Health Insurance

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
a basic house, basic calorics... enough to survive without a job. around 800€ in germany

800€. In $ that comes to around $1000/month or $12000 per year. If the goal is mere survival, that could work - it would be extremely difficult in a large city, but the goal here isn't comfortable life, just survival. Interesting note, maximum unemployment benefits in some states are as high as $600/week, although there is a cap on how many weeks you can get unemployment checks. How much do you get on unemployment in Germany?

no, the state doesnt today and shouldnt even in this system. it would influence the free market system and its up to you for what you spend your money.
if your economy isnt good enough to produce products i need/want, its up to the economy to change, not to the state to stop that change.

a lots of people get support by the state and its up to them, for what they spend it... also companies get subsidies and no one cares if they import or not

We may be talking apples and oranges here. You're talking of the philosophy and I'm thinking about the implementation. I agree that its up to the economy to change if domestic goods can't compete with imported goods. I also agree with your implicit point that buffering domestic companies against import competition is not a default strategy for every country. I was just thinking, hypothetically, that if we were thinking of the states in the best position to actually do this, we're looking at Western Europe, with US trailing far behind (no political will to support this at all).

Such a policy would likely destabilize the Euro more than it already is if a country such as Germany or France gave all of its citizens 800€/month from birth until death if left purely to free market means. Think about the credit offerings to help the unemployed who are lazy stretch their pay into more consumption with balloon interest rates - there would have to be legislation preventing that. There would have to be legislation around what minors can purchase with their money - how problematic would it be if the market for illegal drugs got bolstered by these payments to citizens? There would need to be monitoring to ensure that people aren't using the money for currency swapping or speculation, activities which work to destabilize the Euro as we speak.

Then there is also making sure that this system doesn't turn into an acceleration of the collapse of local markets as consumers express preference for foreign or imported goods - civil/social instability is often a result of over-rapid market liberalization, as we have seen throughout the history of the IMF

sure preventative care is allways the best way.
about, companies are good for giving people what they ask for, is half true half fals.
if you dont know that something exist, you dont ask for it.
so, if i start to offer cigarettes and make it popular, then it was the company who offered it, not the consumer who asked for it.
the state has to controll in thouse cases the companies.
but to tax just soft drinks cause they make people fat is stupid and nothing more as a symble. if the really wants to fight fat people, he has tp tax way more, close all subway and make new york a bicycle city

Agreed.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
800€. In $ that comes to around $1000/month or $12000 per year. If the goal is mere survival, that could work - it would be extremely difficult in a large city, but the goal here isn't comfortable life, just survival. Interesting note, maximum unemployment benefits in some states are as high as $600/week, although there is a cap on how many weeks you can get unemployment checks. How much do you get on unemployment in Germany?
you get 80% of your latest income - i guess for 18 month.
after that, the state pays your rent + gas and electricity and gives you 375 € per month, plus health care, plus 130€ if you got a child, and that for ever.
but you have to know, that in no other country food is as less exensive as in germany, in rate to income. by this 375€ is very less, but enough to survive.
i spend a bit less then 300€ a month for food but around 1000€ for rent and i doesnt life in a big city
We may be talking apples and oranges here. You're talking of the philosophy and I'm thinking about the implementation. I agree that its up to the economy to change if domestic goods can't compete with imported goods. I also agree with your implicit point that buffering domestic companies against import competition is not a default strategy for every country. I was just thinking, hypothetically, that if we were thinking of the states in the best position to actually do this, we're looking at Western Europe, with US trailing far behind (no political will to support this at all).

Such a policy would likely destabilize the Euro more than it already is if a country such as Germany or France gave all of its citizens 800€/month from birth until death if left purely to free market means. Think about the credit offerings to help the unemployed who are lazy stretch their pay into more consumption with balloon interest rates - there would have to be legislation preventing that. There would have to be legislation around what minors can purchase with their money - how problematic would it be if the market for illegal drugs got bolstered by these payments to citizens? There would need to be monitoring to ensure that people aren't using the money for currency swapping or speculation, activities which work to destabilize the Euro as we speak.

Then there is also making sure that this system doesn't turn into an acceleration of the collapse of local markets as consumers express preference for foreign or imported goods - civil/social instability is often a result of over-rapid market liberalization, as we have seen throughout the history of the IMF
i know about the risk of that system and it wouldnt make it better when the state says, you have t obuy local goods.
i never would support any of those systems.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
in this case i would accept ony two jobs.
desk officer or ceo
Really? If you take money out of consideration, wouldnt it be a question of which job you like best? Some jobs would still have more demand than others even if the pay was exactly the same. Which job would you want to do?

Fundamentally, why should people be paid different amounts when in most cases they will do a certain job because they want to?
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
This is kind of a "tangent" to the discussion (I found it fascinating by the way and knew immediately that the OP certainly wasn't from the US!).
A livable wage should be guaranteed by employers to everyone who works. We may call it "minimum" wage because it is the very least an employer MUST pay for workers. I think Congress should pass a law requiring STOCK HOLDERS to do a yearly salary & benefits review of ALL employees. Too many times the enormous profits posted by a company are at the expense of employees NOT receiving decent wages. "Oh the stockholders, the stockholders -- they must be satisfied first!" Why? Sure they have an investment in the company -- but they should also own the wage policies of that company. I'd be willing to bet many stockholders don't know what the employees of "their" company make. If they want to own up to the fact that they are paying shitty wages so that their profits fair well ---- at least they can publically admit that they're being greedy bastards and destroying the middle class!
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
This is kind of a "tangent" to the discussion (I found it fascinating by the way and knew immediately that the OP certainly wasn't from the US!).
A livable wage should be guaranteed by employers to everyone who works. We may call it "minimum" wage because it is the very least an employer MUST pay for workers. I think Congress should pass a law requiring STOCK HOLDERS to do a yearly salary & benefits review of ALL employees. Too many times the enormous profits posted by a company are at the expense of employees NOT receiving decent wages. "Oh the stockholders, the stockholders -- they must be satisfied first!" Why? Sure they have an investment in the company -- but they should also own the wage policies of that company. I'd be willing to bet many stockholders don't know what the employees of "their" company make. If they want to own up to the fact that they are paying shitty wages so that their profits fair well ---- at least they can publically admit that they're being greedy bastards and destroying the middle class!

An interesting thought. I recently quit a job at an IT company making record revenue, bookings, and profits, with the shareprice skyrocketing. Catch? For most non-executive positions, salary at a similar job with a competitor was on average 50% more. For me, I switched companies for a similar job with similar responsibilities...with a 100% salary increase!

But in all honesty, as a pure stockholder, I probably wouldn't care. I don't trade on the market to save the world or to improve society. I use it as a vehicle to earn passive income so that I can a) boost my present or near future consumption b) boost my consumption in the long term c) provide a tax shelter for my income. I think that such a philosophy is shared by many who trade, especially options traders and day traders.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Really? If you take money out of consideration, wouldnt it be a question of which job you like best? Some jobs would still have more demand than others even if the pay was exactly the same. Which job would you want to do?

Fundamentally, why should people be paid different amounts when in most cases they will do a certain job because they want to?
if the payment doesnt care, cause its equal, i would desite between to jobs.
a job with lots of power to desite, to be creative and free in your job. - thats why i sayd CEO
or a job without any pressure - a desk officer

why should i work hard in middle or low managment, without mutch space for free desition, when i didnt get payd better then the "desk officer"?
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This is kind of a "tangent" to the discussion (I found it fascinating by the way and knew immediately that the OP certainly wasn't from the US!).
A livable wage should be guaranteed by employers to everyone who works. We may call it "minimum" wage because it is the very least an employer MUST pay for workers. I think Congress should pass a law requiring STOCK HOLDERS to do a yearly salary & benefits review of ALL employees. Too many times the enormous profits posted by a company are at the expense of employees NOT receiving decent wages. "Oh the stockholders, the stockholders -- they must be satisfied first!" Why? Sure they have an investment in the company -- but they should also own the wage policies of that company. I'd be willing to bet many stockholders don't know what the employees of "their" company make. If they want to own up to the fact that they are paying shitty wages so that their profits fair well ---- at least they can publically admit that they're being greedy bastards and destroying the middle class!

Define "decent".
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This is kind of a "tangent" to the discussion (I found it fascinating by the way and knew immediately that the OP certainly wasn't from the US!).
A livable wage should be guaranteed by employers to everyone who works. We may call it "minimum" wage because it is the very least an employer MUST pay for workers. I think Congress should pass a law requiring STOCK HOLDERS to do a yearly salary & benefits review of ALL employees. Too many times the enormous profits posted by a company are at the expense of employees NOT receiving decent wages. "Oh the stockholders, the stockholders -- they must be satisfied first!" Why? Sure they have an investment in the company -- but they should also own the wage policies of that company. I'd be willing to bet many stockholders don't know what the employees of "their" company make. If they want to own up to the fact that they are paying shitty wages so that their profits fair well ---- at least they can publically admit that they're being greedy bastards and destroying the middle class!

please read again, its not a guarantied minimum income payd by companies. but a minimom income guarantied and payd by the state. - read the wickipedia link i have posted

the idea is, that people who know they will defenetly have a minimum income, no matte what will be. are more peasefull, they will be more risky to express them self. also they wouldnt accept every job, like thouse which are dangerous for your health or arent payd good enough.

An interesting thought. I recently quit a job at an IT company making record revenue, bookings, and profits, with the shareprice skyrocketing. Catch? For most non-executive positions, salary at a similar job with a competitor was on average 50% more. For me, I switched companies for a similar job with similar responsibilities...with a 100% salary increase!

But in all honesty, as a pure stockholder, I probably wouldn't care. I don't trade on the market to save the world or to improve society. I use it as a vehicle to earn passive income so that I can a) boost my present or near future consumption b) boost my consumption in the long term c) provide a tax shelter for my income. I think that such a philosophy is shared by many who trade, especially options traders and day traders.

your own example shows, that the philosophy of "share holder comes first" doesnt work...
sure, the share holder mainly cares for his profit and no one can really blame him for making win, instead of lost.
but a company that follows this philosophy wount survive very long. the customer, employes and partner companies are as importent as the share holder.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Try both. See which you prefer.

At the macro level, I'd prefer the latter due to the crippling cost the former would present to a government either in the form of debt (as mentioned in arguments on this thread before) or extremely high taxes on those making high "supplemental" incomes.

At the personal level, I'd prefer the latter. I would not want to be guaranteed a comfortable life without any need for work. When I was younger, I chose to "seek my fortune" in Washington DC instead of getting a comfortable job in the midwest. I was making subsistence wages for a while, but that motivated me more than I've ever been motivated in my life and I was at my most creative during those times.

Weird? Maybe. But I tell ya, mentally the executive type person is cut from a totally different cloth than most. It's a totally different mental paradigm.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Weird? Maybe. But I tell ya, mentally the executive type person is cut from a totally different cloth than most. It's a totally different mental paradigm.

If that's the case, why would you advocate a system where only that small percentage of driven overachievers enjoys any comfort, while the majority of people are kept at barely above subsistence?

It seems unfairly rigged to say on the one hand that only those with a certain type of drive, ambition, and skill should get anywhere in life, and then in the same breath acknowledge that very few people meet those requirements.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
If that's the case, why would you advocate a system where only that small percentage of driven overachievers enjoys any comfort, while the majority of people are kept at barely above subsistence?


I was playing devil's advocate. I'm an implementation/execution type guy, I like thinking about how an idea could be put into place. I'm not so married to my own worldview that I can't do that for a position I don't necessarily support myself.

It seems unfairly rigged to say on the one hand that only those with a certain type of drive, ambition, and skill should get anywhere in life, and then in the same breath acknowledge that very few people meet those requirements.

Nature is rigged. I am not so arrogant as to think I have any real power over that which made me.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Nature is rigged. I am not so arrogant as to think I have any real power over that which made me.

Nature is rigged, and you as an individual have no real power over it. As a species, though, we have a bit more. Arguably, the whole point of human society is to emerge, however gradually, into something beyond just the law of tooth and claw.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Nature is rigged, and you as an individual have no real power over it. As a species, though, we have a bit more. Arguably, the whole point of human society is to emerge, however gradually, into something beyond just the law of tooth and claw.

Perhaps. Or perhaps we live day to day only because we persist in willing ourselves to live. The promises of "purpose" and ideology are merely our ways of justifying our stubborn persistence in keeping ourselves alive.
:smile:
 

B_Marius567

Sexy Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Posts
1,913
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
my bill for being sick from a tick was $55.000 thank god for Health Insurance!!!

I will have to work for years just to pay the bill with out Health Insurance.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
sooo... why not scratch out that "65" part in medicare, assimilate the other government health insurance programs (state&federal) under medicare, join the resources (funding, employees, and facilities) of all those programs together. Would cut out a lot of waste, beaurocracy, and just for shits and giggles call it BoehnerCare. Not talking about social security. That's something entirely different. I mean the actual insurance programs.

Sure it's simplistic, a nightmare to put together, and will likely never happen... all true. Still...