For money from the government.....

This has been bothering me since I saw the thread because it reminded me of the posts many made that universal healthcare meant having a "socialist government".
Lots of people here were against the government providing healthcare for all because it implied socialism and basically believed that insurance should stay privatized.
However, many of those same people are totally excited that the government could be sending them a monetary handout.
Isnt this hypocritical? How can you be against the lower middle class getting health assistance, but for monetary assistance? Depending on the government to give you money because you qualify in a certain bracket is basically depending on those in America that make over 75k individually or 150k as a couple to pay into the government and give it to you. And, this is on top of their taxes as well.
I myself am for universal healthcare, and I am all for assisting those that need help. I dont however see how you can be against one and for another simply because it "helps you out".
I would love to be enlightened to both sides especially someone's view opposite than mine because I am truly not looking for a fight I am just utterly confused...

 

Let me just say that I am totally on your side of the fence on this one. But I am going to have to just shut my mouth and pop my popcorn and just read this one.

 

QUOTE(OneBoyOneGirl @ Jan 25 2008, 05:13 PM) [snapback]589242[/snapback]
Let me just say that I am totally on your side of the fence on this one. But I am going to have to just shut my mouth and pop my popcorn and just read this one.


Ha! Cowards unite!

I think this is a really good point and I can think of many other areas where similar hypocrisy exists but I, too, am going to keep my nose clean on this one.

 

Honestly, I have no idea where I stand on universal healthcare. On the surface it sounds like a great idea, but I know there are many things I don't understand. Can someone help me out? Pros/cons, etc? I can't take a stand if I don't understand it!

 

QUOTE(three_precious_girls @ Jan 25 2008, 05:03 PM) [snapback]589218[/snapback]
This has been bothering me since I saw the thread because it reminded me of the posts many made that universal healthcare meant having a "socialist government".
Lots of people here were against the government providing healthcare for all because it implied socialism and basically believed that insurance should stay privatized.
However, many of those same people are totally excited that the government could be sending them a monetary handout.
Isnt this hypocritical? How can you be against the lower middle class getting health assistance, but for monetary assistance? Depending on the government to give you money because you qualify in a certain bracket is basically depending on those in America that make over 75k individually or 150k as a couple to pay into the government and give it to you. And, this is on top of their taxes as well.
I myself am for universal healthcare, and I am all for assisting those that need help. I dont however see how you can be against one and for another simply because it "helps you out".
I would love to be enlightened to both sides especially someone's view opposite than mine because I am truly not looking for a fight I am just utterly confused...


I am against universal healthcare. But I am also in that 150K per couple range. I can't help but agree with you. To feel like I pay the most taxes, and then the people that don't make as much get the money back but I don't, just doesn't seem fair. That's why I was saying that because SAHM don't pay taxes, the household should be treated as 1 person working. And by working I mean getting a paycheck that gets taxes taken out of it. Lord knows that no one works as hard as a SAHM.

I went to college, got a good job, and work hard so that I can have good health benefits. Explain to me where the drive to succeed in life comes from if the government is going to pick up the slack for the people who don't do that. Really, I might as well quit my job and working part time somewhere and make less money so that i can keep the money I make, and the government can take care of me.

That was sarcasm.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 02:00 PM) [snapback]589464[/snapback]
I am against universal healthcare. But I am also in that 150K per couple range. I can't help but agree with you. To feel like I pay the most taxes, and then the people that don't make as much get the money back but I don't, just doesn't seem fair. That's why I was saying that because SAHM don't pay taxes, the household should be treated as 1 person working. And by working I mean getting a paycheck that gets taxes taken out of it. Lord knows that no one works as hard as a SAHM.

I went to college, got a good job, and work hard so that I can have good health benefits. Explain to me where the drive to succeed in life comes from if the government is going to pick up the slack for the people who don't do that. Really, I might as well quit my job and working part time somewhere and make less money so that i can keep the money I make, and the government can take care of me.

That was sarcasm.

WOW!!!!! This is one of the most condescending posts I've read in a while!!!!

As far as the $1200 Tax Rebate it's only being given to families with two incomes!!!

 

QUOTE(Trish_e @ Jan 25 2008, 07:08 PM) [snapback]589490[/snapback]
WOW!!!!! This is one of the most condescending posts I've read in a while!!!!

As far as the $1200 Tax Rebate it's only being given to families with two incomes!!!


What did you find condescending? I hope the part about the SAHM's wasn't read sarcastically, because that part wasn't supposed to be sarcastic. I TRULY believe that it's the hardest job to do. So if that's how you read that part, I really apologize.

 

I don't think that post was condescending. Misinformed maybe, but not meant to belittle people who don't work or pay taxes.

I think the point was why give out tax breaks to people who don't even pay in taxes. Bush gave tax rebates a while back to stimulate the economy and I think that is the point of this tax rebate. The economy is going into a recession and something needs to be done. Republicans, who also tend to be against universal healthcare, are typically for tax breaks and lower taxes for people to be more dependent on privatized healthcare, retirement funds, etc. This tax break makes sense in those terms. Giving money back to the people to be able to spend it how they want. I'm not sure about the flat rate across the board, because we all know that we all pay different taxes depending on how much we make and how many deductions we can come up with. But it makes perfect sense that it's not to help people out, the government always has an alterior motive, it's to boost the economy. Not just to give the average Joe some pocket change so he can get that new LCD tv he wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford, although that's what they are hoping you will do with it.

Just my 2 cents.

 

From what I understand, and I may totally be wrong, this is a rebate of taxes already paid. I will be getting money back that I already paid in taxes. I don't think that getting back something that was yours in the first place is really receiving a handout.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 01:00 PM) [snapback]589464[/snapback]
I went to college, got a good job, and work hard so that I can have good health benefits. Explain to me where the drive to succeed in life comes from if the government is going to pick up the slack for the people who don't do that. Really, I might as well quit my job and working part time somewhere and make less money so that i can keep the money I make, and the government can take care of me.

That was sarcasm.


Having been a military spouse, I know there can be bad and good things about universal health care (which military and their dependents essentially have). It's not always the best, but it's there when you need it (or it was before the war, not so sure about now).

I also went to college and had a good job, etc. Now I am a SAHM because who deserves my education and training more than my kids?

I just think it's strange for our country to preach Family Values and then devalue child care, and for that matter, health care. What kind of Family Value is represented in uninsured kids? My DH is self-employed and it is Not Cheap to get private health care.

There are plenty of people who work very, very hard (at paid employment) for companies that don't offer health care that can't afford private insurance. I do think there should be some option available to them besides "gee, I hope this illness isn't serious." My ILs, also self-employed, were between insurances (actually switching, but one agent was a little slow) and MIL cut her hand and it was $10,000 to get it fixed (which they paid for out of pocket). Plenty of people who work very hard cannot come up with $10,000 to fix an injury. Are we to blame them for their bad luck and punish them with no access to medical care?

It is possible to work every bit as hard as someone else and not make as much money. It hardly seems fair to consider that person less deserving of medical care.

 

I think the OP has a great point.

I won't be getting any money, because I don't reside in the US and don't pay any US income tax. But think the government would do much better to put this money into healthcare for the lower-middle class, which seems to be bigger everyday, or to lower interest on mortgage rates to help those who make under 150,000 stay well and own a home, rather than just give it to people who are going to use it "to put in a pool" or something unnecessary like that.

 

QUOTE(Meximeli @ Jan 25 2008, 07:41 PM) [snapback]589581[/snapback]
I think the OP has a great point.

I won't be getting any money, because I don't reside in the US and don't pay any US income tax. But think the government would do much better to put this money into healthcare for the lower-middle class, which seems to be bigger everyday, or to lower interest on mortgage rates to help those who make under 150,000 stay well and own a home, rather than just give it to people who are going to use it "to put in a pool" or something unnecessary like that.


Seriously? You think my 33% that I pay in taxes should take care of other people's healthcare, while I STILL have to pay for my own? Something seems really odd about that.

And I'm sorry to hear about the PPs situation with the cut hand, but why would you get rid of your previous insurance until your new one started? It's kinda like, who quits a job before getting a new one?

Listen, maybe I was just raised differently. My mother was a SAHM that went back to work when my dad got laid off and started his own business. She went back to work for one purpose, to make sure we had healthcare. This allowed my dad to be self-employed, but not have to pay the amazing cost of self-insurance.

I get that people want to be SAHMs. Sure I would like to, but we can't afford it. I'll be damned if I'm going to feel bad and feel like my taxes should pay for healthcare for people who choose not to work.

If someone worked for a company that didn't offer benefits, why wouldn't you get a job that did? I just don't understand the whole mentality of not taking care of your family yourself, and waiting for the government to do it.

 

Just another point...this rebate is for the purpose of stimulating the economy, not helping out people that need assistance. And, even if someone were to take their check and put it towards credit card debt, they would spend the money that they usually pay the bill with somewhere else, which still contributes to spending money to stimulate the economy. Really the only way it wouldn't stimulate the economy is some way is if a person were to donate it to charity or something. But I harldy see many people doing something like that.

 

The agent messed up and didn't put the paperwork in. They chose not to sue.

What about people who start their own businesses? What about the people who work for the small companies like that? Those companies are the backbone of America, and a great many of them are priced out of the healthcare market, and they cannot offer their employees healthcare. Not everyone has the option to work for a major corporation (and some major corporations, such as Wal-Mart, do not offer low-level employees health care) and get health care.

And, as the wife of a financial services professional, I know that you pay 33% on only part of your income, not all of it. That's a somewhat misleading statement.

Sometimes people have done nothing but work hard and they just don't have as much to show for it as other, luckier people. And some people don't work hard at all (Paris Hilton, for example) and have millions. There is no perfect fairness.

I am grateful enough that I can afford what I need, and I don't mind sharing what DH and I pay in taxes (nothing to sneeze at; self-employed folks pay 15% FICA, not 7.5%) with people who aren't as lucky as I am. I donate to charities, too. I'm glad to be in that position.

ETA: And if we had truly universal health care, it wouldn't be weathly people paying for their own while less wealthy people got a free ride. That's what "universal" means. It means everybody.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 02:00 PM) [snapback]589464[/snapback]
I am against universal healthcare. But I am also in that 150K per couple range. I can't help but agree with you. To feel like I pay the most taxes, and then the people that don't make as much get the money back but I don't, just doesn't seem fair. That's why I was saying that because SAHM don't pay taxes, the household should be treated as 1 person working. And by working I mean getting a paycheck that gets taxes taken out of it. Lord knows that no one works as hard as a SAHM.

I went to college, got a good job, and work hard so that I can have good health benefits. Explain to me where the drive to succeed in life comes from if the government is going to pick up the slack for the people who don't do that. Really, I might as well quit my job and working part time somewhere and make less money so that i can keep the money I make, and the government can take care of me.

That was sarcasm.


I am not sure were I stand on universal healthcare, on the one hand it works great for countries like Sweden and really seem to make a difference for them. It would help eleviate the Medicaid situation for sure if everyone received healthcare no matter who you work for whether it be no one or yourself. I think just because you can't get a job, doesn't mean you shouldn't have healthcare.

I went to college, and continue to go to college and had a "good job" and received good health benefits. The drive to succeed is not based on health care alone, it is based on the type of person you are and the hand you are dealt. Without a certain level of education you cannot obtain a job that pays you the amount you are making, at least in NY state. The government does not take care of you unless you are making basically nothing and have nothing, so in order to get help you have to lose your house, your job and all of your assets, otherwise too bad, come back when you are homeless. I say this from personal experience and it always annoys me when people who haven't been through a situation don't understand the requirements of a situation. The government is not handing out money to help people, they are doing soley to stimulate the economy, and that is if you are working. This is not a hand out for people who are not doing anything with themselves and are just trying to get what they can. Some people work really hard and just are not able to achieve what you have.

I hope this is the part you were being sarcastic about.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 11:48 AM) [snapback]589598[/snapback]
I get that people want to be SAHMs. Sure I would like to, but we can't afford it. I'll be damned if I'm going to feel bad and feel like my taxes should pay for healthcare for people who choose not to work.


It isn't always people who "choose" not to work. Not everyone can find a job that offers great healthcare benefits, or they are unable to find a job at all. I don't think those people (and especially their children) should suffer & be turned away for medical care because they are less fortunate than me. And, yes, I am perfectly ok with my tax money being spent to provide healthcare coverage for anyone who needs it.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 07:48 PM) [snapback]589598[/snapback]
Seriously? You think my 33% that I pay in taxes should take care of other people's healthcare, while I STILL have to pay for my own? Something seems really odd about that.


Odd? It used to be called helping the less fortunate and no one thought that was odd.

 

QUOTE(cclott @ Jan 25 2008, 01:29 PM) [snapback]589551[/snapback]
From what I understand, and I may totally be wrong, this is a rebate of taxes already paid. I will be getting money back that I already paid in taxes. I don't think that getting back something that was yours in the first place is really receiving a handout.


That would be true if everyone was getting a rebate on their taxes, but alas that is not the case. You file your taxes and get money or pay in...the usual. THEN on top of that the government is giving people that make under 75k or as a couple 150k money. That means not everyone is getting the rebate. It is targeting the lower middle class. This in their mind will help stimulate the economy BECAUSE the majority will not put it in savings or donate...they will purchase, pay off debt, but basically spend.

 

I get everything that everyone is saying. But I respectfully disagree. I believe that MY PERSONAL level of healthcare will diminish if it is universal. When I made the statement that my taxes would be paying for someone else's healthcare while I still pay for mine, I was replying to a PP who said that this rebate should be used to set up health care for lower income families. I know that universal means everyone. I was replying to that specific statement that instead of deserving a rebate, my money should go to those less fortunate. I know that my feelings might not be popular. But they are mine to have an own. I believe that my parents worked hard to let us grow up in a good neighborhood, attend good schools, and help us afford to go to college. In turn, I was able to get a good job, make a good living, and get good healthcare. I don't think this is something that I should apologize for. I would rather take my money, and keep it within my family and make life better and easier for my children, then to worry about everyone else in the country. There, I said it. Feel free to stone me. I feel sad that there as so many people that do need assistance, but at the same time, there are just as many people, if not more, that take advantage of government help.

I feel it is irresponsible to be having children as well when you can't afford to take care of them or you don't have healthcare. Why would you have a baby if you don't have healthcare? That's insane to me!

I know I don't pay 33% on all my earnings, I have many pre-tax dollars that go to my 401K for retirement, and my Dependart care is pre-tax. I'm not sure exactly what the percentage is, but bottom line is the more you make, the more you get taxed.

I think people are getting confused with the rebate vs universal healthcare. If the government wants to give tax money back to the people that paid it, I could care less. I don't care who gets the rebate, as long as I'm not excluded just because I make more money. I was commenting here about universal healthcare as a whole, and why I don't think it's a good idea. That's what this thread was supposed to be about.

 

My only comment here is for people who have never not had health care benefits. Like pp's have said, those who are self employed or with small companies are working hard, but the rate for the minimal benefit is astronomical (yes, that's us). I didn't realize just how hard it is to deal with insurance (or no insurance) until put in that position. So, yes, even though I pay an incredibly high rate, I'm all for helping those who can't afford the high rate.

And as for "choosing not to work" as we SAHM's do, it's sometimes a huge sacrafice to do that as well. I have a good education, had a good job, am an intelligent person (hey, really I am), but I chose to stay home. That meant no more dinner's out, no more babysitters or big vacations or new clothes, just meeting our "needs". And for those who choose to work for some of those "extras", that's absolutely wonderful. I have friends who do both, and I'm not judging. And I'm not thinking I am entitled more so than anybody else for that refund. But, I do think I would love a little help with the healthcare area. When well baby visits cost me $300 a pop (for both babies), I tend to not go. I wish I was able to do more preventative care for my kids, but realistically, it's not feasible. So, healthcare in, refunds out (although I'll be brave and say, I wouldn't mind getting a refund)!

 

I grew up in the States & lived there until I was 26, now I live in Canada. I have seen both sides of the health care issue. I don't think having universal health care diminishes the care you get at all. I have had excellent experiences here with the health care system. Any time I or someone else I know have needed to see a specialist or have a procedure of some kind, we have been able to do so quickly & efficiently. I know you hear horror stories about wait lists but the only waiting I have seen is for elective procedures. I have had 5 babies here & with excellent prenatal care & it hasn't cost me 1 cent. On the other hand, the last time I visited my parents in the States, my daughter had an ear infection that cost me $80 for the doctor's visit & $150 for the antibiotics. That is crazy! I feel really bad for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford healthcare coverage.

 

QUOTE(rubyturquoise @ Jan 25 2008, 02:56 PM) [snapback]589615[/snapback]
ETA: And if we had truly universal health care, it wouldn't be weathly people paying for their own while less wealthy people got a free ride. That's what "universal" means. It means everybody.


