Universal Healthcare

[JesseJames]

Does it really work? Should the government provide universal healthcare for everyone? Even if everyone pays more tax for it?

[wdlove]

Does it really work? Should the government provide universal healthcare for everyone? Even if everyone pays more tax for it?

Just take a look at Canada, England, and Europe. When the get sick they come to the US, because we have the best healthcare in the World. As currently proposed it would be a colossal mistake. The government is good at defense and infrastructur, but not much else.

[bousozoku]

Just take a look at Canada, England, and Europe. When the get sick they come to the US, because we have the best healthcare in the World. As currently proposed it would be a colossal mistake. The government is good at defense and infrastructur, but not much else.

I think it's more correct to say that the government is less bad at defense and infrastructure. However, they're quite good at taking care of government officials--i.e., anyone important in the three branches--but not so good at taking care of veterans.

We need good healthcare for everyone but until they remove the profit, and therefore, the fraud, it will not happen properly.

[db2guru]

Does it really work? Should the government provide universal healthcare for everyone? Even if everyone pays more tax for it?

First, since all evidence points to the fact that it has failed in all cases that I can think of, ie. USSR, GB, Germany, France, Canada, there is little to recommend that it would be a success anywhere else. The countries that adopted socialized medicine have been bankrupted by it. The highest priority in those countries is to find a way to cut back on the availability of care to control the costs. In those countries there exists a parallel health care system for "the rich" who can afford to pay out of pocket expenses, or those patients go to countries where they can buy the services they want.

Second a government program is *always the worst* option because, since it precludes any hope of competition, you are guaranteed to get only the most mediocre services for the highest costs. For every dollar dumped into the black hole 20% will be consumed feeding the beast that administers the program. As complaints about the sorry state of affairs mount the solution is always the same: more tax money is needed to fix the problem. No competition is a bad thing...

Third, these programs are a disaster for young taxpayers. Insurance costs are minimal for the young wage earners. It costs a fortune for old pharts (like me). And it is the old pharts that need 98% of the expensive care. So, what you will get is another wealth transfer program that moves money from one group of citizens (the younger wage earners) to another group of citizens (primarily the retired and elderly) through a program that skims 10 or 20% of the money and distributes the rest in a non-competitive environment. Since this is exactly how the social security system works, you have a pretty good example of how this would work. This cost of this one program could make Social Security look like chump change. Would I like to have all the 20-somethings chip in for part of the cost of my health insurance costs? You betcha. Why should I have to take responsibilty for my own life if "the government" provides it?

Fourth, there is already a system for health care for indigent patients. It is regulated by the same folks who think "universal health care" sounds like a good idea. Of course, by moving everyone into the same system the average care will average downward to that of the indigent health care system.

Fifth, assume that the costs of the healthcare system last year were X dollars. Do you really think we can provide MORE care next year (all those newly insured are going to start soaking up more care dollars, not fewer), while at the same time hiring TENS OF THOUSANDS of new government employees to administer the program, and that the total cost will be LESS than X?

Sixth (and now I will shut up...) , try to remember this: there is no "government provided" anything. "Government provided" means that you and your neighbors are footing the bill plus some extra needed to feed the beast to administer the program.

If you believe so, I have this bridge for sale....

[Neserk]

Just because Canada et. al. didn't do Universal healthcare right doesn't mean the US can't. There is no excuse for every person in the US to not have health care *somehow* I don't care how!

[Daveman Deluxe]

Matthew Miller has an interesting idea about universal health care. First of all, it won't be socialized medicine--there will still be a free market for health care. One big difference is that risk pools will only be by age and gender. One problem is that right now, health care providers are trying to make plans really affordable for the people that are the least likely to need it (because profit margins are the highest there), but the prices are through the roof for those who need it the most. Eliminating most risk pooling will combat that, since providers won't know who is unlikely to be sick.

The other aspect of this is to make a basic health care plan available to all people by means of a sliding scale of payment to consumers--this as opposed to a tax credit.

I'm glossing over a lot of the fine details, but he goes over it in very fine detail in his book "The Two Percent Solution", and his idea had bipartisan support.

[zimv20]

imo, the gov't could take a giant step simply by:
1) guaranteeing that anyone who wants coverage can get it, and
2) guaranteeing a reasonable price for that coverage

i've never thought it was a good idea to replace the existing private system; it should be supplemented.

[IJ Reilly]

Ask anyone in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan... you name the country, whether they'd prefer to drop their health care system in favor of ours. I'd be surprised if 0.5% would be in favor.

The cost factor of a government program is a phony argument. The administrative overhead costs of the Medicare system is far lower than the private insurance system, where between 25-35% of the health care dollars are wasted.

[pseudobrit]

1 We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, despite the fact that...

2 we're not all insured and...

3 we ignore health problems because of cost

Everyone says that there's an influx of people from nations that have national healthcare, but I don't see their proof.

What's more, even if our systems did create the best doctors and medicine in the world, what would it matter if only a few can afford it? How is that good for the average American?

[IJ Reilly]

Everyone says that there's an influx of people from nations that have national healthcare, but I don't see their proof.

This is one of the more insidious bits of anecdotal evidence used to argue against universal access to health care. No doubt it's true that some well-off Canadians go south for treatment, but it's certainly also true that a much larger number of Americans now go both south and north to buy their prescription medicines. What's also true is that the Canadians who come south for treatment aren't doing so because they won't get treatment in Canada, but because they might have to wait longer then they'd like for elective surgeries. Now, if you want to hear anecdotes about denied and delayed treatment, talk to an American with an HMO plan.

