European socialism

SquadronROE

So I've been hearing a lot of stuff about European socialism online recently, generally attached to Fox News outlets who deride it constantly. One discussion I had this weekend with a conservative friend centered around the idea that Europe's socialism has contributed directly to the economic problems plaguing some of Europe.

Those of you that live there or know more about this than I do, are those policies responsible for economic woes? I wouldn't think so, personally, but have no data to back that up.

Rym

are those policies responsible for economic woes? I wouldn't think so, personally, but have no data to back that up.

Tell him he's right. European socialism caused their economic woes. The proof is in the fact that the US economy, without this form of socialism, is just fine!

SquadronROE

Huh, and here I thought it was the global economic crash precipitated by shady financial practices at the world's largest banks. Who knew giving a grandmother free checkups did it!

HMTKSteve

I thought the meme was that European socialism led to the decline of Europe as a "world power". Turned them from barbarian raiders dominating all around them to a group of pansies who are now being overrun by foreigners and losing their national character?

a1s

It's true! While Capitalist America was enjoying it's glorious civil rights movement and the benfits of cheap imported labor, Europe lost their pride in being Europeans (these days the Germans can't even be arsed to invade France anymore!) and became invaded by African immigrants(who stole all the jobs).

Dr. Timo

The underlying reasons are the same as those for the US, the symptoms are different and varied since we have several pseudo-independent countries each having acted differently during the finance bubble. The solution to the crash is likewise slower to emerge due to the fractuous nature of the banking sector and there being multiple ministries of finance.

Even without any disargeement, you would expect a slower progress of the entire situation in Europe vs the US.

SquadronROE

Gotcha, that makes sense. I'm curious, is there even any real "debate" over the "socialism" that Europe has? From what I can tell, people seem to take it all in stride and accept it as a generally good thing.

For instance, are there people that resent having to give healthcare to poor or lazy people?

ElJoe0

For instance, are there people that resent having to give healthcare to poor or lazy people?

May I point you to the wonderful source of social unity that is the Daily Mail.

chaosof99

Gotcha, that makes sense. I'm curious, is there even any real "debate" over the "socialism" that Europe has? From what I can tell, people seem to take it all in stride and accept it as a generally good thing.

For instance, are there people that resent having to give healthcare to poor or lazy people?

As ElJooe points out, not many except hyper right-wing fucktards. Even they are usually tame on that matter. They have more fun with xenophobia.
Healthcare is seen pretty much like roads, schools, electricity, etc. It's a utility paid for with taxes that everyone uses and that nobody has a problem with. If you were to say that poor people shouldn't be treated at a hospital if they're sick or injured, you'd probably be treated with a blank stare and/or get carted off to the nearest asylum for the insane.

SquadronROE

Wow. It seems odd, but I know a ton of people who think that healthcare isn't something that is a right, and that some people should not be treated if they can't afford it. Hell, I know a couple of people who think insurance shouldn't even be offered, because you should be fiscally responsible enough to save money in case of health problems.

Rym

Hell, I know a couple of people who think insurance shouldn't even be offered, because you should be fiscally responsible enough to save money in case of health problems.

So do I.

SquadronROE

It just kind of pisses me off. How did we get into a place where we've lost that level of human decency, where we could be actively trying to lobby against people's ability to be healthy?

On a slight aside note, ever since I've watched Doc Martin and started trying to understand Europe's healthcare systems better, I've noticed that we ignore so many "little" illnesses that we should probably get checked out. For example, my ankle has hurt for months, my fiance's allergies are terrible in the morning and at night despite our best efforts at keeping the house clean, my coworker's lungs have hurt for a couple of weeks...

And yet, the primary reason we don't go to the doctor is quite simply the money. Even with insurance helping, we would rather just suffer a bit than spend the $100 for each visit.

a1s

is there even any real "debate" over the "socialism" that Europe has?

There is. It's just that most of us here are young intellectuals, both factors being strongly correlated with having more socialist leanings.

Wow. It seems odd, but I know a ton of people who think that healthcare isn't something that is a right, and that some people should not be treated if they can't afford it.

Aside from humanism, there's a very good reason to keep people healthy: the less of them are sick, the less would be contagious. Also, less sick leave, if you're an employer.

Hell, I know a couple of people who think insurance shouldn't even be offered

I'm not sure if you should offer it, but you damn sure shouldn't buy it- it's a scam*. consider this: you are giving the insurance company money (S), and they pay some money (S') back to you with some probability (P). My question to you is: what do you think the relationship between S and S'P is? Consider that the insurance company need to pay salaries to the people at the office, investigate your claim when you bring it in, and then pay dividend to the stockholders from the profits they made. You're actually better off playing the lottery.

(*)Well no, it's not actually a scam- it's risk management. But if you can rationally tell yourself "If event A happens, my life won't become severely worse" (death of the primary provider in a family with 1 working parent counts, having your your 100$ TV stolen does not) you probably shouldn't get insurance for it.

gomidog

Hell, I know a couple of people who think insurance shouldn't even be offered, because you should be fiscally responsible enough to save money in case of health problems.

These people have no idea what modern medicine actually costs. Cancer drugs can run hundreds of dollars a pill, and it can cost over $100,000 for a significant stay in the hospital after, say, a car accident.
It is like saying "Everyone should become rich on the off chance they get hit by a car, so they can use all their wealth so they don't die!"
This isn't like talking about well visits and vaccines, this is about the prevention of sudden, extremely expensive treatments.

SquadronROE

I'm not sure if you should offer it, but you damn sure shouldn't buy it- it's a scam*. consider this: you are giving the insurance company money (S), and they pay some money (S') back to you with some probability (P). My question to you is: what do you think the relationship between S and S'P is? Consider that the insurance company need to pay salaries to the people at the office, investigate your claim when you bring it in, and then pay dividend to the stockholders from the profits they made. You're actually better off playing the lottery.

Health insurance is quite necessary, considering the cost of emergency treatments and surgeries and the like. There is absolutely no way I could afford to save up enough to pay for medical bills if I got into an accident. Absolutely, positively no way.

The only thing I would be able to do is declare bankruptcy. So I really don't see your point, unless you're talking about property insurance. Which, since I'm a homeowner, is still pretty necessary for the big ticket item (the house repairs).

SquadronROE

These people have no idea what modern medicine actually costs. Cancer drugs can run hundreds of dollars a pill, and it can cost over $100,000 for a significant stay in the hospital after, say, a car accident.

This. The costs are just ludicrous without some way to mitigate them. Unfortunately in our current system my options on this front are fairly limited.

SquadronROE

The only time I thought about not carrying insurance was when I was renting, and car insurance. I carry car insurance enough to cover medical bills in case of an accident (emergency stuff) but never carried renters coverage since I never had anything I couldn't afford to replace.

Now if my house blew down in a hurricane or a tree fell through it, or a car drove into it, or lightning strikes it, or a flood hits, or a tornado hits it, or it burns down, or whatever... I can't afford to purchase all of the materials and pay for all of the labor to rebuild the house AND continue paying off the mortgage (which would probably not be mitigated as far as I know).

DevilUknow

These people have no idea what modern medicine actually costs. Cancer drugs can run hundreds of dollars a pill, and it can cost over $100,000 for a significant stay in the hospital after, say, a car accident.

This. The costs are just ludicrous without some way to mitigate them. Unfortunately in our current system my options on this front are fairly limited.

I'm no economist, but wouldn't is also be bad, macro-economically, for people to be sitting on hundreds of thousands of liquid dollars to cover the eventuality of a heart attack (assuming they could scrape it together in the first place)?

Dragonmaster Lou

Aside from humanism, there's a very good reason to keep people healthy: the less of them are sick, the less would be contagious. Also, less sick leave, if you're an employer.

That's assuming you even get sick leave. Many people don't have any sick leave at all -- so if you get sick, you could end up being fired.

Now if my house blew down in a hurricane or a tree fell through it, or a car drove into it, or lightning strikes it, or a flood hits, or a tornado hits it, or it burns down, or whatever... I can't afford to purchase all of the materials and pay for all of the labor to rebuild the house AND continue paying off the mortgage (which would probably not be mitigated as far as I know).

Actually, most banks require you to have your house insured as a mortgage requirement. Often your monthly payment includes extra money that goes into an escrow account specifically to pay for insurance and property taxes. At least that's how the banks around here work.

a1s

Health insurance is quite necessary <...> The costs are just ludicrous without some way to mitigate them.

They are, and It is. I'm not arguing this.

[insurance] is still pretty necessary for the big ticket item (the house repairs). There is absolutely no way I could afford to save up enough

Let me ask you this: how much have you actually paid in home insurance? Just ballpark it for me (monthly premium X 10 X # years you lived in your house). Are you telling me you can't fix one broken wall with all that money?

Now if my house blew down in a hurricane or a flood hits, or a tornado hits it, or it burns down, or whatever... I can't afford to purchase all of the materials and pay for all of the labor to rebuild the house AND continue paying off the mortgage (which would probably not be mitigated as far as I know).

Correct me if I'm wrong (I never owned real estate. I guess my parents do, but I've been renting ever since I moved out), but isn't your house collateral for that mortgage of yours? If the bank wants a plot of land with ruins on it, why not let them have it? (Though, yes, your credit rating will be shot to hell, but it's better than being hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, right?)

SquadronROE

Actually, most banks require you to have your house insured as a mortgage requirement. Often your monthly payment includes extra money that goes into an escrow account specifically to pay for insurance and property taxes. At least that's how the banks around here work.

That's the way mine works too. I don't really have the option of getting no insurance, although I suppose I could get really bad insurance and save some money.

a1s

That's assuming you even get sick leave. Many people don't have any sick leave at all -- so if you get sick, you could end up being fired.

Meaning you will try to come into work sick (so you don't get fired, or at least your pay docked) and make your co-workers sick. That means decreased productivity.

Actually, most banks require you to have your house insured as a mortgage requirement.

See? I was probably right: banks don't want your demolished house and will make everything in their power to make you keep it (and paying off that mortgage, natch).

Dragonmaster Lou

That's assuming you even get sick leave. Many people don't have any sick leave at all -- so if you get sick, you could end up being fired.

Meaning you will try to come into work sick (so you don't get fired, or at least your pay docked) and make your co-workers sick. That means decreased productivity.

Yeah, but most employers who have these draconian policies don't see it that way. They see if you're not at work, sick or not, you're a lazy jerk who should be fired.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I never owned real estate. I guess my parents do, but I've been renting ever since I moved out), but isn't your house collateral for that mortgage of yours? If the bank wants a plot of land with ruins on it, why not let them have it? (Though, yes, your credit rating will be shot to hell, but it's better than being hundreds of dollars in debt, right?)

The house is collateral, but that only goes as far as the house is standing. Let's say you purchase a house for $250,000. That purchase price is for the house and the plot of land the house is built upon. Let's say the value of the land by itself with no house is $125,000, meaning that the house alone is worth $125,000 as well. Now, if you didn't pay off your mortgage and your house is foreclosed upon, then the bank gets all $250,000 (assuming the price doesn't change with the ups and downs of the housing market) in collateral. However, if the house burns down, then all it can get in collateral is the $125,000 value of the land -- hence the bank's requirement (and argue generally good idea, even without a bank involved) to get homeowners' insurance. However, typically the amount of insurance you purchase isn't for the combined cost of the house and land -- just the amount of money it would cost to rebuild the house from scratch in case it's completely destroyed. In this example, you'd take out a $125,000 insurance policy on the house, plus maybe some additional money to cover the stuff you have inside your house.

SquadronROE

Let me ask you this: how much have you actually paid in home insurance? Just ballpark it for me (monthly premium X 10 X # years you lived in your house). Are you telling me you can't fix one broken wall with all that money?

Probably around $3000 or so, and yeah that probably wouldn't be enough to rebuild a wall. Especially if you don't do it yourself. Contractors are expensive. Plus you don't generally use homeowners insurance for small things. If the water heater breaks, or the HVAC breaks, or a window is broken out I wouldn't claim it on insurance. If the roof is torn off or a wall crushed, that's what I'd be claiming. And then it would easily pay for itself.

And I suppose the house is collateral, and if the entire house is totaled I would probably write it off and let insurance pay the value of the house, and move on to something else. Probably renting for awhile. Which is far better than not having insurance and having to default on the loan.

(Though, yes, your credit rating will be shot to hell, but it's better than being hundreds of dollars in debt, right?)

Not really. If my credit rating is shot to hell by defaulting on my house and I want to continue living in a modern world, it would be terrible. Even things like getting basic utilities hooked up would become more expensive as I'd have to pay more upfront costs, and every single loan I want to get (credit card bills, car loan being the big ones) would cost me far more both up front and down the road. Hell, because my fiance has student loans that are variable interest, and we bought the house together, a terrible credit rating could cost her a thousand dollars extra a month in student loan bills.

SquadronROE

The house is collateral, but that only goes as far as the house is standing. Let's say you purchase a house for $250,000. That purchase price is for the house and the plot of land the house is built upon. Let's say the value of the land by itself with no house is $125,000, meaning that the house alone is worth $125,000 as well. Now, if you didn't pay off your mortgage and your house is foreclosed upon, then the bank gets all $250,000 (assuming the price doesn't change with the ups and downs of the housing market) in collateral. However, if the house burns down, then all it can get in collateral is the $125,000 value of the land -- hence the bank's requirement (and argue generally good idea, even without a bank involved) to get homeowners' insurance. However, typically the amount of insurance you purchase isn't for the combined cost of the house and land -- just the amount of money it would cost to rebuild the house from scratch in case it's completely destroyed. In this example, you'd take out a $125,000 insurance policy on the house, plus maybe some additional money to cover the stuff you have inside your house.

That makes a ton of sense. Thanks for the clarification. I went through all of this fairly recently and it still makes my head kind of spin trying to keep track of it all.

a1s

Yeah, but most employers who have these draconian policies don't see it that way. They see if you're not at work, sick or not, you're a lazy jerk who should be fired.

In many countries where you can get away with tricks like firing people out of the blue, you may also be able dock their pay for not working 110% efficiently, so employers don't care either way. I was thinking more along the lines of: "If a significant part of the country's workforce is sick, they will produce less, and production of good and services will fall, so I think it makes sense to have government mandated sick days/socialized medicine."

SquadronROE

"If a significant part of the country's workforce is sick, they will produce less, and production of good and services will fall, so I think it makes sense to have government mandated sick days/socialized medicine."

I very much agree. I have no idea how accurate our tracking of diseases and sickness trends could possibly be when so many people fail to report symptoms.

ElJoe0

As ElJooe points out, not many except hyper right-wing fucktards. Even they are usually tame on that matter. They have more fun with xenophobia.
Healthcare is seen pretty much like roads, schools, electricity, etc. It's a utility paid for with taxes that everyone uses and that nobody has a problem with. If you were to say that poor people shouldn't be treated at a hospital if they're sick or injured, you'd probably be treated with a blank stare and/or get carted off to the nearest asylum for the insane.

We pay National Insurance, which is a 11% tax rate on all earnings above £25K (I am not sure where this kicks in, as I don't pay tax due to low wages, and my parents pay lots of tax (around 50% total)) to pay for the NHS. Well worth the cost in my opinion, free dental, free opticians and free general, at point of use so no need to memorise any insurance numbers.

you'd probably be treated with a blank stare and/or get carted off to the nearest asylum for the insane.

Which would be free of charge!

a1s

The house is collateral <...> if the house burns down, then all it can get in collateral is the $125,000 value of the land -- hence the bank's requirement to get homeowners' insurance.

This isn't odd in the least- bank is looking out for #1 here, they don't want your house (even all $250k of it), they want your money (with the house they'd have to hire new staff to sell it and that's more costs and later repayment).

Even things like getting basic utilities hooked up would become more expensive as I'd have to pay more upfront costs, and every single loan I want to get (credit card bills, car loan being the big ones) would cost me far more both up front and down the road.

You would have to buy stuff with cash (money you have now, not paper money) rather then credit, yes. And it would be a pain in the ass, also yes. But is it worth $100k in debt?

Hell, because my fiance has student loans that are variable interest, and we bought the house together, a terrible credit rating could cost her a thousand dollars extra a month in student loan bills.

You've got me here, that might just suck more than all that debt (seeing as how it more or less is 'all that debt' at dozens of thousands (if not actual hundreds)).

SquadronROE

You would have to buy stuff with cash (money you have now, not paper money) rather then credit, yes. And it would be a pain in the ass, also yes. But is it worth $100k in debt?

Possibly. With my house, it'd be more like $50k debt, which is around $500 a month. So I would have to do the math to figure out if having a terrible credit rating would cost us more over the long run than simply continuing to pay the remainder of the mortgage. It would make life considerably more difficult, as the only use for credit cards in that situation would be to buy things I can't pay off currently. Considering I would probably sell my current car to get out of that debt in this case, and buying a cheaper used one I could afford with cash, that would mean that if there are large car repairs needed that I can't pay for with cash on hand, I'm out of luck.

I generally like to avoid being in any possible situation where I am completely out of luck, so I have decent insurance on the house, with the high ticket items documented and itemized for reference. More than likely, nothing will ever happen in the house that will require me to use the insurance, but on the off-chance.. it's totally worth it, considering the alternative would more than likely be bankruptcy, and in the long term that's not a good idea.

SquadronROE

You've got me here, that might just suck more than all that debt (seeing as how it more or less is 'all that debt' at dozens of thousands (if not actual hundreds)).

It started at quarter of a million. Honestly, I'd love to not pay insurance but in the US it's the best safety net we can get in a lot of cases. We did a ton of homework on this one.