Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I will read that. I've read tons of articles about Robert Moses but it's not the same as getting a complete picture of how he transformed the city. Might also pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged, too, since it seems like so many people like him were heavily influenced by Ayn Rand.
A great book but I do not recall any mention of Ayn Rand.
Moses was what he was- an unelected official with too much power.
Maybe if Trump manages to cut eliminate Medicaid these doctors will end up making no money. Your doctor friends are stupid since they are living of Medicaid just as much as their patients and are as dependent on this program as them. The reason Congress has not been able to eliminate Medicaid is because of lobbying from hospitals, for some very obvious reasons.
Very few doctors are stupid, and none of them are living of Medicaid (the 100% Medicaid hospitals have a mindboggling turnaround of physicians. Some doctors may have some reasons to work there for a time, but almost nobody stays there for a long time, and these hospitals tend to be severely understaffed. Many physicians do not accept Medicaid at all already, particularly if they actually have experience with it and know in practical terms what it is).
Okay, let me show you this from the different angle. My primary home for a very long time has been in Massachusetts (although I travel far more than I am at home), and for the last 20 years I have lived in a city area that has no poverty. I pay entirely for my own health insurance (since I am self-employed), and at the age of 58, that comprehensive, excellent insurance costs me only about $360 per month in MA. How is that possible? Here is how. Around 2005, the governor of MA (Mitt Romney, an excellent governor who would have made an excellent president as well if he had a chance) instituted mandatory health insurance for the state, but the premium for the health insurance is determined according to the zip code where you live. In my zip code, I am fairly certain that everybody pays into a health insurance program, and there is easily nobody on subsidized healthcare. If everybody pays into a health insurance program, without having to subsidize any freeloaders, the health insurance premium ends up being very cheap for everybody. If everybody pays their share, there is enough money to cover healthcare for the entire population at the relatively cheap cost to every person insured (the principle which works in Europe as well).
On the other hand, if you have half of the population not paying anything while using medical services massively (eg, using the emergency room of a hospital as a homeless hotel, or having regularly four kids before age 18 while taking crystal meth daily, resulting in not very healthy kids, in addition to the fact that you have no source of funds to raise those kids even if they were healthy), a healthcare premium doubles for the half of the population that pays for their own healthcare (since anything costs twice as much if the cost of it is split among 50 people rather than among 100 people), while this half of the population is also additionally taxed to pay Medicaid coverage for the freeloaders. That is how the cost of healthcare goes way up for people who actually pay for their healthcare from their own pockets.
If Medicaid is discontinued, the law will also have to be changed such that medical providers are no longer required by law to offer any medical services (no matter how emergent or critical) to uninsured people. You either buy insurance or die. How and where you will buy the insurance is your own business. One of the options is to not have kids or not invest in daily cocaine (or in a Tesla) if you live on minimal or no income, and take care of your own basic needs first (as the rest of us does) before expanding your family or your lifestyle - that is, at least finish high school which is offered to you free of charge (without getting pregnant or getting into a juvenile institution) and find some form of job. You cannot milk the society endlessly and expect no backlash ever (I am not a supporter of Trump, but unfortunately the freeloading component of the society has really crossed the line regarding what they could reasonably ask for, and something like Trump was inevitably going to sprout out sooner or later in response to it. I would have greatly preferred if problems could have been solved in a more civilized manner than Trump administration is doing, but you get what you push for).
Nobody wants to get money into those neighborhoods; they want to get money out of them.
Q.E.D. -- my point exactly: no other way to get money into those nabes (investment and nabe revitalization) except by gentrification; i.e., making those nabes richer and richer ones (for richer and richer people)...hopefully by the next downswing in the housing cycle, those luxury high-rises will be within reach of working folk at last....
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC refugee
In fact, today's news had the big "news" that DiBlasio says the city is going to purchase buildings - cluster buildings - where they've been housing the homeless and paying the landlords exorbitant rents. But you know why this is going to hurt regular people even more? These were rent stabilized buildings and rather than rent to working people at a reasonable rate, they stuck homeless people in there and the landlords got market rate from the city (out of your tax dollars). What do you think will happen to the stabilized tenants when the city buys the buildings to use for the homeless? How much do you think DiBlasio will pay his developer cronies for these run-down old buildings? Do you think that any of that was an accident from the first minute they moved a homeless person in?
Yeah, I'm skeptical as to what's really going on behind the scenes.
And being homeless myself, hell to the no would I rent to a homeless person!! I've met folks here that seem so damned genuinely down on their luck and are even attending college but it turns out they're really just lazy pot-smoking man-babies who want "candy" (easy dumb stuff) for breakfast, lunch, and dinner -- they just want to smoke weed and watch YouTube and play video-games while hoping to get disability for nonsense....
I take umbrage at that. My experience has shown me that MOST doctors are stupid, pompous, and overpaid.
Likewise, my experience has shown me that most Chinese speak incomprehensible nonsense (because I don't know any Chinese and can"t tell what they are saying).
Likewise, my experience has shown me that most Chinese speak incomprehensible nonsense (because I don't know any Chinese and can"t tell what they are saying).
Since you want to deport poor Americans from a city they may have been born in to Idaho and jump them in a location that does not want, why don’t your deport yourself back to Russia? No one forced you to come here and get a job and pay all these taxes. I think you’re angry and unhappy because you’re a scorned woman with no love and children.
In the minds of some people, no husband and children equals an unsuccessful life and in old age you will be using some combination of Medicare and Medicaid with no children to help you out, let’s just say the state will intervene.
You’re saying awfully judgmental things about poor people when your own life is not hot. Want girl wants to grow up to be an old maid?
No, you just consider them too ethnic to be white and are projecting your own feelings onto the communities you're talking about to prop up your ridiculous musings. That's all.
No I do not, I consider of everyone of European descent to be white.
Since you want to deport poor Americans from a city they may have been born in to Idaho and jump them in a location that does not want, why don’t your deport yourself back to Russia? No one forced you to come here and get a job and pay all these taxes. I think you’re angry and unhappy because you’re a scorned woman with no love and children.
In the minds of some people, no husband and children equals an unsuccessful life and in old age you will be using some combination of Medicare and Medicaid with no children to help you out, let’s just say the state will intervene.
You’re saying awfully judgmental things about poor people when your own life is not hot. Want girl wants to grow up to be an old maid?
So, if two people want the same thing (eg, to have a condo in NYC), and one of them has saved his/her honestly earned money to buy it, while the other has been living in such a condo on money extorted from the taxpayers (and intends to continue doing so), the person who wants to buy it has no moral right to it, but the person who wants to live there on someone else's money has every right to it?
Regarding your personal remarks, you know nothing about me. I wouldn't know about scorned Russian women without love, as I have never been to Russia, and have lived for many long years in exceptionally happy relationship with the best guy in the world who unfortunately died suddenly at age 59 (I was 52). I did not have kids mostly because I have no interest in kids, though I would have probably had one if I thought I could comfortably raise it the way I would want a kid to be raised (but I certainly do not miss parenthood - being child-free, by personal decision, has enabled million good things in my life). After my late great partner died, I have been very happy by myself, with my huge memories of extremely eventful life full of all kinds of experiences. I have earned my semi-retirement by the age of 50, and could fully retire any time on my own resources, without Medicare let alone Medicaid for which it is unlikely that I would ever qualify (I bought the Parkchester condo with NYC retirement in mind, but if the area remains hostile and dangerous, no problem, I will sell the condo, since I have a number of other options). Regarding what some illiterate peasants might think about a woman without husband and children, (a) I couldn't care less about their opinions (since it is highly unlikely that their women have the kind of life with their husbands that remotely approaches the quality of relationship that I had with my late significant other), and (b) whatever they may think of me, rest assured that I think far lower of them :-). I earned everything in my life by my own efforts, have helped thousands of people in the process, and gave the society far more than I took from it (and I never took anything except the fair payment for my services) - I'm totally okay with that. If someone thinks that's not so hot and being a welfare mother is so much hotter, I simply think he's an idiot, and that's the end of my thinking about it :-),
So, if two people want the same thing (eg, to have a condo in NYC), and one of them has saved his/her honestly earned money to buy it, while the other has been living in such a condo on money extorted from the taxpayers (and intends to continue doing so), the person who wants to buy it has no moral right to it, but the person who wants to live there on someone else's money has every right to it?
