MS/forum/what can I say??

Originally posted by bbarr
Yeah, you could be right. But the bleeding-heart liberal in me says even if they didn't plan as well as they should (and not many of us planned effectively for the current recession, since it was a function of economic shenanigans most barely understand), nobody should be forced to mortgage their whole future because of medical bills, or have to live in their truck in the middle of the desert.

I fully support some sort of medical aid for all, especially in cases like this. In Zambia, health care was free when I was growing up, but not particularly good quality. Right now if I got a medical condition that was really expensive I would probably end up dying.

But regarding the economy, it seems too many people do not save enough and its about time governments did something about it. Here in SA we have tight regulations that to some extent prevent you from over extending yourself (they are not perfect).
What we should see more of is financial planning education in schools, and possibly some propaganda in that direction from government.
But the US seems to believe that the solution to everything is to tell everyone to go out and spend!

Originally posted by twhitehead

But the US seems to believe that the solution to everything is to tell everyone to go out and spend!

Yep, because the government takes indices of economic growth as evidence for the economic well being of citizens, while paying attention to means and not distributions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully support some sort of medical aid for all, especially in cases like this. In Zambia, health care was free when I was growing up, but not particularly good quality. Right now if I got a medical condition that was really expensive I would probably end up dying.

But regarding the economy, it seems too many people do not save enough and its about ti ...[text shortened]... the US seems to believe that the solution to everything is to tell everyone to go out and spend!

Can you elaborate on how the SA government tries to prevent people from overextending?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Can you elaborate on how the SA government tries to prevent people from overextending?

When you get a mortgage, the monthly payment cannot be greater than a certain percentage of your monthly income. This is regulated by government and is not at the discretion of the banks.
The banks go further and look at your actual available income, but I am not sure if that too is required.
I think that certain similar rules probably apply to credit cards, and bank loans, but not having got one, I wouldn't know for sure.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Hi All

Well I guess we have sank as low as we can go, after me losing my job, my husbands business closing down, due to no work, he is a master welder, but the jobs dried up, no one has any money,

Today we received out five day notice for eviction as we have ran out of money, had to cancel the neuro appointment again for tomorrow, as i cannot affor ...[text shortened]... the last one of these...... live your life each day, like it's your last one
Namaste....

I am sorry to hear about your plight. Do you belong to a local church? I know where I live there are outreaches such as a free medical clinic and legal clinic etc. Also inquire about public assistance. Perhaps the combination of public/private monies will help for the time being.

As for finding work, you can try such avenues as the unemployment offices, but from previous experience let me tell you that this is not a very good way to find work. I know my church recently took up a collection for those hurt by the current financial crisis and have formed a job placement group which has helped a great many find work.

I'm not that knowledgable about the welding profession, but someone once told me that the demand is simply not what it was. If so, perhaps trying to find another profession is the route to go or relocate to someplace that is looking for them.

All I can say is that no matter your circumstances, I emplore you to get down on your knees to ask for assistance and wisdom. This is your source, not man. People can offer help from time to time but looking soley to other people only gets you so far. Just remember that at least you are in the position of knowing you can't hack life by yourself. I say you are in a better position than those who think they have life licked and don't need any help from a higher power.

God bless.

Originally posted by bbarr
Yep, because the government takes indices of economic growth as evidence for the economic well being of citizens, while paying attention to means and not distributions.

Interestingly the Amish opted out of Obamacare. Do you know why? It is because they have a community that pitches in to pay for medical expences and mortgages etc when the need is there. In addition, as a community they live within their means and are not materialistic blowing great sums of money on things they don't need or can't afford. They also help keep each other in line if for some reason they are making "bad financial choices".

So lets look at government for a second. The majority of monies that go towards welfare is absorbed by the federal government. In fact, I heard that only 9 cents on the dollar ends up going to those in need and the rest is government over head. In addition, there is no community that hold people accountable for "bad decisions" so the cycle of spending too much or out of control behavoir continues at the taxpayers expense.

Of course, welfare is not the only program with such waste of taxpayer money. The same can be said with other programs like social security. They originally picked an age to collect that coincidently was the age that the average person died, so most should NEVER collect. In addition, once they pay out what they owe every year they then take the rest of the money left over and steal it for their own pet projects leaving a worthless IOU behind.

In short, government should be local, not in a far away place with people who care nothing about you. I say part of the problems is the gradual lack of emphasis on family in the modern era. It used to be that familes needed to stay close and become somewhat tribal to survive. However, with the advent of Big Brother's helping hand this emphasis has been greatly reduced to the point that people go off and live as they please independent of family roots. Although this can be great if you are "making it" financially, there will always be people like Hugh who are left in the lurch. In addtion, the ever increasing disinfranchisement I see in society is also a symptom of what I am talking about.

Of course, you will NEVER hear this kind of talk in Washington. There is no talk of reform. All you will hear them say are things like "paying your fair share" and needing higher taxes and state run casinos to generate more revenue to feed the money adict we call the federal government as they scream, "Just one more fix, one more fix is all I need!!" In addition, it seems they are forever looking for people to be dependent upon a government helping hand to further their legitamacy and power over the average joe. In the interim, you will have people like Hugh falling through the cracks as they are told by statists, "If the federal government only were more powerful to help you it would all be OK."

Originally posted by whodey
Interestingly the Amish opted out of Obamacare. Do you know why? It is because they have a community that pitches in to pay for medical expences and mortgages etc when the need is there.

Well then, universal health care - if your political elites can ever cobble a version of it together - will, in a very real sense, be the Amish approach writ large. Exactly what the [unmentionable country] needs.

Originally posted by whodey
Interestingly the Amish opted out of Obamacare. Do you know why? It is because they have a community that pitches in to pay for medical expences and mortgages etc when the need is there. In addition, as a community they live within their means and are not materialistic blowing great sums of money on things they don't need or can't afford. They also help k f the federal government only were more powerful to help you it would all be OK."

Um, the Amish don't get mortgages, and only use banks when they buy something large like a farm. They can afford to opt out out of Medicare, Social Security, etc. because they are a manageably small and insular community. That said, although their clean lifestyle tends to prevent things like diabetes and cancer, there are other diseases and health problems that go untreated among Amish, precisely because they have religious objections to the whole notion of insurance.

In any case, since the vast majority of us are not Amish, all this is immaterial. Yes, we should plan ahead and not get ourselves in to debt. I came out of graduate school without any student loans, because I taught for the university, took extra teaching gigs when I could get them, and worked as a bouncer and bartender. We should also pitch in to help each other. But social charity is not a guarantee, and obviously favors those with strong and present social ties. For those individuals with small families, or who have moved away from their support networks, or who have immigrated, etc., there simply may not a social network that can help them weather a medical problem. Similarly if one has a social network wherein nobody has the money necessary to counterbalance the cost of catastrophic medical problems.

And, seriously, where do you get your information about welfare administration? The Social Security Administration, you know, the part of the federal government that administers our entitlement programs (the "welfare" ), spends proportionally very little on actual administration. The amount it cost to run the SSA in 2009 was less that 1% of the total given out in benefits. So, that's 99 cents on the dollar going to people, not the 9 cents you mistakenly thought. You can check this yourself, since the SSA, like all government organizations, has to make their annual budget available to the public. If you're talking about the welfare that the individual states administer (you know, Clinton kicked that responsibility back to the states in 1996), then you still don't know what you're talking about. Across the nation, the average percentage of total state-welfare budgets spent on Medicaid alone is 75%, and you have to include the TANF spending on top of that before you even get to administrative costs.

Hi everyone, I didn't expect as many replies... First off I want to appologize for even posting that..it was one of many on the MS thread, and they were starting to get to me.
I had a long term disability plan when i worked, so it helped make up some of my base pay. But the expenses are high for both insurance,,, cobra was 1000K a month, and the meds co-pays.
Something I can't control, property taxes jumped 100.00 per month.
I have savings, and most importantly a family if I start to fall. I don't for see that.
In some cases we can say it was poor money management on their part. But I can't see their whole picture.
This one bothered me, because they were giving up their dogs...my Lab has done some good work keeping my moral up.
Anyway, that's it....I was pretty sad about the whole thing last night,, but I can't reach out and be of much help......:-(
Thanks for the replies.......

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Um, the Amish don't get mortgages, and only use banks when they buy something large like a farm. They can afford to opt out out of Medicare, Social Security, etc. because they are a manageably small and insular community. That said, although their clean lifestyle tends to prevent things like diabetes and cancer, there are other diseases and health problems t ...[text shortened]... wherein nobody has the money necessary to counterbalance the cost of catastrophic medical problems.

As we see with the Amish, there are some good points and some bad points. However, I dispute the notion that since the vast majority are not Amish their example become immaterial. There are lessons we can learn from them in terms of how they have formed a society that functions perfectly well without the help of Big Brother. However, if they had not been afforded this oppurtunity, if they had been forced to participate in these government programs and joined the rest of society, we would not have their example and the lessons they have to teach us. That is because they are FREE to find other ways that go against the grain of society instead of everyone forced into a system win, lose, or draw. That is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created Federalism. They envisioned all the states as laboratories in which we could learn from triumphs and tradgedies in terms of attempted legislation instead of the entire country forced into something whether it be good or bad.

Originally posted by bbarr
And, seriously, where do you get your information about welfare administration? The Social Security Administration, you know, the part of the federal government that administers our entitlement programs (the "welfare" ), spends proportionally very little on actual administration. The amount it cost to run the SSA in 2009 was less that 1% of the total given out ...[text shortened]... e to include the TANF spending on top of that before you even get to administrative costs.[/b]

I tried looing it up and I came up with this.

http://waysandmeans.house/gov/media/pdf/111/1SFSHearing031110_Aslanian.pdf

The money that pours into the Temporary Assitance to Needy Families, or the TANF, only 30% goes to those in need, the rest is for bureaucrats to feed upon.

Originally posted by FMF
Well then, universal health care - if your political elites can ever cobble a version of it together - will, in a very real sense, be the Amish approach writ large. Exactly what the [unmentionable country] needs.

One size rarely fits all FMF.

Originally posted by whodey
I tried looing it up and I came up with this.

http://waysandmeans.house/gov/media/pdf/111/1SFSHearing031110_Aslanian.pdf

The money that pours into the Temporary Assitance to Needy Families, or the TANF, only 30% goes to those in need, the rest is for bureaucrats to feed upon.

Bull. The link you've provided is to a statement by Kevin Aslanian. Mr. Aslanian does not know how to read. In his statement, he links to the following:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/2008/tanf_2008.html

This is the page wherein you can find detailed breakdowns of TANF expenditures for assistance and non-assistance purposes. You and Mr. Aslanian mistakenly assume that all non-assistance expenditures go into some administrative vortex at the state level. But, in fact, the non-assistance expenditures mostly go to things like statewide job training programs, child care, transportation, etc. You know, a whole bunch of stuff meant to help working families that doesn't involve simply cutting them a check. So, look at the detailed breakdown of non-assistance expenditures, and then go to column 6j, labeled 'admin'. This is the total national average of administrative costs of TANF. It is 9% of total expenditures. So, 9 cents on the dollar is paid to administer a multi-billion dollar welfare program helping millions of poor and struggling families in the United States.

These are the facts. Now, you may think that 9% is too much. Hell, there is probably some significant waste, inefficiency, redundancy, etc. in the administration of this program. But to dismiss the whole program based on faulty figures, and to just believe these figures without even doing the necessary research, seems more ideologically motivated than dispassionately rational.

Originally posted by bbarr
Wait, this is hilarious. You actually think that the federal government is providing health care? You know that health care is provided by doctors, right? And that the health care bill mandates that citizens purchase health insurance from private corporations, right? And that there is no public option, right? Perhaps you think we should get rid of Medicar ...[text shortened]... as you go? Educate yourself:

http://www.gov.cn/english/official/2005-07/28/content_18024.htm

Don't laugh too hard, someone in your household might overhead you making a fool of yourself. If you believe anyone here was saying that a bureaucrat instead of a doctor did handson treating, you're incredibly wrong, as with the assumption that the details of healthcare were not already discussed and understood on these blogs for a long time. It's still the federal government forcing people to purchance insurance under threat of "fines" (taxes) and milking from those who used to freely opt out (the young and healthy single males especiallly) to give to the pre-existing condition and low income groups, in the end a government established system albeit through private enterprise.
As for Chinese social security, I have read sources glibly describing the system as non-existing, but to be more precise on the following source I would point out that the benefits are highly limited, uneven, and have no notable social effect (see especially end paragraphs):


http://www.cato.org/events/china/papers/jie.html

I hope this has been equally educational for you, as I did not know the details of the weak social security system in China, just that studies cited it as an effect on people's savings rates.
Later on a series of policies and regulations were promulgated. At that time, the All China Federation of Trade Unions was the highest leading body for national insurance service, and the Ministry of Labour was the highest supervisory institution for the national labour insurance work. Part of labour insurance fund was paid directly by enterprises, another part was raised by the All China Federation of Trade Union. The social security system has played an important role in rehabilitating and developing the national economy, guaranteeing the essential life of the people and consolidating people's democratic dictatorship.

The second stage ranged between 1966 and 1976. During the 10 chaotic years, social insurance work suffered serious setbacks and destruction, management organs were dissolved, trade union organizations were compelled to suspend activities, social pooling from society for retirement expenses was cancelled, and social insurance was turned into enterprise insurance.

The third stage ranged from the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee in 1978 to the 14th National Congress of the Party. Along with the in depth development of reform and opening up, we have engaged in the research and promotion of the establishment and advancement of the socialist security system as an important aspect of the economic system reform. In 1984, some regions began exploration of methods for reform of the old age pension insurance system, the method of raising funds from society for retirement pension was introduced to state owned enterprises and most urban collective-owned enterprises, and it was decided to institute employee's contribution system. Some regions even boldly explored ways for the establishment of a system which integrates social pooling with personal account. Government institutions and some villages have also conducted trial reform of the pension system.

In his Government Work Report to the First Session of the Seventh National People's Congress in 1988, Premier Li Peng pointed to the need of accelerating reform of the social security system, establishing and perfecting various social insurance systems and gradually forming a social security system with Chinese characteristics. In 1990, in many of his written instructions and speeches, Premier Li Peng noted that reforms of the housing system, the insurance system and the medical system should be placed in an important position in the next 10 years, these three reforms directly concern the vital interests of the people.

The fourth stage ranged from the 14th National Congress of the Party to the present. While proposal for the establishment of a socialist market economic system was put forward for the first time, deepening reform of the social security system was also clearly defined for the first time as one of the important links in the reform of the economic system. The Decision on Some issues Concerning the Establishment of a Socialist Market Economic System adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 14th Party Central Committee further clearly defined the goal and principle for the establishment of a new social security system. The pace of the social security system reform has notably accelerated.

Some problems currently existing in China's social security system are in urgent need of solutions through deepening relevant supportive reforms.

First, chaotic management system. There are two major problems: one is making no distinction between the government and the institution, and confusing supervision and management have both adversely affected management efficiency and increased management cost; second, policies coming from many sources and multiple management. For example, the fact that the Ministries of Labour, Personnel, Civil Affairs, and Public Health, the State Family Planning Commission, the People's Insurance Company of China respectively participated in the management of social security, plus the trade insurance introduced to 11 local pension insurance trades, has aggravated the chaos in the social security management system.

Second, imperfection of laws and systems. As a system guaranteeing the basic interest of life of all labourers, social security needs to be standardized by law and to guarantee its implementation. China's current social security system, although having gone through many years of revisions and supplements, is still very incomplete and cannot meet the needs of the development of multiple economic forms, multiple operational methods and multiple employment systems in the market economy. For example, many difficult problems related to social insurance in foreign funded enterprises have been encountered, regarding which there are no laws to go by, and there exists the problem whereby foreign funded enterprises take advantage of loopholes in China's laws and evade employees' social insurance.

Third, limited coverage of social insurance and its uneven development between regions. Most employees with China's private enterprises have not as yet participated in social insurance; the urban unemployed can only enjoy a low level social security; the development of social security in rural areas is slow and its level is low, the current coverage of rural social security is less than 5 percent of the rural population. There is a wide gap in the average social insurance expenses for labourers in various provinces and cities. The level of social insurance expenses is high in Shanghai, Guangdong, Hainan and other provinces and cities, with the highest reaching 1,326 yuan per month, and the lowest being only 100 yuan.

Fourth, a low degree of socialization. China's social security system, which is based mainly on enterprise security, limits the universality of security, and weakens enterprises' competitiveness. In addition, there are many covert but few overt security projects, therefore labourers have only shallow impression on them, although the state and enterprise have spent huge amounts of expenses, social effect is not notable."

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Don't laugh too hard, someone in your household might overhead you making a fool of yourself. If you believe anyone here was saying that a bureaucrat instead of a doctor did handson treating, you're incredibly wrong, as with the assumption that the details of healthcare were not already discussed and understood on these blogs for a long time. It's stil enterprise have spent huge amounts of expenses, social effect is not notable."

You claimed above that the government discourages savings by providing health care. That is a quote. My response was that the government does not provide health care or insurance, but mandates that people buy it privately. Do you see the difference between what you claimed and what is the truth? If your actual problem with the health care bill is that the government should not mandate that we contract with private enterprise, I agree. I think this is an unjust infringement on our liberty. But that is not what you said. So, be clear. Say what you mean, and don't pretend when you get called out on saying something wrong that it is the fault of the listener for not reading your mind.

You claimed above that there is no social security in China. That is what you said. That is false. There has been social security in China since 1966, as your own source recognizes. Your own source claims that social security in China has played an important role in "guaranteeing the essential life of the people..." Yet, as you mention, there are problems with the effectiveness of social security in China. But there is a difference between claiming that China does not have social security and claiming that China has social security that does not work as well as desired. Do you understand the difference? Again, try to avoid saying things that are false and then getting all indignant when you are humiliated by being shown wrong. Try to say true things, and everything will go easier for you.

Cheers!