# Anything else you motherfuckers need? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 16, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231 "2009-07-16T16:51:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Kutr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c89c15/32.png) [@Kutr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kutr)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/441 "2009-07-18T19:57:05Z")
Man i’ve been haunting these forums way to long Anyway, plain and simple Why should you pay for my healthcare ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/442 "2009-07-18T20:18:19Z")
> [@Kutr](#): > > Man i’ve been haunting these forums way to long > Anyway, plain and simple > > Why should you pay for my healthcare Because it’s cheaper for society in general to do so ? Because the result is healthier, more productive people ? Because if a society/nation doesn’t show concern for the lives of the people who comprise it, why should they feel any loyalty to it at all ? Because it’s morally the right thing to do ? Because you can’t run a society well with a population that has the libertarian attitude that you can take from it and never give back ? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/443 "2009-07-18T20:27:57Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Well, sure, you can still go to your S&M club. …if only my insurance covered it. Will UHC do it? ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/444 "2009-07-18T20:32:23Z")
> [@NinetyWt](#): > > Thanks. Looks like it changed for 2009: > > If you’ll click on through (the table in your link) to the updated table the estimate is 46.9% (as of July 1). Thanks for pointing out the updated table, I missed that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/445 "2009-07-18T20:39:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because it’s cheaper for society in general to do so ? Maybe. Maybe not. I tend to doubt it. and there are other ways to reduce the cost. UHC or NHC, assuming both would be cheaper, are only two ways. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because the result is healthier, more productive people ? Maybe. Maybe not. Hell, “healthier” is even questionable. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because if a society/nation doesn’t show concern for the lives of the people who comprise it, why should they feel any loyalty to it at all ? Not providing healthcare does not equal "not showing concern. and it is not necessary for loyalty, the proof being all these many years we’ve not provided healthcare and had many, many loyal americans. People loyal enough to put themselves in harm’s way. and one can feel loyalty to this country for the ideals it stands for and the positive force it has been on both mankind and the world. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because it’s morally the right thing to do ? Says you. Not everyone agrees. You’re argument from morality is a tautology, begging the question. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because you can’t run a society well with a population that has the libertarian attitude that you can take from it and never give back ? How about if you don’t take? That is the point of a libertarian society. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/446 "2009-07-18T20:48:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Maybe. Maybe not. I tend to doubt it. and there are other ways to reduce the cost. UHC or NHC, assuming both would be cheaper, are only two ways. > > Maybe. Maybe not. Hell, “healthier” is even questionable. Wrong. Our great experiment in letting the magic free market run a health care system has proven just how inferior it is to a government run system. We are objectively less healthy than the people in countries with a government run system, and getting more so all the time. We are being outstripped in lifespan, general health and even height ! And we are paying more money per person for the inferior care we get. > [@magellan01](#): > > Not providing healthcare does not equal "not showing concern. and it is not necessary for loyalty, the proof being all these many years we’ve not provided healthcare and had many, many loyal americans. People loyal enough to put themselves in harm’s way. and one can feel loyalty to this country for the ideals it stands for and the positive force it has been on both mankind and the world. It hasn’t been much of a positive force. And I don’t see much loyalty from most people, especially people who think like libertarians. What I DO see is the willingness to screw the country until it collapses in wreckage if it’s profitable. > [@magellan01](#): > > How about if you don’t take? That is the point of a libertarian society. No, the point of a libertarian society is to reduce the common people to powerless, expendable, exploited cattle. The point of a libertarian society is to make sure that the taking is all one way; the top exploiting the bottom. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/447 "2009-07-18T21:04:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Wrong. Our great experiment in letting the magic free market run a health care system has proven just how inferior it is to a government run system. We are objectively less healthy than the people in countries with a government run system, and getting more so all the time. We are being outstripped in lifespan, general health and even height! Your assertions are debatable. But assuming they’re true, so what? Just because the result of an action is believed to be “good” doesn’t mean it should be done. Providing a free college education to every US citizen might be a “good” thing, but it shouldn’t be done. Providing a free home to every US citizen might be a “good” thing, but it shouldn’t be done. Providing free food to every US citizen might be a good thing, but it shouldn’t be done. We have a \*limited \*federal government. The federal government can’t do anything it wants - it’s limited. Any and all government healthcare should be administered by the states, not the federal government. But socialists don’t want healthcare provided by state governments. Why? Because it means people would have a _choice_. (States will compete with each other. If I don’t like the healthcare in my state, I am free to move to another state.) Socialists are anti-choice. They like to force one system on their victims. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/448 "2009-07-18T21:18:57Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Your assertions are debatable. But assuming they’re true, so what? > > Just because the result of an action is believed to be “good” doesn’t mean it should be done. Providing a free college education to every US citizen might be a “good” thing, but it shouldn’t be done. Providing a free home to every US citizen might be a “good” thing, but it shouldn’t be done. Providing free food to every US citizen might be a good thing, but it shouldn’t be done. In other words, you want Americans to be sicker and live shorter lives than people in other countries. An example of the real agenda of the Right : _ **Malice** _. The Right isn’t interested in the “freedom” they love to blather about; they are interested in cruelty and oppression. To impose their ideology, for the purposes of exploitation, and just for the sheer joy of hurting others. > [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > We have a \*limited \*federal government. The federal government can’t do anything it wants - it’s limited. Any and all government healthcare should be administered by the states, not the federal government. That would be less efficient, and less fair. > [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > But socialists don’t want healthcare provided by state governments. Why? Because it means people would have a _choice_. (States will compete with each other. If I don’t like the healthcare in my state, I am free to move to another state.) Socialists are anti-choice. They like to force one system on their victims. Garbage. To the extent that “socialists” want a national system, it’s because such a system is more efficient, effective and cheaper. Not to mention fairer; why should someone be condemned to suffering, impoverishment or death because of the state they live in ? And the “they can just move” line is an argument made by people who have no understanding of the limitations and necessities of being poor. Or people who know exactly what the real consequences of such attitudes are, and get off on it. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/449 "2009-07-18T21:23:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Wrong. Our great experiment in letting the magic free market run a health care system has proven just how inferior it is to a government run system. **We are objectively less healthy than the people in countries with a government run system, and getting more so all the time**. We are being outstripped in lifespan, general health and even height ! And we are paying more money per person for the inferior care we get. > > (snip) Got any apples-apples comparison charts you could link? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/450 "2009-07-18T21:44:26Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Got any apples-apples comparison charts you could link? [http://pharmexec.findpharma.com/pharmexec/Back+Page/Are-We-Less-Healthy-Than-Europeans/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/501198?contextCategoryId=34163](http://pharmexec.findpharma.com/pharmexec/Back+Page/Are-We-Less-Healthy-Than-Europeans/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/501198?contextCategoryId=34163) > [@](#): > > Sick Americans by the Numbers: Eight of 10 common diseases are more prevalent in noninstitutionalized Americans age 50 and up than among those in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland > [@](#): > > These dramatic findings trigger the obvious question: Why are the numbers so much higher here? One attractive hypothesis is that Americans are merely more likely to be diagnosed with diseases because of the more aggressive testing in this country. > > However, this hypothesis could at best explain only part of the difference. The use of biological markers in the US/England study confirmed that these differences are real, not just based on different patterns of diagnosis. Furthermore, the fact that the United States has fallen in international rankings of life expectancy from No. 11 to No. 42 over 20 years strongly suggests that Americans really are less healthy than people in most other affluent countries. > > Other factors mentioned by the authors are differences in obesity, lifestyles, health insurance, childhood experiences, and income inequality. > > My favorite hypothesis—based on the work of Michael Marmot and others, but barely hinted at in these papers—is stress. Having lived and worked on both sides of the Atlantic, it would not surprise me if Americans were substantially more stressed than Europeans. Americans work longer hours, have fewer vacation days, have a weaker safety net, and have greater income inequality than Europeans. There is growing evidence that stress can weaken the immune system and increase the likelihood of many diseases. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/451 "2009-07-18T21:55:42Z")
I want government-funded UHC for everyone, but I am still unclear and doubtful as to how exactly it’s going to be paid for in this current climate of a crashing economy, multiple wars, job losses, etc. I do not think raising taxes to fund such a program is a good idea at all. We as Americans have to figure out a way to get politicians in this country to reduce expenditures, THEN the funding for such an expansive (and expensive) program could exist by way of fund diversion. I simply do not believe I should have to pay any more taxes than I currently do. Times are tough, and my family is barely getting by. Eliminating the war in Iraq. Tightening federal and state budgets. Enforcing stricter oversight on all government contracts to civilian entities, wartime or otherwise. Not bailing out bankrupt corporate entities. Etcetera. The way the current administration has turned on the money spigot like money is water is unsustainable, nor can we do that and fund UHC at the same time. Something has to give to make this an affordable option for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/452 "2009-07-18T21:56:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > **Der Trihs:** _Because it’s cheaper for society in general to do so ?_ > > Maybe. Maybe not. I tend to doubt it. We’re paying twice as much per capita, and not covering one third of the population. Medicare takes 3% for administration while for-profit insurance takes 30%. Your only cause for objecting to public health care is ideological. You’re not going to be able to make an economic argument stick. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/453 "2009-07-18T22:02:41Z")
**Der Trihs** : It’s impossible to have both individual freedom _ **and** _ safety & security. It’s an inverse relationship; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. You can’t have both. I would rather have more individual freedom and less safety & security. You would rather have more safety & security and less individual freedom. This country was founded on the former. Why are you trying to change it? If you love socialism, why not move to a socialistic country instead of trying to turn our country into a socialistic hellhole? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/454 "2009-07-18T22:14:28Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > This country was founded on the former. Why are you trying to change it? If you love socialism, why not move to a socialistic country instead of trying to turn our country into a socialistic hellhole? Why do you keep saying “socialistic hellhole”? Not all countries that have socialized medicine are socialistic hellholes. The Danish and Swiss, for instance, would likely beg to differ. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/455 "2009-07-18T22:16:50Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Why do you keep saying “socialistic hellhole”? Not all countries that have socialized medicine are socialistic hellholes. The Danish and Swiss, for instance, would likely beg to differ. As long as the Rhetoric Shields are holding, Reality can’t get through. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/456 "2009-07-18T22:17:23Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Wrong. Our great experiment in letting the magic free market run a health care system has proven just how inferior it is to a government run system. We are objectively less healthy than the people in countries with a government run system, and getting more so all the time. We are being outstripped in lifespan, general health and even height ! And we are paying more money per person for the inferior care we get. Our healthcare system is the envy of the world. It is too expensive, yes. But what is in place now can be altered and changed in many ways. No one is arguing for keeping exactly what we have. So, you can stop with that straw man. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It hasn’t been much of a positive force. And I don’t see much loyalty from most people, especially people who think like libertarians. What I DO see is the willingness to screw the country until it collapses in wreckage if it’s profitable. No, they want people to pull their own weight. I’m not a libertarian, but think about it this way: wouldn’t it be great if everyone provided for themselves (aside from military, etc.). Now, while that may be unrealistic in total, how about if 99% did? Theoretically, it would be great, right? Well to do that, you have to not provide a ton of stuff to people. Once you do, they get complacent, lazy. And you’ve robbed the country of what could be an amazingly powerful engine—where virtually everyone works and contributes. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, the point of a libertarian society is to reduce the common people to powerless, expendable, exploited cattle. The point of a libertarian society is to make sure that the taking is all one way; the top exploiting the bottom. No, the point is that we are each entitled to the fruits of our own mind and body. Everyone is equal. The idea is to spur great people to do great things. And a complacent population is not as likely to strive. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/457 "2009-07-18T22:19:39Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > We’re paying twice as much per capita, and not covering one third of the population. Medicare takes 3% for administration while for-profit insurance takes 30%. > > Your only cause for objecting to public health care is ideological. You’re not going to be able to make an economic argument stick. That’s why I said maybe. But, seriously, would you really be surprised of what we get in reality is 1) not as good as what you envision? and 2) much more expensive than you envision? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/458 "2009-07-18T22:23:23Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > **Der Trihs** : It’s impossible to have both individual freedom _ **and** _ safety & security. It’s an inverse relationship; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. You can’t have both. > > I would rather have more individual freedom and less safety & security. You would rather have more safety & security and less individual freedom. > > This country was founded on the former. Why are you trying to change it? If you love socialism, why not move to a socialistic country instead of trying to turn our country into a socialistic hellhole? Once again, we have less freedom **now**. \*\*Many Americans do not have freedom from the fear of going bankrupt for health reasons. \*\* Latest reports show that even families that though had coverage find that bankruptcy is their only option after the insurers drop them. [http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml](http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml) > [@](#): > > A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem. **Many Americans do not have the freedom to seek a different job.