exodus_de
Having a coffee takes more than three minutes, especially if it's still hot. People don't necessarily have that kind of time in the morning. Or maybe they prefer to drink their coffee at a different place than where they purchased it.
You must be talking about herbicide, not insecticide. Herbicide kills unwanted plants, that's the whole point. It generally doesn't kill insects or "everything around it". Numerous unsuccessful attempts were made to show that Roundup/Glyphosate was harmful to bees, for example.
> I do not want to eat fruit or plant byproducts from roots which are constantly exposed to weedkiller or insecticide so strong that it kills all around it (except the root itself).
You should be aware then that there is such a thing as organic pesticides/herbicides which are no less "harmful" than their non-organic counterparts. The difference between organic/non-organic is generally whether a compound is synthetic or not, which is a completely nonsensical distinction from a health/environmental standpoint.
Herbicides/Pesticides are indispensable tools for modern agriculture. They generally have been tested to be safe to use on produce for human consumption. You should probably be more worried about the natural chemicals that some of these plants contain.
That is just not true. Historically, working your way through college was completely feasible. It still is feasible, unless you need one of those fancy 50,000$-100,000$ degrees, in which case you need a loan.
In Germany, a lot of students are working and living modestly through college. You don't have to rush your degree, employers do value actual work experience.
> You shouldn’t have to care about me individually, but if there are enough people like me, it takes a huge toll on society. You won’t be able to hide from it.
Look at it this way: In society, not everybody can or needs to be an academic. If you're not willing to work your way through college, or get a loan, or get one of these ISAs, then society isn't worse off if your place is taken by someone else.
Just look at the situation right now, there are tons of Americans with advanced degrees that are bartending and they're deeply in debt. Clearly society didn't need them to get that education, so it's better off not having paid for it.
> Join the rest of the developed world.
Let me tell you about the situation in Germany with its "free" universities: First of all, there's a three-tier school system with the lowest tier barred from higher education altogether, the middle tier requiring further schooling to access second-rate colleges only and only the high tier allowing university access. Usually, children are separated into these tiers by their teachers, at the end of primary school. While it's technically possible get back on the higher track when they're 16 or so, it is rare. Parental income/education and race is a huge predictor on which bucket a child ends up.
So let's say you were a "good child" and are allowed to the universities, prepare for long waiting times (years) unless you have a near-perfect grade average, in case you want to study something "popular" like medicine, business administration or law. Don't expect to get a seat at one of those crowded auditoriums, prepare to sit on the stairs. Also prepare to be "weeded out" early, especially in the technical fields. Fail a test in a course three times and you will not only be thrown out of your degree program, you are permanently barred from getting any degree that has that course in it. Failed your law degree? Maybe try computer science then!
Okay, let's say you went through all those filters, you finally get a degree. If you're got one of those "popular" degrees, it turns out that job competition is actually quite tough, because far more people have a degree than what the job market actually can absorb. It's still better than in Spain, Italy, Greece etc, where degrees are handed out like candy but actual jobs are as rare as gemstones.
Bottom Line: "Free College" just produces over-education, because most people choose popular degrees beyond what the market actually needs. With ISAs, at least there's an incentive to only support those degrees that are actually in-demand.
If you already have a serious health problem, you'll be hard pressed to find any country to take you and just take care of it pro-bono, if you're uninsured.
German public insurance only covers the bare minimum. I know enough people who are poor because of serious health issues. Sure, their medical costs were covered, but they're now welfare cases. They can't afford many treatments that would make their lives better. They would've had to buy extra insurance, but they chose not to, or couldn't afford it.
Relating that to the US: Don't skimp on insurance. Don't get an insurance that is capped at a low number, otherwise you will go bankrupt if shit hits the fan.
I agree it is a stupid system though and I'll tell you why: People want something for nothing. They want coverage for everyone, they don't want a tax, but they don't want compulsion to purchase and they also want to force insurers to take people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance can't work that way, the money has to come from somewhere.
If there was a compulsion to purchase, the system could work, as it does in many other countries. That's probably unconstitutional though, so it probably wouldn't stand.
Lastly you have "Medicare for all" which would basically bankrupt hospitals if you extrapolate from what current Medicare does to them financially.
You honestly can't blame representatives for dealing with voters that understand nothing and want everything. They voted for Obamacare, then they voted for Trump to make Obamacare even worse. I don't even want to know what's next...
That's not to say the American system is good, but I can't stand all this talk about how socialized healthcare is so great. It isn't. A lot of what people are calling "socialized" systems are actually private systems with a compulsion to purchase insurance, for example Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia. Even Germany technically has a dual system (public and private) but only the top earners are allowed to go private.
...at which point progressive income tax starts kicking in badly.
> Also, only 7.5% comes out of your paycheck, the employer pays the other half.
Guess what, the employer pays 100% of your paycheck, including your vacation, pension, healthcare and taxes. It doesn't really matter to the employer how the cost is labeled. That's why you get to charge more when self-employed.
> The final cost is comparable.
Comparable? It's almost double if you don't take any care. Also, what if you don't have children? It's apples and oranges.
> The 15% is only if you participate in the public system - the private is not tied to your income.
Caveat: You are forced to take part in the public system unless you earn well or you are self-employed.
What happens in socialized systems is that the government does price fixing, which makes healthcare worse and it limits supply. Try getting a specialist appointment with socialized healthcare in Germany, it can take several months. Get private insurance (or pay out of pocket) and suddenly appointments become available. Doctors are leaving the country in droves.
Some of the hospitals in Germany are in an abysmal state, MRSA rates are extremely high:
https://correctiv.org/en/latest-stories/super-bugs/2017/01/1...
Socialized insurance rates in Germany are 15% of income. Unless your family doesn't earn any money, they have been paying far more than 50 Euros.
> In the US you can happy if your cost for seeing a doctor is less than 4 digits.
That isn't generally true. Every insurance plan is different. Cheap plans have a high deductible. It's similar to private insurance in Germany.
It's basically like this: If you're gonna be poor, go to Germany. Everyone else will pay for you. If you're going to earn well, leave Germany, otherwise you're going to be paying for everyone else.