This is where I get confused on the whole Universal Healthcare issue. From what I understand (Please Correct Me IF I'm Wrong!) people like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are not proposing everyone be on the same gov't health insurance. They are saying that everyoen is REQUIRED to have health insurance, and if you can't afford it, or dont' have access for whatever reason, then the gov't will help you get it. This obviously means it will be paid for by tax dollars.

Where I get confused is this... we do not make a lot of money. We make approx $80,000 with us both working. My husband works for the State of PA and one of the few great benefits is our health insurance. Will the state try to take that away once the "government plan" is availabe? Will this happen to other people as well?

 

I work part time, and have not been eligible for benefits. My husband has been working full time, and is losing his job (today is his last day). We are both well educated, with masters degrees, and have worked all of our adult lives, with the exception of the two years I stayed home after the twins were born.

My employer, fortunately, stepped up and switched me to a benefits track so we can get our health insurance. Otherwise we would have had to pay COBRA to keep the insurance we had, and it would have cost us $1500/month, which is more than I earn. My husband is looking for a new job, but nothing has come up yet.

If we had not been eligible to get insurance through my employer would we not be worthy of having health insurance because we are not contributing enough to society?

When we chose to have children, it never occurred to us that we might find ourselves in a position in which we could not provide well for them. And there are many people out there who have financial situations that have changed, have unplanned pregnancies, or (of all terrible things) just really want to have a child even though their financial situation is not good. Are these people not worthy of receiving decent health care?

Personally, I do believe that people who are earning huge amounts SHOULD be helping those less fortunate, and paying taxes that actually provided something - such as health care - for low income people seems like a worthy thing. Although I know there are many flaws socialism, there are certain aspects of it that I find quite admirable.

And for those worried about the quality of universal healthcare, remember that in many (most?) countries that have it, there is still private care available if you choose to pay for it . . . so the wealthy probably still get the best care, but at least everyone gets some care.

I'm done.

Rachel

 

QUOTE(Trish_e @ Jan 25 2008, 07:08 PM) [snapback]589490[/snapback]
WOW!!!!! This is one of the most condescending posts I've read in a while!!!!

As far as the $1200 Tax Rebate it's only being given to families with two incomes!!!


I had never heard that this was only being given to families with two incomes. The plan outline I read about today states that the minimum for a married couple is $1200 and $300 per child is being given. $600 for singles. I was just curious where it was stated that it was only for both to be working.

 

QUOTE(RachelJoy @ Jan 25 2008, 08:47 PM) [snapback]589721[/snapback]
Personally, I do believe that people who are earning huge amounts SHOULD be helping those less fortunate, and paying taxes that actually provided something - such as health care - for low income people seems like a worthy thing. Although I know there are many flaws socialism, there are certain aspects of it that I find quite admirable.

And for those worried about the quality of universal healthcare, remember that in many (most?) countries that have it, there is still private care available if you choose to pay for it . . . so the wealthy probably still get the best care, but at least everyone gets some care.


But where is the incentive to better yourself? I'm so glad I work full time and pay for day care so I can live in a nice town and have my kids in a good school so that my money goes to those less fortunate? Why not just become one of the lower incomes? I could quit my job and get a job that doesn't offer benefits where I only work 1 day a week, and then I'd be with my kids. Then I could let all the rich people take care of me so I don't need to pay for my own healthcare? Is that the mentality?

Or I have the option of working still, and paying for private care (so now I pay for someone else's and mine) so that I can get the level of healthcare I currently have.

I don't know your situation, and I am sorry your husband lost his job. But being that you are two very well educated people, I'm sure that if you had not being able to get insurance at part time you could easily get a full-time job with coverage. Ya know, I got layed off and had to use Cobra too once. It's expensive, but you do what you have to do to have health insurance.

My dad worked 3 jobs so that my mom could be a SAHM. That's a sacrifice they chose to make so that she could stay home with us. I guess that is where my work ethic comes from. If we didn't have insurance because DH lost his job and I didn't work full time, I woudl start looking for a full time job, and in the meantime, work anywhere, doing anything, to make sure we had the money to keep up with the Cobra.

Luckily, you didn't have to resort to that. And I'm not in anyway insinuating that you wouldn't have done whatever you had to do to make sure you could afford Cobra.

