Quote from: gusti on September 08, 2011, 10:53:38 PM

Quote from: JeffK on September 08, 2011, 10:47:22 PM

In America, the answer to these questions is no. The rich should be allowed to disproportionately leech off the system due to their position and advantage and life, and the working class man should be cast aside as a disposable tool the minute he becomes a liability.

In America, the so called "working class" man, that is, the people that works responsible, go to work on a new model car, and live in a nice house, have vacations, etc. If you are responsible enough, you can have the liability insurance of your choice, or live with that risk.

Yeah, except they don't

Median household income (generally two-earners), in 2003, was $36,835 for highschool grads and $68,728 for families with at least 1 bachelor's. Even at $68,000, it's hard to afford 'a nice house' and 'a new model car' without saving for a decade or owing someone a shitload of money. (I can't be bother to lookup more recent numbers than 2003, but since wages have stagnated for 30 years AND we have another depression happening, I'd imagine it's lower.)

If, instead, I used working class to describe blue-collar high school graduate workers, the situation is obviously a lot worse. So if the 'average' working class man does own a house and a new car, it's only because he is well over his head in debt and will likely spend most of his life turning over his money to his debtor.

Also, insurance companies across the country have been dropping people for any condition worse that is worse than a tonsil removal if they thinks it's too costly. Without government intervention (or better yet, single-payer system), this habit will continue as insurance companies see profits at no risk to themselves and little fallout.