Free vs. Well-Fed

[Anne Rittenhouse]

Is it legal to have a homebirth in Belgium?

Yes, and sometimes very common in some areas of the EU. Although, midwives regularly practice in hospitals, also. There are no 24hrs and "your out" policies. (You're entitled, by law, to 7days at a maternity hospital, but you can check out anytime you feel you're ready to go home.)

 

Mother and babe are supported by the equivalent of LeLeche league. Families, both ma and pa, are supported with paid time off and creche (temporary nursery) services are available for older sibs, if wanted or needed. Home visits by your peditrician and a baby nurse are a given. You can have someone come in to cook and clean for you.

 

I know all women get 1 year's paid leave and most dad's get at least 8 weeks. Your job is safe.

 

Most American women who experience birth here in Belgium are very happy. In fact, this was emphasized more than once on our orientations. There are many young families here and it was repeatedly emphasized not to be afraid to expand your family simply because you are living in a foriegn country. You can have a much or as little as you wish, it's very safe, and the language barriers that new x-pats have can are easily be overcome.

 

Are vaccines mandatory?

Only polio is mandatory. (This is just my opinion, but I can live with that vacination schedule.)

 

What types of prenatal testing are required by law?

Hep B, just like the US, toxoplasmosis because in some areas more than 90% of adults are carriers, rubella titre, and of course you are encouraged to know your HIV status, just like the US. I also believe mom's are screened for protein in the urine and gestational diabetes. Both are common in the US and considered non-invasive, and usually part of a healthy prenatal routine.

 

I have a friend who recently experienced prenatal health care and delivery here in Belgium. She was Swedish; one of the most socialized countries in the Europe. She was extremely surprised at level of services available to her. She felt a bit embarrassed by it all and proceeded to decline items that were routinely not expected as part of the normal care in Sweden. There were no issues for her in this area and no reprocussions for her when she declined service or testing.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Anne Rittenhouse

[Anne Rittenhouse]

If you weren't paying those extra tax dollars to support the health care system, could you afford health care at these rates?

 

 

I just did this calculation. (We have the OCD habit of tracking all expenses with Quicken. I know what I spent in 1982 on auto repairs and that I bought one gallon of milk on Sept. 11th. I know....sick isn't it.)

 

The answer to your question is that it's just about a wash. If I add up all state, local, fed, property, insurance and out of pocket claims, plus all the other unreminburse medical stuff.....over the years....it averages out to about 46% of our gross income. One year we paid up to 65% of our gross for these things, and one year we lucked out at 30%. On average, over twenty years of data, 46%.

 

Here the tax rate is 50%, plus our out of pocket expenses are about 5% so far. (Some of these will be reimbursed yet again at tax time.) So I'm going to say 52-53%.

 

Yes, it's about 5% higher, but I'm fully covered (not available to me any longer in the US -everyone here is fully covered)and the level of service here is much higher than the US. (In the US, we were lucky enough to have full and expansive insurance coverage, it still doesn't come close to what we have here.) So 5% more for better service and little risk to our savings for the unexpected or uninsured, yeah I'll pay the extra. After all, those 50% and more taxes and healthcare years, they all occured after the year 2000. I only believe that our expenses would continue to rise if we stayed in the US.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Anne Rittenhouse

[stripe]

Funny- I thought the option was to provide inexpensive coverage, not force people to go to the doctor or withhold food products.

 

The major cause of bankruptcy in this country is over medical bills, and those people have insurance. Where's the outrage over insurance companies charging thousands but getting themselves out of ever covering anything?

 

Health care has changed since the days of the Founding Fathers. It's more complicated, more reliable, and, yes, more expensive. Biting the bullet while the gangrenous arm gets chopped off just doesn't sound that "romantic" to me. Or necessary to my pursuit of freedom.

[Soph the vet]

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

If he was working for the government, I would be with you on this one, Bill. But as a private citizen he was doing what all of us should be doing, sharing our resources with the less fortunate through acts of charity instead of the government taking much of what we have to use as they see fit in inefficient and wasteful ways. Who is a better steward of your money, time, and other resources, you or Congress?

Soph (who prefers charity over taxation)

[Zelda]

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.

