SAHD turned SAHW and husband seeking donations for IVF

[Sundaymorning]

Oh, already back at Switzerland? NOW AREN´T WE A LITTLE COUNTRY-HOPPER? ^^ Especially for someone who has so much problems with Immigration laws ...

Don´t try to twist things now by trying to tell us your were talking about Switzerland "all along now".

Das wäre nämlich echt billig... / That would be a rather cheap move...

And please don´t try to pull the "we have different understandings of terms like universal healthcare" Card either. IF you truly have studied (well, I´m not negating that actually. Zoo has studies cultural anthropology once too) economics, you know damn well what the general understanding of Universal Healthcare is!

@August, no @Sundaymorning is austrian. :D

Just one more thing before I leave for more productive things than arguing with you.

Quote from wikipedia about healthcare systems: "Healthcare in Switzerland is universal."

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country)

So much for trying to make me look like a lying idiot. Seriously, you should work on your manners and ethics a bit. They seem to be quite on the low side.

[nelliebelle1197]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I actually studied economics. So yes, I know exectly how they work. And the problem in your country aren't Libertarians. But crony capitalists and corporatists. There is a huge difference you know. You should really educate yourself what being Libertarian really means, people in here seem quite confused about that.

No need to educate myself, dear. I am already educated on the matter. And I am sure a couple of economics courses have totally educated you on how economic and political theories play out in the real world. If American libertarians do not fit your narrow little textbook definition, I think you might find it is because they are pragmatic enough to understand that the theory simply does not work in practical application and they would never get elected to office or be able to govern a country buy pure application.

[nelliebelle1197]

I actually happen to agree with your post! And thank you for your kind answer. I like to discuss things with people, but in a respectful manner. It's exactly the lower-middle/average income peope who have the most problems. The question is just, what would a better system be. I consider the system now universal healthcare, as everybody is forced to have the same basic plan, where everything is covered for everybody.

I'm open to ideas. Do you think a system like the UK has would work better? Cause I don't think so. They have truly universal healthcare, and it really works terribly for most people.

THAT is not universal health care, no matter what you consider. Do you live in the UK? I have lived there and it worked wonderfully for me through a difficult pregnancy.

[browncoatslytherin]

Just one more thing before I leave for more productive things than arguing with you.

Quote from wikipedia about healthcare systems: "Healthcare in Switzerland is universal."

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country)

So much for trying to make me look like a lying idiot. Seriously, you should work on your manners and ethics a bit. They seem to be quite on the low side.

lol wikipedia as a source? :lol:

[DarkAnts]

Sundaymorning, one rule of the Internet is that you are not suppose to continue to post on a topic after you have flounced.

[Sundaymorning]

Sundaymorning, one rule of the Internet is that you are not suppose to continue to post on a topic after you have flounced.

Yeah, I don't really care about stupid rules. I'm quite free spirited 8-)

[Sundaymorning]

lol wikipedia as a source? :lol:

I think wikipedia is quite reliable on a lot of things. But just for you: who.int/universal_health_coverage/en/ I think Switzerland meets all of the requirements of this definition.

[browncoatslytherin]

I think wikipedia is quite reliable on a lot of things. But just for you: who.int/universal_health_coverage/en/ I think Switzerland meets all of the requirements of this definition.

(1) wikipedia is extremely lazy, as far as citing sources go, and it is NOT always reliable, contrary to what you may think. if it says the same thing as a reliable source, THEN it is fine, but it should never be used as a single source for citing information.

(2) didn't you flounce already? i thought you had important real life stuffs to do.

[Sundaymorning]

(1) wikipedia is extremely lazy, as far as citing sources go, and it is NOT always reliable, contrary to what you may think. if it says the same thing as a reliable source, THEN it is fine, but it should never be used as a single source for citing information.

(2) didn't you flounce already? i thought you had important real life stuffs to do.

Look, obviously, I wouldn't use wikipedia in an academic paper or anything. But I think for uses such as in this forum, it should be fine.

And well, I actually would have stuff to do. However, the dog I would have to go walking with seems more interested in napping at the moment :lol: .

[browncoatslytherin]

Look, obviously, I wouldn't use wikipedia in an academic paper or anything. But I think for uses such as in this forum, it should be fine.

snipped the previous quotes, as it was getting quite heavy.

look, we may not be the level of an academic paper in this forum, but we do like to make sure our sources are reliable. thank you for providing the other link, but really, posting wiki sources first and alone is just silly if the information in the wiki article can't be backed up.

and i thought you had "far more productive things to do", which is fine...but why are you still posting? :lol:

[Sundaymorning]

snipped the previous quotes, as it was getting quite heavy.

look, we may not be the level of an academic paper in this forum, but we do like to make sure our sources are reliable. thank you for providing the other link, but really, posting wiki sources first and alone is just silly if the information in the wiki article can't be backed up.

and i thought you had "far more productive things to do", which is fine...but why are you still posting? :lol:

You want a honest answer? I would, but I somehow (maybe I'm a masochist) still prefer to hang out on the internet until the dog is ready for the walk. But you are right, I should really start doing some of the paperwork I've been procrastinating doing. Might even be a more pleasant experience than getting libeled in this thread.

[browncoatslytherin]

You want a honest answer? I would, but I somehow (maybe I'm a masochist) still prefer to hang out on the internet until the dog is ready for the walk. But you are right, I should really start doing some of the paperwork I've been procrastinating doing. Might even be a more pleasant experience than getting libeled in this thread.

libeled? really? pretty sure the others are either quoting you directly or going off of information you yourself provided. that is not libel, dear. do we really have to define this term as well?

*sigh* very well, i'll do it. here's the full definition from merriam webster, himself:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel

(not breaking, cuz it's mw ;) )

**edited because i have grammar issues regarding tense, apparently**

[Anny Nym]

If I name a bag of whole-grain rice "Mittens the cat", it still doesn´t start to purr if I stroke it.

The same goes for the swiss health care system. Just this fall, the swiss had a referendum to keep their 61 private health insurance funds, instead of establishing a public health care funds system and lower premiums. (Why you ask? Because abeit it´s "cuteness" Switzerland is a very conservative country, there is no doubt about that).

And before our " quite free spirit" now starts jumping in a triangle like Rumpelstilzchen and starts chanting "See! They didn´t want public health care, they are haaappy this way!" I´d like to point at the effing.big.white.elephant already in the room which would be the question of why in one of the richest countries on earth serious sick people have to sit through a full night, hoping to get better on their own, because they are afraid to go to the freakin´public Hospital in fear of the possibility of tremendous costs, even having their friends collect money for them. If they have a universal health care covering?

WHILE (and now comes the clou) just in the slightly less rich but still equally high developed country eastern of the swiss border - which also has the "universal healthcare" mark in wikipedia, - one wouldn´t even battin an eye to get to the Hospital or calling a ambulance.

And "showing you the bird" :cray-cray: if you ask them if they aren´t afraid of doing so because they then have to pay lotta money for routine care.

Edited: But Mama Mia already explained that earlier anyway.

(Yes, I know ... don´t argue with Libertarian Lady Lydia, but ... you know I can´t resist)

[nelliebelle1197]

If I name a bag of whole-grain rice "Mittens the cat", it still doesn´t start to purr if I stroke it.

The same goes for the swiss health care system. Just this fall, the swiss had a referendum to keep their 61 private health insurance funds, instead of establishing a public health care funds system and lower premiums. (Why you ask? Because abeit it´s "cuteness" Switzerland is a very conservative country, there is no doubt about that).

And before our " quite free spirit" now starts jumping in a triangle like Rumpelstilzchen and starts chanting "See! They didn´t want public health care, they are haaappy this way!" I´d like to point at the effing.big.white.elephant already in the room which would be the question of why in one of the richest countries on earth serious sick people have to sit through a full night, hoping to get better on their own, because they are afraid to go to the freakin´public Hospital in fear of the possibility of tremendous costs, even having their friends collect money for them. If they have a universal health care covering?

WHILE (and now comes the clou) just in the slightly less rich but still equally high developed country eastern of the swiss border - which also has the "universal healthcare" mark in wikipedia, - one wouldn´t even battin an eye to get to the Hospital or calling a ambulance.

And "showing you the bird" :cray-cray: if you ask them if they aren´t afraid of doing so because they then have to pay lotta money for routine care.

Edited: But Mama Mia already explained that earlier anyway.

(Yes, I know ... don´t argue with Libertarian Lady Lydia, but ... you know I can´t resist)

Keep going. It is quite fun. Of course, she is obviously 19 and has had an economics course, so you better watch out.

[Boogalou]

To be fair to her she has taken on the second most easily refuted philosophy on earth. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, although I am VERY much enjoying your posts.

Now you left us hanging... what's the first?

[Mama Mia]

I actually happen to agree with your post! And thank you for your kind answer. I like to discuss things with people, but in a respectful manner. It's exactly the lower-middle/average income peope who have the most problems. The question is just, what would a better system be. I consider the system now universal healthcare, as everybody is forced to have the same basic plan, where everything is covered for everybody.

I'm open to ideas. Do you think a system like the UK has would work better? Cause I don't think so. They have truly universal healthcare, and it really works terribly for most people.

I think a lot of the problem is difficulty in everyone's different perceptions of terms like " universal health care" " socialism" " government interference" etc.

I'm going to mix in my impression from other threads here, just because I think it will make the conversation clearer. Here are my thoughts and opinions. I'm not going to cite any sources, because they are just my impressions, from my own life experience in my own little corner of the world. I live in the San Francisco region ( extremely liberal politically by U.S. Standards), also an extremely expensive area. I've raised a large family, I have been poor and used services, and have been middle class and paid a lot in taxes. I worked in social services with very vulnerable families, both directly and at an administrative level for over 20 years. That's my background that informs my opinions.

I agree with the libertarian view, that you have shared in other posts, that the huge amount of money spent, lives and communities wrecked and prison industrial system generated by the war on drugs is ridiculous. It is a form of government regulation that has far over-extended it's reach. And is blatantly classist and racist. If I was to base my view of government solely ( or primarily ) on the criminal justice system ( particularly regarding drugs and the hugely disproportionate rates of prosecution of brown and black young men ) Or the immigration system-- I would be a hard core libertarian. But that's only a portion of the things that the government regulates.

I think there are also very good views, and some bad ones, that libertarians generally hold regarding corporate regulation. I think they have good points regarding how government is ridiculously imbedded with big business and spends vast amounts of money propping them up. On the other hand, I think environmental and banking regulations are desperately needed. Truthfully I think the relationship with the government and big corporations is that they act like a married couple government Mom, Corporate Dad standing together against the children - the general public. Occasionally the government will sneak the kids a cookie, but generally backs up big business and will send them to bed without supper if Dad says so.

As far as medicine, would I prefer a system like the U.K? Absolutely. I participate on some forums related to a health condition I have. Their are participants from around the world. The ones from countries with any form of universal health care are always, always, appalled at what people in the U.S. Have to go through. The financial devastation of a disabling condition is just not something they have to deal with. Do they have to wait to see a Doctor sometimes? Sure. But their waits are no longer than people from the U.S., and they never have to decide if it's worth it to go or not. They don't worry about dying because they can't be helped. It just doesn't happen. I think you probably talk to/read people who share similar views as you - so of course they would be against universal health care. Or read general comments on the web, which are always violently against everything. Or ---my pet peeve when I worked in social services --- polls that word questions in a way that you HAVE to pick some issue - then the pollsters say that issue is a huge problem. No.

As for definitions. I think the common view of universal healthcare ( again from my corner of reality) , is a single payer system that is supported by tax dollars. To some degree this might be supplemented by additional private insurance, or paid out of pocket, but as a supplement. The populace can go to a health care provider and not worry about costs, because it's part of their system - like roads or public school. I don't think the Swiss system fits this definition.

Defining socialism is always difficult. Every country on earth could be described as somewhere on a degree of socialism, from one extreme of only collecting revenue from citizens for the roads or military --- to the other extreme of collecting all revenue from citizens, but providing for all needs ( which, although the term " socialist" is used, is actually communism ) . Obviously 99% of countries will fall somewhere in the middle range. When I think of socialism I think of the Scandinavian countries. A very high tax rate, but also a very high level of social and financial supports. And yes, absolutely, I think that is a good model. Based on virtually every concievable standard of well-being the Scandinavian countries rank in the top.

I think, just based on your posts, that you would actually support a higher level of government intervention than you think. In the Rodrigues thread many people think there should be immediate intervention, including you. But what I, and another poster who works in social services, have pointed out, is that as far as obvious abuse and neglect cases go - they aren't that bad. Not that what they are doing is good, but that there are so, so, so many more families who are worse.

So for government to step in, you need social workers, you need a whole system that employs and administers the social workers. You need a foster care system for the really extreme cases. You need all the administration and costs that go with that system. You also, in that post, say that the Rodrigueses could meet the requirements without public assistance. That's quite possibly true - but it relies on some pretty huge " ifs" . "If" they can find a rental -- a huge, huge if. Or "If" their family would help them out -- many family's will help with an occassional bill, or a place to park for a week or two, or new clothes for the kids -- but most aren't able to provide on-going housing or cash. "If" they found full-time jobs. Yes, if they both found full time jobs they might be able to get by -- but both finding full time work on opposite shifts can be impossible. And, more importantly, they would be so close to the bone financially landlords would be unlikely to rent to them. If they lived anywhere else, there is no way they could rent a large enough place without a subsidy. So it's a lot of " ifs" and of course it can, and does, happen. But the vast majority of families in that situation, without some public assistance, would lose their kids with that sort of CPS plan.

Also, something people often don't realize when talking about people relying on charities and churches and community organizations for help --- a huge number of services provided by those groups are actually through government sub-contracts and grants. So tax dollars. But, on the libertarian side - the reason the government sub-contracts is because those groups can work cheaper and ( if the government doesn't make it impossible ) can be more flexible in getting help to the people who need it the most, in the most sensible way.

So, tl/dr, I agree with some of your points about government over-reach -- but I think it is more a matter of money and energy being spent where it shouldn't, instead of focused where it could actually do good. Like providing a safe, stable level of health care, education and basic needs. And I think you also need the government to at least sometimes save you from mean dad. :D and I think, in the case of big business being " dad" , he'd be an abusive asshole if left to his own devices.

Edited to add stuff and fix horribly messed up post.

[August]

Now you left us hanging... what's the first?

Creationists

[julie paradox]

Speaking as someone from the UK: I have never had a problem with my health care.

Granted, I have never been seriously ill. But I'm lucky enough to live in an area where I can ring my doctor's surgery and get an appointment for some time in the next week (southerners, hate me now), I had midwives and a named consultant during my pregnancies and a health visitor when my children were small. My children get free eye tests (as do I because I am so short-sighted) and dentist appointments and treatments - this link shows what is included and who doesn't have to pay: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcost ... costs.aspx

One of my grandmothers had a series of strokes and the other deteriorated with dementia. My mother died due to a compromised immune system (a form of leukaemia). My father is currently experiencing various health issues frequently associated with being an octogenarian.

All of this has been difficult and upsetting, and in certain cases there were things which might have changed the issue (going to the doctor a couple of weeks earlier, for example). BUT not ONCE at any point did it occur to ANYONE to think "oh, if only we'd had more money she wouldn't have died".

I am online friends with a diabetic in NY state who is unable to work and has a very tight income. She has frequently posted about not being able to afford medications.

I know which system I would prefer to live under.

[August]

The only real complaints from people from countries with single payer are always things which highlight how little there is to complain about.

For example, I haven't had a pap smear in years because you need to schedule six months in advance and my period is not that predictable. And this is top notch US private care.

[nelliebelle1197]

I think a lot of the problem is difficulty in everyone's different perceptions of terms like " universal health care" " socialism" " government interference" etc.

I'm going to mix in my impression from other threads here, just because I think it will make the conversation clearer. Here are my thoughts and opinions. I'm not going to cite any sources, because they are just my impressions, from my own life experience in my own little corner of the world. I live in the San Francisco region ( extremely liberal politically by U.S. Standards), also an extremely expensive area. I've raised a large family, I have been poor and used services, and have been middle class and paid a lot in taxes. I worked in social services with very vulnerable families, both directly and at an administrative level for over 20 years. That's my background that informs my opinions.

