PERB, which is the state agency that oversees collective bargaining for public employees, filed a complaint against AFSCME for allegedly engaging in bad faith bargaining in its negotiations with UC for new contracts for patient care and service workers. According to the complaint, the union failed to give adequate notice of the strike and encourage patient care employees to participate in the service workers’ strike despite the fact that their absence presented a danger to public health and safety.
This is just the latest in a string of anti-labor rulings by the board that is filled with Arnold Schwarzenegger appointees. It is composed of five governor-appointed members. PERB acts as a judicial body responsible for administering bargaining statutes for California’s public schools, colleges and universities.
At this time, the union denies the complaint has validity and is moving ahead as though they strike on Monday.
This is the second time that PERB has attempted to stop the UC strike. Back on May 29, 2008, AFSCME rescinded its strike notice after PERB ordered the union to resume negotiations. At that time, the union withdrew its strike notice after PERB announced that it would support UC in seeking a restraining order in the event of a strike. The restraining order would have prevented striking outside UC health centers.
According to AFSCME, these workers receive poverty wages as low as $10 per hour. Many work 2-3 jobs and qualify for public assistance to meet their families’ basic needs. UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher. In addition, when workers have stood up for better lives for their families and better working conditions, the University has retaliated by violating labor laws.
96% of service workers are eligible for at least one of the following forms of public assistance: food stamps, WIC, public housing subsidies and subsidized child care, creating a potential burden for CA taxpayers. Increasing wages would not only help lift workers out of poverty, but could positively impact CA and the low- and moderate-income areas where UC workers live as they contribute more to their local economy.
California State-appointed neutral Factfinder Carol Vendrillo, who independently evaluated the viability of a service workers’ labor agreement, found that the university system has the ability to increase pay to these workers.
“U.C. has demonstrated the ability to increase compensation when it fits with certain priorities without any demonstrable link to a state funding source…It is time for UC to take a broader view of its priorities by honoring the important contribution that service workers make to the U.C. community and compensating them with wages that are in line with the competitive market rate.”
Here is a video, put out by AFSCME that chronicles the conditions that these workers live under.
Follow the Vanguard next week, as we cover the UC Service Workers strike and get exclusive coverage and interviews.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
guess we get to see some more arrest photos here on this site, yes?
guess we get to see some more arrest photos here on this site, yes?
guess we get to see some more arrest photos here on this site, yes?
guess we get to see some more arrest photos here on this site, yes?
Since Arnold has been governor PERB has become more anti-employee and anti-union.
Let’s hope CA gets a better governor the next election.
Since Arnold has been governor PERB has become more anti-employee and anti-union.
Let’s hope CA gets a better governor the next election.
Since Arnold has been governor PERB has become more anti-employee and anti-union.
Let’s hope CA gets a better governor the next election.
Since Arnold has been governor PERB has become more anti-employee and anti-union.
Let’s hope CA gets a better governor the next election.
PERB has always been anti-union, although it is referred to here as anti-labor.
Arnold is doing a great job not letting unions choke the taxpayers to death.
Again mr. greenwald, what is a living wage? And yes, we are all aware your wife is a rep for the seiu union, hence your union views.
PERB has always been anti-union, although it is referred to here as anti-labor.
Arnold is doing a great job not letting unions choke the taxpayers to death.
Again mr. greenwald, what is a living wage? And yes, we are all aware your wife is a rep for the seiu union, hence your union views.
PERB has always been anti-union, although it is referred to here as anti-labor.
Arnold is doing a great job not letting unions choke the taxpayers to death.
Again mr. greenwald, what is a living wage? And yes, we are all aware your wife is a rep for the seiu union, hence your union views.
PERB has always been anti-union, although it is referred to here as anti-labor.
Arnold is doing a great job not letting unions choke the taxpayers to death.
Again mr. greenwald, what is a living wage? And yes, we are all aware your wife is a rep for the seiu union, hence your union views.
D. Greenwald,
Like most of your blog stories covering, the “poor workers”, it is full of financial generalities. On top of that your blogs on this subject suggest that the populace should engage in something that is not good for anyone, socialism.
Why don’t you discuss overpopulation and it’s effects on the economy? Can you also point out where the biggest source of overpopulation, what group, is it coming from?
Take a look at the big picture that affects all of us,not just the one you favor.
D. Greenwald,
Like most of your blog stories covering, the “poor workers”, it is full of financial generalities. On top of that your blogs on this subject suggest that the populace should engage in something that is not good for anyone, socialism.
Why don’t you discuss overpopulation and it’s effects on the economy? Can you also point out where the biggest source of overpopulation, what group, is it coming from?
Take a look at the big picture that affects all of us,not just the one you favor.
D. Greenwald,
Like most of your blog stories covering, the “poor workers”, it is full of financial generalities. On top of that your blogs on this subject suggest that the populace should engage in something that is not good for anyone, socialism.
Why don’t you discuss overpopulation and it’s effects on the economy? Can you also point out where the biggest source of overpopulation, what group, is it coming from?
Take a look at the big picture that affects all of us,not just the one you favor.
D. Greenwald,
Like most of your blog stories covering, the “poor workers”, it is full of financial generalities. On top of that your blogs on this subject suggest that the populace should engage in something that is not good for anyone, socialism.
Why don’t you discuss overpopulation and it’s effects on the economy? Can you also point out where the biggest source of overpopulation, what group, is it coming from?
Take a look at the big picture that affects all of us,not just the one you favor.
I also grew up in a union household, both parents union members. I was pro-union and pro-labor long before I met my wife.
Living wage is a wage that is sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions. It is a wage that people can live on without receiving public assistance.
I also grew up in a union household, both parents union members. I was pro-union and pro-labor long before I met my wife.
Living wage is a wage that is sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions. It is a wage that people can live on without receiving public assistance.
I also grew up in a union household, both parents union members. I was pro-union and pro-labor long before I met my wife.
Living wage is a wage that is sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions. It is a wage that people can live on without receiving public assistance.
I also grew up in a union household, both parents union members. I was pro-union and pro-labor long before I met my wife.
Living wage is a wage that is sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions. It is a wage that people can live on without receiving public assistance.
Anonymous: if you are interested in overpopulation and a discussion thereof, I suggest you create your own blog and discuss it. Otherwise please keep the posts somewhat on topic.
Anonymous: if you are interested in overpopulation and a discussion thereof, I suggest you create your own blog and discuss it. Otherwise please keep the posts somewhat on topic.
Anonymous: if you are interested in overpopulation and a discussion thereof, I suggest you create your own blog and discuss it. Otherwise please keep the posts somewhat on topic.
Anonymous: if you are interested in overpopulation and a discussion thereof, I suggest you create your own blog and discuss it. Otherwise please keep the posts somewhat on topic.
That last comment (anon 9:11) is weird — what does overpopulation have to do with this? Is this another veiled suggestion at keeping poor, undereducated Mexican immigrants out of the US?
What is wrong with a living wage? Why is that socialism?
And why is socialism entirely a bad thing? I very rarely hear disparaging comments about socialist Scandinavian countries. We have socialized police force, limited socialized medicine (Medicare), socialized fire fighters, socialized military (mostly), socialized mail delivery.
If we actually had comprehensive socialized healthcare, we could actually compete economically with other foreign countries.
That last comment (anon 9:11) is weird — what does overpopulation have to do with this? Is this another veiled suggestion at keeping poor, undereducated Mexican immigrants out of the US?
What is wrong with a living wage? Why is that socialism?
And why is socialism entirely a bad thing? I very rarely hear disparaging comments about socialist Scandinavian countries. We have socialized police force, limited socialized medicine (Medicare), socialized fire fighters, socialized military (mostly), socialized mail delivery.
If we actually had comprehensive socialized healthcare, we could actually compete economically with other foreign countries.
That last comment (anon 9:11) is weird — what does overpopulation have to do with this? Is this another veiled suggestion at keeping poor, undereducated Mexican immigrants out of the US?
What is wrong with a living wage? Why is that socialism?
And why is socialism entirely a bad thing? I very rarely hear disparaging comments about socialist Scandinavian countries. We have socialized police force, limited socialized medicine (Medicare), socialized fire fighters, socialized military (mostly), socialized mail delivery.
If we actually had comprehensive socialized healthcare, we could actually compete economically with other foreign countries.
That last comment (anon 9:11) is weird — what does overpopulation have to do with this? Is this another veiled suggestion at keeping poor, undereducated Mexican immigrants out of the US?
What is wrong with a living wage? Why is that socialism?
And why is socialism entirely a bad thing? I very rarely hear disparaging comments about socialist Scandinavian countries. We have socialized police force, limited socialized medicine (Medicare), socialized fire fighters, socialized military (mostly), socialized mail delivery.
If we actually had comprehensive socialized healthcare, we could actually compete economically with other foreign countries.
anonymous 9:11 pm sounds like a right-wing nut!
Not necessarily a republican, not a conservative, just a right-wing nut!
And, so what if your wife is a union rep as 9:01 said. We know that and you have been supportive of unions but if the person that wrote the post would read instead of just write they would see that your blog today did not agree with the union’s potential decision to support redistricting.
Keep up the great work on your blog. I appreciate anyone who can appeal to and draw a wide audience of right-wingers, liberals, those in between, and young and old alike.
anonymous 9:11 pm sounds like a right-wing nut!
Not necessarily a republican, not a conservative, just a right-wing nut!
And, so what if your wife is a union rep as 9:01 said. We know that and you have been supportive of unions but if the person that wrote the post would read instead of just write they would see that your blog today did not agree with the union’s potential decision to support redistricting.
Keep up the great work on your blog. I appreciate anyone who can appeal to and draw a wide audience of right-wingers, liberals, those in between, and young and old alike.
anonymous 9:11 pm sounds like a right-wing nut!
Not necessarily a republican, not a conservative, just a right-wing nut!
And, so what if your wife is a union rep as 9:01 said. We know that and you have been supportive of unions but if the person that wrote the post would read instead of just write they would see that your blog today did not agree with the union’s potential decision to support redistricting.
Keep up the great work on your blog. I appreciate anyone who can appeal to and draw a wide audience of right-wingers, liberals, those in between, and young and old alike.
anonymous 9:11 pm sounds like a right-wing nut!
Not necessarily a republican, not a conservative, just a right-wing nut!
And, so what if your wife is a union rep as 9:01 said. We know that and you have been supportive of unions but if the person that wrote the post would read instead of just write they would see that your blog today did not agree with the union’s potential decision to support redistricting.
Keep up the great work on your blog. I appreciate anyone who can appeal to and draw a wide audience of right-wingers, liberals, those in between, and young and old alike.
Seems to me that terms are being used interchangeably here: “living wage” and “poverty wage”.
A worker is only at the federal poverty level (“poverty wage”) at $10/hour if they have a four-person household. The federal poverty guideline for 2008 for a 4-person household is $21,200. I don’t know what percentage of service employees have that number in their household. But it is a bit dishonest to keep using the term “poverty wages” as if they apply to all service workers. The poverty guidelines are:
1-person household: $10,400
2-person: $14,000
3-person: $17,600
and so on. Just keep adding $3,600 per household member.
It isn’t surprising that people at service jobs qualify for various forms of public assistance. A household of 4 qualifies for food stamps with an annual income of $27,000. Household of 6: $40,000 annual income.
A single father or mother supporting 3 kids on these wages is having a tough time. I’m glad public assistance is available to help. Even better would be a second wage-earner.
“Living wage” can be defined in any number of ways. So can “family-sustaining wage”.
UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher.
That seems to me to be the key issue. I don’t think the union is going on strike for a “living wage”. They want parity. Without knowing what other comparable institutions are paying, it is impossible for outsiders to assess this issue.
Seems to me that terms are being used interchangeably here: “living wage” and “poverty wage”.
A worker is only at the federal poverty level (“poverty wage”) at $10/hour if they have a four-person household. The federal poverty guideline for 2008 for a 4-person household is $21,200. I don’t know what percentage of service employees have that number in their household. But it is a bit dishonest to keep using the term “poverty wages” as if they apply to all service workers. The poverty guidelines are:
1-person household: $10,400
2-person: $14,000
3-person: $17,600
and so on. Just keep adding $3,600 per household member.
It isn’t surprising that people at service jobs qualify for various forms of public assistance. A household of 4 qualifies for food stamps with an annual income of $27,000. Household of 6: $40,000 annual income.
A single father or mother supporting 3 kids on these wages is having a tough time. I’m glad public assistance is available to help. Even better would be a second wage-earner.
“Living wage” can be defined in any number of ways. So can “family-sustaining wage”.
UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher.
That seems to me to be the key issue. I don’t think the union is going on strike for a “living wage”. They want parity. Without knowing what other comparable institutions are paying, it is impossible for outsiders to assess this issue.
Seems to me that terms are being used interchangeably here: “living wage” and “poverty wage”.
A worker is only at the federal poverty level (“poverty wage”) at $10/hour if they have a four-person household. The federal poverty guideline for 2008 for a 4-person household is $21,200. I don’t know what percentage of service employees have that number in their household. But it is a bit dishonest to keep using the term “poverty wages” as if they apply to all service workers. The poverty guidelines are:
1-person household: $10,400
2-person: $14,000
3-person: $17,600
and so on. Just keep adding $3,600 per household member.
It isn’t surprising that people at service jobs qualify for various forms of public assistance. A household of 4 qualifies for food stamps with an annual income of $27,000. Household of 6: $40,000 annual income.
A single father or mother supporting 3 kids on these wages is having a tough time. I’m glad public assistance is available to help. Even better would be a second wage-earner.
“Living wage” can be defined in any number of ways. So can “family-sustaining wage”.
UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher.
That seems to me to be the key issue. I don’t think the union is going on strike for a “living wage”. They want parity. Without knowing what other comparable institutions are paying, it is impossible for outsiders to assess this issue.
Seems to me that terms are being used interchangeably here: “living wage” and “poverty wage”.
A worker is only at the federal poverty level (“poverty wage”) at $10/hour if they have a four-person household. The federal poverty guideline for 2008 for a 4-person household is $21,200. I don’t know what percentage of service employees have that number in their household. But it is a bit dishonest to keep using the term “poverty wages” as if they apply to all service workers. The poverty guidelines are:
1-person household: $10,400
2-person: $14,000
3-person: $17,600
and so on. Just keep adding $3,600 per household member.
It isn’t surprising that people at service jobs qualify for various forms of public assistance. A household of 4 qualifies for food stamps with an annual income of $27,000. Household of 6: $40,000 annual income.
A single father or mother supporting 3 kids on these wages is having a tough time. I’m glad public assistance is available to help. Even better would be a second wage-earner.
“Living wage” can be defined in any number of ways. So can “family-sustaining wage”.
UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher.
That seems to me to be the key issue. I don’t think the union is going on strike for a “living wage”. They want parity. Without knowing what other comparable institutions are paying, it is impossible for outsiders to assess this issue.
“What is wrong with a living wage? Why is that socialism? And why is socialism entirely a bad thing? I very rarely hear disparaging comments about socialist Scandinavian countries. We have socialized police force, limited socialized medicine (Medicare), socialized fire fighters, socialized military (mostly), socialized mail delivery.”
I find this a frightening statement. If you want to live in a Socialist society, then move to Sweden, where they have the highest suicide rate, legalized drugs that has resulted in disaster, and some other not so nice things. I don’t want my gov’t deciding for me how I should live.
Think about it. Suppose your gov’t decided business was all important, and forget the environment – like China. Then you are stuck with a gov’t that will destroy the planet to maximize profits – like China.
Socialism has other problems. For instance, everyone contributes to a larger pot, for the good of everyone. But guess what, there is no reward for being a harder worker. Lazy folks benefit the same as the hard workers. I could go on and on.
This country was founded as a democracy, where majority rules. It has worked pretty well so far, and I would rather live here than anywhere else in the world. So we must be doing something right.
I agree with Don Shor, when he says we must define our terms. What is meant by a “living wage”? The military often has to resort to living on food stamps, which means we are paying them poverty wages. But I don’t hear anyone saying they should be paid better for protecting our country and putting their lives on the line. I, for one, believe our military folks need to be paid better.
As for the UC workers, if they don’t like the wages, they can always leave and get a better job elsewhere. However, I also know the UC President is getting a huge per month housing allowance, because he doesn’t care to live in the house provided to him. With perks, he makes nearly $900,000 per year. This sort of inequity is disgusting! Why aren’t the unions pointing this sort of stuff out?
But often union heads are greedy too, and are involved in some unseemly behaviour of their own. Bobby Weist of the DFD comes to mind. Lots of food for thought…
“What is wrong with a living wage? Why is that socialism? And why is socialism entirely a bad thing? I very rarely hear disparaging comments about socialist Scandinavian countries. We have socialized police force, limited socialized medicine (Medicare), socialized fire fighters, socialized military (mostly), socialized mail delivery.”
I find this a frightening statement. If you want to live in a Socialist society, then move to Sweden, where they have the highest suicide rate, legalized drugs that has resulted in disaster, and some other not so nice things. I don’t want my gov’t deciding for me how I should live.
Think about it. Suppose your gov’t decided business was all important, and forget the environment – like China. Then you are stuck with a gov’t that will destroy the planet to maximize profits – like China.
Socialism has other problems. For instance, everyone contributes to a larger pot, for the good of everyone. But guess what, there is no reward for being a harder worker. Lazy folks benefit the same as the hard workers. I could go on and on.
This country was founded as a democracy, where majority rules. It has worked pretty well so far, and I would rather live here than anywhere else in the world. So we must be doing something right.
I agree with Don Shor, when he says we must define our terms. What is meant by a “living wage”? The military often has to resort to living on food stamps, which means we are paying them poverty wages. But I don’t hear anyone saying they should be paid better for protecting our country and putting their lives on the line. I, for one, believe our military folks need to be paid better.
As for the UC workers, if they don’t like the wages, they can always leave and get a better job elsewhere. However, I also know the UC President is getting a huge per month housing allowance, because he doesn’t care to live in the house provided to him. With perks, he makes nearly $900,000 per year. This sort of inequity is disgusting! Why aren’t the unions pointing this sort of stuff out?
But often union heads are greedy too, and are involved in some unseemly behaviour of their own. Bobby Weist of the DFD comes to mind. Lots of food for thought…
“What is wrong with a living wage? Why is that socialism? And why is socialism entirely a bad thing? I very rarely hear disparaging comments about socialist Scandinavian countries. We have socialized police force, limited socialized medicine (Medicare), socialized fire fighters, socialized military (mostly), socialized mail delivery.”
I find this a frightening statement. If you want to live in a Socialist society, then move to Sweden, where they have the highest suicide rate, legalized drugs that has resulted in disaster, and some other not so nice things. I don’t want my gov’t deciding for me how I should live.
Think about it. Suppose your gov’t decided business was all important, and forget the environment – like China. Then you are stuck with a gov’t that will destroy the planet to maximize profits – like China.
Socialism has other problems. For instance, everyone contributes to a larger pot, for the good of everyone. But guess what, there is no reward for being a harder worker. Lazy folks benefit the same as the hard workers. I could go on and on.
This country was founded as a democracy, where majority rules. It has worked pretty well so far, and I would rather live here than anywhere else in the world. So we must be doing something right.
I agree with Don Shor, when he says we must define our terms. What is meant by a “living wage”? The military often has to resort to living on food stamps, which means we are paying them poverty wages. But I don’t hear anyone saying they should be paid better for protecting our country and putting their lives on the line. I, for one, believe our military folks need to be paid better.
As for the UC workers, if they don’t like the wages, they can always leave and get a better job elsewhere. However, I also know the UC President is getting a huge per month housing allowance, because he doesn’t care to live in the house provided to him. With perks, he makes nearly $900,000 per year. This sort of inequity is disgusting! Why aren’t the unions pointing this sort of stuff out?
But often union heads are greedy too, and are involved in some unseemly behaviour of their own. Bobby Weist of the DFD comes to mind. Lots of food for thought…
“What is wrong with a living wage? Why is that socialism? And why is socialism entirely a bad thing? I very rarely hear disparaging comments about socialist Scandinavian countries. We have socialized police force, limited socialized medicine (Medicare), socialized fire fighters, socialized military (mostly), socialized mail delivery.”
I find this a frightening statement. If you want to live in a Socialist society, then move to Sweden, where they have the highest suicide rate, legalized drugs that has resulted in disaster, and some other not so nice things. I don’t want my gov’t deciding for me how I should live.
Think about it. Suppose your gov’t decided business was all important, and forget the environment – like China. Then you are stuck with a gov’t that will destroy the planet to maximize profits – like China.
Socialism has other problems. For instance, everyone contributes to a larger pot, for the good of everyone. But guess what, there is no reward for being a harder worker. Lazy folks benefit the same as the hard workers. I could go on and on.
This country was founded as a democracy, where majority rules. It has worked pretty well so far, and I would rather live here than anywhere else in the world. So we must be doing something right.
I agree with Don Shor, when he says we must define our terms. What is meant by a “living wage”? The military often has to resort to living on food stamps, which means we are paying them poverty wages. But I don’t hear anyone saying they should be paid better for protecting our country and putting their lives on the line. I, for one, believe our military folks need to be paid better.
As for the UC workers, if they don’t like the wages, they can always leave and get a better job elsewhere. However, I also know the UC President is getting a huge per month housing allowance, because he doesn’t care to live in the house provided to him. With perks, he makes nearly $900,000 per year. This sort of inequity is disgusting! Why aren’t the unions pointing this sort of stuff out?
But often union heads are greedy too, and are involved in some unseemly behaviour of their own. Bobby Weist of the DFD comes to mind. Lots of food for thought…
“I find this a frightening statement. If you want to live in a Socialist society, then move to Sweden, where they have the highest suicide rate, legalized drugs that has resulted in disaster, and some other not so nice things. I don’t want my gov’t deciding for me how I should live.”
You seem to look at the world as too much black or white. You can either be socialist or not socialist and that’s it. I would argue that this is a spectrum issue, that we already are a little bit socialist in this country, even if we refuse to acknowledge it. Examples are a few comments above.
We also have the right to vote to change things if the whole thing feels too scary. I believe people in Sweden are also free to vote to change things if it feels too scary.
I think the government already determines how you live your life, even if you think you live in the greatest democracy in the world. For many people, worrying about health care is just a fact of life in the U.S. In other countries, significantly fewer people worry about health care. Instead they may worry about other things. By accepting the current health care system that we have, we have also accepted its consequences, positive and negative.
“I find this a frightening statement. If you want to live in a Socialist society, then move to Sweden, where they have the highest suicide rate, legalized drugs that has resulted in disaster, and some other not so nice things. I don’t want my gov’t deciding for me how I should live.”
You seem to look at the world as too much black or white. You can either be socialist or not socialist and that’s it. I would argue that this is a spectrum issue, that we already are a little bit socialist in this country, even if we refuse to acknowledge it. Examples are a few comments above.
We also have the right to vote to change things if the whole thing feels too scary. I believe people in Sweden are also free to vote to change things if it feels too scary.
I think the government already determines how you live your life, even if you think you live in the greatest democracy in the world. For many people, worrying about health care is just a fact of life in the U.S. In other countries, significantly fewer people worry about health care. Instead they may worry about other things. By accepting the current health care system that we have, we have also accepted its consequences, positive and negative.
“I find this a frightening statement. If you want to live in a Socialist society, then move to Sweden, where they have the highest suicide rate, legalized drugs that has resulted in disaster, and some other not so nice things. I don’t want my gov’t deciding for me how I should live.”
You seem to look at the world as too much black or white. You can either be socialist or not socialist and that’s it. I would argue that this is a spectrum issue, that we already are a little bit socialist in this country, even if we refuse to acknowledge it. Examples are a few comments above.
We also have the right to vote to change things if the whole thing feels too scary. I believe people in Sweden are also free to vote to change things if it feels too scary.
I think the government already determines how you live your life, even if you think you live in the greatest democracy in the world. For many people, worrying about health care is just a fact of life in the U.S. In other countries, significantly fewer people worry about health care. Instead they may worry about other things. By accepting the current health care system that we have, we have also accepted its consequences, positive and negative.
“I find this a frightening statement. If you want to live in a Socialist society, then move to Sweden, where they have the highest suicide rate, legalized drugs that has resulted in disaster, and some other not so nice things. I don’t want my gov’t deciding for me how I should live.”
You seem to look at the world as too much black or white. You can either be socialist or not socialist and that’s it. I would argue that this is a spectrum issue, that we already are a little bit socialist in this country, even if we refuse to acknowledge it. Examples are a few comments above.
We also have the right to vote to change things if the whole thing feels too scary. I believe people in Sweden are also free to vote to change things if it feels too scary.
I think the government already determines how you live your life, even if you think you live in the greatest democracy in the world. For many people, worrying about health care is just a fact of life in the U.S. In other countries, significantly fewer people worry about health care. Instead they may worry about other things. By accepting the current health care system that we have, we have also accepted its consequences, positive and negative.