Senate The US Politics discussion

For everyone? Yes, you've imagined that. I don't hold distain for all public employees.

Well it's true. From the hills of Tennesee to the projects of Chicago. There are many examples generations of people on the dole.

And this healthcare law certainly goes to making the services available to the unemployed similar to that of the employed. So my question still stands.

 

I guess she assumed you feel disdain for all public employees because you feel disdain for your own wife for being a public employee.

 

Well, let's see...

No, it doesn't matter.

 

I'll retract the "generations" comment because it's not important. Here's what is. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare?gclid=CIia65XYwr8CFQqIfgodxmsAcg Again, I have to ask the question: If the employed and unemployed are receiving similar goods and services then what's the incentive to work?

And to be fair, you were bragging about not having to earn your education or job...that it was all government given.

 

Why doesn't it matter? And don't forget to answer my question: What is the better option to getting a good job and working the hell out of it?

 

The jobs are gone. In case you live in a bubble and are somehow unaware of this fact, it's been pointed out in the thread.

 

Americans were/are literally dying because they couldn't get healthcare. You would deny them healthcare for your own financial gain.

Better option? For you? Get a good job, work like hell, develop more compassion for your fellow man and stop being so selfish that you can't sacrifice a little money so that someone else can have healthcare. Or, as you have suggested, quit your job and get on the public dole, because employed people and unemployed people are receiving similar goods and services, and there is no incentive to work.

You're bitching about sacrificing a little money, a sacrifice you are easily able to make, so that others can have healthcare. You're coming off as an incredibly crappy human being right now.

No one cares about your dwindling entertainment money.

What an absurd question, they're not receiving similar goods and services. Tell me you're not stupid enough to actually believe this.

Why haven't you quit your job? You seem to think you'll receive the same goods and services and because of that there's no incentive to work.

J-Rod, you are ******* disgusting me right now.

 

J-Rod, if the world worked the way you think it did, Europe would have collapsed a long, long time ago.

 

To address the issue:

This idea of people living off of the "public dole" being equal to people that work is true in VERY specific instances. Where I live, there usually isn't much difference, but I also live in the poorest part of my state, and the area that Yahoo! ranked as the 7th poorest area in the country. According to City-Data, the median household income where I live is about 30K a year. And even then, there are people that take advantage of that and ones that don't. Why should we let a very minute few create an image for what is believed to be a large part of the nation?

But it is definitely not like this anywhere else that I've seen throughout the nation. People that live in cities where the price of living is crazy high simply cannot live comfortably off of government help alone. The idea of someone living off of welfare being equal to someone who even works in a fast food restaurant in New York City is preposterous.

I don't understand the issue with people that chose to attend public universities. God forbid they only wanted to spend 25-30K instead of 50K or more. I can't understand why anyone would want to attend a private university unless they have money just lying around (especially if they live in states like Virginia, California, North Carolina or Michigan where they have public universities that are comparable to Ivies). Unless you're Mormon and BYU is an option (because it's ridiculously cheap, like 13K a year I think), I'd suggest public all the way.

 

Another factor to consider, as someone brought up "rent" above, is the old mantra used to be "Never spend more than 25% of your monthly paycheck on rent."

That was never going to be true -- even when I went to college two decades ago -- in major urban areas like NYC (my chosen lifestyle), so it was a matter of choice in terms of how I wanted to live (i.e. roughly comparable salaries to live either in New York City or the Seattle metro-area). However it was still more than possible elsewhere and I interviewed with many of those places (DC, VA, NC, wherever Enron was, etc.).

How possible is that today still for everyone?

PS - even back then the "poverty line" was BS (it should be an index), which probably only makes it worse today.

 

There has been far more upward wealth redistribution over the past fifteen years or so than downward wealth distribution. Programs and assistance for the most needy people (particularly children) has been cut time and again, and things like unemployment compensation has been fought over by Republicans, sometimes with the claim that it must be paid for in some other way, and sometimes by saying that it stops people from looking for work. The first claim is a farce, as their recent antics show, and the other claim is nonsense, as shown by the lack of jobs in the country and the prejudices faced by the long-term unemployed (who became unemployed typically because of bad luck). The unemployment rate is dropping in large part because a lot of people are simply leaving the work force because they've been unable to find jobs.

Meanwhile, tax breaks and incentives for corporations continue unabated.

 

Health care should never be dependent on your job, or your status in life. It's a human right.

People who get themselves in a fury over the idea that someone who they perceive to be less hardworking that they is getting good health care are deeply misguided and need to look at their priorities in life. The health care other people receive is no business of mine, other than my strong belief that everyone is entitled to good health care. If someone who is unemployed is getting free health care, it's of no consequence to me. Good for that person-- maybe it will help them get back into the workforce sooner and stay healthy, thus avoiding more costly medical expenses later on, the kind that sometimes become unpayable and turned over to the taxpayer.

 

I actually have to agree somewhat with J-Rod here, at least on his first point.

Real wages and income have fallen, while the cost of everything has gone up. The government claims that core inflation is low, but they strip out food and gas, which is madness, IMHO, because their metrics then fail to accurately capture what swallows most people's incomes. Also, the artificial weakening of the dollar, while necessary to prevent an economic collapse 6 years ago, is now totally out of control. Major economies such as Russia and China are already leveraging out of it, and if its position as the global reserve currency disappears, America will be in for a world of hurt.

Even without that, the loss of purchasing power has already been devastating, so much so that even professionals such as myself are feeling the squeeze; as a physician, I make a decent living (although nowhere near what an investment banker does), don't live beyond my means, and I still don't feel financially secure, despite having significant savings. If I'm concerned, what about everybody else with the median income of 50K?

Eventually, something's got to give. You cannot continue to mine the wages of labor to create more capital. It's going to collapse, and it might start with health care.

Peace,

V-03

 

287 billion dollar tax cut for the rich, yet I have to "earn" health insurance.

 

If your premise were even remotely true, you might have the beginnings of a point. But this is beyond ludicrous.

The ACA now mandates that even minimum plans include commonly used services that people will actually need. However, you are just objectively wrong if you think there aren't huge quality differences between what is offered by Medicaid, or even a Bronze Plan as compared to a Gold Plan or an even more luxuriant employer-based one. According to this site the average difference in deductible between the best and worst marketplace plans--that means we're already excluding Medicaid for the low-income/unemployed, which is worse still--is 14.6x. Fourteen times. I don't know what universe you live in where being on the hook for $300 is the same thing as $5,000. Let alone the differences in how many providers might be willing to accept said insurance.

We all understand that you, as an individual, worked hard to achieve what you have. Congratulations. The same is true of everyone else. But the great lie here is that somehow, you've been cheated, so that those who have done far less are living materially just as well. That's not even remotely true. It's a cynical, unsupported, inhumane argument against the social safety net, peddled by ideologues and politicians that have more interest in catering to an elite desire for low taxes. Let's get a grip here.

 

In my four just-completed years at a university, surrounded by a lot of what would be considered to be "college age" students, I can say I heard "MTV" said approximately zero times.

You give your prejudices and lack of awareness away with your words, J-Rod.

 

I look forward to the day when we have to deal with the vast majority of jobs being replaced with automation. That'll be fun.

 

the only option is to bomb ourselves back to the stone age.

 

I applaud Obama for trying to fix Healthcare, at least. Who knows, if we give it some time it may be worthwhile. Even the New Deal was a flop at first.

Hopefully our next president will try to fix our education system.