** Job Lock is specially real to families that have one their members suffer a condition that will be considered preexisting if a job switch takes place. And Workers that wish to start a business on their own find that heath care costs but a barrier to it. [http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE54O4K120090526](http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE54O4K120090526) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Countless workers in the United States are trapped in jobs they would like to leave because they cannot get health insurance elsewhere, calcifying innovation and mobility in the world’s largest economy. > > “I would rather be freelancing, no question,” said Jessica Tolliver, a former editor who now works in public relations. “I got my work done in less time, because once I finished what I had to do, the time was my own.” > > Economists call this phenomenon “job lock,” and studies suggest that it keeps between 20 percent and 50 percent of workers from leaving their current jobs. > > Because health insurance is tied to employment in the United States, workers who leave their jobs can see health bills skyrocket if they strike out on their own or take a position with a company that offers fewer benefits. Workers who would like to retire early stay on, unable to qualify for the government’s Medicare program until they turn 65. > > And those who have existing health problems may not be able to get coverage at all. > > Job lock is difficult to measure because many employees don’t like to advertise their unhappiness. But economists and small-business advocates say it takes an enormous toll on productivity. > > SLOWING INNOVATION > > “We can definitely say that it’s slowing down the rate of innovation,” said Tim Kane, an economist with the Kauffman Foundation which promoted entrepreneurship. **Many Americans (and foreign companies) have less Freedom to start a company in the USA thanks to the health care cost** The high cost of health care is already a reason why the USA is not competitive with other nations. [http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/](http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/) > [@](#): > > Competitive Disadvantage > > The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care, higher than any other developed nation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that number will rise to 25 percent by 2025 without changes to federal law (PDF). Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system. According the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 71 percent of private employees in the United States had access to employer-sponsored health plans in 2006. A November 2008 Kaiser Foundation report notes that access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on the decline (PDF) among low-income workers, and health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in the last decade. Small businesses are less likely than large employers to be able to provide health insurance as a benefit. At 12 percent, health care is the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. > > These ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. For large multinational corporations, footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense. General Motors, for instance, covers more than 1.1 million employees and former employees, and the company says it spent roughly $5.6 billion on healthcare expenses in 2006. GM says healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes. Health benefits for unionized auto workers became a central issue derailing the 2008 congressional push to provide a financial bailout to GM and its ailing Detroit rival, Chrysler. > > It is difficult to quantify the precise effect high healthcare costs have had so far on the overall U.S. job market. Health care is one of several factors–entrenched union contracts are another–that make doing business in the United States expensive, and it’s difficult to parse the effects of each factor. Moreover, economists disagree on the number of U.S. jobs that have been lost to offshoring–the transfer of business operations across national boundaries to friendlier operating environments. The Princeton economist Alan S. Blinder, in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article, says that judging by data compiled from “fragmentary studies,” it is apparent that “under a million service-sector jobs in the United States have been lost to offshoring to date.” Blinder goes on to predict that somewhere between 28 million and 42 million U.S. jobs are “susceptible” to offshoring in a future where technology allows the more efficient transfer of jobs. Many other economists, however, have shied away from making such estimates, and some have criticized Blinder’s approach. > > It is clear, however, that healthcare expenses affect every level of U.S. industry. For large corporations they mean the massive “legacy costs” associated with insuring retired employees. For small business owners they can be even more devastating. “In many places, you have small businesses that simply cannot afford to offer coverage,” Sarbanes says. Often, he says, healthcare expenses make it impossible for small business owners to hire candidates they would otherwise desire. **So yes, get into your head that you are actually in favor for less freedom for the American worker.** ---
**Author:** ![interface2x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@interface2x](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/interface2x)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/459 "2009-07-18T22:37:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well to do that, you have to not provide a ton of stuff to people. Once you do, they get complacent, lazy. Cite? All figures that I’m seeing from [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate) on unemployment doesn’t appear to bear that out. Is there some other statistic that measures laziness and complacence that I’m not seeing? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/460 "2009-07-18T22:46:13Z")
> [@interface2x](#): > > Cite? > > All figures that I’m seeing from [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate) on unemployment doesn’t appear to bear that out. Is there some other statistic that measures laziness and complacence that I’m not seeing? Anecdotal, but I recall with clarity when I was stationed in Hanau, Germany hanging out with German friends that were on the dole in 1991, and they were waiting around for their government subsidy check (as they lived in government paid-for apartments) so they could buy beer or drugs. YMMV. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231.md?page=24)