too bad since he wasn't armed and didn't at least fake that he was going to hurt somebody the DA is gonna drop teh charges or give him community service as a maximal penalty to keep from having to give him medical care and housing/food in jail.
Man robs bank for $1 to get health care in prison
Started by
Joker
, Jun 21 2011 01:54 PM
71 replies to this topic
#53
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 6,541 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 21 June 2011 - 04:38 PM
Ending 3 open wars and 2 secret ones could provide all the money needed to make sure all Mericans can receive healthcare for free. Without raising taxes even. We build bombs to blowed shit up instead of facilities to help people live healthy lives.
I think that says it all about our society as a whole.
this'd
#59
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,745 posts
Posted 21 June 2011 - 05:53 PM
I'm all for that , but...Ending 3 open wars and 2 secret ones could provide all the money needed to make sure all Mericans can receive healthcare for free. Without raising taxes even. We build bombs to blowed shit up instead of facilities to help people live healthy lives.
I think that says it all about our society as a whole.
Actually it does not.
It would take care of the deficit, not the debt.
#61
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,785 posts
Posted 21 June 2011 - 06:06 PM
I'm all for that , but...
Actually it does not.
It would take care of the deficit, not the debt.
It greatly reduces the deficit and frees up a lot of wasted capital to put forth back into the hands of the people that are currently being robbed of said funds. I think the action of cutting out the unecessary wars, along with 85% of "defence" spending altogether, will make an impact far greater on our society than any compromised health care plan ever will.
#62
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,745 posts
Posted 21 June 2011 - 06:09 PM
It may be all that (some of what you say is your opinion)It greatly reduces the deficit and frees up a lot of wasted capital to put forth back into the hands of the people that are currently being robbed of said funds. I think the action of cutting out the unecessary wars, along with 85% of "defence" spending altogether, will make an impact far greater on our society than any compromised health care plan ever will.
but it does not " provide all the money needed to make sure all Mericans can receive healthcare for free"
People need to pay in who can, and it's pretty freaking simple to do with single payer. We need to remove the 30-50% of health insurance that goes to the health insurance companies
#63
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,785 posts
Posted 21 June 2011 - 06:15 PM
That comes back to how the money is re-appropriated after it is taken away from imperial wars and wasteful pentagon/defense spending.
The point is, we push pennies around the table while an enormous junk of money is wasted on empirical pursuits that only help the elite and large corp's.
More jobs could be created (infrastructure), better and more schools, health care facilities, etc...growth can then help pay down the debt once the deficit is shifted to that end goal.
The point is, we push pennies around the table while an enormous junk of money is wasted on empirical pursuits that only help the elite and large corp's.
More jobs could be created (infrastructure), better and more schools, health care facilities, etc...growth can then help pay down the debt once the deficit is shifted to that end goal.
#65
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,582 posts
Posted 21 June 2011 - 06:17 PM
Yes, but universal health care is BAD, m'kay?
can be
if we had the same Universal Health Care in the States as they have in Great Britain, my 67 year old uncle would be dead right now. He'll be on chemo for the rest of his life. He's still working full time, productive member of society, but if he were in Great Britain, he wouldn't be allowed to stay on chemo.
A good friend of my mom in Great Britain was recently diagnosed with colon cancer. If the one round of chemo he takes doesn't eliminate the disease, he won't be allowed to take a second round and will die. Doctor's have basically told him, plan on the latter.
#66
-
- VibeTribe
- 13,536 posts
Posted 21 June 2011 - 06:17 PM
That comes back to how the money is re-appropriated after it is taken away from imperial wars and wasteful pentagon/defense spending.
The point is, we push pennies around the table while an enormous junk of money is wasted on empirical pursuits that only help the elite and large corp's.
More jobs could be created (infrastructure), better and more schools, health care facilities, etc...growth can then help pay down the debt once the deficit is shifted to that end goal.
Does anyone else get a stirring in their loins when TASB talks like that?
#67
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,913 posts
Posted 21 June 2011 - 06:19 PM
9 Countries That Do It Better: Why Does Europe Take Better Care of Its People Than America?
The world's wealthy democracies have somewhat different priorities, leading to some very different outcomes for their citizens.
June 15, 2011 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.
TAKE ACTIONChange.org|Get Widget|Start an Online Petition � An abiding belief in American exceptionalism is more or less ubiquitous across the political spectrum. But in many ways, what makes America different from other advanced democracies are relatively modest differences in priorities. While all wealthy democracies share the same basic model --they derive the bulk of their economic activity from the private sector while offering some form of social safety net for those who fall through the cracks -- even slight differences in priorities can have a huge impact on the lives of their people.
Here are 9 countries that do a better job providing for their citizens than we do.
Taking Care of the Ill: France
If you have access to the best health care in the United States, then you have some of the best care in the world. But that comes with an extremely steep price, and not everyone has that kind of access.
In 2008, the U.S. spent 16 percent of its economic output on health-care and covered 85 percent of its citizens. It was the only OECD country other than Mexico and Turkey to cover less than 90 percent of its people. We have the 37th longest average life expectancy, and a recent study found that American “life expectancy has been stagnant for much of the country and is actually decreasing over much of the Southern portion of the United States.”
France, which has a health-care system ranked number one in the world by the WHO, spent 11.2 percent of its economy to cover everyone.
