Pages: 1 2

 

2007-12-18 18:41:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

I was thinking about the implications of a welfare state tonight. Would it truly be better for the government to provide everything for all citizens? At first, it seemed like a pretty good idea...but then I dug a bit deeper.

A welfare state's goal is to make the people dependent upon the government. When people become dependent upon something, they are no longer truly free. They aren't free to make their own decisions, as their options are limited to what is provided. It seems remarkably like addiction...addicts aren't free to just stop. The drug they are dependent upon controls their thoughts, their actions, their priorities.

I'm all for ensuring opportunity for all and providing for those who simply cannot provide for themselves (physically/mentally handicapped, solitary elderly, etc). But simply providing handouts to everyone stymies personal ambition and--in the long run--forces the people to become dependent on the government...the very antithesis of freedom.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2007-12-18 18:43:56
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6912|Foothills of S. Carolina

I agree, and therefore fail to see the debate, sorry.
2007-12-18 18:53:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7037|132 and Bush

There is nothing wrong with a government helping it's citizens. In fact there are plenty of success stories. The problem is when you try this with a country as large as the United States you only set yourself up for disaster. The corrupt and greedy rarely spend other peoples money as wise as they spend their own. This is something that most of the Socialist fail to grasp in this forum. I have no problem having my state taxes raised to help out those who need it. With smaller government there is more control. But to hand over something like HealthCare to the sleezeballs in Washington would be tragic IMO. That would be like having the EU handling healthcare for ALL of Europe. The further you distance yourself from your money the less likely you are to ever see it again. All of the Ron Paul fans should know this as well .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-12-18 19:28:22
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6842|North Carolina
In socialist countries, people become dependent on the government.

In capitalist countries, people become dependent on corporations.

Either way, a lot of people get fucked by the powers that be.  I just figure a mix of the two works best.  Minimize federal government, but allow state and local governments to create most of the social safety nets that are needed in this country.
2007-12-18 19:54:50
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6987|CH/BR - in UK

The problem with this, like with every government program is control. The greedy and selfish will always exploit government programs, and there's no way of stopping that except by manually controlling whom the money goes to.
Welfare programs only work if the money goes to those who need it - so in theory, it works fine. In practice... well, we've all seen it.

-konfusion
2007-12-18 20:05:29
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7037|132 and Bush

What if the counties administered these programs? Would you think the citizens would have more control and pay better attention? I think the vote would have a direct impact on the corrupt.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-12-18 20:08:25
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6987|CH/BR - in UK

Kmarion wrote:

What if the counties administered these programs? Would you think the citizens would have more control and pay better attention? I think the vote would have a direct impact on the corrupt.
That would be an interesting step into furthering democracy as well...

-konfusion
2007-12-18 20:12:52
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7037|132 and Bush

konfusion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

What if the counties administered these programs? Would you think the citizens would have more control and pay better attention? I think the vote would have a direct impact on the corrupt.
That would be an interesting step into furthering democracy as well...

-konfusion
Despite popular opinion Conservatives care about their fellow man. We just like smaller government and tighter control.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-12-18 20:15:33
T.Pike
99 Problems . . .
+187|6719|Pennsyltucky

Canin wrote:

I agree, and therefore fail to see the debate, sorry.
QFT.

When people don't earn something they have no respect for what they are given.

Look at "Public Housing", the majority of the properties I'm familiar with i wouldn't want to live near let alone in.
2007-12-19 00:33:45
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

FEOS wrote:

I was thinking about the implications of a welfare state tonight. Would it truly be better for the government to provide everything for all citizens? At first, it seemed like a pretty good idea...but then I dug a bit deeper.

A welfare state's goal is to make the people dependent upon the government. When people become dependent upon something, they are no longer truly free. They aren't free to make their own decisions, as their options are limited to what is provided. It seems remarkably like addiction...addicts aren't free to just stop. The drug they are dependent upon controls their thoughts, their actions, their priorities.

I'm all for ensuring opportunity for all and providing for those who simply cannot provide for themselves (physically/mentally handicapped, solitary elderly, etc). But simply providing handouts to everyone stymies personal ambition and--in the long run--forces the people to become dependent on the government...the very antithesis of freedom.
What you're talking about is communism. Socialist states like those in Europe strive to strike the right balance, not promote dependency.
2007-12-19 01:27:03
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

Canin wrote:

I agree, and therefore fail to see the debate, sorry.
Just looking for the viewpoints that are out there. If everyone is in agreement with me, then I win.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2007-12-19 01:29:34
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

FEOS wrote:

Canin wrote:

I agree, and therefore fail to see the debate, sorry.
Just looking for the viewpoints that are out there. If everyone is in agreement with me, then I win.
I just don't think we get exactly what it is you're criticising.
2007-12-19 01:47:51
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

Could be the many people on this forum who feel that a welfare state is the epitome of good governance.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2007-12-19 01:49:46
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

FEOS wrote:

Could be the many people on this forum who feel that a welfare state is the epitome of good governance.
Name one?
2007-12-19 01:59:36
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

You. How many times have you said that the welfare states of Europe are the best form of government out there?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2007-12-19 02:07:37
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

FEOS wrote:

You. How many times have you said that the welfare states of Europe are the best form of government out there?
Your definition of what exactly a welfare state is way off the mark. You make it sound like we assemble at soup kitchens at 5pm on the dot. We have a healthy balance in Europe. You are getting into a pointless argument over your interpretation of what a 'welfare state' constitutes.

And as for our governments - yes I do believe we have the best governments out there although some - France for instance - are a bit of a disgrace.

Look up the stats on Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Ireland.

FTR

Ireland:

Tax-funded healthcare for all
Tax-funded first, second and third level education for all
Very basic level of financial support provided to those who cannot find work (dependent on proof of attempts at finding work)

And the Irish aren't the least bit 'dependent' on the government, somewhat scotching your argument (although I think that's mainly because you have an incorrect definition of what I might regard as a 'welfare state').

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-19 02:14:27)

2007-12-19 02:12:12
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6659|Brisneyland
Looking from an Australian perspective. We have "Safety Nets" rather than a Welfare state. Example- our Medicare system allows everyone subsidised or free visits to a General Practitioner. Anyone that goes to a public hospital for an emergency will be treated free of charge. Elective surgery at Public hospitals is free as well however there is usually a monster waiting list ( hey the system aint perfect). There are unemployment benefits ( arent much but maybe buy food), rent assistance if you are in trouble , subsidised prescription drugs etc and the list goes on.

My point is that we have the choice of going with a decent public health system if we cant afford private. Private health insurance is still used by a good size of the population ( numbers not at hand) because the service is better, and you get treatement whenever you want. Australia definitely couldnt be called a welfare state. If you needed rent assistance and had to get unemployment benefits you wouldnt be living to a high standard but you should have enough for food etc. I think it is important for the government to do these things because that what we pay taxes for. They waste our tax money on heaps of irrelevant stuff, so they have to do something positive with our money. If we were in a welfare state we would be have heaps of people on voluntary unemployment, however that doesnt seem to happen ( employment at roughly 5%).

So in a sense I agree with you, a welfare state, by your definition is not great, but safety nets provided by the government are a necessary thing.
PS just looking back at my post , god I ramble on , apologies, if this is too long read the last paragraph and go to bed early.
2007-12-19 02:20:06
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You. How many times have you said that the welfare states of Europe are the best form of government out there?
Your definition of what exactly a welfare state is way off the mark. You make it sound like we assemble at soup kitchens at 5pm on the dot. We have a healthy balance in Europe. You are getting into a pointless argument over your interpretation of what a 'welfare state' constitutes.

And as for our governments - yes I do believe we have the best governments out there although some - France for instance - are a bit of a disgrace.

Look up the stats on Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Ireland.

FTR

Ireland:

Tax-funded healthcare for all
Tax-funded first, second and third level education for all
Very basic level of financial support provided to those who cannot find work (dependent on proof of attempts at finding work)

And the Irish aren't the least bit 'dependent' on the government, somewhat scotching your argument (although I think that's mainly because you have an incorrect definition of what I might regard as a 'welfare state').
My OP was looking more at the extreme of where a welfare state will go without balance. Is it possible in Ireland to pay for your own healthcare? Or choose your own doctor/hospital? Will it pay for any procedure, or must you choose from a list? How long is the wait time for both elective and non-elective procedures?

What about education? If you accept government funding, does it pay for education at any institution?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2007-12-19 02:21:14
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7278|Cologne, Germany

As cam has said, there is a difference between what you call "Welfare States" and EU countries, FEOS.

I am free to make my own decisions, and my opportunities are only limited by my own creativity. I do not depend on the government, but it comforts me that I can depend on it if necessary.

I agree that a lot of people abuse the social welfare systems that some european nations have created, and we struggle to make those more effective, but the alternative would be to completely abandon those who are unemployed, underprivileged, or somehow challenged ( mentally, physically, etc. ).

A mix of self responsibility and social systems is what most european nations aim for, and I think it is well better than the social darwinism that is sometimes attributed to the US.

People are people, regardless of the country they live in. There will be abuse in any social system. The idea is, to minimize abuse as much as possible, so that the good people can profit from the services their government offers in exchange for the taxes they pay.

and btw, you already depend on the government in a lot of ways, FEOS. welfare is only part of a large set of services that governments provide their citizens with. I don't think that's any different in the US.
2007-12-19 02:27:37
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

B.Schuss wrote:

and btw, you already depend on the government in a lot of ways, FEOS. welfare is only part of a large set of services that government provide their citizens with. I don't think that's any different in the US.
That's just my point. I'm concerned that if (when?) a liberal administration gets in office, with a liberal-dominated legislative branch, that they will work to ensure even more dependence on the government, further cementing their power base.

