Posted by Tina
The President held a summit this morning. They talked about about college tuition and how important it is to work hard to get ahead in life. One of the things they wanted to make clear is that their policies are not structured to create equal outcomes. Now I ask you…does reality match up with the outcome?
As if by divine intervention, the answer to this question arrived today in the comments section on Jack’s article, “Obamacare – The Real Story! It’s Not a Trainwreck…it’s a suicide attack”. The comment was supplied by Pie who grabbed the following personal story from “elsewhere around the web”. As I read it was clear that Obamacare sets out to equalize outcomes. And there’s the rub…
What ObamaCare is Really About
I’m a 54 year old consulting engineer and make between $60,000 and $125,000 per year, depending on how hard I work and whether or not there are work projects out there for me.
My girlfriend is 61 and makes about $18,000 per year, working as a part-time mail clerk.
For me, making $60,000 a year, under ObamaCare, the cheapest, lowest grade policy I can buy, which also happens to impose a $5,000 deductible, costs $482 per month.
For my girlfriend, the same exact policy, same deductible, costs $1 per month. That’s right, $1 per month. I’m not making this up.
Don’t believe me? Just go to http://www.coveredca.gov/ , the ObamaCare website for California and enter the parameters I’ve mentioned above and see for yourself. By the way, my zip code is 93940. You’ll need to enter that.
So OK, clearly ObamaCare is a scheme that involves putting the cost burden of healthcare onto the middle and upper-income wage earners. But there’s a lot more to it. Stick with me.
And before I make my next points, I’d like you to think about something:
I live in Monterey County, in Central California. We have a large land mass but just 426,000 residents – about the population of Colorado Springs or the city of Omaha.
But we do have a large Hispanic population, including a large number of illegal aliens, and to serve this group we have Natividad Medical Center, a massive, Federally subsidized county medical complex that takes up an area about one-third the size of the Chrysler Corporation automobile assembly plant in Belvedere, Illinois (see Google Earth View). Natividad has state-of-the-art operating rooms, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, fully equipped, 24 hour emergency room, and much more. If you have no insurance, if you’ve been in a drive-by shooting or have overdosed on crack cocaine, this is where you go. And it’s essentially free, because almost everyone who ends up in the ER is uninsured.
Last year, 2,735 babies were born at Natividad. 32% of these were born to out-of-wedlock teenage mothers, 93% of which were Hispanic. Less than 20% could demonstrate proof of citizenship, and 71% listed their native language as Spanish. Of these 876 births, only 40 were covered under [any kind of] private health insurance. The taxpayers paid for the other 836. And in case you were wondering about the entire population – all 2,735 births – less than 24% involved insured coverage or even partial payment on behalf of the patient to the hospital in exchange for services. Keep this in mind as we move forward.
Now consider this:
If I want to upgrade my policy to a low-deductible premium policy, such as what I had with my last employer, my cost is $886 per month. But my girlfriend can upgrade her policy to the very same level, for just $4 per month. That’s right, $4 per month. $48 per year for a zero-deductible, premium healthcare policy – the kind of thing you get when you work at IBM (except of course, IBM employees pay an average of $170 per month out of pocket for their coverage).
I mean, it’s bad enough that I will be forced to subsidize the ObamaCare scheme in the first place. But even if I agreed with the basic scheme, which of course I do not, I would never agree to subsidize premium policies. If I have to pay $482 a month for a budget policy, I sure as hell do not want the guy I’m subsidizing to get a better policy, for less that 1% of what I have to fork out each month for a low-end policy.
Why must I pay $482 per month for something the other guy gets for a dollar? And why should the other guy get to buy an $886 policy for $4 a month? Think about this: I have to pay $10,632 a year for the same thing that the other guy can get for $48. $10,000 of net income is 60 days of full time work as an engineer. $48 is something I could pay for collecting aluminum cans and plastic bottles, one day a month.
Are you with me on this? Are you starting to get an idea what ObamaCare is really about?
ObamaCare is not about dealing with inequities in the healthcare system. That’s just the cover story. The real story is that it is a massive, political power grab. Do you think anyone who can insure himself with a premium policy for $4 a month will vote for anyone but the political party that provides him such a deal? ObamaCare is about enabling, subsidizing, and expanding the Left’s political power base, at taxpayer expense. Why would I vote for anyone but a Democrat if I can have babies for $4 a month? For that matter, why would I go to college or strive for a better job or income if it means I have to pay real money for healthcare coverage? Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year and buy a new F-150 with all the money I’m saving?
And think about those $4-a-month babies – think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club, or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they’ll multiply, and multiply, and multiply. And not one of them will vote Republican.
ObamaCare: It’s all about political power.
Obama buys power through seduction, class envy and redistribution of cash from those who work hard and have achieved to those who don’t, to those who illegally enter the country, to those who work hard but don’t have as much as other, to anyone who can be lured into taking some candy from the powerful man without realizing he has stolen their dignity, their freedom, and possibly their souls.
America was founded on principles based on freedom and the rule of law. It was also founded by men who recognized that ethics and human dignity were necessary for the preservation of a free society. America remains strong when our people are supported in living a life of dignity, personal responsibility, personal achievement…and dignity We lose our strength when we are encouraged toward avarice and covetousness. We lose our strength when our people are lured into believing that they are helpless victims. Our representatives in government have an obligation to guard against creating policies and laws that act as barriers to personal achievement and responsibility or entice citizens away from the moral obligation to provide for themselves. They have an moral obligation to avoid creating class envy and division and create policy that encourages and empowers people to achieve.
The ACA (Obamacare) is exactly the kind of policy that undermines human dignity and blunts individual achievement. It insidiously removes the natural urge in human beings to strive and reach higher. Instead it creates a sanctioned pathway for individuals to reach into the pockets of their neighbors, not just for temporary support i times of need for basic health care, but for lifelong treatment subsidized by achievers. It is an equal outcomes law. It encourages apathy. The theft that occurs from people like the man in the example above to pay for the appearance of an equal and fair outcome makes the goal a devilish cheat for both the recipient and the unwitting supplier of transferred cash.
This is not a law that produces healthcare delivered compassionately or fairly to our citizens. This is a law devised by crooks and thieves for evil self-serving purposes. It will add great heft to the destruction of our nation…and the very things that afford citizens the opportunity to achieve real dignity and experience the equality guaranteed by our constitution.
This law must be repealed!
“This is a law devised by crooks and thieves for evil self-serving purposes.”
There’s that chirping, again.
And you’ve answered my question, Tina. You just don’t want everybody in the game.
That guy in Monterey … if we split the difference, say $80K … he can afford $500. He don’t like it, but he can afford it. The mail clerk, she can’t afford diddly, and so she don’t pay diddly.
This is entirely equitable … but you’ll never see it.
Everybody IS in the game. It is, or was, a freedom and equal opportunity game.
Now everybody is stuck in a big government healthcare ponzi scheme. HHS forces investment and redistributes “returns” while it scrapes money off the top for the bureaucracy…ultimately the returns diminish and become a shortage of doctors, long wait times for surgery and denied treatments…so sorry.
It’s bigger by a million fold than the Bernie Maddoff crime…the most vulnerable victims are the young.
It will destroy the healthcare industry and it will ultimately destroy the country.
Stop lying about it and the dire need for it.
We already had provision for people truly in need.
The few small problems we had did not require this massive expensive unequal scheme to resolve those problems.
As a nice gentleman from Yuba City just asked Rush, “If the situations was so dire with thousands of Americans without health insurance, why are so few of them signing up?”
It’s a good question.
The big “emergency” situation that Democrats said required a government takeover of one sixth of the economy never existed. The fix Democrats pushed through congress with dirty tricks, deception, lies, bribery and without Republican input or knowing what was in it is a much bigger lie.
Your party is scum and so are your phony appeals for fairness and compassion that are really about political power, oppression of everyone, class warfare, and self enrichment at the expense of the people, their freedom and opportunity.
Everybody IS in the game. [How are people who can’t afford health insurance “in” the game. This makes no sense.]
It is, or was, a freedom and equal opportunity game. [This is drivel, along with an attempt to change the subject. The subject is access to healthcare for all.]
Now everybody [not “everybody”, only the folk in the individual market] is stuck in a big government healthcare ponzi scheme. [How is paying premiums to a private insurance company a “government” anything? This makes no sense.]
HHS forces investment and redistributes “returns” while it scrapes money off the top for the bureaucracy … [Drivel, of the paranoid variety.]
… ultimately the returns diminish and become a shortage of doctors, long wait times for surgery and denied treatments…so sorry. [These are possibilities, and we will deal with them as they arise.]
It’s bigger by a million fold than the Bernie Maddoff crime… [Drivel, … and not even grammatical drivel.]
the most vulnerable victims are the young. [How does having health insurance “victimize” anybody. This makes no sense. It is wildly unfounded … drivel.]
It will destroy the healthcare industry and it will ultimately destroy the country. [Hyperbole. Also drivel.]
Stop lying about it and the dire need for it. We already had provision for people truly in need. [Denial … camouflage for your ego. You don’t care; you really don’t care. You actually believe that half the country should be uninsured … so that you can have cheap coverage.]
The few small problems we had did not require this massive expensive unequal scheme to resolve those problems. [More denial … most of the bankruptcies filed in this country are now as a result of humongous medical bills. This is not a small problem … except, in that, it has not yet happened to you. You have to be the most obliviously selfish person on this planet … I swear.]
As a nice gentleman from Yuba City just asked Rush, “If the situations was so dire with thousands of Americans without health insurance, why are so few of them signing up?” [Because, actually, oblivious selfishness is very, very, common in the human being. This (and humanity) is a work in progress.]
It’s a good question. The big “emergency” situation that Democrats said required a government takeover of one sixth of the economy never existed. [Total denial … see above.]
The fix Democrats pushed through congress with dirty tricks, deception, lies, bribery and without Republican input or knowing what was in it is a much bigger lie. [At least we’re trying to fix. What are you trying to do but sit on your pile?]
Your party is scum and so are your phony appeals for fairness and compassion that are really about political power, oppression of everyone, class warfare, and self enrichment at the expense of the people, their freedom and opportunity. [And lastly, and finally, drivel.]
“If I have to pay $482 a month for a budget policy, I sure as hell do not want the guy I’m subsidizing to get a better policy, for less that 1% of what I have to fork out each month for a low-end policy.”
Even if “the guy [he’s] subsidizing” is his girlfriend, who makes less than a third of what he makes in a year?
Wow. His girlfriend should really dump this selfish douche.
“Why would I vote for anyone but a Democrat if I can have babies for $4 a month?”
Bahahaha!
“For that matter, why would I go to college or strive for a better job or income if it means I have to pay real money for healthcare coverage?”
Because, you third grade drop-out, after you pay over $10,000 in health insurance costs (which, yes, is ridiculously inflated, due more to the arbitrary policies of the healthcare industry than anything else), you will still have $50,000-$115,000 to spend on other things, while your girlfriend will only have a little over $17,000 after she pays her $48.
I love this argument; conservatives always seem to make it, and it’s just so funny! I love this idea that making less money per year is this awesome deal just because you won’t have to part with much of it. In the morality plays of conservative wanna-be economists like this guy, no one under the poverty line would want to work hard and succeed as long as they get subsidies and welfare and low taxes. To them, it’s better to make little enough to use WIC than it is to make enough to pay income tax. It’s an extremely selfish, sheltered argument, one that can only come from someone who’s never actually been poor. And it’s so unserious and dishonest; if this guy actually believed what he was saying, and if being poor was such a smooth ride, he could just give up all his money and go on welfare.
“Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year and buy a new F-150 with all the money I’m saving?”
…I don’t know, maybe mecause if you make 60-125K per year instead, you can buy…three F-150s, if you’re into that sort of thing? Or a better car? Look I don’t know what an F-150 goes for because cars are boring but I do know this guy needs to LEARN TO MATH.
“And think about those $4-a-month babies – think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club, or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they’ll multiply, and multiply, and multiply. And not one of them will vote Republican.”
Please…just keep talking.
Too late. They’ve sent in the clowns.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/osYZ1uZasN8
Jack: “Libby, you said “Your party is scum and so are your phony appeals for fairness and compassion that are really about political power, oppression of everyone, class warfare, and self enrichment at the expense of the people, their freedom and opportunity.”
To clarify: Libby didn’t say that, Tina did.
Thanks Chris, the post had Libby’s name on it so I was confused. My bad. 1st mistake of 2014 surely to be followed by many more!lol How’s school going? Are you graduating this year?
and who here has social security, medicare, and military insurance tri care?
Health Care for all Period.
Actually, Jack, I’m all done! I just started my first official teaching job as a long-term sub at a middle school. Thanks for asking.
Chris CONGRATULATIONS!!!! I mean that most sincerely, as one taxpayer to another. What they take from your salary is a real eye opener isn’t it? lol
I’m sure you have a wonderful career ahead of you and an opportunity to effect great good. I’ve taught classes at different times over my life and it was one of the most rewarding things I’ve ever done. However, you will soon learn how political our school system can be, and by that I’m talking about office politics – not what we talk about here, although there’s some of that for sure! So good luck, and keep a low profile on the radar for awhile until you have good situational awareness!
PS I’ve never been involved in anything below 10th grade. Mostly my classes were college level involving legal subjects and law enforcement. But, I enjoyed it and I am sure you will too. Teaching is one of the most honorable things a person could do.
Oh, now … I’m hurt. I wrote THAT sentence!? Truly hurt.
And I suppose I should apologize. My reply was a tad harsh.
On the other hand, I do get fed up with posts full of arrogant, righteous and fundamentally meaningless political pieties, and denial, and general bubble-headedness.
So I supposed you’d have to conclude that I’m not REALLY sorry.
I’m a bad person.
Thanks, Jack. I actually won’t get paid until the second month of employment, and I’ve been out of work since I’ve been focusing on student teaching, so it’s a bit of a struggle now. It’s sub pay even though I’m here for the entire semester, but it’s still much better money than I’ve ever made, so I can’t complain about that.
Chris, well that’s understandable and we’ve all been there…you’ll be fine. And once the money starts rolling in it’s going to feel pretty darn good. Life will have really turned a corner for you. That’s just great, very happy for you and I wish you much success. I love success stories and when its from somebody I know, even if it is from a [[[[[blog]]]]]], it’s even better. Go get em Chris!
“And once the money starts rolling in it’s going to feel pretty darn good.”
… “rolling in” …? The poor kid’s got a fake job that’s gonna be damned difficult … for fake money (an hourly rate and no bennies) cause the school district is perenially broke.
I’m not sure all this jovial jollity is appropriate. We, the taxpayers ought to be ashamed of ourselves really.
I am … but you don’t seem to be.
Libby, apparently you have never heard of Horatio Alger.
Bottom line…I’m proud of Chris for what he has accomplished. He struggled, he earned it and now he has a career! This is something he can take anywhere in the US and many places beyond. He has so many choices now.
A friend of mine just finished his second teaching vacation in China. He retired from CSUC. He goes for 8-12 weeks at a time and loves it. Another friend is teaching in Japan, yet another is teaching at Butte College…and they are all having a great time and so glad they went into teaching.
When I was teaching at years ago Butte my base pay was $32 an hour…I understand now it’s $40 something… that’s not bad money!
Single Payer would make me happy. And I suggest those on medicare voting against it on the Tea Party ballots stop using it.
Libby, I do think teachers should be paid better than we are considering the job we do, but I’m coming from the perspective of someone raised by a single mother who was unemployed for most of my young childhood, and who has gone on to do a series of min. wage jobs to support myself and my niece, since my brother and her mother are completely useless. My mom had a few better paying jobs in the flower shop business, but the hours kept getting cut and she was treated like garbage. I’ve helped out with my Wal-Mart job, but the concept of saving and investing was simply never on the table for me–it was always paycheck to paycheck. I didn’t have a car until I was 23, and even then it was given to me after a relative passed away–I couldn’t have afforded to buy one. I still had to wait months before I could drive it, because I didn’t have enough to make a down payment on the insurance until I got my financial aid for going to college. This made it hard for me to get things done, since last spring I had student teaching in Sanger, classes at Fresno State, and work at Wal-Mart in Selma, sometimes all in the same day. I had to rely on friends and family members for transportation for nearly my entire college career. If I hadn’t quit my job last semester to focus on student teaching, I would have failed, and probably wouldn’t have this job, but it’s also gotten my family to nearly the most broke we’ve ever been.
Poverty is a trap–that’s something I think the original post here seriously fails to recognize.
So while I agree that we as a society should be ashamed, for many reasons, I think there’s reason for “jollity,” at least on a personal level. I am managing to escape the poverty trap, but I’m not naive enough to think that everyone can. (For me, quitting my job to focus on school was the best option; for many, many others, it wouldn’t be.)
Libby: “How are people who can’t afford health insurance “in” the game. This makes no sense.”
Life is the game and we are all in it.
Most people can’t afford insurance in their early adult life. Most people don’t need it. Very few of us start out at wages that will pay for everything we want and need…the so-called “living wage”. Most of us get to struggle. Responsibility for the young takes the form of staying healthy, working to secure/improve their financial situation, and avoiding choices that put budgets and lives in peril or at risk.
Government programs that remove those responsibilities from our shoulders in some scheme to make life fair only create adolescent adults who don’t strive, don’t learn from hardship, and never take responsibility.
“This is drivel, along with an attempt to change the subject. The subject is access to healthcare for all”
All Americans HAD access to healthcare before Obamacare. It is a lie that people could not get healthcare.