 

Government will not be providing this health welfare by paying for it from a magic pot of gold. We'll be paying for it with increases in our taxes (well, those of us who make enough to pay taxes) but it won't be as good and we won't have other options.

[Margaret in GA]

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

 

:lol:

 

Oh my, how very true. Viva el Che!

 

 

Margaret

[beansprouts]

Here the tax rate is 50%,

 

That is HUGE!

 

Our health insurance was costing 20% of our income, plus an average of 30% in co-pays. We spend a fraction of that now just covering our own bills. So, while the numbers are higher the percentage of our income paid for medical expenses is much lower. Wierd.

Edited January 14, 2009 by beansprouts

[Spy Car]

If he was working for the government, I would be with you on this one, Bill. But as a private citizen he was doing what all of us should be doing, sharing our resources with the less fortunate through acts of charity instead of the government taking much of what we have to use as they see fit in inefficient and wasteful ways. Who is a better steward of your money, time, and other resources, you or Congress?

Soph (who prefers charity over taxation)

 

But how is your charity (or Beenies) any less injurious to an individuals work-ethic than a handout from Uncle Sam?

 

In either case, the freedom to fail (spectacularly) is being impinged. Either way the "recipient" is reduced to being a defendant "free-loader", no?

 

If someone is not completely free unless that are "free to fail" then giving them charity robs a person of this freedom, and you are an agent in their enslavement, no?

 

Or am I missing something? :D

 

Do we all want to end up like Barbra Streisand ??? :tongue_smilie:

 

People...

People who need...people

Are the luckiest...people...in the world

Edited January 14, 2009 by Spy Car

[beansprouts]

But how is your charity (or Beenies) and less injurious to an individuals work-ethic than a handout from Uncle Sam?

 

Charity means love, and love requires free will.

[Spy Car]

Charity means love, and love requires free will.

 

You show love by robbing a person of the freedom to stand on their own two feet?

 

And yes, I'm am playing Devil's Advocate

 

Bill

[beansprouts]

You show love by robbing a person of the freedom to stand on their own two feet?

 

And yes, I'm am playing Devil's Advocate

 

Bill

 

We always have the freedom to decline to accept help, even when it is offered by the government. I guess I don't get the point.

 

I am arguing in favor of the farmer having the freedom to choose with whom he would share his own meager resources.

[pqr]

But how is your charity (or Beenies) and less injurious to an individuals work-ethic than a handout from Uncle Sam?

 

In either case, the freedom to fail (spectacularly) is being impinged. Either way the "recipient" is reduced to being a defendant "free-loader", no?

 

If someone is not completely free unless that are "free to fail" then giving them charity robs a person of this freedom, and you are an agent in their enslavement, no?

 

Or am I missing something? :D

 

Yes Bill...you are missing something.

 

The difference between a government handout and true charity is that one cannot count on charity. (This sense of uncertainty generates a desire to be self sufficient which is a good thing and helps preserve an "individual's work-ethic")

 

Yes Bill...you are missing something.

 

Charity also generates, or should generate, within the recipient a sense of gratitude. Handouts generate a sense of entitlement. (A sense of entitlement simply because one exists is injurious)

 

Yes Bill...you are missing something.

 

Charity requires free choice from the donor. Government handouts remove that freedom and change the donor to a, frequently unwilling, host.

 

So...Yes Bill....you are missing something.

 

 

-pqr

Edited January 14, 2009 by pqr

[LilyK]

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.

 

 

 

 

I am glad that you have a system in Belgium that works. We have a different situation here where our governments (state and federal) have been masking an economic malaise for a couple of decades, and our chickens are coming home to roost. The state of California has decided it can't make its mediCal payments to many clinics now because we have no money and have not had money for quite some time now. Our federal government is not in much better shape. We need to spend less, not more, shrink government, not expand. Our entitlement culture will never allow it though.

 

BTW, I don't know about Belgium, but I know that my friends in healthcare in GB tell me that their greatest problem is shortage of qualified physicians, because it is not worth it to kill yourself to get a medical degree under socialized healthcare. They have to import most of their physicians, largely from the Middle East. I don't know about others, but when my dad had his massive heart attack, I was sure glad his brilliant cardiologist was there at UCLA. I didn't begrudge him his tremendous salary one bit.

[Liz CA]

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

 

...if the year had not been 1944, and this had not been a young woman with two children working her way from the Czech Republic to France staying out of sight of the Gestapo because as soon as one of her children spoke, it was apparent that they were not Germans even though the woman spoke fluent German...

She kept herself and her children alive - obviously, since the girl is my mother. She worked at many farms, helping with the harvest and slaughtering in return for food. She was not sitting at the side of the road with her children and a sign hanging from her neck: "Please give us food or money."

Edited January 14, 2009 by Liz CA

[Spy Car]

Yes Bill...you are missing something.

 

The difference between a government handout and true charity is that one cannot count on charity. (This sense of uncertainty generates a desire to be self sufficient which is a good thing and helps preserve an "individual's work-ethic")

 

But if you accept charity on even one occasion aren't you in a position of not being fully self reliant, so under the prescription of some, not "fully free"?

 

And there are charities that are quite reliable in feeding peoples bellies. So is the standard "unreliable charity" is good but "reliable" charity is not.

 

And by the same measure would "unreliable" government aid be acceptable (from the recipients stand-point) as long as the unreliable delivery didn't lead to dependency?

 

And I don't see how in any measurable way taking a hand-out from a charity is in any way different from a government agency if the expectations of regularity are the same.

 

 

Charity also generates, or should generate, within the recipient a sense of gratitude. Handouts generate a sense of entitlement. (A sense of entitlement simply because one exists is injurious)

 

So if someone is starving to death and they are fed by a "charity" they feel "gratitude". But in the same circumstance if they are fed by a government agency they feel no gratitude, but instead experience feeling of entitlement? Really???

 

Charity requires free choice from the donor. Government handouts remove that freedom and change the donor to a, frequently unwilling, host.

 

An entirely separate issue from the effects of hand-outs on the donees and not (to my mind) germane to the discussion of how being "free to fail" is the only true freedom.

 

Under this principle you stand on your own two feet or you don't. Plain and simple.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

True...if the year had not been 1944, and this had not been a young woman with two children working her way from the Czech Republic to France staying out of sight of the Gestapo because as soon as one of her children spoke, it was apparent that they were not Germans even though the woman spoke fluent German...

 

I'm glad they escaped! What a blessing.

 

I hope you understand where I'm going with this and don't mind terribly my use of your family's truly heat-warming story.

 

And if you do in any way mind, let me say I'm sorry and I'll desist. Obviously feeding a family fleeing Nazis is a wonderful act of human kindness. The world needs more kindness :001_smile:

 

Bill

[pqr]

And there are charities that are quite reliable in feeding peoples bellies. So is the standard "unreliable charity" is good but "reliable" charity is not.

 

Actually many charities are not "reliable," especially in light of the recent Ponzi scheme. One only need to conduct a quick search or even look in one's mail box for the "Help desperately needed" flyers so often received.

 

Anyway you are obscuring the issue. The question was how accepting charity is less injurous than handouts. The answer is that charity is not always reliable and is not mandated. Charity is also freely given, not forcibly taken. There is a difference, (even for the recipient) it may be subtle but it is there.

 

 

And by the same measure would "unreliable" government aid be acceptable (from the recipients stand-point) as long as the unreliable delivery didn't lead to dependency?

 

Again obscuring the issue.

 

And I don't see how in any measurable way taking a hand-out from a charity is in any way different from a government agency if the expectations of regularity are the same.

 

But the expectations of regularity are not always the same and that is the point. You also have the issue of entitlement, as I reference below.

 

 

 

So if someone is starving to death and they are fed by a "charity" they feel "gratitude". But in the same circumstance if they are fed by a government agency they feel no gratitude, but instead experience feeling of entitlement? Really???.

 

Lets drop the "starving" part, as a touch melodramatic, and just look at simple charity, now look at some of our 3rd and 4th generation welfare cases and then ask that question again. :-)

 

Reference the site http://www.welfarerightsmn.org/whoWeAre.html

which has the statements "We cannot compromise with people's lives. Welfare Rights are Human Rights!" and "We see the current attacks on welfare as racist, sexist, anti-poor and anti-immigrant. We are committed to fighting all these systems of oppression."

 

I have not seen the same volume of organizations (yes I know there are some, but not in real numbers) demand that the church soup kitchen must provide soup on Sundays or accuse a charity of racism because they cut services.

 

The fact is that government handouts come to be viewed as a right, an entitlement and this is wrong.

 

Perhaps this is best seen in the issue of gratitude. When a church provides a charitable service most will say "Thank You" when the government hands out a welfare check just how many thank you letters do you think they get? Hence the difference.

 

In soup kitchens many of those who work there are also recipients. They display gratitude and retain pride by providing a service to the soup kitchen. How many welfare recipients sweep the halls of the welfare office? Gratitude vs entitlement.

 

-pqr

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

BTW, I don't know about Belgium, but I know that my friends in healthcare in GB tell me that their greatest problem is shortage of qualified physicians, because it is not worth it to kill yourself to get a medical degree under socialized healthcare. They have to import most of their physicians, largely from the Middle East. I don't know about others, but when my dad had his massive heart attack, I was sure glad his brilliant cardiologist was there at UCLA. I didn't begrudge him his tremendous salary one bit.

 

I hate to tell you this, but an increasing number of physicians here in the good ol' US of A are "imported" as well....many from the Middle East, India, etc. We are also increasingly "importing" nurses...many from the Phillipines. I'm sorry I don't have time to qualify my "increasing numbers," with stats, links, etc., just as you did not have time to qualify your "Most." My statement comes as anectodal evidence as an agency nurse who has worked at many facilities (married to an agency nurse who has worked at many more facilities).

[Margaret in GA]

But if you accept charity on even one occasion aren't you in a position of not being fully self reliant, so under the prescription of some, not "fully free"?

 

And there are charities that are quite reliable in feeding peoples bellies. So is the standard "unreliable charity" is good but "reliable" charity is not.

 

And by the same measure would "unreliable" government aid be acceptable (from the recipients stand-point) as long as the unreliable delivery didn't lead to dependency?

 

And I don't see how in any measurable way taking a hand-out from a charity is in any way different from a government agency if the expectations of regularity are the same.

 

 

 

 

So if someone is starving to death and they are fed by a "charity" they feel "gratitude". But in the same circumstance if they are fed by a government agency they feel no gratitude, but instead experience feeling of entitlement? Really???

 

 

 

An entirely separate issue from the effects of hand-outs on the donees and not (to my mind) germane to the discussion of how being "free to fail" is the only true freedom.

 

Under this principle you stand on your own two feet or you don't. Plain and simple.

 

Bill

 

 

First of all, I'm sorry for the ramble.

 

I have to agree with old Bill here. There are several people on this very board that accept WIC, Medicaid, maybe even collect unemployment. Are these people free-loading entitaling losers? No. I happen to pay an unbelievable amount in taxes every year. I pay for these benefits that they enjoy. I'm OK with that. That's my charity. I also give at church, but aside from that how many opportunities do each of us have on a daily basis to help people in need (no one has showed up at our barn looking for food lately). I always hear people say, "I know better what to do with my tax money than the government does!" Really?? I don't. I can't fix roads. I can't give someone free health care. That's what my taxes are for and I'm OK with that. What's wrong is that even though I pay maybe $100K a year in various taxes and pay $800 a month on health insurance I could still end up in the hospital with some problem that forces us to lose it all. My health insurance. My savings. My home. Now, what's fair about that? I'm ready for nationalized heath care. Does that mean I want a hand out?? No. I don't want the government to *give* me anything. I do want them to *proect* me. You people that want to eliminate government need to remember that it's there for a reason. We seem to have forgotten that in the "good old days" of our freedom children worked in sweatshops, women couldn't vote, and the average lifespan was somewhere under age 40. Good old days indeed. Do away with corporate influence in government. Don't do away with government.

[sagira]

There should be a way to have people be both free and well-fed. That's all I have to say.

[Peek a Boo]

But if you accept charity on even one occasion aren't you in a position of not being fully self reliant, so under the prescription of some, not "fully free"?

 

 

No-- you are confusing self-reliance w/ gvt-support.

 

self reliance and charitable help are not mutually exclusive, but full freedom and reliance on the gvt are.

 

I'm not against helping people [i do quite a bit of that myself], and i don't look down on someone receiving help [seeking out resources is part of taking care of yourself], but i do have a problem w/ forced redistribution of wealth.

[Liz CA]

I'm glad they escaped! What a blessing.

 

I hope you understand where I'm going with this and don't mind terribly my use of your family's truly heat-warming story.

 

And if you do in any way mind, let me say I'm sorry and I'll desist. Obviously feeding a family fleeing Nazis is a wonderful act of human kindness. The world needs more kindness :001_smile:

 

Bill

 

I do not mind at all. In fact I like a spirited debate.

It makes one rethink one's position, doesn't it?

[Peek a Boo]

But how is your charity (or Beenies) any less injurious to an individuals work-ethic than a handout from Uncle Sam?

 

because the money I'm giving away is $$ that I didn't take from someone else at the point of a gun.

 

is that really so hard to understand?

 

and if you think the "point of a gun" is an understatement, try refusing to pay your taxes and resisting arrest.

[Peek a Boo]

Really?? I don't. I can't fix roads. I can't give someone free health care. That's what my taxes are for and I'm OK with that. ...... I'm ready for nationalized heath care. ....... You people that want to eliminate government need to remember that it's there for a reason. We seem to have forgotten that in the "good old days" of our freedom children worked in sweatshops, women couldn't vote, and the average lifespan was somewhere under age 40. Good old days indeed. Do away with corporate influence in government. Don't do away with government.

 

nobody is saying to 'do away' with gvt, only to restrict what gvt does w/ OUR money. I prefer a more Objectivist/ Capitalist way of looking at gvt services.

 

I support a voluntary socialized healthcare system. I think everyone who wants it shoudl sign up and have their wages garnished, BUT the whole thing needs to be run ONLY from the $$ of those who signed up. Let the rest of us have regular insurance. Or no insurance. It's our risk, and some of us CAN better handle our own money. i would rather opt out of social security.

 

The "good old days" problems could be fixed by enforcing basic laws. Our gvt can't even do THAT anymore, and they want to make MORE laws?????

[Dawn E]

Giving someone a hand while they are down is usually an attempt to help them up, not hold them down. The government's welfare system, though initiated with the best of intentions, has failed the poor.

[Haiku]

Our country claims to be the greatest country in the world. We are certainly the richest. We also have a standard of living that is lower than some countries that are social democracies and get most social services for free (yes, via tax dollars).

 

I pay a lot in taxes when you add up federal, state, local, sales, etc. Well over 40% of my income. I get very little for that besides war and earmarks.

 

I have kids from a country where a good deal of the population lives in poverty and the amount of suffering is horrific. I doubt that people oppressed by revoltingly lopsided economics and who are, by our standards, "failing" feel very free.

 

People talk about being willing to give up some freedoms in return for some security as if it's a bad, or ignorant, or naive view. I don't think it automatically is.

 

I am unconvinced that an unregulated society automatically sees to the best interests of all its inhabitants. Indeed, I have seen no incidence of this in my study of history.

 

I don't view economic success as the true, main, or only measure of success. Nor do I believe that a person who becomes financially wealthy by exploiting others is a success. Nor do I believe that deregulation of a society leads to a level playing field where those who "succeed" are the ones who worked hard and those who "failed" are the ones who sat on their proverbial hineys.

 

I think that the real problem with our country is that we view the almighty dollar as the only measure of success.

 

Tara

[Peek a Boo]

So, do you ...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.

 

 

I dislike that a person's money is being forcibly taken from them to support a service that they would neither use nor support.

 

If the socialized countries can do a workable healthcare system on 5 million people, then i suggest we convince at least 5 million americans to sign up for such a wonderful idea, and let the rest of us opt out. After overhauling the courts and insurance companies and getting the gvt out of them, and them outta the gvt. :D

[Amy in NY]

(I edited this to add a bunch more...told you my brain was a bit fuzzy!)

 

 

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?

 

Government money = my money. Healthcare should never be rationed; every human life is valuable. I question HOW the government will spend the money and why they should be given the authority to pay medical bills.

 

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.

 

I haven't read past this response so I don't know if this has been addressed. In my little ideal world (:tongue_smilie:) there would be no such thing as health insurance period. Market would drive the cost with the consumer at the wheel. But since I must live in reality, I would really like to see government out of the health insurance business completely - no medicare, medicaid or mandate coverage (in health insurance policies.) I think that the policies would have to get better if we, the people, were given actual choices instead of policy coverage through our employers which coverage choices confined within the state line.

 

Also, here in NY, there is a 9% tax added to your bill if you don't have insurance. People are not encouraged to be independent; rather to depend on some sort of system to pay their bills. Have you ever looked at what your doctor or pharmacist gets reimbursed for a visit? I took dd for a well child check last June w/no insurance. $120 for the visit. Fast forward to now, dd has insurance. Same well child check - doctor is reimbursed $45. Tell me why I can't be paying $45 out of pocket for an office visit? Why must I pay almost $700/month in premiums to so I can go to the doctor and have a $40 office visit co-pay?

 

Since working in a doctor's office, I know first hand Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP programs reimburse almost nothing. Look at what you put into the Medicare system in your paycheck. How much of our taxes go to Medicaid? And how LITTLE is actually paid to the health care providers who care for these people. It is insane. RE: medications. Our small village pharmacy will no longer accept one part of Medicare b/c they haven't been paid for over a year. How does that happen?

 

BTW, part of my post was tongue in cheek - obviously, my tone didn't come through over the internet. On one hand, you have people clamoring for government prescription programs and then, when they get them, they find out that they get get the medications that they were on originally.

 

I hope that makes sense. It's late and I've had a long day so my brain is a bit fuzzy.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Amy in NY
forgot something!

[Haiku]

You people that want to eliminate government need to remember that it's there for a reason. We seem to have forgotten that in the "good old days" of our freedom children worked in sweatshops, women couldn't vote, and the average lifespan was somewhere under age 40. Good old days indeed. Do away with corporate influence in government. Don't do away with government.

 

Hear, hear!

 

Tara

[Peek a Boo]

I pay a lot in taxes when you add up federal, state, local, sales, etc. Well over 40% of my income. I get very little for that besides war and earmarks.

 

i agree it's too high. cut, Cut, CUT!!

 

I have kids from a country where a good deal of the population lives in poverty and the amount of suffering is horrific. I doubt that people oppressed by revoltingly lopsided economics and who are, by our standards, "failing" feel very free.

 

 

notice that i didn't say that freedom is defined by failure --we are talking about the overabundance of GOVERNMENT handouts. It is the freedom TO fail, not the MANDATE to fail. True freedom opens up doors of opportunity. I doubt that the population of the countries of which you speak have the political and economic freedom that we are discussing as necessary for 'true freedom.'

 

People talk about being willing to give up some freedoms in return for some security as if it's a bad, or ignorant, or naive view. I don't think it automatically is.

 

I am unconvinced that an unregulated society automatically sees to the best interests of all its inhabitants. Indeed, I have seen no incidence of this in my study of history.

 

 

I don't think it's necessarily bad, ignorant, or naive: for those that want such a country, I'm sure there's plenty to choose from. But as far as what America was founded on? yeah. Most of us are also NOT talking about an 'unregulated' society --going from "reduce handouts and taxes' to 'no gvt or regulations whatsoever' is quite a stretch.

 

 

I don't view economic success as the true, main, or only measure of success. Nor do I believe that a person who becomes financially wealthy by exploiting others is a success. Nor do I believe that deregulation of a society leads to a level playing field where those who "succeed" are the ones who worked hard and those who "failed" are the ones who sat on their proverbial hineys.

 

I think that the real problem with our country is that we view the almighty dollar as the only measure of success.

 

I'm not talking about [primarily] dollars and economics --I'm talking about personal liberty and personal property rights.

 

I don't view economic equality as the true, main, or only measure of success.

Nor do I believe that a person who becomes financially stable off the money taken by force from his fellow citizens is a sign of a successful society.

Nor do i believe that the micro-regulation of a society leads to a 'level playing field' where those who 'succeed' are ones who paid more in fees and permits and inspections and taxes and those who 'failed' are the ones who were non-compliant' w/ gvt officials.

:D

[Peek a Boo]

But how is your charity (or Beenies) any less injurious to an individuals work-ethic than a handout from Uncle Sam?

 

In either case, the freedom to fail (spectacularly) is being impinged. Either way the "recipient" is reduced to being a defendant "free-loader", no?