Regarding your personal remarks, you know nothing about me. I wouldn't know about scorned Russian women without love, as I have never been to Russia, and have lived for many long years in exceptionally happy relationship with the best guy in the world who unfortunately died suddenly at age 59 (I was 52). I did not have kids mostly because I have no interest in kids, though I would have probably had one if I thought I could comfortably raise it the way I would want a kid to be raised (but I certainly do not miss parenthood - being child-free, by personal decision, has enabled million good things in my life). After my late great partner died, I have been very happy by myself, with my huge memories of extremely eventful life full of all kinds of experiences. I have earned my semi-retirement by the age of 50, and could fully retire any time on my own resources, without Medicare let alone Medicaid for which it is unlikely that I would ever qualify (I bought the Parkchester condo with NYC retirement in mind, but if the area remains hostile and dangerous, no problem, I will sell the condo, since I have a number of other options). Regarding what some illiterate peasants might think about a woman without husband and children, (a) I couldn't care less about their opinions (since it is highly unlikely that their women have the kind of life with their husbands that remotely approaches the quality of relationship that I had with my late significant other), and (b) whatever they may think of me, rest assured that I think far lower of them :-). I earned everything in my life by my own efforts, have helped thousands of people in the process, and gave the society far more than I took from it (and I never took anything except the fair payment for my services) - I'm totally okay with that. If someone thinks that's not so hot and being a welfare mother is so much hotter, I simply think he's an idiot, and that's the end of my thinking about it :-),
You still didn’t mention being married. And you admitted no children. So all you have is an empty home. A woman doesn’t have to be on welfare to have kids, and many welfare mothers have gotten jobs and homes a d moved up in their lives. You’re off the shelf for love and kids so all you have left is hate and an empty home.
Actually, I know plenty of people in one particular upper middle class profession (who generally did not grow in a lower middle class environment either): physicians in surgical specialties. I know hundreds of them. All of them actually have "this kind of mentality". An average surgeon or obstetrician working in all-Medicaid hospital in the area of, say, Stockton CA, tends to make about $250,000 per year (Medicaid does not reimburse much per patient), and tends to pay about $120,000 in federal and California state taxes, almost half of his/her income. This is for working more than 12 hours a day every day, and 36 continuous hours about twice per week, in a tremendously hard and stressful job (imagine taking one of the hardest exams you ever took, asking for complex decisions, and having huge consequences. Now imagine taking that type of exam every day of your life for 40 years, and you'll get the approximate picture of how surgeons live). No one told them they had to be surgeons; if they don't like the working conditions, there are plenty of openings in fast food.
The unemployed Medicaid patient population in, say, Stockton CA consists very substantially of drug addicts, welfare mothers, gangbanger types with gunshot wounds, and the like. Their medical management is typically very difficult, they typically do not pay one cent for that management (their medical care, like their everything else, is subsidized - from, among other sources, the physicians' extremely hard earned money of which almost half goes on taxes in some states like CA), and on top of everything, this type of patient almost universally has an obnoxious attitude of total entitlement (goodness forbid that you have them wait for any extended time while you are taking care of a different emergency!). While a physician will always act politely and professionally to any type of patient, I can firmly reassure you that the only true emotion that an average physician has for the above mentioned patient population is pure disgust. Out of hundreds of physicians that I know in operating specialties, I cannot think of a single one who ever voiced, in the relative privacy of surgical lounge or when the patient is anesthetized, anything but disgust for the Medicaid population, or any political idea other than conservative. Such compassion from the healing profession. Don't forget to tell them what I said about fast food.
I think it must be fairly obvious why. They lack compassion and impartiality and shouldn't be doctors.
Sorry, this is tangential to the topic of this thread, but I couldn't bear not to mention it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
Very few doctors are stupid, and none of them are living of Medicaid (the 100% Medicaid hospitals have a mindboggling turnaround of physicians. Some doctors may have some reasons to work there for a time, but almost nobody stays there for a long time, and these hospitals tend to be severely understaffed. Many physicians do not accept Medicaid at all already, particularly if they actually have experience with it and know in practical terms what it is). Because this kind of doctor is a money grubber and cares nothing for the health and welfare of poor people, the majority of whom are not "gang-bangers" with gunshot wounds. I know doctors who did their residency in hospital like the ones you describe and when they got to the "more conservative" hospitals, they couldn't get back to public health fast enough.