“How is paying premiums to a private insurance company a “government” anything?”
4.7 million people had policies they liked and they have been cancelled because they did not comply with the rules under Obamacare. More will be cancelled all long in 2014 as small business policies reach their expiration dates…IT’S A GOVERNMENT THING!
“[These are possibilities, and we will deal with them as they arise”
We’re witnessing how government, particularly under extreme leftist like you, do at dealing with things. I can imagine forcing students to become doctors in your brave new world. And as the president informed us his solution to old folks needing knee replacements is to give them a little pill instead. NO THANKS!
“How does having health insurance “victimize” anybody.”
I see you are so wrapped up in the dream you have failed to see the reality as it rolls out. A lot of Americans, including young people, have to pay higher premiums and co-pays. the deductible is so high insurance will never kick in for most! The insurance is no insurance at all for these people. On top of that the debt this scheme adds to our already massive debt will diminish their future buying power. These aren’t just concerns now Libby. Now people are living with this monster program.
The rest of your post is not worth my time…drivel, repeated over and over, is drivel.
The true drivel is that sunny blue sky happy puppy delusion you peddle that we all have the best healthcare now and it won’t cost a thing, inconvenience anyone, bust anyone’s budget, run people out of a profession they once loved, turn others away from the profession, lead to inferior care, or bankrupt the country!
Chris: ” I love this idea that making less money per year is this awesome deal just because you won’t have to part with much of it.”
Clearly you don’t have a firm grasp on the ideas put forth by conservatives.
You don’t even fully grasp your own ability to succeed and reach financial goals set by you. You seem to believe that the only pathway to the middle class is by award.
You don’t understand the entry level position. You don’t understand small business or you would know that wages are set by what a business can afford to pay and what the competition is paying. You don’t understand that work and a good work attitude is rewarded with advancement and higher pay.
You think managers/owners are just cruel or stingy and force people to remain stuck in entry level positions. You believe that entry level people have no power to affect their own lives. Why? You are an example of someone who has taken steps to move into the middle class and yet you hold on to the lie that you (poor people) are helpless victims.
You also don’t understand the purpose for insurance.
It’s truly unfortunate that you have come to adulthood in these times of war and deep, unnecessarily long repression of economic growth. As I have said before, I hope and pray you get to experience an abundant period with strong growth…and the sooner the better. Redistribution, government control, excessive regulation, and a president picking winners and losers won’t get us there.
Businesses want to do business…they want to offer the best products at the cheapest possible price…that’s the game that will bring happy customers flocking to their doors. They can’t do that when government creates a hostile environment and forces increased costs. Businesses also want to employ people but not all work has the same value…not even within an industry. A cafe cannot pay its waitresses the same as a big swanky hotel can pay its garcon’s. The meal won’t cost as much either. One size fits all decided by people in Washington far far away is unreasonable and detrimental to business growth and jobs.
If government got out of the way we would see massive growth in business in a very short time. We would see more opportunity, innovation and jobs. And we would see an increase in jobs at every single level…plenty of room to move up.
The unemployment level for young people and teens is horrible today. They just need a place to begin. Why is it okay to raise the minimum wage, lowering opportunity for work, when already there are these high numbers of young people and teens without jobs?
The best path to higher wages is getting a start with a first time job, personal planning, and a lot of effort. Millions of people have done it, including millions of poor people.
We have to get over this notion that life should be easy and without pain or struggle. Even more important, we have to give up the notion that the government can make things better…equal and fair…because it can’t.
“In the morality plays of conservative wanna-be economists like this guy, no one under the poverty line would want to work hard and succeed as long as they get subsidies and welfare and low taxes”
Look into the poverty centers in this country, Chris and convince all of us that all of the people who live there have tried hard and really want to have a good job. Convince us that generational poverty isn’t a self perpetuating reality.
It’s not that no one would want to work and succeed.
Its that too many are content not to even try. The numbers of people that remain in poverty and that have children and grandchildren who never escape poverty is a crime! It isn’t because we haven’t given enough or done enough. It’s that we robbed them of their birthright as free Americans. We have taken the urgency out of their lives to strive and do well, even in school.
Before all of these welfare programs people’s attitudes were much different than they are today. Very few people wanted or would settle for living in poverty. Those who did were called bums. Nobody, even the poorest among us, expected government to provide food stamps, school lunch-breakfast-and-dinner, housing, healthcare, and now free college and preschool too. We have literally created a situation where people can/will opt out of working for the free ride.
Democrats have used this game to buy votes, I’m sorry to say. They have shamelessly convinced poor people that they’re victims who are OWED a living even if its a low level existence. Is there anything more cruel than teaching people to abandon their own abilities, talents, and dreams to a life of dependency? The best way to make sure people don’t realize their dreams is to convince them they have no power. Dictators have always used this ploy along with class envy to stay in power and keep the people in line.
“…is ridiculously inflated, due more to the arbitrary policies of the healthcare industry”
Name one “arbitrary” policy that hasn’t been necessitated or created by government regulations and edicts.
” I’m all done! I just started my first official teaching job as a long-term sub at a middle school.”
Congratulations, Chris! I know you have worked very hard to arrive at this point in your chosen career. I wish you only the best.
“Poverty is a trap–that’s something I think the original post here seriously fails to recognize.”
You are living proof that it doesn’t have to be a trap…you also refuse to acknowledge the many who have settled for being in the trap and the way the left lures them into that thinking.
It’s unfortunate that leftists can’t see that every time the value or scope of giveaway programs is raised the spring in the trap is tightened.
Like Jack I think of you as a friend, Chris and I am really happy you have placed your foot on the path to a great teaching career.
Dewey: “…and who here has social security, medicare, and military insurance tri care? … I suggest those on medicare voting against it on the Tea Party ballots stop using it.”
You haven’t been around Post Scripts for long or you wouldn’t presume to know our minds on the subject.
Like most war babies and boomers we have been forced by law to participate in programs that are unsustainable. They simply cannot be sustained. That’s stupid and will end in disaster for our kids. We need reform now.
When the program for SS began the government made a promise:
Conservatives have been trying for decades to reform Social Security to make it sustainable and more tailored to the needs, desires and expectations of the people.
Money we earn is our property. It should be treated as such and invested so that it can increase and grow wealth for every person that works. Many people that work for government have this type of plan…why not the rest of us?
Our money should also pass on to our heirs, tax free, should we die before using it. This would be a sure way to help lift people out of poverty. I see the working poor as solidly middle class within a generation. This type of plan would give poor people more incentive to graduate high school, learn a trade or go to college, and to work. It would teach the value of investment.
Single payer healthcare creates a government monopoly which will lead to higher prices and inferior care. It is foolish to think that government cares about you as an individual. You are already a number to these bureaucrats and the HHS will think of you as a number that really doesn’t need that cancer treatment because it costs the system too much.
A few reforms to our healthcare and insurance systems that would open up competition, offer expanded insurance choices and bring costs down. Reforms to the healthcare programs we had in place could make them work better for those who can’t afford insurance.
What’s going on now is a travesty and it never should have happened.
Tea Party people want everyone to have the best healthcare in the world and we can have it but never through single payer.
Jack $40 an hour isn’t $75 or $150 so it just isn’t fair. We should all make the same money and all have free healthcare and pensions! How else do you describe a living wage? Can’t go by what they say this year because it will always be more next year. Those darn people earning too much, more than they need, just have to be equalized!
Me: ” I love this idea that making less money per year is this awesome deal just because you won’t have to part with much of it.”
Tina: “Clearly you don’t have a firm grasp on the ideas put forth by conservatives.”
Tina, I was responding specifically to the ideas put forward in the meme you cited in your article. You could tell me what part of that meme I’ve misinterpreted, but that would require you to stay focused on that specific argument without going off on a tangeant, making strawman arguments and asking me to justify the entire history of the Democratic party every five seconds. Nothing in your response to the portion of my comment you quoted actually engages with anything I said; you’re just venting at me, personally.
The guy you cited in this article made a series of bad arguments. For instance, this:
“For that matter, why would I go to college or strive for a better job or income if it means I have to pay real money for healthcare coverage?”
I almost don’t feel like I should have to explain why this is a stupid question, but I chose to anyway. I’ll explain again: After a college graduate with a good job pays “real money for healthcare coverage,” she will still have more money than the high school graduate working for minimum wage who gets a subsidy for their insurance.
Asking a rhetorical question like the above implies that your opposition doesn’t have a good answer. But the answer to this one is so obvious and clear, that it just ends up making the questioner look like he hasn’t put much thought into what he’s saying.
Keep in mind that this rhetorical argument–that it is preferable to make little and pay nothing in healthcare, than it is to make a lot and pay “real money”–is separate from your argument that social welfare programs destroy individuals’ motivations to succeed. I do have a response to that, but that’s at least a much better argument than the one posited in this guy’s rhetorical question. I really wish you’d stick to making those better arguments, instead of highlighting terrible ones like the arguments in the OP. Not only does it make your position look stronger when you use better arguments, it makes for a more interesting and efficient discussion as well. It’s also just more honest and ethical.
“You don’t even fully grasp your own ability to succeed and reach financial goals set by you. You seem to believe that the only pathway to the middle class is by award.”
For many people, help from others, including the government, IS the only pathway. You may not know these people, Tina, but I do.
“If government got out of the way we would see massive growth in business in a very short time.”
As I’ve said in a previous discussion, I am open to the idea that the economy would improve if “government got out of the way.” But they’d have to do that entirely–no more corporate subsidies, no more eminent domain, no more tax breaks and loopholes, no more “too big to fail,” and no more punishing people caught with an ounce of weed more severely than banks caught laundering money for drug lords and terrorists.
However, until I start seeing conservatives getting as angry at the government over these injustices as they are over the existence of welfare programs for the poor, it will be hard for me to believe that these conservatives sincerely want government to get out of the way of anyone but themselves, or the moneyed interests they support.
“The unemployment level for young people and teens is horrible today. They just need a place to begin. Why is it okay to raise the minimum wage, lowering opportunity for work, when already there are these high numbers of young people and teens without jobs?”
Tina, this is the wrong question to ask. I’ve already shown you studies that show little to no unemployment effect from raising the minimum wage–you’ve refused to read them. You don’t have to agree with me, but please don’t pretend I haven’t already articulated logical reasons why I support raising the min. wage.
“Look into the poverty centers in this country, Chris and convince all of us that all of the people who live there have tried hard and really want to have a good job. Convince us that generational poverty isn’t a self perpetuating reality.”
Tina, of course generational poverty exists. You realize that liberals have totally different beliefs about what causes this than you do, right? It’s not like this is a totally unexamined question that the left has just never thought of. I’m not going to get into all of the causes now, but my point is that you’re still asking the wrong questions–you’re asking me to convince you that “generational poverty isn’t a self-perpetuating reality,” but that’s obviously not what I, or most on the left, actually believe. It’s ironic that you opened by saying that I fail to grasp the conservative position, when you’re acting as if liberals have never pondered questions of generational poverty. We have, very seriously, and we’ve come to different conclusions than you.
“It’s not that no one would want to work and succeed.
Its that too many are content not to even try.”
Alternate theory: those people aren’t trying not because they’re content, but because they don’t believe success is possible. They don’t see a way out. They don’t think they’re smart enough for college, or they think they can’t afford it (they’re often right about that second one). They don’t have good role models or encouragement. They don’t have good jobs in their community. They don’t have reliable transportation. They don’t see a way out of the poverty trap.
“The numbers of people that remain in poverty and that have children and grandchildren who never escape poverty is a crime!”
Agreed 100%.
“It isn’t because we haven’t given enough or done enough. It’s that we robbed them of their birthright as free Americans. We have taken the urgency out of their lives to strive and do well, even in school.”
This I can’t agree with. There is plenty of “urgency” in their lives. Poverty is stressful. Poverty is often terrifying. Again, the problem is not that they are “content” where they are. They aren’t. The problem is that many have given up trying to achieve more, because they don’t believe they can. Your statement implies that if we do *less* for the poor than we are doing now, they will suddenly get a kick in the pants and develop a sense of “urgency” to succeed. In my experience, that’s nonsense. The problem is not a lack of willpower. Poverty is not a lack of morals or will. It is a lack of money.
“Before all of these welfare programs people’s attitudes were much different than they are today. Very few people wanted or would settle for living in poverty.”
And yet, more people DID live in poverty! I’ve shown you the stats to prove it. (Actually, you showed me the stats to prove that poverty is actually worse since the Great Society started–but your source used the wrong year as the start date.)
“Attitudes” can’t really be measured. Poverty can. I’m not that concerned with attitudes; I’m concerned with effectiveness. Generational poverty is still an issue. However, it is a fact that since the War on Poverty began, poverty has never been as high as it was prior to those programs’ enactment.
“We have literally created a situation where people can/will opt out of working for the free ride.”
Yes, and we’ve created that situation primarily by taking the incentive out of work. Falling wages and outsourcing have devastated communities and caused more people to go on welfare. Lowering the capital gains tax so that workers pay a higher rate than investors also speaks to a culture that has devalued work and elevated the wealthy to a privileged class in the eyes of the government, beyond the natural privileges they’d receive from their own efforts.
The solution is not to cut welfare. The solution is to reward work.
“Name one “arbitrary” policy that hasn’t been necessitated or created by government regulations and edicts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargemaster
“Congratulations, Chris! I know you have worked very hard to arrive at this point in your chosen career. I wish you only the best.”
Thank you, Tina.
“You are living proof that it doesn’t have to be a trap…you also refuse to acknowledge the many who have settled for being in the trap and the way the left lures them into that thinking.”
Tina, like I said–just because I escaped doesn’t mean everyone can! I strongly disagree with the “Oprah argument” that says that if a certain struggling person can achieve, anyone can. That’s simply not true. There is a reason people like Oprah are exceptions to the rule.
There are some who are content with being poor and mooching off of others, but they are a small percentage. The majority of those in poverty want more for their lives–they just don’t know how to get it. For millions of Americans, they are only able to seek out their goals because of government aid. It’s a basic fact of human nature that when people are struggling just to meet their basic needs, they have less time and energy to devote to meeting goals that go beyond those needs. Helping people meet those needs gives them the space to seek more.
“Like Jack I think of you as a friend, Chris and I am really happy you have placed your foot on the path to a great teaching career.”
I appreciate that, Tina, but I’d appreciate it more if you believed what I’m telling you about my own experience. You seem compelled to make judgments about others without first walking in their shoes, as if you know more about their lives than they do. I wish you’d realize that you are coming from a privileged perspective in your arguments, and the policies you call for would affect families like mine in ways you won’t be affected.
Chris: ” I was responding specifically to the ideas put forward in the meme you cited in your article.”
But you didn’t respond to what was said. You responded to the portion of what was said that pushed your poverty buttons. It’s amazing to me how easily you justify transfers of wealth.
“I almost don’t feel like I should have to explain why this is a stupid question ”
Of course. You haven’t “walked in this man’s shoes”. You are used to being on the receiving end of all this redistribution.
“Asking a rhetorical question like the above implies that your opposition doesn’t have a good answer.”
But it wasn’t a rhetorical question and you would know that if you had ever walked in this man’s shoes.
“For many people, help from others, including the government, IS the only pathway.”
I’m sorry Chris but I cannot accept that premise. It is a lie. Millions upon millions of people came to America with nothing and made a decent life for themselves before 1964. Following WWII the numbers of people living in poverty was falling. I posted the graph a few weeks back. It clearly showed that poverty levels stopped falling at the onset of LBJ’s War on Poverty. But never mind the evidence; it is human nature to take the path of least resistance.
“However, until I start seeing conservatives getting as angry at the government over these injustices as they are over the existence of welfare programs for the poor…”
How many times do we have to say we want the federal government to be limited? How many times do we have to say we want regulations to be simple, clear, and easy to follow. By definition this means loop holes and advantages would end, bail outs would end.
“…or the moneyed interests they support.”
Do you have even the slightest inkling of the “monied interests” that your party supports?
I guess it’s okay as long as they keep shoving freebies at you at the expense of people like the man in the article above…cause it isn’t those leftist monied interests who pay…it is the middle class.
“. I’ve already shown you studies that show little to no unemployment effect from raising the minimum wage–you’ve refused to read them”
I’ve shown you studies that show just the opposite. Its a bit arrogant to think the studies you offer are superior to mine, especially when it is logical that small businesses forced to pay higher wages would have less money to pay employees. And as a small business owner I think I have the experience t back up my position.
“They don’t see a way out….They don’t see a way out of the poverty trap.”
You have articulated all of the built in excuses most people have asked at some point in their lives. What you fail to see is that as long as there is someone (government programs) to take care of their basic needs they don’t have to move from miserable to uncomfortable. We treat them like infants. And we have failed in the education department miserably.
“Your statement implies that if we do *less* for the poor than we are doing now, they will suddenly get a kick in the pants and develop a sense of “urgency” to succeed. In my experience, that’s nonsense.”
You have said you want to be a parent one day. This is a lesson you will learn or your children will be living with you for a very long time. The principle is the same. In this very liberal world it is no accident that 30 year old men are still living in their parents basements and playign video games all day.
“Attitudes” can’t really be measured.”
Who would be interested in measuring? I’ve seen attitudes change. I’ve been a witness to the ease with which people take a handout today compared to when I was young.
” I’m not that concerned with attitudes; I’m concerned with effectiveness.”
Apparently not. After five years of redistribution on steroids the poverty level is higher than ever. You have been shown that different policies have created greater prosperity under Presidents of both parties and yet you refuse to accept the evidence or learn from history.
“…since the War on Poverty began, poverty has never been as high as it was prior to those programs’ enactment.”
Why would it be when the government hands out so much money to the poor? We are talking about trillions of dollars and dozens of programs! People today don’t have a clue about real destitution.
Peter Ferarra at Forbes:
That does not speak well for progressive solutions for poverty or prosperity! His policies do mirror LBJ’s Great Society.
And on page 2 this”
RE: Chargemaster
Wikipedia makes this sound like an evil plot when in fact it is a listing of prices for services or items that are charged to patients for their hospital stay. I realize you are used to the notion of free services but honestly, I don’t know how a hospital could bill without such a list. Try these:
Ceders-Sinai.org
American Health Information Management Association
“…because I escaped doesn’t mean everyone can! I strongly disagree with the “Oprah argument” that says that if a certain struggling person can achieve, anyone can.”
Incredible! But let’s ay for the sake of argument you are right. It doesn’t mean that if we eliminated services for all but those who simply cannot work more people would take the initiative and find a job. I say they would. I also think that a few years of that being the reality young people would be more inclined to stay in school and less likely to have kids out of wedlock.
” It’s a basic fact of human nature that when people are struggling just to meet their basic needs, they have less time and energy to devote to meeting goals that go beyond those needs.”
It is not a “fact of nature”. Were it a fact of nature this nation would not be what it is. If it were a fact of nature fire and the wheel would not have been discovered and utilized.
It is a condition of character formation or the lack thereof. If you are told all your life that you can’t succeed you will think like a victim and pass it on to your children…which may be why OPRAH has worked so hard to let people know they don’t have to be stuck in poverty.
“but I’d appreciate it more if you believed what I’m telling you about my own experience.”
I believe you Chris. I just don’t buy it. And its really sad that you cling to your experience as the absolute truth giving the help you received more credit for your success than your own initiative and hard work. It’s discouraging when I have told you about others I know that have succeeded without government assistance.
” I wish you’d realize that you are coming from a privileged perspective…”
This is getting very tiring. You don’t know me and you don’t know what my perspective includes.
It’s arrogant to think that only poor people struggle…especially now when they receive so much help through government.
“…and the policies you call for would affect families like mine in ways you won’t be affected.”
Like it has mattered to you that Obamacare has adversely affected and disrupted the lives of millions of Americans but you could care less?
I’m convinced you don’t have any desire to understand the policies I champion because you’ve decided I and others like me cruel and lacking in empathy. Had you listened with the intention of getting it instead of arguing against it you would have noticed that policies put forth by conservatives always take into consideration the necessity of transitional planning. The reform plan for Social Security for instance, continued a provision that would allow people to stay on the original plan if they wanted while letting others invest a small percentage into a personal investment account.
Nobody has ever suggested just throwing granny off a cliff and yet that was how our ideas for Medicare was met by your party. The suggested reform would have helped to sustain the program with while means testing and other reforms.
When we did reform welfare in the nineties the reforms were successful prompting Bill Clinton to declare the era of big government over.
Maybe you could step out of those shoes of yours for a change…reach for greater wisdom by trying on a pair or two from people who started with nothing and built a good life. Funny you haven’t noticed that being willing to stand in the shoes of another works in both directions! People have written books to instruct others in how to move beyond poverty and succeed. Some people say the best way to learn how to succeed is to pick the brains of those who have done it.
My family comes from humble beginnings, Chris. I do wish you would stop acting like I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth.
Melanie Sturm, Washington Examiner:
Tina: “But you didn’t respond to what was said. You responded to the portion of what was said that pushed your poverty buttons. It’s amazing to me how easily you justify transfers of wealth.”
Again, I’m going to have to ask that you show me specifically what part of this guy’s argument you think I am misinterpreting. You keep saying this, but you’re not showing it. I think I characterized his argument accurately. If my characterization sounds ridiculous, it’s because his argument was ridiculous.
“But it wasn’t a rhetorical question”
Yes, it was. Do you not know what a rhetorical question is?
“and you would know that if you had ever walked in this man’s shoes”
I find this laughable.
You’re talking about a guy who is literally complaining because he makes three times more money than his elderly girlfriend (and that’s in a bad year), and she gets a healthcare subsidy while he doesn’t.
Do you understand that it’s kind of a rough sell to tell someone to “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” when that someone else has way more expensive shoes than the person you’re talking to?
It’s amazing that you don’t feel the author of the story you quoted here needs to walk a mile in anyone else’s shows. He literally spends the entire piece bitching about the terrible burden of not being poor. He also uses extremely classist and dehumanizing language to describe the poor:
“And think about those $4-a-month babies – think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club, or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they’ll multiply, and multiply, and multiply.”
This guy is waging class warfare, Tina. He is not putting himself in another person’s shoes. He is not showing an ounce of empathy. He is acting like a spoiled douchebag.
You complain that I call out your privilege and that I see conservatives as unempathetic, but how can you blame me when you post things like this?
“I’m sorry Chris but I cannot accept that premise.”
I know you can’t.
“Following WWII the numbers of people living in poverty was falling. I posted the graph a few weeks back. It clearly showed that poverty levels stopped falling at the onset of LBJ’s War on Poverty.”
For the…I don’t know, seventh time? The graph you posted only gets to that conclusion by inaccurately listing 1968 as the year the War on Poverty began.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/poverty-rate-was-fallinguntil-war-poverty-began
If you look at the real year the War on Poverty began–1964–you can see that there is a HUGE drop in poverty from then until 1969. Yes, poverty was falling before then, but quite slowly; the drop from 1964 to 1969 is literally the biggest drop-off in poverty on the entire graph. And poverty has never once gone back to the level it was at before the War on Poverty began.
The only way you can look at that graph and believe that “poverty levels stopped falling at the onset of LBJ’s War on Poverty” is if you don’t know when the onset of LBJ’s War on Poverty actually was.
In truth, the first five years after the onset of the War on Poverty saw the largest drop in the poverty rate in American history.
Do you really think that is a coincidence?
“How many times do we have to say we want the federal government to be limited? How many times do we have to say we want regulations to be simple, clear, and easy to follow. By definition this means loop holes and advantages would end, bail outs would end.”
It’s a question of priorities, Tina. If your party demonstrates more outrage over welfare to the poor than welfare to the rich–as it inarguably does–then your priorities are seriously messed up, on both a moral and practical level. The government actually spends more on corporate welfare than on social welfare:
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
I see a LOT of memes such as the one in this article blaming America’s economic and social problems on government aid to the poor, Tina. Why aren’t conservatives devoting at least the same amount of time and energy decrying government aid to the rich, which actually costs our nation more and benefits our nation less?
You can say you favor small government all you want, Tina. You can also say you have compassion for the poor all you want. It won’t mean anything as long as you spend most of your time cheerleading for government-sponsored corporations while decrying social welfare, and posting memes which basically characterize the poor as rabid packs of dogs who need to be neutered so they won’t produce more Democrats.
“Do you have even the slightest inkling of the “monied interests” that your party supports?
I guess it’s okay”
It’s not OK, Tina. A lot of Democrats voted for the farm bill too. I don’t believe the government should prop up businesses like Solyndra either. I am against all corporate welfare. But more taxpayer money goes to oil companies than solar, and Republicans don’t seem to have any problem with that.
“as long as they keep shoving freebies at you”
Again: as long as you have a bigger problem with poor people getting “freebies” than corporations and the rich, you cries of class warfare and redistribution will ring hollow. It’s OK to be against both redistribution to the rich and redistribution to the poor. But the former is clearly much worse than the latter. I wish you’d start acting like it.
“I’ve shown you studies that show just the opposite. Its a bit arrogant to think the studies you offer are superior to mine,”
No, it’s not arrogant. It’s informed. I’ve shown you why the methodologies of the studies I’ve cited are scientifically superior to yours; you haven’t done that, because you don’t know how to do that, and you don’t even understand the differing methodologies even when I try to explain it to you. You simply assert that yours are correct because you want them to be. Believing that your studies are superior when you have no academic training and no idea how to differentiate between good and bad methodology is arrogant.
“especially when it is logical that small businesses forced to pay higher wages would have less money to pay employees.”
It’s also logical that small businesses will have more demand when people are paid better. And since demand is the number one problem with the economy according to the majority of small business owners, it seems logical that demand should be addressed first.
“And as a small business owner I think I have the experience t back up my position.”
Sure, but not all small business owners agree with you. One poll showed two thirds of small business owners favoring a min. wage increase:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/small-businesses-back-minimum-wage-hike/
According to that article, 85% of small businesses already pay above the min. wage–a wage increase would mostly affect large corporations and make small business more competitive.
Other polls show more of a 50/50 split, but I have listened to the concerns of small business owners and taken their opinions into account, Tina. Have you done the same for people on welfare? I doubt you could show me a poll showing that a majority, or even half, of welfare recipients want their benefits cut because they believe they are making them less productive members of society. Your preferred policies for the poor are based on your beliefs about what’s best for them, but it comes from a paternalistic belief that you know better than they do. You’re not putting yourself in their shoes, you’re putting yourself in the position of a parent (your own metaphor).
“You have articulated all of the built in excuses”
They’re not “excuses.” This kind of rhetoric is exactly the problem; you don’t believe the poor have an accurate and realistic understanding of their lives and situations. You think you know better than they do.
“I’ve seen attitudes change. I’ve been a witness to the ease with which people take a handout today compared to when I was young.”
OK, but you’re talking about pride. That’s not my priority. My priority is lifting people out of poverty. If they need what you call a “handout” to do that…BFD. Everyone needs help every now and then. Perhaps the fact that people were too proud to take a handout in your day is part of why the poverty rate was so much higher?
“Apparently not. After five years of redistribution on steroids the poverty level is higher than ever.”
Redistribution on steroids? Really? Tina, these past few years have been a mess of partisan bickering and half-hearted measures. Taxes on the rich have not been raised back to pre-Bush levels. The food stamp budget has just been cut by Republicans. Single payer was proposed and then disappeared from the agenda. The sequester exists. We’re still nowhere close to European-style welfare states.
“You have been shown that different policies have created greater prosperity under Presidents of both parties and yet you refuse to accept the evidence or learn from history.”
Tina, the results you’re seeing today are a result of decades of policies which have caused more gains to go to the rich. The decline in wages, the decline in union membership, outsourcing…all of these have led to higher income inequality and lower demand. History did not begin when Obama was inaugurated. Obama inherited the worst recession we’ve seen since the depression. No rational person expected miracles. You blame Obama for every single problem in our economy, but you ignore that it’s been slowly tanking for a long time. The Bush tax cuts didn’t cause it, but they certainly didn’t help.
“Why would it be when the government hands out so much money to the poor?”
…Thanks for proving my point, I guess?
Would you rather have higher poverty rates and less welfare?
“Peter Ferarra at Forbes:
We know Obama loves the poor, because he has created so many of them.”
See above. This is a ridiculous statement that ignores the recession Obama inherited.
“Poverty has soared under Obama, with the number of Americans in poverty increasing to the highest level in the more than 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tracking poverty.”
Notice how he says “number of Americans” to make this statement technically true, even though it’s completely misleading. He should be looking at the *percentage* of Americans in poverty, not the number, since obviously the number of Americans *in total* is a lot bigger today than it was 50 years ago. The poverty RATE (percentage), which is the more relevant statistic, is definitely not the highest it’s been in 50 years (again, it’s never gone back up to pre-1964 levels).
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/figure4.pdf
“The Census Bureau publishes the Gini Index, which is the official measure of income inequality. That index has climbed every year President Obama has been in office. It was flat during the 8 years under President Bush (which means inequality did not increase).”
That’s just not true:
“Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, increased between 1996 and 2006; this is true for both before-tax and after-tax income. Before-tax income inequality increased from 0.532 to 0.582 between 1996 and 2006—a 9% increase. After-tax income inequality increased by 11% between 1996 and 2006.
Total taxes (the individual income tax, the payroll tax, and the corporate income tax) reduced income inequality in both 1996 and 2006. In 1996, taxes reduced income inequality by 5%. In 2006, however, taxes reduced income inequality by less than 4%. Taxes were more progressive and had a greater equalizing effect in 1996 than in 2006.
…
While earnings inequality increased between 1996 and 2006, this was not the major source of increasing income inequality over this period. Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality. Taxes were less progressive in 2006 than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality
between 1996 and 2006.”
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/bush-tax-cuts-increased-income-inequality
“Inequality is increasing under Obama because the incomes of the top 20% of income earners are increasing, while the incomes for everyone else have been declining.”
Yes, which is why I support directly increasing the incomes of everyone else. Weird that you don’t.
“RE: Chargemaster
Wikipedia makes this sound like an evil plot when in fact it is a listing of prices for services or items that are charged to patients for their hospital stay. I realize you are used to the notion of free services but honestly, I don’t know how a hospital could bill without such a list.”
Tina, obviously the problem isn’t that a list of prices *exists.* The problem is that the prices listed are completely arbitrary and wildly inflated:
“Chargemasters gained national attention from a critical Time magazine cover story published February 20, 2013, titled “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us”.[3] Reporter Steven Brill examined the overlooked role that chargemasters play in the American health care system’s cost crisis, asserting that they routinely list extremely high prices “devoid of any calculation related to cost”, and are generally regarded as “fiction” in the healthcare industry, despite their significant role in setting prices for both insured and uninsured patients alike.
“The ‘full charges’ reflected on hospital Charge Masters are unconscionable”, wrote George A. Nation III in a 2005 piece for the Kentucky Law Journal.[18] Health care economist scholar Uwe Reinhardt noted in a 2006 article for Health Affairs that the approach to chargemasters by hospitals would have to be modified to become more transparent, in order to encourage a form of consumer-driven health care to help improve the system.[19] University of California, Berkeley professor of health economics James C. Robinson pointed out prior criticism of the chargemaster, “Much ink has been spilt bemoaning that incomprehensible foundation of hospital cost accounting and prices, the redoubtable chargemaster.”[20] Robinson called for greater transparency as well as increased price standardization as steps to help remedy the situation.[20]
In a 2007 article for Health Affairs, Gerard F. Anderson observed, “Without knowing what services they will use in advance, it is impossible for patients to comparison shop.”[21] Anderson also noted the esoteric nature of the language on the chargemaster made it difficult for patients and anyone other than hospital administrators to understand.[21] Anderson emphasized the difficulty of patients’ ability to interpret the chargemaster in a subsequent 2012 article: “Furthermore, most of the items on the charge master file are written in code so that only the hospital administrators and a few experts in the field can interpret their meanings.”.[22]
In May 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published inpatient prices for hospitals across the country in a publicly available format.[23]”
“Incredible! But let’s ay for the sake of argument you are right. It doesn’t mean that if we eliminated services for all but those who simply cannot work more people would take the initiative and find a job. I say they would.”
Yes, you say that because you believe the problem is that poor people lack initiative. The fact that we have record unemployment–meaning that a lot of people are looking for jobs, but can’t find them–doesn’t seem to cause you to question that belief, for reasons I can’t understand.
“It is not a “fact of nature”. Were it a fact of nature this nation would not be what it is. If it were a fact of nature fire and the wheel would not have been discovered and utilized.”
…what?
I’m not even sure how to respond to this. Yes, it is a fact of human nature that people seek greater goals usually only after their basic needs are met. There may be exceptions, but generally, great social and technological advances come from societies where people (at least, those making such advances) do first have their basic needs met.
“If you are told all your life that you can’t succeed you will think like a victim and pass it on to your children…which may be why OPRAH has worked so hard to let people know they don’t have to be stuck in poverty.”
Oprah also supports social welfare for the poor as a way of helping them escape from poverty, so I find it disrespectful of you to appropriate her experience to advance an agenda she would vehemently disagree with. You’ve done this before, and it’s unethical.
“I believe you Chris. I just don’t buy it.”
OK?
“And its really sad that you cling to your experience as the absolute truth giving the help you received more credit for your success than your own initiative and hard work.”
I am not giving it more credit than my own initiative and hard work. I’d say it’s about 50/50.
“It’s arrogant to think that only poor people struggle…”
Well of course it is, but since no one here has said that, that is a non-sequiter.
“I’m convinced you don’t have any desire to understand the policies I champion because you’ve decided I and others like me cruel and lacking in empathy.”
I’ve decided that, Tina, because that’s what you’ve shown me. You cited a meme here that characterized poor people in an extremely dehumanizing way. You didn’t have to do that to make your argument, but you did. What did you expect? If you can’t see how that kind of rhetoric is extremely classist and insulting, then you do lack empathy. If you don’t want people to see you that way, I suggest you change the way you debate these issues. But you don’t get to say whatever you want about the poor with immunity from criticism.
Do men without jobs leave home so their families will qualify for assistance, not realizing the harm their not being there causes?
Fatherless Statistics Jan. 6, 2013
Children from fatherless homes are:
• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
• 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
• 24.3 times more likely to run away
• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
• 10.8 times more likely to commit rape
• 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
• 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
• 73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes
• 6.3 times more likely to be in state operated institutions
· 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).
· 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
Daughters who live in mother only homes are
92% more likely to divorce
http://www.fatherlessunite.org/fatherless-statistics/
We need an economy that provides jobs for men to support their families and we need it now for the sake of the children and the future of this country.
Peggy given the attitudes of our political opponents I think a case could be made that in general their policies and preferences lead to societal decline.
These statistics:
…could help make the case that it is Democrats who are waging a war on women. What mother in her right mind would want this for her daughters? And yet young women today are discouraged from seeking stable marriages and encouraged to have out of wedlock children by leftist pop culture and leftist government policy.
The stats for boys are equally discouraging and sad and can also be attributed to leftist policy and mores.
Chris it isn’t a matter of misinterpreting what he has said. It is a total failure on your part to get what he is saying. You don’t get what its like to be him, to walk in his shoes, and you have shown no indication that you care to in future.
Its kind of ironic that you have accused me of not being able to walk in a poor persons shoes when you have demonstrated for years that you have no empathy or understanding for those from whom you would have government extract more and more of their earnings to redistribute to others!
There isn’t any point to discuss economic policy with you if you are going to deny the unworkable realities in the real world and in real people’s lives because your personal past suffering is all that matter…all that drives your thinking. It is useless to discuss the moral and constitutional aspects of redistribution as long as you think those who have more than you should be forced to fork some of it over to make life easier for others.
Tell you what; you go ahead and have that laugh all by yourself. I have better things to do.
I think too of the men who feel forced to leave their families and not be there to be the role models for their sons and daughters.
Daughters need fathers to learn the type of man she should be looking for and boys to see they’re needed to provide and protect their families and how to treat women with respect and not abuse.
Churches, boys and girls clubs, Big Brothers and Sisters programs can only fill a small hole in the huge demand todays youth are facing. I’ve only seen numbers and not percentages for today’s population compared to the 1960s when I was a teen or the 1990s when our economy was booming.
Here’s an interesting article I just read that shines more light on the subject.
Why President Obama’s Approach to Poverty Won’t Work:
“Economic inequality has become the left’s great hope for recovering its political integrity after the Obamacare disaster. President Obama, trying to change the subject, has latched onto the issue and is sure to make many more speeches about it in the New Year. New York’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, promises to make that great city an experimental lab for progressive ideas aimed at curing inequality.
For years, analysts across the political spectrum have pondered why, after decades of providing upward economic mobility to millions, the U.S. economy no longer seems able to move so many people up from the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Is the American Dream of upward mobility dead?
This stance is based on economic fallacies. Worse, it is divisive to our society because it runs on the fumes of envy and resentment. Punishing success will only deter further success … not what you want if you want the economy to grow. Better for the president to curb government policies that pick economic winners and losers (or as someone put it after the Solyndra affair, that picks only losers). Government intervention in the marketplace foments favoritism and cronyism and leads to more inequality.
President Obama has even lost top scholars at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, who grumble that the president is “over-stating, and over-simplifying, the problems at hand.”
As Clinton himself said back in 1996, “All Americans, without regard to party, know that our welfare system is broken, that it teaches the wrong values, rewards the wrong choices, hurts those it was meant to help. We also know that no one wants to change the current system in a good way more than people who are trapped in it.”
We must recognize that while the federal government can inefficiently redistribute money, it cannot redistribute success, character, personal satisfaction, dignity, purpose, perseverance or any of the qualities and outcomes that make life worth living. The Bill Clinton of the 1990s knew that.
In other words, it’s time to stop playing politics, and actually help the poor.””
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/01/18/president-obamas-approach-poverty-wont-work/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Peggy: “Do men without jobs leave home so their families will qualify for assistance, not realizing the harm their not being there causes?”
It’s possible that some have done this, and if so, it’s interesting how little things have changed in our society since Arthur Miller wrote “Death of a Salesman.” But I doubt that’s happening in large numbers; fathers usually leave for more selfish reasons.
Tina: “Chris it isn’t a matter of misinterpreting what he has said. It is a total failure on your part to get what he is saying.”
I don’t think you get what you’re saying right now; you just completely contradicted yourself.
I think what you’re trying to say is that it doesn’t really matter what specific words the guy used, because you agree with his overall point. That’s a defense you invoke quite often here, especially when it’s pointed out that you or someone you agree with has made a bad, illogical argument. I think I’ve made it pretty clear what I think of that defense in the past.
Again: If you have good arguments, then you shouldn’t need to resort to bad ones. Arguments that characterize the poor as lazy, irresponsible, and animalistic are not only unethical and classist, they’re also unconvincing and counter-productive. You’ve complained quite a bit over the characterization of Republicans as cold-hearted and lacking compassion for the poor. But then you go right ahead and cite a source who exemplifies those exact stereotypes. You can’t claim that those stereotypes of Republicans are unfair at the same time you are actively promoting them.
“You don’t get what its like to be him, to walk in his shoes, and you have shown no indication that you care to in future.”
Again, Tina–you’re asking me to empathize with someone who, right out of the gate, essentially put up a big sign saying that he refuses to empathize with people like me. Someone who is *literally* arguing that it is easy to be poor and really hard being upper middle class. Someone who is complaining because his elderly, poverty-stricken girlfriend is receiving a healthcare subsidy and he isn’t.
Until you admit that the guy you cited also needs to put himself in another man’s shoes, your request is as unreasonable as it is hypocritical.
“There isn’t any point to discuss economic policy with you if you are going to deny the unworkable realities in the real world and in real people’s lives because your personal past suffering is all that matter…all that drives your thinking. It is useless to discuss the moral and constitutional aspects of redistribution as long as you think those who have more than you should be forced to fork some of it over to make life easier for others.”
It is only “useless” because you refuse to debate using anything other than strawman arguments and double standards. You continue to harp on me and other recipients of social welfare, while saying not a jot about recipients of corporate welfare, even though I’ve shown you that makes up a larger portion of the federal budget. You accuse me of lacking empathy while promoting a guy who likens poor people to animals who will just “multiply, multiply, and multiply,” and who believes that you can have babies for $4 a year.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If you don’t want people to believe that Republicans are hostile to the poor, then the solution is to stop saying things that are hostile to the poor.
It’s that simple.
Chris I will ignore your continued insults. Peevishness is perhaps the only mechanism you have at your disposal to prop up your own lousy arguments as well as your twisted iteration of mine. This is a perfect example of your complete failure to receive the message being transmitted:
It is a waste of time to even try to communicate with you, Chris, because you rarely receive the communication as delivered.
Tina: “Chris I will ignore your continued insults.”
My insults were only a response to the meme you posted which insults the poor as a class of people. Call it self-defense.
“This is a perfect example of your complete failure to receive the message being transmitted:
“Arguments that characterize the poor as lazy, irresponsible, and animalistic are not only unethical and classist, they’re also unconvincing and counter-productive.
It is a waste of time to even try to communicate with you, Chris, because you rarely receive the communication as delivered.”
Ridiculous. What I wrote was a completely accurate characterization of the message as transmitted. The meme you posted did characterize the poor as lazy, irresponsible, and animalistic. That is simply a fact. And this characterization is extremely common in conservative arguments; Mitt Romney’s 47% remarks flat-out said that he would never be able to “convince them to take responsibility for their lives.” The meme you cited above bemoans the ability of the poor to “multiply” cheaply and quickly and produce Democratic voters; that is dehumanizing.
Since you still refuse to explain HOW I have mischaracterized these offensive comments, even though I have asked you several times to explain this to me, I can only presume that you find yourself unable to come up with a proper justification. That’s because none exists. You cannot dispute that the meme you cited characterizes the poor as lazy, irresponsible and animalistic; you know that it did, and that’s exactly what it’s purpose was. So you hide behind vague declarations that I have somehow misunderstood, and really, you have so much compassion, how could anyone think otherwise?
The problem is not with my reading comprehension. The problem is with the things you say and share.
I know it’s very hard for us to accept that we might need to change something about ourselves. But seriously, Tina: this attitude is what lost you the last election. If you would like to keep losing elections, change nothing. If you would like to win future elections, then you need to change your tone when it comes to the nation’s poor.
It’s up to you.
Chris: “My insults were only a response to the meme you posted which insults the poor as a class of people. Call it self-defense.”
How about a case of unnecessary self defense.
The man was not insulting or criticizing the poor.
The man was the being critical of the federal government and the unreasonable redistribution aspects of Obamacare! He was talking about human nature…why would anyone, including himself, work hard when the government takes what you earn and gives it to other people? Nothing of substance is demanded for this subsidy…they get it just for showing up. The man was being critical of what he perceives is the Democrat’s covert motivation to buy votes and a permanent voting base.
Your prejudice and bias…the straw man you prop up to represent conservatives as people…is what you respond to and so statements like the following just don’t get through to you on an intellectual level.
His warning, that offering $4.00 maternity care to young unmarried mothers will not result in a future society of adults prepared to contribute to society, is backed up by statistics. Asserting that this is not the smartest way to support people in being their best or to help people lift themselves out of poverty is a reasonable argument. See also here and here.
The clinic he spoke about is a heavily subsidized county supported clinic. His federal tax dollars and his local tax dollars already support poor people in getting the best possible care through this clinic. Obamacare has now placed another heavy covert tax burden on him for this care by making his premiums unreasonably high compared to others.
The poor do not create these laws and they cannot be blamed for taking advantage of them.
The current radical progressive Democrat Party leadership can be blamed and should be criticized for them. I think they should be removed from office. I think this is very bad law; unlawful in its implementation and certainly unconstitutional in its intent.
Your sensitivity is understandable but it is also clouding your ability to discuss this law dispassionately. You are not responding to the objections; you are reacting to what you perceive as a personal slight.
You can ignore this information and continue to think that conservatives are being critical of people rather than policy, but it will only further stunt your ability to understand how policy shapes outcomes due to human nature (ANY human’s basic nature) .
My attitude didn’t lose us the last election.
It’s important to your future that you learn what actually did cause the election results and what continues to cause a lousy economy, high unemployment, and growing numbers of people living in poverty under the winner/s.
Tina: “The man was not insulting or criticizing the poor.”
Let me show you the excerpt I’m responding to one more time:
“And think about those $4-a-month babies – think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club, or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they’ll multiply, and multiply, and multiply. And not one of them will vote Republican.”
Tina, your claim that this is not insulting or critical of the poor is objectively false. For you to accuse me of arguing with a strawman, or for being too “sensitive” by pointing out that this is insulting to the poor, is a classic gaslighting tactic. You’re denying the obvious and defending the indefensible, and I just don’t understand why.
Tina: “He was talking about human nature…why would anyone, including himself, work hard when the government takes what you earn and gives it to other people?”
For the third time: because, after that money is taxed and redistributed, the successful hard worker will still have more money than the welfare recipient (who is likely also a hard worker).
Why do you keep asking the same bad rhetorical questions? Why do you seem to think that merely repeating the same bad arguments over and over will somehow make them better?
“Asserting that this is not the smartest way to support people in being their best or to help people lift themselves out of poverty is a reasonable argument.”
Like I said, that is not, in and of itself, an unreasonable argument.
However, there are certainly reasonable and unreasonable ways of getting that argument across. Talking about poor Democratic voters “multiplying” is not the way to make that argument.
Look, you can think that people who find this type of rhetoric offensive are just being unreasonable, or too sensitive, or too PC, or whatever it is you have to believe to excuse yourself from any and all wrongdoing. But they’re still going to find those arguments offensive. If you’re not going to ever consider the ethics of using such clearly classist arguments, then at least consider it from a tactical perspective. If your goal is to persuade people into favoring conservative policies and politicians, then you should stop using this kind of rhetoric. It turns people off. It’s alienating. (It’s also wrong, but I’ve given up trying to convince you of that; if you don’t get that this is unethical by now, you never will.)
However, if your goal is simply to preach to the choir and give the base some red meat to chew on, and you have no real desire to actually make your message sound more appealing to people who don’t already agree with you, then keep doing exactly what you’re doing. (Another fact of human nature is that putting down a scapegoat makes us feel better about ourselves, and the poor have always been a convenient scapegoat.)
“Your sensitivity is understandable but it is also clouding your ability to discuss this law dispassionately.”
Of course. Only upper middle class business owners have the proper objectivity to decide issues affecting the poor.
This is just more gaslighting. Those with privilege in any given conversation always believe they are more “objective” and “dispassionate” then those who lack the same privilege. You’re proving my point about your privileged perspective, Tina.
My emotions are not getting the better of me, Tina. Even from a basic definitional level, the man in the meme you cited is using insulting language toward the poor. Aren’t you the one who always says that “words mean things?” You’re the one choosing to ignore what’s right in front of you in order to make the absurd argument that he didn’t even criticize the poor (when he clearly criticized “irresponsible unwed mothers,”), and you’re doing it for emotional reasons. You have no logic to back up this argument; you’re making it because it causes you profound intellectual discomfort to admit when you’ve posted something wrong. You do this all the time.
“You are not responding to the objections; you are reacting to what you perceive as a personal slight.”
And yet you still refuse to explain what part of the guy’s objections I’ve misunderstood or taken out of context. You refuse to do this because you can’t. I’ve characterized his points completely accurately and have responded to exactly what was written. The problem is not with my perception. The problem is with his (and your) rhetoric.
“You can ignore this information and continue to think that conservatives are being critical of people rather than policy,”
This guy was being critical of people as well as possible; that’s a basic fact. If you can’t see that, you’re letting your pride and stubbornness get in the way of your basic reading comprehension abilities.
“My attitude didn’t lose us the last election.”
If you refuse to admit how your party’s hostile attitude and repeated insults toward the poor has had negative political consequences, then there’s nothing I can do for you. You are choosing to live in a bubble, and you deserve to keep losing.
Sorry, this part: “This guy was being critical of people as well as possible; that’s a basic fact.”
should read:
“This guy was being critical of people as well as policy; that’s a basic fact.
Chris: “your claim that this is not insulting or critical of the poor is objectively false”
Given the man made many of his comments in the first person I think it is safe to say his comments reflect frustration about a system that encourages poor choices rather than criticism of the poor generally, especially toward any of those who do try to improve their lives and do behave responsibly but just happen to be poor.
Chris Do you believe there are poor people, even fairly large numbers of able bodied poor people, who don’t ever try, who are content to live on America’s generous benefits programs, and who neglect, abuse, or don’t expect much from their kids? Do you think there are others who actively scam the system?
I ask because your defense assumes that all poor people are without blemish, saintly almost, and to quote you, “You’re denying the obvious and defending the indefensible, and I just don’t understand why.”
Here is another question for you. Do you believe people will be motivated to try harder when life is made easier in all cases?
I ask because the numbers and stats would suggest just the opposite is true. Some people are motivated to get out and would be whether they are offered help or not. I think you and your mom are like that. But the vast majority respond to help by taking it and relaxing until they have no reason left to try…some fall even further and go on to scam the system.
Since 1964 we have spent many trillions of dollars on programs to uplift the poor…to help them overcome adversity. In addition we spend money for education K-12 and we have countless ways to get help with college public and private. In fifty years we have not significantly changed the numbers of poor and in that same time the numbers of single mothers who have never been married has increased greatly.
I think there is plenty of room for criticism and for reforms of the programs.
I can also understand why anyone who has lived through the constant increase in programs and taxes would be frustrated by yet another program that demands of him. This is money that he has earned and in many cases is taken from his own family. In this case the other families, the ones he subsidizes can get a better plan than he can afford…that isn’t right by any standard.
When does it become too much to ask of the average working man, Chris? When does it become unreasonable?
I agree with Laurence M. Vance who wrote:
When Democrats say, “We haven’t done enough,” it is patently absurd! It is just another signal that they want to take more money from the pockets of working Americans to redistribute, in too many cases, to those who won’t work and don’t try.
The saddest part of it IS the loss in human potential.
The number of black young men in our prisons is the saddest testament to the failure of the welfare state and the need for need for reforms.
The number of poor white people in the mountains of Kentucky are another example that it has failed.
I will have to consider responding to the second of your comments later.
Tina: “Given the man made many of his comments in the first person I think it is safe to say his comments reflect frustration about a system that encourages poor choices rather than criticism of the poor generally, especially toward any of those who do try to improve their lives and do behave responsibly but just happen to be poor.”
…OK?
They were also insulting toward the poor.
Do you see these characterizations as somehow mutually exclusive?
“Chris Do you believe there are poor people, even fairly large numbers of able bodied poor people, who don’t ever try, who are content to live on America’s generous benefits programs, and who neglect, abuse, or don’t expect much from their kids? Do you think there are others who actively scam the system?”
Sure.
That has nothing to do with what we’re discussing, though. You’re trying to change the subject.
“I ask because your defense assumes that all poor people are without blemish, saintly almost,”
No, it doesn’t. You are the one making a strawman argument here.
“Since 1964 we have spent many trillions of dollars on programs to uplift the poor…to help them overcome adversity. In addition we spend money for education K-12 and we have countless ways to get help with college public and private. In fifty years we have not significantly changed the numbers of poor”
That’s simply not true, and I’ve already shown you the proof. The poverty rate DID significantly drop in the first half-decade of the War on Poverty, and has never gone back to its previous highs. Poverty has remained relatively stable since then, but there are many factors that can explain why it hasn’t fallen further: the decline in wages, the decline in union membership, and outsourcing have all devastated the middle class and have caused more people to fall into poverty and rely on government aid. When a minimum wage worker is effectively making less today than you did when you started at a minimum wage job, it should not be that hard to understand why poverty remains a problem.
“I think there is plenty of room for criticism and for reforms of the programs.”
Sure there is room for criticism. All I am asking is that you conduct this criticism without resorting to promoting bigoted stereotypes about poor people. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
“Libby, apparently you have never heard of Horatio Alger.”
It’s Horatio Alger, Jr., actually … and he wrote fiction.