[miloblithe]

Russian doctors pioneered several methods of medical treatment, for example the method of extending bone length by breaking the bone and re-setting it somewhat farther apart then it was to begin with--a treatment used for children who are born abnormally short. Americans went to Russia for this, and other treatments. Does this mean Russia has a better health care system than the US?

As several have mentioned, this kind of eveidence is very misleading as to the question of how effective a health care system is. If some foreigners come to America to seek expensive, specific types of treatment, that does not prove we have a better _system_ of healthcare, but rather that we are better at providing that particular treatment, at a particular cost, to that particular person or group of people.

There is no single statistic or set or arguement that can really prove how effective a health care system is. Jananese people (an many others) live longer than Americans, have better infant mortality and death in childbirth rates, and so on. Does that mean that the Japanese health care system is better? There are a lot of other factors involved, diet being an obvious one, and crime rates being another.

The best argument, it seems to me is that some services do not respond as well to others to the market. IJ Reilly's point about the overhead costs of medicare vrs. those of a private insurance company fit well into this argument. A private insurance company's goal, like that of any company, is to maximize profits and reduce costs. A government healthcare agency's goal is to maximize healthcare and reduce costs. Which sounds better?

[zimv20]

in the past couple months, someone posted a study that ranked countries' health care. iirc, france was #1 and the US was either #14 or #54. who was that and can we see it again?

[IJ Reilly]

in the past couple months, someone posted a study that ranked countries' health care. iirc, france was #1 and the US was either #14 or #54. who was that and can we see it again?

That was probably my doing. Several months ago, I posted an article from the LA Times showing that US per capita spending on health care was 2-3 times higher than all other western nations, but was well down the list in effectiveness, when measured by infant mortality rates and life expectancy.

That thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=55564

[wwidgirl]

This is purely personal experience but I really wouldn't trade the system here (Canada) for the American health care system. It works for me. If you have coverage, then you get extra benefits, such as: dental, eye-care, massages, prescriptions, etc. However, the basic coverage is enough that if you're sick and you're poor you will still get taken care of.

[miloblithe]

This is purely personal experience but I really wouldn't trade the system here (Canada) for the American health care system. It works for me. If you have coverage, then you get extra benefits, such as: dental, eye-care, massages, prescriptions, etc. However, the basic coverage is enough that if you're sick and you're poor you will still get taken care of.

That does sound like a system that makes a lot of sense. Another key is encouraging (and paying for) people to take effective, preventative measures in their health that are cheaper in the long run.

[zimv20]

Another key is encouraging (and paying for) people to take effective, preventative measures in their health that are cheaper in the long run.
yeah, like HMOs were designed to do. i think they became a little too concerned w/ profit along the way.

boy, how cynical have i become when it's difficult for me to imagine insurers and drug manufacturers being more concerned about service and care than profit.

[amnesiac1984]

That was probably my doing. Several months ago, I posted an article from the LA Times showing that US per capita spending on health care was 2-3 times higher than all other western nations, but was well down the list in effectiveness, when measured by infant mortality rates and life expectancy.

That thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=55564

I agree, I was rather disillusioned with some of the posts claiming the US health care system to be the best in the world and I couldn't believe that people believe that BS. The UK's may not be perfect but it provides for a lot more people than the US and France and Germanys' (i think) system are second to none.

[zimv20]

I couldn't believe that people believe that BS
oh, didn't you know? we have the best of everything over here. hands down. no questions asked. that's why we have so many immigrants. because everything is better.

/sarcasm

the factors as i see them:
1. from birth, americans are indoctrinated into the "everything is bigger and better here" dogma*
2. most americans haven't left the country**
3. many americans are wilfully ignorant ("France? how could *FRANCE* have the best healthcare? they can't even win a war!")

* i'm sure that most of the rest of the world does that too, but i feel americans win the International Selfishness and We Can Do No Wrong Awards

** i saw a statistic some time ago. i believe that is was only 7% of americans hold a passport, and the percentage of those who travel overseas is even smaller.

[Neserk]

oh, didn't you know? we have the best of everything over here. hands down. no questions asked. that's why we have so many immigrants. because everything is better.

/sarcasm



*laughs* I hear it all the time...


the factors as i see them:
1. from birth, americans are indoctrinated into the "everything is bigger and better here" dogma*

* i'm sure that most of the rest of the world does that too, but i feel americans win the International Selfishness and We Can Do No Wrong Awards


I believe you are correct. When I've made observations that are critical of the govenrment I've been told to leave. :rolleyes: I guess superconservatives leave problems instead of trying to fix them.

When I disagreed with the war in Iraq and criticized Bush I was told I was unpatriotic and should leave the country. Apparently superconservatives aren't allowed to criticize their leaders, either.

The whole *America is the best country in the world* brainwashing makes me sick. Shortly after Bush became reigning dictator I received (it was given to me at a fair) a sticker that said "world citizen" I think the world would be much a better place if people would view themselves as part of the whole world rather than a citizen of just one country. The egomania here is scary.



** i saw a statistic some time ago. i believe that is was only 7% of americans hold a passport, and the percentage of those who travel overseas is even smaller.


I've been to only 3 other countries (Canada, Mexico, & Israel). Not by choice. I would love to do *more* world traveling (speaking of passports, I need to renew mine). I would also like to reside in another country for at least a few months if not longer. What an experience that would be! My husband would like to go to France (he speaks French, although badly, apparently) and Ireland (he is Irish). There is an exchange program through Fulbright where teachers switch classrooms for 6 weeks to 1 year. Most of them are for highschool teachers and college professors but the UK does exchange programs for elementary school teachers...

... sorry you got me dreaming again :D

[jefhatfield]

Does it really work? Should the government provide universal healthcare for everyone? Even if everyone pays more tax for it?

age 40, healthy, blue cross w/ medium coverage 400+/mo??

what do you think?

[IJ Reilly]

I'd like to have the option of buying into Medicare. Even if it meant paying as much as a 10% payroll tax, I'd probably be dollars and coverage ahead.

[zimv20]

age 40, healthy, blue cross w/ medium coverage 400+/mo??

what do you think?
my monthly premium costs me between 1/3 and 1/2 my monthly pre-tax earnings. i also pose the "what do you think?" question.

[wdlove]

age 40, healthy, blue cross w/ medium coverage 400+/mo??

what do you think?

I have Federal Blue Cross for just myself, it's $105/month.

[Neserk]

my monthly premium costs me between 1/3 and 1/2 my monthly pre-tax earnings. i also pose the "what do you think?" question.


I'm happy to say I now have health insurance. Kind of. I have that insurance you can get when enrolled in a graduate or undergraduate program. It costs $270 from Feb 1-August 27th. Mostly it covers me if I die :D Actually, it has some benefits which I'm very greatful for. And if I don't mind taking a day off of work I can go see the doctor between 9-11 am Monday-Thursday for free... of course it costs me to take a day off :rolleyes:

Well, *something* is better than nothing...

[numediaman]

A couple of things to chew on:
Is America's Health Care the Best?
Medical Economics, March 5, 2004, by Joan R. Rose

A new study by The Commonwealth Fund found that, from patients' perspective, the US often performs relatively poorly. Based on patients' perception of care they received, The Commonwealth Fund ranked five English-speaking nations--Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States--on six criteria: patient safety, patient-centered care, timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. Even though the US spends more of its national income on healthcare than the other countries, it ranked last or next-to-last on most of those measurements. One exception was timeliness of hospital admissions and elective surgery, though New Zealand outperformed the US in terms of prompt access to primary care physicians and specialists.

And:
The world's health care: How do we rank?

The United States spends a great deal on health care but gains too little, says the World Health Organization.

By Susan Landers, AMNews staff

Health care in the United States is second to none. Right? Well, not according to the World Health Organization. A recent WHO survey ranked the United States 37th in overall health system performance -- sandwiched between Costa Rica and Slovenia. This dismal showing occurred despite the fact that the United States spends more on health care -- 13.7% of its gross domestic product -- than any other of the 191 WHO nations.

WHO named France as the nation that provides the best overall health care to its citizens. The other countries that round out the top five are: Italy and the tiny nations of San Marino (also known as the Most Serene Republic of San Marino), Andorra (or the Principality of Andorra) and Malta.

How are these findings possible? After all, foreign heads of state who could get health care anywhere choose the United States.

It's all in how and what you measure, say many health care experts.

"The United States at its best has as good medical care as you'll get anywhere in the world. It really is superb," said Herbert Pardes, MD, president and CEO of New York Presbyterian Healthcare Network.

"But one of the problems is, while we have health care at the very best, we don't have all of our citizens covered for health care when they should be," he said. "We have 44 million Americans without coverage."

In my opinion, as long as money is no object, you can receive the best medical care available here in the U.S. But does this mean we have the best healthcare system? I doubt it. It costs too much, and it doesn't guarantee coverage.

[amnesiac1984]

the factors as i see them:
1. from birth, americans are indoctrinated into the "everything is bigger and better here" dogma*
2. most americans haven't left the country**
3. many americans are wilfully ignorant ("France? how could *FRANCE* have the best healthcare? they can't even win a war!")


where in reality its more like: "everyone is bigger and stupider here". :P

Just kidding.

Most Americans I have met have been well travelled and normally are very well informed about how their country stands in the context of the rest of the world. Yet almost everyday I'm shocked to read some statistic on how the majority of Americans think. For example that statistic that showed some huge proportion of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. I now I see that people have posted articles saying, actually ooo guess what, we don't have the best healthcare system in the world as if its some kind of shock.

It would be a lot healthier if people were to constantly underestimate their health system, and their country in general, that way it would force improvement. Some people stop complaining because it seems to working quite nicely for THEM but Nobody should be satisfied until we live in a perfect world, where it works out as a sweet deal for everyone, that will probably NEVER happen but if we stop trying we'll NEVER move forward, only backwards. Its like these guys have been so drugged up on false patriotism that they have become soulless yes men to the MAN. And guess what, that man is the upper middle class rich white man who just about feels everything is pretty sweet for HIM/HER at the moment. And why does everybody say yes to the MAN? because its the American Dream to become him and so anything to make life better when you do become him, will do. Even if it makes life harder for you in reality?

[jefhatfield]

I have Federal Blue Cross for just myself, it's $105/month.

after getting my ba degree in hr, i became an hr person for the federal govt...with insurance, even federal insurance, you basically get what you pay for...many of the more informed/experienced federal workers had their teeth kicked in with just low cost federal coverage, so they got private, expensive blue cross insurance, too...but it's all a crapshoot...if you have low cost medical insurance, read the fine print and you will see why it is low cost and realize that the medical insurance business is just that...a business

just hope you don't really get sick

after my hr work, i went to work into the medical insurance side of things for three years in a hospital and found many received bad care for being poor...many poor died of preventable diseases due to high medical costs

we are the richest country in the world and many poorer countries than us have universal medical care...the high cost of medical care and the way it rises disproportionally every year will guarantee that one day, very soon, only the rich will be fully covered with medical insurance...others not as rich may have "insurance" per se, but won't be covered for anything that is likely to happen to them

[jayb2000]

"Second a government program is *always the worst* option because, since it precludes any hope of competition, you are guaranteed to get only the most mediocre services for the highest costs. For every dollar dumped into the black hole 20% will be consumed feeding the beast that administers the program. As complaints about the sorry state of affairs mount the solution is always the same: more tax money is needed to fix the problem. No competition is a bad thing."

