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.

[Bono]

Question:
In west Europe the people have free choice to decide what kind of Health Care system they want. Why did they decide to have HC system run by the government?

Remember that before WW2 the European system was like the American one.

People only have free choice when they don't have to pay for other people's health care.
And anyways, you commiting a fatal ethical falacy.
As Hume pointed out, "is" does not imply "ought".

[Shira]

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.

Every one deserves. The HC system should be a governmental service. Do you have any idea of how many bureaucrats  are dealing with the issue of who deserves what.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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...

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Shira]

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...

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.

[A18]

There are no poor people here.

[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:

[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. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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 g 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. 

Yes, the feds screw over the high cost of living areas like Berkeley by not taking into account cost of living.

[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.

[David S]

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 don't know about that map. The source is http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/contemporarysocialissues/images8.13/USA-poverty.gif which looks like it might be a course study for some college class or maybe someone's term paper.
The census bureau shows data on a state basis at
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-214.pdf pg 17.
Nationwide the rate is about 12%.

[A18]

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

They aren't poor, period.

[KEmperor]

Believe it or not but in Norway, Sweden and in other civilized nations there are no poor people.

Right.  Poverty is strictly an American phenomenon.

[Jake]

Believe it or not but in Norway, Sweden and in other civilized nations there are no poor people.

Right.  Poverty is strictly an American phenomenon.

Duh, because evil conservative bastards control America. They hate the poor. Isn't that obvious?

[ATFFL]

Believe it or not but in Norway, Sweden and in other civilized nations there are no poor people.

Right.  Poverty is strictly an American phenomenon.

The amazing thing is the governments of Scandanavian countries say 'There is no poverty in OUR nation" then make sure that they draw the poverty line below the amount of money the government gives everyone. 

They could set the poverty line at less than $.01/yr, give everyone $.02 each year and still say there is no poverty.

Lots of governments claim to have no poverty.  The Saudis say they have no poor people in their country.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

now I remember.  something about some counties in appalachia being the "poorest" in the US, but also the "most republican" 

There's a couple of counties in a strange belt of pockets from SE KY to Western NC like that. Very much a minority among Appalachian counties though. Usually agricultural. Mostly they've been very republican since the 1860's and vote republican because they vote republican.

[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.

[Shira]

Believe it or not but in Norway, Sweden and in other civilized nations there are no poor people.

Right.  Poverty is strictly an American phenomenon.

The amazing thing is the governments of Scandanavian countries say 'There is no poverty in OUR nation" then make sure that they draw the poverty line below the amount of money the government gives everyone. 

They could set the poverty line at less than $.01/yr, give everyone $.02 each year and still say there is no poverty.

Lots of governments claim to have no poverty.  The Saudis say they have no poor people in their country.

There is a clear definition of "poor". In Portugal and Greece, for example, the figures are not as good as in Scandinavia but not as bad as the US ones.