Interestingly, those two are also the *only *countries to have emerged in Europe since WW2, and 40 years later at that. Clearly, WW2 mucked things up mightily and made any European investigation confusing, murky and difficult for the curlinator.
There are other post-US Independance EU countries, mostly Balkans states that emerged with the falls of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, but that was caused by WW1, not 2.
All of this to say : that’s an impressively *specific *jumping out they do. A round of applause for Slovakia and Slovenia, people ! Very renowned for their health care they are, too !
That is, until someone finally has ENOUGH!, tracks her down, breaks into her home and smashes her head into the desk until either the stupid comes out or she’s dead, dead, dead.
Not that I’m suggesting it, of course, of course. But I’d watch the video.
Yes it has - what does that have to do with what I said? Other than you are agreeing with me.
Actually, it appears that you are those two things since you can’t seem to follow a line of thought. Here, I’ll help - Doughbag wanted to know which member countries in the EU were younger than the US, and I gave two examples. At no time did he or I say that all of the countries were younger.
Neither did you stop to think that it isn’t unheard of for parents to be very poor when their first child or two is born, and then be able to move up in the world. Which, if you’d bothered to read ahead, is what happened in my case.
I made no assumptions - I asked and got no answers. That bit you keep quoting was the reason I ask when people try to claim they cannot afford something and the taxpayer has to give them, not any assumption I made about that particular case. Because that has been my experience, that people have the money for the things they feel are important, but those things are not always the responsible choices.
The husband of a friend of mine dropped dead this week. They were already struggling, and now without his income I really don’t know what she is going to do, since she has to support her granddaughter. He didn’t have life insurance because “it was bad luck”, so he is being buried on the county. It would be very sad, except my friend spends hundreds of dollars a month on dog sports, and I don’t see it changing. I’m sure she’ll once again figure out a way to get the taxpayers to help her pay for her day to day expenses, and continue to make money under the table to fund the things she wants to do.
Contrast that with another friend whose husband is so severely depressed that he can no longer work. She has never worked, so she got some training, is getting licensed and should be ready to go by spring. She’s got two kids and a mortgage to support, so she has cut way back on her dog events until she has a better income. She is being totally responsible, and is the sort of person that I see no problem with getting some sort of support from the government. But since she is being responsible, she probably will never need it! Isn’t it funny how that works.
I am not agreeing with you. I will never agree with you. You are saying that minimum wage wasn’t a living wage in the 70s but is now. So you were ‘struggling to stay alive’ while us young people are living the life of riley. I am saying that $400/month in 1979 is the equivalent of more that $1100/month now - not a princely sum, but certainly a living wage if you know how to budget. Which clearly you do not. Trying to impress us by saying you lived off $100/week in the 70s but somehow couldn’t afford heat and ate napkins is not gonna fly. Sorry.*
*Please note - this is not me agreeing with you.
No, if you would go back and actually read what I wrote, you will see that experience has taught me that when people say they cannot afford X and want the taxpayer to provide it, generally that means they just don’t want to have to pay for it. I didn’t make any assumptions in the particular case under discussion tho - at least not until he got all huffy and insisted that I had no right to know anything about what I might end up having to help support.
Well, that certainly shows the depth of your bias. As well of your intelligence, since there are obviously things that we do agree on, unless the sky isn’t blue in your world.
You also need to go back and read what I actually wrote. I said that those who want minimum wage to be a living wage have been at least partially successful.
That completely depends on where you live. You would probably starve to death here on $1100/month, unless you were able to live in government housing. Also, since you couldn’t be bothered to read what I wrote, I’ll repeat - $100/week was the most I could have made if I got 40 hours, which didn’t always happen, and that is before taxes.
Just for fun, I looked at the classifieds of the paper where I lived back then and the cheapest rent I could find was two ads for rooms to rent, one for $350/month and the other $375. So right there is over a quarter of the monthly income, after taxes and not getting 40 hours each week - maybe closer to half. The $375 included some utilities but was far enough out of town that taking the $350 w/o utilities would probably be a wash. Then you have gas at $2.75 a gallon, clothing, car insurance, most likely would need a land line phone and whatever expenses crop up, such as a new headlight or some medicine for a cold. How much food money is left, and how much do you think could be purchased with it? And all of that is assuming that I could get that $350 rent instead of splitting $1500 or so on renting a house.
I have never had any interest in “impressing” anyone. Is that why you post the things you do - you are trying to impress me or someone else?
And yet you continue to wonder why many people can’t afford to buy health insurance, and assume it’s their frivolity and greediness that keeps them too broke to get or maintain medical coverage? Seems to me that you have your answer RIGHT THERE IN YOUR VERY OWN WORDS.
Ho hum. Another day, same curlcoat channel, same curlcoat bulltish. Stay tuned for another exciting episode folks.
Sorry, for this argument I have to give you credit for, even the PRESENT-DAY Federal Repuplic of Germany is younger than the USA.
Formation
Holy Roman Empire 2 February 962
Unification 18 January 1871
Federal Republic 23 May 1949
Reunification 3 October 1990
Yet some weird fact is:
Germany has Europe’s oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck’s Social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889.
The French had a revolution at some point…etc and therefor it is completely irrelevant what we do in Europe or anywhere else in terms of health-care compared to the USA.
Also, these nations you mentioned, already have UHC… piss poor as they are, but they have it. So how can a country where people earn as much per year, than an average wage worker makes per month (or 2) in the USA, afford something like health-care?
It’s because the Government is elected by the people for the people and has to care for the people.
I have not heard of the EU telling companies, what to charge for their products, where a privately owned company spend money on R&D and distributes it to the public.
But from what I gathered, even you know, that the current system is a disaster.
So why not put it into the bin and make a brand new one, clearly it can not be worse what you already have.
You got THE most expensive system already with hardly anything to show for it.
NO insurance tells a Doctor here, that they do not pay for the medicine here to safe a patients life. If this medicine is available, it is being used.
UHC is not for liposuctions or cosmetic surgery, unless it is needed after breast cancer etc.
There is no price tag for a persons life - unless you live in the USA or another 3rd world country.
Same redundancy as well. I pointed this fact out to cc in some other thread some weeks ago (sorry, it’s hard to keep track of them–you can imagine why).
The baby is already home and has been for a few weeks. I have no idea what her long term outcome is, but it was really just hospitalization for a few weeks. Its not like she will need 100k in care every year. A few surgeries and a few weeks in the hospital and she is able to stay at home. Since her mom has a nursing education she can help take care of her.
Besides, the mom was about 7 months pregnant when she found out the condition.
Hell, even the healthy ones are a drain! Having babies is elective! Everyone’s parents shouldn’t have been so selfish.
Gee, now that I think about it, continuing to live is also elective and costs the other people on my insurance plan money. How selfish of me! Anyone with above-average health care costs that are a result of decisions they’ve made should probably just be euthanized. It’s only fair.
That’s good news Wesley and I hope everything continues to go well for the new babe and mum. Don’t listen to the fuckheads who reckon that the baby should have been aborted: every life, once born IS precious, and unless the immediate prognosis is life-threatening or includes catastrophic outcomes for the baby, then everything that can be done should be done to ensure the best quality of life.
Even if that had been true (obviously not) the difference was I wasn’t demanding that the taxpayer cover some of my basic needs so I could use my money to pay for that “fancy purebred dog, and all that crack”.
You are telling me that there are a very large number of people (because anything else wouldn’t need to involve the whole population) in this country living for several years or more on minimum wage? Remember, I did it for only about five years or so, when I was very young, affecting no one else, and only because my parents were irresponsible gits.
If it is true that we have hundreds of thousands of people living their lives on minimum wage jobs, then that should be addressed. Or will you next call for subsidized housing to be extended to them, and food stamps, and whatever else they cannot easily afford on such low wages? How far are you prepared to go to make sure that most of those poor people stay where they are?
We have millions of itinerant workers making less than minimum wage. You can complain about how they shouldn’t be here anyway, of course, but personally I rather like not paying $1 for a tomato.
