why are the American poor refused to do jobs that are there? - Page 2 — Brooklynian

why are the American poor refused to do jobs that are there?

2»

Comments

  • Cool The Kid said:

    Again it comes down to you hating the prospect of people accepting the consequences of the choices they make.

    Such a stupid f-cking thing to say.

    I'm done.

  • It was really killing you two when you were agreeing with each other a few pages back, huh.

    Is it really too hard to accept that the reason people get sick is a little of column A and a little column B? Some people make extremely unhealthy decisions, and some people deal with genetic predispositions, accidents, and other freak happenings?

    Cool the kid, Are you one of those freakishly healthy people who never get sick and who manages to avoid accidents? My mother is one of those. It's very annoying. As an aside (because I have no interest in the level of debate you just enjoyed with BG) it's more than a wee bit insulting to say people need health insurance because of their choices. When, say, I slipped and fell at the base of the subway stairs and tore all my ankle ligaments, requiring surgery, it wasn't because of unhealthy choices. It feels a little like you like to think people get sick who in some way deserve it for poor choices. I find that offensive and lacking in empathy.

  • Boygabriel said:

    You're asking a loaded question and it's dumb.

    "Given that reform isn't an option, should the country and its govt continue to spend way too much money?"

    Um, no?

    I don't know what you want me to say.

    I argue for reform.

    I don't even know what you believe.

    Although I disagree with you about whether reform can be achieved in our present social-political-economic macro environment, I would genuinely love for your vision healthcare to happen.

    Until you achieve this great day, we all must endure debates about "whether" and "how much" we should tax people to provide health care.

    Is it too much to assert that there is ultimately a limit as to how much people are able and willing to pay for healthcare?

    Is it too much to assert the resources available to government are not without limits?

    If you agree governmental resources are limited, why should government offer care that has no limits?

  • tateinbk said:

    Cool the kid, Are you one of those freakishly healthy people who never get sick and who manages to avoid accidents? My mother is one of those. It's very annoying. As an aside (because I have no interest in the level of debate you just enjoyed with BG) it's more than a wee bit insulting to say people need health insurance because of their choices. When, say, I slipped and fell at the base of the subway stairs and tore all my ankle ligaments, requiring surgery, it wasn't because of unhealthy choices. It feels a little like you like to think people get sick who in some way deserve it for poor choices. I find that offensive and lacking in empathy.

    If you're getting that from what I'm saying you're misinterpreting me. My little brother is asthmatic. I have a scar on my stomach because when I was born I wasn't breathing right and needed surgery. Yadda yadda. My dad for example has high blood pressure. But he's an alcoholic! And he is a doctor. So IMO, he should pay more for his health insurance. Not because he has high blood pressure, but because he makes lifestyle choices that exacerbate his condition. And a lot of Americans do. A bigger percent of Americans do today than before and it's reflected in our collective physical condition. I'm not that cold and I don't see why anyone would think so. But we have to be honest.

    And I am accident prone to a fault. I was just in the emergency room earlier this year for a motorcycle accident. I have 3 fake teeth from a bike accident. I have all kinds of scars from my various slips and falls. But those are the choices I make, and the consequences I've had to bear for them. And through copays and lapses in insurance I have paid for them. It is what it is.

    Everyone has to pay their way. We can't talk about reducing healthcare expenditures w/o talking about America's changes in health and lifestyle, even if it's unpleasant. I know BG would rather talk about profits and greed and all that, and that stuff is relevant. But it's not the whole picture.

  • whynot_31 said:

    Although I disagree with you about whether reform can be achieved in our present social-political-economic macro environment, I would genuinely love for your vision healthcare to happen.

    There's a whole post I started that argues otherwise. Feel free to contribute and explain why it's so impossible to you.

    whynot_31 said:Is it too much to assert that there is ultimately a limit as to how much people are able and willing to pay for healthcare?

    We're pretty much at that point. It's estimated that by 2030 or so, healthcare will consume close to 50% of family income. If we think we have poverty problems now (which we do), just wait.

    whynot_31 said:If you agree governmental resources are limited, why should government offer care that has no limits?

    What on earth are you talking about?

  • Cool The Kid said:

    (reform) is not the whole picture.

    I believe you actually claimed that lifestyle choices are a majority of the health care cost picture. THAT is what I disagree with.

  • BG wrote: We're pretty much at that point. It's estimated that by 2030 or so, healthcare will consume close to 50% of family income. If we think we have poverty problems now (which we do), just wait.

    I can't imagine ever spending 50% of my income on healthcare, so I doubt will conform to that trend line.

    As health care becomes more expensive, I will hopefully exercise more and take fewer risks. If I end up getting sick anyway, I will look at any assets and savings I may have, and decide whether I wish to expend them to remain alive.

    Like most people, I will probably want the government to provide for me, regardless of whether I have any assets.

    However, I do not expect government programs to be around and/or as generous as they are now.

    Ultimately, I expect that I and my loved ones will have to decide whether having a MD assisting me in terminating my life is the best option.

    For the US, having to make such a decision based on family assets will be a major culture shift.

    In the much of the world, such decisions have always been part of life.

    Their governments have always had the limitations that our government will be forced to accept. ...we have a populace is not only unwilling to provide unlimited care, it is increasingly unable to provide unlimited care.

  • You're changing the topic from the three points I responded to, to talking about yourself.

  • I thought this was a conversation over how much responsibility government should have for sick people.

    Haven't all your arguments been from your perspective?

    You seem to believe the populace has an unlimited obligation to try to mitigate the effects of personal habits, genetics and bad luck.

    You seem to believe that people are entitled to care no matter how expensive, simply because they want to continue to live.

    This perspective is often summarized as "people have a right to unlimited health care".

    While I would love to live in such a society, I don't we have the ability and therefore the "obligation" to try to work towards one.

    ...you are free to try to create your world without me.

  • You seem to believe the populace has an unlimited obligation to try to mitigate the effects of personal habits, genetics and bad luck.

    You seem to believe that people are entitled to care no matter how expensive, simply because they want to continue to live.

    This perspective is often summarized as "people have a right to unlimited health care".

    What in god's name are you talking about?

    Here is what I think:

    A. Health care costs are only due in part to lifestyle choices (my opinion, and the opinion of many experts)

    B. We have the most expensive, least efficient health care system in the developed world (objectively true)

    C. We also have the most privatized one. (objectively true)

    D. (B.) and (C.) are not a coincidence (my opinion, and the opinion of many experts)

    I'm very curious where you got the quoted ideas from. You seem to be making stuff up.

  • A-D are lovely, and I'll sign online petitions and click "like" on Facebook pages that oppose such things. You can then tell people you think are powerful about how many supporters you have.

    While we wait for these methods to have an effect, I think we should put a financial cap on how much health care one is entitled to.

    Do you?

    If you don't, how do you propose paying for such benefits in the current environment?

  • Are you asking me what is likely to happen?

    Nothing. We are f-cked. Obama is in the insurance industry's pocket. Half the country holds dumb ideas like single payer = socialism.

    Asking me what I would do?

    Use all my political capital to institute single payer, show people the results (at the doctor's and at their bank account), and gain support. I would have ridden Obama's election day momentum and come out like gang busters, focused almost entirely on HC reform.

    If we want to deal with our debt and the plight of the 90% at the same time, the answer is health care reform.

    If we want to take the easy way out, we can keep cutting benefits and put more and more people in poverty.

  • In this environment, I do not see any other choice besides cutting benefits.

    Immediately after making such statements, people are often accused of not caring about people in poverty, and being unaware of how much it sucks to be poor, yada, yada, yada.

    When people fail to change their minds in response to such appeals and accusations, they are then accused of caring only about money.

    ...all of which makes people exhausted and annoyed, yet do nothing to balance the books. In the long term, the only entities that gain from a lack of budget cuts are the entities who own the debt.

    I expect the impending austerity protests to be brutal, but fruitless.

  • In this environment, I do not see any other choice besides cutting benefits.

    Funny, b/c I made a post illustrating precisely how an alternate choice is possible.

    But maybe it doesn't fit your narrative?

    Immediately after making such statements, people are often accused of not caring about people in poverty, and being unaware of how much it sucks to be poor, yada, yada, yada.

    When people fail to change their minds in response to such appeals and accusations, they are then accused of caring only about money.

    ...all of which makes people exhausted and annoyed, yet do nothing to balance the books. In the long term, the only entities that gain from a lack of budget cuts are the entities who own the debt.

    as yes, these mythical "people" (critics?) you're so concerned with.

    got any exact quotes? or are you just making sweeping non specific claims?

  • I think a single payer program is good, but it should come w/a lot of strings for eligibility

    If you're obese and aren't so due to some medical condition (i.e. thyroid), pay more.

    You don't go to your annual checkup, ineligible for a year.

    You drink/smoke to the point that it affects your health? You have to pay more

    You have a problem you inherited? You shouldn't have to pay more.

    I am all for a single payer system, but I don't think it's in the country's best interest to subsidize bad choices.

    Like whynot said the issue of when to define the point of diminishing returns is important as well. How much care should we cover for people who are on life support and have a near zero chance of recovery? It's a dark subject, but in the context of the economics of a single payer system it is important & relevant?

  • If all goes as I predict, (divisive presidential campaign, republican president, cuts to social welfare, continued economic stagnation, a few small riots) I think the austerity protests will really hit the US in the summer of 2013.

    The weather will be hot. Relations between police and the unemployed will be at a low point....

  • I agree they will happen sooner rather than later.

    A lot of privileged people are going to be caught completely by surprise.

    WN: still no examples of who those "people" are?

  • CTK, being addicted to tobacco is not a simple matter of "choice" or self-control. Nor is obesity. Both involve physical and mental dependencies.

    As both a former tobacco addict, and a formerly obese person, I can tell you that without access to medical care (prescription drugs in the case of tobacco addiction, and surgery to deal with the obesity), I could never have remedied either problem.

    If you make that medical care prohibitively expensive, then there are going to be a lot more obese people and smokers, with all of the diabetes, cancer, heart attacks and strokes that that implies.

    That becomes very expensive for society at large. It's bad policy.

  • ''Half the country holds dumb ideas like single payer = socialism.''

    Some critics say universal health care is ''socialist''. Little do they know that even capitalist Saudi Arabia has universal health care and nobody cries ''socialism'' there.

  • booklaw said:

    CTK, being addicted to tobacco is not a simple matter of "choice" or self-control. Nor is obesity. Both involve physical and mental dependencies.

    As both a former tobacco addict, and a formerly obese person, I can tell you that without access to medical care (prescription drugs in the case of tobacco addiction, and surgery to deal with the obesity), I could never have remedied either problem.

    If you make that medical care prohibitively expensive, then there are going to be a lot more obese people and smokers, with all of the diabetes, cancer, heart attacks and strokes that that implies.

    That becomes very expensive for society at large. It's bad policy.

    Addiction & psychology are definitely a part of it, and different people have different levels of resistance/willpower.

    Plus I never said curing one's own obesity or getting off of tobacco was easy.

    But there is definitely a large element of choice in tobacco/alcohol addiction & obesity. If you regularly consume drugs to the point that it is detrimental to your health and you choose not to seek help, is it fair for society to pick up the tab for your eventual demise?

    If you are obese and aren't willing to make drastic lifestyle changes + put in the effort to lose weight, is it fair to demand that society cover your eventual complications and ER visits?

    I have a lot of buddies who have lost a lot of weight through nothing but changing their diets and exercising. One of my best friends is a cyclist who races... in high school/college he weighed well over 300lbs and lost a good 100+ lbs and is in phenomenal shape. So no offense but I don't buy that.

    I agree though that there is a predatory and at times counterproductive element to the self-help & lifestyle change agencies out there. A lot of personal trainers suck and don't address the fundamental problems of their clients. There has to be a more holistic + clinical approach... which could be addressed through healthcare reform. But people also have to put in the effort (not to say you didn't... you might just have not had good support/guidance).

  • It is a hell of a lot easier to lose major weight at age 20 or even 30 than it is at or after age 40. The body's metabolism changes, and family life and the need to earn a living prevent the dedication of serious time to training and racing and other forms of weight-loss exercise.

    As for addiction, all it takes is a couple of packs of cigarettes for many people to become too addicted to break free without expensive medical assistance.

    As a society, we cannot afford the medical and workforce costs of losing people to cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, etc.

    You suggest that we say, "we should each be responsible for our own health, and for avoiding self-indulgent behavior such as drugs or overeating, so our taxes should not pay to treat those who irresponsibly become obese or addicted." However, the societal costs (economic, psychological and sociological) are simply too great.

    John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and John Galt are not the sum total of our society, and, notwithstanding Tea Party crazies, writing off the rest of the country will ultimately prove unacceptable to the majority.

  • One thing is certain: We are becoming a nation of obese people, many of whom are also old.

    The irony of it all is that somehow folks believe they will never need the care, hence they are unwilling to pay for others to have it.

    We thus end up with a classic program in which everyone wants the benefits, but no one wants to pay in. .... Or a situation in which we feel others have an obligation to pay in, but not us.

    As long as we stay healthy, this will remain merely a tiresome debate.

    It is denial....

  • P.S. The dismantling of the safety net is progressing as many expected.

    I'm just waing to see who Alabama is going to get to fill all those agricultural jobs that are now available due to its immigration law. ....Alabama isn't a generous safety net state, so I doubt it has a very good reserve pool of laborers presently on the dole.

    The Supreme Court agreed to review Arizona's law, so we might get some direction....

This discussion has been closed.