Dying in the Safety Net.

[Mr Avante]

okay

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted407021]

Do you suggest giving out transplants on the basis of "value to society"? I heard they did it somewhere and it was a disaster.

We should get on that 3D organ printer pretty quick.

 

[Mr Avante]

We should get on that 3D organ printer pretty quick.

never

 

[BlueLabel]

There should be no restriction on behavior because t is a product of both individual and his surroundings (including his upbringing). To penalize people for risky/unhealthy behavior is to neglect the impact of society and is discriminatory in that it prefers certain people over others. Seven Day Adventists are on average much healthier and do not engage in risky behavior. Should they get free care while everyone else is paying?

Out of everything posted thus far I want to address this point in particular. My ideas about the best way forward DO NOT include shutting anyone out or denying care to people based on decisions they have made that have led to their health outcomes. Rather, what I think we should all address and consider is, "let's fix the problems we have now but do what we can to create a better society tomorrow".

This happened with smoking. Sure, there were federal and state level "sin taxes" levied that from an economic perspective had a major impact on consumption. But there has also been a massive campaign to convince the public that smoking is an incredibly poor decision and essentially stigmatize smokers. And it has been indisputably successful, with the peak rate falling from near 60% in the 50s to around 20% today. That didn't happen because we coddled folks making poor decisions and told them that was a perfectly acceptable behavior given their social environment and means. NO WAY. We told them "tobacco is wacko". That is how change came.

We need to address the health problems of our era. That means making sure that folks today have access to healthcare. The critical mistake comes when we drink a little too much of the PC koolaid and decide "everything goes and you're not accountable". Inhaling ridiculous amounts of carcinogens into your lungs every day for 20 years is stupid. So is feeding yourself and your babies an unhealthy diet. I'm trying to address how we fix public health issues moving forward. Let's hold people accountable for their choices while ensuring they get the care they deserve as human beings. The PC age has made us frightened of telling anyone they are wrong, lest we cause "offense". But the plain fact is, a little stigma can go a long way in making a positive impact on public health. Join me in bluntly asserting that "Big Macs are wacko".

 

[rain4venus]

This happened with smoking. Sure, there were federal and state level "sin taxes" levied that from an economic perspective had a major impact on consumption. But there has also been a massive campaign to convince the public that smoking is an incredibly poor decision and essentially stigmatize smokers. And it has been indisputably successful, with the peak rate falling from near 60% in the 50s to around 20% today. That didn't happen because we coddled folks making poor decisions and told them that was a perfectly acceptable behavior given their social environment and means. NO WAY. We told them "tobacco is wacko". That is how change came.

I agree with your approach, and that we need to do better at educating people, but I wonder if it's actually true that the number of young people that start smoking is actually still declining. When I was a teenager, smoking seemed so uncool, but at the high school where I taught a couple years ago, I'd guess at least 60% of the kids were smokers.
Of course, that's anecdotal, but I so feel like I see a lot more teenagers smoking now than when I was a teen.

 

[BlueLabel]

I agree with your approach, and that we need to do better at educating people, but I wonder if it's actually true that the number of young people that start smoking is actually still declining. When I was a teenager, smoking seemed so uncool, but at the high school where I taught a couple years ago, I'd guess at least 60% of the kids were smokers.
Of course, that's anecdotal, but I so feel like I see a lot more teenagers smoking now than when I was a teen.

So your anecdote > available data on smoking trends? I thought liberals were supposed to be all about science.

Anyway my buddy told me his insurance rates are doubling so all ACA reforms are toilet-level refuse.

Awesome argument!!!

Let's keep this above the silly anecdotes and actually focus on a meaningful worldview that ties pragmatic exigencies together with desperately needed reform in public perceptions.

 

[notbobtrustme]

What? Are you not aware that Europe is in a cataclysmic economic crisis ATM? Does PIIGS mean anything to you?

Not weighing in on the topic being debated with this remark, just pointing out some dubious assertions

That has more to do with fiscal policy, not because of their social safety nets. Economically, Europe is as competitive as any other region in the world. The Euro crisis is a fiscal disaster, not an economic disaster.

 

[rain4venus]

So your anecdote > available data on smoking trends? I thought liberals were supposed to be all about science.

Anyway my buddy told me his insurance rates are doubling so all ACA reforms are toilet-level refuse.

Awesome argument!!!

Let's keep this above the silly anecdotes and actually focus on a meaningful worldview that ties pragmatic exigencies together with desperately needed reform in public perceptions.

You mean libertarians? I promise I would never accuse liberals of being scientific. I was actually just questioning whether that was true for that particular age group. I was very specifically not denying it, just saying that if it is true I find it surprising because that hasn't been my experience.

 

[BlueLabel]

That has more to do with fiscal policy, not because of their social safety nets. Economically, Europe is as competitive as any other region in the world. The Euro crisis is a fiscal disaster, not an economic disaster.

How are state-guaranteed outlays not a factor in fiscal woes? This is like, I owe you $50 but my account is overdrawn and I tell you "it's a bank issue".

Yes but the question is, why?

 

[BlueLabel]

You mean libertarians? I was actually just questioning whether that was true for that particular age group. I was very specifically not denying it, just saying that if it is true I find it surprising because that hasn't been my experience.

No I was actually referring to the liberal urge to always be the party of science. Forget it, I shouldn't have interjected politics. I think what little value can come of these discussions is instantly sapped once it becomes left-right, and I was wrong to bring political ideology into what in my view should be a common sense debate.

