Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 10-25-2007, 03:08 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,930,013 times
Reputation: 2618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
According to Truthout - " UN Hits Back at US in Report Saying Parts of America Are as Poor as Third World (broken link)"

Parts of the United States are as poor as the Third World, according to a shocking United Nations report on global inequality.

[..]
It reveals that the infant mortality rate has been rising in the US for the past five years - and is now the same as Malaysia.

High levels of spending on personal health care reflect America's cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. But the paradox at the heart of the US health system is that, because of inequalities in health financing, countries that spend substantially less than the US have, on average, a healthier population

[..]

Child mortality is on the rise in the United States

For half a century the US has seen a sustained decline in the number of children who die before their fifth birthday. But since 2000 this trend has been reversed.


Even if that were in question, compared to the standards of other countries, particularly the third world, or the standards of yesteryear is largely irrelevant.

This is our society. We have to live in it. We have certain standards. Running water, electricity, clean and safe shelter. That is the basis of our societies norms. Poor people don't live in the third world. If they apply for a job and don't have a phone, they'll probably be looked at with suspicion as a possible criminal or some other mal-content. Our standards demand that you have a phone. Now, if you live in a country where most people don't have phones, then it would be a luxury.
Are we talking about getting a job as a homeless person? Ive seen it done. In fact, there were plenty of opportunities in my home town for it to happen. There are tons of labor jobs that could care less about the details of your app, they just wanted you to show up for work and I have worked many of those in my past.

Thats why I view your "probably looked over" response with skeptisim. Heck, I had a friend in college who moved from place to place each night with no real home or phone and yet he was able to work at a fast food place.

That isn't even going into all the issue with public shelters (who by the way will allow telephone calls and number of residence in the case of a homeless person getting a job). Go work at your local homeless shelter sometime and you will see there are plenty of services that makes getting a job and getting setup possible. How many of these places do the 3rd world countries have or do the governments there even care at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2007, 03:10 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,930,013 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
That's because the American Dream is largely a myth. It used to be a little more true, but it was over inflated hyperbole. And over the course of the last half a century, the likelihood of these things has decreased.

Thus the statistics about the US having low inter-generational mobility.
sorry to correct you, but I am living the American dream. It is not a myth and my friend here who immigrated from another country here (legally) would also have contest with your claim.

The problem with the "American Dream" is that you have to have a "Dream" and the willingness to see it through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2007, 03:34 PM
 
1,573 posts, read 4,057,586 times
Reputation: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Also, as I said before, people pay MORE for plans they do not need. They don't read their policies, they don't make sure it is what they need. You have to take an active part in the process and more importantly, FOLLOW the procedures that your insurance requires in order to have it cover expenses.
Just how much health insurance should a person buy? It is hard for a person to rationaly choose something like that, which is why I'd argue the free market is a poor place to be making healthcare decisions, and one reason the government should take a greater role in the matter. Too many young people under-buy their health insurance and underestimate how catastrophic an illness can be- in the US medical problems are a large part a cost of bankrupcy. For a young person, cancer is rare but can be financially devestating. Accidents, however, occur for all age groups and can likewise send you to the poor house- but these are small risks and some young people chance it, and every year thousands of them guess wrong. OTOH, alot of less healthy people cannot afford health insurance due to pre-existing conditiotns and the fact that healthier people are not paying into their plans.

It is also a myth that poor people don't pay taxes. You know I'm sure what sales taxes and property taxes are, right? They also pay taxes on their employment, called FICA. True, most of it is part of a savings plan called Social Security, but that is in reality a transfer scheme, one that politicians DO touch (in the 80's they moved the SS retirement age from 65 to 67... some want to increase the age to 72... only for younger people, of course, not for themselves).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2007, 04:14 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,930,013 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnulus View Post
Just how much health insurance should a person buy? It is hard for a person to rationaly choose something like that, which is why I'd argue the free market is a poor place to be making healthcare decisions, and one reason the government should take a greater role in the matter. Too many young people under-buy their health insurance and underestimate how catastrophic an illness can be- in the US medical problems are a large part a cost of bankrupcy. For a young person, cancer is rare but can be financially devestating. Accidents, however, occur for all age groups and can likewise send you to the poor house- but these are small risks and some young people chance it, and every year thousands of them guess wrong. OTOH, alot of less healthy people cannot afford health insurance due to pre-existing conditiotns and the fact that healthier people are not paying into their plans.

It is also a myth that poor people don't pay taxes. You know I'm sure what sales taxes and property taxes are, right? They also pay taxes on their employment, called FICA. True, most of it is part of a savings plan called Social Security, but that is in reality a transfer scheme, one that politicians DO touch (in the 80's they moved the SS retirement age from 65 to 67... some want to increase the age to 72... only for younger people, of course, not for themselves).


How much should they buy depends on what they need. Answer me this. Are people too stupid? Are they incapable of making decisions for themselves? You seem to think so with your claim that people "can't" find the policies they need. Care to bold that and tell the people of the US they are too stupid to make their own decisions? That is what you are saying is it not?

Education and responsibility. That is all that is needed and if you think people need to attend a school to learn, then you have a very poor opinion of the capabilities of people. My point has always been on that people are "capable", but not "willing". You go ahead and tell them they are stupid though and you know whats best for them, I know that will go over well.

I did not say they did not pay taxes, I said they pay little. Sorry that the original source of the governments reports are not good enough for you. Maybe we need to seek moveon.org to make claims? Hmmm?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2007, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,184,820 times
Reputation: 6552
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
I don't think workfare is a good idea for a number of reasons... long-term involuntary unemployment does happen and you don't want to take benefits away from people who can't find a job even when they try to do so. Raising a child is a form of "work" and for the kids' sake I don't think it's a good idea to force single parents into the labor market when the time might be better spent raising kids... "Shouldn't have had kids outside of a commited relationship," you might say, but there's plenty of single mothers who likely thought they WERE in one but found out otherwise after it was too late.

It can also keep people bound to low wage jobs for fear of losing benefits if they get fired, or switch to another job with higher pay but lower security. It decreases the number of options available.

Another thing to remember is that, despite any "welfare moms with 8 kids" you might have seen recently, the fact remains that even before "welfare reform" most families on welfare had 1 or 2 kids and stayed on the system for a relatively short period of time. There weren't a lot of "lifers." Now there can't be, since the time limit's 5 years and that's IF the mom goes out and gets a job that pays low enough to keep benefits coming in. Welfare's already been turned into workfare, for the most part.
Not many of us conservs have an issue with short term use of the system. At least I dont. My issue is with those who have made a career of it and in turn taught their children.
Workfare would deny no one any benifits, and it is hardly forced labor. At least no more so than me having to go to my job everyday. The old saying nessesity is the mother of invention comes to mind. If someone hates what they do enough they will aggressively seek alternatives. Not saying workfare should be dirty or dangerous work. But most likely low skill ie dull.
Families that scam the system are a bane to us all. worse still those who know families that do it but dont report it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2007, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,993,763 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Workfare would deny no one any benifits, and it is hardly forced labor.
I'd assume the only way to make sure people worked would be to deny them benefits if they couldn't find a job. You're right that it's no more "forced labor" than you having to work for your own sustenance, but that brings us to the old socialist vs. capitalist philosophical question of whether being forced by the realities of life to serve an employer for sustenance constitutes "forced labor," and whether society would be better if everyone were guaranteed at least a basic minimum of living standards, no luxuries, but a safe, uncrowded apartment, healthcare, education, and food, regardless of whether or not they decided to "work for the man" and "get ahead..." The resounding "NO!" answer has been ingrained in all of our American minds since childhood (the idea contradicts the Protestant work ethic), and I'm not sure that I would go for an unqualified "yes" myself, but I think that it is a question worth pondering, at least. You should ponder it for a second. There are legitimate forms of work that contribute to society but that typically don't involve the worker/volunteer being paid (or paid well) for his or her actions. And there are lines of "work" that pay well yet contribute very little, (property speculation, for instance) and numerous "trust fund babies" and Paris Hilton types who'll never experience this "forced labor." You could reduce the disincentive to work by graduating the benefits the higher up the income ladder you went, so that one always has more for making more... it seems like there would actually be a GREATER incentive to move from low-wage labor to higher wage labor, since the fear of failure would be smaller. Do you consider this to be an idiotic thought? Would everyone end up starving and smoking pot on the couch?

I dragged this really off topic from the original title, but it is a 51-page long thread, what can I say?

