Poor people, health care, and the United States

[angus]

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.

[angus]

if they share your opinion (i.e., Everyone Deserves), then zero, right?  I suspect, however, that words like "merit" and "deserve" and "worthy" are not in the daily lexicon of your aforementioned bureaucrats.  Doesn't really matter though.  I agree that a society can and will have whatever system it wants, and you're right to campaign for a major change in our system if you want to change it.  I'm not really arguing with you, just gently reminding you that some of us do not share your goal.

[angus]

Shira,
Again, I'm not arguing with you, and frankly I admire your enthusiasm, but I'm just gently reminding you that some of us do not share your goal of imposing that "Feed the Poor" brand of morality.  I feed three people.  How many do you feed?  I really don't think the grown-ups need you to lecture them about these things, but please continue if it makes you feel better.

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.)

[angus]

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?

[angus]

I have had many cheap non-European cars.  I told you before I drove from Boston to Honduras in a 1982 Toyota Deathtrap.  Cost me 550 dollars.  The car was perfect for that purpose.  38 mpg.  Very ghetto, no one wanted to steal it.  And when it broke down in Panajachel, it was easy to get repaired since there are so many Toyotas in Guatemala.  That car just doesn't suit my needs at the moment.  Neither does the one depicted above.  I didn't say I had trouble affording the formula.  I said we don't use the formula.  We were merely exploring the welfare possiblities.  I found out that I'm not eligible.  End of story.  I only bring it up to suggest that The Poor and The Rich get quite a few breaks in this country.  From what I can tell, there is very little welfare for the middle class.  This was an observation, not a rant.  You'll know when I'm bitching about something; you'll not have to make inferences.

[angus]

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:

I have serious issues with that map.  I moved recently from Alameda County to Lowndes County and there's no way I can believe they are equally "poor"  No ing way, unless there are huge tracts of Oakland I haven't seen yet and huge tracts of Columbus I haven't seen yet.  Now that I think about it, Berkeley was kind of a mess, but still, it seems very odd.

Ah, well, I guess that's your point.  Fair enough. 

[angus]

now I remember.  something about some counties in appalachia being the "poorest" in the US, but also the "most republican"  apparently you've joined the wrong team, shira.  that's the bottom line here.  your message may be noble (at least in your mind) but it simply isn't resonating.  Of course, hiring opebo to call them hillbillies and religious nuts probably didn't help much either.  preaching to the choir.  but the choir is apparently singing another message just now.  certainly the lines with "norway" in them don't seem to hold much truck.  youze need your own Karl Rove I'm afraid.  sad, but true.

[angus]

Let's recap:

The opebo/angus intellectual academic curiosity lead to explorations of welfare possibilities.  We have established by experiment at least two observations about our welfare system.  They are:

1.  a single leisure-class man with rich parents receives need-based assistance.
2.  a working-class man with no parents and two additional dependents does not qualify.

that's seems a little bizarre.  and in any case I'd view such a system with suspicion.

Shira expects to try to run a nation with 300000000 residents of every creed, religion, race, and ethnicity the way small homogeneous populations are run.  Maybe we should also reneg on the anti-whale hunting ban, since we know that Norway and Japan are not signatories and have life expectancies, at 81, the longest in the world. 

A18 refuses to recognize that poverty exists.

And the Libertarians want to eliminate the ultra-powerful insurance lobby by circumventing their minions.

Is that about right?

Seems that the Libertarian notion makes sense to me.  Good thing I had decent public schools to attend so that I can read what the wise libertarians are writing.  There's a paradox for you John.