Okay, let me show you this from the different angle. My primary home for a very long time has been in Massachusetts (although I travel far more than I am at home), and for the last 20 years I have lived in a city area that has no poverty. I pay entirely for my own health insurance (since I am self-employed), and at the age of 58, that comprehensive, excellent insurance costs me only about $360 per month in MA. How is that possible? Here is how. Around 2005, the governor of MA (Mitt Romney, an excellent governor who would have made an excellent president as well if he had a chance) Please, oh, please, stop shilling for loser political candidates. instituted mandatory health insurance for the state, but the premium for the health insurance is determined according to the zip code where you live. In my zip code, I am fairly certain that everybody pays into a health insurance program, and there is easily nobody on subsidized healthcare. If everybody pays into a health insurance program, without having to subsidize any freeloaders, the health insurance premium ends up being very cheap for everybody. If everybody pays their share, there is enough money to cover healthcare for the entire population at the relatively cheap cost to every person insured (the principle which works in Europe as well). What is your fair share if you make minimum wage? If you're laid off at age 58? If you're disabled?
On the other hand, if you have half of the population not paying anything while using medical services massively (eg, using the emergency room of a hospital as a homeless hotel, or having regularly four kids before age 18 while taking crystal meth daily, resulting in not very healthy kids, in addition to the fact that you have no source of funds to raise those kids even if they were healthy) Please cite some examples here of 14 yr olds who take crystal meth daily and have a baby a year, along with the names of all the hospitals that allow homeless to house themselves in the ER, where they are then, by definition, no longer homeless., a healthcare premium doubles for the half of the population that pays for their own healthcare (since anything costs twice as much if the cost of it is split among 50 people rather than among 100 people), while this half of the population is also additionally taxed to pay Medicaid coverage for the freeloaders. That is how the cost of healthcare goes way up for people who actually pay for their healthcare from their own pockets. Wrong. The insurance company profit, the money spent lobbying, and the amount paid into politician's campaigns and CEO golden umbrella packages has a little bit to do with this, too.
If Medicaid is discontinued, the law will also have to be changed such that medical providers are no longer required by law to offer any medical services (no matter how emergent or critical) to uninsured people. You either buy insurance or die. How and where you will buy the insurance is your own business. One of the options is to not have kids or not invest in daily cocaine (or in a Tesla) if you live on minimal or no income, and take care of your own basic needs first (as the rest of us does) before expanding your family or your lifestyle - that is, at least finish high school which is offered to you free of charge (without getting pregnant or getting into a juvenile institution) and find some form of job. What happens to the children who are abused at home, some sexually abused, resulting in pregnancy? According to your philosophy, as they are unable to pay for their insurance, they should die. If they leave their abusive homes to save their lives but are too young to work, they should die. What happens to the disabled, especially those disabled on a job? Should they die, too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
I have earned my semi-retirement by the age of 50, and could fully retire any time on my own resources, without Medicare let alone Medicaid for which it is unlikely that I would ever qualify Through the grace of heaven and good health and good luck (I bought the Parkchester condo with NYC retirement in mind, but if the area remains hostile and dangerous, no problem, I will sell the condo, since I have a number of other options). Who will you sell it to if the area is hostile and dangerous?
Regarding what some illiterate peasants might think about a woman without husband and children, (a) I couldn't care less about their opinions Or anybody else's unless they agree with your own (since it is highly unlikely that their women have the kind of life with their husbands that remotely approaches the quality of relationship that I had with my late significant other), LMAO and (b) whatever they may think of me, rest assured that I think far lower of them :-). Believe me, we all know this by now. I earned everything in my life by my own efforts, have helped thousands of people in the process, and gave the society far more than I took from it (and I never took anything except the fair payment for my services) - I'm totally okay with that. If someone thinks that's not so hot and being a welfare mother is so much hotter, I simply think he's an idiot, and that's the end of my thinking about it :-),
Bravo - who was it who asked how Ayn Rand came into the discussion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