I just don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it seem. And I don't think it's fair to put the burden on the higher earners to take care of the lower income families.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges: a socialistic, universal health care system vs. a plan to stimulate a slow economy. Yes, universal health care is socialism. All of the people who can afford health care now will also be expected to cover the costs of health care for everyone else.
QUOTE
Although I know there are many flaws socialism, there are certain aspects of it that I find quite admirable.


While I can appreciate the lure of the altruistic feeling that those with more should help those less fortunate. Socialism doesn't work. It removes all incentive for aspiration. The only system that is truly sustainable is when individuals, communities and corporations voluntarily do their part to help those less fortunate. People are inherently good and will step up to the plate when the government backs off and allows them to.

Of course, that is just how I see it. I LOVE reading every else's view points too!! Keep'em coming.

 

QUOTE(ABCKids @ Jan 25 2008, 09:06 PM) [snapback]589758[/snapback]
I had never heard that this was only being given to families with two incomes. The plan outline I read about today states that the minimum for a married couple is $1200 and $300 per child is being given. $600 for singles. I was just curious where it was stated that it was only for both to be working.



I see where the plan states "working couples", but I was not under the impression that both couples had to be "working". I thought you just had to fall in the income range (I thought working couples would mean...when you file jointly..that you are falling in the salary range). I do work part time..but I am just wondering for a lot of my friends that are full SAHM's.

 

QUOTE(ABCKids @ Jan 25 2008, 09:11 PM) [snapback]589774[/snapback]
I see where the plan states "working couples", but I was not under the impression that both couples had to be "working". I thought you just had to fall in the income range (I thought working couples would mean...when you file jointly..that you are falling in the salary range). I do work part time..but I am just wondering for a lot of my friends that are full SAHM's.



Okay...I am sort of talking to myself in my posts...lol..but for anyone that is interested...You don't have to both be a "working" person for the $1200 base and $300 per child added to it...

You just have to file jointly as a couple and fall into the tax and salary guidelines. I was curious because a PP said that both parties in the marriage had to be working. This is not true. I just looked up the actual plan.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 09:07 PM) [snapback]589765[/snapback]
But where is the incentive to better yourself? I'm so glad I work full time and pay for day care so I can live in a nice town and have my kids in a good school so that my money goes to those less fortunate? Why not just become one of the lower incomes? I could quit my job and get a job that doesn't offer benefits where I only work 1 day a week, and then I'd be with my kids. Then I could let all the rich people take care of me so I don't need to pay for my own healthcare? Is that the mentality?


Obviously we have different ideas about what it means to better oneself.
I work two jobs, one full time with a great benefits package, I do contract work on top of that, only like 1/4 time at most but nice extra cash! I've chosen live in a country that has socialized medicine (I wasn't born here) and I'm happy to pay 20% income tax to help the government extend those benefits to the unemployed and underemployed (Mexico has only recently done this, it used to be the socialized medicine here was only for those paying into the system). I was born with a leg up, my parent's paid for my college so I came out of university debt free, but I think bettering myself is helping others get the same leg up. Because I don't believe they will freeload off society. I want them to be contributing as much tax money as I am too, once they are on stable ground. I want my children to see that I believe in the human capacity to improve and that I have faith in others, in our society, to get better. I want my children to know not everyone is born into the same situation or has the same luck, but that everyone is worthly. I want my children to now that material posessions have no real value. I would be ashamed for my children to know that I spent more on a TV than some families earn in a month. I want my family to spend our time and our money in service to others. For me that's what it means to better myself.

 

QUOTE(Meximeli @ Jan 25 2008, 01:24 PM) [snapback]589795[/snapback]
Obviously we have different ideas about what it means to better oneself.
I work two jobs, one full time with a great benefits package, I do contract work on top of that, only like 1/4 time at most but nice extra cash! I've chosen live in a country that has socialized medicine (I wasn't born here) and I'm happy to pay 20% income tax to help the government extend those benefits to the unemployed and underemployed (Mexico has only recently done this, it used to be the socialized medicine here was only for those paying into the system). I was born with a leg up, my parent's paid for my college so I came out of university debt free, but I think bettering myself is helping others get the same leg up. Because I don't believe they will freeload off society. I want them to be contributing as much tax money as I am too, once they are on stable ground. I want my children to see that I believe in the human capacity to improve and that I have faith in others, in our society, to get better. I want my children to know not everyone is born into the same situation or has the same luck, but that everyone is worthly. I want my children to now that material posessions have no real value. I would be ashamed for my children to know that I spent more on a TV than some families earn in a month. I want my family to spend our time and our money in service to others. For me that's what it means to better myself.


I couldn't have said that any better!

I haven't noticed the "since the government will help me, I don't have to help myself" attitude any more here where we have socialized medicine than anywhere that doesn't. Just because we don't have to pay for healthcare coverage doesn't mean that we aren't hard workers & that we don't work hard to provide the best for our family. The government here isn't paying for everything, just healthcare coverage which everyone deserves to have.

And to clear up the other misconceptions, our basic healthcare coverage here is the same for everyone no matter how much you make. The extra coverages paid for by some employers are for things like dental, orthodontic, some vision services, travel insurance, etc.

 

QUOTE(HRE @ Jan 25 2008, 03:35 PM) [snapback]589693[/snapback]
And as for "choosing not to work" as we SAHM's do, it's sometimes a huge sacrafice to do that as well. I have a good education, had a good job, am an intelligent person (hey, really I am), but I chose to stay home. That meant no more dinner's out, no more babysitters or big vacations or new clothes, just meeting our "needs". And for those who choose to work for some of those "extras", that's absolutely wonderful. I have friends who do both, and I'm not judging. And I'm not thinking I am entitled more so than anybody else for that refund. But, I do think I would love a little help with the healthcare area. When well baby visits cost me $300 a pop (for both babies), I tend to not go. I wish I was able to do more preventative care for my kids, but realistically, it's not feasible. So, healthcare in, refunds out (although I'll be brave and say, I wouldn't mind getting a refund)!


It is a huge sacrifice! I went to college, I worked my way up in my company to the point where I was being seriously considered for a vice president position. I had just had my twins and didn't want to never see them, the new job would've had me at work 50 plus hours a week, then with a 45-60 minute commute each way.....well, I guess I could've seen them on Saturday.

So.....I gave up my career ambitions and went to work part time(4 days). My company worked with me on this. My salary was reduced according to my reduction in hours, my bonus/stock options were reduced, etc. I had enough hours weekly that had I needed benefits, I could've had them. When my third child was born, yes, I could've still worked. But with putting three children in daycare, I would've basically been working for about $3 an hour.....

I have sacrificed many of the same things as the above poster. Am I happy that I did? yes...my kids are wonderful and it was the best choice for our family.

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 04:07 PM) [snapback]589765[/snapback]
But where is the incentive to better yourself? I'm so glad I work full time and pay for day care so I can live in a nice town and have my kids in a good school so that my money goes to those less fortunate? Why not just become one of the lower incomes? I could quit my job and get a job that doesn't offer benefits where I only work 1 day a week, and then I'd be with my kids. Then I could let all the rich people take care of me so I don't need to pay for my own healthcare? Is that the mentality?

Or I have the option of working still, and paying for private care (so now I pay for someone else's and mine) so that I can get the level of healthcare I currently have.

I don't know your situation, and I am sorry your husband lost his job. But being that you are two very well educated people, I'm sure that if you had not being able to get insurance at part time you could easily get a full-time job with coverage. Ya know, I got layed off and had to use Cobra too once. It's expensive, but you do what you have to do to have health insurance.

My dad worked 3 jobs so that my mom could be a SAHM. That's a sacrifice they chose to make so that she could stay home with us. I guess that is where my work ethic comes from. If we didn't have insurance because DH lost his job and I didn't work full time, I woudl start looking for a full time job, and in the meantime, work anywhere, doing anything, to make sure we had the money to keep up with the Cobra.

Luckily, you didn't have to resort to that. And I'm not in anyway insinuating that you wouldn't have done whatever you had to do to make sure you could afford Cobra.

I just don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it seem. And I don't think it's fair to put the burden on the higher earners to take care of the lower income families.


I chose to stay home and take care of my kids. Yes, my husband and I are now of a "lower income" than we were before. It doesn't mean that I am living off those who have more money than I do. My husband works, we have great health insurance (free) and we pay taxes, pay our bills, etc. I just find it kind of offensive that you think that just because a woman chooses to stay at home with her kids she and her family will be living off of the wealth of others.

My dad worked 1, 2, 3, 4 however many jobs he had to to keep my mother home raising their 6 kids. She went to work part time once we were all in school. I always worked 1 or more jobs from the time I was 16. I, too, have a good work ethic and it didn't go out the window when I decided to become a SAHM.

