Disincentive To Work

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Eric Christian, Oct 4, 2013.

  1. Konfyouzd

    Konfyouzd Dread-I Master Contributor

    Messages:
    22,892
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    :yesway:

    Where we're born and to whom we're born is arbitrary... Our loyalties are not.

    Hell there are laws in some states that will allow me to shoot a man if he enters my home uninvited... That's an American too most likely... You gonna go on a damn crusade for that guy too?

    Most of the people I don't like in this world are American. Why? I live in America. I'm not gonna act like we're always cool just because we happened to have been born in the same general region of the globe. That's ri-goddamn-diculous.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2014
  2. Eric Christian

    Eric Christian Banned

    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    149
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Lake Oswego, OR
    The big difference is their rhetoric is just that... nothing more than talking points designed to placate their voters so they can attempt to take over the government again from the other group of crooks. If you think for a minute that Republican Senators & Congress Members are actually against Drone Killings, Obamacare & Handouts you're seriously mistaken. First if all drones are made by aerospace companies that these guys all own stock in plus the factories are often in their home districts so they get kickbacks from that. Next Obamacare is a big giveaway to big HMO & Pharma which they all again own stock in plus they move back and forth freely from the government to executive positions within these companies. And lastly Republicans love nothing more than a whole culture of people on food stamps & welfare because this creates more people on drugs and alcohol to create a steady stream of fodder for their privately owned prisons & law enforcement.

    You really ought to read more Watty before your knee jerks again and you label someone else a Republican just because they said something negative about your precious Messiah Obama.
     
  3. Mik3D23

    Mik3D23 things

    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    73
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Location:
    Honesdale, PA
    So if republicans secretly want these things so much, why are they so vehemently against them? Why have they spent 6 years not allowing progress to be made just because of the same topics over and over again? What do they gain out of pretending to be against the things that they secretly support?

    P.S.: Watty never flat-out called you a "republican" (that I saw at least, I may be wrong); as far as I saw he simply deduced from the views and the way you talk about these issues that you seem to be aligned with a typical conservative. First of all, why do you get so offended when being apparently called a republican, and try so hard to make it look like Watty is attacking you? There's a difference between debating and personally attacking someone.. A debate cares not for the person debating, only for facts, which I don't see you present many of. Also, remarks like "just because they said something negative about your precious Messiah Obama" to people who have stated multiple times they don't necessarily support Obama or democrats in general just serves to discredit you.
     
  4. The Reverend

    The Reverend GHETTO KING OF SWAG

    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    431
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    This thread has become a waste of time. An entertaining waste, but a waste nonetheless.

    Any claim that isn't supported by evidence is a useless claim. If I read an article, and they don't mention where they got their facts from, it's not taken to heart. If I read an article, and it says something that isn't supported by facts, I don't take it seriously. If I read an article that mentions other articles that do the aforementioned, I don't take it to heart. The same applies for any other media I consume.

    Here's a thought experiment to try: If you don't believe what the government or the media says because they have an agenda, why do you believe what random people will say? Don't they have an agenda, too? If we're constantly being lied to, why is it only suspected of large entities? Should we believe that only they have motive and gain to lie?
     
  5. Watty

    Watty Naturally Cynical

    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    364
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Location:
    Bellevue, Washington
    All hail Alex Jones!
     
  6. Eric Christian

    Eric Christian Banned

    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    149
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Lake Oswego, OR
  7. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    That's really no different from the scenario with fully privatized insurers. I've had to drive an hour and a half away for totally basic coverage for half a decade under my father's blue cross - blue shield / Aetna plan. I find that annoying, but in comparison I certainly wouldn't complain if I had to travel that far for a CAT scan or to see a top cardiologist, for instance.

    She raises a fair point with the emergency situation, but again, no different from what I've been doing under private insurers in upstate NY for basically the entirety of 1995-2005.

    But kudos an a legitimate media outlet at least.
     
  8. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    Now that this has apparently become the healthcare thread (being that the whole "disincentive to work" angle failed to spark enough anger), would anybody mind telling me whether or not there is a Republican response to the ACA? The vast majority of what I've seen from ACA opposers is just: "Stop Obamacare". I'd consider that fine if not for the fact the the health care system in the US was so broken that it was an international joke. Seriously, my girlfriend is an American citizen, and every time we've thought about moving over there so she can spend some time in a country she loves, we look at the lack of basic social safety nets that exist in every other Western nation and decide it's not worth the risk.

    What is the Republican party proposing as a means of providing actual health care to the majority of US citizens? This link is the closest I've found to a legitimate Republican alternative proposal, and it both retains portions of Obamacare and does nothing to reduce the deficit. One early paragraph in particular jumped out at me:

    So ... when Obama uses tax money to pay for health care it's socialism, but when the Republican base uses tax money to pay for health care it's ... well, it's hidden. Why is nobody talking about this? Or have I just been reading the wrong articles?
     
  9. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL
    We had a good safety net. It was called "go to the ER and get treated if things got that bad."

    What so many seem to be objecting to is that if you didn't have coverage then they stuck you with some huge bill.
    Well who's job is it to pay for your bad health, even if you were born with it?
    Easy. It's your own responsibility.

    Why is it such a bad thing to have to suck it up and deal with your own misfortune?
    So what. You have a big hospital bill hanging over your head and now you can't get a loan for a nice big house or a descent car. Boo Whoo whoo.

    You're still alive. You got treatment. You just don't want to pay for it the rest of your life. Boo Whoo Whoo


    People are now losing jobs, getting hours cut down to levels they can't even pay the bills, and now companies are choosing not to expand when they normally would so it's harder to find second jobs.

    And I hate to break it to you FOX haters, but they called it all along as is.
    They've been on top of this shit since the beginning, bringing the facts to the table, and all the liberals can do is ignore the facts.

    I pitty these crybabies.


    And the republicans are a bunch of screwballs also. Too many career politicians instead of statesmen.
    There are some statesmen, but to get elected they are beholden to these old party organizations.

    We should have just left everything alone and done nothing because less damage would be done that way.
    Until Washington gets an enema nothing will work, and they're the last people who will solve anything IMO.





    Let's solve a big part of the problem right now ;;;;;;;;;;;;

    From this point on, ALL the $ in our national budget for medical care be directed to those under 40yrs old.
    People my age just need to get over themselves and accept that death is too near for us to burden the system with.
    Let's spend the money on helping kids and young adults get the best care possible.
    Older people need to accept their declining health and oncoming demise with bit more grace IMO.

    Now don't get me wrong, I'm scared of dying, but if it comes down to my own treatment or some kid getting his daily grub, then I'll just have to grit my teeth and bare it.


    AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, rant over, and all happy again now. :lol:
     
    The Reverend likes this.
  10. The Reverend

    The Reverend GHETTO KING OF SWAG

    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    431
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    So I should care that people can't pay their bills, as long as they're not hospital bills? Methinks some cognitive bias is on display here.

    A bill that you can't pay is more than just not being able to get a nice house or a decent car. It's not being able to rent an apartment. It's not being able to buy a house, period. It's not being able to get jobs that require credit checks. It's paying deposits on everything, stretching what little money people have.

    Furthermore, and I know this won't persuade you, Trench, we're making people choose between a healthy, possibly productive life, and an unhealthy, unproductive life. Someone who is underemployed and chronically ill won't put as much into the system as someone who is underemployed and healthy. That should concern the budget-minded folks.

    I also don't see how you can be okay with watching people's lives get ruined. Where does that come from? Do you think people can come back from anything without outside help? Or do you not care about the lives of others as long as it doesn't affect your life? Or is it something else altogether?
     
    TRENCHLORD likes this.
  11. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    While I prefer a certain level of free care to everyone, simply as part of being a decent human, I could get along with this mentality as well. But the problem with it is that the arrangements between hospitals and insurance companies has completely skewed the costs of treatments, artificially inflating them beyond what any middle class person can afford out of pocket.

    My friend was recently kept in the hospital for about 4 nights after a double concussion. He received no actual treatment besides saline drips and hospital food, but his bill was more than five thousand dollars. It's hard to put a cost on advanced treatments because I don't know what goes into it, but you know, if you need cancer treatment those bills are enormous. And it's not a bill that hangs over your head, it's a bill you get up front. Good luck getting a loan sizable enough for that.

    Ha, yes, I like the thread's complete metamorphosis into a completely different rag-on-Obama issue.
     
  12. Murmel

    Murmel Fapping to J-rock

    Messages:
    4,153
    Likes Received:
    307
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Location:
    Hotgirl-City, Sweden
    I'm baffled at this post. Really.

    In my commie country we all pay a share of our income to health care, which in turn makes it basically free.
    My sister's meds would cost my family $5000/month, that's without taking hospital visits into account. We would be living in the fcuking street and she'd most likely be dead by now if we lived by your logic, and there are people worse off than us.

    Your whole system seems to be flawed, Obamacare or not. But paying a small amount of your income each month to make life worth living for hundreds of thousands of people is a small price to pay.

    There is no way you can have anyone in your proximity with any medical condition worth mentioning, because you would never say this if you did. The stupidity is beyond me.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again; America is not worth spending your life in unless you're in the top 10% income bracket.
     
    TRENCHLORD likes this.
  13. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL
    You discluded my "plan" that solves this problem.

    Free care and meds for everyone under 40. Unless she's not under 40, in which case it wouldn't be feasible to provide care.
    I'm going on 40 myself, and I see no good reason to sacrifice the economic future of our children just to help old has-beens like me :lol:.


    And to your last point; You must just watch the liberal dominated networks to even think like that. America is a great place to be poor.
    America has "poor" people everywhere walking around in Air Jordans with their heads down, not out of shame, but because they're didling with their iphones.


    And one revision to my plan (hey Obama revises things all the time right);
    Free everything for any age people who have legitimate learning incapacities. (in old terms "retardation" to some degree)


    With the money we'd save by not providing economic assistance to those 40 and older, we could once again return to super-power status and rule the world again :shred:.
    Just like the old days :lol:. Hail Reagan!!!! :hbang:
     
  14. Murmel

    Murmel Fapping to J-rock

    Messages:
    4,153
    Likes Received:
    307
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Location:
    Hotgirl-City, Sweden
    We all know that would never work, nobody would agree with that. I know I wouldn't, I'm not planning on dying from a random illness by 47 just because I can't afford the med bills.
     
  15. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    The problem with this plan is that it does nothing to combat the fact that the US health system is the least efficient in the world. Scroll down to page 4 of that OECD document and check out how much more money the US spent in 2010 than the other OECD nations ($2500 per person per year more than Norway, in second place with a 'social' system) only to see that all but six other nations have higher life expectancy.

    Importantly, that document does not say that any particular system is the best, nor even that social systems are better than market systems. Mainly it says that every OECD nation is paying too much, but here are two important quotes:

    "Australia, Iceland, Japan, Korea and Switzerland perform best in transforming spending into health outcomes."

    "In more than one third of OECD countries, exploiting efficiency gains in the health care sector would allow improving health outcomes as much as over the previous decade while keeping spending constant (Figure 2, Panel B). Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States fall into this group."

    Keep in mind that the OECD is a completely independent international organisation that gathers economic data and uses it to make recommendations to all governments of all persuasions in how to improve the lives of all of their citizens. This is why OECD data is useful: it's neutral, and beneficial.

    An iPhone 5s in the US costs $200. An iPhone 5s in Australia costs $869. Those prices are taken from Apple's American and Australian websites. This is just one representation of how much cheaper 'junk' is in the United States compared with the rest of the world. Poor people can afford consumer electronics, but not decent health care. I couldn't find an official Nike website to compare shoe prices, but rest assured, the price differences are stark. For further reference, I bought an ESP Eclipse through a store I worked at for $2250, which was a thousand dollars less than its off-the-wall price, but a thousand dollars more than the US price. EDIT: The Australian dollar was stronger than the US dollar at the time (US$1.00 AU$1.10), which is important for price comparisons. The AU is currently weaker, but not so weak to make a $600 difference in the price of a phone.

    Consumer goods are heavily, heavily taxed in this country, and much of that money pays for education, health care, public transport, etc... Having stuff does not mean one is living in luxury, it means you look nice and can fiddle with 'cheap' electronic goods up to the point where a broken bone costs you everything.

    Most countries already do that. EDIT: I've made a stupidly massive generalisation, but when I make a mistake, I leave it behind because I feel I should be called out for it. The point of social safety nets is to help the disadvantaged, and most countries have disability pensions, so I guess this comes down to what dictates a 'learning incapacity'. As someone studying / working in education, I'd say it's a condition that in most nations with universal health care systems either gets you a disability pension, or allows access to subsidies for medicine. The over-medicating of young people in the US has been tackled on this forum before, and adding those details here would probably be overkill.

    Apart from the potential for the country saving lots of money by cleaning up its health care system, there are other areas where the US outspends the rest of the world. For example, when you combine the military spending of China, Russia, the UK and Japan, countries #2-5 for total military spending in the world, the US still outspends all of them. Although the several wars the US has started or encouraged over the last decade or two did a lot to inflate the amount of money spent on its own military, buying tanks nobody wants because the factories exist in politically important states doesn't help. So there's probably efficiency problems in military spending that could balance the budget somewhat.

    On top of that, aged health care is one of the rare sectors that looks likely to grow over the next decade or two, what with most Western nations having less babies than they used to. Manufacturing and middle management are going out the window, whereas services jobs, such as those at aged care facilities, are the way of the future, especially for those who have little education and few skills.

    The OECD report suggests that the US can make changes to its health care system that will pay for themselves and vastly improve the system, but there's no incentive for politicians to do that when private lobby groups are shoving money into the pockets of the people on both sides of politics.
     
  16. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL


    You make many of my core points so well. Thank You.

    The U.S. government is no good with efficiency, not in the least bit, but yet here we are with liberals wanting to place even more tax money into their hands so they can just flush even more down the toilet with every passing year, more and more and more, or actually pocket a good chunk before pretending to flush it.

    I've been telling you guys this for like three years now. Cut them off :hbang:.
    And btw, that's what the Tea Party is all about despite what the liberal smear/lie campaign works so hard to brand them to be.
    They're about 99.9% good hard working people who are sick of being raped by the government and then watching the spoils being wasted on nonsense and losing causes.
     
  17. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Had to jump in here because I like the overall point but the foundation is flawed. The prices of phones in the US are low because they're not unlocked, and they require contracts (usually 2 years) to be subsidized to that point. It'd actually be $650 USD vs. 870 AUD, or 700 AUD vs 870 AUD. Apple is an American company, of course you pay a fee to import them.

    I like universal healthcare, but the vibe that America is all pro-consumer and cheap electronics and Australia is not... jeez, Sydney is even more pro-consumerism than any of the major US cities I've lived in. Which is probably due to the flatter wealth distribution curve and the higher retail / service industry salaries. I'm not going to do the math on this one, but I imagine if looked at the buying power of the Australia middle class you'd find it's much higher than it is in America. The American average salary is $46k (for 2013), but it's 55K AUD (for 2013), so you can already see the slant, but we have the uber wealthy pulling that mean up. Australia doesn't.

    Actually, all my camera stuff was cheaper to buy in Australia by hundreds of dollars. There the manufacturer isn't hosted in either country so it's a little bit fairer to compare.
     
  18. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    Good points, one and all. I didn't really mean to imply that Australia's higher consumer goods taxes pay for most of our social welfare systems, but when I look back at my post, that's pretty much what I did. Thanks for clearing that one up, dude :yesway:

    You're welcome, I guess :wavey: My major point in my previous post is that the governments of most OECD nations successfully provide social welfare services to their populations efficiently and effectively, and there's no reason the US government can't do the same thing. It really looks like you've boiled down the efforts and success of most Western nations' governments in providing social services as "nonsense and losing causes", but maybe I'm misinterpreting that last part of your post.

    That aside, I think there's a bit of weird cognitive dissonance here. Claiming that the vast majority of Tea Party supporters, who are "more likely than Americans overall to be white, male, married, older than 45, regularly attending religious services, conservative, and to be more wealthy and have more education" are being "raped by the government" is at least as misleading as any lie told by the 'liberal smear campaign', especially being that most of the systems that exist in the US support them in their health and wealth without substantially helping the disadvantaged. The Affordable Care Act wasn't designed to help wealthy, healthy, middle aged people; one of its major purposes was in providing health care to millions of people who would not otherwise have it. The closest thing I could find to a Tea Party health reform alternative is from 2012 (and in my opinion looks much better than the pre-ACA system), and it still didn't provide health care to the people who needed it most. Importantly, by the accounts of this particular analyst it still would have raised premiums, and nobody knows what it would cost to implement, so fiscally it's as much a mystery as the ACA was.

    It just looks a lot like the Tea Party answer to everything is "eliminate the government, let the market take care of things". But there are major social problems such as homelessness, disease and disability, and access to education, that the market is either disinterested in solving, or only interested in providing to the affluent.
     
  19. TRENCHLORD

    TRENCHLORD Banned

    Messages:
    6,506
    Likes Received:
    244
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    corncountry IL

    The less federal government intrusion the better IMO.
    The only taxes that the feds should collect is for a big huge military and the cost of securing our borders and BASES (cough cough Clinton-Obama).
    The cost of currency management, federal lands, road/air maintenance and such, yeah there's a few things to pay for, but after that it's done and over.

    Social safety net programs should all be ran at the state and local level, as should social services and education.
    The FEDS should also be kicked out of the student loan salesman business. Include with that the global loan shark business that only benefits the swindlers at the top.

    How well are all these socialist nations really doing? I'm not really hearing much about it other than struggling economies and failed loan payments .:lol: Maybe FOX is just making it all up?
     
  20. Necris

    Necris Bonitis.

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    456
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    Somewhere in New York

    You harp on this point a lot; a lot of the time when I see it it seems to stem from this idea that they aren't spending their money on the "right" things or don't deserve these things until they have the decency to stop being poor/get a job.

    So maybe we should spend that money on the "right" things (namely healthcare).

    Lets walk out and get that job, I have no skills. Minimum wage, but at least I'm not on the dole anymore. What is the saying I hear a lot? "Any job is better than no job?", right?

    Lets work 60 hours a week.
    7.25*60*4 = $1740 per month.

    $20,880 per year.
    Hooray, I'm making slightly more per year than what would qualify as a living wage for a single Adult in my area, $19,776 per year. But that isn't useful if we're talking about me as a poor person.

    40 hours a week, minimum wage. $13,920
    Lets ignore having to pay for an apartment.

    In my area if I were to forego an iPhone ($200) and Some Air Jordans (~$175) that money would pay for a single month of health insurance with a $2000 annual deductible before the insurance company started paying, there are cheaper plans, but they have higher deductibles.

    So, what exactly is the benefit of throwing the $375 a month at insurance? That's 4500 a year just to keep the plan and an additional $2000 for it to actually kick in. $6500. That's nearly half of what I make all year.
    Is it unreasonable to view that expense as wasted money when even with insurance any sort of extended stay at the hospital could cost me more than what I make in a month?

    There is a plan with a $0 deductible. But it's still $6345 a year.

    The plans that look affordable are sometimes actually worse long term. The cheapest I could find doesn't look too bad on it's face, $279.93 a month; $3359.16 a year. But the $4000 deductible brings that up to you potentially paying $7359 a year. One extended stay at the hospital is all it would take to spit you back on to the streets.

    We're ignoring having to pay for an apartment, but I guarantee you even with the 60 hour a week income you would have a challenge making any of the plans work if we weren't. Add dependents and you're deep into the poverty level to begin with. Even with 2 full time jobs.

    While you have to pay for a service plan at least an iPhone does something useful short term. (I can't really bring myself to try to justify the shoes; I think paying that much is borderline insanity regardless of income bracket. :lol:)
     

Share This Page