Meathead Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 all of these observations about people needed to provide for themselves and have a proper work ethic are true. fortunately thats not really the point the point of course is that people who cite the abusers talk as if thats the norm when it has been clearly established that its a tiny minority. no matter what systems of safety nets a society develops there will be abusers but that is not a valid reason to mercilessly slash the programs further, healthcare should not be referred to as an entitlement. the richest country in the history of the world overflowing with medical facilities should not be a current world leader in the number of uninsured and near the bottom in life expectency its a back asswards position that isnt based on facts or logic, its based on emotion and partisanship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) all of these observations about people needed to provide for themselves and have a proper work ethic are true. fortunately thats not really the point the point of course is that people who cite the abusers talk as if thats the norm when it has been clearly established that its a tiny minority. no matter what systems of safety nets a society develops there will be abusers but that is not a valid reason to mercilessly slash the programs further, healthcare should not be referred to as an entitlement. the richest country in the history of the world overflowing with medical facilities should not be a current world leader in the number of uninsured and near the bottom in life expectency its a back asswards position that isnt based on facts or logic, its based on emotion and partisanship Which serious politician is looking to "mercilessly slash the programs" ? And can you outline or at least give an example of how they are proposing to do this? And a vast expansion of Medicaid is an entitlement. To say otherwise is absurd. Reasonable people can argue in what we can do to increase life expectancy and coverage, but that doesn't automatically mean that the ACA was a good piece of legislation, simply because action was taken. Well before you got here I spoke at length of the pitfalls of ACA, and there are many, ranging from taxes, to national debt implications, busting state budgets, small business activity, quality of health care deterioration and consumer behavior patterns which will lead to even higher premiums. Soon enough we'll find out. Also, when you mention life expectancy and "entitlements' health care, you imply that there is a direct connection. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a false equivalence. If you truly want to know why we have a shorter life expectancy than some other developed nations, it's for one major reason, gluttonous consumer behavior. We are a country of fat asses, and until that changes, you won't see those numbers change much. Edited January 24, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 all of these observations about people needed to provide for themselves and have a proper work ethic are true. fortunately thats not really the point the point of course is that people who cite the abusers talk as if thats the norm when it has been clearly established that its a tiny minority. no matter what systems of safety nets a society develops there will be abusers but that is not a valid reason to mercilessly slash the programs further, healthcare should not be referred to as an entitlement. the richest country in the history of the world overflowing with medical facilities should not be a current world leader in the number of uninsured and near the bottom in life expectency its a back asswards position that isnt based on facts or logic, its based on emotion and partisanship It is a custom here to link to sources for statements like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 lmao yeah should i also provide links that smoking causes cancer. you gotta be kidding me, that info has been out there for a while now, its not in debate. i will remind you again i dont play these silly partisan gotcha games so if i dont respond you know why the ama does have its flaws, partially due to the inevitability that any new program will. but the biggest reason imo is bc the republicans demagoged the public option and forced it out of the program. if that was still there it would permanently force competitive improvements, including keeping downward pressure on price escalation. it was a massive error to allow that to be eliminated, which is one reason i refused to cast my first vote for obama fortunately for this argument and unfortunately for me, i have first hand evidence how badly broken the previous system was and how badly it needed reform. i went from having a great career and fantastic health care to being disabled, losing my healthcare completely, and having to struggle to get basic treatment while i waited for disability. now my healthcare is significantly poorer than it used to be, but its a world better than having none. i dont want any human on earth let alone other americans to have to live like that so uhc is my biggest priority for current politics and is why i enthusiastically support aca, warts and all. now we need to finish that job the truth is there will always be a disparity between the hc we provide to those who cant get it themselves and that which is earned by those who are higher achievers. frankly, im fine with that, but there should be a minimum standard that allows every human to see a doctor for both routine and catastrophic incidents. i firmly believe in the long run that not only saves money but it promotes self sufficiency. until there is uhc there will permanently continue to be an incentive for those at the bottom to not jeopardize their ability to get minimal hc bc they take a low paying job that doesnt provide it. remove that disincentive and we not only save money down the road on catestrophic illness, we also put more people back into the workforce where they can work their way up without jeopardizing their health we should not be competing based on the ability to get a minimum standard of professional level health care. being poor sucks ass. even with uhc being poor will still suck ass. we need to continue to address the issues of incentives and self-sufficiency, but i just dont think thats the main problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Your situation aside, you still need to link to statements, especially outlandish ones. If you were right in the post I asked you to provide a link for, then you could have answered me with a lot less effort than it did for you to respond in the way you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 lmao yeah should i also provide links that smoking causes cancer. you gotta be kidding me, that info has been out there for a while now, its not in debate. i will remind you again i dont play these silly partisan gotcha games so if i dont respond you know why the ama does have its flaws, partially due