Obamacare
Replies
-
The topic of the post was "Obamacare" - so people on public assistance are not what we're talking about here. The Medicaid system for those folks is a longstanding program.
So what about this?{{snip}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
{{snip}}
Yes, you are right. Someone will always be in the bottom 10%, however, the expectation(hope) would be that those individuals would take the opportunities this country provides everyone to better their situation and rise from that situation. This country does have many programs in place that cater to the poor such as food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid(free healthcare) and many others. Of course there are individuals who genuinely need these service and for that reason I believe it is right that the services exist, however, I have personally witnessed the abuse of these services by a significant population. Poverty rates have not significantly dropped in over 40 years. Is that because welfare has created a "culture of proverty"? Income taxes are only paid by the top 50% of the population so to increasingly burden those same tax payers when the bottom 50% have no skin in the game and when there has been no appreciable decline in proverty rates over the last 40 years, to me, is unjust.
Gotta go. I'll need to continue the fun another day. Have a good one.
Subway is not going anywhere. Papa John's pizza is not going anywhere. Walmart is not going anywhere. The folks who work there do not have health insurance,,, or if they do the Co. pays such a tiny piece of the cost that nobody can actually use it (you can get paid in dollars, OR in insurance, your choice - I know people who make this choice). These are the folks who the ACA is all about. Right now they have no insurance, so they use lots of robitussin and just pray they don't get really sick. When they do get sick they go to the ER, get treated, and walk out with a $3,500 bill they can't pay. This is what Obamacare is trying to fix.
Your answer to everything is hard work and education - but understand this: If every person working at Subway goes out and gets an engineering degree, it will not solve the larger problem. Yes, those folks will probably go find better jobs (until there is a glut of engineers,,, which could happen) - but other folks will slide in to Subway and start putting them $5 footlongs together. Somebody is going to be standing there with poly gloves on, and that person is not going to have health insurance. Making health care affordable for the folks that need it is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.
Right now the working poor 'mooch' free health care off of the rest of us. They ignore symptoms 'til they drop, then go to the ER and get treatment they can't pay for - then we all pay for it. I find it hilarious that the folks who always bring up that "50% don't pay taxes" lie (and it is a lie) are the same ones who don't want this system set up to help the working poor pay for their care.0 -
The topic of the post was "Obamacare" - so people on public assistance are not what we're talking about here. The Medicaid system for those folks is a longstanding program.
So what about this?{{snip}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
{{snip}}
Yes, you are right. Someone will always be in the bottom 10%, however, the expectation(hope) would be that those individuals would take the opportunities this country provides everyone to better their situation and rise from that situation. This country does have many programs in place that cater to the poor such as food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid(free healthcare) and many others. Of course there are individuals who genuinely need these service and for that reason I believe it is right that the services exist, however, I have personally witnessed the abuse of these services by a significant population. Poverty rates have not significantly dropped in over 40 years. Is that because welfare has created a "culture of proverty"? Income taxes are only paid by the top 50% of the population so to increasingly burden those same tax payers when the bottom 50% have no skin in the game and when there has been no appreciable decline in proverty rates over the last 40 years, to me, is unjust.
Gotta go. I'll need to continue the fun another day. Have a good one.
Subway is not going anywhere. Papa John's pizza is not going anywhere. Walmart is not going anywhere. The folks who work there do not have health insurance,,, or if they do the Co. pays such a tiny piece of the cost that nobody can actually use it (you can get paid in dollars, OR in insurance, your choice - I know people who make this choice). These are the folks who the ACA is all about. Right now they have no insurance, so they use lots of robitussin and just pray they don't get really sick. When they do get sick they go to the ER, get treated, and walk out with a $3,500 bill they can't pay. This is what Obamacare is trying to fix.
Your answer to everything is hard work and education - but understand this: If every person working at Subway goes out and gets an engineering degree, it will not solve the larger problem. Yes, those folks will probably go find better jobs (until there is a glut of engineers,,, which could happen) - but other folks will slide in to Subway and start putting them $5 footlongs together. Somebody is going to be standing there with poly gloves on, and that person is not going to have health insurance. Making health care affordable for the folks that need it is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.