Last edited by fishmonger; 10-25-2007 at 09:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2007, 11:43 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in Flyover country
531 posts, read 1,741,571 times
Reputation: 180
Even with the wealthy, there are those who want to work and volunteer to help others and make a difference (I think Mother Theresa came from a fairly well-to-do family),and the Paris Hiltons who just want to party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2007, 02:55 AM
 
1,573 posts, read 4,057,586 times
Reputation: 527
People don't always "know what's best" for themselves. It is hard to rationally approach an issue like healthcare and rationalize it into dollars and cents. There is a large amount of risk, and some people are bad at evaluating risk, or they might have incomplete knowledge. People don't always know how much of a deductable will be acceptable for their financial circumstances. Holding this kind of stuff up to market forces is frankly inhuman, becaues some people will guess wrong. What do they do, have their body eaten alive by cancer or diabetes... all for the want of insurance?

In addition, some people just cannot buy private insurance, not because they cannot afford it, but because insurance companies can reject them.

There are also substantial savings in healthcare to be had by pooling economic resources via the government. A program like Medicare or Medicaid has far less overhead than a private insurance program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2007, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,147,082 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
How much should they buy depends on what they need. Answer me this. Are people too stupid? Are they incapable of making decisions for themselves? You seem to think so with your claim that people "can't" find the policies they need. Care to bold that and tell the people of the US they are too stupid to make their own decisions? That is what you are saying is it not?

Education and responsibility. That is all that is needed and if you think people need to attend a school to learn, then you have a very poor opinion of the capabilities of people. My point has always been on that people are "capable", but not "willing". You go ahead and tell them they are stupid though and you know whats best for them, I know that will go over well.

I did not say they did not pay taxes, I said they pay little. Sorry that the original source of the governments reports are not good enough for you. Maybe we need to seek moveon.org to make claims? Hmmm?
Yes, I will care to bold the wave and say that America is stupid when it comes to insurance. Instead of shopping around and paying more - most Americans go through their jobs. This has made America a slave to the companies they work for and the insurance companies.

Personally, I think the tax-paid education system needs to teach more life-orientated classes. I don't know exact details - but many people do not have any sort of college degree. Instead of a system of public education that is merely a bridge between society-paid and individually-paid, there needs to be at least the opportunity to learn things like Money Management, Balancing a Checkbook, Credit Card schemes, Insurance, House-buying,etc.

Just one class would cover it, maybe two. But I think that learning those skills in Public Education would, hopefully, help the younger society make better decisions - better than the decisions of the parents before them.

No, not all learning should be in a classroom - but many children learn these "skills" from the parents. The parents make the wrong choices, only to be repeated by their children.. who don't know any better.

I'll stand up and say that when I first marched myself into the world on my own two feet... I didn't understand insurance one bit. I probably got an over-inflated plan that cost me too much - when I delivered my daughter, the bill came to a grand total of $300 combined.

America is stupid. There's any number of environmental and social reasons to this claim. Clean and clear - American society is a made up of hypocrites. Everyone's a hypocrite in some fashion.

People complain about the damages of second-hand smoke.. and yet they drive vehicles that pollute far more than any cigarette. People mock and "torture" fast food workers when they themselves started off in a meager "dead end" position. People complain about how horrible the justice system is, then call the police when somebody robs them.

Nomander, you're very lucky to have the wife you have. Her experience in the field of Medical Insurance has very much helped you and her out. Not everyone has the experience and knowledge she has - not everyone knows the "perfect" plan and where to get it at the right price.

Insurance is supposed to be the private safety net that individuals can rely on. However, that safety net for the "what ifs" is not 100% going to catch them. Companies pay people big money to find any loophole for a person to fall through - so that the company doesn't have to pay out. This system is so corrupt that something needs to be done.

Why do we have child labor laws? Because companies over-used the "plentiful" cheap labor of children. They abused hundred upon hundreds of children for profit. The companies over did it. The government stepped in. I would like to think that the government did the right thing, in the end. Though, at the time, it increased labor costs - making products more expensive.

The same thing goes for many regulations and programs that the government has put in place. Yes, the government stepping in is not the "best" for everyone. The current government does not have a good track record. But at least securing the bare minimum for every person in this Nation is something that the government can provide for better than any private/local/charity organization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2007, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,200,144 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnulus View Post
People don't always "know what's best" for themselves. It is hard to rationally approach an issue like healthcare and rationalize it into dollars and cents.
Are you suggesting (I hope you are not) that the Government knows what is "best" for me?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:53 AM.

© 2005-2024, 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