Info, I get the impression that you would think indoc is not fair since not everyone has an equal oppurtunity to attend. In your "fair" world, I would expect you to argue that.

It is indeed an exercise in teamwork and individualism but everyone fails or succeeds on their own merit. I know for a fact that when one of the cadre says "We'll stop this torture as soon as someone quits" You start hoping someone quits! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

At indoc everyone will have equal opportunity. Passing or failing there will not be reflective of your more liberal vs. more conservative beliefs.

The point that I believe Marty and Flame are trying to make is that you will not succeed if you enter with this victim attitude. I agree. The attitude that just because someone is smarter, faster, or stronger, that it is unfair that you are held to the same standard. The whinny attitude of...well his parents could afford to send him to a private coach for swimming lessons, when I was stuck with public school athletic programs which didn't even have a swim team. The only reason that I think they say this is because your (INFO) arguments can easily be translated into this victim attitude--where just because someone else has an advantage that you are at a disadvantage...and that is unfair. It isn't unfair, its life.

Personally, I don't think that the thoughts of this topic should be translated to anyone's possible success at indoc. I just don't think they fit. Without reservation I will tell you that your success at selection will depend on the way you handle adversity. Even the strongest will meet the beast, and how you deal with it will determine everything.

INFO, I think Marty really wants to hear your comments on a more socialized form of health care. Let me know if you want me to get him started. I can play Devil's advocate on this pretty easily, and I am curious where the discussion will go. Oh what the hell...
(DA) I think we ought to give free health care to all. It is our civil responsibility. We, as a nation, owe it to our fellow man. Look at Canada, it works from them! How can we claim...life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness if we cannot guarantee our fellow man the first of these?

Wrong again InfoSeeker, so very, very wrong.

What about guys who don&#8217;t have ready access to this web page? The information is very in-depth, and using it to become prepared for Indoc can make a huge difference. What about the guys who don&#8217;t own their own PC or even worse, don&#8217;t know how to use one? Gee, that&#8217;s not fair.

How about getting access to an Olympic size pool? Or even better yet, the surfer guy who lives next to the ocean in California or Hawaii? After dealing with rip tides, board attacks and rouge waves they don&#8217;t seem to mind the pool harassment that much. That&#8217;s not fair either.

Then there&#8217;s being able to afford the time to get in better shape, which can pretty expensive time if you&#8217;re helping to support a low-income family. Not to mention the actual cost of gym membership fees, decent running shoes and some place to swim. Having time and money helps you get ready. Gee, that&#8217;s really not fair.

I&#8217;m not sure if they still do this, but cross trainees used to get up to 2 months of prep training by their gaining unit before going to Indoc. That&#8217;s not very fair at all, huh?

And after you get to OL-H, you might get assigned to room with the guy who crawls in his wall locker and cries every night at least until the day he quits. While the guys in the next room work to psych each other up for the next day. You have no idea how unfair that is.

Oh yes, and the cadre. They aren&#8217;t all that concerned with fairness, they are however very concerned with maintaining quality. If they see weakness, they will exploit it. The nickname for cadre at Indoc is &#8220;sharks&#8221; because of their uncanny ability to smell blood and the feeding frenzy that inevitably follows. Not fair by design.

But you know what is fair? Everyone&#8217;s potential ability to rise to these challenges, persevere through the adversity and achieve their goals.

My comments on Indoc only apply to socialism and not fairness in general. Basically on judging people on their own merits rather than by some Marxist philosophy like:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Which just don't cut it--neither at the OL nor in the real world.

socialism is not marxism as capitalism is not darwinism. stand by...

Todd

Marty, about the healthcare issue, Brock said it best. Healthcare is a human right, not a privilage. We are not dogs now.

And even man's best friend deserves his yearly check ups <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I have a question for Infoseeker:

A few posts down you mentioned that money is a reward for labor...since when??

Money is a way to barter....the more you have of what people want or need the more money you can make. Labor is only a small portion of that, hence labor doesn't pay well.

On another note:

AAneeded - I never said everyone has a right to attend the course. But if you are qualified to enter the course and do so, I expect that everyone will have an "equal" chance to pass. And if that is the case, then I also expect that every PJ and CCT produced has "fairly" earned their place on the teams.

Brock - While I agree with everything you have said, you also have to remember that this is a debate, this is not a reflection as to how liberals live their lives. I'm sure there are plenty of successful liberal operators. I don't think your assuming it anything with what you said, however, I just thought I should make that clear. I don't expect ANYONE to whine or go around blaming their failures on the world. In the end, we all take personal responsibility for our own actions. But lets not assume that pinpointing society's flaws is a way to go back and assign blame. If that was the case, then we would never advance as a people.

David - There's a clear line between "equal opportunity" and flat out baby sitting. And your implying that I think everyone should be totally equal without exerting any effort or personal accountability. There is a thing called "luck of the draw" that I am totally aware of. In your argument, even communism cannot be fair which to me sounds off totally the mark on a political level. Like I said, there is a clear line that can be drawn.

11ZULU - Labor in my post was not limited to physical labor. At least that wasn't my intent. You do a job, you get paid based on what the public thinks your duty is worth.

Its a universal reward for one's work that has a value determined by free people.

Better to have a universal currency then to trade your apples for my shoes. Understand? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

<<<But complete freedom is designed to satisfy the non deserving.>>> --- Lastly, I believe in a free society. I was just pointing out the cost of that freedom.

no, it is based on what a consumer thinks you or your product are worth....not the public...public determining worth leads to socialism....which we all know does not work because it stifles creativity and innovation.....let alone extra effort.

no, it is based on what a consumer thinks you or your product are worth....not the public...public determining worth leads to socialism....which we all know does not work because it stifles creativity and innovation.....let alone extra effort.

11ZULU, your creating an argument where there is no disagreement

(sigh)

Brock, universal health care does not work in Canada. Yes, they have equal access to healthcare but just like the UK, they often do not receive timely treatment (especially surgical procedures and old age problems) because of the lack of providers and resources. Most Canadians will go south if they can afford it because of the length of time to receive treatment. Seems to me that the reality of socialized medicine continues to elude the fantasy of socialized medicine.

(HEAVY SIGH)

Marty, It seems I am now added to the list of people that ask questions and Info refuses to answer. LOL <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

Last year, a poll by Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated that 60 percent of Canadians supported the idea of expanding private health services as a way to solve the health crunch, and nearly half backed user fees.

Yet the same poll found that 75 percent of Canadians were willing to make "compromises," such as paying higher taxes to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to healthcare. More important, 99 percent of Canadians fully supported the Canada Health Act's five governing principles. Overall, 90 percent of the public rates the current system good to excellent.

From the February 28 edition of the Christian Science Monitor

<DA>
Flame,
<<...they often do not receive timely treatment <especially surgical procedures and old age problems> because of the lack of providers and resources.>>
So is the problem their ideaology or their lack of resources?

<<Most Canadians will go south if they can afford it because of the length of time to receive treatment.>>
So what you are saying is that even with socialized medicine the rich get preferred care, right? If that is correct, then the only thing that separates it <socialized medicine> from our current system is that the poor get treated too. What is wrong with that? Ok, so the poor guy has to stand in a line for medical treatment... isn't that better than no line at all?

You also say that <<the reality of socialized medicine continues to elude the fantasy of socialized medicine.>> Of course, I guess you are referring to the Canada/UK example where the resources and providers are less <as you mentioned earlier>.

On a large scale, the fact is that economic status should have no reflection as to whether you get basic health needs met. Like I said, we're not dogs, we're human beings. And even dogs deserve their meds.

As pararescuemen, I don't expect you to save the lives of only the wealthiest people correct? A life is a life and no matter what, its precious and deserves a chance at a long healthy living at all cost.

Okay-I had to go back and delete the old post so I could repost this here.

#2 Another question. I know you are big on this universal health care so I'm wondering how you would get past the biggest problem it has--paying the astronomical cost of it.

I'm sure you have car insurance. You probably have a deductible of $500-1000 to keep the monthly cost of the insurance low. So when someone puts a slight ding in your door you either fix it yourself or you live with it. If you had car insurance with a $5-10 co-pay I bet you would get everything on your car fixed just as soon as it happened because the price is definently right!

There is all the difference in the world between spending your own money and spending somebody else's money. That is the heart of the problem with universal medical care, it comes from the fact that everybody is trying to get somebody else to pay for medical care.

While the government claims to be paying for many people's medical care under various programs, it can pay less than the real costs and leave it up to doctors, hospitals, and private insurance companies to absorb the losses.
Dumping costs on third parties is what the game is all about.

That is why Hillary Clnton's health care plan and other such schemes want to be "universal." They don't want anybody to be able to escape by going to a doctor where they pay just for their own treatment. Universal coverage advocates want those who pay to have to pay prices that not only cover the cost of their own treatment, but also costs created by those who don't pay.

How did we ever get into this mess? During World War II, the federal government imposed wage and price controls. As a result, businesses that needed more workers could not attract them with higher pay. The loophole that was allowed was that these businesses could offer "fringe benefits" that were not considered to be pay and were not subject to taxation.

Before World War II, it was axiomatic that people paid their own medical bills, just as they paid their own rent, bought their own food, and paid for whatever else they wanted. Today, most medical treatment is paid for by third parties -- employer-financed insurance or government insurance.

No matter how health care or anything else is financed, we do not have one cent more available when the government spends billions of dollars than when it spends nothing. After all, where does it get those billions of dollars, except from us? The same principle applies to private health insurance. After all, where does the insurance company get the money to pay our bills, except from the premium we all pay?

This is not an argument against insurance, which is a very important thing to have. It is an argument against imagining that the country as a whole is getting something for nothing. We have the same amount available, whether the government or a private company is picking up the tab for our medical bills or whether we pay for it directly ourselves out of our own pockets.

Once we understand that, then we can talk sense about the advantages and disadvantages of sending our money to the doctors and hospitals by one route rather than another.

The scope of insurance -- whether government or private -- is crucial. My car is insured, but it is not insured for oil changes or for fixing the dents and scratches that it picks up here and there. Insurance for major medical problems would be a lot cheaper than insurance for people's nicks and scratches or for the worries of hypochondriacs.

Now imagine the burden on the auto-repair industry if every one of us had the $5 co-pay insurance.

The burden would be the same on the health care industry as all sorts of people take up precious time that doctors and hospitals could be spending on people who are really sick. Another huge waste is the paperwork and bureaucracy that goes with third party payments.

Politically, it is great to come out for making health care -- and a zillion other things -- "affordable." In practice, making things "affordable" means subsidizing wasteful uses that the same individual would never indulge in, if faced with the real costs.

Info-if you have some idea of how to get around this hurdle I'd love to hear it.

Let's take a quick look at what some Canadian doctor's think of their "fabulous" system:

Canada's Fatal Error --- Health Care as a Right (Part I)
Michael E. Aubrey, MD
There is something wrong with medicine in Canada today. This conclusion can and probably has been reached by any member of the profession who has paused from his or her daily endeavors to consider the current state of medicine in this country. Despite rather remarkable advances in the art and science of medicine patient care is deteriorating. The availability of medical services is diminishing and waiting lists are growing longer. Patients are often obliged to seek medical care in facilities far from home. The cost of health care in Canada has been spiralling upwards out of control, and predictions for the future portend the collapse of what was once an excellent health care system.

The rest can be read here:
http://www.haciendapub.com/aubrey.html

Or:
Currently in Canada, even the most liberal of politicians are calling the system of national health a failure, screaming for complete overhaul, and even suggesting &#8211; gasp! &#8211; private sector solutions. Canada calls its program a &#8220;one-tier&#8221; healthcare system. In reality it is a &#8220;zero-tier&#8221; healthcare system where everybody equally gets virtually none. The assault on Canada&#8217;s sick people comes from several fronts &#8211; lack of access to drugs, shortages of doctors and other healthcare professionals, and closing of beds.
For example, last summer in Newfoundland, the Minister of Health announced that that some healthcare facilities would be closing between May and September. These hospital bed closures were to &#8220;accommodate staff vacations&#8221;.
Ontario has a critical shortage of radiation therapy machines and technicians. This year there was not a single new graduate qualified to be a radiation technologist. The one lone radiation clinic in all of Manitoba reported a waiting list of 371 last summer. From April 1999 to July 2000, over 1,400 patients in Ontario alone were sent to the U.S. for treatment at a cost to Ontario taxpayers of $15,000 - $20,000 per patient. Free? Hardly.
Another cost containment measure has caused the largest Canadian migration since last winter&#8217;s geese. Ontario doctors are paid under &#8220;billing thresholds,&#8221; meaning that they are paid by the number of patients they see regardless of time spent or how comprehensive the care provided. If they reach the threshold, they must send &#8220;overpayments&#8221; back to the government. In the first seven months of 1999, 251 Ontario physicians went over their limits and sent checks totaling $7.2 million back to the government.

Investor&#8217;s Business Daily June 5, 2001

And one more this from a study done by the Frasier Insititute:

Summary: The magnitude of the problem and the importance of reform

Canada-wide total waiting time increased significantly in 2000-01&#8212;and its level is high, both historically and internationally. Compared to 1993, waiting time in 2000-01 is 69 percent higher. Moreover, academic studies of waiting time have found that Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes (sometimes) for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British.

Waiting time has been found in medical research to entail adverse consequences for cardiac outcomes. Furthermore, economists attempting to quantify the cost of this waiting time have estimated it to amount to $1,100 to $5,600 annually per patient.

The extent of Canada's health system dysfunction was documented in a 2000 Fraser Institute study examining the impact of increases in government health spending. This analysis revealed that provinces spending more on health care per person had neither shorter (nor longer) total waiting times than those spending less. In addition, those provinces spending more had no higher rates of surgical specialist services (consultations plus procedures) and had lower rates of procedures and major surgeries.

Finally, the promise of the Canadian health care system is not being realized. On the contrary, a profusion of recent research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours.

This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric. Indeed, under the current regime&#8211;first-dollar coverage with use limited by waiting, and crucial medical resources priced and allocated by governments&#8211;prospects for improvement are dim. Only substantial reform of that regime is likely to alleviate the medical system's most curable disease&#8212;longer and longer waiting times for medical treatment.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=206

Wow--that's some high praise for socialized medicine!

Which is easier to believe; a disgruntled doctor who doesn't make as much money as his counterparts in the states, or a poll by Price Waterhouse Cooper that says 90% of Canadians are satisfied with their health care system?

Brock,

Let me clarify. Resources are divided into 2 parts although the first affects the second. First: the money needed to pay for all the care. Otherwise known as very high taxes on all the working people to provide service to all. Second: the material (i.e. medicine, beds, swabs, etc.) needed to provide service. Doctors can only perform to the level of the support.

<So is the problem their ideaology or their lack of resources? >

Their problem is ideology. The only way to get more resources is to tax those that are making wages with higher taxes. This is a fine balancing act because if you tax too high then many people will stop working because it is not worth the effort or they will move to another country, otherwise known as "brain drain".

<So what you are saying is that even with socialized medicine the rich get preferred care, right? If that is correct, then the only thing that separates it <socialized medicine> from our current system is that the poor get treated too. What is wrong with that? Ok, so the poor guy has to stand in a line for medical treatment... isn't that better than no line at all?>

No, what I am saying is that people that have skills will leave the country so they can benefit from the fruits of their labor. This continues as the poor recieve less treatment and longer waits while the finances for the treatment continue to decline.

<You also say that <<the reality of socialized medicine continues to elude the fantasy of socialized medicine.>> Of course, I guess you are referring to the Canada/UK example where the resources and providers are less <as you mentioned earlier>. >

Look at any country that has socialized medicine. They all have many things in common. High taxes, many indigents, and brain drain to name a few. Socialism in any form has yet to meet the demands of reality.

ctclaus,

That is their choice. I just don't see myself working for over half the year so someone who is too lazy to work can have healthcare benefits. I have no problem with assisting with basic healthcare for those that need assistance but providing plastic surgery to a welfare recipient or paying for an abortion is BS.

Info,

NO!!!! Dogs don't deserve their meds. They can only get them if their human provides it. You know, like parents should provide for children, and able bodied adults should provide for themselves. Now in the case of children, I would be more than happy to pay a little extra to provide basic healthcare for children. That is BASIC, not anything they want. So Info, if a human and a dog were drowning which would you save?

Claus--there were three references I can find another hundred if you like.

Claus--there were three references I can find another hundred if you like. Why is it that he's disgruntled? It's not possible that he's telling the truth?

Since I actually read what people write and research it I find this quite hysterical Claus--here's a the title of that article you noted and a little blurb (since I'm not willing to pay to get the rest of it)

from the February 28, 2002 edition
Canadian provinces move toward privatizing healthcare
By Barry Brown TORONTO Universal healthcare is as much a source of Canada's
identity and national pride as the red maple leaf stitched to its flag. Ever since the
groundwork was laid in 1947, universal coverage has been a right for all
Canadians, regardless of their economic standing. Yet while most Canadians are
satisfied with the current system, economic pressure is building for reform. As a result, three provincial premiers are signaling a move toward privatization which
could signifi... (816 words)

It's SO GOOD they want to privatize it!!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Marty Givens:
<strong>Claus--there were three references I can find another hundred if you like. Why is it that he's disgruntled? It's not possible that he's telling the truth?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Doctors (and to a lesser extent nurses and lab techs and everybody else) have been crying wolf for the last twenty years in Canada, saying they are going to flee in droves if they don't start getting their just reward. In fact, the numbers of doctors, and their area of specialization (the vast majority of doctors in Canada are family practitioners opposed to the U.S. where most are specialists), hasn't changed. This past year New Brunswick actually increased the number of doctors that moved into the province. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020322/6/l5xa.html

ctclaus,

Let's see would I take the Frasier Institute study over a Price Waterhouse poll?

In this corner wearing the Maple Leaf: The Fraser Institute. An independent Canadian economic and social research and educational organization. It has as its objective the redirection of public attention to the role of competitive markets in providing for the well-being of Canadians. Where markets work, the Institute's interest lies in trying to discover prospects for improvement. Where markets do not work, its interest lies in finding the reasons. Where competitive markets have been replaced by government control, the interest of the Institute lies in documenting objectively the nature of the improvement or deterioration resulting from government intervention. The work of the Institute is assisted by an Editorial Advisory Board of internationally renowned economists. The Fraser Institute is a national, federally chartered non-profit organization financed by the sale of its publications and the tax-deductible contributions of its members, foundations, and other supporters.

In the opposite corner wearing the colors of the people who purchased their service: PricewaterhouseCoopers' service offerings have been organized into five Lines of Service, each staffed with highly qualified, experienced professionals and leaders in our profession. These resources, combined with our global leadership structure, allow us to provide the support you need, where you need it and when you need it, at home and abroad.
1. Innovative, high quality and cost-effective solutions to organizations' financial control, regulatory reporting, shareholder value and technology issues.
2. Services in the areas of finance/ accounting, internal audit, tax compliance, applications process, procurement, human resources, and real estate services.
3. Comprehensive financial, economic, and strategic advice to companies with complex business problems and disputes. In the US, known as Financial Advisory Services
4. Formulating effective strategies for optimizing taxes, implementing innovative tax planning, and effectively maintaining compliance.
5. Consulting in the areas of strategic change management, process improvement, and technology solutions.

Now who would I trust for the information on Canadian health care?
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Wow--they added 21 new doctors and only 11 left!

"Still, O'Brien doesn't want to get people's hopes up.

