Socialism: Pros and Cons

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: Duke87

16th Amendment says hi.quote>

 

Since the US has such a fascination with its constitution and the various tinkerings called amendments, you might want to read it again - or have it translated into American:

[belfastuniguy 18]

No, it's not. Does the NI deduction also cover unemployment benefits, disability and contribution to whatever national retirement system?quote>

National Insurance does also make a contribution to the National State Pension. You average National Insurance Contribution will determine your level of some social benefits. So the more National Insurance you pay the higher your State Pension will be.

Also important to add that National Insurance Contributions are not allowed to be used for general government spending.

National insurance contributions (NICs) fall into a number of classes. Class 1, 2 and 3 NICs paid are credited to an individual's NI account, which determines your eligibility for certain benefits - including the state pension. Class 1A, 1B and 4 NIC do not count towards benefit entitlements but must still be paid if due.

[edit] Class 1

Class 1 contributions are paid by employees and their employers. They are deducted from their gross wages by the employer, with no action required by the employee. The employers also match these contributions (with the one exception below). There are three milestone figures which determine the rate of NICs to be paid: Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) , Earnings threshold (ET) and Upper Earnings Limit (UEL). In this context "earnings" refers to an employee's wage or salary.

* Below the LEL, no NICs are paid because no benefits can accrue on earnings below this limit.

* On salaries above the LEL and below the ET, NICs are not paid, but are credited by the government as if they were. This effectively assists the working poor who do get benefits.

* On salaries between the ET and the UEL (equivalent to

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Originally posted by: Duke87

16th Amendment says hi.quote>

Since the US has such a fascination with its constitution and the various tinkerings called amendments, you might want to read it again - or have it translated into American:

quote>

quote>

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

but, to take a stab at it, let's to go  http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/

quote>

According to that site, I could get health insurance for as low as $55 a month.

Then again, I'm young. If I make myself 30 years old instead of 20, it jumps to $80. 40 and it goes to $110.

Which, by the way, is lower than the $150 a month you'll be paying for earning $2000 a month (yes, I converted pounds to dollars) in the UK.

And that's with earning a paltry $24k a year. If you earn $100k a year, your national  healthcare tax would be $628 a week.  You know what your health insurance payment would be here? That same $100 or so. Ouch.

You'd have to be making about $16k a year - almost below the poverty line - for the national helathcare tax be in parity with the health insurance payment.

And here we see the issue- national healthcare is financially beneficial to the poor but financially detrimental to the rich.

Of course, the question you then have to ask whether or not providing the poor with that care is really in their best interest. I would say it's not (see my previous lecture on social darwinism).

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Of course, the question you then have to ask whether or not providing the poor with that care is really in their best interest. I would say it's not (see my previous lecture on social darwinism).quote>

Of course it's in their best interest, you fail to take into account that although they are not currently contributing to society, with proper care and education they will be able to contribute to society, and mabey much more than getting a job that pays minimum wage.

I take it that you have read 1984 by George Orwell, there are a good two pages that talk about why a complete transition to social darwinism wouldn't work. There would always be someone who has a sence of what is morally correct, and who knows that we shouldn't just clip someine for the sake of it.

see if this doesn't strike a cord with you (it's the same youtube clip that I posted before, for those who didn't see it): http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Q-yTFZUolg

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Which, by the way, is lower than the $150 a month you'll be paying for earning $2000 a month (yes, I converted pounds to dollars) in the UK.

And that's with earning a paltry $24k a year. If you earn $100k a year, your national  healthcare tax would be $628 a week.  You know what your health insurance payment would be here? That same $100 or so. Ouch.

quote>

Just checking here . . . at one point you were talking about per month payments then you talk about per week payments.   Can we see those figures again using just one or the other?

[belfastuniguy 18]

@Duke. National Insurance also includes your contribution to your state pension and future social security benefits, NOT just healtcare

If we start to count up the average American healthcare premium, then we add the social security tax and medicare tax.

(Based on an income of $2000 a month) For someone your age, based on that quote you would pay roughly $204 someone older more like $229. Both more than we pay here. Then we would have to add any private pension scheme that person is paying into. Then the figure increases again.

We should also consider those people with a longer term illness or those that have or need medical treatment. So its really not too fair to just proclaim Americans will pay less. Some will, but most will not.

Those figures aren't exact, but gives an idea.

EDIT:

Though I'd do a very quick comparison, just to see if UK taxpayers are 'so oppressed' as some of our American friends believe.

US Income of $40,000

UK income of £19,941 (using current exchange rate)

US Total Tax Paid - (Federal Tax) - $6,423.75

                                   (Medicare Tax) - $580

                                   (Social Security Tax) - $2480

                                   TOTAL TAX - $9,483.75

UK Total Tax Paid - (Income Tax) - £2,901.20 ($5818)

                                   (National Insurance (includes social and health) ) - £1,592.91 ($3194)

                                   TOTAL TAX - £4494.11 ($9012)

Then we also have to add potential an average healthcare payment and possible pension contribution in addition to additional taxes charged in some states on income and you see that on average, the normal American citizen will pay more. So the taxpayers in the UK are not as hard-done-by as some would like to believe.

[Duke87 1,070]

Fair enough, but consider that national healthcare for us would mean raising our taxes further. And thus, we'd still be paying more than you would.

Remember, we don't have national healthcare but our government already spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada (which does have national healthcare).

Fact of the matter is, government spending is what's really out of control here. Pork barrel projects and all that.

Good luck getting that under control, though,

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Then we also have to add potential an average healthcare payment and possible pension contribution in addition to additional taxes charged in some states on income and you see that on average, the normal American citizen will pay more. So the taxpayers in the UK are not as hard-done-by as some would like to believe.quote>

Except that state income tax is deductible on national income tax, private health care payments are iffy because those are voluntary, and paying into a private pension plan shouldn't even be considered when figuring this up because A) that is entirely voluntary B) there's a vast variety of ways that you can save up for your retirement C) there's no limit on a number of them, which leads to D) it's a completely subjective figure.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Then we also have to add potential an average healthcare payment and possible pension contribution in addition to additional taxes charged in some states on income and you see that on average, the normal American citizen will pay more. So the taxpayers in the UK are not as hard-done-by as some would like to believe.quote>

Except that state income tax is deductible on national income tax, private health care payments are iffy because those are voluntary, and paying into a private pension plan shouldn't even be considered when figuring this up because A) that is entirely voluntary B) there's a vast variety of ways that you can save up for your retirement C) there's no limit on a number of them, which leads to D) it's a completely subjective figure.quote>

Aren't health insurance, pension plans and any additional unemloyment / work injury insurances, etc. all voluntary in the US? If they are, you'll have to remove all of those from the equation. Under the British /any other Western European system you're forced to save for your pension, even if you're planning on dying early. The same with all the different insurances; in the US you can choose not to save / pay insurance premiums if you think you're not going to need them; in Europe you can't.

But this is about socialism, a system where the state owns the production means. It's not about the US and Europe, or almost any other country on God's green / blue Earth.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Then we also have to add potential an average healthcare payment and possible pension contribution in addition to additional taxes charged in some states on income and you see that on average, the normal American citizen will pay more. So the taxpayers in the UK are not as hard-done-by as some would like to believe.quote>

Except that state income tax is deductible on national income tax, private health care payments are iffy because those are voluntary, and paying into a private pension plan shouldn't even be considered when figuring this up because A) that is entirely voluntary B) there's a vast variety of ways that you can save up for your retirement C) there's no limit on a number of them, which leads to D) it's a completely subjective figure.quote>

Aren't health insurance, pension plans and any additional unemloyment / work injury insurances, etc. all voluntary in the US? If they are, you'll have to remove all of those from the equation. Under the British /any other Western European system you're forced to save for your pension, even if you're planning on dying early. The same with all the different insurances; in the US you can choose not to save / pay insurance premiums if you think you're not going to need them; in Europe you can't.quote>

Just car insurance.  I think everything else is optional (with another exception potentially being homeowners insurance).

But this is about socialism, a system where the state owns the production means. It's not about the US and Europe, or almost any other country on God's green / blue Earth.quote>

quote>

[Ducio 285]

People can debate concepts like Socialism and capitalism forever, but if someone is truly interested in the best for everyone in a community, it's hard to argue against socialist ideas like Universial Healthcare, low (or no) school tuition fees, and affordable daycare. If more Americans spent time over sees they would see the benefits of more government regulation in these areas.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok Just car insurance.  I think everything else is optional (with another exception potentially being homeowners insurance).quote>

But that still means that every single service Europeans pay for over the National Insurance fee, are optional in the US (health services across the EU/EEA, pensions, unemployment and work injury benefits, etc.).

True, but there's actually a connection to that through all of this.  The capitalist system puts little emphasis on telling people what to do, which leads to stuff like not having to have unemployment insurance or stuff like it.  The socialist system leans more towards the nanny-state idea, where the government tells you what to do and how much of it to do.quote>

I'd rather say that it is a liberal state that doesn't tell you what to do. Socialism can co-exist with a largely free society (wether you're working for some guy profiting millions from your and your collegaues work, or the state, doesn't have to mean anything directly), though it of course would be rare. A free market, capitalist system is absolutley no guarantee for a liberal state; Augusto Pinochet showed us that it's possible to combine capitalism and authoritarianism.

Since taxes, personal freedom, democracy, capitalism, and a business-friendly enviroment are independent of each other, it's hard to describe high-tax-countries with universal education and healthcare as solely socialist (as their high earnings are based on a capitalist system), and universal education and healthcare doesn't necessarily means high taxes.

Take Denmark for instance: Is it liberal, socialist, capitalist, democratic, or business friendly? The answer: All of the above. The state doesn't care what the individual does, though there are some tendencies towards greater regulation, especially in the health and crime departments. It has a universal education and healthcare system, which everyone pays to and may benefit from. Still, private schools are not unheard of and private health insurances are widespread, though not as common as in France. Taxes are high; you risk paying up to 59,5% of your marginal income to the state and region if you have a high income. This pays for a generous, yet flexible labour market system which secure you when you're between jobs, and makes it easy for employers to hire and fire employees. At the same time, Denmark is one of the most business friendly countries on the planet, making it easy to set a business up and tear it down, and hiring and fireing employees, in addition to a relatively low corporate tax rate (25%).

[Patricius Maximus 236]

And consider that Denmark has the highest rate of happiness in the World.

Also, they do not mind paying taxes since they get a lot out of them.

The basic point of paying a tax is to get services from the government. Example -- road maintenence, social security, police, fire department, etc.

If the people pay taxes and get nothing out of them, then they get disillusioned.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus And consider that Denmark has the highest rate of happiness in the World.

Also, they do not mind paying taxes since they get a lot out of them.quote>

I would be very careful to jump to these conclusions. Taxes are now capped (the government may not introduce a new fee or tax without reducing other taxes by the same amount). Neighbouring countries and other European countries it would be normal to compare with, can do without taxes above fifty percent (such as neighbouring Norway, and Finland, Germany, Switzerland, UK, etc.). Plus, I don't see that they're getting much more than the average Western European; and they also passed on the opportunity to tax the oil companies like they do in Norway. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark—and it seems like they're about to cut the taxes to try to correct it.

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy @Duke.

Those figures aren't exact, but gives an idea.

EDIT:

Though I'd do a very quick comparison, just to see if UK taxpayers are 'so oppressed' as some of our American friends believe.

US Income of $40,000

UK income of £19,941 (using current exchange rate)

US Total Tax Paid - (Federal Tax) - $6,423.75

                                   (Medicare Tax) - $580

                                   (Social Security Tax) - $2480

                                   TOTAL TAX - $9,483.75

UK Total Tax Paid - (Income Tax) - £2,901.20 ($5818)

                                   (National Insurance (includes social and health) ) - £1,592.91 ($3194)

                                   TOTAL TAX - £4494.11 ($9012)

 So the taxpayers in the UK are not as hard-done-by as some would like to believe.quote>

Thats just the tipof the iceberg . Road tax , Council Tax , TV tax (a tax to watch TV), Vat ,inhertance tax , capitals gains, tax on goods and services,  the list is endless. Also you missed that the Employer must pay a 12.8% employers contribution in addition to the employee s contribution on £20k thats another £1500 ish  after allowances.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

B]The basic point of paying a tax is to get services from the government. Example -- road maintenence, social security, police, fire department, etc.

.quote>

Yes , but unfortunatly corruption,bureaucracy and innefficiency  often mean that these services are expensive and of very poor quality .

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy @Duke.

Those figures aren't exact, but gives an idea.

EDIT:

Though I'd do a very quick comparison, just to see if UK taxpayers are 'so oppressed' as some of our American friends believe.

US Income of $40,000

UK income of £19,941 (using current exchange rate)

US Total Tax Paid - (Federal Tax) - $6,423.75

                                   (Medicare Tax) - $580

                                   (Social Security Tax) - $2480

                                   TOTAL TAX - $9,483.75

UK Total Tax Paid - (Income Tax) - £2,901.20 ($5818)

                                   (National Insurance (includes social and health) ) - £1,592.91 ($3194)

                                   TOTAL TAX - £4494.11 ($9012)

 So the taxpayers in the UK are not as hard-done-by as some would like to believe.quote>

Thats just the tipof the iceberg . Road tax , Council Tax , TV tax (a tax to watch TV), Vat ,inhertance tax , capitals gains, tax on goods and services,  the list is endless. Also you missed that the Employer must pay a 12.8% employers contribution in addition to the employee s contribution on £20k thats another £1500 ish  after allowances.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

B]The basic point of paying a tax is to get services from the government. Example -- road maintenence, social security, police, fire department, etc.

.quote>

Yes , but unfortunatly corruption,bureaucracy and innefficiency  often mean that these services are expensive and of very poor quality .quote>

TV Tax what the hell!? You mean the Licence Fee, which is just a poorly named Subscription Fee for the BBC Channels? Road Tax is just a small fee you pay quarterly to the Highways Agency to go towards public road maintainance, not that you really need to drive in the UK but that is a different matter.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Duke87

You do have some control over that actually. What do you think going to the polls to vote is for?quote>

Okay... you vote in a socialist system as well... null point. I was saying that complaining about funds going to socialized medicine and saying "I dont' have a choice" is just a stupid as saying "I don't want my money going to education/military/highways etc".  Voting is your method of controlling where your money guys. Having privatized healthcare to "control where your money goes" is immoral. Putting money into public healthcare is no different than putting money into any other sector. You're not gonna get your way so why force a substantial population to suffer?

No system is perfect. Besides, more preventative healthcare does not lead to less need for emergency or situational healthcare. In fact, it leads to quite the opposite. The more often you test people and have check-ups to see if something is wrong, the more often you'll find something wrong. And whenever you find something wrong, you treat it. But if you don't know that anything is wrong you're blissfully unaware and perhaps it never ends up mattering.

Now, I'm not saying that being blissfully unaware is a preferable way to be. It's not. But the fact remains that more preventative healthcare does not necessarily reduce long term healthcare costs, and can in fact increase them. It's not a magic silver bullet. quote>

No self-respecting doctor would ever say that preventative health care is more expensive than reactive health care. Numerous AMERICAN studies, think tanks and such have determined that money can be saved. This has NEVER been a secret. The problem is getting people to use preventative health care in a privatized/capitalist system.  The idea of checking for something is wrong is to prevent any disease from getting out of hand. The idea of testing people IS to catch a disease so naturally yes you are gonna get more diagnoses. But in the end... if they are diagnosed... you were likely gonna treat them ANYWAY in the long run or have to respond to them in an emergency. Why wait and spend 10 to 1. Half my family is in the health care providing industry and ALL of them say prevention is cheaper, hands down (not all of them support public healthcare either). Especially when one of them works for the state's reform committee (or whatever they call it, she's the healthcare Ombudsman).

No, but the opposite of sociaism - libertarianism - focuses on the idea of giving people choices.

If you legislate what the majority wants, then the dissenting minority is outta luck and is thus oppressed. But if you don't legislate it, the majority can still have what they want, and the dissenters can have what they want, too. This is the key idea behind the idea of "the government that governs best is the government that governs least".

The only time people then can't have their way is when having their way means telling other people what to do.quote>

Giving the minorities (which depending on how you classify it) doesn't necessarily mean the majority gets what it wants. You're assuming that there are no institutional or societal divisions that the minority and the majority are equal. In the American case, thats of course not the truth. Privatized medicine definitely covers certain ethnicities and wealth classes more than others and as much as we'd like to believe "if you work hard, you'll get what you want", thats not entirely the case. So with a privatized health care system, you have a majority with health insurance and a poverty stricken (generally ethnic minorities) who already have social ills where the government is not willing to assist. This minority is also politically impotent. The rights of the minority shouldn't override the needs of the majority. I mean... come on. Majority rules and as long as its not restricting rights, live with it. If we respected everyone who "didn't like that vote" we would have had more than one civil war. As a minority, if you lose, you live with it. You don't make people suffer because "I don't want my money going there." If I had it my way, I would only want my defense dollars going to certain states, but obviously that is immoral and stupid.  Thankfully to about half this nation, I don't get my way.

Why is health care capable of being singled out?quote>

I wasn't singling it out, I was using it as an example. You want to discuss another issue? Name one. quote>

I didn't mean you specifically, but all these arguments generally degrade to "socialized medicine". But we don't privatize many services for a reason, corporations and private business can't be trusted. Several cities have experimented with privatizing water systems... sounds good right? Well, not quite. Not only did bills rise, but water quality degraded where pregnant women were told to boil water before drinking. Why? Cause market forces pushed companies to allow the infrastructure to degrade to write it off as depreciation to be figured in their taxes. And what did you want the customers to do? Not buy water? Atlanta and Milwaukee among other smaller cities attempted this. Most (if not all) reverted, especially ATL and Milwaukee. Is this an isolated incidence... doesn't seem like it. What you would have called "waste" by the federal government would have been to maintain a safe water system. I'm sure municipal water systems are not the only service that has seen this.

And what you call handouts, I call a god-given service. I'm not looking to give money for nothing. This is money for SURVIVAL. Would you deny water to a community? Or is that a hand out? It should very well be a service.quote>

God-given? The government is not god.

And anyways, you're comparing apples to oranges here. If you don't get any water, you'll die in a few days. If you don't get any professional healthcare you can perfectly well live a long and happy life. The ancients managed without doctors. And wild animals still do. As do a lot of people in third world countries. Healthcare is not a basic need that's vital to survival. Water is.

No, I would not deny water to a community. But healthcare is hardly the same thing. Don't treat it like it is. quote>

Don't stick words in my mouth like that. I'm not calling government God.

I don't think there's much different. There is a reason why private companies have failed in entering the municipal water supply industry. And why don't we treat water the same way as health care. Why don't we force everyone to buy their own pipes, buy their own wells, lease out faucets and if you can't afford it, there's a spicket at the end of the street that you may use if you don't mind the rust.

Just because your a healthy individual, doesn't mean healthcare isn't as vital to some as water. While we're at it, lets privatize disaster relief. Why the heck do I have to pay for people to live anywhere from Corpus Christi to Boston, MA when a hurricane strikes? Oh, well thats a function of the government to protect its people... huh? You can protect them from hurricanes, but health... nahhhhhhh. Why don't we privatize emergency services. Every 911 call should cost the caller $1,000. That'll surely cut down the 99% false call rate.  Why do we not do this... cause clearly its retarded. Private companies should not be in control of our physical well-being, but for some reason, health care is treated as such.

First of all, citing numbers is pointless since the US is not the same as other countries. We may not have national healthcare, but we also have much higher rates of "social ills" like obesity, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, etc. that lead to a deteriorated level of health than most other developed countries do. It may be true that we have a health issue but that doesn't mean that nationalizing healthcare would solve it. I daresay it probably wouldn't, since it does nothing to address all those other issues which are more at the root of the problem. For all we know, the situation might get worse.

Yes, don't have national healthcare. Yes, we have a health issue. But,so what? As I must often point out: correlation does not imply causation. It would be a fallacy to assume that one of those two facts is at fault for the other.

Besides, people will still get sick regardless of what kind of healthcare they get. It's not like national healthcare will stop that. Or even necessarily reduce it. quote>

I'm very well aware of correlation and its disconnect from causation, which I was not discussing (so get rid of that patronizing tone). And NEVER did I suggest that, stop putting words in my mouth. But just saying "we've got dumb people" isn't helping a legitimate problem. Sometimes Government has to override the choices of the idiotic. Its not a role that I'd prefer the government to have, but there's not much choice in the matter. Let a private company do it... nah, self regulation... nah.

You should check out stats for the UK, you'd be surprised how remarkably similar we are on almost all indicators. Yet they have socialized medicine and spend less per person than the US despite covering 100% of their population. Now having seen the UK system in action, there are indeed problems. But as people have pointed out, you still have the choice to use your private health care provider. To them healthcare is not different than any other tax expenditure.

Because it is not their problem. An individual's health is ultimately the problem of and the responsibility of only that individual. Let's be mature adults and handle our own problems instead of expecting the government to play nanny and do it for us, eh? quote>

I agree, people who sit there and eat tons of food high in fat and cholesterol shouldn't be given healthcare for there idiocy. Now there are ways to solve this that has been introduced in health insurance. If you are healthy, don't smoke, etc... then you should be given a tax break (or a premium decrease in the case of insurance). Stop pulling out the "nanny" thing. Nanny's come to look after you and watch your every move, of which I'm not advocating. Making it available is all I want. Its hard to have a dialogue about a subject when all the right does is slander and dumb down such discourse with insults and wordplay.

Not really. When the government is paying for something that means your tax dollars are paying for it. You can chose whether or not you youse it,  but you have no choice about whether or not you support it. You're forced to. Hence how socialism violates personal freedom.

I know if I'm not going to use something, I'd rather not have my taxes be paying for other people to use it. Especially if it's something that I have a moral objection to. quote>

Again... vote... simple.

A true "libertarian" society would be anarchy and ripe with racism, sexism, other -isms. Giving people the choice to do as you please often results in them being idiots and judgemental. A true libertarian society would say "hire who you want how you want whatever" because, well its your choice and you should be able to choose who you want so if you want to be a raving racist, its your right.  Not sure about you, but a true libertarian society doesn't sound like a place I'd like to live. yes, you'd say "well if you wanna survive, you'd have to be open to selling to people you wouldn't necessarily like". Not if there are institutional or "social ills" where inequitable wealth could make it completely unnecessary to even deal with others on the "open market".

But the money is forcibly removed from your wallet. You're not voluntarily handing it over. And you have no control over how much to hand over or to whom. So yes, it does matter. It matters a lot.quote>

Money is ALWAYS forcibly removed from your wallet. As you said nothing's free. Tough. Pay taxes like everyone, pay for your services that you want. But why allow millions to die prematurely or suffer from poor health because of selfishness.

But on the flipside of things, socialist services don't have to deal with competition and thus they can just meet whatever bar the government sets and then be lazy and do whatever. Since their paycheck is not riding on it. But with a capitalistic system, the competition forces you to do not just "good enough" but the best you possibly can, since if you can't compete you'll get less business. Your paycheck is riding on it. And that makes you a hell of a lot more motivated.

The inherent problem with a socialistic system is that when people are just given things as opposed to having to work to earn them, they aren't going to have any practical motivation to work hard. It enables people to be lazy.

If you can be an unemployed bum and still get healthcare, food, and all that, what reason do you have no practical glaring reason not to be an unemployed bum. On the other hand, if not working means you don't get to eat, you're motivated to work.

Socialism may have the intent of being fair for the betterment of society, but in reality it's not at all for the better. It's for the worse. You spoil people if you have too much of a safety net. Give a man a fish and he'll just keep coming to take fish from you. Tell hm that he'll need to learn how to fish and go fish for himself and he'll do that. And since he's working harder to earn his keep, not only is he better off, but everyone is better off since he's not a burden on them.

We call this idea "social darwinism". quote>

Yea because people LOVE living by scraping by. You think that people in socialist nations just sit their and twiddle their thumbs because they have free health care? You think that because the government controls the railways that suddenly people take off work? No, there are still iPods, Mercedes Benz, and Gucci. Socialists are just as willing to work for a awesome things as the next capitalist, yet they also realize that a society shouldn't leave people out simply because "they be broke". Having free health care doesn't automatically say "well screw that I'm gonna sit in my house all day and do nothing. I love being bored and not having luxuries because naturally humans don't want things." Of course thats not the truth! If you painted socialism as you say, Europe would have failed long ago. Yet its people are just as productive (or more so) than Americans even when facing similar rates of immigration (just so that you don't say our average is being brought down). They are happier, longer lived and with more equitable wealth distribution. Doesn't sound like an epic failure to me :\ Yes, there are factors I'm not entirely considering so I'm not trying to draw "causation", I'm merely trying to say its not a failure but seems to be doing just fine.

I don't see how people connect socialism to "I can't do what I want". There's PLENTY of room to do what you want. Personally, I don't feel like "I can do what I want" as is because I don't have the money.quote>

But guess what? You have the power to do something about that! If you study hard and become educated, you can get a better job that pays more and then you will have the money. The only thing is, you need to have the motivation to do that. Which, of course, if the government gives you all that stuff while you're in poverty, you won't.

Ultimately, the point here is that it's up to people to be able to sustain themselves and make a living for themselves. I don't believe in free handouts. You want something, you gotta earn it.quote>

[saltandsauce 0]

OK then let's put it this way,

BEFORE unemployment benefits, if your firm went bust due to "competition " (which created a more monopolised market probably) then you were royally screwed. if you lived on the breadline (a lot more did then) if work was short you were pretty much dead if you couldn't find (i.e. hunt) your own food.

on the healthcare side, before the NHS in Britain dentists were a luxury (hence the tooth extraction consisted of a door a bad tooth and a peice of string) if you broke your leg you would be put out of work and your family and yourself would die of starvation (unless you had managed to find food)

 now as far as i know, factories and general employers want a workforce with a low turnover rate to save on training costs and more experienced worker, but they couldn't have it because they kept DYING.

in short if you were working class in Britain before the NHS you were screwed if you got hurt/ill unless you found a charity/volentary/council hospitall which still required you to pay but less because you had NO healthcare

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso.

TV Tax what the hell!? You mean the Licence Fee, which is just a poorly named Subscription Fee for the BBC Channels? Road Tax is just a small fee you pay quarterly to the Highways Agency to go towards public road maintainance, not that you really need to drive in the UK but that is a different matter.quote>

Exactly my thought when i realised what it was , licience fee which is a poorly named stealth tax ,is one you cant unsubscibe to like you can your cable contract . Its not just the BBC if you intend to watch tv or record tv in this country you must obtain a licience before hand , a licience ? its hardly a leathal weapon , anyway i dont watch much Tv , im not interested in thier mind control or propaganda .

I would realy struggle getting by in the UK without my own transport , i had to collect 9m linear of  Star Galaxy today , can hardly take that onto the metro . Sometimes i may need to be in 4-5 places in one day ,public transport is not an option for me at work .

Road tax may be smalll considering , but it comes as a double blow as we already pay 70%+ taxes on our fuels ,  britain produces more oil than it consumes , exports more than imports , but yet our fuel is the most ? expensive in the world.

Our social system in the UK blows ,Corrupt ,inefficient and offers poor quality services considering what they cost us , apart from our own lazy brits exploiting the system , we now have migrants world wide trying to get citizenship so they to can cash in to .

If your lucky enough to get on permanent DLA in the uk you get $600+ a week , everything paid for , 68% of people on that benefit are able bodied and could do work at various levels.

So if ones recieving all this free money , not a care in the world , why are they ever going to consider a job that only pays as much or slightly more less deductions than they get now .

Now look at the type of people claiming benefits , some realy do have problems , the social system is there to help these , however most of them dont want a job , they come from low wealth council estates ,they are happy to just recieve their money every month .

When i get old ,if im lucky enough , i will be forced to sell my home to pay for care should i need it. The guy that had state hand outs all his life , gets his care for free . Why will i be forced to sell my house ,and finance the care myself ?

Hang on ive worked 48 years , paid all these contributions for this very reason , then they tell me that because i can afford it ,i must pay the care myself , i must sell my home to pay for it .

Now thats the reality of the UK social system .

edited to fix quote problem

[belfastuniguy 18]

Also you missed that the Employer must pay a 12.8% employers contribution in addition to the employee s contribution on

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: confused04 No self-respecting doctor would ever say that preventative health care is more expensive than reactive health care. quote>

Well, I can name one who would: my father.

Sometimes Government has to override the choices of the idiotic.quote>

Now that's a scary thought.

Do realize, that freedom includes freedom to do things which are self destructive.

As for me, I am against all forms of trying to stop people from doing stupid things, for two reasons:

1) As the saying goes, "make better idiot-proofing and god will make a better idiot". People will find a way to do something stupid, no matter what you do.

2) If you're stupid enough to do something really dangerous, you deserve whatever manner of injury or death you inflict upon yourself. Better that your stupid genes get removed from the gene pool. This is Intellectual Darwinism, and it goes hand in hand with Social Darwinism.

Its not a role that I'd prefer the government to have, but there's not much choice in the matter. quote>

How exactly is there not much choice? The government doesn't have to regulate anything.

Let a private company do it... nah, self regulation... nah. quote>

Self regulation, yes. Anything other is an infringement on personal freedom.

Its hard to have a dialogue about a subject when all the right does is slander and dumb down such discourse with insults and wordplay.quote>

Believe me, I'm no conservative.

And you may call it "slander", but I call it "calling a spade a spade". It all depends on your point of view.

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Also you missed that the Employer must pay a 12.8% employers contribution in addition to the employee s contribution on £20k thats another £1500 ish after allowances.quote>

No.....I didn't I the employee does not pay that....the employer does, hence the term Employers Contribution. That is not taken from a employee's final pay........

quote>

The employer pays it , but reduces the employee s per annum wage to cover the cost , obviously employers must take the 12.8% into consideration when offering an employee a position and wage.

So indirectly the employee pays it without realising . If an employer has a position to fill ,  has  a budget of £20 k per annum for an employee  , they are not going to spend £21500 including employer contributions, they will reduce the wage to make it fit to the company budget .  So i feel it is relevant , obviously employers dont boast this , but at the end of the day the employee s pay the whole 23.8% , directly and indirectly .

Originally posted by: Duke87

And you may call it "slander", but I call it "calling a spade a spade". It all depends on your point of view.quote>

Thats a very racist term Duke ,lol, im free of all prejudice i hate everyone equally .

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I didn't mean you specifically, but all these arguments generally degrade to "socialized medicine". But we don't privatize many services for a reason, corporations and private business can't be trusted. Several cities have experimented with privatizing water systems... sounds good right? Well, not quite. Not only did bills rise, but water quality degraded where pregnant women were told to boil water before drinking. Why? Cause market forces pushed companies to allow the infrastructure to degrade to write it off as depreciation to be figured in their taxes. And what did you want the customers to do? Not buy water? Atlanta and Milwaukee among other smaller cities attempted this. Most (if not all) reverted, especially ATL and Milwaukee. Is this an isolated incidence... doesn't seem like it. What you would have called "waste" by the federal government would have been to maintain a safe water system. I'm sure municipal water systems are not the only service that has seen this.quote>

I'm not for the privatization of water supplies. If you did that, who knows what might sneak into tap water? It's already polluted enough. Flouride, Chlorine, and many other minerals that do not need to be there have been put into it by the government. All that needs to be flowing through the pipes is clean, distilled water. People can get their teeth cleaned by brushing them with flouride toothpaste. The government does not need to contaminate the water with it in the name of promoting health.

No self-respecting doctor would ever say that preventative health care is more expensive than reactive health care. Numerous AMERICAN studies, think tanks and such have determined that money can be saved. This has NEVER been a secret. The problem is getting people to use preventative health care in a privatized/capitalist system.  The idea of checking for something is wrong is to prevent any disease from getting out of hand. The idea of testing people IS to catch a disease so naturally yes you are gonna get more diagnoses. But in the end... if they are diagnosed... you were likely gonna treat them ANYWAY in the long run or have to respond to them in an emergency. Why wait and spend 10 to 1. Half my family is in the health care providing industry and ALL of them say prevention is cheaper, hands down (not all of them support public healthcare either). Especially when one of them works for the state's reform committee (or whatever they call it, she's the healthcare Ombudsman).quote>

Yes, preventive health care is cheaper. Yes, preventive health care reduces serious diseases. I have no problem with it as long as the government is not mandating that I get it. This is an infringement on the right to do what I want to my body and my healthcare.

Giving the minorities (which depending on how you classify it) doesn't necessarily mean the majority gets what it wants. You're assuming that there are no institutional or societal divisions that the minority and the majority are equal. In the American case, thats of course not the truth.quote>

If there is legislation protecting minorities from discrimination, then there is no fault on the part of the government. The state cannot change people's racial preferences. If a white wants to be around whites, and a black wants to be among his own kind, that is their choice.

The rights of the minority shouldn't override the needs of the majority. I mean... come on. Majority rules and as long as its not restricting rights, live with it.quote>

I do not believe in that. I believe the rights of the minority should not override the rights of the majority, and vice versa. Haven't you ever heard of the concept of equal under the law?

As a minority, if you lose, you live with it.quote>

It also applies to majorities.

We may not have national healthcare, but we also have much higher rates of "social ills" like obesity, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, etc. that lead to a deteriorated level of health than most other developed countries do.quote>

Obesity is not a social ill. It can increase risk of certain illnesses, but a person with a BMI over 30 is not on par with a drug addict. In fact, I have found that waist-hip ratio is a better measure than BMI. For instance, if you have small hips but a extremely large middle section, then you are probably obese. If you have your midsection slightly smaller than hips, then you are likely normal or overweight. If you have a midsection that is a lot smaller than your hips, then you are probably underweight.

No "social ill" is a health problem unless it translates into medical ills.

You don't make people suffer because "I don't want my money going there." If I had it my way, I would only want my defense dollars going to certain states, but obviously that is immoral and stupid.  Thankfully to about half this nation, I don't get my way.quote>

What is so immoral about dictating how your money is used?

I think, in an ideal system, when you pay taxes you can dictate which departments the money goes to. That way, for example, pacifists won't be sending money to the Defense Department. Democracy is supposed to enact the people's will. If the people don't want a certain department, then they won't send any money to it, and the department would have to be dissolved.

I think that most people would want to help the poor people through their taxes.

What is so immoral about that?

Money is ALWAYS forcibly removed from your wallet. As you said nothing's free. Tough. Pay taxes like everyone, pay for your services that you want.quote>

With taxes, yes. With services, no. With services, you have a choice. Either use it, and spend money. Or don't use it, and keep your money.

Sometimes Government has to override the choices of the idiotic.quote>

In my opinion, that is an idea that leads directly to totalitarian rule.

Who decides what behavior is idiotic? Who decides what to do with them?

The answer to this is the government. A government that will inevitably turn itself into one that oppresses it's citizens and has no rights, freedoms, or justice.

A true "libertarian" society would be anarchy and ripe with racism, sexism, other -isms.quote>

Pure libertarianism is related to anarchy, in the form of a minarchy. A government that only ensures that rights are not infringed. Some libertarian ideologies believe in full privatization. In that scenario, in my opinion, the private corporations would evolve into governments.

[DocRorlach 25]

For those hell-bend on defending the free market health care system, at least the one currently practiced in the United States - here's some bedside reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/17/internationalaidanddevelopment.usa? gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

or take a gander over here: http://www.measureofamerica.org/

[JRS_ONE 0]

I wanted to respond to confused04 post about capitalism, specifically one person spending 50% of $100 million as opposed to 1 million people spending $100 each. Your criticism seemed to be that the other $50M would not be spent and would therefore be of no use to the economy. In fact the opposite is true which is why capitalist economies have consistently outperformed non capitalist economies. The remaining $50M would be invested in capital, making the economy in the future more productive and raising the standard of living by producing more/better goods with the same amount of labor, or maintaining the quantity/quality of goods and requiring less labor. The following year this $50M might be worth $55-$60M and if the individual chooses to invest in something else, he or she will most likely pay around $1-3 Million in taxes on capital gains (U.S.). The remainder will be reinvested and the process will repeat. Even if someone with $100M chose to live just off savings for some reason (crazy), they would keep this in banks. This still allows the money to be productive as it would enable loans and mortgages for people that don't have that kind of money. With a million people with $100 each though it is not crazy to think that it might just go under the mattress or somewhere else unproductive. Now it's possible that every one of those million people could throw their $100 in a mutual fund and get the same kind of results as the individual but in practice this does not happen. A current example is that people might decide to spend that extra $100 on gas, saving them $100 on gas this year. An investor might invest that $50 million in alternative energy, a mass transit project, or new oil infrastructure, which could eventually save each of those million people much more than a $100.

To connect this to the broader topic of socialism, under such a system (state owned socialism) the government would most likely try to invest the money in a similar project. However the project would come in behind schedule, over-budget, and would eventually be unproductive because of worker apathy. The project would either be abandoned and left to crumble (would not take long because of shoddy construction), or would be torn down by rioters because they literally have nothing else better to do. 10-25 years later a picture of the decrepit project would appear in an economics textbook popular in capitalist nations with the caption "Socialism: Kids Please Do Not Try This At Home".

So that's my extreme example of state socialism. I can't criticize labor socialism nearly that much. In my view though capitalism is better because under worker owned socialism you have one choice, to be a laborer/capitalist i.e. you work and you own the capital. Under capitalism you have the freedom to just be a capitalist, a laborer/capitalist, or simply a laborer.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach For those hell-bend on defending the free market health care system, at least the one currently practiced in the United States - here's some bedside reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/17/internationalaidanddevelopment.usa? gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

or take a gander over here:

http://www.measureofamerica.org/quote>

Those may be accurate numbers, but that article is also biased towards a particular viewpoint by failing to mention why those statistics are such.  (Note:  This post isn't attempting to be unsensitive, but it isn't going to be politically correct either.)

Despite spending $230m (£115m) an hour on healthcare, Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other developed country. And while it has the second-highest income per head in the world, the United States ranks 42nd in terms of life expectancy.quote>

First, studies have also said Americans are the most over-stressed, over-worked, poorly nourished (in terms of the quality of food they choose to eat), sleep-deprived, and rest-deprived (thinking mainly of vacation time here) people in the world.  Some of that stems from expectations of the boss and other such responsibilities, but a large contributing factor is the lifestyle choices of the individual.  Most Americans live in "burnout" mode, and any good doctor will tell you that such a lifestyle will eventually lower your quality of life and probably shorten it too.  That is in no way a sign that the US privatized medical system offers lower quality care.  Rather, the people it has to care for are slowly killing themselves through their bad lifestyle choices.

Second, the standard US medical approach is both reactionary rather than preventative, and symptom-oriented rather than problem-oriented.  This is a failing of the standard US medical approach, imo.  However, I say standard approach as "alternative" doctors do exist.  (And lest anyone think that the capitalist system discourages such treatment, many "alternative care doctors" make loads of money from their practices.)  However, as with most things, the onus ultimately falls on the individual to choose the treatment approach that he/she wants.  If you wish to simply react to the health problems, that's your right.  If you wish to try to prevent them, that is your right too.  Either route you choose, options are available.

These are some of the startling conclusions from a major new report which attempts to explain why the world's number-one economy has slipped to 12th place - from 2nd in 1990- in terms of human development.quote>

It mentions that America has slipped from 2^nd to 12^th, but leaves out the most important statistic--the actual hard numbers.  In a marathon run, no one will accuse the 12^th place athlete of slacking off if the difference between 2^nd place and 12^th place is 3 seconds.  However, if the difference between 2^nd and 12^th is 30 minutes, that's a different story.  Same principle goes for the "human development" list in question.  America is said to have slipped from 2^nd to 12^th, but all that tells anyone is that America has fallen 10 slots relative to the human development number of some other country.  It says that there is a downward progression, but for all that article tells us, it isn't because human development has fallen in the US, but rather that other countries have simply outpaced the US.  Which is it?  The article doesn't tell us.

Second, there is no mention of exactly how "human development" is measured.  For such a report to have any real validity, you have to be able to show that the researchers conducted their work properly, and the article makes no real mention of how this "human development" number was calculated.

The American Human Development Report, which applies rankings of health, education and income to the US, paints a surprising picture of a country that spends well over $5bn each day on healthcare - more per person than any other country.quote>

Again, no mention of why this fact is the way it is.  No mention of the fact that the legal atmosphere in the US has artificially inflated the cost of medical care, for one.

The report, Measure of America, was funded by Oxfam America, the Conrad Hilton Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. It shows each of the 11 countries that rank higher than the US in human development has a lower per-capita income.

Those countries score better on the health and knowledge indices that make up the overall human development index (HDI), which is calculated each year by the United Nations Development Programme.

And each has achieved better outcomes in areas such as infant mortality and longevity, with less spending per head.

Japanese, for example, can expect to outlive Americans, on average, by more than four years. In fact, citizens of Israel, Greece, Singapore, Costa Rica, South Korea and every western European and Nordic country save one can expect to live longer than Americans.

There are also wider differences, the report shows. The average Asian woman, for example, lives for almost 89 years, while African-American women live until 76. For men of the same groups, the difference is 14 years.quote>

See earlier complaints about lifestyle, medical approach, how this "human development index" is calculated, and financial issues.

One of the main problems faced by the US, says the report, is that one in six Americans, or about 47 million people, are not covered by health insurance and so have limited access to healthcare.quote>

No mention about why those 47 million are not covered.  No mention of the fact that some of them have access to insurance and see value in it, but choose to forgo coverage and take home a bigger paycheck because they're going to gamble that they won't get seriously sick.  No mention of the fact that some of them have no insurance because they consider it immoral to have insurance (yes, these people do exist).  No mention that some don't want to be bothered with insurance because they think it's complicated.  No mention of the fact that some individuals have no insurance because they willingly steered their life in a direction where insurance would be available, but impossible to afford.  Yes, 1 in 6 are said to not have health insurance, but you can't blame "the system" for that problem if Joe X doesn't want insurance.  In fact, it could be argued that it would be immoral to force it upon him if he didn't want it.

As a result, the US is ranked 42nd in global life expectancy and 34th in terms of infants surviving to age one. The US infant mortality rate is on a par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia and Poland. If the US could match top-ranked Sweden, about 20,000 more American babies a year would live to their first birthday.quote>

Again, no mention of actual hard figures, just places in a list relative to other places.  Second, no mention of what causes the additional infant deaths.  For all the article details, those additional 20,000 kids die because they are born to idiot parents.

"Human development is concerned with what I take to be the basic development idea: namely, advancing the richness of human life, rather than the richness of the economy in which human beings live, which is only a part of it," said the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen, who developed the HDI in 1990.quote>

What he takes to be the basic development idea?  Are the results of this report based on a consensus of experts, or the opinions of a single person?

"We get in this report ... an evaluation of what the limitations of human development are in the US but also ... how the relative place of America has been slipping in comparison with other countries over recent years."quote>

Which because there are no hard figures, means little to nothing.

The US has a higher percentage of children living in poverty than any of the world's richest countries.

