And furthermore ...
Sep. 13th, 2006 03:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nerwengreenTo continue my train of thought from the Community Chat thread where I said:
Where I work (in the southern U.S.), we have a visiting colleague from Norway who is here for about a year. I met him when he first arrived, and while we were talking about possible affordable housing, he mentioned that his girlfriend was going to come over too. Then he mentioned that so were their young children - casually, without batting an eye. Like it was completely normal and appropriate to have small children without being married to the children's mother.
Talk about an interesting moment of culture shock. :)
The note in the local paper that announced his arrival said that it was him and his "wife." I guess they didn't want to make waves.
Later on I learned that she was able to come with him because they get a year of maternity leave with each child. And he's here visiting us while on paternity leave.
The more I hear about life in Scandinavia, the more it sounds like they have a lot of things thought through a lot better than we have it in the U.S. They sure seem to value family a lot more.
I already know someone is going to get quite irate and self-righteously furious over that last sentence. Family Values is a big topic in the U.S., though to my mind it's bandied about as a buzzword by people who don't seem to have any idea what it really means, and who seem to have an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes a "family."
Based on what I've heard from people in Europe, particularly Sweden, family actually counts as a priority in the workplace. Taking off work to take care of sick children, for example, is not only a non-issue, but you even still get paid for it. Maternity (and paternity) leaves last a whole lot longer than they do here, where mothers are given a mere two weeks by most employers. Strangely, it seems that women in Europe return to their jobs after having their babies at a much higher rate than women in the U.S. - many of the latter decide to become full-time mothers instead. Also, women in Europe can reasonably expect to have their jobs still there waiting for their return, whereas over here, the chances are much higher that the employer will find someone else to replace them.
Then there's been the casual mentions of taking off from work to attend child-related activities at their schools, and such. As if these, too, are non-issues. Here in the U.S. they generally are not.
The above is my casual understanding of the nature of things, based on hearsay in the chat channel and reading of blog comments and other sorts of things to that effect.
Anyway, the other thing along my train of thought, which I didn't post in the continuation of the Community Chat post, due to the fact that it's not directly related, but which follows naturally in the progression in my own head ... health care.
Places like Canada, the UK, Sweden, New Zealand, etc. all have socialized health care. What this means is that basic health care is "free" to everyone, regardless of whether they can afford to pay for it. It's all paid for by the government.
The downside is that they get taxed a lot more heavily. I believe the figure I heard mentioned (hearsay in chat channels again) is 1/3rd of the paycheck.
It occurred to me recently that I also lose 1/3rd of my paycheck every month. The difference is that a large chunk of mine is going toward a private company ("health and dental insurance") instead of the government.
What do I get for the money I'm having removed from my check? The privilege of doctors who are actually willing to see me; a lot of them won't talk to uninsured people at all (which screws the poor in nightmarish ways). But I still have to do a co-pay for each office visit - which in my case is $20. Also, we have these things called "deductibles" which means that, up until I pay for everything myself up to a certain amount, the insurance won't step in. We have many complicated rules for what kinds of things are applicable and for how much deductible. There is also a lifetime maximum benefit. Meaning, if I reach the mark of how much they're willing to pay for me in total, I'm on my own.
To put it in better words, here's what someone originally from the UK said about it: "My wife has tried to explain the concept of "co-pay" to me, and it seems to boil down to "you pay taxes, your employer pays health insurance (which means they can't pay you as much), you top up that health insurance, and a doctor *still* won't see you unless you pay him directly." I don't think that makes a great deal of sense." (wintermute | September 7, 2005 10:30 AM | originally a blog comment from here)
I'm not sure I'm liking the concept that money toward my health care is going to a for-profit private company. The government (assuming they're well-run, and not using our current welfare system as the framework) is more likely to make good use of that money in a socialized system, where not only do I benefit, but everyone else benefits as well. As opposed to a committee that pockets it.
Every Man For Himself does not a civilization make. The wealthy who don't want to pay taxes should think about the implications of that one more.
A lot of the above thoughts came after reading several threads on John Scalzi's blog about Being Poor. In particular: the original, the followup, an "about the author", and the one-year retrospective.
And thus we have a snapshot view of the activity going on inside my head in the past week or so, which seem to keep me from coming up with presentable fiction (in the form of roleplay posts). Now that I've written it down, I hope I'll be able to get back into RPoL things again.
Where I work (in the southern U.S.), we have a visiting colleague from Norway who is here for about a year. I met him when he first arrived, and while we were talking about possible affordable housing, he mentioned that his girlfriend was going to come over too. Then he mentioned that so were their young children - casually, without batting an eye. Like it was completely normal and appropriate to have small children without being married to the children's mother.
Talk about an interesting moment of culture shock. :)
The note in the local paper that announced his arrival said that it was him and his "wife." I guess they didn't want to make waves.
Later on I learned that she was able to come with him because they get a year of maternity leave with each child. And he's here visiting us while on paternity leave.
The more I hear about life in Scandinavia, the more it sounds like they have a lot of things thought through a lot better than we have it in the U.S. They sure seem to value family a lot more.
I already know someone is going to get quite irate and self-righteously furious over that last sentence. Family Values is a big topic in the U.S., though to my mind it's bandied about as a buzzword by people who don't seem to have any idea what it really means, and who seem to have an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes a "family."
Based on what I've heard from people in Europe, particularly Sweden, family actually counts as a priority in the workplace. Taking off work to take care of sick children, for example, is not only a non-issue, but you even still get paid for it. Maternity (and paternity) leaves last a whole lot longer than they do here, where mothers are given a mere two weeks by most employers. Strangely, it seems that women in Europe return to their jobs after having their babies at a much higher rate than women in the U.S. - many of the latter decide to become full-time mothers instead. Also, women in Europe can reasonably expect to have their jobs still there waiting for their return, whereas over here, the chances are much higher that the employer will find someone else to replace them.
Then there's been the casual mentions of taking off from work to attend child-related activities at their schools, and such. As if these, too, are non-issues. Here in the U.S. they generally are not.
The above is my casual understanding of the nature of things, based on hearsay in the chat channel and reading of blog comments and other sorts of things to that effect.
Anyway, the other thing along my train of thought, which I didn't post in the continuation of the Community Chat post, due to the fact that it's not directly related, but which follows naturally in the progression in my own head ... health care.
Places like Canada, the UK, Sweden, New Zealand, etc. all have socialized health care. What this means is that basic health care is "free" to everyone, regardless of whether they can afford to pay for it. It's all paid for by the government.
The downside is that they get taxed a lot more heavily. I believe the figure I heard mentioned (hearsay in chat channels again) is 1/3rd of the paycheck.
It occurred to me recently that I also lose 1/3rd of my paycheck every month. The difference is that a large chunk of mine is going toward a private company ("health and dental insurance") instead of the government.
What do I get for the money I'm having removed from my check? The privilege of doctors who are actually willing to see me; a lot of them won't talk to uninsured people at all (which screws the poor in nightmarish ways). But I still have to do a co-pay for each office visit - which in my case is $20. Also, we have these things called "deductibles" which means that, up until I pay for everything myself up to a certain amount, the insurance won't step in. We have many complicated rules for what kinds of things are applicable and for how much deductible. There is also a lifetime maximum benefit. Meaning, if I reach the mark of how much they're willing to pay for me in total, I'm on my own.
To put it in better words, here's what someone originally from the UK said about it: "My wife has tried to explain the concept of "co-pay" to me, and it seems to boil down to "you pay taxes, your employer pays health insurance (which means they can't pay you as much), you top up that health insurance, and a doctor *still* won't see you unless you pay him directly." I don't think that makes a great deal of sense." (wintermute | September 7, 2005 10:30 AM | originally a blog comment from here)
I'm not sure I'm liking the concept that money toward my health care is going to a for-profit private company. The government (assuming they're well-run, and not using our current welfare system as the framework) is more likely to make good use of that money in a socialized system, where not only do I benefit, but everyone else benefits as well. As opposed to a committee that pockets it.
Every Man For Himself does not a civilization make. The wealthy who don't want to pay taxes should think about the implications of that one more.
A lot of the above thoughts came after reading several threads on John Scalzi's blog about Being Poor. In particular: the original, the followup, an "about the author", and the one-year retrospective.
And thus we have a snapshot view of the activity going on inside my head in the past week or so, which seem to keep me from coming up with presentable fiction (in the form of roleplay posts). Now that I've written it down, I hope I'll be able to get back into RPoL things again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-13 06:56 pm (UTC)Otherwise - using the same logic - if a few businesses failed, we could argue capitalism doesn't work.
In australia, we have medicare and (even after being largely gutted by the current federal govt - on ideological grounds) it works well. Do hospitals have issues still? Of course ... but at least here, the quality of care does not depend on whether you're wealthy enough to afford it. At least here, people don't die because they were turned away from a hospital.
And - having a socialised system does not stop people paying more for private cover on top.
How much does it cost for such a system - just 1.5% of income - for everyone (over the free bracket) - though arguments hold that an increase to 2% or even 2.5% would push the system to easily the best anywhere.