Everyone is telling me not to be a physician because of Obamacare?

[Tommyguns89]

---

Members do not see this ad.

And ftr, I hate Obamacare. I think it screws over the young for the benefit of the old and insurance companies. It is also incredibly inefficient and amounts to basically the same system we had before, just shifting cost and putting a burden on physicians.

I just take exception to the bootstrap gang.

 

[thesauce]

lol

And what about those who have nothing AND don't spend money on "brand name clothing" (because, apparently, you can't buy your clothes from anywhere except Wal Mart if you want to be considered poor).

Those individuals have medicaid and/or medicare available to them. I'm speaking of those that CAN afford insurance and CHOOSE not to. I know you want to believe that most are in the boat that you depict, but I absolutely don't believe that to be the case. Obviously you do, and if neither of us have evidence to back our stance, we really can't get anywhere.

Let's not get carried away with each little example (especially if they aren't valid - Walmart actually does carry brand name clothing).

 

[thesauce]

And ftr, I hate Obamacare. I think it screws over the young at the expense of the old and insurance companies. It is also incredibly inefficient and amounts to basically the same system we had before, just shifting cost and putting a burden on physicians.

I just take exception to the bootstrap gang.

And I think there's a lot to be said for that stance. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Radon XP]

Those individuals have medicaid and/or medicare available to them. I'm speaking of those that CAN afford insurance and CHOOSE not to. I know you want to believe that most are in the boat that you depict, but I absolutely don't believe that to be the case. Obviously you do, and if neither of us have evidence to back our stance, we really can't get anywhere.

Let's not get carried away with each little example (especially if they aren't valid - Walmart actually does carry brand name clothing).

Median US household income is ~44K. A family of 4 on 44K cannot afford health coverage. I don't care what your reasoning is: it's too little money for too expensive a burden. By the way, that means 50% of Americans earn less than that.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Median US household income is ~44K. A family of 4 on 44K cannot afford health coverage. I don't care what your reasoning is: it's too little money for too expensive a burden. By the way, that means 50% of Americans earn less than that.

Why do people have kids when they cant afford to take care of themselves?

btw, that is a median, are they also including people who are single?

 

[Tommyguns89]

Median US household income is ~44K. A family of 4 on 44K cannot afford health coverage. I don't care what your reasoning is: it's too little money for too expensive a burden. By the way, that means 50% of Americans earn less than that.

And that is with 2 people working fulltime. Median income for a full time adult is around 25,000. And that isnt including people under 25 or part time people.

We are not going to get anywhere until we tackle the main problem. The fact that we are refusing to adjust to a changing world, where the need for human labor is declining. And the skills required for the few jobs being created as a result of technological development are becoming increasingly out of reach for the average American.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

You are right neither your anecdotal experience and a piece of comedy constitutes as evidence. That is why I provided a link to Niel Ferguson a famous right wing advocate, providing data on how mobility has decreased and explaining what he believes to be the cause.

By a reputable link, I meant an unbiased source. Right wing advocacy is inherently biased.

How about health insurance? Oh wait you are probably on your dad's plan because you are likely under 26. Damn that socialism. What are you going to do if you dont get into med school and cant find higher paying work? Not only wont you be able to live off loans but you would have loan payments to make. Then once you turn 26 you have to get your own insurance. Do you have a plan?

Im not an expert but it is pretty much a consensus that there are more people looking for work than there are jobs available. And the job reports have all shown that the biggest growth industries are things like retail and seasonal stuff. I can provide data if you are really going to contest this.

My family doesnt have health insurance. Because they think it a frivolous expense.
And I will get into med school. Its not a matter of if, its just a matter of when.

There will always be a higher worker supply than job demand. thats why there is such competition.. you have to compete against other individuals in the same position as you. So you should make yourself stand out either by accepting a lower wage, or having more work experience.

And if not finding jobs is really that difficult, there is always the military. Last I checked, people dont get refused for being poor, and you get insurance.

How amazing would it be if we could throw all these "rugged individualists" like Gandalf into the wild and let them fend for themselves?

Humans survive through co-operation.

Seem to be doing just fine in the wild at the moment.

 

[Radon XP]

Why do people have kids when they cant afford to take care of themselves?

All kinds of things need to be considered here. It might be that somebody has kids when they can take care of themselves, then he/she loses the job...who knows what? Point is, the kids exist and need care.

And that is with 2 people working fulltime. Median income for a full time adult is around 25,000. And that isnt including people under 25 or part time people.

Good point. Unemployment is actually much higher than the official statistic today.

We are not going to get anywhere until we tackle the main problem. The fact that we are refusing to adjust to a changing world, where the need for human labor is declining. And the skills required for the few jobs being created as a result are becoming increasingly out of reach.

People don't realize that the economy isn't going to recover to pre-recession levels. Wages will continue to fall relative to worker productivity, inequality will increase, and even if unemployment drops, it will be due to the creation of dead-end minimum wage jobs.

We're experiencing (I hope) a move away from old economic models towards new ones.

 

[Radon XP]

My family doesn't have health insurance. Because they think it a frivolous expense.

That makes it all the more amusing that you're arguing against your class interests.

And I will get into med school. Its not a matter of if, its just a matter of when.

Well, I certainly admire that confidence.

There will always be a higher worker supply than job demand. thats why there is such competition.. you have to compete against other individuals in the same position as you. So you should make yourself stand out either by accepting a lower wage, or having more work experience.

i.e the masses have to ***** themselves out for peanuts. Yes, the w-word is a harsh one, but none other captures the spirit of employment as it exists for most people.

And if not finding jobs is really that difficult, there is always the military. Last I checked, people don't get refused for being poor, and you get insurance.

Actually, you're wrong. The military can be, and is, very picky. Although it doesn't directly exclude the poor (since they make up the rank and file of the cannon fodder), having poor ASVAB scores, among other things, which may be a product of poor education (which is a problem in poverty stricken areas) leaves one subject to rejection.

Seem to be doing just fine in the wild at the moment.

Ya? Go into the wild, then. I wonder how far hunter-gatherer societies would have made it if they followed your silly "rugged individualism".

 

[GypsyHummus]

And that is with 2 people working fulltime. Median income for a full time adult is around 25,000. And that isnt including people under 25 or part time people.

