Home of the Muppet Imperial Moderator Corps

What would you personally do if food, shelter were a human right

Assume food and shelter were made a human right in your country, and a few others. Not to a luxurious level, and you're not guaranteed the prettiest views, but more than enough to survive. And you have some fair ability to move around, so like-minded people can live near each other with only fairly minimal difficulty.

What would you do with your life?
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 4th, 2006
(Oh, and feel free to ignore sniping. In fact, I request you largely do because I'm interested in a diversity of viewpoints. I'm sure there will be all sorts of people who question the assumptions in this question, but that can be in another thread.)
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 4th, 2006
Pretty much the same thing as I do now.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
I'd be more inclined to try a variety of careers to see what suits me best, or maybe just for the sheer hell of it -- if it all goes horribly wrong at least it wouldn't be catastrophic. Beyond that, I can't see it making much difference...
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 4th, 2006
Food and shelter is a basic human right here.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 4th, 2006
I'm with Colm. I'm not working to survive, I'm working to live well.
Permalink Flasher T 
January 4th, 2006
Same here...its very inexpensive to simply get food and shelter. I want to be well fed and have a nice ass shelter though.
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
For me, this would be very interesting as then society would probably be different, and my social options might be broadened. It would eliminate the poverty fears that maybe ~80% of the populace have, so they would be more able to experiment with alternate societies.

I might spend time studying societies to see what can be said about different systems. Something like a journalist, I suppose.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 4th, 2006
So is your assumption that no one would work if food and shelter were guaranteed? Who would be processing the distributing the food, and the facilities of your shelter?
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
Yes, yes! FEAR is required for productivity!!
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 4th, 2006
I'd take the time to write my software.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 4th, 2006
...(long pause)...you mean it isn't?

Actually I know damn well it isn't. I also know that I want to see a society where access to food and shelter is available to all.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
Norway. :)
Permalink Flasher T 
January 4th, 2006
"Assume food and shelter were made a human right in your country, and a few others."

I'd immediately move elsewhere. We saw what happened in the USSR when this happened. Lines for everything, private property seized.
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
You'd really leave if your society was ordered such that no one need starve or sleep rough?
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
Couldn't you just save up for a few years and then live off of your savings for a few more, effectively achieving this goal, at least for a short period of time?
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 4th, 2006
Well if everyone decided to slack off as Tayssir seems to imply they (and he) would hehe.  Already the US pretty much ensures shelter and food for everyone. The paperwork can take a while to go through to get on welfare, HOC, and food stamps, but there are homeless shelters, habitat for humanity, church groups, etc that will shelter and feed people in the meantime.
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
Mark - yes, if you eschew all ambition, which seems kinda hard. :)

Especially when there's a new iPod out...
Permalink Flasher T 
January 4th, 2006
>Already the US pretty much ensures shelter and food for
>everyone.

Jeez... such naivete. If this were the case, then wouldn't everyone *have* shelter and food?
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
Food stamps are generally enough to cover food costs, but I think welfare is well below the cost of rent.

I heard that Germany is pretty good with housing & feeding the poor. I haven't confirmed that, but kudos to them if they are.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 4th, 2006
"Jeez... such naivete. If this were the case, then wouldn't everyone *have* shelter and food?"

Colm, most people that want it do. As mentioned in a previous thread many homeless people choose to live that way. Others are unaware of the programs or violate the rules it takes to stay in them.
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
"Food stamps are generally enough to cover food costs, but I think welfare is well below the cost of rent."

HOC Vouchers are for housing, welfare is for other living expenses.
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
Ah, didn't know that. HCV vouchers, though, are chosen by lottery.

http://www.hocmc.org/Housing/HCV/HCV-WaitList.htm
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 4th, 2006
" Food stamps are generally enough to cover food costs, but I think welfare is well below the cost of rent."

Evidence that some of you are totally ignorant of what it takes to get government assistance.

No, I'm not gonna explain. You're just stupid. Look it up dumbasses. I can't believe you people actually believe that the poor have an easy time getting rent and food paid. If you don't have kids, good fucking luck in the US getting any assistance.

I'm totally through with this ridiculous wanton ignorance of the plight of the poor in the US YOU ABSOLUTE DUMB FUCKS.

It will take awhile for some of you to earn my respect again.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 4th, 2006
I've been in government-supplied housing -- I'd work to buy better food & shelter on my own.

(I'm ex-military)
Permalink example 
January 4th, 2006
"You'd really leave if your society was ordered such that no one need starve or sleep rough?"

Yes.

Because they would have effectively declared farmers and everyone else in the food production chain slaves. If the buyer gets to set the price and the seller can't sell elsewhere - that would counter your Right after all! -, the buyer will set it as low as possible... aka zero.

Because private property would have no meaning. Do you have a spare bedroom? Not anymore! Sure, you might have an attractive young coed housed with you, but you might also have the child molestor who just got out of jail.


Actually, now that I think of it... you'd never have the attractive young coed unless you had connections on the "Housing Board".
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
"Evidence that some of you are totally ignorant of what it takes to get government assistance."

Actually, I went on food stamps for a few months in between jobs once, and I know someone on disability who gets food stamps, welfare, and maybe something else, I'm not sure. He's the one that talked me in to going down to apply.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 4th, 2006
sharkfish -

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAA.

"You're all ignorant fucks but I'm not gonna back that up. I just don't respect you so neener."

I'm sobbing. I really am.

It's EASY to get food stamps, ESPECIALLY if you have children. Basically don't work, or work like, less than 20 hours for min wage. Food stamps up the ass.

Rent is harder, but not impossible. It's almost as if they want you to be motivated enough to actually pursue the assistance rather than being handed it.

I used to work in a grocery store in a poor neighborhood. I can't count the number of times I'd see an Hispanic family come in, pay for 3 shopping carts full of groceries all in stamps, and then pay for another cart or two full of beer with a wad of 20's. A big wad. This happened CONSTANTLY.

Somehow, some way, those folks had a ton of stamps AND cash. Seems like maybe it's not so hard. Anecdotal evidence or not, it happens.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 4th, 2006
"It will take awhile for some of you to earn my respect again."

Ha! I never had your respect!

Then again, I didn't comment on the ease of anything... as I think the fundamental concept is flawed.
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
I'd move. Socialists don't seem to understand basic human motivations.
Permalink ronk! 
January 4th, 2006
"Well if everyone decided to slack off as Tayssir seems to imply they (and he) would hehe."

I would like to note that Phil seems to be a fairly dishonest person who likes to put words in my mouth and play debate team with me.

Feel free to ignore his messages, as I've noted that people can ignore sniping here; I will of course be happy to clarify on a new thread, if anyone has a serious interest.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 4th, 2006
sharkfish, it is difficult in terms of red tape and lines, but it is possible to get food, shelter, and other subsistence from the government. The best way to get instant relief is through private groups however, but there are more then enough of these around. Most of our programs are also structured around a "better start contributing" mentality, so you can only live long term on the dole if you have kids or a disability. Otherwise, you will eventually have to work.
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
more like Socialists are optimistic that humans can get over being children
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 4th, 2006
"I would like to note that Phil seems to be a fairly dishonest person who likes to put words in my mouth and play debate team with me."

Wow, dishonest? What was i dishonest about? You asked what people would do if food and shelter was guaranteed, and then said you would take the time to study cultures or something. Thats quite an acusation!
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
Actually Tayssir it looks like Phil ASKED you what your assumptions were. I didn't see where he put words in your mouth.

And I don't even LIKE Phil.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 4th, 2006
I didn't say he was dishonest. I just said he SEEMS dishonest. Just as he said I SEEMED to make an implication.

In truth, I made no such implication, just as it's possible he may not be dishonest.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 4th, 2006
Here's the thing - socialist capitalist countries do have healthy economies and a high living standard. Even the ones with absolutely outrageous welfare policies. (I'm European, but I'm from a country that prides itself on being a militant laissez-faire one.)

Objectively, socialism works. You can argue that it won't work as well with large populations, and you would certainly have a point; but you can't accuse socialists of misunderstanding human motivation, because they seem to be manipulating it effectively enough.
Permalink Flasher T 
January 4th, 2006
The country I live in considers food and shelter a human right. Except for the refugees, immigrants and young, you get enough to live a decent life. Last I checked, the GDP per capita what in the top 5 of the world (Not too bad afterall).

The caveats:
1) This country is so peaceful that you will bore yourself to death, by doing nothing
2) If you have any savings, I don't think you can get any welfare
3) If you work you will be taxed so heavily that you won't ever have any savings
4) Probably others that don't make it worth it, but I can't really think of any.

Oh yeah, we have free healthcare too.
Permalink Peter Monsson 
January 4th, 2006
Oh, I forgot: We are rude and chauvinist too.
Permalink Peter Monsson 
January 4th, 2006
You also spell your names in nonsensical silly ways.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 4th, 2006
>Colm, most people that want it do. As mentioned in a
>previous thread many homeless people choose to live that
>way. Others are unaware of the programs or violate the
>rules it takes to stay in them.

Problems with the above:

* The homeless shelters are often full.
* The requirements (e.g. paperwork and ID and bureacracy) are horrendous and/or take a long time to deal with.
* No phone, no storage, facilities for washing or mail facilities so no way of getting a job whilst in one of these places.
* No representation so no way of getting any problems fixed except through the aid of people better off.
* People become victims of abuse at these places.
* Drugs are rife. You wanna shack up in a place where drugs are rife?
* And to top it off, the Govt. is DECREASING assistance. No electoral representation so they don't really have a reason to care about these people.
* Churches and other help groups eliminate people based upon certain requirements (e.g. 'sin' requirements or even requiring a phone number).
* Are you a parent? Want somewhere to live? Prepare to be separated from your kids first.
* Are you a child? Too bad. Shelters can't give you a place to live, and as a child you're often lacking a whole host of legal rights.

So the claim that people 'choose' to live on the streets is somewhere between an outright lie and highly disingenous.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
KC so your propositions are:

&#8226; that it is impossible to prevent people sleeping rough without seizing living accomodation. <bollocks>
&#8226; that it is impossible to prevent starvation without seizing control of the means of food production. <utter bollocks>

I hadn't realised we'd encounted a timeslip and were back to the class war of the late 19th century. Just because some raddled old german with a taste for drunken vandalism became popular with the idea doesn't mean I need to accept it.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
> You also spell your names in nonsensical silly ways.

Yeah, deal breaker right there ;-)
Permalink Peter Monsson 
January 4th, 2006
"So the claim that people 'choose' to live on the streets is somewhere between an outright lie and highly disingenous."

Colm, I suggest you spend some time with these street people then. The stories of working class people losing their jobs and suddenly living on the streets are somewhat overblown.  Sure it happens. And all of your above points are valid though. That doesn't make the fact that shelter and food will be provided to you any less true. I never said they were utopian wonderlands of joy. The problem is that if one does create a utopian wonderland of subsistance, what motivation do people have to leave?
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
Yes because someplace dry without crack dealers hiding in the corners is MY definition of a Utopian paradise.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 4th, 2006
If you think about it is the same issue faced by the wealthy. If they don't have to work to provide their basic needs (and I think we can safely say that's the case) what an earth could motivate them to work.

<irony on> Perhaps we should put an end to inherited wealth to give them some encouragement.<irony off>
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
Wealth is usually only inherited two generations down (The Millionaire Next Door) so it doesn't hold.
Permalink Peter Monsson 
January 4th, 2006
If all you learn to do with money is spend it, that's all you end up knowing. That's why the wealth disappears in a couple of generations. The "I'll make you work for it" set seem to do fairly well - Trump, Gates.

Maybe a safety net isn't such a bad thing.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 4th, 2006
I'd have three children, and work so my wife could stay at home and take care of them.

People in America tend to ignore (conservatives make enough money that they can reject the idea) that during the Reagan years, his deficit spending (and the effect on the economy) turned most American house-holds into two-worker families.

Before that, in the '70s, women were clamoring to work. After that, in the '90's, women HAD to work. I'd love to make it a choice again.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 4th, 2006
"his deficit spending (and the effect on the economy) turned most American house-holds into two-worker families."

??? How exactly are the two connected? If anything deficit spending improved the economy in the short term. The two worker family thing started out as a choice, women wanted to work, and households that did made twice as much. Thus to keep up with the joneses, you need to either make twice as much or have your wife work too. Most middle class people can still live on one salary, but its too tempting to want to own the new cars and the nicer house, etc...
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
Two generations? Really? In what country?
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
I think that KC has a good point that, while in a capitalist society you have Paris Hiltons with disproportionate power, he pointed out that in a Leninist/Marxist one it's powerful decisionmakers. Big trap.

But there are at least 34 other economic systems.


As for Phil's point, I've visited a couple egalitarian communities, and work wasn't the issue. As a journalist errant, I'd be expected to do work in those communities. It's just that I wouldn't have to starve.

How does that work? Well, how do societies deal with sociopaths?


That said, people like to produce, just as we like to consume. Work is good.

The problem is work under external command, maybe for Paris Hilton's or bin Laden family's welfare. Adam Smith pointed out how that puts most people into a "drowsy stupor." Von Humbolt claimed that with someone working under external command, "we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 4th, 2006
"KC so your propositions are:

&#8226; that it is impossible to prevent people sleeping rough without seizing living accomodation. <bollocks>
&#8226; that it is impossible to prevent starvation without seizing control of the means of food production. <utter bollocks>"

I said nothing of the sort, please re-read my statements.

Let me lay it out very clearly:

Once you declare that someone has a Right to X, anyone who prevents you from getting X becomes a criminal.

If coffee is declared a Right, how can Starbucks be allowed to charge for it? As long as they charge *anything* they are preventing some segment of the population from having their Right. Therefore, the price of coffee goes to zero.

Then, if Starbucks decides to get out of the coffee business, they are also preventing some segment from having their Right. Therefore, they will be compelled to continue providing this product.

Therefore, in one fell swoop you have declared them your slaves and claimed their labor and their product as your own.
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
if i didn't have to worry about food or shelter, i'd probably change jobs every few months. i'd work for the simple pleasure of experiencing something new. i wouldn't demand a high salary. in fact, i'd probably work at some places for free. i would travel, finding work wherever i went. if work wasn't available, i'd create work, even if the compensation was little.
Permalink Kenny 
January 4th, 2006
I'm reasonably sure that a right to food doesn't mean a right to all food everywhere at all times. Unless you envision people in restuarants arguing over who has the "right" to whose sausage on whose plate. Perhaps you might prefer to think of it as freedom from starvation.

I'm also sure that a right to shelter doesn't mean people knocking on the door of Brenda's London place and expecting to get a stateroom of their own. You might prefer to think of it as a freedom from exposure.

I think you can hear 1849 calling - it wants its political discourse back.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
You might like to think on this - I have a right to medical treatment under the Nation Health Service. I receive that treatment on the basis of need - and consequently wait my turn.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
Yeah, I think this is largely getting just way too abstract and arch-philosophical. I mean, having a "right to food and shelter" won't be the big boogieman. I'm not saying capitalism is suddenly overthrown.

If anything, it'll probably make people less likely to accept really crappy low-paying jobs though, where they're disrespected.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 4th, 2006
>>> I have a right to medical treatment under the Nation Health Service. I receive that treatment on the basis of need - and consequently wait my turn. <<<

Then you don't have a "right" to medical treatment. You just get what some government bureaucrat decides that you "need".
Permalink argon 
January 4th, 2006
"I have a right to medical treatment under the Nation Health Service. I receive that treatment on the basis of need - and consequently wait my turn."

HAHA. So you have a RIGHT to wait in line. Cute.

"Then you don't have a "right" to medical treatment. You just get what some government bureaucrat decides that you "need"."

Well said argon.
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
>> I used to work in a grocery store in a poor neighborhood. I can't count the number of times I'd see an Hispanic family come in, pay for 3 shopping carts full of groceries all in stamps, and then pay for another cart or two full of beer with a wad of 20's. A big wad. This happened CONSTANTLY. <<

Mark - I worked at a Winn Dixie in high school in the late 1970's, and saw the exact thing happen. First cart was milk, cheese, cereal, & baby food, paid for with a WIC voucher. Second cart was produce, bread, and frickin' huge steaks and chops, paid for with food stamps. Third cart was beer, wine, cigarettes, and chewing tobacco or snuff, paid for out of a large wad of cash.

These people were eating better than my family, and we were middle class.

When they came out with the food-stamp "charge card", one of the arguments for it's use was that it was less stigmatizing for the recipients than to count out the paper stamps in the store where everyone could see. What they called "stigma" I called "motivation".
Permalink example 
January 4th, 2006
I merely think the notion of material goods as rights is fucked. Animal evolution is all about competition for survival. Those who think that they are smart enough to design a way out of that are arrogant and naive. Just my humble opinion.
Permalink hoser 
January 4th, 2006
"Those who think that they are smart enough to design a way out of that are arrogant and naive. Just my humble opinion."

And it is less arrogant to believe you are surviving because you are "fitter"?

Try again.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 4th, 2006
Incidentally, if I did go overboard in my comment with Phil, I hope I'm excused; nutty day and I've been spun around a bit, and it's entirely possible I'm saying things much more strongly than I intend.

(Hmm, I hear we do effectively ration healthcare in the US -- by wealth. With very inefficient management and administrative costs, among others.)
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 4th, 2006
>HAHA. So you have a RIGHT to wait in line. Cute.
>"Then you don't have a "right" to medical treatment. You
>just get what some government bureaucrat decides that you
>"need"."

Usually a doctor will decide what you "need". That's how the system works, you see.

Besides, when it comes to deciding whether a treatment is cost-effective, would you rather have somebody deciding who is accountable to the electorate or accountable to his shareholders?
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
"Usually a doctor will decide what you "need". That's how the system works, you see.

Besides, when it comes to deciding whether a treatment is cost-effective, would you rather have somebody deciding who is accountable to the electorate or accountable to his shareholders?"

Are your doctors elected?
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
Your choice - you can have healthcare rationed by doctors, accountants or acturies...I choose doctors.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
yes cynic, but in my system I can choose a high end private doctor that takes me instantly and is of world class caliber. If I don't like him I can choose any other doctor on my plan. Can you do that? Or do you just go to the local state doctor and wait for your turn for average medical care?
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
Less thankful society, since you never need to say thank you to your doctor, nurse and teacher.
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 4th, 2006
"but in my system I can choose a high end private doctor that takes me instantly and is of world class calibe"

Don't be naive. If you are poor no one would see you.
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 4th, 2006
>yes cynic, but in my system I can choose a high end private
>doctor that takes me instantly and is of world class
>caliber. If I don't like him I can choose any other doctor
>on my plan. Can you do that? Or do you just go to the
>local state doctor and wait for your turn for average
>medical care?

So what you're saying is "I'm rich and so it's great for me, but fuck the poor, they should've worked harder if they wanted to be healthy"?

Oh, and you CAN shell out masses of money to see a doctor of world class caliber if you wish, it's just that you don't HAVE to if you CAN'T.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
>>Besides, when it comes to deciding whether a treatment is
>>cost-effective, would you rather have somebody deciding who
>>is accountable to the electorate or accountable to his
>>shareholders?"
>Are your doctors elected?

Is your HMO a doctor?
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
Again, health care for the poor is a different issue. Incidentily, under our programs for poor health care, they also have choices among doctors. All I was saying in my above statement is that i'm once again paying less out of my check and getting better service, and thus a social health care system isn't necessarily something to drool over.
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
"Is your HMO a doctor?"

Nope, that's why I don't subscribe to the HMO's and haven't for over a year. I found something called "Health Savings Accounts" and have *suffered* through 50% discounts by paying upon services rendered ever since. ;)

I've had doctors shake my hand and thank me because they have people who *ALL* they do is file forms all day long every day.

When I leave their office, they have cash or check in hand.
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
>All I was saying in my above statement is that i'm once
>again paying less out of my check and getting better service

We pay HALF (~7% of our GDP as opposed to about 14-15% of your GDP) what you do and get the same level of service (so says WHO). This is what I meant by the government being able to spend your money more wisely than you.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
I don't know about this "we" and "us" stuff, but my health care only costs me a little under 4% of my yearly income. Since my wife shares it, its much less of our total income. With my previous employer I only paid $3 a paycheck for the absolute best PPO out there (The employer subsidized a large portion).  See the difference? We have choices in America. Yes, some people get screwed, and I think we should do more to help them, but in theory those same people can benefit as I do.
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
>>The employer subsidized a large portion
AHA... I knew it!
Pop quiz: how many full-time, employed Americans don't get health insurance from their employer?
Permalink Star Wars Kid 
January 4th, 2006
$300/month for a family of 5. That puts my health care costs at somewhere around 3%.

No complaints here...
Permalink hoser 
January 4th, 2006
I pay $140/month for my wife and I. The best part is that $100 of that goes into a Health Savings Account.... which is 100% OURS and tax free.
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
The benefits of being self-employed. Do you go with a major carrier for catastrophic - or something like that?
Permalink hoser 
January 4th, 2006
>I don't know about this "we" and "us" stuff, but my health
>care only costs me a little under 4% of my yearly income.

I calculate mine as around 3.3% of my yearly income.

However, I bet that you're richer than the average American.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
"However, I bet that you're richer than the average American."

I doubt it, my salary is average for the area, and i'd never be mistaken for anything but middle class.
Permalink Phil 
January 4th, 2006
Also...for those of you calculating your health care costs in the 3-5% range of your annual salary...

If you're not including employer contributions, then your math is wrong. It's like pretending that taxes don't exist just because they're automatically deducted from your paycheck.

For most upper-middle class people, employers are paying many times more for our health insurance than we're contributing ourselves. A premium that costs 3% of your gross salary probably actually reflects 10-15% of your total compensation package.
Permalink BenjiSmith 
January 4th, 2006
"...but in my system I can choose a high end private doctor that takes me instantly and is of world class caliber..."

Should I put my hand in my pocket (either directly or by insurance) so could I..or I could wait my turn based on clinical need and receive healthcare as a right free at the point of delivery. If you do appreciate irony my mother has had private treatment - as a result of my father's trade union membership;-)

Lets' take another case - my children have a right to an adequate education. Our eldest has received it and is currently at University studying Computer Aided Design (well actually he's painting the downstair loo for cash), our daughter is at private school and our youngest has just transferred from one Catholic (state subsidised but not state run) school to another.

A right to a minimum standard of the things which support a decent life does not prevent someone having more than the minimum. Which has been a point runnning through all my posts in this thread.

Finally remember I am a conservative in the Tory "One Nation" tradition not the Liberal "Laissez-faire" tradition. Noblesse oblige...
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 4th, 2006
"The benefits of being self-employed. Do you go with a major carrier for catastrophic - or something like that?"

Yep. Though you can request for employers to make contributions for you too. Up to about 9-10k/year.
Permalink KC 
January 4th, 2006
There are no state doctors in that sense and I don't see why the assumption need be made that the medical provision will be average.

How does having money help in choosing the 'right' doctor. Do you have sufficient skill, information, time and negotiating clout to make any choice that would actually be quantifiable?

No, you just pay and because you pay you think you own the doctor for that service.

That's the difference.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 5th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics