America's aversion to socialism ?

[WhoWee]

$1/lb mystery meat has got to be internally damaging. Steak is good for you. Eating 1 lb of steak instead of 8 lbs of the nasty stuff makes perfect sense to me.

I cited a recent purchase of (whole) chickens at $.69 per pound. What "nasty stuff" are you describing?

 

[WhoWee]

One of the alternatives being discussed is doing away with welfare programs.

Are you citing Ron Paul comments?

 

[ThomasT]

I cited a recent purchase of (whole) chickens at $.69 per pound. What "nasty stuff" are you describing?

That's wonderful for you. I'll bet they bought some cheap chicken (as well as other cheaper cuts of beef) also. But they worked the coupon/sales thing to be able to get a couple of steaks. What's the deal with trying to make maine75man feel guilty about doing that? He isn't complaining. They're trying to make the best out of a difficult situation. And if that, for them, entails getting a couple of good steaks once in a while, then I say great, do it.

Now can we drop this and return to discussing the merits of wealth redistribution, and why lots of Americans are opposed to it?

 

[ThomasT]

Are you citing Ron Paul comments?

Not necessarily. It's just a hypothetical, for argument's sake, wrt whether it makes sense for Americans who are against social welfare programs to hold that position -- as an adjunct to exploring, per the OP, the reasons why they hold that position.

(If I recall correctly Paul voted in favor of a Section 8 bill, but is generally opposed to the redistribution of wealth via social welfare programs administered by the federal government.)

 

[WhoWee]

That's wonderful for you. I'll bet they bought some cheap chicken (as well as other cheaper cuts of beef) also.

Actually, I stipulated the chicken came from Aldi's. Last time I checked, they're ranked the largest food retailer in the world - about 9,000 stores - probably have some buying power?
Wiki should be sufficient for this comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldi

Aldi's wholesale purchasing power and retail price strategies aside, what is "cheap chicken"?

As for returning to the discussion about wealth redistribution - this conversation is spot on. A purchase of $8.00 per pound steak when $1.00 per pound alternatives are available is a waste of tax payer funds and literally takes food (1 meal of steak instead of 8 meals of chicken) out of the mouth of someone else that could have benefited.

 

[WhoWee]

Not necessarily. It's just a hypothetical, for argument's sake, wrt whether it makes sense for Americans who are against social welfare programs to hold that position -- as an adjunct to exploring, per the OP, the reasons why they hold that position.

(If I recall correctly Paul voted in favor of a Section 8 bill, but is generally opposed to the redistribution of wealth via social welfare programs administered by the federal government.)

Then you can't support this comment?
" One of the alternatives being discussed is doing away with welfare programs."? Another way to describe "just a hypothetical, for argument's sake" - is STRAWMAN!

 

[ThomasT]

As for returning to the discussion about wealth redistribution - this conversation is spot on. A purchase of $8.00 per pound steak when $1.00 per pound alternatives are available is a waste of tax payer funds and literally takes food (1 meal of steak instead of 8 meals of chicken) out of the mouth of someone else that could have benefited.

I don't think that's a valid argument. Recipients are given a certain amount of food stamps to spend on whatever they want to eat. As long as they're not complaining, then what's the problem.

The fact that some would have them selecting cheaper foods than they do has nothing to do with the general consideration of how eradicating or significantly reducing the food stamp program might affect the general economy and the society as a whole.

 

[ThomasT]

Then you can't support this comment?
" One of the alternatives being discussed is doing away with welfare programs."? Another way to describe "just a hypothetical, for argument's sake" - is STRAWMAN!

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Thus, straw man argumentation is different from proposing and exploring hypothetical 'what if' scenarios.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think that's a valid argument. Recipients are given a certain amount of food stamps to spend on whatever they want to eat. As long as they're not complaining, then what's the problem.

The fact that some would have them selecting cheaper foods than they do has nothing to do with the general consideration of how eradicating or significantly reducing the food stamp program might affect the general economy and the society as a whole.

IMO- they are clearly receiving too much in food subsidy if they can justify such a purchase. The excess amounts could be used to help other people. Isn't the goal of any food subsidy program to feed as many people as possible?

 

[WhoWee]

Thus, straw man argumentation is different from proposing and exploring hypothetical 'what if' scenarios.

Please cite the specific post you were responding to prior to stating "One of the alternatives being discussed is doing away with welfare programs".

 

[ThomasT]

IMO- they are clearly receiving too much in food subsidy if they can justify such a purchase.

I don't know what they get. But I think that focusing on a food stamp recipient's purchase of a couple of more expensive cuts of meat is being a bit unnecessarily nitpicky.

The excess amounts could be used to help other people.

The relatively small amount that this might involve would be insignificant, imo. Anyway, how would such oversight be administered? Simply electronically prohibit food stamp recipients from buying quality (and therefore more expensive) foods?

Now, do think that the food stamp program should be discontinued or reduced? If so, then why, and how do you think this might affect the general economy and the people and businesses that might be affected by such actions?

Isn't the goal of any food subsidy program to feed as many people as possible?

As many genuinely needy people as possible. It does that. Doesn't it?

 

[ThomasT]

Please cite the specific post you were responding to prior to stating "One of the alternatives being discussed is doing away with welfare programs".

Eg., most recently, my post #173, which was a reply to mheslep. I've been speculating on what discontinuing or reducing social welfare programs might entail. The (tentative) argument against such actions being that they would significantly negatively affect the US general economy and therefore the US society.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know what they get. But I think that focusing on a food stamp recipient's purchase of a couple of more expensive cuts of meat is being a bit unnecessarily nitpicky.

The relatively small amount that this might involve would be insignificant, imo. Anyway, how would such oversight be administered? Simply electronically prohibit food stamp recipients from buying quality (and therefore more expensive) foods?

Now, do think that the food stamp program should be discontinued or reduced? If so, then why, and how do you think this might affect the general economy and the people and businesses that might be affected by such actions?

As many genuinely needy people as possible. It does that. Doesn't it?

"Nitpicky"(?) - if you cut $10 from each of 1 million beneficiaries - how many more people could you help feed?

 

[WhoWee]

Eg., most recently, my post #173, which was a reply to mheslep. I've been speculating on what discontinuing or reducing social welfare programs might entail. The (tentative) argument against such actions being that they would significantly negatively affect the US general economy and therefore the US society.

He didn't suggest that welfare be eliminated - quite the opposite.

"Originally Posted by mheslep
I'm fine with a share of my federal tax dollars going to a minimal social safety net ..."

 

[ThomasT]

"Nitpicky"(?) - if you cut $10 from each of 1 million beneficiaries - how many more people could you help feed?

Apparently, the food stamp program is already helping to feed all the people who need that help. So cutting the benefit amount wouldn't feed more people, it would just give the people who need the help less help.

But, hypothetically, why not cut the benefits in half? Or make the maximum food stamp amount, say, $50/month. They should be able to buy enough rice and beans on that to survive.

 

[ThomasT]

He didn't suggest that welfare be eliminated - quite the opposite.

I didn't say he did. Do you want to explore the possible entailments of some hypothetical wealth redistribution, or lack thereof, scenarios, or not?

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I've got to go for a while.

 

[mheslep]

Eg., most recently, my post #173, which was a reply to mheslep. ...

I've made no comment about "doing away" with the social safety net, in fact I made a point about keeping it, and how (reduced, more localized). Nor has anyone else in this thread unless I'm mistaken.

 

[Alfi]

they are clearly receiving too much in food subsidy if they can justify such a purchase. The excess amounts could be used to help other people.

hmmmm.
substitute, food subsidy for tax breaks and substitute such a purchase, for personal jets in that sentence.

it would read...
...they are clearly receiving too much in tax breaks if they can justify personal jets. The excess amounts could be used to help other people.

All the talk is about taking from the poor and not taking from the rich.
Even Robin Hood knew better than that.

 

[WhoWee]

hmmmm.
substitute, food subsidy for tax breaks and substitute such a purchase, for personal jets in that sentence.

it would read...
...they are clearly receiving too much in tax breaks if they can justify personal jets. The excess amounts could be used to help other people.

All the talk is about taking from the poor and not taking from the rich.
Even Robin Hood knew better than that.

cute

I don't waste my money (do you?) - why should the Government?

Btw - you do realize that a great many corporate aircraft are actually owned by leasing companies - like GE Capital - and used (paid for) - by the "wealthy"?

 

[AlephZero]

Even Robin Hood knew better than that.

Yeah, but he was a socialist

Looking from the outside, it often seems like the freedom that is most desired in the US is the freedom to treat everybody except oneself like dirt.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, but he was a socialist

Looking from the outside, it often seems like the freedom that is most desired in the US is the freedom to treat everybody except oneself like dirt.

Actually, Robin Hood was a thief.