to the inevitability that any new program will. but the biggest reason imo is bc the republicans demagoged the public option and forced it out of the program. if that was still there it would permanently force competitive improvements, including keeping downward pressure on price escalation. it was a massive error to allow that to be eliminated, which is one reason i refused to cast my first vote for obama fortunately for this argument and unfortunately for me, i have first hand evidence how badly broken the previous system was and how badly it needed reform. i went from having a great career and fantastic health care to being disabled, losing my healthcare completely, and having to struggle to get basic treatment while i waited for disability. now my healthcare is significantly poorer than it used to be, but its a world better than having none. i dont want any human on earth let alone other americans to have to live like that so uhc is my biggest priority for current politics and is why i enthusiastically support aca, warts and all. now we need to finish that job the truth is there will always be a disparity between the hc we provide to those who cant get it themselves and that which is earned by those who are higher achievers. frankly, im fine with that, but there should be a minimum standard that allows every human to see a doctor for both routine and catastrophic incidents. i firmly believe in the long run that not only saves money but it promotes self sufficiency. until there is uhc there will permanently continue to be an incentive for those at the bottom to not jeopardize their ability to get minimal hc bc they take a low paying job that doesnt provide it. remove that disincentive and we not only save money down the road on catestrophic illness, we also put more people back into the workforce where they can work their way up without jeopardizing their health we should not be competing based on the ability to get a minimum standard of professional level health care. being poor sucks ass. even with uhc being poor will still suck ass. we need to continue to address the issues of incentives and self-sufficiency, but i just dont think thats the main problem What is your disability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 only the first paragraph was a response to you, that im not going to be pressured to provide links to something that is established. this will be my last comment on this specific question, but im sure youve heard that we spend more per capita on health services and yet rank something like twentieth (near or at the bottom) on measurements for vital health elements. if you still are not aware of that reality, and i dont know you you missed it, you will have to go find it yourself. the rest of my commentary was simply laying out my rationale for my positions on uhc and rob, i dont mind discussing my disability, but im curious why you would quote me and then ask. what relevance does it have on my commentary? perhaps you didnt mean to link the two but it did appear that way. when it comes to political discussion i only engage in real discussion of the issues. i dont belong to a political party and i vote on both sides of the isle depending on current circumstances and what i feel needs to be done. i have no problem admitting i am a left leaning centrist but i simply will not engage in empty partisan bickering. if the real meat of the issues isnt addressed i just simply dont respond and leave those kinds of time wasting pissing contests to others btw i am permanently disabled with two serious back injuries that are irrepairable and prevent me from sitting or standing for extended periods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things. we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path. or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Meat, I'll only address the first paragraph. Provide the links and don't be a NJ Sue. If you don't know what that is, your duty is to look it up. Harsh? That's how you are coming across. You made some outlandish statements and could crush me with credible back-up to those statements. Hey, this is PPP, go for the jugular or STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things. we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path. or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements. Purely Twilight Zone. Time to put down the bottle, needle or pipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Purely Twilight Zone. Time to put down the bottle, needle or pipe. care to be more specific in your argument without the ad hominem? what would you do with the lazy? the intergenerational "takers" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 birdog +1 again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 only the first paragraph was a response to you, that im not going to be pressured to provide links to something that is established. this will be my last comment on this specific question, but im sure youve heard that we spend more per capita on health services and yet rank something like twentieth (near or at the bottom) on measurements for vital health elements. if you still are not aware of that reality, and i dont know you you missed it, you will have to go find it yourself. the rest of my commentary was simply laying out my rationale for my positions on uhc and rob, i dont mind discussing my disability, but im curious why you would quote me and then ask. what relevance does it have on my commentary? perhaps you didnt mean to link the two but it did appear that way. when it comes to political discussion i only engage in real discussion of the issues. i dont belong to a political party and i vote on both sides of the isle depending on current circumstances and what i feel needs to be done. i have no problem admitting i am a left leaning centrist but i simply will not engage in empty partisan bickering. if the real meat of the issues isnt addressed i just simply dont respond and leave those kinds of time wasting pissing contests to others btw i am permanently disabled with two serious back injuries that are irrepairable and prevent me from sitting or standing for extended periods The quote was just b/c it was the post where you mentioned it & made it clear who I was asking. I've got bulging cervical disks that gave me similar problems. It's not as bad as it was but will never be right. It used to be so bad I couldn't do much of anything - even watching a movie was tough b/c I couldn't sit up for that long & laying down didn't help much either; it was constant pain all the time, along with pain & numbness in all my extremities. I'm sure it's not as bad as yours but there was a period of time when paralysis was a very real and everpresent concern, so I kind of have an idea what you must go through. I was 25 when it got really bad & at first dealt with a lot of anguish, but I learned to get past that. You seem fairly positive; I hope you don't let this kill your spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things. we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path. or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements. I think we oversimplify when we just assume laziness. The problem is cultural. If it was just a matter of a few lazy people sucking off the system it wouldn't be that big a deal. It's the destructive cycle of behavior that grows out of these so-called charitable projects. I know in Richmond the last place you want to go, & the worst place to bring up a child, are in the housing projects. There are no easy fixes to this either, but if we're going to move the needle it should be towards being more, not less, restrictive about who is given charity, design the programs so their natural progression is toward self-sufficiency, and (except for the truly helpless) make it less convenient to be on the dole. Otherwise we're perpetuating the ugliest & most inhumane aspects of our country in the name of compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I think we oversimplify when we just assume laziness. The problem is cultural. If it was just a matter of a few lazy people sucking off the system it wouldn't be that big a deal. It's the destructive cycle of behavior that grows out of these so-called charitable projects. I know in Richmond the last place you want to go, & the worst place to bring up a child, are in the housing projects. There are no easy fixes to this either, but if we're going to move the needle it should be towards being more, not less, restrictive about who is given charity, design the programs so their natural progression is toward self-sufficiency, and (except for the truly helpless) make it less convenient to be on the dole. Otherwise we're perpetuating the ugliest & most inhumane aspects of our country in the name of compassion. i think it can be improved in several ways. my preference is to increase the minimum wage. yours, presumably, is to decrease hand outs. how bout both? but paying people less than they can reasonably live on without any health insurance after working a full work week is clearly part of the problem, in my view. changing minimum wage laws would very likely change the distribution of wealth in the country. there would still be very wealthy individuals, however. is that socialism? i don't think so but others will very likely disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 i think it can be improved in several ways. my preference is to increase the minimum wage. yours, presumably, is to decrease hand outs. how bout both? but paying people less than they can reasonably live on without any health insurance after working a full work week is clearly part of the problem, in my view. changing minimum wage laws would very likely change the distribution of wealth in the country. there would still be very wealthy individuals, however. is that socialism? i don't think so but others will very likely disagree. I see logistical problems there, but ultimately it doesn't take much to get a job paying $10+/hr, but when you're single w/ 3 kids it's just not always an option. My solution would be to condition payments on something that makes it less convenient. Preferably something productive, but just something to throw the effort to return ratio such that it doesn't disincentivize production. I also don't think spreading around the existing wealth is as desireable as having them create new wealth by working. More importantly, it would break the multi-generational plague of dependence that turns these communities into the immense shitholes they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) I think we oversimplify when we just assume laziness. The problem is cultural. If it was just a matter of a few lazy people sucking off the system it wouldn't be that big a deal. It's the destructive cycle of behavior that grows out of these so-called charitable projects. I know in Richmond the last place you want to go, & the worst place to bring up a child, are in the housing projects. There are no easy fixes to this either, but if we're going to move the needle it should be towards being more, not less, restrictive about who is given charity, design the programs so their natural progression is toward self-sufficiency, and (except for the truly helpless) make it less convenient to be on the dole. Otherwise we're perpetuating the ugliest & most inhumane aspects of our country in the name of compassion. Incentives. Its all about incentives. Even total degenerates with no education can recognize a good deal when they see one. If you want your kid to go mow the lawn and you offer him $10 once he finishes the job or $8 regardless of the outcome, what do you think hes going to do? Taking the easy $8 doesn't mean that the child is inherently lazy or bent on scamming the system. It means the system sucks. i think it can be improved in several ways. my preference is to increase the minimum wage. yours, presumably, is to decrease hand outs. how bout both? but paying people less than they can reasonably live on without any health insurance after working a full work week is clearly part of the problem, in my view. changing minimum wage laws would very likely change the distribution of wealth in the country. there would still be very wealthy individuals, however. is that socialism? i don't think so but others will very likely disagree. Increasing minimum wage would be nice, maybe, but only for those that continue to earn minimum wage, maybe. See price floor, cause and effects. This is 101 level ****. Since when is minimum wage not livable? Any young, single adult with a little financial sense should be able to get by on min wage. Sure you can't raise a family on min wage, but since when is it your right to raise a family regardless of means? Edited January 24, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things. we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path. or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements. One of the better posts I've seen regarding how we treat the welfare dependent of the nation. We need to find a way to get those that are not contributing to become contributing members. The idea that cutting them off will suddenly make them contributing members is myopic at best. Clinton's welfare to work was one of the best ways I've seen to address this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Clinton's welfare to work was one of the best ways I've seen to address this. LOL.........I always like the left's attempts at revisionism Do you mean, by any chance, the welfare reform bill passed by congress that President Clinton signed off on ? The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 LOL.........I always like the left's attempts at revisionism Do you mean, by any chance, the welfare reform bill passed by congress that President Clinton signed off on ? No, I'm sure he meant Clinton's welfare reform bill, much like he references Clinton's budget surplus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts