U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2020, 09:30 AM
 
Location: New York
3,570 posts, read 3,233,217 times
Reputation: 1319

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BOORGONG View Post
Yes, I also heard a lot said about the fact that the US cannot adapt the model from Europe or Japan or Canada. Fair enough, the model the US chooses is its own, but I think that Bernie Sanders and Obama have been targets of calumny by the industry that focussed on the concept that Americans will be robbed of their choice of insurance. In Canada, you can buy extra insurance for private care if you want to, dental care is covered by private not universal like European plans.

-But the crux of it is this; that private insurers are behind the government schemes in all countries, anyway. In the US, it is more about keeping the costs as high as can be borne by the insured, that's about it.

-The other difference is that the lack of affordability restricts its use to a higher stressed middle class beholdened to the system.
Americans don't have choices now. If they are lucky, they work for an employer who has many to chose from. Even if they do, their choices are limited by the cost of the plans. Others have employers who only have one plan. It's take this, or nothing. Then Americans can't see the doctor they want to see, because that doctor doesn't take their plan. It goes on an on. Americans also stay in jobs that for other reasons limit them because of health insurance. We have the illusion of choice, not actual choice.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 01-10-2020, 09:32 AM
 
Location: New York
3,570 posts, read 3,233,217 times
Reputation: 1319
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
My questions about Canada were of course rhetorical, I know how they have "a larger safety net and better regulations". They require most people to pay into the safety net (rather than less than half of the population paying for the entire population), they do not permit a wide and routine abuse of welfare funds, and their immigration regulations are aimed at keeping the total population low as well as relatively skilled. That is all, there isn't any "rest" to take into account, so there is no cognitive bias.


But you are right, I caught a bad habit of fairly frequent posting on this forum... with your resulting impression that this forum or its usual topics greatly matter to me. I really should stop, not because your impression means anything, but because a public forum habit really is a waste of time :-).
I'm tired of arguing with your clearly unfactual statement. Please provide evidence of the wide and routine abuse of welfare funds. People love to hate on those who have less than them with facts that are simply not true. Furthermore, EVERYONE pays taxes. Some pay less or none in Federal, but no one doesn't pay taxes.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-10-2020, 09:35 AM
 
Location: New York
3,570 posts, read 3,233,217 times
Reputation: 1319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Retired View Post
Excerpt: Four hundred some dollars per month doesn't pull you out of poverty,

Opinion: I think there is much more to it than that........

Knew someone around 2010 ....had a $1,200 N.Y. apartment studio paid for by N.Y. Housing......$800 a month disability.....
$400 a month food stamps not including medical coverage,transportation an many other amenities for free free free.....
Laid around the house all day watching T.V. and complaining about their personal unfairness and treatment.
Doing almost as good or better than people working for a living. Welcome to N.Y. where you can ride the coat tails of the
working class and complain.
Why do you think that the bold part is not about mental illness? You don't have to have schizophrenia to have mental illness? Dysthymia, and major depression is a thing. Do you not think that has an effect on someone's ability to be a go getter? How come our mental health system is so poor? Do you know how difficult it is to get adequate treatment when you need those services. Its abysmal. Most shrinks don't take insurance. Many don't specialize. many don't take kids. A lot of poor people do suffer mental illness. Heck, most Americans need shrinks.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-10-2020, 10:30 AM
 
4,213 posts, read 1,538,400 times
Reputation: 5321
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
I'm tired of arguing with your clearly unfactual statement. Please provide evidence of the wide and routine abuse of welfare funds. People love to hate on those who have less than them with facts that are simply not true. Furthermore, EVERYONE pays taxes. Some pay less or none in Federal, but no one doesn't pay taxes.

At least 52.2 million Americans (who live on welfare) do not pay taxes - that is factual. Welfare income is not taxed. More than half of Americans pay $0 in income tax - that is also factual. At least 52.2 million Americans pay nothing for their health insurance, and an additional number (I don't know how large) pay a reduced premium for health insurance - that is also factual. The majority of people with some form of what is considered "mental illness" per DSM5 are perfectly capable of working even when untreated let alone when treated (there is even work therapy for mental illness), and all mentally ill people (as well as mentalky healthy ones) are capable of not having kids if they are not capable of raising them.


Having kids that one does not have resources to raise (as a couple or a single parent) is in itself a blatant abuse of welfare money. Kids are biologic but no longer mandatory (just as measles are biologic but no longer mandatory - civilized society is founded on the fact that we don't treat biologic phenomena as mandatory any more), and nobody has any authomatic right to have them. It has been an accepted practice since before humans evolved from lower organisms that parents take care of their kids, because non-parents feel no biologic need to do so (and have their own biologic needs to take care of). As we became civilized, we contributed charity money for poor people who ended up with a lot of kids - but now that there is a reliable contraception available, poor people should become civilized too, and stop burdening other people with their kids. The cost of that burden is enormous - in supporting every aspect of these people's lives, and in the damages (eg, crime) that these people disproportionately cause.



Pregnant-while-poor is the prime abuse of welfare money. A swich from traditional welfare to UBI would markedly disincentivize that form of abuse, because people who fund their life by breeding would no longer be paid for that activity. Welfare outlay would decrease, crime would decrease, population would decrease, and relative % of people contributing to common insurance pools would increase - the US would be far more similar to Canada.


You can run whatever "sophisticated" verbal circles you want around the root of poverty and welfare problem in the US, trying to make that root look like something else - but the only root of poverty in the US and everywhere else remains the high rate of procreation among the poor people. There is no other "rich" country in the world that also has a very large number of poor people and high reproductive rate, although every other "rich" country in the world also has mega-rich industrialists (what, people who own Volvo in Sweden and Toyota in Japan aren't rich?) - which is obviously because poverty is caused by poor people reproducing themselves in large numbers, and not by "rich industrialusts" as you are trying to construct with "sophisticated analysis" (I guess trying to teach the unsophisticated me, though I have heard your parroted sophisticated analysis a million times, understand it very well, and see clearly why it is wrong. Whether you say that 1+1 equals 3, or you say that the integral from zero to the square of 1 equals 3, you are equally wrong although the latter is a more sophisticated way of being wrong :-). The said rich industrialists, on the contrary, provide jobs for those who want to work, and tax revenue for those who can't (or too often don't want to).

Last edited by elnrgby; 01-10-2020 at 10:45 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-10-2020, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
876 posts, read 426,659 times
Reputation: 1540
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
Okay, I do intend to stop (though not because of being clueless, but because I'm wasting too much time here :-). But since your opinion is that parenting is about love, and money is so much less important, I think that points to the perfect solution for the US welfare burden: since parenting is not particularly about money, let's completely stop giving any financial support to people who are getting it for their kids, let's discontinue tax breaks for having kids, let's abolish school taxes, let's de-fund everything that has to do with kids - since love is so much more important for parenting than money. I totally support that notion - welfare queens can raise their offspring on love only, and I get to keep the part of my hard-earned money which I am right now required to turn over to them. Please tell the government the same thing that you told me - that they are childish and clueless when allocating so much money to child services, since good parenting is about love and not money.


Incidentally, there is a form of tax that I do support, and that is sales tax including VAT (I agree with a lot of Yang's financial solutions in general). Interpersonal commerce should be taxed in such a way that people pay tax for products and services they are using - not pay tax so that somebody else can use products and services for free! I am not the one that should be funding someone else's use of baby products - the parents should be paying for them, AND be paying tax on them (and I'll gladly pay my own tax on transportation and accommodations when traveling, because travel is something I love, and am aware that things I love DO cost money, and I do plan them accordingly).
We are talking about $75,000 a year! I'm not talking about parents who don't work and are on welfare. There is a massive difference. Do I think lazy people on welfare should start knocking out a bunch of kids just to be paid by the government? No! But it's very possible to be lower-middle-class and still raise good humans with love and teaching them the right ways.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-10-2020, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Confines of the 101 Precinct
25,235 posts, read 38,745,116 times
Reputation: 11055
You guys are beating a dead horse. Eleanor is better suited to live out the rest of her existence in either Canada or Benelux. Closing the thread.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: //www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
Rate this post positively
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.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top