of living based on our abilities. What always came to mind for me was "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

Yes, I think that our government is shifting radically in the role it plays. I think that the people are endorsing this change through election. My general experience is that many people would prefer a well-fed, complacent life than one with more risk and greater potential for failure or success.

 

I also think there's another group of people who believe that they will be benevolently doling out their comparable wealth to those in need with no significant change in their standard of living but a tremendous sense of righteousness that will come from their charity. Some of those people will be right (Barbra Streisand)...some will be disappointed to find that they will end up not being able to give once their extra bit is apportioned away.

 

And there's another group that can't stand to think that others have more than they do. They will give up the chance to succeed to see those who already have brought down a notch.

[beansprouts]

I have always wondered what will happen once the government starts paying the bill for our health care. Will this also mean they take responsibility to seeing that we all maintain healthy lifestyles?

[Cheryl in NM]

I have always wondered what will happen once the government starts paying the bill for our health care. Will this also mean they take responsibility to seeing that we all maintain healthy lifestyles?

 

There was an internet joke going around a few years ago in this vein.

 

A man calls to order a pizza and is asked to give his National ID#. When he does, he's informed that since his cholesterol is high and he's at risk of heart attack there will be a $100 fee added to his pizza since it's against recommendations for him to eat pizza.

[Tracey in TX]

The foundation of the United States is rooted in the bad anthropology and bad metaphysics we get from the so-called Enlightenment. It is doomed to failure.

 

We're seeing how that failure will come about.

 

Layman's terminology, please. :)

[Tracey in TX]

I don't have a problem with feeding the truly needy, but I do feel that we have and are giving up a lot letting the government "take care of us." I hope we don't go the way of Rome.

I think it's inevitable that eventually the US will follow in Rome's footsteps--being a "once great" country. Question is whether or not it's in our lifetime or hopefully hundreds of years from now. If we keep giving handouts to wanna-bees--not those genuinely in need--we will face our national demise while most of us are still living.

[Cheryl in NM]

There was an internet joke going around a few years ago in this vein.

 

A man calls to order a pizza and is asked to give his National ID#. When he does, he's informed that since his cholesterol is high and he's at risk of heart attack there will be a $100 fee added to his pizza since it's against recommendations for him to eat pizza.

 

This is the only one I could find online, but I know I received another one years ago.

 

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokebigbrotherpizza.htm

[Vida Winter]

I have always wondered what will happen once the government starts paying the bill for our health care. Will this also mean they take responsibility to seeing that we all maintain healthy lifestyles?

 

Absolutely. Not only that, there will be health care rationing.

[Peek a Boo]

Had you been around during the Great Depression, would you have opposed government relief programs such as those outlined here?

 

Or was this ok, based on the desperation of the times? And where do we draw the line?

 

 

yes, i would have opposed it. That's part of what started us down this hill to begin with. I'm betting if we researched it well enough we'd find a few essays warning about those types of programs even back then.

 

I draw the line at forced redistribution of wealth. I also draw the line at Creating Another Federal Program. If we have to create Another Administration, that's a dead give-away it's Too Much. I would absolutely encourage philanthropic organizations to step in [like Salvation Army did], and offer tax incentives [as opposed to federal grants] for other charitable organizations to form and for private businesses to grow. In other words, i'd do whatever i could to get the gvt even more out of the way.

[Amy in NY]

Absolutely. Not only that, there will be health care rationing.

 

Sorry to side track, but this already happens. Insurance companies deny tests and medications daily.

 

And, here in NY (and I am sure elsewhere), pt's on medicare are having a harder time getting some of their meds covered - even thought they have such wonderful coverage through our government.

 

It (rationing) has already begun.

[Amy in NY]

I keep being reminded of Rome handing out food and entertainment for the masses to keep them from rioting.......

 

Me, too...

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Sorry to side track, but this already happens. Insurance companies deny tests and medications daily.