Right now the working poor 'mooch' free health care off of the rest of us. They ignore symptoms 'til they drop, then go to the ER and get treatment they can't pay for - then we all pay for it. I find it hilarious that the folks who always bring up that "50% don't pay taxes" lie (and it is a lie) are the same ones who don't want this system set up to help the working poor pay for their care.
Yes. Exactly. And the working poor aren't the real mooches. The real mooches are the companies that keep them too poor to take care of themselves.0 -
I know that Mara,,, just speaking to my audience.0
-
More of a reason to live in a capitalist country. The harder you work, the more successful you can become.0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
And since we're trading sob stories: I was brought up in a housing project, single mom, youngest of 4. My mother managed to get a Master's degree, which she needed to get a job, while we were on public assistance (welfare). She then managed to buy a house and get us out of the projects. Currently, of the 4 kids, 3 of us have Master's degrees (the fourth opted to make a killing in finance). After my Master's, I was accepted into a fully paid PhD program at a first tier school. I left to go make a killing in consulting.
Yes, our experiences shape our perspectives. And if my family hadn't had welfare - also not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution - to fall back on, who knows how differently things would have worked out. The government was there to support us when we needed it, and I will always be grateful. And I would not presume to take it away from others. I would also like those people to have healthcare, even if they can't afford to pay for it themselves. I'm just kooky that way.
Add to its being stupidly expensive, the health insurance industry has a habit of shirking its half of the contract, and refuses to accept the risk that its whole purpose is to underwrite. So yes, it needs to be regulated. (Well, I think earlier I said it needs to be abolished, which would be better. But I'll take what I can get.)
Good for your mom and your family. If anything your story again reinforces my thinking in that this country already provides ample assistance to those families who need it and helps them on their way to being self sufficient, if they take advantage of the opportunities they have. That is how the system should be used, however, there are many examples where families are on public assistance generation after generation and there in lies the problem. If the assistance is provided without proper regulation, individuals will abuse the system which stigmatizes those individuals who truly need the assistance and is an unnecessary burden for the tax payer who is paying for the services.
Currently those on public assistance do have healthcare(Medicaid) and no I am not proposing getting rid of Welfare, just to be clear. I do agree there needs to be changes in Healthcare. I just don't think the government take over of the industry is the answer.0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.
You might have had a point if this were 1912, however, it's 2012 and nobody is being held against there will to work the less desirable jobs. If someone doesn't like what the job entails, there are many alternative jobs they can pick from. Also, if a job is that undesirable, the labor market will adjust its price point for that job. McDonalds had to raise its starting salaries not because the job got any more difficult but because they were having a hard time filling positions due to the stigma of working at the golden arches. The supply of individuals willing to work their for minimum wage dropped. To overcome the lower supply they had to increase the demand for its job by raising its salary. You can replace "McDonalds" with any other undesirable job and you can see why the most undesirable jobs typically are not the lowest paying jobs, for example sanitation workers. Everyone will clean toilets and bathroom floors for a price. What that price is is different for everyone.0 -
Casper0,
I agree that healthcare needs to be overhauled so that more individuals are able to afford healthcare but ACA is using a sledgehammer when a scalpel is needed.
Just so we are on the same page, there was a study done by the cato institute, which I will provide the link to later, that states the number of involuntarily uninsured to be at just under 11M people. This number is for the population between 18-64 because the income threshold for qualifying your child for Medicaid is fairly high and the elderly over 64 qualify for Medicare. Of the 11M involuntarily uninsured, a little over 3M are not citizens(both legal and illegal). This leaves us with roughly 8M "working poor" which is around 3% of the population. ACA intends to spend close to $1 trillion dollars in 6 years to insure these 8M "working poor" which comes out to around $160B/year(10 years of taxes/6 years of benefits). Doesn't the solution seem extreme?
