Dear listmembers,
A late reaction on the discussion about social security. The preoccupation with
possible fraud seems realistic. In Holland everyone who is unfit for work,
whether he did work or not, has an income, as well as everyone who is not unfit
but unemployed. If he/she did work the income is related to the income that has
been earned or else one gets a "minimum". It includes a complete insurance
against all medical costs. Fraud can, in a system like this, never be
completely prevented. But I think this not a strong argument against this
system here in Holland. The way much people see it here, it is a basic human
right to have a part in the wealth of the society to which one belongs. One can
see a parrallel with the right to be professionaly defended when charged with a
crime. Nobody doubts that in a society, in which it is thought important to
prevent that innocent people are imprisoned, there will be guilty ones who, due
to this protection, will not be punished.
Discussion about people's rights, who damage their own health by not taking
meds, I never did hear about that. I guess it is no topic because it only
happens as exception. It is a tricky topic because one can harm ones health in
so many ways. For exsample by working too hard.
The way the medical system is financed is something between tax and insurance.
Tax, because it is obligatory and a percentage of the income, and insurance
because, having paid for it, one only gets something back when the terms for
compensation are met. The system has been build in the years after the second
world war, when unemployment was not existing. With some changes it has till
now survived the economic recession with mass unemployment in the eighties and
de big waves of immigration, that started in the seventies. The social security
is for everyone who is permitted to live here.
I don't write this to start a political discussion, but to give some info to
people, who are interested.
Ida Kamphuis
[log in to unmask]
Charles wrote:
> > > I don't know how the system is funded in Indonesia or European countries
> > but Social Security is a tax in the US not an insurance program. The
> > funds are not invested they are using money of today's workers to pay
> > for elderly and disabled individuals.
>
> If you want an idea of the way an authoritarian state can run, study
> Indonesia.
> There is no support here, NOTHING, it makes one grateful for what is
> available
> in the west. Indonesia is an example of why I am concerned for personal
> freedom
> without coercion from the State in whatever form it takes.
>
> In Europe social security is often a percentage of income and, if you
> like, can be
> considered a tax. I believe it is an insurance policy in essence and in
> the UK
> is called National Insurance. It is meant to provide some basic security
> for
> health, welfare and old age. Like the US there is pressure on the system
> mostly
> from demographics, higher unemployment (whose fault is that - another
> argument)
> and higher expectations. Often the basic problem is people want
> something for
> nothing (in our point of discussion - I do not believe the claimant is
> asking
> for something for nothing).The reason I look on it as an insurance is
> that one pays
> a sum of money which covers a whole range of situations eg
> unemployment, sickness,
> basic pension. An individual will take more or less according to what
> happens during
> life, which more often or not is outside the individuals control. If
> someone
> does not pay into the scheme then they are not a member - I presume our
> subject
> did pay or has been deemed to have paid, and as such should be entitled
> to
> the benefits. I agree with you (REALLY?? !!) there have to be limits, I
> am totaly
> against fraud, abuse of the system etc. These are theft and should be
> treated as such.
> Presumably, the subject of this discusion really hasPD and is not
> attempting fraud.
> ? We are not their> > responsibility.nario.