In fact, the report shows that 15% of American children - 10.7 million - live in families with incomes of less than $1,500 per month.quote>

Again, no mention why this is.  There is no mention of the fact that some of those children are born to parents who didn't have the good sense to wait a few years and are now in poverty because of it.  No mention of the sexual habits of those in poverty versus those not in poverty.  No mention of attitudes concerning children between the poor and the not poor.

It also reveals 14% of the population - some 40 million Americans - lack the literacy skills to perform simple, everyday tasks such as understanding newspaper articles and instruction manuals.quote>

No mention why--again.  Nothing said about the millions of immigrants who have only recently moved, do not have the time or resources to learn English, or have found means to function in the country without personally knowing the language.  No mention of whether individuals with brain damage or learning disabilities are included in this 40 million figure.  No mention that some people just don't care enough to bother themselves, and as such, never learn because they don't want to learn.

And while in much of Europe, Canada, Japan and Russia, levels of enrolment of three and four-year-olds in pre-school are running at about 75%, in the US it is little more than 50%.quote>

Again, no mention why this is, just that it is.

The report not only highlights the differences between the US and other countries, it also picks up on the huge discrepancies between states, the country's 436 congressional districts and between ethnic groups.

"The Measure of America reveals huge gaps among some groups in our country to access opportunity and reach their potential," said the report's co-author, Sarah Burd-Sharps. "Some Americans are living anywhere from 30 to 50 years behind others when it comes to issues we all care about: health, education and standard of living.

"For example, the state human development index shows that people in last-ranked Mississippi are living 30 years behind those in first-ranked Connecticut."quote>

No mention why this is and no mention of the fact that the person in Mississippi might actually be happier than the person in Connecticut, despite Connecticut being ranked higher on the index in question.

Inequality remains stark. The richest fifth of Americans earn on average $168,170 a year, almost 15 times the average of the lowest fifth, who make do with $11,352.quote>

Well, some hard figures are listed, but no mention about why--again.  Could be that some of the high earners have actually put effort into being successful and that some of the lower earners are there because they honestly don't give a damn?  Could it be that one of the guys I work with will never amount to anything because all he cares about is "getting high and getting laid"?  Could it be that there are others like him?

The US is far behind many other countries in the support given to working families, particularly in terms of family leave, sick leave and childcare. The country has no federally mandated maternity leave.quote>

No mention of why or hard figures concerning the issue.

The US also ranks first among the 30 rich countries of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development in terms of the number of people in prison, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total population.

It has 5% of the world's people but 24% of its prisoners.quote>

It mentions some hard figures, but no reason why.

---

In summary, the article doesn't really mean much.  It lists some hard figures, but centers more on relative figures, which are fairly meaningless without hard numbers.  Furthermore, the article does nothing to verify the usefulness of the report itself, and the onus is on the report makers to prove that they have produced a meaningful report.  At present, I don't feel that the report, and subsequently, the Guardian article, have any real meaning.

[JRS_ONE 0]

Just catching up with the rest of the topic and seeing it has swung to health care. Doc that guardian article had some statistics that caught me off guard. There are arguments to be made though in defense of U.S. healthcare though. A lot of health problems in the U.S. are the result of almost a "too high quality of life". Obesity from overconsumption immediately comes to mind. Things like alcohol and even tobacco which might be luxury goods in less developed nations are readily available. Even Americans obsession with cars is cause for many deaths. Privatized healthcare is obviously not perfect. I'm afraid that as mentioned earlier preventative healthcare is relatively lacking. The fact is that while preventative healthcare is probably cheaper in the long run, it is less profitable. This may make the case that the government should handle it not profit chasing private companies but I do not believe the government could handle it. Note that every country ranking higher than the U.S. in life expectancy has a much smaller population. I don't want to speak for other countries but the government in the U.S. is not efficient. I know Americans will understand when I say imagine walking into a hospital that is run like the Department of Motor Vehicles. And the DMV is just state government.

I believe the main issue with U.S. healthcare is actually the cost of insurance for doctors. In recent years this has skyrocketed due to the rise in malpractice lawsuits, inevitably leading to higher healthcare costs for consumers. The majority of these lawsuits are attributed to ambulance-chasing. Some interesting stats...

1 out of every four doctors in the U.S. will be sued annually

50%-65% of doctors in the U.S. will be sued in their career

plaintiffs only win about 27% of lawsuits, meaning most are unfounded, however unlike the U.K., defendants are still responsible for their exorbitant legal fees

80% of all malpractice suits worldwide are against U.S. doctors, this number does not include U.S. hospitals or other hospital staff

[Patricius Maximus 236]

And while in much of Europe, Canada, Japan and Russia, levels of enrolment of three and four-year-olds in pre-school are running at about 75%, in the US it is little more than 50%.quote>

Have you ever considered if three and four year olds need to go to a preschool? Some believe that sending little kids to school too early stifles their curiosity. And more believe that more rigorous kindergarten curriculums are stressing five-year-olds.

People in the US want the children to perform better in Math and Science. Finland performed first in Science on the PISA tests, and second in Reading and Mathematics. Whereas the US was not in the top 20 on any category.

Finland's education usually starts at age 7, and ends at age 18 or 19. At age 15, the students either go to a vocational or academic school. They then go to either a university or a polytechnic. Also, there are no tuition fees for tertiary education.

This demonstrates that starting school at 4 years of age is not necessary for excellence in Math and Science. Preschool could even have a worsening effect on future education.

This shows for me that instead of doing more of the same and snuffing out creativity and curiosity, the US should look at the facts.

[fukuda 351]

All that needs to be flowing through the pipes is clean, distilled water.quote>

Errr no, it would kill you!

I have no problem with it as long as the government is not mandating that I get it.quote>

I don't know in other places, but I've never been forced to get it. Unless it is vaccination for dangerous diseases, which must be mandated.

I think, in an ideal system, when you pay taxes you can dictate which departments the money goes to. That way, for example, pacifists won't be sending money to the Defense Department. Democracy is supposed to enact the people's will. If the people don't want a certain department, then they won't send any money to it, and the department would have to be dissolved.quote>

No, this would be like donating money, everyone would donate to what they prefer. Defense Department is crucial for the country, as many other departments which are usually forgotten.

No, democracy enacts the people's will to elect a government to take decisions for them, according to the campaign proposals they have presented of course, don't forget it.

I think that most people would want to help the poor people through their taxes.quote>

Wouldn't bet on it :\