 

And, here in NY (and I am sure elsewhere), pt's on medicare are having a harder time getting some of their meds covered - even thought they have such wonderful coverage through our government.

 

It (rationing) has already begun.

 

So, do you (not *you* specifically, Amy, but all who are worried about government-provided healthcare) dislike this rationing of services? Or isn't it better that less government money is being spent?

 

People can still get health care if they'll just pay for it with their own money. Which is the point, right, that if one wants health care, one should simply fork over the money, and if they can't, then that's just the way things are because we shouldn't have a nanny state.

 

I don't think we can on the one hand be alarmed that health care is going to be provided and then be alarmed that it isn't going to be 100% coverage of everything everyone desires to have covered.

[katemary63]

I have said previously that if you don't have the freedom to fail completely then you're not completely free. I would prefer the struggle of true freedom.

 

This is what I was about to say - You must be free to fail to be free at all. If you only want the freedom to succeed but are actually taking no risk - then you are not free.

[katemary63]

[

 

And there's another group that can't stand to think that others have more than they do. They will give up the chance to succeed to see those who already have brought down a notch.

 

Absolutely! I am so sick of hearing about the big bad rich man. I am grateful to him/ her for two reasons. 1. I see an example of what I could achieve. 2. He/ she might give me a job! Since when did actually achieving the "American dream" make you a bad guy worthy of resentment. I will never get that. I'm a relatively poor farmer with 4 kids - I get struggling. I'm just not mad at everyone who doesn't have to.

[Stacy in NJ]

Your comment assumes we currently have a free market healthcare system outside of Medicade/Medicare. We don't. It's been heavily subsidized by the federal government via tax subsidies or credits on employer premiums since WWII. It's also incredibly regulated on the state level via individual state departments of insurance and federally via the FDA. These subsidies have created an artifical market which are in large part responsible for out of control medical cost inflation.

[LilyK]

Which is the point, right, that if one wants health care, one should simply fork over the money, and if they can't, then that's just the way things

 

 

I see that you are a new-grad. I have been a nurse for many, many years, and I promise you that you will soon learn that those who cannot fork over the money still get health care. On a very, VERY regular basis, I see my hospital provide exorbitant care to those who will never pay a dime. That is the way things really are, and the whole house of cards is doomed to crash at some point. Then, none of us will get health care.

[Pretty in Pink]

I have said previously that if you don't have the freedom to fail completely then you're not completely free. I would prefer the struggle of true freedom.

 

:iagree:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I see that you are a new-grad. I have been a nurse for many, many years, and I promise you that you will soon learn that those who cannot fork over the money still get health care.

 

Oh, I'm very well aware of this, despite the fact that I only got my degree last month and am not even a nurse yet. That's just a fact of life in this country. The system is desperately broken. Emergency departments all over the nation are closing down because of being utilized as primary care for a good portion of the population with no other options (except to die, of course -- the ultimate "failure").

 

The part you quoted was actually rhetorical. I often find that when I play devil's advocate and attempt to draw attention to one side or another, I'm quite frequently viewed as radical or naive. I think these issues are much more complex than any POV that I can articulate here. And I guess we all come at these issues with our own experiences and biases (not a bad thing, bias) and viewpoints.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Your comment assumes we currently have a free market healthcare system outside of Medicade/Medicare. We don't. It's been heavily subsidized by the federal government via tax subsidies or credits on employer premiums since WWII. It's also incredibly regulated on the state level via individual state departments of insurance and federally via the FDA. These subsidies have created an artifical market which are in large part responsible for out of control medical cost inflation.

 

True enough. But there is basic care to be had at lower costs for self-pay patients, and with a non-subsidized model, specialty care would be out of the reach of most of us lower-middle and lower income folks even without inflation. (Which, for those who wish for no interference, is as it should be. It is the way things were historically for the large majority of the population worldwide.)

[Liz CA]

Had you been around during the Great Depression, would you have opposed government relief programs such as those outlined here?

 

Or was this ok, based on the desperation of the times? And where do we draw the line?

 

I am not categorically opposed to any kind of assistance (though I have grave doubts about all the bail-out pkgs going on right now), however, I wonder quite often if a full blown depression hits, would the majority today look to government for relief and hope for quick fixes or would we be able to reach deep down and marshall resources never tapped into before, sacrifice, even if some of those decisions would be rather painful? The article you linked mentioned that the programs were meant to prevent people from suffering physical harm. I would rather see people avail themselves of assistance than starving, of course.

My contemplation runs more along the lines of character strength - then and now. Are we the spoilt product of the good times? Would we be looking for an easy way out not just because we want to avoid serious harm but rather because we are not used to living in tough times - I am thinking of the nation as a whole.

 

 

When I remember what my Grandma told me about life during WWII and I compare this to how easy I had it all my life, I wonder if people who dearly paid to preserve freedom or to re-establish it (anywhere in the world, any time period), would necessarily value it much more and are willing to *suffer* a little more rather than to submit to more regulations and constraints which potentially leads to less freedom.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Liz CA

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I am not categorically opposed to any kind of assistance (though I have grave doubts about all the bail-out pkgs going on right now), however, I wonder quite often if a full blown depression hits, would the majority today look to government for relief and hope for quick fixes or would we be able to reach deep down and marshall resources never tapped into before, sacrifice, even if some of those decisions would be rather painful? The article you linked mentioned that the programs were meant to prevent people from suffering physical harm. I would rather see people avail themselves of assistance than starving, of course.

My contemplation runs more along the lines of character strength - then and now. Are we the spoilt product of the good times? Would we be looking for an easy way out not just because we want to avoid serious harm but rather because we are not used to living in tough times - I am thinking of the nation as a whole.

 

 

When I remember what my Grandma told me about life during WWII and I compare this to how easy I had it all my life, I wonder if people who dearly paid to preserve freedom or to re-establish it (anywhere in the world, any time period), would necessarily value it much more and are willing to *suffer* a little more rather than to submit to more regulations and constraints which potentially leads to less freedom.

 

I think you pretty much voiced a lot of the thoughts that I have about the subject. I wonder though -- how much do we view that suffering and struggle of necessity go hand in hand with freedom and appreciation of freedom? Must we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps ala Horatio Alger in order to fully realize our potential? Is it necessary to have been hungry as a child to fully appreciate plenty of food as an adult? ("Sonny, when I was a kid, we walked uphill both ways in the snow, barefoot. And we were THANKFUL that we had frostbite, because then you couldn't feel the cold anymore!")

 

Lots to contemplate, certainly. I don't think there are easy or completely straightforward answers.

[Liz CA]

I think you pretty much voiced a lot of the thoughts that I have about the subject. I wonder though -- how much do we view that suffering and struggle of necessity go hand in hand with freedom and appreciation of freedom? Must we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps ala Horatio Alger in order to fully realize our potential? Is it necessary to have been hungry as a child to fully appreciate plenty of food as an adult? ("Sonny, when I was a kid, we walked uphill both ways in the snow, barefoot. And we were THANKFUL that we had frostbite, because then you couldn't feel the cold anymore!")

 

Lots to contemplate, certainly. I don't think there are easy or completely straightforward answers.

 

LOL! Yes, we probably have all heard a version of how tough our parents had it as kids.

You bring up an interesting point. "Must one have been hungry to fully appreciate plenty of food as an adult?" My grandmother told me about sitting in someone's barn with her two children and trying to decide how to distribute three slices of bread the farmer had graciously given them. She figured that her older boy should have a little more, he was a boy and growing fast, the younger girl would not need as much and she herself would eat the least because she was fully grown and figured it would not harm her being hungry. Many years later, I often saw her sitting in front of an overloaded dinner table on Sunday evenings, with her eyes closed and her hands folded in prayer.

 

She is gone now - or I would submit this question to her.

 

I appreciate good food - but do I really appreciate the daily bread I have?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

LOL! Yes, we probably have all heard a version of how tough our parents had it as kids.

You bring up an interesting point. "Must one have been hungry to fully appreciate plenty of food as an adult?" My grandmother told me about sitting in someone's barn with her two children and trying to decide how to distribute three slices of bread the farmer had graciously given them. She figured that her older boy should have a little more, he was a boy and growing fast, the younger girl would not need as much and she herself would eat the least because she was fully grown and figured it would not harm her being hungry. Many years later, I often saw her sitting in front of an overloaded dinner table on Sunday evenings, with her eyes closed and her hands folded in prayer.

 

She is gone now - or I would submit this question to her.

 

I appreciate good food - but do I really appreciate the daily bread I have?

 

Wow, what a powerful story. Just, wow.

 

I think about this sort of thing often, maybe even more than is healthy. I think about the economy and how I'm not guaranteed daily bread. I remember my childhood and potatoes (only potatoes) for supper every night for a week when things got tight, and I remember daddy bringing home $500 a month in pay. (And I'm not so old that that was a lot of money back then, LOL!)

 

Countless times I was told the story of how Governor Frank Clement (the dang socialist do-gooder!) decided that public school children should have free textbooks, and how that meant mama could continue to go to school. (Ironically, he also put in place the mental health system in the state that saved my granny's life a couple of decades later when she was hospitalized, sans insurance, with an acute mental health crisis. Not that she particularly deserved so much to have been treated at the taxpayer's expense, of course, but we were mighty glad she was. Thankful, even.)

 

I remember my mom's stories about my granny who was widowed with five children and $48/month in welfare -- the making do, the dresses made of colorful flower sack clothes, the hours behind the plough breaking up rocky soil on the side of the mountain at the ripe old age of 32.

 

And I'm not convinced this isn't going to be the life or its urban equivalent for many people soon enough. Maybe even me. No promises. No guarantees. People can and do starve to death all over the world, and have done so historically in large numbers. (And not only because they lacked the fortitude to pull up their own bootstraps.) I'm not exempt from the vagaries of life and weather and famine and pestilence. We like to think we are, but we surely are not.

 

So for now, I am thankful -- very thankful -- for my daily bread. Not as thankful as your grandmother, certainly, or my own. But thankful and taking absolutely nothing for granted.

 

On this cheerful note, I'm off to bed! :D

Edited January 14, 2009 by Pam "SFSOM" in TN

[Liz CA]

Countless times I was told the story of how Governor Frank Clement (the dang socialist do-gooder!) decided that public school children should have free textbooks, and how that meant mama could continue to go to school. (Ironically, he also put in place the mental health system in the state that saved my granny's life a couple of decades later when she was hospitalized, sans insurance, with an acute mental health crisis. Not that she particularly deserved so much to have been treated at the taxpayer's expense, of course, but we were mighty glad she was. Thankful, even.)

 

And I'm not convinced this isn't going to be the life or its urban equivalent for many people soon enough. Maybe even me. No promises. No guarantees. People can and do starve to death all over the world, and have done so historically in large numbers. (And not only because they lacked the fortitude to pull up their own bootstraps.) I'm not exempt from the vagaries of life and weather and famine and pestilence. We like to think we are, but we surely are not.

 

So for now, I am thankful -- very thankful -- for my daily bread. Not as thankful as your grandmother, certainly, or my own. But thankful and taking absolutely nothing for granted.

 

:D

 

Now here is another point to ponder - not for tonight, I am fading fast - but in general: You mention how grateful your family was that your granny was able to receive medical care, your mother was able to continue schooling because of free books, you write how very thankful you are for your daily bread. This is the crux of it!

 

I wonder if the majority of people today feel entitled to a government "bailout" and think nothing of it versus being thankful that there is some help available should you really need it.

Comes back to character again.

[Spy Car]

My grandmother told me about sitting in someone's barn with her two children and trying to decide how to distribute three slices of bread the farmer had graciously given them.

 

What was this farmer thinking???

 

Trying to rob your family of it's freedom to fail. It makes my blood boil! If people live on hand-outs what happens to the work-ethic? A little starvation makes one hungry.

 

He must have been a communist :D

 

Bill

[Anne Rittenhouse]

Nothing....we have national healthcare here, in Belgium, and alcohol, cigarrettes, soft drinks, cookies, chocolate, potato chips, bacon, lard, red meat, butter and sugar are still available and unregulated, and cheap. A bottle of wine is cheaper than milk. Skim milk is unavailable and considered unhealthy. Chocolate is cheaper than spinach. Pizza Hut and MickyD's are still in business here and expanding. French fries with mayo, lots of mayo, (there are 23 different flavors of mayo in this country) is the national street food.

 

On the other hand, for some health issues, the national health care system WILL pay for gym memberships, theraputic massage, alternative medicine, as well as household help.

 

I also get to choose my own providers. I can see a specialist whenever I wish. I can change doctors at anytime. There are no "network" provider lists, everyone is within the national system. My prescriptions are honored at any chemist. My GP is available by phone 24/7 and he will make housecalls. On national holidays, the government sets up a system of on-call physicians and pharmacies. The list is available by phone, internet, and it is posted at any pharmacy. No one goes without healthcare or medical assistance.

 

I control who sees my health records because they are stored on a chip on a plastic card. They are not available to anyone unless I give them the card.

 

 

Some other things:

Serious bike accident in Belgium with emergency room care, x-rays, stitches, prescriptions, 2 follow ups with a GP, and 1 follow up with a specialist ENT - total cost $300. This was paid for out of our own pocket as US tourists because we were not in the system yet. It is the "uninsured" hospital/medical rate, ie, full price because we are wealthy American tourists. They apologized for the large bill. I was gobsmacked after seeing the final bills; I could pay the total out of my pocket money. It was the equivalent of two dinners out at a nice restaurant or half the price of a cheap men's suit. So, getting hurt while on vacation here may be painful physically, but not monetarily. In the US, my guess is $2000 or more for the equivalent "uninsured" services.

 

In the US, one dental implant from begining to end $10,000. Yep in NYC $10000. In Belgium, the same deal $2000.

 

In the US, one doctors office visit, $90-150, yep in NYC. Here $40.

 

Dental 6-month checkup - $80, in the US, I last paid $175.

 

The only time I've ever seen any rationing for health reasons is at my son's school. They only have french fries once a week, otherwise it is some other form of potato, like potatoes gratin smothered in cheese. :D BUT, this decision was made by the private school itself and I don't have a problem with it, besides Movenpick ice cream is available everyday! So what's the point? It all seems a bit silly really.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Anne Rittenhouse
I have a rael problem ith typinnn and gremmar.

[beansprouts]

What was this farmer thinking???

 

Trying to rob your family of it's freedom to fail. It makes my blood boil! If people live on hand-outs what happens to the work-ethic? A little starvation makes one hungry.

 

He must have been a communist :D

 

Bill

 

What does one farmer willingly sharing his resources have to do with the government forcibly redistributing everybody's?

[beansprouts]

Nothing....

 

Is it legal to have a homebirth in Belgium? Are vaccines mandatory? What types of prenatal testing are required by law?

 

I agree that medical costs here in the US are out of comtrol. Part of the problem is third-party billing, part of the problem is lawsuits and "pain and suffering" settlements. Still, DH and I have figured out that our family and our business pay less for health care than we do for health insurance (never mind the co-pays which were about 30%). We have dropped the insurance, and have no problem covering the bills ourselves. Obviously Belgium is doing an excellent job at keeping these costs under control. I wonder whether this alone would make health care more accessible for all. Like you said, $300 is the cost of a few nice dinners. If you weren't paying those extra tax dollars to support the health care system, could you afford health care at these rates?

Edited January 14, 2009 by beansprouts