 

Neither of you live in the US right?

Your idealistic principles are wonderful in theory, but I guess I just don't agree with it. And I don't have the faith that it will work.

Maybe being a good person can mean a lot of different things. I think the person you are describing sounds like a very good person indeed. The person I was describing is a person who works hard, and is really trying to better themselves, by whatever means that can. Be in getting an education, getting their GED, getting off welfare. Basically working hard to become a giving member of society, not a taking member.

I'm happy you pay your 20%. I pay 33%. So I find it hard for you to say that I'm not giving back a lot to my country. In fact, more than you are giving to yours. So to insinuate I'm not a good person for not wanting to help, it actually looks like I am helping more.

 

Maureen-

I wasn't referring to SAHMs and I'm sorry you took it that way. I was making a point to what a PP said that the wealthier people should pay to offer benefits to those with lower incomes that do not have benefits. My point was, why wouldn't I just quit my job then and stay home? Then I could be with my kids, and let someone else worry about paying for my benefits. I don't think that is the what SAHMs do. Especially cause in this country that isn't the case right now. Every SAHM that I know made a decision that worked for her and her husband financially, and they are usually just on their husbands benefits. I think it's a wonderful luxury to be able to stay home on one income. I never said, nor do I feel, that SAHMs are some how uneducated. Being a SAHM is a choice for most women. That means that you are all probably educated and smart and probably worked prior to having your children. And then once you had kids, you realized that it was affordable for you to stay home. I think that's wonderful. And I'm sorry that you somehow felt that I was saying that SAHM's are drains on society. Because never once did I say that, and I certainly would never mean that.

My point was as someone stated, if it should be the job of the rich to pay for the poor, why would choose to be among the rich? I might as well just choose to be poor, and reap the benefits.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 04:55 PM) [snapback]589846[/snapback]
Maureen-

I wasn't referring to SAHMs and I'm sorry you took it that way. I was making a point to what a PP said that the wealthier people should pay to offer benefits to those with lower incomes that do not have benefits. My point was, why wouldn't I just quit my job then and stay home? Then I could be with my kids, and let someone else worry about paying for my benefits. I don't think that is the what SAHMs do. Especially cause in this country that isn't the case right now. Every SAHM that I know made a decision that worked for her and her husband financially, and they are usually just on their husbands benefits. I think it's a wonderful luxury to be able to stay home on one income. I never said, nor do I feel, that SAHMs are some how uneducated. Being a SAHM is a choice for most women. That means that you are all probably educated and smart and probably worked prior to having your children. And then once you had kids, you realized that it was affordable for you to stay home. I think that's wonderful. And I'm sorry that you somehow felt that I was saying that SAHM's are drains on society. Because never once did I say that, and I certainly would never mean that.

My point was as someone stated, if it should be the job of the rich to pay for the poor, why would choose to be among the rich? I might as well just choose to be poor, and reap the benefits.


Thanks for clarifying that.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 09:55 PM) [snapback]589846[/snapback]
My point was as someone stated, if it should be the job of the rich to pay for the poor, why would choose to be among the rich? I might as well just choose to be poor, and reap the benefits.


I get what you're getting at here, but it's kind of a simplistic way of thinking. It's not like the poor are getting rich off of things like affordable health care and tax breaks. They're still going to be poor and struggle to get by. They're not going to suddenly be rolling in cash and living the lifestyle of more well off people.

So, you comparing working hard, paying higher taxes and helping out those less fortunate with just quitting your job and becoming one of those people who "benefit" from health care assistance just doesn't make sense. Maybe you were just using an extreme example to make your point....

There are many factors that contribute to poverty; lower educational level (not necessarily due to laziness), lack of opportunity (could be related to the environment someone was raised it, racial or other discrimination, or other factors not the "fault" of the individual but nonetheless, impact their access to education and resources); "bad luck" (poor health, teens unable to go to college b/c they have to care for a sick parent or help provide for the family, mental health issues, etc.) You get the point. I'm just trying to illustrate that people who are poor are not necessarily lazy, unmotivated, or entitled. Most would probably love to trade places with you, hard work and all, rather than be stuck in perpetual poverty. The vibe I'm getting from your posts is that anyone can escape poverty and needing to be "taken care of" if they just worked harder and had a little motivation. I really wish that were the case, but sadly, it is not.