The Ledge's Monthly Approval of President Obama-Do You Approve??? August 2009

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Hey, BombaySapphire... This is just one particular instance but it makes a point nevertheless...


-----------------------------------------

Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test
By JOHN STOSSEL and KRISTINA KENDALL
Nov. 28, 2006

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
--------------------------------------

Considering that the Salvation Army openly discrimated against AIDS victims in the 1980s through the early 1990s I can see why they did not get much here ..I would not give them a plug nickle myself for that very reason.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Considering that the Salvation Army openly discrimated against AIDS victims in the 1980s through the early 1990s I can see why they did not get much here ..I would not give them a plug nickle myself for that very reason.

Well, I most certainly disagree with discrimination on that basis.

My parents always taught us to give. Every year we "cleaned out the closet" and gave away toys/clothes/books. My brother and I go to the toy stores every year during the holidays and buy $40-50 bucks worth to give some kid a decent Christmas. I don't do it to feel good about myself, I do it because I had a great childhood growing up ...and so should every other child.

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

So what is your solution in terms of the mentally ill and/or homeless people? Should everyone be provided with the daily medication they need? Free of charge? That would be GREAT in a perfect world, but for myself, I cannot in good conscience agree to let my tax dollars pay for that (whoops, I'm not cause I'm not in America anymore) but you get the point.

I don't have the solution but I am open to exploring how other places are doing it. And actually, I do believe that all Americans should be able to get the medications they need, whether they have an ability to pay or not. I don't agree that health care should be seen as a reward to those who work and the absence of it as a punishment for those who don't (whether by choice or not). As I said earlier, in Canada, the doctor visits are free, the prescriptions are not. People who work get prescription "benefits" and people who don't, get assistance.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Prescriptions aren't free here either Jannie.
Again, I still don't understand why healthcare is considered a "perk" and, say, education isn't. I don't think either is personally.
Anyway, I could argue this until I'm blue in the face but all I know is that many times in my life, up until recently, I've been grateful of the NHS.

Well that is great that it works for you. You few here at the first proponents of NHS I've heard. See? Perceptions can be modified.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by jannieC

I do believe that all Americans should be able to get the medications they need, whether they have an ability to pay or not.

Then, the only way to do that is with everyone else's tax dollars... And it's not the government's place to decide that.

I'd prefer a private healthcare system as I've been used to in America. Thus far, from my experience with my wife... the New Zealand system does not seem so fab.

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by carrie721

honestly, i don't know what the answer is for the US. as you know, my opinions are not coming from a place of extreme privilege. but i am leery of socialized medicine for the US. this country is just so huge and diverse i am not sure it would work here.

Saw an interesting thing on CNN the other day on the Dutch system,which was reformed in 2006. Apparently, for basic medial care, you pick your insurance company but all the options are highly regulated and standardized. I believe a state system kicks in for long-term illness and end of life care. It sounds like an interesting hybrid.

EDIT: Think Wikipedia does a good job at summarizing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...he_Netherlands

[Musicman408]

Awesomely intelligent discussion you all. It's really a difficult issue that people have strong feelings for (or against) and I think it's cool that we've been able to discuss this!!!

At this point, according to the people who have an opinion of Obama (those who voted either yes or no)- The Ledge's approval of Obama is at 53%, which is pretty much EXACTLY the national average. Granted voting has only been open for a day or so, and I won't get the FINAL monthly total for another week or so, I think it's interesting how as of now, we're following status quo.

[carrie721]

best argument ever for the NHS:

http://twitter.com/niknoks1912/status/3279762874

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by carrie721

best argument ever for the NHS:

http://twitter.com/niknoks1912/status/3279762874

Nothing particularly against Sarah Palin, but that did make me LOL

[rubytuesday]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Have you ever lived here? I've never waited two hours to see a doctor and as Pip says prescriptions aren't free. You seem to be talking about stuff you know nothing about. But I guess I'm the ignorant one.

I agree, but I guess we're "ignorant".

lol I know. I'm wondering if this person has lived in the UK.

My family all has private insurance but people outside the system find it hard to understand how you could like NHS if you've got private. If you need emergency care you will be put straight onto the best system, the NHS. Emergencies don't wait to see what kind of insurance you've got, you got straight to emergency NHS care which is the best. If you're not in critical condition and want to recover in a room that's nicer than the public system, you can use your private health. My friends father is recovering from a heart attack. He had to get an ambulance to the hospital and bypass surgery and regular check ups on the public system. He doesn't pay anything and even if he had private insurance he would have been taken to the same hospital and needed the same surgery done by the same doctors. He could probably go to a different hospital for check ups but most of the time it gets in the way more than helping because you have to transfer over to doctors who aren't familiar with the condition as opposed to the docs who treated you in hospital.

I go to the same GP as everybody else and I've never waited 2 hours. That's ridiculous. And like others said, medication isn't free, it's only free if your situation is qualified as falling below the line that can afford it. So if you're unemployed or retired etc. Everybody else pays (but nothing like the price over in the US!).

I couldn't live in a country that doesn't help its people in there greatest time of need, when they're sick. What do all the taxes go to? What's so important that it means there is no money for health? I would put that right at the top of the list, followed by education and military. And as someone who chooses to get private insurance on top I have no problem thinking that my tax is helping the NHS. That's the first place I'd choose it to go if I had an option!

I don't get why someone is calling us ignorant!??

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by rubytuesday

lol I know. I'm wondering if this person has lived in the UK.


I don't get why someone is calling us ignorant!??

Well, i'm living in New Zealand. So... yes, I am. Technically it IS part of the UK.

I never called anyone here ignorant, but continue to put that label on yourselves at my expense.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Well, i'm living in New Zealand. So... yes, I am. Technically it IS part of the UK.

I never called anyone here ignorant, but continue to put that label on yourselves at my expense.

you would be a lot less obnoxious if you'd just own up to your own behavior. you said that people who support the NHS are ignorant, but somehow that blanket statement doesn't include those who support it on the ledge? dude, get a life and drop the pity party act. nobody's bought it in any of the other threads you've tried it in, nobody's buying it now.

if you stand by what you said, then nut up and stand by it. if you spoke rashly and regret it, apologize, admit you were wrong, and move on. but this wishy-washy backpedaling game you play EVERY SINGLE TIME someone calls you on your BS is really, really adolescent.

also, i'm pretty sure it's not true that NZ is part of the UK.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Well maybe once I've had kids, I'll feel differently about it. Once I'm struggling (God forbid) to take care of my own family it'll make more sense that even more of my income goes to take care of bums. By bums I mean people who don't work. Those than CAN contribute to society and choose not to. There are moochers and maybe I'm pessimistic but I think this new system is going to be taken advantage of more than it's going to help.

So what is your solution in terms of the mentally ill and/or homeless people? Should everyone be provided with the daily medication they need? Free of charge? That would be GREAT in a perfect world, but for myself, I cannot in good conscience agree to let my tax dollars pay for that (whoops, I'm not cause I'm not in America anymore) but you get the point.

But there are an awful lot of people who don't work but they're not bums. How would you police it so that it's only the 'bums' that don't get away with it?

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

It is a perk... of the civilized world. What I'm saying is it's a very narrow field of folks who we're talking about here. Most people pay their taxes, they work, they contribute to society. We're talking about a very narrow window of folk who "ruin it" it for everyone else... thus the need for this recent overhaul of the American healthcare system. I've been relatively healthy my whole life, and haven't had the need for any real extensive medical treatment. Part of me actually doesn't mind that my tax dollars go to help the less fortunate. But I'm not happy about lazy bums who want to mooch off the system.

I'm guessing from your comments on here that a big part of you does mind

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Well, i'm living in New Zealand. So... yes, I am. Technically it IS part of the UK.

I never called anyone here ignorant, but continue to put that label on yourselves at my expense.

Oh get real. You called people who support the NHS ignorant. Back peddle all you like.. it's there in black and white.

And the end of the day you really had no clue what you were talking about. You gave what you believed to be facts (incorrectly in most part) after talking to some UK friends living in the NZ. And lets face it... if they left the UK because they weren't happy here then they're hardly going to give a glowing report about it.