Good lord. Do you* really* think I’m a sanctimonious hypocrite because I don’t on principle live in the most “underclass” neighborhood of my city, despite all other possible circumstances?
If I might ask, would you tell us a bit more about “folks from the underclass”? On a Venn diagram of “people of various shades of brown” and “underclass types,” how much overlap do you think there’d be?
Also, why don’t you tell us a little bit more about your own experience with “underclass types”? How much interaction have you had with them and in what social context?
Answering a question related to the original topic and not to underclass, guns, crimes etc.:
I don’t want to entice anybody who’s already privately insured away to UHC. Why should I? Why do you think I would want to? Are your right-wing politicans maybe implying or outright saying that switching to UHC would mean automatic banning of private insurances? If so, they are lying.
A short overview (again) of the german system, which you could adapt for the American mentality:
A normal employee chooses among several legal UHC providers (Gesetzliche Krankenkassen), eg. AOK, DAK, Barmer… He pays a fixed percentage of his gross monthly income, about 6% (it’s really 12-13,x %, split half between employee and employer).
The UHC works on the solidarity principle: everybody pays into a big pot, and all the costs are paid from that big pot.*
Yes, I know that all insurances use that principle. But in this case, the philosphic view towards the insurance member is different from a private insurance, as I will explain.
If a person is self-employed or earns above a certain amount (I don’t remember the actual number, I think they raised it to 5 700 Euros a month gross), he is not eligible for UHC, but chooses his own private insurance company.
The private ones are risk-based: each member has his personal risk assessed and the rates are based on that. Members pay a fixed amount each month (e.g. 400 Euros).
Unemployed are still in the UHC via the employment office.
Now, because the UHC uses the solidarity principle, all members of a family - spouse and under-18 children - are automatically insured for no additional fee. Nobody can be refused despite pre-existing conditions.
The private insurances can turn people with risk or pre-existing conditions away or demand higher fees to cover that risk (e.g. 1200 Euros a month fix, no matter your income). And each person has a seperate fee.
So for families, UHC is an advantage. For everybody with pre-existing conditions, UHC is an advantage.
Also, everybody who’s member of a UHC can buy private additonal insurance (Private Zusatzversicherung), e.g. to cover teeth (not fully covered under UHC because they’re so expensive), or if you wish to have a single room in a hospital etc.
The UHC providers are regulated and controlled by the Ministry of Health. Most of the services they have to cover are written down for all of them. So they compete with bonus programs e.g. one company gives you points if you go to a sports club and exercise, and you can redeem the points for holidays or sports equpiment. Another company offers additonal coverage for alternative medicine (those are licesend, too, of course.)
Now, obviously you can offer everybody the freedom to be privately insured, not only certain groups, to make the conservative people happier. But regulating and controlling the UHC companies is important. Also, they should put some funds away for the future, when Health costs rise and people get older.
To adress two other concerns (I already said that suing for malpractice is of course still allowed)
Doctors can choose whether they accept only private, only UHC or both patients. Nobody is forced to accept only UHC patients. I don’t have figures, but anecdote, most seem to go for the mix. UHC patients are charged according to fixed rates, but for private patients, the doctors can charge what they want.
Doctors aren’t poorer, in part because University is much cheaper (current tuition is 500 Euros a semester).
long waiting lists are a result of bad planning, not of UHC itself. Anecdote: when my mother fell and broke a chip of her shoulder bone, and it didn’t heal itself after a week, her orthopedist sent her to the university hospital** and in less than a week’s waiting time she had her operation and was home. And my mother is above age 65, in UHC, no longer employed but a pensioneer.
** apparently, from what I read in other threads, teaching hospitals are considered cheap and bad in the US? Our university hospital has an excellent reputation - a lot of specialists are there with tons of experience because they get all strange cases, and they do research.
(This is probably futile again, since nobody seems interested in real facts about “socialist countries” …)
I’m not sure, but there is definitely a relationship between race and class, i.e. America’s underclass is disproportionately black and hispanic.
I’m not sure that it’s relevant, but I don’t mind saying that I live in a “good neighborhood,” i.e. an area with very few of the underclass people we have been discussing. My main contact with these people comes from the fact that I run a small business which, among other things, provides free services to poor people.
Well you wanna state your objections so I can shoot them down one by one? The trouble is it is demonstrably a better choice. All the evidence says so. Not agreeing is an ideological choice, not an intellectual one.
What sort of services do you provide to them? Do you resent doing so? Do you think that those services should not be provided? In the same way that lack of proper medical services to the “underclass” should lead to children dying of toothaches?
That’s really a question for another thread. Ask me in the “black pupils” thread and I will be happy to give an answer.
For privacy reasons, I’m not going to share that.
In general, no.
Should not be provided by whom?
I’m not sure what your point is. I have no problem with the basic concept of the government (or private charities) providing free or low cost medical services to members of the “underclass” in the United States.
No, I’m addressing your point. You say there is definitely a relationship between race and class and cite that the American underclass is disproportionately black and hispanic. The latter does not show the former unless you mean it in the most general and useless terms.
Actually, you didn’t answer the question. Do you or do you not think that brown/black people are “underclass types,” and vice-versa? Because you seem to be skirting the issue a bit. Justifiably so, because that would (rightfully) label you as a disgusting racist, wouldn’t it?
I think that a higher percentage of blacks are members of the underclass than are whites. I think that the percentage of the underclass which is black is significantly greater than the percentage of blacks in the general population, and same for hispanics.
I’m not sure how to make it any clearer.
ETA: I guess you are hoping I will say that the underclass is all blacks and hispanics and that all blacks and hispanics are in the underclass. Sorry, but I can’t accommate you on that point.
Ok, I’m sure a cite or two would verify this statement but it then begs the question do you think there is something inate in people of a particular race that predisposes them to being a member of the underclass?
OK. Now please tell us what you believe to be the underlying causes of this trend. No need to take it to another thread, just please explain this to us in a few concise sentences right here. Enlighten us.
I have no idea what your point is. I answered the question as best I could. I was not trying to make any point whatsoever.