Half the cost of ACA is going to be covered by $500B in supposed savings to Medicare. Not only is the real cost of ACA going to exceed $160B/year but we are lead to believe that the government will all of a sudden be fiscally responsible in the implementation of ACA and in the cost cutting of Medicare. We all know this not to be true so then what is the end result. We continue to run extreme budget deficits to cover the cost of healthcare in addition to the already insane budget deficits we are running. Our debt has already eclipsed 100% of our GDP. In 10 years it could be 150% of GDP. Greece is in flames with debt at just over 160% of GDP and yet the US continues on the same trajectory.
Healthcare needs help but ACA is not the answer. It only pushes us closer to a financial calamity.0 -
I've been reading Cato for years. They have never, ever, ever thought the government was right about anything. I'm certain this study is evenhanded and fair. "Fair and balanced" even...
The CBO doesn't see it that way, and the CBO was a non partisan body getting stuff right for Dems and Reps long before Cato was even a murmur in Charles Koch's poisoned little heart.0 -
Actually most of Africa is a Libertarian paradise. Minimal government, no EPA, no OSHA, almost no taxes, no interference with private enterprise. Lew Rockwell's ideal structure for running a country is alive and well and working beautifully, in Rwanda.
More of a reason to live in a capitalist country. The harder you work, the more successful you can become.0 -
Actually most of Africa is a Libertarian paradise. Minimal government, no EPA, no OSHA, almost no taxes, no interference with private enterprise. Lew Rockwell's ideal structure for running a country is alive and well and working beautifully, in Rwanda.
More of a reason to live in a capitalist country. The harder you work, the more successful you can become.
What about Somalia--weak central government, strong religious influence -- and everyone has a gun.0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.
You might have had a point if this were 1912, however, it's 2012 and nobody is being held against there will to work the less desirable jobs. If someone doesn't like what the job entails, there are many alternative jobs they can pick from. Also, if a job is that undesirable, the labor market will adjust its price point for that job. McDonalds had to raise its starting salaries not because the job got any more difficult but because they were having a hard time filling positions due to the stigma of working at the golden arches. The supply of individuals willing to work their for minimum wage dropped. To overcome the lower supply they had to increase the demand for its job by raising its salary. You can replace "McDonalds" with any other undesirable job and you can see why the most undesirable jobs typically are not the lowest paying jobs, for example sanitation workers. Everyone will clean toilets and bathroom floors for a price. What that price is is different for everyone.
Do you truly believe that if everyone had a PhD in engineering, we would all have jobs? Again. Someone must scrub the toilets. How you feel about their life choices does not give society the right to treat those people as disposable and unworthy of decent healthcare and a decent standard of living.0 -
Rep. Allen West Says Americans Should Be Mandated To Buy A Glock 9mm Handgun Or Be Taxed
July 3, 2012
By Kimberley Johnson
Rep. Allen West (R-FLA) suggests that if Americans are required to buy health insurance, they should also be required to purchase a Glock 9mm handgun.
At a campaign rally in Florida on Sunday, he said that it was “unconscionable” that SCOTUS upheld the health insurance mandate.
West: “What will be next?” “If you don’t buy a certain type of green card, they will tax you. If you don’t buy a certain type of food, they will tax you.”
“Well, I got a great idea, I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one.”
So basically, what West advocates is being armed and to be prepared for violent action. His question about how the liberals would feel proves that he is viewing this health insurance mandate as a call to war. An “us against them” mentality. His veiled message is quite clear: Be prepared to shoot anyone who does not take on the Republican ideology.
An ABC news article cites a poll by Kaiser Family Foundation that 56 percent of respondents say they would prefer the opponents to Obamacare stop efforts to block the law and move on to other issues.
Show me ONE Democratic politician suggesting that women should arm themselves with weapons because of the blatant attack on women’s rights. Or one suggesting that people who have been out of work and can’t afford health insurance should get a gun as a way to send a message to the GOP to get busy creating some kind of job bill.