"We still have difficulties," particularly in family medicine, he said.

The president of the Saint John Medical Society agrees the family medicine situation is "not quite so rosy."

"We're still nowhere near where we need to be," said Dr. John Allan.
The number of doctors giving up their family practices is on the rise, he said.
Allan believes workload and stress are significant factors. "We need to find some way to make it more appealing, whether it's (introducing) the collaborative care model, increased funding or decreased workload."
He also wants the province's College of Family Physicians to take a closer look at the steady decline in the number of students choosing family medicine."

Sounds really good.

It's true, the Canadian health care system needs a lot work.

The doctor's are pissed off, the nurses are threatening to quit, Alberta is demanding more and more privatization in order to appease the Americans who own 60% of the companies in the province...

The rub here though, is that Canadian's are willing to fight to keep health care available to every one their citizens. Americans on the other hand, view health care much like we see tickets to Disney World, it's a great place to go if you can afford it, but not as something that makes a nation stronger and more unified. We'd rather rally round a tragedy than each other. We don't see any reason to treat each other with any sort of decency and humanity except as a profit motive.

The Canadians seem to understand that in a large country with a population that has more differences than similarities a disparate society can agree to work together for the common good without diminishing the importance of the individual. Americans see the individual as the Romans did, supreme and beholden to no one.

The arrogance of success cost Rome deeply. I hope we don't make the same mistake.

Here's a great example of an idiotic statement:

"We don't see any reason to treat each other with any sort of decency and humanity except as a profit motive."

Ah yes, that's why the American public donated more than a BILLION dollars after 9/11. That's why we give more money to charities then any other country. Oh right, it's all about the tax write off. Except that doesn't appear to be true:

Some 150 years ago Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at Americans' propensity for charity. Last year Americans gave more than $100 billion to charities and other humanitarian causes. However, a new report by the Council on Foundations (CoF) and Independent Sector (IS) says that Americans give not out of empathy, but for tax write-offs. The report concludes that under a flat tax or a national
sales tax where charitable write-offs are eliminated donations would drop by nearly a third or more.

Yet, according to an analysis by economist Alan Reynolds in Philanthropy magazine, the IS has been wrong before:

The IS predicted the 1986 Tax Reform Act would cause charitable contributions to decline by $8 billion in 1987.

Instead, giving rose in 1987 by $6.4 billion or 7.6 percent -- in spite of the top tax rate falling from 50 percent to 28 percent.

From 1987-94, the IS underestimated charitable giving by $40 billion.

This year's CoF/IS study assumes lowering tax rates reduces charitable giving. It says that improvement in the economy would only
recapture 10 percent of the loss in total charitable giving.

Policy analysts note both of these assumptions are misguided:

If the level of charitable giving is inversely proportional to tax rates, maximum giving would occur at a 99 percent tax rate -- which is unlikely.

Moreover, according to historical data over the last 40 years, levels of charitable giving track almost exactly levels of personal income growth.

The assumption that improvements in the economy would recapture only 10 percent of lost charitable revenues does not match the historical trend of giving in America.

Source: Stephen Moore (Cato Institute), "Less Than Charitable Tax Report," Washington Times, June 18, 1997.

How much did we give just 2 years ago? Let's take a look, shall we:

The American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC) Trust for Philanthropy, publishers of "Giving USA," have just released their estimations of total charitable contributions in the U.S. for the year 2000. Total giving is estimated at $203.45 billion for the year 2000, an increase of
6.6 percent over 1999 figures. The Trust has estimated that 12% of this figure, or $24.5 billion,
was given by foundations. This is well below the largest contributors to charity (individuals),
who gave an estimated 75%, or $152.07 billion."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Marty Givens:
<strong>Here's a great example of an idiotic statement:

"We don't see any reason to treat each other with any sort of decency and humanity except as a profit motive."

Ah yes, that's why the American public donated more than a BILLION dollars after 9/11. That's why we give more money to charities then any other country. Oh right, it's all about the tax write off. Except that doesn't appear to be true:

Some 150 years ago Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at Americans' propensity for charity. Last year Americans gave more than $100 billion to charities and other humanitarian causes. However, a new report by the Council on Foundations (CoF) and Independent Sector (IS) says that Americans give not out of empathy, but for tax write-offs. The report concludes that under a flat tax or a national
sales tax where charitable write-offs are eliminated donations would drop by nearly a third or more.

Yet, according to an analysis by economist Alan Reynolds in Philanthropy magazine, the IS has been wrong before:

The IS predicted the 1986 Tax Reform Act would cause charitable contributions to decline by $8 billion in 1987.

Instead, giving rose in 1987 by $6.4 billion or 7.6 percent -- in spite of the top tax rate falling from 50 percent to 28 percent.

From 1987-94, the IS underestimated charitable giving by $40 billion.

This year's CoF/IS study assumes lowering tax rates reduces charitable giving. It says that improvement in the economy would only
recapture 10 percent of the loss in total charitable giving.