 

If someone is not completely free unless that are "free to fail" then giving them charity robs a person of this freedom, and you are an agent in their enslavement, no?

 

now that i responded 'off the cuff' I'll back up and clarify my original statement ;)

 

 

I said previously 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 am specifically speaking about the gvt's role in our lives --their involvement in bailing out corporations AND people.

 

People ARE free to be enslaved to whatever they want: laziness, charitable organizations, workaholics, etc, etc, etc. What i disagree with is that they be enslaved to those things *at my expense* -- not only at my expense, at my expense being forcibly taken from me w/o my voluntary permission by our gvt. We fill out our W-2's under duress. Literally.

 

If i donate money to the Salvation Army and they give to crack addicts and lazy people and the scum of the earth, then ya know what? That's fine. I gave it freely, I had the opportunity to research how the Salvation spends my money, and I can stop giving to them at any time.

 

But make no mistake --we are discussing the difference between the gvt forcing a service be funded by everyone vs people themselves driving the market of failure and success.

 

and i forgot one, tara -- researching history also shows a typical ebb and flow of gvt power and tyrrany. We're following that same path. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Anne Rittenhouse]

BTW, I don't know about Belgium, but I know that my friends in healthcare in GB tell me that their greatest problem is shortage of qualified physicians, because it is not worth it to kill yourself to get a medical degree under socialized healthcare. They have to import most of their physicians, largely from the Middle East. I don't know about others, but when my dad had his massive heart attack, I was sure glad his brilliant cardiologist was there at UCLA. I didn't begrudge him his tremendous salary one bit.

 

 

Funny, there are UK trained physicians by the boat loads here. I encounter them often as I am not currently fluent in "medical" French. I'm always looking for English fluent docs....they invariably have British accents.

[Anne Rittenhouse]

That is HUGE!

 

 

 

Yes, but that is the fed, state, local, and property, as well as health insurance rolled into one. We aren't taxed at 50% just for healthcare, the 50% covers all government costs and services, from the military to local street clean up.

 

In the US, our total tax rate, not just the fed table rate, but the total paid out to all parties is close to 35%. (I lived in a NJ and had $1000/month property taxes.) So adding the health insurance and out of pocket brings those percentages right up to the top.

 

Many folks are blessed with jobs and homes in lower tax states and many other folks are blessed with excellant health and I'm sure their costs are much less. For those less fortunate through no fault of their own, the costs are staggering and financial consequences are devestating.

 

Oh and by the way it's tax time again, we pay Belgian taxes since we are legal residents here, but it should be noted that the US is one of the few countries that still requires all it's citizens who are on foreign soil to file and pay US federal taxes. We pay twice.:tongue_smilie:

[Peek a Boo]

.... but it should be noted that the US is one of the few countries that still requires all it's citizens who are on foreign soil to file and pay US federal taxes. We pay twice.:tongue_smilie:

 

that's ok --we make up for it by not immediately deporting most illegal immigrants and offering citizenship to children of illegal aliens. if we can't get the foreigners to obey our laws, we'll just charge the law-abiding citizens more....:tongue_smilie:

 

back to forcibly taking funds from citizens as opposed to letting citizens themselves choose to fund such help.

 

{{but I'm all for dumping some of those US Federal taxes for ALL of us!!}}

 

**not to get into a big political thread about the pros and cons of how we secure our borders, just to show that for every person's idea of a CON a country has, there's usually some sort of issue some see as a substantial PRO. And vice versa. Kinda like this article about Belgium [do let me know if this article is blatantly false].

[Peek a Boo]

If it is not legal for me to rob you. Then, the government can't be granted the power to rob you and give me your money either. The government can only do for a mass of people what the people themselves are allowed to do.

 

ah! extending a welcome to another GUY!!! :D

 

[yeah, all you moms new to the discussion baord are pretty cool too ;) ]

[Spy Car]

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization".

 

I believe the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr said that. And the point is well taken.

 

I do find it distressing that some of my fellow Americans are equating taxation with theft. It's not theft. Taxes are authorized by our elected representatives, under our system of laws, and it is our duty as law abiding citizens of our Republic to pay them.

 

If you don't like the way monies are spent or the way taxes are assessed, use your vote (and organizing energies) to change things. That is your right. But to suggest taxes are stolen assets is bad citizenship, and plain wrong.

 

Every civilization has had some form of taxation. Civilization could not exist without taxes. Our nation could not survive without citizens paying taxes.

 

I don't want to live in a tribal society, and if I have to pay taxes to live a civilized nation, I'll gladly pay the price.

 

Bill (American patriot :patriot:)

[Soph the vet]

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization".

 

I believe the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr said that. And the point is well taken.

 

I do find it distressing that some of my fellow Americans are equating taxation with theft. It's not theft. Taxes are authorized by our elected representatives, under our system of laws, and it is our duty as law abiding citizens of our Republic to pay them.

 

If you don't like the way monies are spent or the way taxes are assessed, use your vote (and organizing energies) to change things. That is your right. But to suggest taxes are stolen assets is bad citizenship, and plain wrong.

 

Every civilization has had some form of taxation. Civilization could not exist without taxes. Our nation could not survive without citizens paying taxes.

 

I don't want to live in a tribal society, and if I have to pay taxes to live a civilized nation, I'll gladly pay the price.

 

Bill (American patriot :patriot:)

Funny, I heard this somewhere else "paying taxes is patriotic". What was the Boston Tea Party all about? Granted, the whole taxation without representation was #17 on the list of 27 grievances of the Declaration but it IS the one that gets all the press in public school textbooks.

 

I agree that some taxation is necessary and I am all for contributing to sound infrastructure and military defense. But taxes overall have ballooned WAY beyond their Constitutional purpose. There are taxes or "fees" on almost everything. Has anyone looked at their town's water bill or recycling fees?? I live in the 6th highest taxed state so maybe I am more sensitive to what I consider to be "overtaxation" or really "taxation without representation" as I do not see my conservative views represented in my local or federal government at this point. And I do vote, in every local, federal, etc. election.

 

It would great if we were required to pay ALL of our taxes in one lump sum just one year so we could all have a collective GASP and start eliminating some of the ridiculous things we are taxed for. Instead, we are nickel and dimed all through the year so it doesn't hurt as much.

 

Soph (not Barbara Streisand;) and willing to fight for Bill's chickens to not be taxed)

[KidsHappen]

http://www.stickergiant.com/better-dead_ftn307.html

[Spy Car]

Funny, I heard this somewhere else "paying taxes is patriotic". What was the Boston Tea Party all about? Granted, the whole taxation without representation was #17 on the list of 27 grievances of the Declaration but it IS the one that gets all the press in public school textbooks.

 

I agree that some taxation is necessary and I am all for contributing to sound infrastructure and military defense. But taxes overall have ballooned WAY beyond their Constitutional purpose. There are taxes or "fees" on almost everything. Has anyone looked at their town's water bill or recycling fees?? I live in the 6th highest taxed state so maybe I am more sensitive to what I consider to be "overtaxation" or really "taxation without representation" as I do not see my conservative views represented in my local or federal government at this point. And I do vote, in every local, federal, etc. election.

 

It would great if we were required to pay ALL of our taxes in one lump sum just one year so we could all have a collective GASP and start eliminating some of the ridiculous things we are taxed for. Instead, we are nickel and dimed all through the year so it doesn't hurt as much.

 

Soph (not Barbara Streisand;) and willing to fight for Bill's chickens to not be taxed)

 

The problem is no one likes paying taxes, but when government starts talking about cutting services then people howl.

 

The guy over there wants a serviceable road to drive on, the lady here wants her trash collected, the family whose house is on fire wants the fire department to come, Mr Jones wants a strong military, Mrs Smith wants a local hospital, the kid up the block wants clean water to drink, some lady on another board wants good public schools. You know. People want stuff.

 

If we want to talk about "free-loaders" it's the folks who want all the services, but are willing to pony up the dough to pay for them.

 

Does the government waste money sometimes? Sure!

Are priorities sometimes out of whack? No doubt.

 

So what do we do? Work within our system for positive change, or hyperbolically charge our government with theft?

 

To me the demands of good citizenship are clear.

 

Bill (proud to be an American, proud of the U.S.A. :tongue_smilie:)

[Zelda]

 

To me the demands of good citizenship are clear.

 

Bill (proud to be an American, proud of the U.S.A. :tongue_smilie:)

 

Well, no point in further discussion then.