The message sent is violent. Conservatives have always been able to march in lockstep. They follow the leader without thought or any questioning. Consider this when voting.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/03/rep-allen-west-says-americans-should-be-mandated-to-buy-a-glock-9mm-handgun-or-be-taxed/0 -
I don't read Allen West's comment as a call to violence, I read it as a poke at anyone who is left of his politics in the very mistaken belief that everyone who is hates guns and wants to ban gun ownership.0
-
Same here. We can't fight right their lies with lies of our own,,, it's wrong, and it won't work. West is a crank and probably a sociopath, but he didn't mean that 9mm wisecrack way that writer took it.I don't read Allen West's comment as a call to violence, I read it as a poke at anyone who is left of his politics in the very mistaken belief that everyone who is hates guns and wants to ban gun ownership.0 -
As a liberal I just want to go on record and state that this is utterly unacceptable. I would never ever own a Glock 9mm.
“Well, I got a great idea, I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one.”
My M1911 .45 ACP has twice the stopping power and was made in the USA.0 -
As a liberal I just want to go on record and state that this is utterly unacceptable. I would never ever own a Glock 9mm.
“Well, I got a great idea, I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one.”
My M1911 .45 ACP has twice the stopping power and was made in the USA.
:laugh: Beggers can't be choosers, though. I'm too broke right now to afford firearms and ammo, I think I'll write him a nice letter promising to comply with his gun ownership push if the government will simply offer me a no interest loan and reasonable payments on weapon, ammunition, and classes.0 -
Same here. We can't fight right their lies with lies of our own,,, it's wrong, and it won't work. West is a crank and probably a sociopath, but he didn't mean that 9mm wisecrack way that writer took it.I don't read Allen West's comment as a call to violence, I read it as a poke at anyone who is left of his politics in the very mistaken belief that everyone who is hates guns and wants to ban gun ownership.
It always sounds bad become conservatives have NO sense of humor--when then try to make jokes, it always sounds creepy. Unfortunately, the twitterverse must have a continuous feed of outrage--faux or otherwise--in order to survive. Umbrage seems to be the ultimate renewable resource.0 -
Oh wait, I thought of a way to be even more of a total *kitten*:
I'll then default on the loan and tell him he can have my gun when he pries it from my cold dead fingers!0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.
You might have had a point if this were 1912, however, it's 2012 and nobody is being held against there will to work the less desirable jobs. If someone doesn't like what the job entails, there are many alternative jobs they can pick from. Also, if a job is that undesirable, the labor market will adjust its price point for that job. McDonalds had to raise its starting salaries not because the job got any more difficult but because they were having a hard time filling positions due to the stigma of working at the golden arches. The supply of individuals willing to work their for minimum wage dropped. To overcome the lower supply they had to increase the demand for its job by raising its salary. You can replace "McDonalds" with any other undesirable job and you can see why the most undesirable jobs typically are not the lowest paying jobs, for example sanitation workers. Everyone will clean toilets and bathroom floors for a price. What that price is is different for everyone.
Do you truly believe that if everyone had a PhD in engineering, we would all have jobs? Again. Someone must scrub the toilets. How you feel about their life choices does not give society the right to treat those people as disposable and unworthy of decent healthcare and a decent standard of living.
I never said everyone had to have a PHD in anything. You were talking about a livable wage. That can be accomplished without a PHD or even college, for that matter. Someone will always scrub the toilets because there will always be a demand for that job at a specific wage point. I never said I look at anyone as disposable or unworthy. Their choices are their's alone. I agree healthcare should and can be made much more affordable. We differ on how that should be accomplished.0 -
I've been reading Cato for years. They have never, ever, ever thought the government was right about anything. I'm certain this study is evenhanded and fair. "Fair and balanced" even...
The CBO doesn't see it that way, and the CBO was a non partisan body getting stuff right for Dems and Reps long before Cato was even a murmur in Charles Koch's poisoned little heart.
The CBO updated ACA price tag. The CBO can only make projections based on the information provided to them by politicians. It is true that the cost of ACA was initially $900B, but that was with only 6 years of implementation. The true cost will be almost twice as much when implemented for a decade.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html0 -
If that bloggerhead leans any harder to the right he'll fall over.I've been reading Cato for years. They have never, ever, ever thought the government was right about anything. I'm certain this study is evenhanded and fair. "Fair and balanced" even...
The CBO doesn't see it that way, and the CBO was a non partisan body getting stuff right for Dems and Reps long before Cato was even a murmur in Charles Koch's poisoned little heart.
The CBO updated ACA price tag. The CBO can only make projections based on the information provided to them by politicians. It is true that the cost of ACA was initially $900B, but that was with only 6 years of implementation. The true cost will be almost twice as much when implemented for a decade.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html
How about this - instead of you quoting Cato and Newsmax and this Teabagger on Yahoo! - and me quoting Huffingtonpost and Daily Kos - how about we read what the actual CBO says,,, and not what some hack says the CBO says.
http://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care/affordable-care-act
0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.
You might have had a point if this were 1912, however, it's 2012 and nobody is being held against there will to work the less desirable jobs. If someone doesn't like what the job entails, there are many alternative jobs they can pick from. Also, if a job is that undesirable, the labor market will adjust its price point for that job. McDonalds had to raise its starting salaries not because the job got any more difficult but because they were having a hard time filling positions due to the stigma of working at the golden arches. The supply of individuals willing to work their for minimum wage dropped. To overcome the lower supply they had to increase the demand for its job by raising its salary. You can replace "McDonalds" with any other undesirable job and you can see why the most undesirable jobs typically are not the lowest paying jobs, for example sanitation workers. Everyone will clean toilets and bathroom floors for a price. What that price is is different for everyone.
Do you truly believe that if everyone had a PhD in engineering, we would all have jobs? Again. Someone must scrub the toilets. How you feel about their life choices does not give society the right to treat those people as disposable and unworthy of decent healthcare and a decent standard of living.
I never said everyone had to have a PHD in anything. You were talking about a livable wage. That can be accomplished without a PHD or even college, for that matter. Someone will always scrub the toilets because there will always be a demand for that job at a specific wage point. I never said I look at anyone as disposable or unworthy. Their choices are their's alone. I agree healthcare should and can be made much more affordable. We differ on how that should be accomplished.
Making sure that what is called the working poor has access to decent healthcare is one big factor in not treating them as disposable, but it's not the only factor. And you have also not considered the welfare of people with subnormal IQs, mental problems, physical problems, and other issues beyond their control that makes college and a skilled job impossible for them. Those people are no less deserving than anyone else of a decent wage and a decent life.0 -
I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}
My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen.
I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.
The facts are the facts. In some people's minds, there seems to be a statute of limitations wherein past reality ceases to exist and can no longer affect the present.
Reality doesn't always fit neatly into election cycles.
The reality is that the seeds of the financial crisis and the current disaster we call an economy were sown in the Clinton administration and one can argue even before then. The fact is GWBs policies while he was president didn't prevent what was already in progress so I guess it became the Bush disaster and I don't disagree with that. BHO's policies have not improved what he inherited which whether he (or YOU) likes it or not will effect the election in November. Obama can speak all the spin he wants but in the end he has an awful lot of people in this country that are worse off now then they were on his inauguration day.0 -
...
... Still waiting for a supporter to tell me how Obamacare helps the projected 3 million lower income people that will not be able to afford healthcare AND will be saddled with a tax/penalty (no need to debate semantics as its all the same crap in the end) that they currently do not have to pay.
The Affordable Care Act, while flawed, is a vast improvement over the current system. But first, let me answer your pressing question. It truly IS hard to get a straight answer, though I did skim the 974 page act!!!
It is deceptive to believe the lie that those who pay nothing now for care will be newly burdened. Low income people will be able to enroll in an expanded Medicaid program...IF their states accept it. Of course, many states will object BUT the pressure from the population, including medical staff in the states, will pressure them to accepting it sooner rather than later (one can only hope). By being able to enroll in Medicaid, they pay nothing. In fact, here is the breakdown of those under the ACA who have to buy coverage (from http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/Affordable-Care-Act-What-You-Should-Know-About-The-Affordable-Care-Act.htm) :
Required to buy private coverage
Annual income:
• $43,321 and above for an individual
• $88,201 and above for a family of four
Comments:
• You are not eligible for a subsidy, or financial assistance at this salary level.
• If you remain without health insurance, you may have to pay a penalty of up 2.5% of your income unless you qualify for certain exemptions
Those who currently can't buy health insurance because they can't afford it and who don't fall into the extreme poverty level, have nothing but emergency care. So it is a crock to believe that these people would suffer unduly under the new law. The only way they will suffer under the new law is if individual states decide to continue to exclude them by not adopting the expanded Medicaid.
I love that, and the following:
In every State and for the first time ever, insurance companies are required to publicly justify their actions if they want to raise rates by 10 percent or more and more states have the authority to reject unreasonable premium increases.
Under the new health care law, insurers can no longer impose lifetime dollar limits on care and annual limits are being phased out by 2014.
No more preexisting condition block for employees laid off and forced to get a new insurance plan if they manage to find a new job that actually offers benefits.
There are additional benefits for health professionals. While flawed, it is a huge step in the right direction of modernizing and putting sanity back into "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No one can convince me that affordable health care for all is not in line with these words from the Declaration of Independence. No one can convince me that the monied in this country should have any better access than those who run their industries, produce their goods, harvest their crops, mow their lawns, cook their food and, dare I mention, breed so that this unskilled workforce continues into the future!!!
-Debra
I read the bullet points of the law. I know insurance will be subsidized for the lowest income people. That doesn't change the fact that the CBO estimates 1% of the country will still not have health insurance after the law goes into effect. Most of those people will have an income under single 50k/ family 125k. 25% of those will have an income under single 20k/family 50k.
Is this better? I guess if you are one of the 15% that do not have insurance now and you want insurance then it is better assuming you don't end up part of the 1% the CBO says still wont have insurance.Those who currently can't buy health insurance because they can't afford it and who don't fall into the extreme poverty level, have nothing but emergency care. So it is a crock to believe that these people would suffer unduly under the new law.
I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.
I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.0 -
Rep. Allen West Says Americans Should Be Mandated To Buy A Glock 9mm Handgun Or Be Taxed
July 3, 2012
By Kimberley Johnson
Rep. Allen West (R-FLA) suggests that if Americans are required to buy health insurance, they should also be required to purchase a Glock 9mm handgun.
At a campaign rally in Florida on Sunday, he said that it was “unconscionable” that SCOTUS upheld the health insurance mandate.
West: “What will be next?” “If you don’t buy a certain type of green card, they will tax you. If you don’t buy a certain type of food, they will tax you.”
“Well, I got a great idea, I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one.”
So basically, what West advocates is being armed and to be prepared for violent action. His question about how the liberals would feel proves that he is viewing this health insurance mandate as a call to war. An “us against them” mentality. His veiled message is quite clear: Be prepared to shoot anyone who does not take on the Republican ideology.
An ABC news article cites a poll by Kaiser Family Foundation that 56 percent of respondents say they would prefer the opponents to Obamacare stop efforts to block the law and move on to other issues.
Show me ONE Democratic politician suggesting that women should arm themselves with weapons because of the blatant attack on women’s rights. Or one suggesting that people who have been out of work and can’t afford health insurance should get a gun as a way to send a message to the GOP to get busy creating some kind of job bill.
The message sent is violent. Conservatives have always been able to march in lockstep. They follow the leader without thought or any questioning. Consider this when voting.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/03/rep-allen-west-says-americans-should-be-mandated-to-buy-a-glock-9mm-handgun-or-be-taxed/
Wow. That writer is nuts
0 -
Do you have any idea how big a bullet you dodged? It worked out well for you, because you didn't get sick. If you'd found a lump on lefty one morning and needed treatment for testicular cancer you'd have a whole different point of view.{{snip}}
I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.
I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.
Congrulations on that, BTW. You bet and you won. But let's not pretend that it wasn't a bet.0 -
[/quote]If that bloggerhead leans any harder to the right he'll fall over.
How about this - instead of you quoting Cato and Newsmax and this Teabagger on Yahoo! - and me quoting Huffingtonpost and Daily Kos - how about we read what the actual CBO says,,, and not what some hack says the CBO says.
http://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care/affordable-care-act
[/quote]
Fair enough. I read the following report on the CBO website, which was published May 13th, 2012:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43080
In it the CBO's 2012-2021 estimated gross cost for ACA is roughly $1.5 trillion. They then estimated the cost of ACA for 2012-2022 and the gross cost jumps to $1.76 trillion dollars. The additional expense comes from an additional year of implementation of the plan. In the 2012-2021 estimate there are only 8 years of actual benefits being provided to the public.(Benefits begin in 2014). When estimating it out to 2022, they are including 9 years of benefits. The difference in the two estimates equals roughly $260B. That is the cost of 2022. If we add another year to this estimate to make it a true 10 year outlook, the gross cost of ACA will exceed $2 trillion dollars/ decade.
Obama sold this on the idea the cost would not eclipse $900B for a decade, not that it would matter to me. I am against taxes being raised, however, I would have had more respect for him if he would have said I am going to raise taxes by $2 trillion dollars to cover the cost of this healthcare initiative instead of using accounting tricks to make it appear what its not. The reality is he is going to raise taxes by $500B and "try" to cut $500B in Medicare over the next decade. He is still short a trillion dollars+ and these are only the estimates for now.
I know I'm repeating myself but it seems people don't want to see whats happening. We are borrowing over a TRILLION dollars each year from China, Japan and who ever else will lend us money. The economy is not growing fast enough to sustain this level of spending. We have to cut spending to just breakeven on our curernt budgets let alone trying to put a dent in what we already owe. This healthcare initiative could not have come at a worse time. Do any of you currently have 100% of your income in unsecured debt? Do any of you have 150% of your income in unsecured debt? It's unsustainable.0 -
Do you have any idea how big a bullet you dodged? It worked out well for you, because you didn't get sick. If you'd found a lump on lefty one morning and needed treatment for testicular cancer you'd have a whole different point of view.{{snip}}
I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.
I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.
Congrulations on that, BTW. You bet and you won. But let's not pretend that it wasn't a bet.
Let's also not pretend that if someone had bet and lost and then come here bemoaning their $700,000 medical bill, people wouldn't have scolded them. People would say that person should have quit college, worked full time at McD's for their pitiful insurance, and then taken one course at a time to graduate (15 years later).0 -
Under Obamacare you can stay on your parents insurance until you are 26.
Do you have any idea how big a bullet you dodged? It worked out well for you, because you didn't get sick. If you'd found a lump on lefty one morning and needed treatment for testicular cancer you'd have a whole different point of view.{{snip}}
I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.
I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.
Congrulations on that, BTW. You bet and you won. But let's not pretend that it wasn't a bet.
Let's also not pretend that if someone had bet and lost and then come here bemoaning their $700,000 medical bill, people wouldn't have scolded them. People would say that person should have quit college, worked full time at McD's for their pitiful insurance, and then taken one course at a time to graduate (15 years later).0 -
Under Obamacare you can stay on your parents insurance until you are 26.
Do you have any idea how big a bullet you dodged? It worked out well for you, because you didn't get sick. If you'd found a lump on lefty one morning and needed treatment for testicular cancer you'd have a whole different point of view.{{snip}}
I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.
I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.
Congrulations on that, BTW. You bet and you won. But let's not pretend that it wasn't a bet.
Let's also not pretend that if someone had bet and lost and then come here bemoaning their $700,000 medical bill, people wouldn't have scolded them. People would say that person should have quit college, worked full time at McD's for their pitiful insurance, and then taken one course at a time to graduate (15 years later).
Yep. The bill isn't all bad, but I think it should have been much better. Much, much better.0
This discussion has been closed.