Policy analysts note both of these assumptions are misguided:

If the level of charitable giving is inversely proportional to tax rates, maximum giving would occur at a 99 percent tax rate -- which is unlikely.

Moreover, according to historical data over the last 40 years, levels of charitable giving track almost exactly levels of personal income growth.

The assumption that improvements in the economy would recapture only 10 percent of lost charitable revenues does not match the historical trend of giving in America.

Source: Stephen Moore (Cato Institute), "Less Than Charitable Tax Report," Washington Times, June 18, 1997.

How much did we give just 2 years ago? Let's take a look, shall we:

The American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC) Trust for Philanthropy, publishers of "Giving USA," have just released their estimations of total charitable contributions in the U.S. for the year 2000. Total giving is estimated at $203.45 billion for the year 2000, an increase of
6.6 percent over 1999 figures. The Trust has estimated that 12% of this figure, or $24.5 billion,
was given by foundations. This is well below the largest contributors to charity (individuals),
who gave an estimated 75%, or $152.07 billion."</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Marty,

You make my point pretty well, I think. First, you unnecessarily and without provocation resort to an insult and then you equate money with humanity.

Flame - You missed my point yet again. I am in no way saying dogs are equal or as important as humans. It actually makes me laugh that you would even assume I meant such a thing. I said that humorously in that they deserve care as well. OF COURSE ITS THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Now for the point: We are all people. Imagine we have to live in a world where a child just has to sit and die because there is no money to pay for a major surgery (reminds me of a movie that just came out). Imagine a homeless or a poor person just dying on the street or having to get his leg amputated because they couldn't catch his diabetes quick enough. Todd said it best. Are we all that selfish that we can't bond together as Canadians do to help remedy these problems? Even after Sept. 11th? Even today we haven't changed much as a people. Its like we want to band together but without the effort of actually doing so. How can we stop terror...Go shopping, hang a flag on your car or front porch. But when it comes to doing real things that matter, everyone stays away. Can't we at least work together and show we're united by providing the basic level of care to our people, our children? Sure its going to cost, but aren't we worth it? How about sacrificing that SUV and looking for alternative fuel sources? You know, lets do things that matter! Hanging a flag doesn't do anything to fix problems, it only creates an illusion of being united.

Marty - We donated money, yes. But you fail to understand that the amount we actually donate is pennies compared to what we have. If I donated a buck, would I be generous? But Bill Gates donates a few million, somehow you thing otherwise?

You think this country is generous? We give the smallest percentage of our overall wealth than any other large nation on earth. That's right, based on what we make, we give less than a % n foreign aid. But of course, this country is so rich that less than a % is added to the billions. However, when we look at the larger picture, billions is more like pennies. But why do you have trouble seeing that???

Info,

I didn't miss the point, I don't agree with it! No animal deserves care, they are given it because we can afford that luxury in our country. I have been to countries where dog was a meal on the menu. Other countries won't eat cow or pork but we don't even flinch about eating it here. You talk about global issues but you appear to have no idea of the differences.

Now to your point. You want to treat the symptoms not the problem. This solves nothing but facillitating the problem which will continue to grow. Instead of trying to treat the symptom, in this case people that do not get healthcare, people would be better served if you look for the root cause? An example, I had sharp pain in my forearm. The docs treated me with pain killers to minimize the symptoms of pain but this did not solve the problem. They continued to look for the cause and found I had a bulging disk in my neck, rubbing the nerves so the brain thought my arm was in pain. Once the root cause was treated then the symptom, arm pain, stopped.

Every country that has used socialized medicine has financing and staffing problems. They are treating the symptom not the problem. This leads to a viscious cycle that creates an excess burden on the taxpayers. The root cause is a lack of personal responsibility.

If we provide basic service to those who are unable to provide for themselves then I could agree but when able bodied people use the system then I cannot agree. You have to set limits and specific requirements for this care but unfortunately there are too many people that want to include all medical procedures. Abortions should not be provided because the pregnancy was caused by a lack of personal responsibility. Cosmetic surgery should not be provided because it is not needed for good health. I could go on and on with items that are not needed for good, basic healthcare.

Now, if you have a reasonable solution to the lack of responsibility in our countries social programs then I would love to hear them. We heard how the time limit on welfare would be a disaster yet we see more people coming off the welfare roles because now they have no choice. Do this to all our programs then you would have no problem funding them because the controls are in place for deadbeats.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Flame:
<strong>
Every country that has used socialized medicine has financing and staffing problems. They are treating the symptom not the problem. This leads to a viscious cycle that creates an excess burden on the taxpayers. The root cause is a lack of personal responsibility.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you really believe people in Canada, Scandanavia, France, Germany... would agree that personal responsibility is the cause of financial and staffing problems in health care or any social program, for that matter?

Flame, your talking about guidelines to care. Of course it will be limted. I'm not in any way expecting the government to pay for my cosmedic surgery! I don't expect them to pay for my braces just so I can have a pretty smile. So by assuming that, you're looking for reasons to discredit it with obvious wrongs that we both agree on.

But I don't quite understand your concern with staffing problems. If you use medicare as one big HMO for the workers in this country who don't have medical care, how will that affect the medical workforce? How will lazy people benefit from that system since employment is a rerequisite?

We give young people financial aid for college based on need. I don't see school employees suffering because of that. So why would nurses, doctors, and medical workers suffer?

Again, what's wrong with extending medicare to every honest hard worker in this country who has no benefits and meets a low salary requirement? Medicare that is limited to emergency or necessary medical services, necessary daily medications, and routine yearly examinations.

ctclaus,

You can't be serious. Having lived and/or worked in all the countries you mentioned, the answer to your question is Yes. Asking any of those country's citizens about lack of personal responsibility (i.e. deadbeats on the "dole" or receiving "free" healthcare) creating financial, staffing problems, abuse, etc. in their healthcare and other socialized systems will receive an affirmative answer.

You're not saying that everyone who lives and works in a socialist country is without personal responsibility? Good, cause it sounded like you think the only people with any sense of personal responsibility are Americans.

Info,

I was more specific and described a system that would not be considered "socialized" healthcare while you were pushing the concept of socialism using the healthcare system as an example.

You ask about staffing concerns. Why do you think the military has problems with recruiting staff? All socialized healthcare systems place restrictions on it's providers. An example is Canada, the doctors can only bill the government for so many "Medicare type" visits per year yet those same doctors can not refuse to provide service to anyone. The doctors in Canada returned several million dollars in legitimate fees to the government because they went over there allocation of billable visits. Seems to me that the people received free treatment at the doctor's expense. Is there any wonder why they have a shortage of doctors in Canada? Yes, yes, I know ctclaus showed that one area had gains but they still have outrageous waiting times for treatment because they are short handed in that same area.

ctclaus wrote: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> You're not saying that everyone who lives and works in a socialist country is without personal responsibility? Good, cause it sounded like you think the only people with any sense of personal responsibility are Americans. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am happy to see that you can read and comprehend English. Amazing that you would take my writing to be arrogant and then make an arrogant statement. I am not that complicated, I write in common English (with mixed American/British terms) and do not hide any agenda.

Please debate the issue not the perceived attitude or lack thereof!

2 points:
1- The military is a bad example considering that their salary's are controlled by DOD. In the private sectore, there's no reason it can't work exactly the same way it is now with the exception of the patient possesses a card that says the government will flip the bill.
2- The military system has worked so far correct? Or would you rather is be done away with and you pay your own bill?

There is one broad note I want to make:

Whether or not socialist ideals are best or not, there is one thing that I can clearly see that will make me always appreciate the left over the right. And that is, at least their heart is in the right place. I can't say the same for the right. Their views are dependent on the idea that the human animal is greedy and self interested and knows no better. The left feels that we as humans can and should move on to beat nature in attempts to reach a common good for all.

Its funny how the right wing uses has christianity as their motivation. As our ideals lean today, ever wonder if Jesus would have been on the left or right? I'm willing to bet left.

It's fine to say Jesus would be on the left with his ideals. Sure, I think that we all would like to see everyone healthy, educated, and happy. I don't know anyone who feels that it is right and just to see another person not be able to read. The difference is the way that we get to that point where everyone is healthy, educated and happy. The way is not through governments making laws and paying for everything. The way to do it is through individual motivation, opportunity-taking, and caring for your fellow man. Sure, I won't give money to some bum who will use it for booze, but I will help out my family or friends any time. If everyone just took care of themselves to the best of their ability (no slacking or whining about "lack of opportunity") then we'd be much better off. It's fine to have ideals and a vision of a utopian society, but what really matters is realizing that Utopia doesn't exist, and that we are somewhere in the middle. How do we get to a perfect society? That's the real question. And government is not the answer... Individual accountability is the key.

InfoSeeker -

I've been following this thread for a while, only chimed in once so far, and that was in a completely objective matter. But after your last post...

I've read everything on this thread, and you've said some pretty ignorant things, but this last post has to be, BY FAR, the most ignorant one yet.

Have you ever actually talked to a Republican or have you received all your information and views from professors, etc.? Cause I've got a surprise for you, MOST COLLEGE PROFESSORS ARE LEFT WING. Almost everything you've said leads me to believe that academia has been your sole source of information. The only thing you know about the right wing, Conservatives, and Republicans (yes, Republicans and Conservatives are not necessarily one in the same, its just that most Republicans are Conservative) is what the left wing academia has told you.

And until you prove otherwise, I hold what you say in very little regard. Why? Because NO ONE is able to make a valid base for any arguments in this case without having experienced both sides of the coin.

Matt

Last post, I swear.

NN -
Very good, couldn't agree more. Typically, people on the left tend to visualize in fantasy and purely optimistic views that can only take place in a fictional world. Again, typically, people on the right tend to view things in a more realistic sense, accepting the kind of world we live in and trying to make the best of it in a REASONABLE manner.

That is the difference between left and right (overly simplified, maybe), one is based in reality and one is based in fantasy.

Matt

One more, then I'm done.

We live in a democracy. Now I don't know how many of you have been through a political science course, but this addressed in any basic or intro course. A democracy is a government for the MAJORITY of the people, not EVERY person. It is a system of majority rule, a representative system in our case. As such, the minority will not always get their way, but there's a reason for that, the majority either doesn't it want it that way or it would be a detriment to the majority. The people on the left in this discussion (as they have stated themselves to be) are focusing soley on the minority. I'm sorry, but no where does it say that the government should focus on appeasing EVERYONE in this country, only the majority (and yes, there are certain exceptions and that's where teh Judicial System comes into play).

Matt

i think socialist health care sucks. you may pay 10% of your salary for national health care, but if you buy private insurance, it's probably 1%. also if every patient pays the same, he's not as anxious about working to earn his paycheck. and same with doctors. That's why communist russia produced bad cars, workers got paid the same for their work, no motivation.
there is a reason that u.s.a has more med schools than any country in EU and yet it's harder to get accepted in any u.s. med school.

also, most people would be happier to pay taxes to their local county (SS, medicare, education...) than federal taxes so they could go for some useless programs in commiefornia. And usa is most charitable judging by the number of immigrants that get their medicaid and welfare!

if a socialist country like sweden is so good, how come it has 1.18 kids born to a woman? it's 2.05 in usa. and as someone posted earlier, rich foreigners would choose to go to a usa hospital for a cancer treatment or a heart transplant. I mean there are lots of talented doctors in EU, cuba, russia. But the only thing that keeps them there is to serve their population. But when a dr finishes his medical training at 30-35 and has to support his family, yet makes less than a hooker, he wishes he were in usa. As someone said above, left wing just isn't practical. Communism didn't fail because it oppressed anyone, but because of things such as socialized medicare and lots of other economic things.
btw, Rome is not a good example of something that failed, as it ruled the world for centuries.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Todd:
<strong>It's true, the Canadian health care system needs a lot work.

The doctor's are pissed off, the nurses are threatening to quit, Alberta is demanding more and more privatization in order to appease the Americans who own 60% of the companies in the province...

The rub here though, is that Canadian's are willing to fight to keep health care available to every one their citizens. Americans on the other hand, view health care much like we see tickets to Disney World, it's a great place to go if you can afford it, but not as something that makes a nation stronger and more unified. We'd rather rally round a tragedy than each other. We don't see any reason to treat each other with any sort of decency and humanity except as a profit motive.

The Canadians seem to understand that in a large country with a population that has more differences than similarities a disparate society can agree to work together for the common good without diminishing the importance of the individual. Americans see the individual as the Romans did, supreme and beholden to no one.

The arrogance of success cost Rome deeply. I hope we don't make the same mistake.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

ebbert, problem is those people on the left are the majority in this country... Perhaps in 8 years people like Gore will win. That's why, i'd argue that authoritarian rule is best <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> by that i mean monarchy.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Flame:
I am happy to see that you can read and comprehend English. Amazing that you would take my writing to be arrogant and then make an arrogant statement. I am not that complicated, I write in common English (with mixed American/British terms) and do not hide any agenda.

Please debate the issue not the perceived attitude or lack thereof![/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jym,

Be civil. I didn't say you were arrogant. You tend to see things in black and white and I needed to make sure what you meant. No offense was intended on my part.

Boris,

If you want to be taken seriously act accordingly.

ebbertt, you assume a lot about me, lol.

Lets not forget, professors aren't the only liberal group. Lets add actors, Hollywood in general, artist/photographers, most writers, singers, lawyers, the media, teachers, and the really big one...philosophers! You know why these groups are predominantly liberal? Because their careers make them thinkers and innovators <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Liberals make up the largest chunk in this country. Remember our last presidential election? You know what I found interesting? Al Gore won all the major populated (big city) and coastal states while George Bush got the central US votes (rural). It brings me to my point that people who experience all types become liberal. Hence why NYC (my home) and all large diverse city's are liberal. And people from remote areas of central US are conservative. You know, the types that live in a really small populace and have one race, one set of customs, one religion, etc. Does that make you think about who's the ignorant one ebbertt? Maybe the liberal mindset is the one of exploration while the conservative mindset (to conserve history) is off the mark. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> Sound possible to you? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

Lastly, politics is also a liberal career by nature. But you know why it has many conservatives in its ranks? Because big business has much more money to lobby these people into office to fix things to work for their own personal benefit. No wonder they fight campaign finance reform so strongly. I don't see liberals opposed to it. Why not try to put two and two together sometime?

Info, you just proved my point. Liberals are typically those that have nothing to do but think, and hence think of the things that would make the world "perfect". Conservatives, on the other hand, are typically those that DO things, and hence have EXPERIENCES to back up their views and actions. If they don't know something, they either seek out information on the subject or seek the counsel of those that do have those experiences.

Again, the MAJORITY of those groups are that way. Not EVERYONE, there are ALWAYS exceptions to EVERYTHING.

Matt