 

[DoggerDan]

Actually, Robin Hood was a thief.

If you recall, so was the Sheriff of Nottingham. He was simply a legal thief, much like some (most?) politicians today who fund programs simply to get reelected rather than for any actual value to the community as a whole.

I don't waste my money (do you?) - why should the Government?

They shouldn't, but they do.

The most interesting idea I hear for limiting government to what's really necessary is to make all taxes voluntary. Another idea simply involves privatizing all governmental functions. I don't see how the latter would be very good for the country, though.

 

[CAC1001]

We also don't live in a society where it is considered OK to let someone die simply because they made a bad financial decision. Nor do we live in a society where fraud or theft carries the death penalty.

So even if we could put a crystal ball at the entrance of every emergency room so that we could tell you if a patient would pay and if not why, even then truly sick people still wouldn't be stopped at the door. Well that's not completely true people who looked like they might be truly sick wouldn't be stopped their actual health would be unimportant.

If we could put a crystal ball at the door of the hospital to determine said things (whether a person lacked health insurance because they chose to abuse the system when they could afford it or because they legitimately can't afford it), then for the most part, everyone who could afford health insurance would purchase it, because the system would be able to prevent anyone from abusing the system. Where people who had chosen, for whatever reason, not to purchase health insurance, I would suggest that the system should still treat them, BUT, then either mandate they purchase it afterwards or hit them with a fine that costs the equivalent (so as to stop any system abuse).

Do people really want to live in a world where their healthcare providers are capable of being that callous let alone allowed or encouraged to be?

Depends I think. I mean that can happen in a universal healthcare system as well, the system will ration and care will be given to those who need it most, subjecting others to waiting times (depends on the system though). Also, we already live in a world where if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will throw you out of your home and onto the street, where if you can't pay your mortgage, they'll come and repossess your home (again making you homeless), where if you can't pay for your car, they'll repossess that too.

 

[CAC1001]

Healthcare should be 'free,' completely paid by taxes, IMO. The Dutch gave up an essentially 'free' system by privatizing it, now the costs are exploding.

Just wondering if you have a source for this? Not saying it isn't true at all, I'd just be curious to read about it some, because I think there would be some more to it if costs are exploding with privatization.

It's a place where capitalism, or a free-market strategy, just doesn't work.

I think the best option is a system that combines the best elements of the market and government.

 

[CAC1001]

They are wealth redistribution. How else to frame it?

The way I see it is that "wealth redistribution" as conservatives and the Right think of it is the government taking the income of one person or group to give to another group for the sake of creating a more equal outcome in society. Having sound social safety nets isn't about doing that. It's just about having a system of social safety nets in place so as to provide a cushion for the general public in the event of a recession, depression, or the average person who just ends up hitting some bad luck in terms of their job or whatnot. It is not about some bureaucrat who doesn't like one group of people making more than another group and wants to thus "redistribute" income and wealth, and also thinks that the solution to many of society's problems is via a bunch of government programs.

However, when a society is able to help those in need, then it makes sense to do so, because it doesn't just benefit the needy, but also the many businesses that are peripherally affected. Anectdotally, I made lots of money (as did many others) that I probably wouldn't have made, during a certain period, were it not for the Section 8 aid given to thousands of renters in my area during that period.

In an instance such as that, you have income being redirected from one group to another group, so in order to "help" all of the businesses affected, you have to hurt some other part of society (as government doesn't create wealth remember). That said, I agree with society helping the needy when it is able to in terms of social safety nets. The important

Just enough to keep them locked in poverty and a bit less hungry, eh?

A minimal social safety net won't keep someone locked in poverty. It is as it sounds, it provides for the basics a person needs to survive until they can find another job.

But certainly not enough to, say, start a business ... even if they might have a good idea and a good plan.

You mean like Solyndra? IMO, the government should not at all be in the business of giving loans out to businesses. A government bureaucrat is not going to risk taxpayer money with the same degree of care as an investor investing their own money in the private sector will. Also, this process can be corrupted in that the government will think it can predict which industries are the future and thus which ones it should focus on supporting. Leave allocation of capital to the market.

Nevertheless, I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that most of the aid money gets redistributed into the general economy ... which is good for the whole country.

Take that couple hundred billion (whatever it is) out of the general economy and see what happens. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, more people out of work. Thousands of businesses, large and small, would be adversely affected.

This is after the government already took that couple hundred billion out of the general economy, then re-injected it back in. Thus, by that argument, the government would have to have hurt thousands of businesses and thousands or millions of workers from the start.

What does that matter? Would you rather have a society with millions more people living in abject poverty? I don't want my area inundated with large numbers of such 'desperados'.

What makes you think it is government spending that eliminates poverty? If anything, many such programs only increase it. That's part of the problem.

The lottery winners on food stamps is what, one or two people? They'll eventually correct that loophole. I agree that it's absurd that they don't test for assets, but it's not like it's a big problem. My guess is that the vast majority of people getting government aid actually need it. And like I said, it helps the economy.

There cannot be any net benefit to the economy from people getting government aid of any kind because every dollar that the government injects into the economy was either taken out of the economy at an earlier date or will have to be taken out at a futue date if the government is using debt.

I am not against government aid myself in various forms, but the way the welfare state developed for many years was in a manner that did not at all fix poverty. When Ronald Reagan came into office, for example, you had multiple genertions of people who had been living on welfare.

IMO, what government aid should do is help people get back to fishing. There's a saying I am sure you have heard, "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, you feed him for his life." Government aid should either be about helping teach people to fish or aiding people who have hit a storm that temporarily turned their boat over on them and thus are unable to fish for awhile. So society will give them fish until they get their boat turned over. If the policy is to just to hand out lots of free fish though, then there will be a lot of people who choose to quit fishing.

I'd say that government aid wrt food, housing, monetary assistance, education, etc. is, generally, sustainable and constructive -- but not if the government continues to reinforce outsourcing, offshoreing, immigration of indigent and unskilled people, and other policies which increase the number of US residents who need aid.

There aren't enough jobs in the US for residents of the US who are qualified to do them. It's an increasing problem, and I don't see any reason to believe that the trend will reverse. There's no political will to do the obvious, not necessarily easy but straightforward, fixes. So, the trend is likely to continue, imo.

What is the obvious?

Cut out all social welfare programs and the US will eventually have the sort of massive street-dwelling and shantytown situations that certain other countries have to deal with ... whether or not the US significantly curtails immigration of poor and technologically unskilled people.

That's what they said when welfare reform was passed in the 1990s. Some prominent people of the welfare system even resigned in protest, saying it would be a disaster. But yet the 1990s are thought of as being great times, and the unemployment rate continued coming down.

I would not say cut all social welfare programs, especially right now as the economy stinks, but don't maintain any large social welfare state, or else one ends up with a large group of society living off of the rest of society, and usually remaining permantently poverty-stricken. Have a good social safety net system in place.

 

[WhoWee]

Depends I think. I mean that can happen in a universal healthcare system as well, the system will ration and care will be given to those who need it most, subjecting others to waiting times (depends on the system though). Also, we already live in a world where if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will throw you out of your home and onto the street, where if you can't pay your mortgage, they'll come and repossess your home (again making you homeless), where if you can't pay for your car, they'll repossess that too.

Sure - everyone seems to forget that Medicare is the model for future Government healthcare plans. Btw - to everyone that wants a single payer system - try not paying the Medicare co-insurance amounts if you have assets - let us know how that works out for you.

 

[daveb]

Also, we already live in a world where if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will throw you out of your home and onto the street, where if you can't pay your mortgage, they'll come and repossess your home (again making you homeless), where if you can't pay for your car, they'll repossess that too.

And if you don't pay your medical bills, they'll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo!_The_Genetic_Opera" (no, I'm not being serious or sarcastic - just thougt this movie was kinda cool).

 

[Evo]

A minimal social safety net won't keep someone locked in poverty. It is as it sounds, it provides for the basics a person needs to survive until they can find another job.

What if they can't work? I see this assumption from many on here, that the people needing help are really able bodied people that just want help but don't need it.

I would not say cut all social welfare programs, especially right now as the economy stinks, but don't maintain any large social welfare state, or else one ends up with a large group of society living off of the rest of society, and usually remaining permantently poverty-stricken. Have a good social safety net system in place.

The baby boomers are nearing retirement. Many can't work due to age and/or illness. Many were forced out of their jobs years ahead of when they anticipated retiring. Again, I keep hearing it's "people on social security are a bunch of worthless leeches". Do you have any statistics that back you up? How many people receiving the social security benefits that they paid into all of their lives are able bodied people that suddenly decided to become scum "living off of the rest of society"? I'd like to see the numbers.

 

[WhoWee]

What if they can't work? I see this assumption from many on here, that the people needing help are really able bodied people that just want help but don't need it.

The baby boomers are nearing retirement. Many can't work due to age and/or illness. Many were forced out of their jobs years ahead of when they anticipated retiring. Again, I keep hearing it's "people on social security are a bunch of worthless leeches". Do you have any statistics that back you up? How many people receiving the social security benefits that they paid into all of their lives are able bodied people that suddenly decided to become scum "living off of the rest of society"? I'd like to see the numbers.

This is why I've been so critical of the expansion of SSDI in the past few years. Every $1.00 wasted through fraud and abuse is stolen from the people who deserve their benefits (now or in the future).

I'm also concerned with the political motivation of cutting the payroll deduction for Social Security - IMO - keeping an extra $10 in the pocket of someone that has a job doesn't create jobs - but it does weaken the Social Security system.

Last, if the cap needs to be raised to a much higher level - do it - just don't turn around and expand the program further for political gain. The politicians need to be held to the same standards as private sector trustees - again IMO.

 

[MarcoD]

Just wondering if you have a source for this? Not saying it isn't true at all, I'd just be curious to read about it some, because I think there would be some more to it if costs are exploding with privatization.
I think the best option is a system that combines the best elements of the market and government.

No sorry. The Dutch don't have a taxed system but a system where medical insurance is mandatory. Now, some insurance companies compete in it. It is a highly complex regulated system where more and more is privatized since the old 'stalinistic' system led to long waiting queues for treatment and there wasn't a lot of room for private clinics. Privatization seems to include that more and more treatments, or care, is outsourced to professional parties, contracts are made between healthcare offerers and the insurers. People are worried about that the quality of care seems to degrade.

I think by now you'ld probably need to be a financial wizard to understand the system.

The only thing I know is that costs are exploding for the government as it was broadcast on the news. It is somewhat blamed on our increasingly old population, personally think the privatizations are also to be blamed.

As far as I understood, the old manner was a predominantly 'communistic' style of implementing health-care. (Say, in essence, one doctor every 5k, one hospital every 100k, etc.) It wasn't a nice system in the sense that doctors, for example, probably could earn more abroad and were filled with work, leading to long waiting queues. But it was also a system where nobody really needed to care about costs, only about health.

Now everything is about money, and the number of treatments. I think that system is just likely to degenerate into a system where a maximum of treatments are offered at a maximum of cost, which can be high since everybody is willing to pay a lot for healthcare.
I.e., say the costs for the original system is 10% of your wallet, but you're willing to pay 20%, than a deregulated pure-capitalistic system must float to that 20%.

It's an opinion. I really think a 'communist' style, given the fact that it mostly concerns a monopoly and supply defines the demand, just is cheaper in the long run. Also, the US seems to spend a lot more on healthcare, which I find a troubling sign since I think it is more deregulated there.

There is a report, but it is in Dutch. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/270751013.html" (Wrong paste, fixed the link.) Main conclusion:

In the period 1994-1999 spending increased on care by an average 5.1% per year. In the period 1999-2003 it increased 9.7%. Much of it was because of price and wage developments. In the two periods volume grew from 2.3 to 4.0%.

But, as I said, it's a highly complex system by now. It just seems to me that the cheapest is to throw away all the insurances and other stuff, directly tax it, and plan the needed healthcare in a 'communist' fashion.

[ Anyway, I also think that that leads to better healthcare. I don't believe that there is an 'angel' overhanging the markets which makes sure that capital is distributed in a just manner, or that a capitalist system will automatically insure that the best health arrives at the people who need it. This is better planned, IMO. ]

[ Also, in the stated report it is claimed that we switched from a supply to a demand driven healthcare. IMO, that just means that, say, where you needed one surgeon for bone operations, but if you count all the total demand of people you can sell a new hip, you end up with three surgeons and lots of people who didn't really need a new hip, but a cane. ]

 

[Evo]

This is why I've been so critical of the expansion of SSDI in the past few years. Every $1.00 wasted through fraud and abuse is stolen from the people who deserve their benefits (now or in the future).

People that are too disabled to work should get social security disabilty, that's what it's there for. Do you know anyone that's applied for disability through social security? It's nearly impossible to get approved. I'll have to look again but I believe it's something like only 20% of people that apply actually get approved. Sure there is fraud, but I can't imagine there is much, I can't find any numbers. Now welfare is where you run into a lot of fraud. Medicare and Medicaid fraud is huge, but that's mostly bad doctors and bogus medical companies from what I've seen. The patients themselves aren't getting the money.