I agree with the libertarian view, that you have shared in other posts, that the huge amount of money spent, lives and communities wrecked and prison industrial system generated by the war on drugs is ridiculous. It is a form of government regulation that has far over-extended it's reach. And is blatantly classist and racist. If I was to base my view of government solely ( or primarily ) on the criminal justice system ( particularly regarding drugs and the hugely disproportionate rates of prosecution of brown and black young men ) Or the immigration system-- I would be a hard core libertarian. But that's only a portion of the things that the government regulates.

I think there are also very good views, and some bad ones, that libertarians generally hold regarding corporate regulation. I think they have good points regarding how government is ridiculously imbedded with big business and spends vast amounts of money propping them up. On the other hand, I think environmental and banking regulations are desperately needed. Truthfully I think the relationship with the government and big corporations is that they act like a married couple government Mom, Corporate Dad standing together against the children - the general public. Occasionally the government will sneak the kids a cookie, but generally backs up big business and will send them to bed without supper if Dad says so.

As far as medicine, would I prefer a system like the U.K? Absolutely. I participate on some forums related to a health condition I have. Their are participants from around the world. The ones from countries with any form of universal health care are always, always, appalled at what people in the U.S. Have to go through. The financial devastation of a disabling condition is just not something they have to deal with. Do they have to wait to see a Doctor sometimes? Sure. But their waits are no longer than people from the U.S., and they never have to decide if it's worth it to go or not. They don't worry about dying because they can't be helped. It just doesn't happen. I think you probably talk to/read people who share similar views as you - so of course they would be against universal health care. Or read general comments on the web, which are always violently against everything. Or ---my pet peeve when I worked in social services --- polls that word questions in a way that you HAVE to pick some issue - then the pollsters say that issue is a huge problem. No.

As for definitions. I think the common view of universal healthcare ( again from my corner of reality) , is a single payer system that is supported by tax dollars. To some degree this might be supplemented by additional private insurance, or paid out of pocket, but as a supplement. The populace can go to a health care provider and not worry about costs, because it's part of their system - like roads or public school. I don't think the Swiss system fits this definition.

Defining socialism is always difficult. Every country on earth could be described as somewhere on a degree of socialism, from one extreme of only collecting revenue from citizens for the roads or military --- to the other extreme of collecting all revenue from citizens, but providing for all needs ( which, although the term " socialist" is used, is actually communism ) . Obviously 99% of countries will fall somewhere in the middle range. When I think of socialism I think of the Scandinavian countries. A very high tax rate, but also a very high level of social and financial supports. And yes, absolutely, I think that is a good model. Based on virtually every concievable standard of well-being the Scandinavian countries rank in the top.

I think, just based on your posts, that you would actually support a higher level of government intervention than you think. In the Rodrigues thread many people think there should be immediate intervention, including you. But what I, and another poster who works in social services, have pointed out, is that as far as obvious abuse and neglect cases go - they aren't that bad. Not that what they are doing is good, but that there are so, so, so many more families who are worse.

So for government to step in, you need social workers, you need a whole system that employs and administers the social workers. You need a foster care system for the really extreme cases. You need all the administration and costs that go with that system. You also, in that post, say that the Rodrigueses could meet the requirements without public assistance. That's quite possibly true - but it relies on some pretty huge " ifs" . "If" they can find a rental -- a huge, huge if. Or "If" their family would help them out -- many family's will help with an occassional bill, or a place to park for a week or two, or new clothes for the kids -- but most aren't able to provide on-going housing or cash. "If" they found full-time jobs. Yes, if they both found full time jobs they might be able to get by -- but both finding full time work on opposite shifts can be impossible. And, more importantly, they would be so close to the bone financially landlords would be unlikely to rent to them. If they lived anywhere else, there is no way they could rent a large enough place without a subsidy. So it's a lot of " ifs" and of course it can, and does, happen. But the vast majority of families in that situation, without some public assistance, would lose their kids with that sort of CPS plan.

Also, something people often don't realize when talking about people relying on charities and churches and community organizations for help --- a huge number of services provided by those groups are actually through government sub-contracts and grants. So tax dollars. But, on the libertarian side - the reason the government sub-contracts is because those groups can work cheaper and ( if the government doesn't make it impossible ) can be more flexible in getting help to the people who need it the most, in the most sensible way.

So, tl/dr, I agree with some of your points about government over-reach -- but I think it is more a matter of money and energy being spent where it shouldn't, instead of focused where it could actually do good. Like providing a safe, stable level of health care, education and basic needs. And I think you also need the government to at least sometimes save you from mean dad. :D and I think, in the case of big business being " dad" , he'd be an abusive asshole if left to his own devices.

Edited to add stuff and fix horribly messed up post.

The times in US history when the government has been most ties to corporations are the periods with least regulation. Too many prison systems are privatized. The incentive is therefore on the government to keep the contractors happy by keeping the prisons full. I agree that government in the US is far too deeply in bed with corporations, but lack of federal regulation on corporations is perhaps the biggest villain in that. And hands off corporate governance is a foundation of libertarianism.

[formergothardite]

A hands off government with lower or non-existent regulations scares me. Perhaps Sunday lives around nicer and more honest people? The sweet old farmers at our local farmers market got caught lying to and cheating people and there now has to be a huge amount of rules to keep them honest. If the small time farmers start scamming people the second they see a loophole, what would the bigger businesses do?

I have just seen way too many unethical people who would loooooove for Sunday's world to come into existence to think that this is a good idea.

[Anny Nym]

Perhaps Sunday lives around nicer and more honest people?

Hahahaha... No! No,no,no dear! Despite what a kitschy fictional musical with actors in ugly skirts from curtain fabric tries to tell the world, we are not "nice" :snooty: We take great pride in being wily mountain people :shifty-kitty: /austrianhumoroff

ad. Government regulations:

Does any of you guys by any chance have heard of the "Glykol wine scandal" of the mid-1980s?

The story goes like this: a few not-so-nice-and-not-so-honest austrian wine makers watered down wine, which was going to get sold to a german mass wine bottlerer, with Glykol. Glykol made the wine sweeter and more intensive, plus one could make more "wine" from less grapes. Glykol is also a main part of anti-freeze agents and toxic.

Back then, the controls and quality tests on wine were done rather laxly, because the law on this was very basic and equally laxly.

So this guys got away with selling large tranches of their Glykol-watered "wine" to a german company, which mixed it there with other wine and sold it under various brands all over the world.

Coincidentally a government inspector made a visit to one of the wine makers, because on other things the government regulations were quite strict, namely on how much anti freeze agent one could buy in ratio to their farming machines (this things have to be listed here).

And this Person was apparently buying ALOT for owning just a small amount of machines...

They caught him cold-handed and the whole fraud blew off.

Then of course a massive food scandal emerged, because nobody knew which one did water down wine, who was selling it to whom and so on. The reputation of austrian wine was seriously damaged and millions of litres of wine needed to get off the shelves all over the world.

A close relative of mine, who owns a winery, was questioned like a criminal suspect and the company raided multiple times over the course of months. They all still have very bad memories of that one year.

He did NOT have anything to do with it, they just did it with everyone. A lot of wine makers with smaller wineries had to give up due to the massive business decline.

As a consequence of this, Austria nowaday has one of the strictest regulated and advanced wine quality laws on this blue planet. And the most amount of controls done on a food item here is regarding wine.

(This kind of watering down of wine was and is still done in various countries by the way. The one where the regulation laws are less strict, wine producers may still get away with it)

So far, once again, for Sunday´s Story telling!

[browncoatslytherin]

Hahahaha... No! No,no,no dear! Despite what a kitschy fictional musical with actors in ugly skirts from curtain fabric tries to tell the world, we are not "nice" :snooty: We take great pride in being wily mountain people :shifty-kitty: /austrianhumoroff

i love your austrian humour :D

[Anny Nym]

:mrgreen:

[nelliebelle1197]

I think l'il Sunday has flounced. Like all good libertarians, when challenged on how their theories would work in reality, they suddenly have better things to do.