We are not going to get anywhere until we tackle the main problem. The fact that we are refusing to adjust to a changing world, where the need for human labor is declining. And the skills required for the few jobs being created as a result of technological development are becoming increasingly out of reach for the average American.

America has no source of wealth anymore. this nanny state has broken the economy and villianized private markets, and there is no wealth being produced. It has allowed the means of production to be taken care of instead of having to work for thier way of life.

My grandparents were dirt poor, immigrants, and worked in a factory. They NEVER complained about being poor and just worked to support their children (my parent). They also never took out any debt and saved up money when problems happened in their healthcare. Shame on the people who abuse the current welfare system, my grandparents never had a safety net and worked for everything they had.

 

[Tommyguns89]

By a reputable link, I meant an unbiased source. Right wing advocacy is inherently biased.




My family doesnt have health insurance. Because they think it a frivolous expense.
And I will get into med school. Its not a matter of if, its just a matter of when.

There will always be a higher worker supply than job demand. thats why there is such competition.. you have to compete against other individuals in the same position as you. So you should make yourself stand out either by accepting a lower wage, or having more work experience.

And if not finding jobs is really that difficult, there is always the military. Last I checked, people dont get refused for being poor, and you get insurance.




Seem to be doing just fine in the wild at the moment.

Well Im not going to comment on your optimism for med school, but it is something worth thinking about. A lot of people dont get in and some of them end up in a bad place. People who were trying to do something awesome with their lives.

The bolded is what is important. You proved my point. You basically conceded that the system requires there to be people who lose, people who are poor. You are now talking about how you as an individual can avoid being one of them via hard work, determination and all the other talking points. But this ignores the fact that if everyone took your advice and worked their asses off, there would still be poor people, it would just be so the competition to not be poor would be fierce. Poor people exist because our system requires it. That is why I was telling you to focus on the macro view, it is easier to see that why.

The point is that it seemed like you were trying to argue that poverty exist because poor people are either dumb, lazy, uninformed whatever. Poverty exist because it has to in our system. You could argue some people are poor because they have those attributes, but even if they didnt there would still be just as many poor people.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

My family doesnt have health insurance. Because they think it a frivolous expense.
And I will get into med school. Its not a matter of if, its just a matter of when.

And if not finding jobs is really that difficult, there is always the military. Last I checked, people dont get refused for being poor, and you get insurance.

lol wut

Oh hey and don't forget the laundry list of medical disqualifications for the military...just better hope you're not sick when you're trying to join up for insurance right?

http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html

 

[Radon XP]

America has no source of wealth anymore. this nanny state has broken the economy and villianized private markets, and there is no wealth being produced. It has allowed the means of production to be taken care of instead of having to work for thier way of life.

My grandparents were dirt poor, immigrants, and worked in a factory. They NEVER complained about being poor and just worked to support their children (my parent). They also never took out any debt and saved up money when problems happened in their healthcare. Shame on the people who abuse the current welfare system, my grandparents never had a safety net and worked for everything they had.

Believe me, the problem isn't the "nanny state". It's the wealthy vulture-class who have hijacked our country.

The "nanny state", which began with FDR, was actually instituted by the "elite" (I know it's cliche, but for lack of a better term) because of their fears of a workers' revolution ala the USSR.

Welfare has always been a concession. And it isn't the most problematic thing that this country is experiencing.

 

[Radon XP]

lol wut

Oh hey and don't forget the laundry list of medical disqualifications for the military...just better hope you're not sick when you're trying to join up for insurance right?

http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html

pwned. 👍

 

[GypsyHummus]

Believe me, the problem isn't the "nanny state". It's the wealthy vulture-class who have hijacked our country.

The "nanny state", which began with FDR, was actually instituted by the "elite" (I know it's cliche, but for lack of a better term) because of their fears of a workers' revolution ala the USSR.

Welfare has always been a concession. And it isn't the most problematic thing that this country is experiencing.

Oh, I am 100% with you about the vulture class, and I think that I have pinpointed where it is. The bank. I do NOT like the fact that banks have so much power in america and that the government is in support of them. Banks can get money from the government at a much lower rate while students get bent over and have to take the astronomically high interest rates right in the rear. Its not fair, its not equality, and it is against what this country was founded on.

 

[Tommyguns89]

America has no source of wealth anymore. this nanny state has broken the economy and villianized private markets, and there is no wealth being produced. It has allowed the means of production to be taken care of instead of having to work for thier way of life.

My grandparents were dirt poor, immigrants, and worked in a factory. They NEVER complained about being poor and just worked to support their children (my parent). They also never took out any debt and saved up money when problems happened in their healthcare. Shame on the people who abuse the current welfare system, my grandparents never had a safety net and worked for everything they had.

Its not the nanny state, and its not the evil corporations either. It is free trade(with a little currency manipulation) and automation. The reason your grandparents made it, was because there was a need for what they were able to provide the economy. There is a decreasing need for low skill labor, and a lot of high skill stuff as well(look up legal outsourcing and predictive coding)

And its nobodies fault and cant be prevented. We are the ones who have to change.

That isnt to say that there isnt abuse from both the poor and wealthy welfare classes, because there is a lot of both, but those are just accelerating the problem not causing it imo.

 

[gimghoul]

Well, you can always listen and free up a spot for someone who isn't gullible.

 

[AxiomaticTruth]

Just want to throw my 2c in here and throw my support in for Radon XP. I can't see how anybody who claims to be a premed and done volunteering in underdeserved areas can possibly claim that access to affordable healthcare is not a human right. You know the unalienable rights, the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" deal? Having access to a decent quality of life falls under the life category and should be a right.

People have kids that they can't afford? WHO GIVES A ****! Should we punish the kids for mistakes of their parents? Hell no, we settled that with the abolition of debtors prisons and serfdom.

People have iPods? WHO GIVES A ****! What they do with their spare money is no concern of mine. This link describes pretty well about growing up poor. And yes, he highlights the difference of actually being poor versus pretending to be poor for a week, or having well-off parents that can provide you with support.

People will have to pay for this with their taxes? WHO GIVES A ****! As a community, we should strive to bring up the whole of society so that we are all better off. That's why even if you don't have kids, you still have to pay for public schools in property taxes. Or for local roads even if you own a private helicopter in your backyard. Bottom line, **** would be so much simpler if we had a similar system to that of many Scandinavian systems. I doubt most people on this board ever had to deal with filing for health care instead of having their parents deal with this complex stuff, much less do their taxes. Hell who am I kidding, most people never even had a paid job outside of TA-ing or research.

It absolutely boggles my mind that people are saying "**** the poor, they decided to be poor," which is very similar to the "**** the black people, in modern society everyone has the opportunity to go to college so down with affirmative action!" And I say that as a very over-represented minority. Look at it very factually and you'll see that there are way more factors that people are not born in control of than you realize, and personal wealth does come into that as well.

Are there people who will abuse this? Of course. But we should strive to minimize the number of abusers, rather than ostracize a whole population because of them.

Where the hell is your empathy for your fellow man?

 

[Lya]

After skimming through this thread, first of all, I am glad to see various topics related ranging from ACA and physician shortage in primary care to poverty and under/unemployment. We haven't even touched the full details of ACA and already this whole topic is so complicated once the discussion is going.


If available somewhere, I have to ask for one statistic that, no matter which side you are on, we all need to look at:

# of "poor" people unable to purchase any materials like nice brand clothing vs. # of "poor" people able and choosing to purchase them vs. # of "poor" people able but choosing not to purchase them. I would like to see which one is a majority among the "poor."

I think that is the first step, among many, that we should clarify--if we want to continue this discussion to the next level.


As a side note:

For those who would like to inquire into what it means to be a poor American, I would recommend watching a documentary, "A Place at the Table." I have no way to confirm that the poor shown in this documentary represents a majority or not, but something to think about. After seeing this documentary, I have to agree many things that Radon XP said above.


For those who want to inquire into why "poor people buy iPhones," I would recommend reading "Poor Economics" and its website is http://pooreconomics.com/. Just because "we" think "they" don't need something, it doesn't mean that "they" should follow what "we" say and "their" priorities are always "wrong." I thought this book was only relevant in global health, but after seeing the poverty in the U.S., I realized that it's widely applicable.



Public programs for the poor are not always beneficial for the poor to break their cycle of poverty. I would recommend watching "Waiting for Superman" and it talks about "failure factories" to denote countless public schools that are not producing quality students. And yes, they tried a slightly different school system and their same, low-income students performed better or as good as average higher income students. I hope we can bring a similar change, although slow, in medical settings too. But, just because we have "public programs" set up for low-income families, it doesn't always mean that these families will be all happy and well.

 

[Gut Shot]

Exactly. They have been discussed and, more importantly, DEBATED for decades.

And largely settled, if you would consider cracking open the vast and aging literature on the subject. Jesus, I am beginning to see why the are changing the MCAT.

O RLY? Where is their money going to come from? I'm assuming you understand that for someone to gain a dollar, someone else has to lose it.

False, wealth creation is not a zero sum game. A good investment creates more capital than it consumes.

Awesome. So one option costs money and the other one doesn't. Why do you think we should choose the one that costs us money that we dont have?

I was being a little tongue in cheek here. If you would like to continue this line of discussion I would ask you to support your assertion that giving money to poor people hasn't "worked."

Yes! The climbing national debt of which entitlement programs are the fastest growing component.

Wow, this is the first time I have seen someone conflate a person's attitude with a benefit program. Impressive.

We have free K-12 education for all so that's no different. We have numerous welfare and entitlement programs (including healthcare) for those in the lower class. Can you show me how these (or even the equivalent programs in other countries) have "paid off?" And telling us to read a book isn't going to cut it. You should be able to come up a cohesive argument on your own if you've done any reading on the subject.

Telling you to read a book is exactly what I am going to do, for a couple of reasons. First, I know you won't listen to me, but you might listen to someone else who is published on the subject. Second, if you're truly interested in this topic you'll explore it on your own. And if you're not then I would be wasting my time spoon feeding you.

Now go save somebody's life.

 

[thesauce]

And largely settled, if you would consider cracking open the vast and aging literature on the subject. Jesus, I am beginning to see why the are changing the MCAT.

Yes, I'm sure this is why...

False, wealth creation is not a zero sum game. A good investment creates more capital than it consumes.

I see what you did there. I said "money" (which is the metric of our class system) and you changed it to "capital." Yes, more widget capital can be created, etc, but money is fixed (aside from inflation which is irrelevant to this discussion).

I was being a little tongue in cheek here. If you would like to continue this line of discussion I would ask you to support your assertion that giving money to poor people hasn't "worked."

I can't, but neither can you. And you're the one supporting us spending countless billions on the programs. Thus the burden of proof is on you. Even if it wasn't, don't you want to see what you're getting for your money? Or are you comfortable with spending more and more money without a clear indication it is doing any good?

Wow, this is the first time I have seen someone conflate a person's attitude with a benefit program. Impressive.

Really?..this is/was the backbone of the stance against COUNTLESS recent bills before congress. So you can't remember ANY of the debates about extending unemployment benefits (giving more money will de-incentivize the job search), immigration reform (granting illegals a free pass will just encourage more to come in), or increasing foreign aid (we are creating a dependancy state in those countries).

How exactly are you wanting to "quantitize" our progress? Or don't you think that's important? Did you want to send out questionnaires? "Oh, hey, look: these people getting free money are actually saying it is helping them, so it must be! Let's keep it up!" We would really need to see firm outcome measures such as increased net worth to (i.e. "upward social mobility") among those we give this free money to.

Telling you to read a book is exactly what I am going to do, for a couple of reasons. First, I know you won't listen to me

And now, why would that be? I have nothing against you personally, Gut Shot. But your authoritarian tone and attempts at insults aren't doing you any favors. It's just as easy for me to say "you're uninformed - go read the multitude of literature out there"

Now go save somebody's life.

aye, aye, sir

 

[fourhumours]

as far as I can tell with this argument is whenever people are proved wrong or presented with credible scepticism, they just ignore that post and continue spouting generalities laced with anecdotes as facts. my god people I hope for the good of us all none of you enter into research. The guy who posted one page ago questioning that study from the libertarian think tank got literally no response and people just dropped the issue without addressing his points (either refute is assertions or acknowledge them, spouting an opinion and then ignoring when you are thoughtfully challenged and instead focusing on more ridiculous/emotional appeals is a disingenuous way of arguing. you are propping up more fringe/less thought out arguments).

you all are getting way to bogged down in idealism supported by anecdotes. pragmatism with rigorous, peer-reviewed research is needed with this issue, not "I see at least three women who have 6 kids five iphones a day etc. etc." likewise people on the other spectrum need some facts. I understand this is an internet forum, but seriously, if y'all are gonna be doctors, researchers, or policy advocates, please learn the appropriate way to support your point of views and not be a lazy anecdote quoting Philistine.

 

[thesauce]

as far as I can tell with this argument is whenever people are proved wrong or presented with credible scepticism, they just ignore that post and continue spouting generalities laced with anecdotes as facts. my god people I hope for the good of us all none of you enter into research. The guy who posted one page ago questioning that study from the libertarian think tank got literally no response and people just dropped the issue without addressing his points (either refute is assertions or acknowledge them, spouting an opinion and then ignoring when you are thoughtfully challenged and instead focusing on more ridiculous/emotional appeals is a disingenuous way of arguing. you are propping up more fringe/less thought out arguments).

you all are getting way to bogged down in idealism supported by anecdotes. pragmatism with rigorous, peer-reviewed research is needed with this issue, not "I see at least three women who have 6 kids five iphones a day etc. etc." likewise people on the other spectrum need some facts. I understand this is an internet forum, but seriously, if y'all are gonna be doctors, researchers, or policy advocates, please learn the appropriate way to support your point of views and not be a lazy anecdote quoting Philistine.

I wholeheartedly agree, however most of these arguments come in the face of a lack of level one evidence. Do you think anyone has done a trial rigorously exploring the correlation between the number of cell phones in the ER to the lack of health insurance, controlled for socioeconomic status?

 

[CsHead]

Actually, you're wrong. The military can be, and is, very picky. Although it doesn't directly exclude the poor (since they make up the rank and file of the cannon fodder), having poor ASVAB scores, among other things, which may be a product of poor education (which is a problem in poverty stricken areas) leaves one subject to rejection.

Sorry. Not interested in this fight, but want to crush this misconception about who makes up the military. The working/middle class make up the bulk of the military in today's world. Not poor people.

 

[Radon XP]

Sorry. Not interested in this fight, but want to crush this misconception about who makes up the military. The working/middle class make up the bulk of the military in today's world. Not poor people.

I got so much into the argument that I neglected to distinguish the working class from the desperately poor. Nevertheless, although the working class makes up the bulk of the military, my argument remains: they make up the cannon fodder.

The working class has always been exploited, and that doesn't stop when they enter the military. Look at how many homeless veterans/veterans working at Wal-Mart there are.

 

[FSOG]

Okay, Radon XP, curiosity has gotten the better of me, and I have to ask...I noticed you're currently a rising sophomore or junior in college and in high school you held a leadership position in Young Republicans (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=10014376#post10014376) -- what was the catalyst or epiphany you've had in the past three years that's made you move so radically left?

 

[Bamfu]

you all are getting way to bogged down in idealism supported by anecdotes. pragmatism with rigorous, peer-reviewed research is needed with this issue, not "I see at least three women who have 6 kids five iphones a day etc. etc." likewise people on the other spectrum need some facts. I understand this is an internet forum, but seriously, if y'all are gonna be doctors, researchers, or policy advocates, please learn the appropriate way to support your point of views and not be a lazy anecdote quoting Philistine.

This would make more sense if this thread were trying to find a solution to the problem. From what I can tell, this thread has been more of a case of people stating their opinions and others vehemently arguing that they are wrong. People then support what they have to say with personal experience.. which is fine. After all, personal experience is (or should be) what gives us our opinions to begin with. There is no reliable tracker to follow government funds handed out in our welfare systems, so there can be no evidence to make a definitive or truly compelling argument. If there was, there would not be such a divide between conservatives and liberals in politics.

It is interesting to note, however, that nearly everyone has agreed that the current system is being abused and is not functioning in its intended capacity. I think the disconnect is in whether or not the system is broken.

 

[Radon XP]

Okay, Radon XP, curiosity has gotten the better of me, and I have to ask...I noticed you're currently a rising sophomore or junior in college and in high school you held a leadership position in Young Republicans (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=10014376#post10014376) -- what was the catalyst or epiphany you've had in the past three years that's made you move so radically left?

I just realized what a damn joke the entire capitalist system is. However, such a discussion is far beyond the scope of SDN, and I'm not interested in having it. This discussion is already degenerating, as it is.

 

[thesauce]

Just want to throw my 2c in here and throw my support in for Radon XP. I can't see how anybody who claims to be a premed and done volunteering in underdeserved areas can possibly claim that access to affordable healthcare is not a human right. You know the unalienable rights, the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" deal? Having access to a decent quality of life falls under the life category and should be a right.

Food and shelter aren't free either. Do you think they should be? Demanding someone else's services for free takes away their freedom. As someone said, this is the basic premise of slavery.

People have kids that they can't afford? WHO GIVES A ****! Should we punish the kids for mistakes of their parents? Hell no, we settled that with the abolition of debtors prisons and serfdom.

No, in fact, that was about the only point everyone here agreed on - universal coverage for children is imperative.

As for defending others having kids they can't afford, I can guarantee you are in the minority on this view (which doesn't mean you're wrong). The vast majority of us think that it's irresponsible to bring kids into the world if you can't take care of them, and you certainly shouldn't be getting special favors for doing so.

People have iPods? WHO GIVES A ****! What they do with their spare money is no concern of mine. This link describes pretty well about growing up poor. And yes, he highlights the difference of actually being poor versus pretending to be poor for a week, or having well-off parents that can provide you with support.

It isn't spare money if the aren't paying their bills. This should be obvious.

People will have to pay for this with their taxes? WHO GIVES A ****! As a community, we should strive to bring up the whole of society so that we are all better off. That's why even if you don't have kids, you still have to pay for public schools in property taxes. Or for local roads even if you own a private helicopter in your backyard. Bottom line, **** would be so much simpler if we had a similar system to that of many Scandinavian systems. I doubt most people on this board ever had to deal with filing for health care instead of having their parents deal with this complex stuff, much less do their taxes. Hell who am I kidding, most people never even had a paid job outside of TA-ing or research.

I'm not sure you're actually supporting Radon XP anymore. He's a smart guy and I doubt he agrees with comments like "People will have to pay for this with their taxes? WHO GIVES A ****!"

I certainly do...as do the vast majority of Americans. And we SHOULD - it's our money. You are paying for their iPod because they chose to put their money toward that and not health insurance. Now we have to pick up their tab for healthcare.

Ironically, you have called out this forum for being sheltered and detached and your posts show that you are not grasping the basics of these issues.

It absolutely boggles my mind that people are saying "**** the poor, they decided to be poor," which is very similar to the "**** the black people, in modern society everyone has the opportunity to go to college so down with affirmative action!" And I say that as a very over-represented minority. Look at it very factually and you'll see that there are way more factors that people are not born in control of than you realize, and personal wealth does come into that as well.

Clearly a tangent. No one was talking about this.

Are there people who will abuse this? Of course. But we should strive to minimize the number of abusers, rather than ostracize a whole population because of them.

Where the hell is your empathy for your fellow man?

Don't mix empathy for blind obedience. This goes back to the crux of the issue. Some of us believe the majority are abusers and some of us believe the majority are actually in need. You are clearly in the latter, but unwilling to accept that the former might be true.

 

[Bamfu]

Thesauce, I almost picked that post apart as well, but decided it would take too long. ><

+10 to you, sir. I completely agree with everything you said.

 

[ChemEngMD]

as far as I can tell with this argument is whenever people are proved wrong or presented with credible scepticism, they just ignore that post and continue spouting generalities laced with anecdotes as facts. my god people I hope for the good of us all none of you enter into research. The guy who posted one page ago questioning that study from the libertarian think tank got literally no response and people just dropped the issue without addressing his points (either refute is assertions or acknowledge them, spouting an opinion and then ignoring when you are thoughtfully challenged and instead focusing on more ridiculous/emotional appeals is a disingenuous way of arguing. you are propping up more fringe/less thought out arguments).

you all are getting way to bogged down in idealism supported by anecdotes. pragmatism with rigorous, peer-reviewed research is needed with this issue, not "I see at least three women who have 6 kids five iphones a day etc. etc." likewise people on the other spectrum need some facts. I understand this is an internet forum, but seriously, if y'all are gonna be doctors, researchers, or policy advocates, please learn the appropriate way to support your point of views and not be a lazy anecdote quoting Philistine.

Thanks for acknowledging my post 🙂

I've been on this forum long enough though to know that if you post something intellectual or scholastic into an emotionally charged debate it'll probably be ignored.

I was attempting to pivot the conversation towards more of a discussion and debate on the legitimacy of the data being presented (I'm a grad student so all I do is literature clubs and what not), but hey people are much more happy just yelling at one another

 

[Status Sciaticus]

That makes it all the more amusing that you're arguing against your class interests.

I said my family doesnt have insurance... I personally have insurance. Dont see the amusement if I am defending purchasing insurance, especially if I have it.


Well, I certainly admire that confidence.

i.e the masses have to ***** themselves out for peanuts. Yes, the w-word is a harsh one, but none other captures the spirit of employment as it exists for most people.

Actually, you're wrong. The military can be, and is, very picky. Although it doesn't directly exclude the poor (since they make up the rank and file of the cannon fodder), having poor ASVAB scores, among other things, which may be a product of poor education (which is a problem in poverty stricken areas) leaves one subject to rejection.

No.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,79770,00.html

2/3 of their recruits come from low income areas.

Ya? Go into the wild, then. I wonder how far hunter-gatherer societies would have made it if they followed your silly "rugged individualism".

Why would I go into the wild?

Well Im not going to comment on your optimism for med school, but it is something worth thinking about. A lot of people dont get in and some of them end up in a bad place. People who were trying to do something awesome with their lives.

The bolded is what is important. You proved my point. You basically conceded that the system requires there to be people who lose, people who are poor. You are now talking about how you as an individual can avoid being one of them via hard work, determination and all the other talking points. But this ignores the fact that if everyone took your advice and worked their asses off, there would still be poor people, it would just be so the competition to not be poor would be fierce. Poor people exist because our system requires it. That is why I was telling you to focus on the macro view, it is easier to see that why.

The point is that it seemed like you were trying to argue that poverty exist because poor people are either dumb, lazy, uninformed whatever. Poverty exist because it has to in our system. You could argue some people are poor because they have those attributes, but even if they didnt there would still be just as many poor people.

There will always be poverty. The term is relative when compared to the whole population.
You can work your ass off and still be poor, but through that work you can atleast increase your quality of life and standard of living.

lol wut

Oh hey and don't forget the laundry list of medical disqualifications for the military...just better hope you're not sick when you're trying to join up for insurance right?

http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html

That list is not only applicable to poor people.... they apply to everyone which means that poor people have almost equal opportunities in the military as do the middle class.

pwned. 👍

No.

Food and shelter aren't free either. Do you think they should be? Demanding someone else's services for free takes away their freedom. As someone said, this is the basic premise of slavery.



No, in fact, that was about the only point everyone here agreed on - universal coverage for children is imperative.

As for defending others having kids they can't afford, I can guarantee you are in the minority on this view (which doesn't mean you're wrong). The vast majority of us think that it's irresponsible to bring kids into the world if you can't take care of them, and you certainly shouldn't be getting special favors for doing so.



It isn't spare money if the aren't paying their bills. This should be obvious.



I'm not sure you're actually supporting Radon XP anymore. He's a smart guy and I doubt he agrees with comments like "People will have to pay for this with their taxes? WHO GIVES A ****!"

I certainly do...as do the vast majority of Americans. And we SHOULD - it's our money. You are paying for their iPod because they chose to put their money toward that and not health insurance. Now we have to pick up their tab for healthcare.

Ironically, you have called out this forum for being sheltered and detached and your posts show that you are not grasping the basics of these issues.



Clearly a tangent. No one was talking about this.