I'm also concerned with the political motivation of cutting the payroll deduction for Social Security - IMO - keeping an extra $10 in the pocket of someone that has a job doesn't create jobs - but it does weaken the Social Security system.

I've got to agree with you on this one. The amount of money individuals will see is not enough to make a difference, but the damage as a whole is significant. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is just stupid, IMO. I guess the savings in matching to large employers might be significant, but not so much for small business.

 

[WhoWee]

People that are too disabled to work should get social security disabilty, that's what it's there for. Do you know anyone that's applied for disability through social security? It's nearly impossible to get approved. I'll have to look again but I believe it's something like only 20% of people that apply actually get approved. Sure there is fraud, but I can't imagine there is much, I can't find any numbers. Now welfare is where you run into a lot of fraud. Medicare and Medicaid fraud is huge, but that's mostly bad doctors and bogus medical companies from what I've seen. The patients themselves aren't getting the money.

In an effort not to derail this thread - I've posted repeatedly about the expansion of SSDI through new qualifications - such as bi-polar disorder that have opened the flood gates to dual eligibility of Medicare/Medicaid combined with SSDI for the under 65 age groups - lot's of drug addicts (IMO) and couples. Again, these programs need to be protected for the people who need the benefits and can not work - I'll try to find some updated stats from CMS.

 

[Evo]

In an effort not to derail this thread - I've posted repeatedly about the expansion of SSDI through new qualifications - such as bi-polar disorder that have opened the flood gates to dual eligibility of Medicare/Medicaid combined with SSDI for the under 65 age groups - lot's of drug addicts (IMO) and couples. Again, these programs need to be protected for the people who need the benefits and can not work - I'll try to find some updated stats from CMS.

I'm all for cutting and curtailing parts of what is covered. I don't feel sorry for drug addicts, and I don't think we should pay people to have kids either through welfare or income tax incentives. A person can't help developing a debilatating disease, but they sure can control how many kids they pop out. I'm not saying that we tell people how many kids they can have, I'm saying we stop giving them money for having kids, for example, maybe the first 2 children can be claimed on a tax return, after that no exemptions, or even make them a tax liability. Is this straying too far from the topic?

 

[maine75man]

... I would suggest that the system should still treat them, BUT, then either mandate they purchase it afterwards or hit them with a fine that costs the equivalent (so as to stop any system abuse).

...I mean that can happen in a universal healthcare system as well, the system will ration and care will be given to those who need it most, subjecting others to waiting times (depends on the system though). Also, we already live in a world where if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will throw you out of your home and onto the street, where if you can't pay your mortgage, they'll come and repossess your home (again making you homeless), where if you can't pay for your car, they'll repossess that too.

Now if you go to the hospital but don't pay they do come after you through civil system just like any other creditor. Essentially your proposing the current system except that your replacing the hospitals and their collection agencies with the government and the IRS. Of course going after poor people who are sick and dying doesn't pay off too well in the long run no matter who you are. All those unpaid bills as well as the fees the collection agencies charge on what they is collected are added to the cost of everyone's health care.

That was my point. We already have a universal health care system which we already are paying for. We are not going to do anything to make it less universal. We aren't going to kick sick people out onto the streets and we won't do credit checks before your allowed into an emergency room. So we have to come up with ways to make the whole system cheaper.

 

[maine75man]

IMO- they are clearly receiving too much in food subsidy if they can justify such a purchase. The excess amounts could be used to help other people. Isn't the goal of any food subsidy program to feed as many people as possible?

Well in my opinion $50 dollars for $200 worth of groceries is pretty darn good even if it did include $20 dollars worth of steak($16 after the sale). Maybe we shouldn't have gotten the steaks. Then of course we would gotten have $180 of dollars of groceries with $34 dollars of benefits.

Perhaps because we are able to do so well with what we are given my family should get less benefits. Maybe you think that would be a fair reward for the effort my wife puts into following sales and aggressively couponing. Since she is able to do that why not lower everyone else's benefits as well. Spread the program out as wide as possible. Those people who don't have the knowledge or opportunity my wife has will suffer but hey they should be grateful for what they get.

Then of course there will still be those people who thrive on lower amounts. People who get what they need and still have a little left over. They find the good deals on rice and beans and have a little left in the budget for something special. Then if you see them buying a steak or maybe some scallops or even just a candybar, you can know that you can cut everyone's benefits that much more.