The average HMO has 15% overhead, Medicare is 3%. So, if we all dumped medicare and went with HMO, our costs would go UP.
If everyone had insurance, and used preventive care, which is far cheaper than emergency services, then our costs would go DOWN.

The only people that make more money when costs go up are the people doing the selling, the drug companies, hospital chains, and insurance companies, all of whom happen to be some of the largest donors to the GOP, which is why the new prescription bill benefits them greatly (no competition on prices) and hurts the average person (still not fully covered and rising costs of prescriptions).

It amazes me that people push for competition for necessary things, like health care.
If I break my leg, I am not going to go home and call up several local hospitals to find out the best prices, I am going to go to either A) the one thats closets or B) the one I usually go to because that is where my health insurance works.

[SlyHunter]

My mother recently complained to me because she couldn't afford the new heartburn medication. I asked her take tums whats wrong with that. Well they don't work as good as the new stuff. Its unfair she can't afford the new stuff. The government should do something about it.

She drives a 20 year old convertable she doesn't cry about how she can't afford a mercedes benz. She doesn't expect the government to subsidize cars so she can afford the newest model.

People expect to be provided the best in medical care because they irrationally think they deserve it. Everyone should not automatically assume they should get limousine medical services. Nobody has a right to health. Nobody has the right to force doctors and pharmaceuticals to give them what they need. For the only way the governement could fix such a problem is to over regulate and control how much doctors get paid, how much drug manufacturers get paid. Be allot of people moving to some other country if this happened.

In Canada if you need an MRI you wait in a 6 month waiting line or you cross the border into America. However in America if you want cheap drugs you cross the border and buy them in Canada. No system is perfect. But yes the market should be allowed to roll on.


It really is not societies responsibility to insure the weak and the ones who are incapable of supporting themselves are supported. Those societies who do spend allot helping those individuals are dragged down and are not as great as they could be. No I don't like the idea of children of wellfare mothers going without healthcare. I also don't like the idea of us rewarding those who do the wrong thing get pregnant when they can't afford to and automatically assume the world will provide them sustanance. Yes I have a personal pet peeve here.

Several women have turned me down because I was not "fun" I did not drink, I did not get high, I did not do allot of irresponsible things. I was square and boring worked my own job and paid my bills. These women chose men who were fun and then got pissed when those men left because they went and got pregnant. Didn't they realize fun people like that didn't want to be held down by responsibilities. And now those women think it is their right to collect wellfare because they went and did something stupid and got pregnant. I don't think so. Believe it or not one of these women actually came to me for help promising to be my mate for life. I laughed and walked away. My own sisters are both wellfare mothers by their own mistakes. They both assumed not only the government but their family should be thrilled to throw money at them to insure their kids had the best of everything. Maybe they should've thought of that before getting pregnant. Before going out getting drunk high and etc.

Sorry healthcare is bigger than this but no society can afford to provide everyone with top notch healthcare. Where do you draw the line. Someday we will thru cloning or other technology be able to keep a body alive indefinitely with perhaps the exception of the brain slowly wearing down. Then will it be everyones right to have all those transplants paid for by the government if they are too poor to pay for it themselves. After all what selfish individual would say they should die at the age of 100 because they can't afford the medical technology that would let them live till the age of 500? Me. Everyone does not deserve limousine medical care.

[pseudobrit]

People expect to be provided the best in medical care because they irrationally think they deserve it. Everyone should not automatically assume they should get limousine medical services. Nobody has a right to health...
Everyone does not deserve limousine medical care.

These statements are at odds. Do people not have a right to health at all or just this "limousine" medical care (which I'd love to hear a description of -- outpatient elective surgery perhaps?)?

[SlyHunter]

These statements are at odds. Do people not have a right to health at all or just this "limousine" medical care (which I'd love to hear a description of -- outpatient elective surgery perhaps?)?
They have the right to what they can afford to pay for.

[miloblithe]

They have the right to what they can afford to pay for.

So children, who have no money for the most part, don't have a right to health care?

Or just children of rich (enough) parents have a right to health care?

[SlyHunter]

So children, who have no money for the most part, don't have a right to health care?

Or just children of rich (enough) parents have a right to health care?
If you can't afford to pay for the support of your own kids then you shouldn't of had those kids. You shouldn't of gotten pregnant. Only those who can afford to have kids should have kids.

[miloblithe]

If you can't afford to pay for the support of your own kids then you shouldn't of had those kids. You shouldn't of gotten pregnant. Only those who can afford to have kids should have kids.

How do you propose to implement this plan of having no poor people procreate? Steralization seems like a good idea at first, but what if one of them gets a good job once the economy turns around?

[amnesiac1984]

How do you propose to implement this plan of having no poor people procreate? Steralization seems like a good idea at first, but what if one of them gets a good job once the economy turns around?

and if all the poor get sterilised so that they can't reproduce, there won't be any left, and then there won't be any left to do all the manual jobs for **** pay that the rich need done for them in order for their earning machines to run. Then the economy goes down the crapper. When are you people gonna realise that its the working classes who make it possible for the rich to be rich.

[SlyHunter]

How do you propose to implement this plan of having no poor people procreate? Steralization seems like a good idea at first, but what if one of them gets a good job once the economy turns around?
Sterilization is reversable but noo I don't recommend it for everyone. How about the ones that seem to not be able to stop they are already living on wellfare yet they keep getting pregnant and becoming bigger leaches on society. Why don't we start with sterilizing them and parsing their children out on adoption to more responsible folks. If your already on wellfare and you continue making more brats then you should have all your children taken away and your reproductive rights removed.

[SlyHunter]

and if all the poor get sterilised so that they can't reproduce, there won't be any left, and then there won't be any left to do all the manual jobs for **** pay that the rich need done for them in order for their earning machines to run. Then the economy goes down the crapper. When are you people gonna realise that its the working classes who make it possible for the rich to be rich.
The rich are rich because they are smart enough to keep doing the things that make them rich.

The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor.

Maybe its time for the poor to learn good habits from the rich? You have to start somewhere.

[amnesiac1984]

The rich are rich because they are smart enough to keep doing the things that make them rich.

The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor.

Maybe its time for the poor to learn good habits from the rich? You have to start somewhere.

you completely missed my point, yes it is up to the individual to get themselves rich, but no it is not always the poors' fault that they are poor. You have to look at the bigger picture in that in order to get rich, you need the working classes to be doing the crap jobs to keep your pockets full. The rich feed off the poor. And if your going to feed off the poor wouldn't it be fair if they were allowed to stay healthy, after all its in your interest that they stay alive and able to work and that they have kids so that more poor people can come along and feed you in the future?

On the individual sense you could argue that everybody has the chance at the big time but some people have a huge advantage over the others, the main ones are that the rich can afford decent schools for their kids and decent health care. If you're poor you have crappy health care and you are relatively poorly educated. Now have I broken down my point in nice bite size pieces enough for you yet? Why should I be disadvantaged because of who my parents are? I'm all for capitalism, hell my parents work hard and our successful enough so we have a new house and I have a nice powermac and I get to go to UNI.

But these are all things I don't really need but I enjoy thanks to the success of my parents. Health care and schooling are things I do need. I went to a private school, paid for by my Grandparents. The way I see it, as long as we provide enough top level decent schooling for everybody, from birth, then nobody will have the advantage. Health is exactly the same.

[jefhatfield]

The rich are rich because they are smart enough to keep doing the things that make them rich.

The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor.

Maybe its time for the poor to learn good habits from the rich? You have to start somewhere.

the rich as simply better at choosing who becomes their parents ;)

read the "millionaire next door"...2/3 rds of all american millionaires are born that way

being that becoming a millionaire through one's own plan is not as common as being born that way, the book gives great insights into how one can be that rare person who makes their million, but more importantly, hangs on to it

in the 80s, 100,000 americans became millionaires every year from 82 until almost the end of the decade...few hang on to it, but the ones who did are among the ones who give insight into the book

as you can tell, i highly recommend it whether one has a goal of being rich or not...there are a lot of common sense concepts, not taught in business school, which are helpful tactics and strategies for one's financial life

another good read is "rich dad, poor dad"

[SlyHunter]

the rich as simply better at choosing who becomes their parents ;)

read the "millionaire next door"...2/3 rds of all american millionaires are born that way

being that becoming a millionaire through one's own plan is not as common as being born that way, the book gives great insights into how one can be that rare person who makes their million, but more importantly, hangs on to it

in the 80s, 100,000 americans became millionaires every year from 82 until almost the end of the decade...few hang on to it, but the ones who did are among the ones who give insight into the book

as you can tell, i highly recommend it whether one has a goal of being rich or not...there are a lot of common sense concepts, not taught in business school, which are helpful tactics and strategies for one's financial life

another good read is "rich dad, poor dad"
Read the book good common sense advice even tho he spends allot of his time recommending seminars and crap that happens to drive money into his own pockets. I bought it for my nephew but my sister threw it in the trashcan unopened.

[eclipse525]

I applaude everyone on this thread. Such potential and good intentions.

The way politics works today and the amount of self-interest is pretty sickening. The vicious cycle has to stop somehow. I wish I had answers but the best one is something someone told me. Take baby steps. Join/support movements or organizations that think in the same mind frame. All the little drops become an ocean eventually. "MoveOn.org" is a good one and most recently "Air America Radio" BUT I'm sure there is tons of organizations locally.< http://www.rocklandaction.org/ > being my local one.

We can put a man on the moon but we can't solve the deficit or implement a BASIC universal healthcare system. What a shame. The day you are born, you should NOT have to worry about Food, Shelter and Healthcare. NO MATTER who you are and what you decided to contribute to society.


~e

[jefhatfield]

Read the book good common sense advice even tho he spends allot of his time recommending seminars and crap that happens to drive money into his own pockets. I bought it for my nephew but my sister threw it in the trashcan unopened.

did richard kiyosaki write a book called that?

i know he wrote a whole series of books and such, but i have only read the one book where he talks about entrepreneurism in america

what made our country great and what will continue its move forward is small business but i think a lot of americans have forgotten that and think their financial future lies in going to college, listening to professors, of getting caught in get rich quick schemes

hard work and being in business for oneself is the main way to get rich if you are not the 2/3rds who are born that way...there is little room for any ideas much outside of entreprenuerism to reach that peak

sure, some people find a sunken treasure by accident, some win the lottery (and i have met two such people), but overall outside of a long range plan and most likely being in business for oneself, it's almost impossible to become rich, stay that way, and have passive income...which is the common thread in all rich people

[zimv20]

If your already on wellfare and you continue making more brats then you should have all your children taken away and your reproductive rights removed.
your views are far out of line w/ the american mainstream. don't you have nieces and nephews? are you really advocating the gov't take them away and sterilize your siblings?

can you really assert that you're a "get the gov't out of my life" conservative?

[IJ Reilly]

your views are far out of line w/ the american mainstream. don't you have nieces and nephews? are you really advocating the gov't take them away and sterilize your siblings?

can you really assert that you're a "get the gov't out of my life" conservative?

If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of goose-stepping.

[pseudobrit]

The rich are rich because they are smart enough to keep doing the things that make them rich.

The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor.

Maybe its time for the poor to learn good habits from the rich? You have to start somewhere.

Wow. I never realised it was so simple.

I've decided to be born into a rich family now.

[pseudobrit]

Sterilization is reversable but noo I don't recommend it for everyone. How about the ones that seem to not be able to stop they are already living on wellfare yet they keep getting pregnant and becoming bigger leaches on society. Why don't we start with sterilizing them and parsing their children out on adoption to more responsible folks. If your already on wellfare and you continue making more brats then you should have all your children taken away and your reproductive rights removed.

That's quite possiby one of the craziest things I've ever heard on here.

[wwidgirl]

Ugh, now I think that Slyhunter is just bs-ing us. I mean, no one REALLY thinks this way right?

[IJ Reilly]

Ugh, now I think that Slyhunter is just bs-ing us. I mean, no one REALLY thinks this way right?

I wouldn't know. You haven't been around here for long, but Frohickey actually said that people who don't have health insurance deserve to die. So yes, some people do think this way.

[SlyHunter]

Wow. I never realised it was so simple.

I've decided to be born into a rich family now.
I thought that way for a long time then I decided I was tired living the life of a bum. I literally lived on the streets for a short time. I scrimped and saved my first thousand. Now I play the stock market. Now I don't waste money on lottery tickets. Now I buy cheap food and only eat enough to feed me. Still don't have a couch in my apartment, thats because I have a very strict budget and a couch won't make me more money. Still one accident, one sickness, and I'm back in the poor house. But if things keep going a year or two from now and I might actually start believing I can retire some day. I did it without any help from the government.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Sterilization is reversable but noo I don't recommend it for everyone. How about the ones that seem to not be able to stop they are already living on wellfare yet they keep getting pregnant and becoming bigger leaches on society. Why don't we start with sterilizing them and parsing their children out on adoption to more responsible folks. If your already on wellfare and you continue making more brats then you should have all your children taken away and your reproductive rights removed.

That's quite possiby one of the craziest things I've ever heard on here.
Its crazier to continue to promote leaches to be leaches. Women who pay the rent thru government subsidize with fatherless kids purposely getting pregnant to either entrap a guy to pay their bills or at least get more money from the government.

[Sayhey]

Its crazier to continue to promote leaches to be leaches. Women who pay the rent thru government subsidize with fatherless kids purposely getting pregnant to either entrap a guy to pay their bills or at least get more money from the government.

Slyhunter, have you ever heard of the "eugenics" movement. It was very big around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century and into the 1930s. The Nazis liked it quite a lot. You might too. In the US we used to engage in forced sterilization of poor women in the name of removing "leeches" on society. Thankfully most of us have rejected that way of thinking.

[jefhatfield]

I thought that way for a long time then I decided I was tired living the life of a bum. I literally lived on the streets for a short time. I scrimped and saved my first thousand. Now I play the stock market. Now I don't waste money on lottery tickets. Now I buy cheap food and only eat enough to feed me. Still don't have a couch in my apartment, thats because I have a very strict budget and a couch won't make me more money. Still one accident, one sickness, and I'm back in the poor house. But if things keep going a year or two from now and I might actually start believing I can retire some day. I did it without any help from the government.

i may not agree with anything (or much of what) you say on these forums...sometimes you say things that evoke nazi germany in the 1930s or communist china in the 1960s (brutal cultural revolution), but i do commend you for pulling yourself up out of a bad situation

i hope you do well with the stock market and retire comfortably

it's many of these liberals on these forums that you debate with that stand up for the rights of people in the lower and working classes and for the rights of homeless people...i am sure you have met some fake, self serving liberals after the almighty buck, but in general, it is the left wing that has assured what rights you have already which ultimately helped you get out of homelessness

in countries like nazi germany and communist china, not to mention some others left, right, and center politically, would have jailed you, or worse...be glad that you live in an america which appears to be too left wing for your comfort level but tirelessly stands up for your rights...and realize the left and moderate voters (dems and gop) which you so despise is vast and has many varying viewpoints of which many are in your favor to ultimately succeed in life

not all things, or even a lot are rights...many are privelidges, but in america we strive to make a lot of priviledges into rights for our citizens in this richest and greatest of nations in all of human history...we will not be judged by the wars we win, the money we make, or the influence we spread...but by how we treat our poorest and most helpless here and abroad

[SlyHunter]

Up to several years ago I called myself a democrat.
Liberal doesn't mean what it meant back in the 60's the Democrats have changed its meaning to mean socialist.
Now I have to call myself a "Compassionate Libertarian". I don't stand for everythign they do. They are isolationist voted against going to war with Germany during WWII, was against the war in Iraq. Sometimes they can be extremely hard hearted. But they are todays modern liberal.

My saying Everyone should be free to do whatever they damn well please as long as it does not interfere with anothers right to do the same.

Libertarians saying Everyone has the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness any way they chose as long as they do not take away the life, liberty or property of another thru force, theft or fraud.

The only way you can abide by either of those is that not only are you free to succeed but you have to be free to fail even if it means starving to death. Because the government can not protect you from failing without taking from another to do so. Such charity is not charity if it is not given freely. While there is nothing wrong with a private citizen helping another individually or in groups there is something wrong with having the government take someone elses money to help those you think needs help.

It gets more complicated I'll save the rest for another reply.

[jefhatfield]

Up to several years ago I called myself a democrat.
Liberal doesn't mean what it meant back in the 60's the Democrats have changed its meaning to mean socialist.
Now I have to call myself a "Compassionate Libertarian". I don't stand for everythign they do. They are isolationist voted against going to war with Germany during WWII, was against the war in Iraq. Sometimes they can be extremely hard hearted. But they are todays modern liberal.

My saying Everyone should be free to do whatever they damn well please as long as it does not interfere with anothers right to do the same.

Libertarians saying Everyone has the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness any way they chose as long as they do not take away the life, liberty or property of another thru force, theft or fraud.

The only way you can abide by either of those is that not only are you free to succeed but you have to be free to fail even if it means starving to death. Because the government can not protect you from failing without taking from another to do so. Such charity is not charity if it is not given freely. While there is nothing wrong with a private citizen helping another individually or in groups there is something wrong with having the government take someone elses money to help those you think needs help.

It gets more complicated I'll save the rest for another reply.

i have seen two types of so called libertarians here...the first is the real one...small government and against government getting too much into people's lives and their cause is truly honorable..they are against ultra powerful, nazi/communist central governments

the other is the hard core nazi or marxist...they hate the usa because their brutal, bloodthirsty regime is "not" in control at the present moment in the usa...these people are not liberals and akin to the son of sam or hannibal lechter..they want blood and want it right now, and several humanitly hating, so called "libertarians" have already been banned from these boards...it is one of the more seached out phenomenons on google.com...some of your statements have seemed so bloodthirsty that i don't know what kind (real or fake) libertarian you are

but i agree with what you say about today's true democrat/liberal...many are today's "true" libertarians

a true liberal is for the individual and so are the "real" libertarians

[zimv20]

Now I have to call myself a "Compassionate Libertarian". [...] Everyone should be free to do whatever they damn well please as long as it does not interfere with anothers right to do the same.

i call High ************ on you. you advocate forced sterilization. that is neither compassionate nor non-interfering.

[SlyHunter]

i call High ************ on you. you advocate forced sterilization. that is neither compassionate nor non-interfering.
No I'm against wellfare mothers living on wellfare purposely having more children. The only alternative I know to stop them is sterilization. Nobody who is already leaching off of the government who decides to have more children should be allowed to keep their reproductive rights. Feel sorry for the 15 kids of a woman but pity for her chosing that life and anger for her bringing in all them kids. She should've stopped on her own a long time before she reached those numbers.

I don't advocate force sterilization for everyone. But still gotta stop the fatherless kids particularly to irresponsible women who keeps popping them out over and over again.

[pseudobrit]

No I'm against wellfare mothers living on wellfare purposely having more children. The only alternative I know to stop them is sterilization. Nobody who is already leaching off of the government who decides to have more children should be allowed to keep their reproductive rights. Feel sorry for the 15 kids of a woman but pity for her chosing that life and anger for her bringing in all them kids. She should've stopped on her own a long time before she reached those numbers.

I don't advocate force sterilization for everyone. But still gotta stop the fatherless kids particularly to irresponsible women who keeps popping them out over and over again.

My parents come from families of 10 and 12 children, respectively. They didn't have a lot of money, but managed to scrape by.

You sicken me.

[SlyHunter]

My parents come from families of 10 and 12 children, respectively. They didn't have a lot of money, but managed to scrape by.

You sicken me.
Nobody should purposely live off of the government if they don't have to.
People who do live off of the government because they have to should also try not to create a greater burden on the government than they already are by having more kids. It is not fair to the people working hard and paying taxes to the government for them to do that.

The nice answer is don't have any more kids if you are already living on wellfare. Nobody should force you to do that you should do that automatically if you are a responsible mature person. Problem is what do you do with the irresponsible and/or immature people who think the world owes them a living? These are the people hurting our economy and dragging our society down. I know I don't have the answer that is easy to swallow but maybe it is the only answer that will actually work?

[miloblithe]

I honestly didn't think he'd say that he supported steralization. Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we're being had.

[pseudobrit]

Nobody should purposely live off of the government if they don't have to.

Not many people who don't have to do.

People who do live off of the government because they have to should also try not to create a greater burden on the government than they already are by having more kids. It is not fair to the people working hard and paying taxes to the government for them to do that.

A CEO getting a $5M bonus for laying off $6M worth of employees is not fair. His corporation paying zero taxes desipte its massive profits is not fair. Welfare moms are child's play (pun intended) compared to them. You'd do better to direct your hatred elsewhere, at more worthwhile injustices.

Problem is what do you do with the irresponsible and/or immature people who think the world owes them a living? These are the people hurting our economy and dragging our society down.

How many of these baby factory welfare moms do you think exist? It must be a lot to have such far-reaching consequences.

I know I don't have the answer that is easy to swallow but maybe it is the only answer that will actually work?

Maybe you have a problem that's not big enough to need an answer.

[SlyHunter]

How many of these baby factory welfare moms do you think exist? It must be a lot to have such far-reaching consequences.


seems an intractable social and economic problem: out-of-wedlock mothers attract welfare and their off-spring are more readily drawn to crime.

One-third of families headed by a single mother are poor.

And two out of three single mothers have no job.

Families headed by a single mother have been rising steadily as a share of all families -- reaching 17.5 percent last year, up from 10.5 percent in 1970.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/welfare/wel7b.html

Oh and same link

In New Jersey -- which capped benefits to unwed mothers with more than two children -- such births have fallen since the program was started two years ago.

Stricter enforcement of child-support laws might help, experts say -- as well as making benefits less generous and harder to get.



Their way is worse than my way.
Their way risk starving children. My way reduces the suffering.

[amnesiac1984]

A CEO getting a $5M bonus for laying off $6M worth of employees is not fair. His corporation paying zero taxes desipte its massive profits is not fair. Welfare moms are child's play (pun intended) compared to them. You'd do better to direct your hatred elsewhere, at more worthwhile injustices.


Thats a VERY good point pseudo, I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I support the right of people to get rich, but there comes a point where it goes too far, nobody needs THAT much money, you can't possibly put it all to good use, and by good I mean for good of everyone. It sickens me also that my new house is made up of a lot of Ikea furniture, Mainly the kitchen and the bedrooms and my nice big worktop that has my PowerMac on it are all Ikea. Now he is the richest guy in the world, man do I feel like a sucker!

Back to the point. WHy do you possibly need that much money, yes you can spend it, but it just becomes excessive, I support the American dream of getting rich but there becomes a point where it just too much. Then we could use all this extra money to boost education and health for all the world and hopefully, in a few generations you can start to implement these libertarian ideals of non intrusive small government because everybody will have that opportunity to succeed equally.

I think slyhunter does have a point about people having too many kids. But I think that should be said for all of us and that there are too many people in the world, and most of them are poor, but I think the problem is less severe and can be solved by better contraception and it not being seen as evil by catholics!

[SlyHunter]

Thats a VERY good point pseudo, I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I support the right of people to get rich, but there comes a point where it goes too far, nobody needs THAT much money, you can't possibly put it all to good use, and by good I mean for good of everyone. It sickens me also that my new house is made up of a lot of Ikea furniture, Mainly the kitchen and the bedrooms and my nice big worktop that has my PowerMac on it are all Ikea. Now he is the richest guy in the world, man do I feel like a sucker!

Back to the point. WHy do you possibly need that much money, yes you can spend it, but it just becomes excessive, I support the American dream of getting rich but there becomes a point where it just too much. Then we could use all this extra money to boost education and health for all the world and hopefully, in a few generations you can start to implement these libertarian ideals of non intrusive small government because everybody will have that opportunity to succeed equally.

I think slyhunter does have a point about people having too many kids. But I think that should be said for all of us and that there are too many people in the world, and most of them are poor, but I think the problem is less severe and can be solved by better contraception and it not being seen as evil by catholics!
If people weren't able to get that rich then people would make a couple of million and then retire. Then you would not have the really neat inventions like the Internet, Windows, WWW, Apple, GPS, etc because these were invented by rich people so they could become richer. Getting richer is an incentive to doing more. Stifling their ability to get richer would stop them from creating newer and more invention and instead they would simply retire and live off the money for the rest of their lives. Money that pays jobs. Their inventiveness there need to get even richer creates jobs for you and me and without such an incentive the unemployment rate would be much higher. Apple the creators started off poor and if they didn't have the opportunity to get even richer once they were rich there would be no imac.

Also someday his rich spoilled kids will inherit the money and because they don't apprecite the effort it took to make it will blow it on alchohol gambling bad business venture etc and we will get it all "back"

[zimv20]

If people weren't able to get that rich then people would make a couple of million and then retire. Then you would not have the really neat inventions like the Internet, Windows, WWW, Apple, GPS, etc because these were invented by rich people so they could become richer. Getting richer is an incentive to doing more.
what a load of utter, utter nonsense.

[pseudobrit]

what a load of utter, utter nonsense.

I was thinking the same thing. Let's go down the list.

The internet was invented by the military.

Windows was stolen from Apple.

Apple was started by an engineer and a high school graduate (with a partial semester of college) out of their suburban garage.

GPS was also invented by the military.

These innovations have been continually advanced by the impetus of entrepreneurs and employees.

[pseudobrit]

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/welfare/wel7b.html

Oh and same link


Can you try citing something other than "facts" from a biased think-tank using a condensed, single article nearly a decade old?

Their way is worse than my way.
Their way risk starving children. My way reduces the suffering.

Many a tyrant would agree with that. I don't even think Saddam was terrible enough to attempt or suggest such a final solution.

[SlyHunter]

I was thinking the same thing. Let's go down the list.

The internet was invented by the military.

I thought that was Gore :p

Apple was started by an engineer and a high school graduate (with a partial semester of college) out of their suburban garage.

You are correct but who invented imac?
Who keeps making macintosh better?
Their already rich and their trying to get richer by making a better product.
If they weren't capable of getting richer they would retire and there would be no more newer Macintosh's.

[SlyHunter]

Can you try citing something other than "facts" from a biased think-tank using a condensed, single article nearly a decade old?



Many a tyrant would agree with that. I don't even think Saddam was terrible enough to attempt or suggest such a final solution.
No he just shot them or tortured them flayed them alive hung them upside down during their time of the month but your right no force sterilization there. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Who keeps making macintosh better?
Their already rich and their trying to get richer by making a better product.
If they weren't capable of getting richer they would retire and there would be no more newer Macintosh's.
is this the insight of the business world you use to play the stock market?

keep going - my fund managers love your decisions.

[pseudobrit]

I thought that was Gore :p

Gore got the funding for the military to create the internet. Ha ha.

You are correct but who invented imac?
Who keeps making macintosh better?

Engineers and designers. Jobs wasn't even with the company for a decade or so. Engineers and desingers and everybody else with a job to do and a middle class income are the ones who propel a company forward.

[amnesiac1984]

You are correct but who invented imac?
Who keeps making macintosh better?
Their already rich and their trying to get richer by making a better product.
If they weren't capable of getting richer they would retire and there would be no more newer Macintosh's.

These are all companies getting richer. There is no reason a company can't work to increase its profit to make people richer, but If one person could get no richer then he would retire and somebody who wasn't yet rich would replace him. The more profitable a company gets the more people it can make rich, instead, what happens now is the few people are made even richer.

[SlyHunter]

These are all companies getting richer. There is no reason a company can't work to increase its profit to make people richer, but If one person could get no richer then he would retire and somebody who wasn't yet rich would replace him. The more profitable a company gets the more people it can make rich, instead, what happens now is the few people are made even richer.
Would Windows be as big as it is now if its creator had quit after making a couple of million dollars?