I'm not saying that it's that way now here or anywhere else. Merely examining the potential danger of far-reaching government welfare programs on the self-sufficiency of a people.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2007-12-19 02:32:58
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

FEOS wrote:

My OP was looking more at the extreme of where a welfare state will go without balance. Is it possible in Ireland to pay for your own healthcare? Or choose your own doctor/hospital? Will it pay for any procedure, or must you choose from a list? How long is the wait time for both elective and non-elective procedures?

What about education? If you accept government funding, does it pay for education at any institution?
I have medical insurance that will mean that I can walk into a private hospital and get treated on the spot. There are several private insurers to choose from: Vivas, VHI, Quinn Healthcare.

Waiting lists on the national system are prioritised: if you have cancer you'll be seen almost immediately, if you have a sore toe then you're gonna have to sit tight for a few months.

You cannot get breast enlargements on the national scheme.

The government pays for the fees at any college and university in the country. So provided you are intelligent enough you will not have to spend your life doing menial labour just because your parents can't afford the fees. They also give grants to help those in third level education whose parents earn below a certain level - so that a bright mind will make it through when financial problems might otherwise waste that potential. Our highly educated workforce is part of our economic success.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-19 02:39:50)

2007-12-19 03:01:31
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

I was thinking about the implications of a welfare state tonight. Would it truly be better for the government to provide everything for all citizens? At first, it seemed like a pretty good idea...but then I dug a bit deeper.

A welfare state's goal is to make the people dependent upon the government. When people become dependent upon something, they are no longer truly free. They aren't free to make their own decisions, as their options are limited to what is provided. It seems remarkably like addiction...addicts aren't free to just stop. The drug they are dependent upon controls their thoughts, their actions, their priorities.

I'm all for ensuring opportunity for all and providing for those who simply cannot provide for themselves (physically/mentally handicapped, solitary elderly, etc). But simply providing handouts to everyone stymies personal ambition and--in the long run--forces the people to become dependent on the government...the very antithesis of freedom.
I think you confuse welfare with Communism.  What you are talking about is Communism.  In many countries they have Universal Health Care and they provide it to everyone, f.i. France.  I don't think France is Communist.  That doesn't mean you are dependant on the government.  You work, you pay your taxes and that money pays your Health Care.  In France there aren't homeless people anymore.  A serious country like France provides the basic needs to all its citizens, and it's not Communist.
2007-12-19 03:17:32
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

I think you confuse welfare with Communism.  What you are talking about is Communism.  In many countries they have Universal Health Care and they provide it to everyone, f.i. France.  I don't think France is Communist.  That doesn't mean you are dependant on the government.  You work, you pay your taxes and that money pays your Health Care.  In France there aren't homeless people anymore.  A serious country like France provides the basic needs to all its citizens, and it's not Communist.

FEOS wrote:

I'm not saying that it's that way now here or anywhere else. Merely examining the potential danger of far-reaching government welfare programs on the self-sufficiency of a people.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2007-12-19 03:31:52
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I think you confuse welfare with Communism.  What you are talking about is Communism.  In many countries they have Universal Health Care and they provide it to everyone, f.i. France.  I don't think France is Communist.  That doesn't mean you are dependant on the government.  You work, you pay your taxes and that money pays your Health Care.  In France there aren't homeless people anymore.  A serious country like France provides the basic needs to all its citizens, and it's not Communist.

FEOS wrote:

I'm not saying that it's that way now here or anywhere else. Merely examining the potential danger of far-reaching government welfare programs on the self-sufficiency of a people.
Granted.  But you shouldn't be afraid of the government taking care of certain needs.
2007-12-19 04:37:56
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7278|Cologne, Germany

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

and btw, you already depend on the government in a lot of ways, FEOS. welfare is only part of a large set of services that government provide their citizens with. I don't think that's any different in the US.
That's just my point. I'm concerned that if (when?) a liberal administration gets in office, with a liberal-dominated legislative branch, that they will work to ensure even more dependence on the government, further cementing their power base.

I'm not saying that it's that way now here or anywhere else. Merely examining the potential danger of far-reaching government welfare programs on the self-sufficiency of a people.
well, what would you prefer ? People depending on the government, or on private corporations ?

Health care is an area where you have to rely on other people. It's complicated and expensive.

It depends what the government wants for its citizens. In any society, there will be those who cannot afford to get private health insurance. And yes, it can happen to anyone. Now the government has a choice. Either to abandon them completely, or to provide some form of basic insurance, that allows them to keep themselves up until they have gotten back up on their own feet again.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard