Apres le jour

[tealin]

So ... what was up with Bastille Day this year?

I mean, not in France; obviously there were parades and fireworks and stuff. I mean in the U.S. of A. I never remember this much attention being paid to Bastille Day outside of 'Learning about the culture is just as important as learning the language' bloody useless French class. Did I just never notice it before? Is it a California thing?* Or is it, as I cynically suspect, because we have a new administration and thus it's OK to not hate France anymore so anyone with an international perspective is celebrating this by overcompensating?

*very much doubt this

Comments

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

Socialism is defined in Wikipedia as the public ownership of the means of production. This is not quite true as in a capitalist society the public can also own the means of production as shareholders in the companies that produce. What socialism is the state owning the means of production. The state in this case is the federal government. We're moving that way with the state now owning two of the three major car companies. The government also owns a sizeable chunk of many financial institutions. The government is also looking to take over the health care industry. Before you say "no they are not," look at what the government is doing, not what they are saying, then get back to me. All this has happened in six months.

In communism the state owns all property. Buildings, the companies in them, stores, homes, all land. I'm not saying the country is moving to communism, but an interesting part of a new bailout package includes the state taking over the mortgages of people who are behind on payments, and the occupiers paying rent to the state. It's a start.

You can have a welfare state with capitalism. All you need is a good reason to be on welfare as opposed to working. A safety net turns into a hammock quite easily. In the US today, 41% of taxpayers pay no tax. The bottom 50% of wage earners here pay 3% of taxes. The top 1% of wage earners earn 17% of the income and pay 39% of the taxes. I'd say that is more than their fair share.

We should have a safety net. I think it is every person's responsibility to help others. The government is in charge of the welfare system. The government says that a charity who only uses 10% of the money it takes in for administration is a good charity. The US federal government eats up 72% of the money it collects for welfare in administrative costs.

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

41% of taxpayers pay no tax

You may want to amend your wording here...

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

I would but it gets complex. If you say that 41% of people pay no tax that would not be right, because those who are old not enough to work or only work a few hours or those who don't make enough to file . . I suppose a good way to put it is 41% of those required to file a tax return, but then you get the filing singly or joint returns thing coming into play.

If the proposed Obama tax increases come into play, and when the Bush tax cuts expire, 51% of Americans who are required to file a tax return will pay no taxes.

I forget who said it, or exactly what they said, but it goes something like this: A democracy is doomed when the people figure out they can vote themselves money. That is what is happening now in the USA.

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

My point was simply that if you pay no tax, by definition you are not a taxpayer. Amending it to 'those eligible to pay tax' or something like that would escape your semantic paradox.

[putri-nih.livejournal.com]

I was listening to this discussion on the radio --it was a right-wing, Republican radio talk show. (No, I have no choice in the radio selection...I was mooching off a ride from someone.. sigh)
He was going on and on about how Obama is a commie because he's planning to implement health care plan in The States (and grilling the poor bastard who disagreed with him)

What I always want to know is...why is it that "health care" is automatically "commie" or "socialist"? I asked people but they can't seem to clarify it further than, "it just is."

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

I don't think Obama is a commie, but I do think he is a socialist. Health care is not intrinsically socialist, or communist, or capitalist. It is how it is delivered that defines it.

If you pay the government, either through taxes, co-pays, or directly, it is a statist system (run by the state). When you pay an insurance company, the doctor or some other way without paying the government, it is a capitalist system. In a state-run system there is rationing. Either by not making certain procedures available or limiting access to them. A look at England's or Canada's systems shows that there are rather important problems with this model.

leave canada out of this once and for all

[(Anonymous)]

If you are a citizen in canada, have no job or money you or your kids will still be able to go see a doctor if you are sick. This would not be the case for someone without insurance in the states. Please also don't get me started on the limits and exceptions insurance companies have on certain medical procedures. Health care is a right, not privilege. Someone living in the states without health insurance could be dead before they can see a doctor!

Re: leave canada out of this once and for all

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

This is false.

Anybody, even illegal aliens, gets care in American hospitals. You walk in (or call 911 and get a free ride in an ambulance), you get care, you don't pay. It's that easy. "Civil Rights" groups even publish pamphlets with instructions in Spanish on how to get the care and not pay a dime.

If health care is a right, undeniable to anybody, why is it that it is rationed? How do you ration rights? The average wait to see a specialist in Canada is 17 weeks. In the Maritimes it is 22 weeks. The average wait to get a hip replacement in BC is 18 months. A year and a half of agonizing pain, confined to a wheelchair because you can't walk. That's why hospitals in Washington are doing good business in hip and knee replacements. How is it that the wait for an MRI in Canada can be weeks, yet you can get one for your pet in 24 hours? Yes, drug prices are lower in Canada, but many groundbreaking, highly-effective drugs are unavailable to anyone, despite their ability to pay, due to their high cost.

Luckily, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that private health care is no longer illegal and private clinics can be established. Quebec is leading the way. Vive le Quebec healthcare libre.

Re: leave canada out of this once and for all

[aspectabund.livejournal.com]

Ah, I believe you are touching on a different problem here - a lack of sufficient hospitals and doctors in Canada. Wait times differ from hospital to hospital, depending on the volume of patients and competence of the staff at each. My grandmother had to wait four days in the hospital to get her hip replaced a few weeks ago, but when my dad went to a different hospital just a few days ago, he was seen within the hour. He wasn't a priority patient either, since he was just having muscle pains.

Also, it's a shorter wait for a pet MRI because, well, not as many people are willing to fork out over a thousand dollars for an animal. I mean, after you do an MRI to figure out what's wrong, you still have to pay to get it fixed, which intimidates a lot of people into not getting one. Which doesn't make for a lineup going out the door, as it were. Veterinary and human doctoral practices are not, I'm afraid, very comparable, simply because of how people view them both.

Anyway, Canada's problem isn't free health care. We just need more freakin' doctors so the patients can get looked at!

Re: leave canada out of this once and for all

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

Lack of hospitals and doctors equals rationing. More hospitals and doctors would cost money. There was a town in Ontario that had a lottery to see who would get in to see the doctor.
http://www.intermedglobal.com/news_canadian_doctors_shortage.html

The wait is not from the time you are in the hospital, it is from the time you are diagnosed as needing a new hip. Individual results may vary, but 18 months is the average wait for a hip replacement in BC. Bellingham hospitals say "Thanks!"

My Mother-In-Law literally went to the hospital 3 times and waited a total of 6 months for minor shoulder surgery so she could lift her arm above her shoulder.

In England there was a cool deal where the government guaranteed that on admittance to an emergency room, you would be seen in X hours. We'll when the line got too long the ambulances would literally sit in the parking lot with their patients inside for hours rather than admitting them and having their wait inside be too long.

The shorter wait for pets comes from government-funded MRI centers (or would it be centres?) not being allowed to be paid by human patients, but being allowed to be open after hours to take cash for animals. Thus, the very same piece of equipment being available for quickly pets but not humans.

There is no such thing as free health care. The doctors, nurses, and staff get paid. Equipment needs to get purchased. Hospitals need to be maintained. You just need to pay more taxes to get more doctors and more hospitals.

Re: leave canada out of this once and for all

[aspectabund.livejournal.com]

Well, it was still a four days' wait in my grandmother's case. She broke her hip, four days of waiting in the hospital later, she got it fixed. Which is beside the point, but just so you know, haha.

Yikes about the lottery thing. Nothin' really to be said about that.

As for the MRI thing, I was referring to situations such as at the clinic my mother works at, where they have an in-house MRI. It's not actually big enough for people, and they have to knock out the larger dogs so they don't bonk their heads or mess up the equipment. I have no real know-how about government-run MRI centres, and I won't pretend I do. C:

Anyway, my point was that if we had enough doctors and hospitals Canada's health care system would be much more functional. Since we don't, it is not working as well as it could be.

[(Anonymous)]

A democracy is doomed when the people figure out they can vote themselves money.

Sooo ...

Voting yourself social programs = democracy dies
Voting yourself tax cuts = democracy wins!

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

Tax cuts=more money for the government.

Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all know and experienced the fact that lowering tax rates increases revenues to the federal government.

Reagan reduced the capital gains rate by 50% and reduced the highest marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%. In 6 years, tax revenues doubled.

IRS stats prove that the rich paid a greater percentage of the total tax revenue under Reagan and Bush (who lowered rates) than they did under Clinton (who raised rates).

Government social programs are horribly bloated. Take welfare for example. Just 28% of the money allocated for welfare ends up in the hands of the recipients. The rest is used up in administration. Putting charitable programs in the hands of non-governmental charities is far superior.

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

Also, what will happen is what is already happening in high-tax states.

The poor elect people who will provide for them with ever-increasing amounts. The politicians then raise taxes on those who who provide jobs and contribute more to society. Those "rich" people then end up letting workers go so they can still pay the taxes and stay profitable. Those "rich" people then move to areas where the taxes are lower, even if that means going to another country. Looking at corporate tax rates of 30% and going up, Tim Horton's recently moved to Canada, where there is a 15% corporate tax rate.

43,000 people in New York City pay a majority of the income tax revenue collected by the city. With more tax increases that are on the horizon, these 43K people will be paying more than 60% of their income in taxes. When they move, and some will move, New York City will collapse.