Poor people, health care, and the United States

[opebo]

Level of spending isn't the only criteria for judging health care - I can go to the doctor here for about $4 to $5. 

Of course I'm skeptical of your source, but if there is some spending on the poor for health care it is due to liberal programs such as Medicaid.  Thanks, Democratic Party!

[opebo]

Level of spending isn't the only criteria for judging health care - I can go to the doctor here for about $4 to $5. 

Of course I'm skeptical of your source, but if there is some spending on the poor for health care it is due to liberal programs such as Medicaid.  Thanks, Democratic Party!

A doctor in Thailand is $4 because the cost of living is so much lower than in the US.

Correct..  and my point was that those other countries Richius was comparing to the US may have a variety of differences such as this.

You know there is a lot of medical tourism to Thailand, particularly to Bumrungrad in Bangkok - it is a world class hospital staffed by Thai doctors who were educated at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, that sort of place.  A boob job is only $2,200 there - for both boobs!  You can get it for half that at a normal hospital here.
http://www.bumrungrad.com/

[opebo]

The main problem with TennCare was that the way the system was set up, private insurers were able to cherry pick the healthy people that don’t cost much while the unhealthy people that cost a lot were shifted off to TennCare.  Under those conditions its no wonder that TennCare went bust.

Isn't that normally what happens with a mix of State and private medical insurance?

[opebo]

Where is the right to health care in the Constitution again and if it isn't there, why are we even wasting time trying to find a cheap plan that covers the poor?

I suppose the obvious reason is that the poor might want to vote for candidates that provided such a plan.

[opebo]

That was random. Of course poor people will vote for those who give them more if that is all they are looking for. Answer the question though. Where is the right to government paid for health care in the Constitution?

Why would it need to be in the Constitution?  Congress can just legislate it.

[opebo]

The poor are poor because they are lazy. Why should hard-workining Americans pay for their health Care?

well, your sarcasm aside, it's true that the middle is being squeezed.  For example, my family is not rich enough to really benefit from the Rich breaks, nor poor enough to benefit from the poor breaks.  Our physician, an affable old white jewish fat guy, in answer to a question about where to get some formula for our child, should we choose to supplement his diet with formula (we haven't needed to yet), said to check into WIC.  We did.  We found out that you have to have an income that is not greater than 1.85 times the poverty level for a family of 3 in order to get those benefits.  We do not qualify.  It's the same way for the free clinic, the shots, and all the rest.  Poor people are no less "deserving" of health care than I.  Nor are they any more "deserving" than I.  There are two sides to that coin.

Why would you qualify?  You're driving a Mercedes.

That said, I and several friends used to get food stamps in grad school - great fun.  Back then it was much, much easier to get such things.  We used to joke about pulling up to the welfare office in my Cadillac like a conservative stereotype (though at the time I was a Rightist, and none of us were black women).  It was fun to buy fancy cheeses, steaks, and shrimps for free.  But that was way back in the early-to-mid-nineties.

[opebo]

Opebo, I don't qualify for the Plutocratic/Business Welfare variety either.  I'm taking sides with no one except myself here.  I'd think you might be able to relate to that.  But I do think you provide an excellent example of the sort of abuse that happens, and it is not surprising that so many here think you're just posing to make the Democrats look even worse than they already do.  (I repeat that I am not one of them, but then I'm rather naive about the ettiquette of fraud.)

Technically it wasn't abuse, as I had no 'income' in an official sense, though I was getting money from home.  Anyway, far better that a safety net exist and be abused by a tiny number of rich kids temporarily than to do away with it and gaurantee terrible hardships for the genuinely destititute.

But I am sympathetic with the idea of eliminating upper-class subsidy and graft, and increasing aid to the poor.  I have no idea what your income is, but I have to admit in your case I would probably assign your 'need' a low priority and suggest you sell the Mercedes and buy an old Buick...

[opebo]

I don't fancy old buicks.  Actually, I test drove several cars a couple of weeks ago, and I think that the 2005 Volvo S80 is currently my favorite.  Am I becoming a conservative or what?  Anyway, this is absurd.  You don't hear me complaining about welfare folks.  You have never heard me make that complaint, but you can't possibly compare yourself to the "working" poor.  And you freely admit this!  Have you no scruples at all?

What's wrong with an old buick?

I don't think I compared myself to the working poor.  I was just saying maybe if you're having trouble affording the formula you could buy a cheap non-European car.

[opebo]

No one should feed the poor. Believe it or not but in Norway, Sweden and in other civilized nations there are no poor people. (There are not ultra rich ones as well). Basically you can say that everyone there is on welfare. The desired formula is not too complicated. There is the GET and there is the GIVE. The GET are the various services that you get from the governments (federal, state, city) and The GIVE is what you pay to those services providers (taxes – in simple language). The GET should be egalitarian, while the GIVE should be progressive (according to the wealth of the individual). Very clear and simple.

Very good post Shira, well stated.  I couldn't agree more.  We are very fortunate that actual working examples of a reasonable society already exist in a few Western European nations!

[opebo]

There are no poor people here.

Explain please.  And try not to mention a stereo or cable TV.

Because there are poor, even by the government's absurdly stringent definition:

[opebo]

The people the Census Bureau defines as poor include people with cable, air conditioning, and color TV.

They aren't poor, period.

Hah!  You mentioned Cable!  Talk about irrelevant.

[opebo]

Hah, funny post angus. 

And certainly the libertarians have the simplest solution - of course it will, I'm sure you realize, lead to a certain amount of human misery, untreated illness, death in the streets, starvation, and that sort of thing.  Which is fine, and a matter of personal preference.  Personally I don't mind, I'm just surprised the great majority don't.  The alternative does, as you point out, lead to a certain amount of abuse and 'unfairness' - as your case and mine demonstrate.  Particularly mine.