Don't mix empathy for blind obedience. This goes back to the crux of the issue. Some of us believe the majority are abusers and some of us believe the majority are actually in need. You are clearly in the latter, but unwilling to accept that the former might be true.

 

[Radon XP]

Gandalf, your responses aren't even worth a reply. You are a delusional kid who likes to downplay the struggles experienced by millions, nay, billions of people worldwide, in typical lolbertarian fashion. You have no clue how hard things are in the real world, and as such, you resort to nonsensical one-liners like "just work harder".

Get a clue. People breaking their backs working 80+ hours a week who still can't afford health insurance are laughing at your suggestions.

 

[GypsyHummus]

You are putting too much stock in society. if you adopt a view that no man is responsible for his own behavior, because somehow or another it is societies responsibility, then they will cease to be responsible for their fellow man.

 

[Bamfu]

Gandalf, your responses aren't even worth a reply. You are a delusional kid who likes to downplay the struggles experienced by millions, nay, billions of people worldwide, in typical lolbertarian fashion. You have no clue how hard things are in the real world, and as such, you resort to nonsensical one-liners like "just work harder".

Get a clue. People breaking their backs working 80+ hours a week who still can't afford health insurance are laughing at your suggestions.

Radon, don't resort to personal attacks just because you have run out of things to say.

I, too, come from a family without means. Every member of my family now enjoys a reasonable lifestyle that they attained through hard work and smart spending. 2/4 of us still work 60-80 hrs a week to do it, but we have all improved our situations through education, working a LOT, or both.

I think that's what you don't realize. In order for the country to take care of its own through welfare and to "improve," people have to take personal responsibility in improving themselves when they receive assistance. In its current system, too many people have realized welfare will provide for them even if they don't try to improve their current situation, so they don't. Who would work if they didn't have to?

I can't speak for the like-minded individuals in this conversation, but most of us "lolbertarians" are all for helping people that are down. The system, as is, just does not enable the government to pull the plug on its spending when people stop trying to help themselves. I personally believe that the MAJORITY of folks using federal assistance are abusing it. My personal experiences have shown me this to be the case where I live. Thesauce nailed it earlier when he said

Some of us believe the majority are abusers and some of us believe the majority are actually in need. You are clearly in the latter, but unwilling to accept that the former might be true.

The difference is that nobody has attacked you as an individual, which you have done a number of times.

 

[jw3600]

Okay, Radon XP, curiosity has gotten the better of me, and I have to ask...I noticed you're currently a rising sophomore or junior in college and in high school you held a leadership position in Young Republicans (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=10014376#post10014376) -- what was the catalyst or epiphany you've had in the past three years that's made you move so radically left?

He turned 19...and FIGURED IT ALL OUT.

 

[Radon XP]

Radon, don't resort to personal attacks just because you have run out of things to say.

I, too, come from a family without means. Every member of my family now enjoys a reasonable lifestyle that they attained through hard work and smart spending. 2/4 of us still work 60-80 hrs a week to do it, but we have all improved our situations through education, working a LOT, or both.

Good for you. You're a minority.

What you're doing here is victim-blaming, as usual, by suggesting that it falls on the poor to life themselves out of poverty despite material conditions.

I think that's what you don't realize. In order for the country to take care of its own through welfare and to "improve," people have to take personal responsibility in improving themselves when they receive assistance. In its current system, too many people have realized welfare will provide for them even if they don't try to improve their current situation, so they don't. Who would work if they didn't have to?

More Reagan-esque demonization of welfare recipients. Most people who receive welfare are single parents with kids. The "welfare queen" image was invented by Reagan in order to further demonize blacks and the poor.

I can't speak for the like-minded individuals in this conversation, but most of us "lolbertarians" are all for helping people that are down. The system, as is, just does not enable the government to pull the plug on its spending when people stop trying to help themselves. I personally believe that the MAJORITY of folks using federal assistance are abusing it. My personal experiences have shown me this to be the case where I live. Thesauce nailed it earlier when he said

I don't care about your personal experiences. I care about empirical facts.

It's alot easier to "help yourself" when you're a white college-aged male than when you're an old black woman.

I'm not asking for your understanding, though. Oppress the working class at your own risk: you are digging your own grave.

 

[Lya]

I fully agree with your thoughts here, but I was just curious about your perspective. It will be helpful if you could elaborate a little more.

Food and shelter aren't free either. Do you think they should be?

So you are saying food and shelter should be at least affordable? (I don't think they will be ever free, unless they are provided for the charity purposes, so I understand that in general terms they aren't free.)

As for defending others having kids they can't afford, I can guarantee you are in the minority on this view (which doesn't mean you're wrong). The vast majority of us think that it's irresponsible to bring kids into the world if you can't take care of them, and you certainly shouldn't be getting special favors for doing so.

I agree that many of us, including myself, think it is irresponsible to bring kids into the world if not affordable. But how about non-disabled adults without any family or children who still rely on donating plasma because they just can't find any job, let alone health insurances? I am respectfully referring to an assumption, perhaps, that without children any adults should be able to afford other things.


It isn't spare money if the aren't paying their bills. This should be obvious.

So if they shift their priorities and spend on health insurances without spending money on other unnecessary materials, how do we actually know for sure that paying their bills can be done? In other words, health insurances are affordable to everyone including the poor, if they simply change their priorities accordingly? Again, I agree with your view here, but I just wanted to inquire further.


Don't mix empathy for blind obedience. This goes back to the crux of the issue. Some of us believe the majority are abusers and some of us believe the majority are actually in need.

Did I miss a journal article that shows which "majority" is true? I am curious. It might not be available, but I just wanted to know if you know any paper on this. Or did I miss it in previous pages of this thread?

I know that this is not a peer-reviewed journal article, but the discussion here just reminded me of this that I came across in the past.

http://www.reuters.com/subjects/income-inequality/indiana


This article in part supports one of my comments about non-disabled adults without children who are unemployed and cannot afford many things. I agree that they need to get a job to support themselves even when they understand that they cannot afford anything for their future children.

But I want to draw our attention to some graphs/charts shown here.

1) More than half of respondents said that working age adults, regardless of whether they have children or not, do not deserve cash and/or non-cash assistances from the government.

This public belief contrasts the statistics from "A Place at the Table" that says about 80% of food insecure families in the U.S. at least has one working adult. I don't clearly remember if it was exactly 80%, but it was something very high.

2) 70%+ of people with $50k ~ 100k (I believe it was a household income, I am not entirely certain) income agree that the poor is just looking for a free handout and, perhaps, takes a full advantage of assistance programs without being responsible.

This is very different from people with <$25k income, where there's no particular majority within this group agrees or disagrees with this public belief.


(We can talk about bias in this study, such as the poor are saying "strongly disagree" with "poor people getting a free handout" so that they want to show to the public that they are doing the best they can, while they actually go out and buy new phones and TV. However, that might be another thread.)

 

[Dave89]

Good for you. You're a minority.

What you're doing here is victim-blaming, as usual, by suggesting that it falls on the poor to life themselves out of poverty despite material conditions.

More Reagan-esque demonization of welfare recipients. Most people who receive welfare are single parents with kids. The "welfare queen" image was invented by Reagan in order to further demonize blacks and the poor.


I don't care about your personal experiences. I care about empirical facts.

It's alot easier to "help yourself" when you're a white college-aged male than when you're an old black woman.

I'm not asking for your understanding, though. Oppress the working class at your own risk: you are digging your own grave.

I had actually assumed you were arguing from good faith from my peeks at this thread. Now I realize you're just spitting out MoveOn and Daily Kos talking points.

 

[Radon XP]

I had actually assumed you were arguing from good faith from my peeks at this thread. Now I realize you're just spitting out MoveOn and Daily Kos talking points.

Never heard of either of those. 😕

Don't care either way. I wasn't arguing in order to please you, and your opinion doesn't have an impact on the desperation experienced by millions of impoverished Americans.

 

[ForHumors]

You are putting too much stock in society. if you adopt a view that no man is responsible for his own behavior, because somehow or another it is societies responsibility, then they will cease to be responsible for their fellow man.

No one is making that point that no man is responsible for his own behavior. Clearly the actions a person takes will, and should, affect the outcome of their life, regardless of the size of our country's social safety net. That situation will always exist.

Instead, this perspective is taking into consideration that there are fundamental inequalities in society. People are born into different amounts of wealth, are exposed to different levels of education, and receive different resources throughout their development. Society does not treat everyone neutrally until they enter the workforce and then only judge people based upon their career accomplishments, so we clearly do not and cannot live in a perfect meritocraty. Because of this inequality, it is moral to support people who are in lower positions of power and do not have an equal ability to compete in society.

 

[Lya]

I think that's what you don't realize. In order for the country to take care of its own through welfare and to "improve," people have to take personal responsibility in improving themselves when they receive assistance. In its current system, too many people have realized welfare will provide for them even if they don't try to improve their current situation, so they don't. Who would work if they didn't have to?

I can't speak for the like-minded individuals in this conversation, but most of us "lolbertarians" are all for helping people that are down. The system, as is, just does not enable the government to pull the plug on its spending when people stop trying to help themselves. I personally believe that the MAJORITY of folks using federal assistance are abusing it. My personal experiences have shown me this to be the case where I live. Thesauce nailed it earlier when he said

The difference is that nobody has attacked you as an individual, which you have done a number of times.

With respect, aside from your personal experiences, do you have any data that you could kindly share with us to demonstrate that "too many" people abuse them? I agree with you to some extent, don't get me wrong.

After watching a documentary "A Place at the Table," however, I have to question your definition of "too many." What is the number we are talking about, let alone your definition of being "poor?" Being poor means being starved a week every month?

I agree that there are some people who abuse the federal assistance programs, no doubt about that, and I am with you there. But what do you mean by the "majority?" Can you look into "A Place at the Table" and kindly share your thoughts on this? I want to know if the poor shown in this documentary represents your definition of "majority." Because apparently this documentary shows:

"1 in 2 kids get some form of federal food assistance program during their childhood, and
50 million Americans say they don't have enough to eat." Are they simply bluffing? I was just curious about your perspective, that's all. That might be helpful.

 

[Radon XP]

No one is making that point that no man is responsible for his own behavior. Clearly the actions a person takes will, and should, affect the outcome of their life, regardless of the size of our country's social safety net. That situation will always exist.

Instead, this perspective is taking into consideration that there are fundamental inequalities in society. People are born into different amounts of wealth, are exposed to different levels of education, and receive different resources throughout their development. Society does not treat everyone neutrally until they enter the workforce and then only judge people based upon their career accomplishments, so we clearly do not and cannot live in a perfect meritocraty. Because of this inequality, it is moral to support people who are in lower positions of power and do not have an equal ability to compete in society.

Even then, that isn't true (red)

At any rate, not only does the rest of the industrialized world have UHC, but even many developing nations are surpassing the United States in terms of access to healthcare by ordinary people.

It's really quite sad. What's especially sad is that we have to debate this issue at all. If we didn't have such a joke of a president, we could just institute UHC and drag all these Neanderthals kicking and screaming into the new world.

 

[Lya]

Here is an updated report.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/report-thousands-fled-canada-for-health-care-in-2011/

The wait time is still 9-10 weeks. The report also mentions about 50K Canadians leaving Canada to get priority treatment because they were tired of waiting

here is an article saying that the wait times from years ago has gotten WORSE today.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/progre...e-wait-times-has-stalled-group-says-1.1320854

Atul Gawande was asked by Charlie Rose about what is the best healthcare system and is it UHC? Dr. Gawande said every system has a flaw and his response was not that the U.S. should have a UHC.

Due to the waiting time and "a lack of available resources or a lack of appropriate procedure/technology," I am not questioning the conclusion that 40k+ Canadians left their own country for medical procedures. I am sure they are potential flaws of UHC, and I doubt Dr. Gawande will see this as a model system that the U.S. should follow.


I don't want to discuss whether UHC is "good" or "bad" compared to our system. We can discuss all day long whether our current healthcare system is "good" or "bad" compared to UHC. I don't think that's the relevant issue here.


I think we rather have to ask ourselves, is it possible to have a system that shares some principles of UHC as well as those of our current healthcare system? In other words, can we have our own "UHC" system that also has low waiting time, sufficient resources and appropriate procedure/technology?

 

[Bamfu]

I don't care about your personal experiences. I care about empirical facts..

Show me yours and I'll show you mine. Unless you know a way of tracking money the government dishes out, we're stuck at an impasse - AKA politics. There's even a market for food stamps where recipients can trade their food stamps for cash at less than dollar value to people that want to save money buying food. Empirical facts do not exist in this case.

Your experiences (or whatever it is you use to find your typical welfare recipient) show you more of the poor, old black women that can't dig themselves out of their hole. You argue for their sake. My experiences show me more people (ironically almost all white) that have chosen to just get comfy in their hole. I've even had conversations with some of these individuals about their life choices. Our experiences give us our opinions, no?

Again, I'm all for helping the infirm, children or other people that can't help themselves. According to the study in Lya's post, most Americans are. The problem lies with the folks abusing the welfare system, which you yourself have admitted exist.

Just to play devil's advocate (and to check your vocabulary).. if the government were to remove all financial aid to the working class (which I do not advocate!), how would that be an act oppression?

Also, in an earlier post, you mentioned that you would rather everyone have access to a lower quality healthcare than a few have access to higher quality healthcare. Is it your opinion, then, that high quality healthcare should not exist? Or should it just be private sector? Just curious where exactly you stand on that.

 

[Tommyguns89]

Gandalf, your responses aren't even worth a reply. You are a delusional kid who likes to downplay the struggles experienced by millions, nay, billions of people worldwide, in typical lolbertarian fashion. You have no clue how hard things are in the real world, and as such, you resort to nonsensical one-liners like "just work harder".

Get a clue. People breaking their backs working 80+ hours a week who still can't afford health insurance are laughing at your suggestions.

FTR I consider myself a libertarian and I do not endorse his views. A true libertarian would tell you that the system we have in place right now is corporatism that resembles a plutocracy. And both parties are part of it. While I am a libertarian I value pragmatism over ideology. I would be satisfied to see elections like Nader vs Paul, rather than Obama vs Romney, regardless of which ideology comes out ahead.

 

[Lya]

FTR I consider myself a libertarian and I do not endorse his views. A true libertarian would tell you that the system we have in place right now is corporatism that resembles a plutocracy. And both parties are part of it. While I am a libertarian I value pragmatism over ideology. I would be satisfied to see elections like Nader vs Paul, rather than Obama vs Romney, regardless of which ideology comes out ahead.

I am also interested in seeing how those different presidents can deal with other shareholders and lobbyists who have various self interests..

I feel that no matter who the president will be, any reform that favors the public more than industries will not be executed successfully...

 

[Radon XP]

I'm done with this pointless conversation. Lord knows I won't be involved in another SDN political debate as long as I'm here. Suffice it to say, I hope all of you "rugged individualists" never have a sick family member that can't pay for care

Universal healthcare is coming whether you like it or not.

 

[Bamfu]

 

[Status Sciaticus]

You are putting too much stock in society. if you adopt a view that no man is responsible for his own behavior, because somehow or another it is societies responsibility, then they will cease to be responsible for their fellow man.

👍

Radon, don't resort to personal attacks just because you have run out of things to say.

I, too, come from a family without means. Every member of my family now enjoys a reasonable lifestyle that they attained through hard work and smart spending. 2/4 of us still work 60-80 hrs a week to do it, but we have all improved our situations through education, working a LOT, or both.

I think that's what you don't realize. In order for the country to take care of its own through welfare and to "improve," people have to take personal responsibility in improving themselves when they receive assistance. In its current system, too many people have realized welfare will provide for them even if they don't try to improve their current situation, so they don't. Who would work if they didn't have to?

I can't speak for the like-minded individuals in this conversation, but most of us "lolbertarians" are all for helping people that are down. The system, as is, just does not enable the government to pull the plug on its spending when people stop trying to help themselves. I personally believe that the MAJORITY of folks using federal assistance are abusing it. My personal experiences have shown me this to be the case where I live. Thesauce nailed it earlier when he said

The difference is that nobody has attacked you as an individual, which you have done a number of times.

He turned 19...and FIGURED IT ALL OUT.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine. Unless you know a way of tracking money the government dishes out, we're stuck at an impasse - AKA politics. There's even a market for food stamps where recipients can trade their food stamps for cash at less than dollar value to people that want to save money buying food. Empirical facts do not exist in this case.

Your experiences (or whatever it is you use to find your typical welfare recipient) show you more of the poor, old black women that can't dig themselves out of their hole. You argue for their sake. My experiences show me more people (ironically almost all white) that have chosen to just get comfy in their hole. I've even had conversations with some of these individuals about their life choices. Our experiences give us our opinions, no?

Again, I'm all for helping the infirm, children or other people that can't help themselves. According to the study in Lya's post, most Americans are. The problem lies with the folks abusing the welfare system, which you yourself have admitted exist.

Just to play devil's advocate (and to check your vocabulary).. if the government were to remove all financial aid to the working class (which I do not advocate!), how would that be an act oppression?

Also, in an earlier post, you mentioned that you would rather everyone have access to a lower quality healthcare than a few have access to higher quality healthcare. Is it your opinion, then, that high quality healthcare should not exist? Or should it just be private sector? Just curious where exactly you stand on that.

👍

Gandalf, your responses aren't even worth a reply. You are a delusional kid who likes to downplay the struggles experienced by millions, nay, billions of people worldwide, in typical lolbertarian fashion. You have no clue how hard things are in the real world, and as such, you resort to nonsensical one-liners like "just work harder".

Get a clue. People breaking their backs working 80+ hours a week who still can't afford health insurance are laughing at your suggestions.

Theyre not worth a reply because you have run out of things to argue or cant properly counter what I said.

Since you are 19, you must definitely have an idea of how the real world works...

and what is with you and middle aged black women?

I'm done with this pointless conversation. Lord knows I won't be involved in another SDN political debate as long as I'm here. Suffice it to say, I hope all of you "rugged individualists" never have a sick family member that can't pay for care

Universal healthcare is coming whether you like it or not.

Since you're so empathetic with the plight of the poor, why arent you focusing a career in social work so you can help them directly?