There are a number of drivers of health-care costs, but one statistic stands out: in the European (and European-style) economies, upwards of 70 percent of the total health-care bill is picked up by the government, meaning that people are insured in large pools with lots of bargaining clout to hold down providers' costs. In the U.S., less than half of our health care is in the public sector, resulting in a patchwork system of private insurers with much higher administrative costs. When you plug what France pays per person for health care into our own government's fiscal projections, you get balanced budgets by around 2014, which then turn into surpluses after 2040.
Collective Bargaining: France
At around 12 percent (in 2008), the United States doesn't have the lowest unionization rate among the wealthy countries. That distinction goes to France, where under 8 percent of the workforce belongs to a union.
But union membership isn't important, collective bargaining is; and around 90 percent of non-managerial French workers – union members or not -- are covered under collective bargaining agreements.
Honorable mention goes to the Scandinavian countries – with 53 percent of its workforce in a union, Norway comes in dead last among them; 68 percent of Swedes belong to a union, topping the list.
Inequality: Denmark
A large body of research shows that higher union density correlates with less inequality. The U.S. is the most unequal society among the wealthy countries – in the OECD, only three middle-income countries (Turkey, Mexico and Chile) have a more lopsided distribution of wealth.
Denmark leads the way, with the flattest distribution among the high-income countries in the OECD.
Poverty: Denmark
Inequality is a measure of how much income those at the top of the pile take in compared to what those at the bottom grab. So, in countries with equal wealth, more inequality means more poverty – the piece of the economic pie shared by those at the bottom end of the scale will be smaller by definition.
Not surprisingly, Denmark, at 5.4 percent, has the lowest poverty rate among the European-style countries.
The OECD uses a different standard of poverty than does the U.S. government. It counts anyone making less than half of the median income as living in poverty. By that standard, we are plagued with a poverty rate of over 17 percent, higher than all the OECD countries other than Mexico, Israel and Chile. (The average among OECD countries in general is 11.1 percent.)
more here:
http://www.alternet....america/?page=1
The world's wealthy democracies have somewhat different priorities, leading to some very different outcomes for their citizens.
June 15, 2011 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.
TAKE ACTIONChange.org|Get Widget|Start an Online Petition � An abiding belief in American exceptionalism is more or less ubiquitous across the political spectrum. But in many ways, what makes America different from other advanced democracies are relatively modest differences in priorities. While all wealthy democracies share the same basic model --they derive the bulk of their economic activity from the private sector while offering some form of social safety net for those who fall through the cracks -- even slight differences in priorities can have a huge impact on the lives of their people.
Here are 9 countries that do a better job providing for their citizens than we do.
Taking Care of the Ill: France
If you have access to the best health care in the United States, then you have some of the best care in the world. But that comes with an extremely steep price, and not everyone has that kind of access.
In 2008, the U.S. spent 16 percent of its economic output on health-care and covered 85 percent of its citizens. It was the only OECD country other than Mexico and Turkey to cover less than 90 percent of its people. We have the 37th longest average life expectancy, and a recent study found that American “life expectancy has been stagnant for much of the country and is actually decreasing over much of the Southern portion of the United States.”
France, which has a health-care system ranked number one in the world by the WHO, spent 11.2 percent of its economy to cover everyone.
There are a number of drivers of health-care costs, but one statistic stands out: in the European (and European-style) economies, upwards of 70 percent of the total health-care bill is picked up by the government, meaning that people are insured in large pools with lots of bargaining clout to hold down providers' costs. In the U.S., less than half of our health care is in the public sector, resulting in a patchwork system of private insurers with much higher administrative costs. When you plug what France pays per person for health care into our own government's fiscal projections, you get balanced budgets by around 2014, which then turn into surpluses after 2040.
Collective Bargaining: France
At around 12 percent (in 2008), the United States doesn't have the lowest unionization rate among the wealthy countries. That distinction goes to France, where under 8 percent of the workforce belongs to a union.
But union membership isn't important, collective bargaining is; and around 90 percent of non-managerial French workers – union members or not -- are covered under collective bargaining agreements.
Honorable mention goes to the Scandinavian countries – with 53 percent of its workforce in a union, Norway comes in dead last among them; 68 percent of Swedes belong to a union, topping the list.
Inequality: Denmark
A large body of research shows that higher union density correlates with less inequality. The U.S. is the most unequal society among the wealthy countries – in the OECD, only three middle-income countries (Turkey, Mexico and Chile) have a more lopsided distribution of wealth.
Denmark leads the way, with the flattest distribution among the high-income countries in the OECD.
Poverty: Denmark
Inequality is a measure of how much income those at the top of the pile take in compared to what those at the bottom grab. So, in countries with equal wealth, more inequality means more poverty – the piece of the economic pie shared by those at the bottom end of the scale will be smaller by definition.
Not surprisingly, Denmark, at 5.4 percent, has the lowest poverty rate among the European-style countries.
The OECD uses a different standard of poverty than does the U.S. government. It counts anyone making less than half of the median income as living in poverty. By that standard, we are plagued with a poverty rate of over 17 percent, higher than all the OECD countries other than Mexico, Israel and Chile. (The average among OECD countries in general is 11.1 percent.)
more here:
http://www.alternet....america/?page=1
No criticism intended brehm. I was just funnin' ya.
