Conquer Club

Sorry for the deluge of posts, but this also goes to my overall point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ted_States

Specifically, this:

A typical American categorized as poor has good condition housing. Most have at least two rooms per person and more space than middle-class people in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. Over three quarters have a car and a third of poor Americans have two cars. Poor Americans have air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave oven, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo.[9][17] Most poor Americans report zero financial or material problems.[9]

Okay, that's seriously retarded.

Not that it's much different for Europe probably.


I do wonder whether you could really take "stuff they have" as a good measure of poverty anyway.

Snorri1234 wrote:Okay, that's seriously retarded.

Not that it's much different for Europe probably.

I do wonder whether you could really take "stuff they have" as a good measure of poverty anyway.

You can probably do it to some extant. We all know that the majority of Americans don't save their money and get up in debt to their eyeballs. But greek does have a point, the poor here in the U.S. live like kings compared to most of the world (excluding the homeless of course).

Snorri1234 wrote:Okay, that's seriously retarded.

Not that it's much different for Europe probably.


I do wonder whether you could really take "stuff they have" as a good measure of poverty anyway.

I puffy heart your witty responses.

Apparently, it is much different in Europe. Apparently, the US poor have more stuff than the European middle class. I don't know if I believe that or not, but, well, there it is.

And no, "stuff they have" is not a good measure of poverty. My point is, how about you give up that DVD player and get yourself some health insurance.

thegreekdog wrote:I would rather have the federal government require the kid's health insurance provider to pay up than for the federal government to be the one providing the insurance.

....
So what would be the practical difference?

This is what I keep saying - why is the necessary answer "government provided health insurance"? (Hint: The answer is "it's not.")

This is true.

However, the necessary answer is "government mandated health insurance". The governments job is to make sure everyone has health insurance, how they do that is not as important because the most important thing is that everyone is able to get care without a problem.

someone without health insurance (in the US, this is generally either an illegal immigrant, a jobless person, or someone who just doesn't want health insurance)

Surely you're joking?

and ask them if they'd like to switch places with a Chinese farmer. Undoubtedly, the answer would be no.

Well as they say on these occasions: "Big Whoop". You would probably fail to convince them to switch places with an african child who is starving but that doesn't mean the dude is really that happy.

Also, I would urge you, and everyone else, to really think about what it means to be "lower middle class" or "poor" in the United States compared to "poor" in any number of countries (with some obvious exceptions). I live in a lower middle class and middle class neighborhood. It's pretty nice.

This is really an irrelevant tangent though. What kind of definitions you use to designate people really doesn't tell you how the situation is.

thegreekdog wrote:Apparently, it is much different in Europe. Apparently, the US poor have more stuff than the European middle class. I don't know if I believe that or not, but, well, there it is.

And no, "stuff they have" is not a good measure of poverty. My point is, how about you give up that DVD player and get yourself some health insurance.

The thing is that most of these appliances, even if they were of topnotch quality and the latest of the latest which I somehow doubt they are, really won't bring up much money when sold. I know that my 1-year-old colour tv would give me at most 2 months of health insurance and I'm sure that most of that other stuff wouldn't be that good either.


Okay, whatever, let's just look at the particulars of that little tidbit from the wiki-article.

Space: Well obviously poor Americans in general have bigger homes than people in some of the busiest cities in Europe. Aside from New York (which is a very European city) American cities tend to build more outwards than upwards. The USA has more space so it's logical that space costs less. (You guys also have the bizarre idea, in our minds, that driving an hour to the centre of the city when you are living in the city is no big deal. You guys are crazy.)

Notice to explain that this part of the thing says nothing about what Europeans actually have but I'm willing to go into an useless thought-expiriment.
Car: Again, this is more of a cultural thing. Cars in the US are nearly a basic need of life than just something to get you from point A to B faster. I suppose it's due to space again. Europe doesn't need cars as much. I mean, hell, if I drive for 2 hours I am out of the country. We can do a lot of things without needing a car so it would be logical that poor people would have less cars.

Various shit they have:
Really, refrigerators, stoves and clothes washers are also owned by all poor europeans. As are tv's, cable telly and a VCR. Not only are they pretty fucking important but not having them would not change much in the way of their financial situation. Not having a Tv or VCR would save a few bucks a month and the money earned by selling the other stuff would be put towards doing the things the absence of those things requires.
I mean, all it really says is that the average poor American family has things the average poor African family hasn't. But none of us ever supposed that wasn't the case.

Snorri, we have had this argument five trillion times. The point I'm making, and that I continue to make, and that no one has really disagreed with, is that the federal government should attempt to provide health insurance to those people in that 45 million bucket who want or need health insurance but don't have it because of legitimate financial constraints. Additionally, there needs to be some fixing of the health insurance system, specifically the lack of payouts for certain health needs, among other things.

One government-run health insurance system scares the crap out of me, especially if that one government is the US federal government. At least with various private health insurance providers, I can pick and choose what I want, so there is some accountability. Despite our government being a representative one, I rarely have any voice in what does or does not get done (because I'm not a corporation or a union). So, no, I don't think a government-run health insurance system is the same as the government helping out those who cannot help themselves.

More to the non-point, things in the United States are pretty good when you can be poor and have a car or DVD player or TV, regardless of the cultural differences between the US and England (or any other country). If we're talking about basic needs and "rights" of US citizens to healthcare, let's keep in mind that these people who are all apparently clamoring for universal health insurance want to also keep their DVD players, houses, TVs, and cars.

thegreekdog wrote:Snorri, we have had this argument five trillion times. The point I'm making, and that I continue to make, and that no one has really disagreed with, is that the federal government should attempt to provide health insurance to those people in that 45 million bucket who want or need health insurance but don't have it because of legitimate financial constraints.

Obviously. I'm not arguing with you in that regard, or even much in any regard. I'm just pointing out several things that strike me as inconsistent or at least a little incomplete. I don't want the federal government managing my healthcare either.

I guess I don't really think you're wrong about what solution is in order but I do think you're sort of ignoring that other countries already do what you'd want.

Additionally, there needs to be some fixing of the health insurance system, specifically the lack of payouts for certain health needs, among other things.

Well yes. And the rampant suing of medical professionals for malpractice. In fact, though I'm not an expert on american law (I'm sure that you could point out where I fail though), I'd say that the first is far easier than the second.

One government-run health insurance system scares the crap out of me, especially if that one government is the US federal government. At least with various private health insurance providers, I can pick and choose what I want, so there is some accountability. Despite our government being a representative one, I rarely have any voice in what does or does not get done (because I'm not a corporation or a union). So, no, I don't think a government-run health insurance system is the same as the government helping out those who cannot help themselves.

I guess it really depends on what you mean by "government run". Surely it makes no difference whether the government or a company pays for your medical bills. Good basic care would have to be funded without question by the both of them, and the extra care could simply be left out of the government portfolio. However, if you're talking about the running of hospitals and clinics and such I can see your point.

Perhaps you should say government-run health care. Because I would see your point on that. Efficiently running a hospital or a clinic would perhaps be better suited to a private thing.

More to the non-point, things in the United States are pretty good when you can be poor and have a car or DVD player or TV, regardless of the cultural differences between the US and England (or any other country). If we're talking about basic needs and "rights" of US citizens to healthcare, let's keep in mind that these people who are all apparently clamoring for universal health insurance want to also keep their DVD players, houses, TVs, and cars.

Yes but I just explained why that shit doesn't matter.
A.) The poverty levels are relative. Stuff considered a luxury in some countries are considered neccesary in others.
B.) Not having those things really doesn't matter because they are far less expensive than insurance. The dvd-players and tvs would make a difference of about 4 months of insurance (taking the rates here) and cars and houses when taken down a notch (since cars and houses are still needed) would give about the same. Really, that stuff just doesn't amount to much when compared to providing your family with insurance for a long time.

Measuring someones wealth by the amount of possessions is a very risky method. The USA is a much more consumer orientated society and has saving rates well below that of other nations so it is unfair to say the USA is better off because its people own more stuff. We could argue Europeans are better off because if you compare the amount of money saved in banks and in pension funds it will be much higher. Also, it is useless to compare an American to an African or Asian of similar class because its an unfair comparison. Compare the lower middle class and poor of America to that of Western Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia and it will give better results.

Also, dusnt the USA have loads of ghettos or large estates full of poor people (mainly non-white) which have high crime rates, drug rates, low education and low health (basically a slum)?

Titanic wrote:Measuring someones wealth by the amount of possessions is a very risky method. The USA is a much more consumer orientated society and has saving rates well below that of other nations so it is unfair to say the USA is better off because its people own more stuff. We could argue Europeans are better off because if you compare the amount of money saved in banks and in pension funds it will be much higher. Also, it is useless to compare an American to an African or Asian of similar class because its an unfair comparison. Compare the lower middle class and poor of America to that of Western Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia and it will give better results.

Also, dusnt the USA have loads of ghettos or large estates full of poor people (mainly non-white) which have high crime rates, drug rates, low education and low health (basically a slum)?

... In a word, yes. But there are a great many white folks living similar lifestyles, we call them white trash, or trailer trash.

...

got tonkaed wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:and what would you have me call the redistribution of wealth through taxes and government benifits? I call 'em how I see 'em.

For what its worth, this is every system that uses any type of taxation with government programs paid for by them. The usage of words is central to how the debate is seen, so it is essential that no matter what side you take, you understand where your words come from and what they mean.

Well, what else can Republicans do at this point than call Obama a Socialist? They tried the birth certificate bullshit. They tried to say he is a Muslim, like that is a bad thing, but it was untrue. They tried everything, even running out a slutwhore from Alaska as an alleged VP nominee. They have to try and strike fear in America, that is all that the present day Republican Party is good for.

I wish the Republican Party would get back to trying to help America, rather than just crying foul at the Dems. f*ck the Pubes. If they won't even try, then Obama should shove Universal Health Care down their throats. The Dems hold the majority, so use it for some good for once - instead of all the bad that that cocksucker George W. Bush did.

angola wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:and what would you have me call the redistribution of wealth through taxes and government benifits? I call 'em how I see 'em.

For what its worth, this is every system that uses any type of taxation with government programs paid for by them. The usage of words is central to how the debate is seen, so it is essential that no matter what side you take, you understand where your words come from and what they mean.

Well, what else can Republicans do at this point than call Obama a Socialist? They tried the birth certificate bullshit. They tried to say he is a Muslim, like that is a bad thing, but it was untrue. They tried everything, even running out a slutwhore from Alaska as an alleged VP nominee. They have to try and strike fear in America, that is all that the present day Republican Party is good for.

I wish the Republican Party would get back to trying to help America, rather than just crying foul at the Dems. f*ck the Pubes. If they won't even try, then Obama should shove Universal Health Care down their throats. The Dems hold the majority, so use it for some good for once - instead of all the bad that that cocksucker George W. Bush did.

Something tells me that you and SultanofSurreal would get along splendidly.

ok, so, here we have clips from the three top democrats in the US government, Obama, Biden and Pelosi, President, VP and Senate majority leader. All 3 admit that thier ultimate goal is a single payer healthcare system (completely socialized).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mc ... r_embedded

Mr_Adams wrote:ok, so, here we have clips from the three top democrats in the US government, Obama, Biden and Pelosi, President, VP and Senate majority leader. All 3 admit that thier ultimate goal is a single payer healthcare system (completely socialized).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mc ... r_embedded

Anything is better than the bullshit health care system in place presently.

Last I checked, our present health care system means 50 million are uninsured. Awesome! I love it when my fellow man can't get help. That's so fucking cool. I'm going to yell socialist a bunch, because that is what Rush Limbaugh told me to do.

Obama is a Socialist 1111!!!!11!!!!

http://www.examiner.com/x-7150-Extreme- ... -the-world

Although our health care system is the ranked behind nearly every other industrialized country, the US can proudly boast that we pay more, a LOT more, than anyone else for our care. Not only does the United States spend more than $1 trillion more per year than anyone else on the planet, we also pay more, a lot more, per capita for our health care.

The World Health Organization says, “The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance.” This puts to rest the tired notion that the American “free market” pushes for the most efficient and least expensive system. In fact, we are the least efficient healthcare in the industrialized world.

If you want some facts about the plan, visit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

and on a more personal note...

Back in 2000 someone rear-ended my car. I ended up with whiplash and concussion, out of work for 2 years before i got enough wits back to return... during that time, I amassed a ton of bills. I had auto insurance, but maxed out on the personal injury medical part. My employer-provided healthcare stepped in, for a while but...

When the auto insurance suit got settled, the docs didn't get paid first. Nope, my employer-provided healthcare insurance got paid back whatever they'd paid for, first. Then there was no money left, so I got stuck with the doc bills. Ended up going bankrupt. What a system! You have insurance, but don't get to use it properly, and the docs don't get paid.... everyone loses except the insurance co, which still got paid its premiums for "covering" me.

I haven't had healthcare since 2003, though. Wish I did. Plus, I wish that whatever insurance people do have, would be forced to cover what they're supposed to cover, rather than getting paid back and leaving the people who "thought they had insurance" stuck losing everything.

stahrgazer wrote:If you want some facts about the plan, visit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

In an attempt to curtail the obvious "This is a whitehouse website and they are lying" comments, let me just point out that the "realitycheck" does not, in fact, have any falsehoods.

It does, however, mislead, especially with respect to the "can I keep my own insurance" bit. As I indicated in the other of these threads, you can keep your own insurance... until you switch jobs.

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:If you want some facts about the plan, visit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

In an attempt to curtail the obvious "This is a whitehouse website and they are lying" comments, let me just point out that the "realitycheck" does not, in fact, have any falsehoods.

It does, however, mislead, especially with respect to the "can I keep my own insurance" bit. As I indicated in the other of these threads, you can keep your own insurance... until you switch jobs.

Stating, "you can keep your own insurance...until you switch jobs," is, in fact, misleading. It misleads in that it implies that currently, you can keep employer-provided insurance when you switch jobs. On the contrary, I am aware of NO employer-provided healthcare that enables non-employees to continue the same coverage. You can, for a short time, purchase a fed-sponsored insurance that differs from what the employer provided, but your eligibility runs out and then you're without or totally on your own.

When you go to your new job, if they provide healthcare, you then have a choice to opt into their plan. If they do not provide healthcare, then you either go without or you are totally on your own.

The Obama plan would be that, instead of being TOTALLY on your own if you do not have employer-provided coverage, you'd have a government option with eligibility that does NOT expire.

Further, the Obama plan would eliminate insurer exclusions for "prior conditions." Under the current policies, if you're diagnosed with cancer, then lose your job, your new healthcare can exclude your cancer care because it is a condition you had prior to obtaining that insurance.

Which of you would truly mind having healthcare if you lose your job; or having healthcare that will treat you for a condition that was diagnosed 6 months ago, but now you went to another company to accept a higher wage so have changed your insurance?

It never ceases to amaze me, people living in trailer parks holding up "We aren't soviet" signs. Someone attempts to give them a second chance at healthcare and they spit mindless dribble at him.
It reminds us all why they are living in trailer parks.

sailorseal wrote:It never ceases to amaze me, people living in trailer parks holding up "We aren't soviet" signs. Someone attempts to give them a second chance at healthcare and they spit mindless dribble at him.
It reminds us all why they are living in trailer parks.

Sounds like an individual decision there. Try worrying about yourself and stop cramming your bullshit down other people throats and you will live longer

seriously and honestly...what the F#ck do you know about that person holding that sign??? just a rush to judgement i see how you are. totally expected btw

Phatscotty wrote:

sailorseal wrote:It never ceases to amaze me, people living in trailer parks holding up "We aren't soviet" signs. Someone attempts to give them a second chance at healthcare and they spit mindless dribble at him.
It reminds us all why they are living in trailer parks.

Sounds like an individual decision there. Try worrying about yourself and stop cramming your bullshit down other people throats and you will live longer

seriously and honestly...what the F#ck do you know about that person holding that sign??? just a rush to judgement i see how you are. totally expected btw

A rash judgment? Hypocritical much...

Mr_Adams wrote:ok, so, here we have clips from the three top democrats in the US government, Obama, Biden and Pelosi, President, VP and Senate majority leader. All 3 admit that thier ultimate goal is a single payer healthcare system (completely socialized).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mc ... r_embedded

Wait, Pelosi is Senate majority leader?
When did that happen?

Simon Viavant wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:ok, so, here we have clips from the three top democrats in the US government, Obama, Biden and Pelosi, President, VP and Senate majority leader. All 3 admit that thier ultimate goal is a single payer healthcare system (completely socialized).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mc ... r_embedded

Wait, Pelosi is Senate majority leader?
When did that happen?

STFU DEM!

Simon Viavant wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:ok, so, here we have clips from the three top democrats in the US government, Obama, Biden and Pelosi, President, VP and Senate majority leader. All 3 admit that thier ultimate goal is a single payer healthcare system (completely socialized).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mc ... r_embedded

Wait, Pelosi is Senate majority leader?
When did that happen?

sorry, my mistake. that's Reid isn't it...