Why does the general public always seem to blame the people on the welfare program, for the countries economic problems?

I don’t think the “general public” tends to blame the people on assistance. I think marketing consultants, employed by right-wing groups, cleverly manipulate public perception through the use of the media, social and otherwise, to be exposed to that idea, in many ways, until the most vocal and least thoughtful, start to believe it.
What is needed is the people like you, with your astute assessment (no, I’m not being sarcastic, I believe this is, indeed, an astute assessment) of how much money actually goes where, to make as much noise in a reasoned fashion.
People in general are not stupid, just distracted by their own lives and concerns. Present them with other options to choose.

The thing that so many folks don’t understand is that there are 3 separate factions of welfare:
1) Cash assistance. You have to have 0 income and have at least one qualifying child to receive cash assistance. During those 3 years I was in poverty, I qualified for ash assistance during two separate months. 4 kids, 0 income, they gave me $500 bucks AND attached the pathetic child support the SRS forced my ex to send, of $150. Tell me how much good at net of $350 is going to do for a family of 5? And have you heard of the insane restrictions Kansas has put on the use of such funds?

2) Food stamps. My daughter makes $11.00 an hour and has 2 kids that she can claim. She still qualifies for $190 in food stamps.

3) State medical. When I had it for my kids, it wasn’t available for adults. I spent those 3 years uninsured.

The thing is, if any one receives any one of these benefits people will lump them in with dead beat welfare recipients, even if, as in my daughter’s case, they’re working 12 hours a day.

I, personally, think it’s the politicians making such a huge deal about it, to distract us from other, far more important issues.

They are easy targets. Certainly, they do not have the power to fight back.

Or do they? America seems bent on testing that.

The three Jellies above me all said it very well and appropriately, I think.

There’s also the magician’s trick of shifting your attention from the hand that’s performing the “magic”. As squeek says, it’s damn near impossible to qualify for most benefits, and you are required to dance your ass off to keep them. So the impression is given that shiftless people merely have to roll out of bed and a check is waiting for them. That way resentment can be focused on the victims as opposed to those responsible for our combined plight.

No body is against welfare as a bridge to get back on your feet. Welfare as a career is a problem, generational welfare is a problem, and having over half the population on public assistance is a problem. Realize that liberals like to lump all this together and complain that the person needing temporary help being targeted. They aren’t.

None of that diminishes the problem with government pensions that we simply cannot afford. Politicians are either passing laws to govern their own pensions which become overly generous or they are negotiating pensions with the public unions that they are working for. Again overly generous. Realize that if someone is getting a pension that becomes more than they make in salary while working, it is overly generous.

@Jaxk sure, but so many people have this idea that “most” people who receive welfare benefits aren’t trying to get out. They have no idea what a miserable existence it is.

I am wondering how someone can make a pension that is more than they made when working.

having over half the population on public assistance

The fact that impressionable people believe things like this is a big part of the problem.

I guess since we can’t afford government pensions, retired civil servants can join the rest of us in applying for welfare. There may have been a period when politicians “worked” for unions, but we all know who they work for today, and it ain’t anybody who punches a clock. Isn’t it peculiar that no one questions why it is that civil service is the last holdout for amenities common to nearly every career employee in the country 40 years ago. Why have pensions been all but eliminated for everyone but executives? Why is it the states are broke while the stock market goes through the roof? Is the country really destitute? Is it only millionaires who deserve pensions? If we can no longer afford to give people pensions why not? Where’s all the money?

@jca – Here’s one way. And this is another.

@Dutchess_III – The problem is you’re using very subjective terms. I don’t know how many ‘so many people’ are nor do I know how many ‘most’ are. I’m not trying to say that a life on welfare is easy but it can and is done. The best way to reduce welfare is to improve the economy.

@Jaxk: Both interesting articles. In the first example, there are only less than 200 of the top brass, top earning military officers who make that big $$. In the second article, they cited multiple instances and examples of people working mandatory OT because the departments have not hired sufficient staff to adequately cover what needs to be done. A quote from the article ‘At the prisons, we’re always short of officers. If they’re not going to hire new people they’re going to need OT,’ North said. ‘It could be bad because some people work mandatory OT.’”

Ok, so many on facebook! They are so harsh. The lovely Christians posting “If you can afford tattoos, alcohol or drugs you don’t deserve welfare.” Well, shit. The assumptions and stereotyping there is disgusting.

@Jaxk Most of the recipients are single moms. You can’t get benefits if you don’t have kids or unless you’re disabled.

@Dutchess_III – That’s not exactly true. About 10% of food stamp recipients are able bodied adults, just like Jason Greenslate. The problem is that Republicans always use the bad examples and Democrats always use the good examples. Neither wants to acknowledge that the other exists. So we continue to use the ‘everyone’ or ‘no one’ arguments. It gets us nowhere.

The statistic 10% of Able Bodied Adults, who knows where they get that from and if it includes the mentally ill, but “Able-bodied adults without dependents made up 10.2 percent of SNAP population in 2011, up from 6.6 percent in 2007. Federal law only allows such “ABAWDs” to receive three months of food stamps, but most states waive the requirement because of high unemployment.” Should the unemployed be starving in the street? I’m sure even food pantries and soup kitchens have reduced budgets and are not located in many places…...

@jca – Interesting that you would focus on the mandatory overtime for prison workers rather than the overtime for custodial workers. Either way, it is government mismanaging the situation and union contracts taking advantage of it. Work a bunch of overtime for three years and double you salary in pension for the rest of your life. Pretty sweet deal.

I don’t get that. Why would they even give an able bodied, single man ANY assistance? And they’re giving him enough to buy lobster? (I got enough to buy lobster, but I had 4 kids!) My daughter’s ex-boyfriend’s mother takes care of her disabled and blind sister, and they only get about $60 month in food stamps.

Makes no sense.

@jca That Jason Greenslate loser: ”Greenslate plays in a rock band and laughed at the idea of getting a normal job.”

@Jaxk: The custodian as an example was interesting, as well. When government cutbacks cut the staff to the bone, and yet the place needs to be cleaned or the prisoners need to be supervised, what’s to be done? Or should the employees be forced to work mandatory overtime without overtime pay? The employer still saves money by not having to have additional health insurance when they have less staff.

@jca – The overtime is typically for short periods of time otherwise a full time employee is much better financially. Regardless, it should not be part of the pension calculation. I can see by the responses, I’m not making much headway here but there are many other stories of padding pensions with overtime at the end of career. I get a small pension from Boeing and I guarantee, overtime played no part.

It sounds like you’re trying to justify all the government waste. Good luck with that.

@Jaxk: If there is a clause where overtime is calculated into the pension, then that can and should be changed, as I believe it was in New York with the newest tier of government employees. Until that is changed, then yes, that’s a way to pad the pension and I agree it should not be. However, as I said, when government cutbacks cut staff to the bone, the employee should get overtime as appropriate. The employee should not be expected to cover two or three jobs without sufficient compensation.

I cannot justify all the government waste, as you are accusing me of trying to do. There is waste in government just as there is waste (often unseen) in corporations. However, the question pertains to the general public blaming the little guy (i.e. welfare recipient) for the drain on the economy.

@jca – I’m not sure you read the entire question. “I am starting to think the problem isn’t as much with welfare bums, but maybe politicians on fat cat pensions paid with tax payer dollars, that can still go out and work in the private sector after leaving public office.” That refers to the pension problem as well. Frankly we have people taking advantage of welfare and people taking advantage of pensions. Not everyone on welfare is taking advantage nor is everyone on a public pension taking advantage but there are significant holes to do so. Those holes need to be closed.

BTW I have no idea where you got the idea that I don’t want to pay overtime.

@Jaxk: I understand that there are pensions that are made bigger by overtime, much of which is mandatory. I’m saying if the employee is forced to work mandatory overtime, should he not be compensated for that overtime?

If the pension system allows the mandatory overtime pay to go toward the pension (oftentimes known as “padding”) then that is a different thing, which as I agreed with you above, should be changed. In the meantime, before it is changed, the individual employee is powerless to do anything about it. Should the individual employee (for example custodian) say “that’s ok, don’t put my OT toward my pension? Keep it?”

I also think that a custodian making OT is different than the “politicians on fat cat pensions” that the OP is referring to. Perhaps he was referring more to the military brass in your first article linked above, which I pointed out there are only 200 of in the entire US.

@jca – Those are examples not the totality of the problem. Example 3, example 4, example 5.

Should I keep going?

If a manager is authorizing 70 hours of overtime a week for a year, it is the manager that should be fired. Doesn’t matter if it is mandatory or not but most likely, it is not.

@Jaxk: I have stated repeatedly above that I agree there should be pension reform. You need not “keep going” as I have said I agree with you. If a manager is authorizing 70 hours of overtime a week for a year, it is not just the manager that should be fired, it is the person over him who is undoubtedly seeing the overtime be authorized and yet letting it continue. Also, it is unlikely that one person would be able to work 110 hours per week for a year without getting sick.

There are homeless people living on the streets who could say the same exact thing about a person who would complain about taking in $16000 a year.

Anyone here going to mention the billions of dollars that go the very profitable oil industry in the for of direct government subsidies?

@Jaxk This post from you is very interesting.(The problem is you’re using very subjective terms. I don’t know how many ‘so many people’ are nor do I know how many ‘most’ are. I’m not trying to say that a life on welfare is easy but it can and is done. The best way to reduce welfare is to improve the economy.)
I totally agree,but when I say that the minimum wage should be raised to a living wage you right wing people get all horrified ,OH no that will get people layed off,and just raise the price of goods to keep profits high for shareholders.
Better to give tax cuts and bigger tax cuts to corporations,and maybe even lower the minimum wage it would put more people to work.
That I don’t get and never will what good is going to work,when you still need a Government hand out at the end of a 40hour week just to put food on the table.
The right screams for less Government,then STOP making the low wage earner depend on Government so damn much,that might be a start.
I know in Canada I wouldn’t qualify for welfare ,you have to be broke and can’t own any assets.
YOU can look this up,in the last twenty to thirty years the average wage earner has seen an increase of around 4% .
And the top wage earners have seen an increase of 400%.
Think it might be time to bring minimum wage up to a living wage???
Now don’t get drastic it would have to be set in your case state by state and the cost of living in each state.BUT NO ONE WORKING A FULL TIME JOB SHOULD NEED OR HAVE TO GET GOVERNMENT HELP AT THE END OF THEIR WORK WEEK TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.

@SQUEEKY2 – I don’t disagree with much of what you say. Being a far right lunatic however, I can’t agree with all of it. What you seem to want is a return to the single bread winner system. No one need get married to raise a family, it can be done on a single salary. And just to make sure, let’s make it happen right out of high school. That way if you graduate high school with three kids, you can support them working at the Multimart. Sounds great except, THAT’S NOT A DESIRABLE OUTCOME. Even if it was to happen which it wouldn’t.

I know everyone is complaining about how much the rich make but ask yourself why. It’s not because they are evil or they are stealing it from the poor, it’s because the government has engineered it that way. When you pump $trillions into the economy and hold interest rates at zero, no one with any sense puts money into a bank at zero interest, they invest in the stock market. When everyone is putting money into the stock market the stocks rise. That what makes the rich richer and it is a result of the liberal policies of the government. If you want salaries to rise, the economy needs to grow at a healthy rate. More government intervention won’t do that and has actually caused most of the problems we still have. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

@Jaxk If you believe liberal government policies responsible for further fattening the rich, how do you account for the virulent opposition to those measures from those raking in the money? Are they too feeble witted to appreciate the benefits? It seems that you & I agree that the government has engineered the steering of wealth to the top. This being the case, the question then becomes: who buys, owns or controls the government? Is it possible that things are “engineered” such that the rich get richer regardless, and no other outcome is allowed?

It puzzles me that with 5% of the population controlling 90% of the wealth and 1% of the population holding 80% of the 90, why is there such contention over why it is we can’t “afford” pensions, social services, roads, bridges, decent wages, or a reasonable standard of living? It seems under the circumstances reasonable to ask “what happened to the money?” Who has it? Is their percentage of it rising or falling?

In very simple terms ,what gets the economy really humping??
Most will scream jobs,jobs,jobs, but if a great deal of those jobs can’t even put food on the table at the end of the work week, is jobs the real answer?
Now simple now, the real answer is confident consumer spending<< THAT gets the ball rolling and it snow balls from there,goods and services get bought and sold,people get work to make the goods and provide the services the transport industry grows getting those goods to the consumer see where I am going?
And to say minimum wage is just teeny boppers looking for party money and a stepping stone type job to get into the work force,I think that was true 15 to 20 years ago but now those so called stepping stone jobs are filled with a much older work force and they need an income to live on, and shock maybe buy a little bit extra to get the economy rolling.
As for wanting a single bread winner?? Well that may be true in a sense where there is only one person working such as a single mother type thing.
I know there will be a wage scale, experience, education, and who you know will determine it, but for the low end workers one thing I stand on is they should not have to depend on a government handout at the end of their work week to put food on their table.
For who is the government really subsidizing, the low end worker, or the company that doesn’t pay them a wage they can live on??

Oh and @Jaxk one more thing relating to an older question I posted is the system designed to keep the poor poor, and people jumped all over me saying not at all, when I stated we got a break on our house insurance because we had the house paid off, and some relatives of ours fell behind in their payments and the bank called them in and refinanced them at a higher rate, and I was told we get a better rate because we are a lesser risk and they get penalized because they are a higher risk to do business with,they have a hard time keeping up so make them pay more makes sense to me.
And the poor can climb out of their hole, but @Jaxk even you have to admit they are getting kicked in the teeth with every try.
While the wealthy that can afford to pay a bit more are getting awarded by having to pay less.
OK maybe the system isn’t designed to keep the poor,poor, but it sure is designed to keep the rich,rich.
And look how well that has worked to get the economy rolling.

@SQUEEKY2 and I don’t agree on much but this one thing we agree on!

Count me in on the agreement. The next time you listen to someone rattling off the reasons for the decline in circumstances for “the average American”, just try to pick out a single one that did not result in the further enrichment of those at the top.

@SQUEEKY2 – I think you’re confusing a business with a charity. If you are loaning money there is risk involved. The more risk there is the more money you have to make to cover the losses. If I make 100 loans and 10% of them default, I have to make 10% interest just to cover my losses and break even. If I’m a little more careful with my credit approval and only have 5% default, I can accept a lower interest rate. The more likely you are to walk away from a loan and not pay it back, the more interest you will be charged. If you want lower interest rates, don’t rack up more debt than you can repay. The rules are the same for everyone.

@Jaxk I have been explained that a 100 times,and in a way your right it is the cost of doing business,and in a way I do understand that side of it, but it still seems when hard times hit the less wealthy the first thing you do is charge them more and give em a swift kick in the teeth.

Now the wealthy that have no problem paying get charged less,because they are less of a risk to do business with,NICE all in the name of business I guess.
And I sure do like it when these wonderful businesses say (WE ARE HERE FOR YOU) kind of give you a warm fuzzy feeling before they screw you, all in the name of business of course.
Oh no the system isn’t designed to keep the poor,poor, but it does a super great job at keeping the rich,rich.

Okay I guess this can go on forever, but I still insist that a discussion such as this need not bog down to issues as tangential as corrupt practices in our vanishing pension systems. It’s one of those smokescreen topics put up to avoid the BIG systemic issue. Who’s getting paid and who ain’t? Or how many people must be downgraded to minimum wage in order to build a billionaire?

BUT @stanleybmanly it’s all in the name of big business and after all they are not charities.

America is broken.

Ah but @cazzie as @stanleybmanly has pointed out the money is still in the US it is just the top % control it, and unfortunately they that have the wealth do very little to get the economy up and chugging, and that is done by the bottom 90% by as I said a couple of posts above and in simple terms by confident consumer spending, and since the bottom 90% have no money to do that, the economy stalls, but look at the bright side at least the rich keep getting richer.

Nobody cares…because they are all distracted by the fear of gays being allowed to get married, that your guns will be taken away, terrorism, or that your favorite sports team has done something good/bad/etc. Keep the masses fat, dumb and happy and if that does not work, make sure they’re afraid of the boogyman.

@Inara27 True keep the masses distracted,while the rich run off with the loot, sad thing is that it is true.

You all keep clamoring for one piece of poorly thought out legislation after another and then complain when the economy doesn’t respond like you want it to. When the banks were getting bailed out, you screamed that CEO salaries were too high. If you recall, Obama even hired a Pay Czar. So corporations responded by lowering their salaries but increasing their stock options. You all didn’t really think it through because the stock market was around 7000. Since then it has doubled and stock options have been very lucrative. You forced the issue and the rich got richer. Next you wanted to spend a $trillion on infrastructure (remember Stimulus). You did but neither the economy nor the infrastructure go better. Then you wanted government funded health insurance, so you got it. Unfortunately it destroyed the good jobs and replaced them with part time and minimum wage jobs. So now you want to raise the minimum wage and guess what will happen? More of the good jobs will disappear and even the minimum wage jobs will begin to vanish. Frankly the working public can’t afford anymore of your help. You’ve made the regulatory environment so complex and expensive that we are losing more businesses than we are creating.

We need good skilled jobs and we’ll never get that by punishing business. If we can get back to full employment, salaries will rise. Hell you can even pass the minimum wage hike once we get there if that’s so damned important. But let us recover from the recession and tsunami of liberal policies that have ruined our economy. Even the CBO says if we don’t change our policies and begin to lower our debt, we will pass the point of no return within the next ten years. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and that seems to be the only infrastructure you’re able to build.

I do believe “The Road to Hell” began with the 2008 stock market/real estate crash, which was during the era of Dubya Bush.

@jca I think you mean Clinton.

Bush was president in 2008. Here is some info. It was serious.

The President of the US when the economy collapsed in September 2008 was George W. Bush. It is widely believed that his lax economic policies are what led to the collapse.

@Jaxk. Now here I agree with your basic push, but disagree strongly with your conclusions, and there is a BIG missing factor in your analysis. And that is once more that every single flawed remedy that you list is again designed to steer money to the top. That government subsidized health care is a misnomer. It is in truth government subsidized insurance companies, and the point constantly neglected in the endless discussion of Obamacare is that it is a scheme designed, written and unsurprisingly beneficial to the insurance industry. What you state is true. Our problems are systemic, and any and all of the the myriad scemes to tweak it are corrupted into profiting the rich. The bailouts, Obamacare, etc. What do these things and their ilk ALL have in common? Bluntly stated, they are all premier examples of profits being privatized while expenses and losses are socialized. The private sector (rich) take the money, the taxpayers pay the bills or assume the debts.

@stanleybmanly – I don’t totally agree with your assessment but if you do, why would we want to continue pushing everything to the federal government? I have no problem with what you say regarding health care but the whole point of any government run health care IS to socialize the costs. This is a helluva time to come to that conclusion.

You must agree that there are reasons why we are better off if some things are socialized. I will accept that government involvement can be wasteful and inefficient. But even an overall increase in taxes to provide universal health care MUST be better than the current nightmare which defines our current situation. I mean EVERY first world country has successfully demonstrated this other than our own.

@stanleybmanly makes a good point @Jaxk , why is socialized health care so evil? when you have socialized police, fire, and school?Every first world country has it except yours and it hasn’t been the end of them.
Things in your country were really starting to turn to crap towards the latter part of Gduba’s run, to blame everything on the democrats is just blame calling.
From an outsider looking in and down on what was happening Obama’s plans would have worked better if he wasn’t forced to water them down so much to get the Republicans to go along.
I do agree, that somethings with his stimulus plans should have been thought out better, CEO’s should have faced jail time, not receive huge bonuses.
Private sector, can not be trusted to do the right thing,with wages, safe working conditions and so on they have proved that in the past, that is why the Government has to step in and regulate them to do so, YOU scream for smaller Government,and less regulations how can you prove the private sector can be trusted to do the right thing ??
And not just full steam ahead channelling more wealth into the top ,while still shovelling shit on the bottom?

Maybe without socialized health care, the poor should just have to sell what little they own to get casts put on, get surgery, get dental work, cancer care, etc. If they can’t, screw them, they’ll just be out begging and dragging their limbs on the street. Maybe that’s better? Let them suffer while the rich eat their shrimp and live in their gated communities. Who cares about the poor needing medical care and not being able to afford it?

(the above is sarcasm for those that don’t already know)

Yes the economy crashed at the end of Bush’s term, just like it did at the end of Clinton’s term, and just like they did at the end of Carter’s term. It is only Obama that couldn’t seem to turn it around. Why is it that liberals can’t seem to discuss anything without name calling in the process? You don’t like Bush, fine I get that. I don’t like Obama but I don’t need to make up some cutesy offensive name to tell you why.

OK, now that that’s out of the way, I will tell you why I don’t like the policies we’ve been using to further destroy the economy. We are drowning in debt. Passing multi-trillion dollar spending programs won’t fix that. If you are crushed by your existing debt, the solution is not to spend more, it is to tighten your belt and get the debt under control. If we can get the economy growing again, we have more options. Liberals have been blaming Bush for everything for 7 years now and haven’t fixed anything, they’ve made it worse.

@jca – Typical. Everyone was entitled to go for medical treatment with or without insurance. You all wanted this healthcare and now you’ve got it. Stop trying to blame conservatives for the mess you’ve made. Liberals did not comprise with anyone for what we’ve got, they did it all them selves.

There’s been no crash recently like the one in September 2008, with the collapse of Wall Street institutions like Lehman Brothers, et al. Not at the end of Carter’s term, not at the end of Clinton’s term (Clinton was president during the 90’s when employees in the corporate sector were getting huge bonuses and doing well). I don’t know what you’re talking about with Clinton, because that was “fat cat” time for most workers.

Yes the economy crashed at the end of Bush’s term, just like it did at the end of Clinton’s term, and just like they did at the end of Carter’s term.

That’s not an honest comparison.

The Great Recession was the biggest downturn in almost eighty years.

These crashes are cyclical. The downturns come every 20 -30 years or so. It’s the nature and price of capitalism. And it is only the socialist aspects of our society that allow us to skirt the horrors of the Great Depression. But the 2 trends that are pronounced are that they are ever more severe, and increasingly those responsible for them are allowed to walk away with their winnings while the rest of us are saddled with cleaning it up and paying for it.

Sorry I thought things were pretty good for the US at the end of the Clinton years, this link to wikipedia seems to back that up as well…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

You are right about one thing when in debt stop digging, and maybe it’s time the top percent starting helping out instead of all the breaks they get?

The debt is there in part due to our social services. I agree. But the primary reason isn’t about entitlements or lazy Americans on the dole The reason plain and simple is that THE RICH ARE INCREASINGLY excused from carrying their share of the load. THIS is how and why the money we all need to correct the nation’s difficulties is piling up uselessly at the top. The recovery is weak because the government ALONE is spending and investing in the economy. The economy can’t be consumer driven because consumers are broke. For the umpteenth time? WHO HAS THE MONEY?

I think maybe they don’t so much blame them, as hold them up as embarrassing reminders that this isn’t the best economy in the world. But, of course, it’s not the economy. Poor people are lazy drug using drunks. Every last one of them.

Yes it’s the veil thrown up to hide the truth.

Exactly @stanleybmanly who has the money?
The wealthy are not doing their share at carrying their share of taxes, of even consumer spending, but lets blame it all on social programs , and the low wage earner, sorta gets back to part of the original question is the masses being distracted from the real problem?

Yes. It’s like blaming the antelope because the lions are gluttons.

Ah but say it enough, with puppy dog eyes and people will believe it’s the damn antelopes fault,while the lions sit back and grin thinking boy are they dumb or what?

During the last big flu scare in 2008, I did some time with the infectious disease section of the Florida Health Department. I worked in the county offices that also handled WIC, food stamps, housing assistance and indigent care. I was shocked that there were so many full-time workers qualified to receive State housing and utilities assistance, food stamps, indigent health care, etc. These people worked between forty and sixty hours per week in fast food and labor position—and still qualified for assistance programs. The Homeless Coalition in 2008 stated that nearly 30% of America’s homeless work full-time jobs, 38% in my area.

It is pretty obvious to me that vast amounts of our tax money is being used to supplement corporate labor. ,

Your conclusion is successfully tucked away from the vast majority of us because it is never mentioned, let alone discussed. The situation you describe was formerly unique to our Southern states, but the ever increasing wealth gap assures the transformation of the bulk of rural America into Mississippi.

Great answer @Espiritus_Corvus , but the wealthy and corporate world will flat out refuse to believe that,and still blame the low end for all the countries problems,pretty clever lions huh?

@Jaxk before I forget, the answer to your question about healthcare “why would we want to socialize the costs of healthcare?” It’s simply this. As with everything else, the COSTS are ALREADY socialized, and have been for a long time. This is why we (in theory) don’t allow people to collapse and die in the streets. What is scandalous about our way of doing business is that with the enormous costs to us, insurance companies are inserted unnecessarily in the middle to rake off money (privatize profits) and complicate the process beyond description ( further driving up expenses)

Once we are confronted with the question “Are we prepared to allow people to die for lack of health insurance?” If the answer is “no”, there is no alternative to socialized medicine. The great tragedy for us is that we can become accustomed to people dying in the streets. Already the answer to that question is an unspoken “maybe”.

Totally right @stanleybmanly the American tax payer pays a crap load of taxes towards your countries health care, but only those that can get insurance are covered?
Makes little to no sense to me, and the Rep/cons freak saying free health care will be the total ruin of the us, NO one has ever said free, just how about an a affordable health care for everyone ,not just the fat cat bastards at the top.

The American tax payer pays a crap load of taxes towards your countries health care, but only those that can get insurance are covered?

Even worse. The American government spends more on health care per person than almost any country.

That doesn’t include the private spending.

And we still cover fewer people and health outcomes are worse.

Basically, we don’t spend money on health care. We spend money on insurance companies and other peripherals.

@jaytkay As an outsider looking in, I would have to totally agree with you.