Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've not listened to his show, as shows like this make my skin crawl, but what is his agenda and is it valid? I know people have different opinions on how things should work, but these people on Fox just seem to be way over the top. The impression you get from these people is that the federal government should just fund the armed services & law enforcement, everything else should be paid for by the individual (so taxes are kept to the minimum) and the bible should be your life map.

Query on the health care issue he's been ranting on about. How much is your healthcare payments on average over in the US? I think about £120 a month comes out of my wages to cover my national insurance contributions. I was wondering if your costs were about the same or dearer.

That is the real problem out here, it really varies quite a bit.

People with serious health conditions are at risk of losing any health care they have for "pre-existing" conditions.

Most people rely on health care from their jobs, others who do not get health care from their work have to resort to medi-care if we are broke... medi-care sucks.

When you add the costs up to live in the Bay area, I am surprised that more people haven't just up and left. The housing market is crazy right now, prices have nearly doubled on nicer places. Other housing is either run badly, or you are lucky for having a good landlord.

Ok so the following only works if your contributions are higher than us over here: (using sterling as an example, please convert in your own time )

On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions. So if your payments were £200+, wouldn't the £120 - £130 contribution be better for the individual? Yes it's a tax, but you end up with more money in your pocket, giving you more money to spend, therefore potentially helping the economy. Or am I missing something here?

Wolfstan wrote:On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions.

Are you guessing monthly or annually?

Wolfstan wrote:Ok so the following only works if your contributions are higher than us over here: (using sterling as an example, please convert in your own time )

On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions. So if your payments were £200+, wouldn't the £120 - £130 contribution be better for the individual? Yes it's a tax, but you end up with more money in your pocket, giving you more money to spend, therefore potentially helping the economy. Or am I missing something here?

U.S. citizens fear socialism... and fire fighters? Maybe? Kinda? Sorta? Don't worry mate I may be in Europe quite soon... as will many U.S. citizens.

Monthly

Wolfstan wrote:but these people on Fox just seem to be way over the top. The impression you get from these people is that the federal government should just fund the armed services & law enforcement

"War and the administration of justice are the chief tasks of even the most barbaric States."
--Heinrich von Treitschke

Current exchange rate as of writing is about $1.65 to the pound. So... a 20K pound a year salery would be about $33000 a year. That's a little less than what I pulled in last year before taxes. 120 pounds a month would equal out to $198 dollars a month. $198 by 12 months is $2367 a year. Seeing as I get paid 26 times a year that would be $91.39 a paycheck deducted for health care.

Now that the math is out of the way

On one hand I might think that is a lot as I am paying it but on the other hand... I can say that I would gladly pay that to never have to worry about any kind of health issue that would pop up. It sure beats the coverage I have now which is nothing. It would also beat situations like I have been in in the past where something has come up and I just had to ignore it and hope for the best because it was either go to a doctor or being able to pay rent and eat. But you know... we are the greatest nation in the world... USA USA #1#1 yeah... right.

Just one more bit... I checked and I made 32K taxable (really 35K but I do have a retirement plan and the deductions for that don't count towards taxable) before taxes last year. I contributions to medicare and FICA which is also part medicare was $2678. So... in reality... I already am paying almost that much and not getting ANYTHING!!! What do I have to do to become a British citizen?

If the plan was refocused this reform could result in some very substantial changes. One mistake I think the Obama administration has made is in their need to work way too fast.

I would not be surprised AT ALL if this whole situation put the republicans that are seriously against any sort of real change to the system to shame... serious and utter shame. The kind of personal degradation that could result in the devouring of FOX NEWS. I see a very powerful trend building up of people that are simply sick and tired of hearing huge amounts of nonsense, and they are making that completely clear.

If this change does not come, the U.S. will stand to lose quite a bit of support throughout the world, and on top of this quite a few of its citizens. I would rather be a citizen in the EU, than be in a country that has no spine when it comes to serious issues like this.

Arguing does not make you right...

Wrexasaur wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Ok so the following only works if your contributions are higher than us over here: (using sterling as an example, please convert in your own time )

On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions. So if your payments were £200+, wouldn't the £120 - £130 contribution be better for the individual? Yes it's a tax, but you end up with more money in your pocket, giving you more money to spend, therefore potentially helping the economy. Or am I missing something here?

U.S. citizens fear socialism... and fire fighters? Maybe? Kinda? Sorta? Don't worry mate I may be in Europe quite soon... as will many U.S. citizens.

Escaping fears of socialism by running to Europe? You do know where socialism was invented right?

You guys do realise that socialism doesn't actually exist right ? It's all been a huge "Candid camera" style prank that has, I'll admit, gotten a bit out of hand. It started when you were a young, new, fresh faced country, we did similar to all the new countries. It's the equivalent of sending the new guy to get the bulb wrench or the tartan paint.

Wait until 2014 when we move the screens away and reveal to their astonishment that Australia is in fact just south of Brighton. How we'll laugh.

Glenn Beck and his employers know that screaming, crying, and appealing to emotions can make lots of money. Now they know that it can also make that money hard to come by in the short-run. Long-run that money will come back, just from different hands.

Anti-intellectualism has always been a part of American culture. Now it has more outlets. Let's hope it doesn't reach the levels of early Bolshevik Russia.

First off.....we have delved into the Glen Beck stuff before here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/250249.page

My impression of him is that he is a fear monger, and he makes a living off of scaring old/white people, and or the allready scared old/white people. He didn't used to be this way, so I personally believe he has found a new, more profitable target audience.

Now onto socialism and why Americans fear it. Americans are pretty much raised from birth to fear anything noncapitalistic. Unfortunately they end up confusing socialism with Marxism/communism. This is why you get all the, "them guys are a bunch of Commies", comments. The bottom line is that pure unfettered capitalism fails, and pure unfettered socialism fails. That's why you need a mixture of both. America allready has some forms of socialist programs like, medicare, social security, child labor laws, overtime laws, etc,etc. Americans tend to confuse any attempt at initiating social reforms as being communist.

And here is where people like Sean Hannity and Glen Beck come in, capitilizing on the ingrained fear of socialist reform.


GG

I think the first problem is that you're looking for something "on earth" to explain Glenn Beck. Best-case, I'd be looking more to Mars or beyond.

The guy is a kook that gets only two kinds of people to listen to him: those that want to be offended and other kooks. Kinda like Rush, Coulter, O'Riley...

I think the main issue here is trust. The American people have seen how our government handles it's money. If you had a relative who could only keep foreclosure and bankruptcy at bay by finding new ways to borrow more money, would you be willing to pay them to oversee the funding of your healthcare? I know I'm not.

Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:

"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"

Lordhat wrote:I think the main issue here is trust. The American people have seen how our government handles it's money. If you had a relative who could only keep foreclosure and bankruptcy at bay by finding new ways to borrow more money, would you be willing to pay them to oversee the funding of your healthcare? I know I'm not.

This is a pretty good statement. Americans don't trust the government. We want choices and do what we want and we want to complain about it. Also if this reform were to actually work it would take at least a year to write, not a few months. It would be debated for another year. The problem is that presidents have 4 years to look good and make his term seem effective. Presidents don't look for long term solutions because they don't get the credit for it.

Also for the person who talked about social security - that program is not for retirement. When it was first created it was to help people from expenses they didn't plan on incurring. It was never supposed to be a retirement plan.

Ahtman wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Ok so the following only works if your contributions are higher than us over here: (using sterling as an example, please convert in your own time )

On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions. So if your payments were £200+, wouldn't the £120 - £130 contribution be better for the individual? Yes it's a tax, but you end up with more money in your pocket, giving you more money to spend, therefore potentially helping the economy. Or am I missing something here?

U.S. citizens fear socialism... and fire fighters? Maybe? Kinda? Sorta? Don't worry mate I may be in Europe quite soon... as will many U.S. citizens.

Escaping fears of socialism by running to Europe? You do know where socialism was invented right?

Wait... the joke... over the head... wait... look again... yeah, again... there you go Ahtman-dude-man.

Wolfstan wrote:Monthly

You heard him... monthly... we fear them monthly, like a ritual or something, with bones and... well it is macaroni actually, anyway though.

<table ><tbody><tr ><td >The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</td><td >Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr ><td >Glenn Beck's Operation</td></tr><tr ><td >www.thedailyshow.com</td></tr><tr ><td ></td></tr><tr ><td ><table ><tr ><td >Daily Show
Full Episodes</td><td >Political Humor</td><td >Healthcare Protests</td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>


He was okay before he went over to fox

The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:

"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"

The better question is how you can think the pretend private system you have right now is at all efficient when you are spending 1/6 of your economy on healthcare? Germany and France spend about 11%, every other developed country is 8% or less. And they all have better healthcare than you. The fundamental question is what happend to make your anti-government ideology is so strong that you'll ignore the fact that strong government intervention in healthcare produces better outcomes at half the price.

Classic. Jon Stewart is one of my favs.

The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:

"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"

Your not going to get an answer.
That way lies the emperor's new clothes and whatnot.
It's easier to say Beck is a kook.

sebster wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:

"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"

The better question is how you can think the pretend private system you have right now is at all efficient when you are spending 1/6 of your economy on healthcare? Germany and France spend about 11%, every other developed country is 8% or less. And they all have better healthcare than you. The fundamental question is what happend to make your anti-government ideology is so strong that you'll ignore the fact that strong government intervention in healthcare produces better outcomes at half the price.

That... and Glenn Beck is an utter and complete disgrace to the news community on more levels than even he could imagine.

Do you listen to the guy in the tin-foil hat? Wait... you do? Could you have someone else ask me, I feel like I am talking to Alex Jones twin... but he bathes a bit more regularly, and he actually uses a toothbrush . Seriously... dude is whacked ten ways from Sunday and Friday as well.

Zip Napalm wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:

"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"

Your not going to get an answer.
That way lies the emperor's new clothes and whatnot.
It's easier to say Beck is a kook.

He is a kook... that aside, he is a hypocrite who uses fear-mongering to bait people into a state of... you guessed it, into a state of Fear. Simple really, but it works better when you listen over time, the main point being is that the only questions he has are drowned out by jargonistic ranting/ranting/ranting/ranting... and LOOK WE GOT GOOD RATINGS!!!

If you have that big of an issue with your government you should be talking to the corporations that we allow to manipulate us. All of the money being invested into political gain through congress is absolutely ludicrous. Stop buying Mcdonalds and grill your own burgers, etc... etc... etc...

sebster wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:

"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"

The better question is how you can think the pretend private system you have right now is at all efficient when you are spending 1/6 of your economy on healthcare? Germany and France spend about 11%, every other developed country is 8% or less. And they all have better healthcare than you. The fundamental question is what happend to make your anti-government ideology is so strong that you'll ignore the fact that strong government intervention in healthcare produces better outcomes at half the price.

Healthcare is not provided to save money. It's there to relieve suffering.

Is there something wrong with providing Health Care Reform in an efficient way?

This whole concept of economic efficiency is the only Republican talking point left aside the whole Obama is Hitler thing... and you don't need to go there...

Because Hitler has already been and gone in the form of the Glenn Beck thread making thing going on in the place with the pudding...



Man... totally hypnotizing eh? Yeah.. that is what I thought about while making this and the place with the pudding took place in the place with the YO DAWG I GIGGITY GIGGITY GOTTA GO DAWG!!!

1991 was a decent year for wine... and cheese too if I recall correctly from my book of factoids and special information. Peta and Pate suffered a serious decline of popularity at this point though du(de ) to their connection to goose anus.

I edited again because I read this and laughed... ahhh, yes life is sweet.

Zip Napalm wrote:Healthcare is not provided to save money. It's there to relieve suffering.

Yeah, and the more money you spend the better you should able to relieve suffering... if the system is a decent one. And yet for all the money you spend, you don't extend lives as long as countries spending half as much. This is not a complex thing, you spend 50% more of GDP than the next country, and around double the average. For that amount of money you get the 37th best healthcare system. Behind Slovenia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zip Napalm wrote:Your not going to get an answer.
That way lies the emperor's new clothes and whatnot.
It's easier to say Beck is a kook.

It's a crap question. It's a crap question because 'mishandled' is not a clear criticism, and there's no effort made to substantiate what 'mishandled' means.

And when someone says Obama is a racist who hates white people, I think kook is probably the kindest assessment.

The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:

"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"

What does 'mishandled' mean in the context of this question? All programs, over their lifetime, run into financial issues which require adjustment. Just like planning in the private sector; planning in the government requires adaptability. Unfortunately, given the nature of our government/electorate, adaptation is always a slow process.

Also, why the hell is banking in that list of things which the government has 'mishandled'?

Hey, I've got a better question:

"Given that the private sector has a history rife with financial incompetence, bankruptcy, duplicitous business practices, and outright crime; why should we allow them to have a hand in US healthcare?"

Sounds stupid, doesn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zip Napalm wrote:
See what I mean Git?

See how stupid the question is?

Here... just listen... just listen... yeah, there you go.

Zip Napalm wrote:See what I mean Git?

I addressed the question. I pointed out it was an awful question because 'mishandled' doesn't mean anything. I could have pointed out that the claim sounds meaningful to the collection of chuckleheads that like complaining about government, who wouldn't ever bother to stop to think about exactly what 'mishandled' means, as they take it as a given that it is government and therefore bad. So the claim works for Beck and his core audience, but fails as soon as it tries to address a mainstream audience, where 'mishandled' is quickly seen as a meaningless piece of rhetoric. But I didn't think I needed to spell that out.

Meanwhile, you didn't even try to substantiate what 'mishandled' meant. Is this because you never really thought about? Don't tell me you just took it for granted that it was true...