Anyway, I think we are a lot closer on policy than we realize in terms of black & white ideology. Where we differ is in terms of packaging and perception. Especially because I feel like in some cases those factors are almost more important than the policy they contain and the mindset that inspired them.

 

[rain4venus]

Anyway, I think we are a lot closer on policy than we realize in terms of black & white ideology. Where we differ is in terms of packaging and perception. Especially because I feel like in some cases those factors are almost more important than the policy they contain and the mindset that inspired them.

haha I didn't actually realize we were even arguing until that last post you made. Honestly I'm not even sure what you're saying here, since, like I said, I'm very much not liberal. (I agree that I don't like to make things into a left vs. right debate in most cases, although I couldn't resist the little jab in my edit of my previous post... It was strictly snark - no one should take it personally)

 

[rain4venus]

.

 

[notbobtrustme]

How are state-guaranteed outlays not a factor in fiscal woes? This is like, I owe you $50 but my account is overdrawn and I tell you "it's a bank issue".

Yes but the question is, why?

This is a complicated topic, but you are confusing fiscal policy with economic policy. They are related but distinct.

 

[BlueLabel]

This is a complicated topic, but you are confusing fiscal policy with economic policy. They are related but distinct.

I agree that there are two distinct issues in question. In your initial point that touched off this dispute you claimed that European governments funded handsome entitlements and yet were no worse for the wear in terms of economic competitiveness. To this point I of course raised the headline-grabbing eurocrisis. Perhaps you should go ahead and acknowledge that you made the initial mistake of conflating fiscal outlays such as entitlement expenditures with the ability of a country to compete globally (in the short run ). That fault is clearly yours alone; you merely left the door open for the shredding of your contemptible argument, as it is of course, totally unsupportable.

Anyway, I'm happy to lead you through some logic if it will make things easier. Let's ignore the extent to which the government is leveraged for the moment and only look at the price they pay for debt. When gov't debt is cheap, they can borrow a lot to finance stimulus packages & work programs, thus boosting the economy. When it's expensive, the ability of the govern to borrow and thus finance whatever public works/healthcare/research/military operations/everything else they wanted to do is stymied. Fortunately for the USA, our debt is still super cheap. Until quite recently, folks were lending us cash for 10 years at a loss. Quite a statement.

Unfortunately, the same is not true for your liberal brothers in Europe, in whose governments fiscal faith has plummeted to unprecedented lows. The inability of governments to act has occurred concurrently with a severe recession the causes of which I'm sure we disagree on. What can't be disputed is the 56.1% of Spanish youths who remain unemployed, and gosh darn it their government is too leveraged, too risky an investment, to be worth the angel dollars it will take to get these kids back to something productive and away from their jamon Serrano & avicii concerts. In spirit I'm sure they are still your soul brothers nonetheless.

 

[therealfinale]

There's no such thing as a food desert. That's just another myth made by liberals to excuse the behavior of poor people. They just randomly make up lies like "people are dying in the streets due to lack of healthcare." Nobody has ever seen even one person dead in the street for pretty much any reason, but you're supposed to go "wow, that sounds plausible!!"

Just to preface: I don't really prescribe myself to any one party or group of ideals, since I think that perpetuates a lack of real critical thinking. These are my thoughts based on what I've studied, read, and seen.

The real reason any physician is against the expansion of medicaid is due to reduced or lack of compensation for services rendered (and the associated overhead costs), not because they don't agree that everyone shouldn't have the right to healthcare. I agree that these aspects of medical care should be compensated so that people can be afforded the care they need without physicians feeling their wallets getting lighter each time they perform those services. The government needs to solve that problem so that there aren't as many guilty "gimmicks" (to generate revenue) in fields, such as sleep studies for neurologists-not to say there's anything wrong with those, but if those are performed at the expense of the overall population's health, then the priorities need to be shifted a bit without much revenue loss.

The PPACA isn't perfect, but it embodies a value that I think should be core for physicians: that every person has the right to affordable health care. The market place offered by the government has alternative health care plans that quite a few people, primarily low to mid-income Americans, agree are more viable than private health care plans. Of course, this means that additional tens of millions of people will be active participants in the system, as they were previously uninsured or underinsured. This generates a significant issue: an increased demand for a shortage of primary care physicians. Health education and outreach programs for many lower-income individuals who don't have much recourse, such as living in food deserts, need to be developed and penetrate those sections of our society. This is much easier said than done, and it will require nothing short of a mutation in our social hierarchies and foundations for people who are in the best positions to enact change to actually do so.

Regarding lower-income individuals, it's true that there usually is recourse, but it's at the cost of much more convenience than it is for higher income individuals. For instance, a mother who cares about her children's eating habits and who lives in a food desert, rather than being able to go to the non-existant grocery door several blocks down, needs to travel quite the distance to be able to buy fruits and other healthy alternatives to the sprawl of fast food restaurants near where she lives. These areas do exist, and there are multiple other barriers and burdens for lower-income people to participate in preventative health habits. From a humanitarian point of view, it's everyone's responsibility to ensure our fellow people are also able to develop healthy habits and, equally as important, are able to perpetuate those habits to their children.

Nothing is clear-cut, and fault rarely lies completely with one group. We need to work together to make this work.

 

[therealfinale]

Morals aren't irrelevant. If we lived in your society Robin Hood, I could sit on couch and do absolutely nothing and be happy. Why would I not do that? Why would anyone work?

In the words of Jefferson: "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Lol. Again, you guys are twisting my views to support your own. I have no problem with helping people that are genuinely trying to better their life. My problem is with the person who doesn't do anything and lives off others.

Well, from a psychological point of view, many people who don't work would become depressed. Avoiding depression is a good reason.

 

[rain4venus]

Well, from a psychological point of view, many people who don't work would become depressed. Avoiding depression is a good reason.

This seems highly speculative, especially since humans lived for literally about a million years before "work" even became a thing. Just because people are not producing anything for the rest of society, that doesn't mean they are doing nothing that is stimulating enough to prevent depression. Things such as cooking, cleaning, writing, doing work around the house can all be rewarding to you, even though they're not contributing to society.

 

[therealfinale]

Morals aren't irrelevant. If we lived in your society Robin Hood, I could sit on couch and do absolutely nothing and be happy. Why would I not do that? Why would anyone work?

In the words of Jefferson: "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."



Lol. Again, you guys are twisting my views to support your own. I have no problem with helping people that are genuinely trying to better their life. My problem is with the person who doesn't do anything and lives off others.

This seems highly speculative, especially since humans lived for literally about a million years before "work" even became a thing. Just because people are not producing anything for the rest of society, that doesn't mean they are doing nothing that is stimulating enough to prevent depression. Things such as cooking, cleaning, writing, doing work around the house can all be rewarding to you, even though they're not contributing to society.

Yeah, but I was just referring to sitting around and not doing anything. I guess maybe some people can find fulfillment in that, but they'd be in the extreme minority.

 

[rain4venus]

Yeah, but I was just referring to sitting around and not doing anything. I guess maybe some people can find fulfillment in that, but they'd be in the extreme minority.

But why were you referring to that? Almost no one would do that.
What matters is whether you're contributing to more than your own life.

 

[therealfinale]

But why were you referring to that? Almost no one would do that.
What matters is whether you're contributing to more than your own life.

Oh, you'd be surprised.

Edit: Ah, now I remember your username. You posted a lot on that strange high school girl's threads (i.e. pregnant 4 years residency), haha...

 

[rain4venus]

Oh, you'd be surprised.

But why would they do that? As you said, they'd get depressed.

Seriously though, except for people who are already depressed and therefore can't motivate themselves to even get out of bed, everyone will end up doing *something* with their time, even if it's just playing CoD. I could play video games for the rest of time without getting bored.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I know you think this is funny, but things like this are a lot more common then you likely realize. I was raised by a single mother who worked evenings and nights. My sister, my brother, and I relied on our grandmother to provide us with food, and she also worked full-time. Most days we ate McDonald's or other fast food. In addition to this, we rarely went outside because our neighborhood was dangerous.

By the time I was 17 I weighed about 320 lbs. I had no idea about how to exercise, how to eat right, or how to take care of my health. I'd been overweight since my parents divorced when I was 7. I had never participated in PE and I had few friends.

When I was 17, I decided to change things about myself. Over the next two years I lost over 140 lbs., made top grades in school, and made dozens of new friends. But it was hard. Ridiculously hard. Way more difficult than anything else I've ever had to do in my adult life. At that time, I was the only one fighting for myself. Now imagine if I had one more thing going against me. Imagine if my grandmother wasn't there to help my mother take care of us. Imagine if I had had to learn English as a second language or if I had suffered from a learning disability or if I had mental disability such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.

I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm one of the few people in my high school who made it through college, and the only one from my neighborhood that I know of (aside my siblings). Still, I don't think I'm better than my neighbors. I'm just luckier. One of my close neighbors is handicapped. His parents got pregnant and married when they were in high school. Another neighbor lost his mother to diabetes while he was in high school (and didn't have a father). Some of my neighbors are exposed to drugs and crime that I've been fortunate enough to avoid. Most of my neighbors just have had less opportunity than even I have had.

People on the bottom of society are fighting harder than you believe in order to make it through. Life is not a competition. You don't have to cross the finish line first. It's also not a zero sum game. Helping other people doesn't make you weaker. There are real people out there who suffer from poverty, and I'm one of them. So every time that you laugh or scoff at the difficulties that poverty-stricken people have to face in their day-to-day life, keep in mind that you are laughing at real, struggling people. You are laughing at me, you are laughing at my friends, and you are laughing at my family.

That's great, but you fail to note a number of things, as do all the people who immediately blindly rushed in to like your post.

a) First of all, despite the supposed "food desert" you lived in, where your grandmother was "forced" to feed you McDonald's, at age 17 you somehow managed to lose weight and make top grades. Now, that's something to be proud of. But obviously that also means that the so-called "food desert" was, if anything, self-imposed.

b) You next focus on "what if I also had one other thing going against me." That's how the liberal mind works. What's your point? Like, what if you said "...and also what if I was a quadraplegic on top of that?" Yeah ...and imagine if you also got hit by a meteorite. See, your entire world view is not "I did it, even though it was tremendously hard, and I think other people can do it too." Instead, you say "I did it, but I'm pretty sure almost nobody else can." You even characterize yourself as "lucky" and "fortunate" three times in your post, rather than "hard-working." It's a common mantra for the left to say "I'd be like that, but for chance." It has nothing to do with chance.

c) Your post also underscores the fact that there are a few things that lead to poverty and keep people in poverty. And guess what? "Republicans" or "not enough welfare" isn't one of them. It's things like not dropping out of high school or getting pregnant before marriage or using drugs that are leading indicators of whether someone is poor or not. And those are all wholly under your control, regardless of whether you are starting out poor or not. And if you think not, then you're the one who thinks little of poor people. Just because someone is poor, liberals assume "oh, well, they almost certainly must use drugs, it's almost a given." Really? I think you can not use drugs as a poor person, or as a rich person, or as anyone. OK, well, how about not getting pregnant? That's expecting too much for the poor, right? Wrong. I can find you lots of poor people who don't get pregnant before marriage. So why present us with sob stories about the people who can't do these things, and then act like that's the norm? Basically because you want to make it like people who are poor are these pathetic losers who are totally dependent on society because they're worthless losers, so give more to them. No, how about you expect more of them and treat them like humans with potential, rather than patronize them with liberal sympathy? You did and you should be proud of your accomplishments. And you should also believe that others can do it, too.

d) Lastly, you say that helping people doesn't make me weaker. No, it doesn't. But it can make someone else weaker. Thanks to our policies, we've trained entire generations of families to depend on government assistance, and not just here or there, but for their entire lives and then the lives of their children and their children's children. Does that make you proud, or does that make you upset? Because it makes me upset. Not because "it's a zero sum game," but because you just wasted the one life that they have to live. You just took a human being with potential and who could have had aspirations and dreams and turned them into a bum, out of compassion.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

The real reason any physician is against the expansion of medicaid is due to reduced or lack of compensation for services rendered (and the associated overhead costs), not because they don't agree that everyone shouldn't have the right to healthcare. I agree that these aspects of medical care should be compensated so that people can be afforded the care they need without physicians feeling their wallets getting lighter each time they perform those services.

That's not the only reason. You're painting a scenario where people are rendered care and the physicians are compensated, but the people who receive the care aren't paying for it. So that would necessitate other people being forced to pay for it. That's like when short-sighted doctors say "well, why don't they just increase the reimbursement of Medicare?" Yeah, that would be great. So either they're going to just print money or else they'll take it from you. Oh ...not so great. Oh, well, there goes paradise.

As with other forms of welfare (and the ACA is welfare, not insurance), there is one truism. And that is that you will never have enough money to sustain the poor indefinitely. As Margaret Thatcher noted, to paraphrase, at some point you run out of other peoples' money.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

This seems highly speculative, especially since humans lived for literally about a million years before "work" even became a thing. Just because people are not producing anything for the rest of society, that doesn't mean they are doing nothing that is stimulating enough to prevent depression. Things such as cooking, cleaning, writing, doing work around the house can all be rewarding to you, even though they're not contributing to society.

It's actually not speculative. When you say that humans lived for a million years before "work" was a thing, that supposes that "work" means "I get in my car and drive to my cubicle." For those million years, people were out "working" in the fields (including women) or even before that they were "working" by hunting and gathering. A stay-at-home mother may not be "going to work," but she is raising her children. Actually, people get most of their self-worth and identity from their work, whether it's being a janitor or a CEO, and get depressed when they become jobless or unemployed.

 

[SunsFun]

Quinoa and buckwheat are much more expensive though. We're talking about ways for poor people to improve their diets (from things like fast food) without bankrupting themselves. Not to mention that aside from being a complete protein, buckwheat isn't actually a whole lot better for you than a potato. Again, potatoes have more vitamins, though buckwheat has more of many minerals, and the GL of buckwheat is slightly lower but it has a MUCH higher omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. Quinoa fares about the same against white potatoes. I'd argue that at that point it depends whether you're more in need of vitamins or protein. And whether or not you can afford quinoa.

Furthermore, the Harvard article repeated again and again that "potatoes aren't vegetables." Although I agree with this (potatoes are better seen as an alternative to grains than green/colored vegetables), they don't specify that this applies to white potatoes. Sweet potatoes have a lot more vitamins than white potatoes, and as long as you don't douse them in brown sugar are a healthy choice. They're also cheap, but unfortunately not as cheap as they once were because they're such a big fad right now.

Glycemic load for brown rice was 11 and potatoes was 10. They are very close to the same, but 11>10. I had it set to 100 g of each (a baked potato with skin and cooked brown rice) but when I linked it, it might have reset the serving sizes to compare a cup of rice to a whole potato. GI wasn't mentioned that I saw.


On the other topic...You're aware that in the US, most liver transplants require a period of abstinence from alcohol, right? At least tell me you're in favor of compulsory organ donation, then, if you want to give livers to people who are going to abuse the new one just as bad (which many do already, but of course there's only so much you can do to prevent that) when there are already not enough to go around. Putting restrictions like these out there make people more likely to want to volunteer their organs, because people like to think that their gift of life is going to someone who will cherish it and do anything to stay healthy as long as possible.

I'm not saying we shouldn't treat drug/alcohol addiction. I definitely think we should. But I don't have a problem denying organs to people who refuse to get such treatment until everyone else has received their liver (i.e. indefinitely.) And you can be certain that this is not coming from someone who has no personal experience with the effects of alcoholism...

P.S. Sorry if I left any thoughts unfinished above. I jumped around a lot but tried to finish everything.

Those are all good points but they are somewhat tangential to my arguments. I am looking at a big picture. There are certainly situations when healthy foods are affordable for a poor family and when considerations should be made regarding transplants. But this is not what I was trying to get at. I am more interested in broad averages and trends which highlight the situation poor people are in.

Buckwheat and quinoa was just a personal preference for me to eat, not a suggestion for poor people. Sorry I didn't make it clear enough.

 

[rain4venus]

It's actually not speculative. When you say that humans lived for a million years before "work" was a thing, that supposes that "work" means "I get in my car and drive to my cubicle." For those million years, people were out "working" in the fields (including women) or even before that they were "working" by hunting and gathering. A stay-at-home mother may not be "going to work," but she is raising her children. Actually, people get most of their self-worth and identity from their work, whether it's being a janitor or a CEO, and get depressed when they become jobless or unemployed.

Dude you seriously gotta start reading past the first sentence of anyone's post. I literally addressed exactly what you're talking about in the other 2 of the 3 sentences in my post.

 

[rain4venus]

Those are all good points but they are somewhat tangential to my arguments. I am looking at a big picture. There are certainly situations when healthy foods are affordable for a poor family and when considerations should be made regarding transplants. But this is not what I was trying to get at. I am more interested in broad averages and trends which highlight the situation poor people are in.

The part of your argument that I was addressing was a post about the very specific claim that you made that potatoes are unhealthy. If you are looking at a big picture then that's awesome, but then don't focus on the very specific points. You don't have to respond to my posts if they're too small picture for you; remember neither the potato post nor the organ transplant post were directed to you. But don't respond to a specific claim with another specific claim and then say that you're not interested in specifics.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Dude you seriously gotta start reading past the first sentence of anyone's post. I literally addressed exactly what you're talking about in the other 2 of the 3 sentences in my post.

Not really. When you're talking about someone who feels rewarded by just being at home writing (presumably for themselves, and not as an author who is writing from home) or cleaning, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[rain4venus]

Not really. When you're talking about someone who feels rewarded by just being at home writing (presumably for themselves, and not as an author who is writing from home) or cleaning, that's not what I'm talking about.

If you're writing, you're an "author" whether you're doing it for yourself or another. All the things I mentioned are "working" in much the same way as raising children.
Anyway, I'm surprised to find that you don't think a poor stay at home mom ought to get off her butt and contribute to society and stop being a leech.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

If you're writing, you're an "author" whether you're doing it for yourself or another. All the things I mentioned are "working" in much the same way as raising children.
Anyway, I'm surprised to find that you don't think a poor stay at home mom ought to get off her butt and contribute to society and stop being a leech.

Why would I think that? I'm not a liberal and they're the ones who detest stay-at-home mothers. Also, writing for yourself doesn't constitute "work." Nor does it really fulfill anyone in the sense that he was describing. It may serve as an adjunct for a fulfilling life, but only in the same way that "watching a basketball game" does.

 

[rain4venus]

Why would I think that? I'm not a liberal and they're the ones who detest stay-at-home mothers. Also, writing for yourself doesn't constitute "work." Nor does it really fulfill anyone in the sense that he was describing. It may serve as an adjunct for a fulfilling life, but only in the same way that "watching a basketball game" does.

Well, sure, but typically that only applies to SAHMs who had rich husbands who could support them. Even as we speak a Republican Senator (I think senator) is trying to get the requirement for working while getting food stamps to be waived only for caregivers of children under 1 year old. (Currently it's something like kids under 5 years of age)
Writing for yourself and writing for pay is the exact same action. The only difference is whether you get paid or not. So if you're not going to get depressed as an "author," you won't get depressed as a "writer." If anything, writing for yourself is likely to be more fulfilling in the "self-worth and identity" sense because you can write about whatever you want instead of having to worry about what will sell.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Well, sure, but typically that only applies to SAHMs who had rich husbands who could support them. Even as we speak a Republican Senator (I think senator) is trying to get the requirement for working while getting food stamps to be waived only for caregivers of children under 1 year old. (Currently it's something like kids under 5 years of age)

So what? It's irrelevant what one guy does. Also, even if that happens, who cares? You know how many redundant welfare programs there are in America?

Writing for yourself and writing for pay is the exact same action. The only difference is whether you get paid or not.

Not really. It's the difference between doing something as a hobby or as a vocation. I'm not saying there isn't some satisfaction from writing for fun, or any of the other things you noted, but that doesn't mean that this is enough to sustain someone for long periods of time. Try it. Quit your job and just sit at home writing during the day. Even if you're independently wealthy, you'll probably start getting restless and bored after a month.

 

[rain4venus]

Not really. It's the difference between doing something as a hobby or as a vocation. I'm not saying there isn't some satisfaction from writing for fun, or any of the other things you noted, but that doesn't mean that this is enough to sustain someone for long periods of time. Try it. Quit your job and just sit at home writing during the day. Even if you're independently wealthy, you'll probably start getting restless and bored after a month.

This is what I do. I get far more "job satisfaction" than I did working in engineering. From what experience do you speak?

 

[ruralsurg4now]

This is what I do. I get far more "job satisfaction" than I did working in engineering. From what experience do you speak?

Oh, so you quit your job and just write for yourself at home nowadays?

 

[Shibby0709]

That's great, but you fail to note a number of things, as do all the people who immediately blindly rushed in to like your post.

a) First of all, despite the supposed "food desert" you lived in, where your grandmother was "forced" to feed you McDonald's, at age 17 you somehow managed to lose weight and make top grades. Now, that's something to be proud of. But obviously that also means that the so-called "food desert" was, if anything, self-imposed.

b) You next focus on "what if I also had one other thing going against me." That's how the liberal mind works. What's your point? Like, what if you said "...and also what if I was a quadraplegic on top of that?" Yeah ...and imagine if you also got hit by a meteorite. See, your entire world view is not "I did it, even though it was tremendously hard, and I think other people can do it too." Instead, you say "I did it, but I'm pretty sure almost nobody else can." You even characterize yourself as "lucky" and "fortunate" three times in your post, rather than "hard-working." It's a common mantra for the left to say "I'd be like that, but for chance." It has nothing to do with chance.

c) Your post also underscores the fact that there are a few things that lead to poverty and keep people in poverty. And guess what? "Republicans" or "not enough welfare" isn't one of them. It's things like not dropping out of high school or getting pregnant before marriage or using drugs that are leading indicators of whether someone is poor or not. And those are all wholly under your control, regardless of whether you are starting out poor or not. And if you think not, then you're the one who thinks little of poor people. Just because someone is poor, liberals assume "oh, well, they almost certainly must use drugs, it's almost a given." Really? I think you can not use drugs as a poor person, or as a rich person, or as anyone. OK, well, how about not getting pregnant? That's expecting too much for the poor, right? Wrong. I can find you lots of poor people who don't get pregnant before marriage. So why present us with sob stories about the people who can't do these things, and then act like that's the norm? Basically because you want to make it like people who are poor are these pathetic losers who are totally dependent on society because they're worthless losers, so give more to them. No, how about you expect more of them and treat them like humans with potential, rather than patronize them with liberal sympathy? You did and you should be proud of your accomplishments. And you should also believe that others can do it, too.

d) Lastly, you say that helping people doesn't make me weaker. No, it doesn't. But it can make someone else weaker. Thanks to our policies, we've trained entire generations of families to depend on government assistance, and not just here or there, but for their entire lives and then the lives of their children and their children's children. Does that make you proud, or does that make you upset? Because it makes me upset. Not because "it's a zero sum game," but because you just wasted the one life that they have to live. You just took a human being with potential and who could have had aspirations and dreams and turned them into a bum, out of compassion.

You appear to have some serious problems. I'm not sure what makes you so defensive and insulting to others.

First off, I lost weight through exercise (I walked 6 miles a day through my neighborhood) and sever calorie restrictions. I still mostly ate food from the same places, but I ate considerably less of it and strove for the healthier options. Also, neighborhoods change. There were some healthier options by the time I decided to lose weight. McDonald's didn't use to carry salads and there didn't use to be a Subway on every block. Furthermore, the fact that I had my own vehicle and my own spending money by that time helped to ease the burden on my Grandma considerably.

Second, I'm not a liberal, and I don't care how "the liberal mind" works. Liberalism, however, is a word used to describe a broad spectrum of political beliefs, and I doubt that the hundreds of millions of people who identify as a liberal all think the same.

Third, I state that I'm lucky because I am lucky. I'm not understanding why you have a problem or are not understanding this. The opportunities one has access to in one's life are very often defined by circumstance, not by personal choice. You mock people who are quadriplegic in your post (I'm not sure why), well I have a cousin who has cerebral palsy. He can't walk or talk, but he's still a very kind, hard-working person. Despite that, he is very limited in the opportunities he will have in his life. He won't be able to apply for or work as many careers as most other people. Still, I don't want him or anyone like him to live in poverty. I don't care about what economic worth he brings to the country or how hard he tries in life. I care about him because he's a human being, and because I believe that human beings have intrinsic value.

Fourth, I'm not sure how you got "c)" from my post and I honestly can't even parse what your rant is about, so I'm simply not going to respond to that.

Fifth, do you actually know anything about how welfare works? I was thinking about personally explaining it to you, but I have better things to do with my time. Here's a link to a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on who gets welfare and how that welfare is distributed: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677

Also, here's a study from Moody's Analytic on the economic effects of welfare: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf
I want to refer you specifically to Table 1, where they sum up their data showing that welfare are highly stimulative for the economy. For instance, each additional dollar spent on food stamps provides $1.73 cents to the economy.

Now, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts. I'm not interested in debating or, heaven forbid, converting you. However, I think that you would benefit heavily from rethinking your current attitudes. You should also look into the relevant literature and see what that has to offer. As a starting point, I'd recommend Amartya Sen's recent release, The Idea of Justice, in which he reevaluates and rethinks many prevailing views of justice, including and especially those from John Rawls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_of_Justice

 

[Mr Avante]

Engineers don't quit engineering

 

[notbobtrustme]

Remember guys, the more you feed the troll, the more he'll keep trolling.

It should be pretty damn obvious, even to those of you with broken trolldar, that ruralsurg4now is nothing more than a troll who gets off on antagonizing.

 

[SunsFun]

Out of everything posted thus far I want to address this point in particular. My ideas about the best way forward DO NOT include shutting anyone out or denying care to people based on decisions they have made that have led to their health outcomes. Rather, what I think we should all address and consider is, "let's fix the problems we have now but do what we can to create a better society tomorrow".

This happened with smoking. Sure, there were federal and state level "sin taxes" levied that from an economic perspective had a major impact on consumption. But there has also been a massive campaign to convince the public that smoking is an incredibly poor decision and essentially stigmatize smokers. And it has been indisputably successful, with the peak rate falling from near 60% in the 50s to around 20% today. That didn't happen because we coddled folks making poor decisions and told them that was a perfectly acceptable behavior given their social environment and means. NO WAY. We told them "tobacco is wacko". That is how change came.

We need to address the health problems of our era. That means making sure that folks today have access to healthcare. The critical mistake comes when we drink a little too much of the PC koolaid and decide "everything goes and you're not accountable". Inhaling ridiculous amounts of carcinogens into your lungs every day for 20 years is stupid. So is feeding yourself and your babies an unhealthy diet. I'm trying to address how we fix public health issues moving forward. Let's hold people accountable for their choices while ensuring they get the care they deserve as human beings. The PC age has made us frightened of telling anyone they are wrong, lest we cause "offense". But the plain fact is, a little stigma can go a long way in making a positive impact on public health. Join me in bluntly asserting that "Big Macs are wacko".

The rhetoric of holding people accountable and making them responsible for choices they made was predominant since the 80s reduction in safety net. I am all for educating people about the evils of bad diet, smoking, but what else can we do? Shame them? Stigmatize them? I thought being overweight in America and eating McDonalds carries enough stigma as it is.

I don't think we can change people without changing their environment and incentive structure. Even after someone knows what it means to eat healthy, he or she is not likely to implement and long term lifestyle change, which makes sense since similar surroundings persist and produce exactly the same behavioral response.

Right now with subsidized oil and corn, monopolized food industry, piss poor urban design, lack of access and prohibitive costs of fresh food, the default simple choice is to be unhealthy.

I personally try to eat healthy. To do this, I have to think every time I eat. This is not reasonable for most people and shouldn't be expected. It should be easy to eat healthy and require no conscious effort for the rest of your life. It is like that in counties like Japan.

 

[Womb Raider]

To penalize people for risky/unhealthy behavior is to neglect the impact of society and is discriminatory in that it prefers certain people over others.

You are blinded by your concern of society's impact. Sure, the reasons you stated may have lead some to drug addiction, but what about the rest of the people? You're giving a "free pass" to people who don't deserve it. You can't group all drug users into the same category - some of them ARE educated, did not grow up in an environment conducive to drug abuse and are simply lazy, slums of society who choose to get high at the expense of others.

People prey on people like you who are blinded by their compassion, carelessly giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. Wake up.

I see a drug dependency as a form or psychological illness and a manifestation of societal problems. Look at the number of people getting addicted as minors. How are they any more guilty than any adult in their life and society as a whole?

Whatever the case, the person did it to themselves - they need to be responsible for their actions. Stop seeing black and white, not everyone that is addicted to drugs deserves your sympathy.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

First off, I lost weight through exercise (I walked 6 miles a day through my neighborhood) and sever calorie restrictions. I still mostly ate food from the same places, but I ate considerably less of it and strove for the healthier options. Also, neighborhoods change. There were some healthier options by the time I decided to lose weight. McDonald's didn't use to carry salads and there didn't use to be a Subway on every block. Furthermore, the fact that I had my own vehicle and my own spending money by that time helped to ease the burden on my Grandma considerably.

That's great, but my point is that you did that in the middle of a so-called "food desert." Which means that other people could do it, too. Moreover, as I stated initially, you were amazingly able to grow and develop on fast food and junk food.

Second, I'm not a liberal, and I don't care how "the liberal mind" works.

OK, but you still think like one, which isn't really surprising since the liberal position is essentially the default position of man.

Third, I state that I'm lucky because I am lucky.

No, you're not "lucky," you're "hard-working." You did what you needed to to in order to get to your goals. "Lucky" would be if you did nothing and still achieved your goals. It's a false characterization used to imply that we're all the same except for chance (e.g., the lawyer could have been a janitor if but for random events), which is used to justify socialism. Even if you're not doing that, you've bought into that line of thinking.

Fourth, I'm not sure how you got "c)" from my post and I honestly can't even parse what your rant is about, so I'm simply not going to respond to that.

OK, as long as you're not demanding more money for entitlement programs like the people who liked your post are, we can let that drop. Then it was more aimed towards them.

Fifth, do you actually know anything about how welfare works? I was thinking about personally explaining it to you, but I have better things to do with my time. Here's a link to a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on who gets welfare and how that welfare is distributed: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677

That's a great link, but you got that information from a biased source, which makes me question your claim of not being liberal. As a think piece, if welfare is, as claimed, mostly aimed at the elderly and disabled, then why is it that people fight to oppose any law that would restrict welfare to only those groups (e.g., "workfare")? I assume if you're actually non-partisan you'll think that over.

Also, here's a study from Moody's Analytic on the economic effects of welfare: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf
I want to refer you specifically to Table 1, where they sum up their data showing that welfare are highly stimulative for the economy. For instance, each additional dollar spent on food stamps provides $1.73 cents to the economy.

Lol, now I know you're a liberal. You're quoting directly from Nancy Pelosi. Nice try with the lie about being apolitical, however. By the way, it's fascinating how you and her think that paying people not to work generates money. You should write a paper on that or something. Call it "How to Generate Money Out of Thin Air."

 

[BlueLabel]

The rhetoric of holding people accountable and making them responsible for choices they made was predominant since the 80s reduction in safety net. I am all for educating people about the evils of bad diet, smoking, but what else can we do? Shame them? Stigmatize them? I thought being overweight in America and eating McDonalds carries enough stigma as it is.

I don't think we can change people without changing their environment and incentive structure. Even after someone knows what it means to eat healthy, he or she is not likely to implement and long term lifestyle change, which makes sense since similar surroundings persist and produce exactly the same behavioral response.

Right now with subsidized oil and corn, monopolized food industry, piss poor urban design, lack of access and prohibitive costs of fresh food, the default simple choice is to be unhealthy.

I personally try to eat healthy. To do this, I have to think every time I eat. This is not reasonable for most people and shouldn't be expected. It should be easy to eat healthy and require no conscious effort for the rest of your life. It is like that in counties like Japan.

Lol japan county. What state is that in?

Anyway we're kinda spinning our wheels at that point. I think we should just respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[Womb Raider]

I personally try to eat healthy. To do this, I have to think every time I eat. This is not reasonable for most people and shouldn't be expected. It should be easy to eat healthy and require no conscious effort for the rest of your life. It is like that in counties like Japan.

Oh. My. God.

Are you serious? You have to think?! Is the sky falling? I wouldn't want people to trouble themselves and actually have to think!

I don't even know what else to say - expecting people to think isn't a BAD thing you commi.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Whatever the case, the person did it to themselves - they need to be responsible for their actions. Stop seeing black and white, not everyone that is addicted to drugs deserves your sympathy.

You can take that logic and apply it anywhere.

For instance, take you. If you are like most people, you chose not to get a full scholarship to school (by not scoring high enough on the ACT/SAT and not getting a 4.0 in high school) and thus, are leeching off the system by taking student loans. If you simply stuidied harder or worked more, you could be self-sufficient and pay your own way. There's no guarantee you will pay those loans back either. If you are an average pre-med student, you have a 40% chance of getting into medical school, where you'll take out even more loans with no real guarantee to pay them back. Why should anyone subsidize your education on the off-chance you become a doctor? You should be responsible for yourself and pay your way with either scholarships or student loans. Otherwise, you're the biggest hypocrite in this thread by extolling personal responsiblity while taking none yourself.

No one deserves any sympathy, what they do deserve is to be treated like a human being. Remember, even Jesus said that none of us are without sin. No one is perfect, no one makes ideal decisions all the time, no one is without fault. If we are going to be so heartless as a society that we stop treating people as human beings and instead treat them like abstract notions, then this country is over.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Taking a loan isn't actually leeching anything, as you're have to repay it with interest. It's a way for the lender to make money and is wholly voluntary. By the way, if the government didn't intervene in the education system, education costs would also come down, just like medical costs would.

 

[Euxox]

Taking out a subsidized Stafford loan is indisputably leeching because the government takes a loss on each one. (Even unsubsidized Stafford loans are given at a loss.) And that loss is distributed amongst all taxpayers. Unless you paid out of pocket (no loans) for all of your undergrad an graduate education, or you voluntarily mailed extra checks to the Department of Education to pay the market rate interest rate rather than the subsidized government rate, and unless you opted out of the no-interest grace period on your loans, you have happily taken tens of thousands of dollars from American taxpayers and you are a raging hypocrite.

 

[SunsFun]

Oh. My. God.

Are you serious? You have to think?! Is the sky falling? I wouldn't want people to trouble themselves and actually have to think!

I don't even know what else to say - expecting people to think isn't a BAD thing you commi.

You're now just twisting words and taking what I said out of context without considering the bigger point I was making. BlueLabel and I have agreed that something needs to be done but we disagree on the policy. What I was suggesting was along the lines of policy decisions and giving my situation as example of a broader trend. The point I was making was about making healthy diet more accessible and easier choice and junk food less attractive option. Right now it is the opposite which is what I was illustration there.

Also, I am socialist, not a communist. You should leant the difference if you're going to use this terminology.

 

[BlueLabel]

Taking a loan isn't actually leeching anything, as you're have to repay it with interest. It's a way for the lender to make money and is wholly voluntary. By the way, if the government didn't intervene in the education system, education costs would also come down, just like medical costs would.

This is actually a great point. However, taking a federally subsidized loan is clearly "leeching" (I don't view it this way but just using ya'lls terms) because the government shells out for the interest while you're in school. That's kind of a side issue though. You are absolutely right that the easy availability of student loans has played a major role in driving up education costs. And now, unfortunately, a lot of kids are being left holding a lot of debt and in many cases the degree they purchased with it isn't really worth the burden they took on.

 

[Womb Raider]

If you are an average pre-med student, you have a 40% chance of getting into medical school, where you'll take out even more loans with no real guarantee to pay them back.

Wow is it really that high? I could have sworn it was lower... Maybe those 10 gorgeous blondes in my intro to bio class should have stayed pre-med after all.

 

[SunsFun]

You are blinded by your concern of society's impact. Sure, the reasons you stated may have lead some to drug addiction, but what about the rest of the people? You're giving a "free pass" to people who don't deserve it. You can't group all drug users into the same category - some of them ARE educated, did not grow up in an environment conducive to drug abuse and are simply lazy, slums of society who choose to get high at the expense of others.

People prey on people like you who are blinded by their compassion, carelessly giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. Wake up.

I am awake. I actually do give everyone the benefit of the doubt unless I have compelling evidence against it. From my experience working with people from these communities I have no reason to doubt them. See the difference between you and me is that I'd much rather give a "hand-out" to someone who doesn't deserve it than leave a good person who was just unlucky stranded. I think it is a right thing to do. But it seems like the "free loaders" bother you so much that you are willing to cut life support from everyone else who isn't but needs it just so that your family is not paying them.

Whatever the case, the person did it to themselves - they need to be responsible for their actions. Stop seeing black and white, not everyone that is addicted to drugs deserves your sympathy.

So the minors should be responsible for their drug addiction any more than their parents and the society? Really? I point to this specific question because a lot of drug and alcohol problems start from early age.

 

[Womb Raider]

Also, I am socialist, not a communist. You should leant the difference if you're going to use this terminology.

My mistake. Not wanting people to think sounded a little communist to me.