Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#291

Post by SolaceQuantum » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:04 PM UTC

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #287

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The people who produce them benefit from the result." Can you cite specific studies, their specific researchers, and their specific funding grants? "Also the burden would not even be that people die from lack of healthcare in the US, it would be that more people die from lack of healthcare in the US than people die from healthcare rationing in the UK" This is not what you claimed. Please clarify the contradiction be…

Readers will see my point, I don't need to get into the weeds with you like this over minor details.

Please clarify: What is your point? You asked for any evidence, and when provided, denied it as evidence, reiterated that you had always asked for specific evidence.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#292

Post by foldr » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:08 PM UTC

copenja wrote: post #254

foldr wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true, but how much of that extra money you get to keep in the long run is determined by the health lottery. If you end up having cancer for 5 years, you can kiss it all goodbye. But yes, one thing that's tough for Europeans who haven't lived in the US to comprehend is that Americans really do prefer being able to buy a bigger TV to having proper security when it comes to health care.

Most employer sponsored healthcare plans in the US have a maximum out of pocket the patient can be charged per year. The average cost for someone with cancer and an employer sponsored plan in the US is around $6000 per year. That's $500 a month. https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/how-much-you-can-r... Both my parents had cancer and survived in US, so I do know from first hand experience. They did not get ruine…

>Most employer sponsored healthcare plans in the US have a maximum out of pocket the patient can be charged per year.

Yeah, but that's irrelevant if you have to use an out of network provider in an emergency situation, or if you need a treatment that your insurance provider refuses to cover.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#293

Post by fatbird » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #194

fatbird wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what it usually requires is an eight hour course in which you're told repeatedly that you need to sterilize combs in a solution that kills lice so you don't spread lice. Let's not pretend that licencing requirements are always some sinister cartel action to limit the number of nail-painters in a given municipality. Usually they're just a response to some obviously avoidable consequence of a large number of unlice…

I assure you having taken a 8hr class has approximately no impact on whether one sanitizes combs and the desire of management to provide the resources necessary to sanitize combs is the determining factor. This generalizes to basically every industry unless the labor pool is so small that the bad places to work can't find new employees faster than they wash out.

In point of fact, barbers and hair dressers are virtually always independent contractors sharing a shop space. It's basically never the case in North America that they're employees; this saves the shop owner all sorts of hassle, but puts the onus on the barber/hair dresser as the responsible business owner and thus the one required to be licenced. They provide their own clippers and barbasol. The hair dresser themself is the management that needs to provide necessary resources.

Compare with the comment above about "should we licence dish washers too?" No, because dish washers are employees of a restaurant that deals with licencing and compliance with food safety laws.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#294

Post by foldr » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #279

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Also that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, guess what those studies have in common?" No, please do tell me exactly what those studies have in common, with citations. You asked for something that isn't rumor and second hand stories. I provided. Now you move the goalposts and ask for my single best story. Please clarify your behavior and your motivations in engaging in this discussion: Do you actually wish to process dat…

The people who produce them benefit from the result. Who says we need massive governmental spending in healthcare? Why governmental healthcare authorities of course! I'm skeptical, especially when the specific examples provided don't match up with the rhetoric. Also the burden would not even be that people die from lack of healthcare in the US, it would be that more people die from lack of healthcare in the US than p…

It’s dishonest to refer to the Charlie Gard case as an instance of healthcare rationing. Doctors refused (experimental, zero-chance) treatment for purely medical reasons: it wasn’t the best thing for the baby. The resulting court case was over the question of whether doctors are required to (a) act in accord with the best interests of the child or (b) do whatever the child’s parents want. The answer turns out to be (a). Financial considerations never entered into the decision. The deciding factor was medical: a series of epileptic seizures which reduced the chance of a successful outcome to ~0. It isn’t ethical to torture a baby with ineffectual treatments just because the parents are (understandably) not ready to accept that the baby is going to die.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#295

Post by RankingMember » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:11 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #162

wallace_f wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a typical homeless person. I am educated, skilled and I have no addictions, etc. I'm also not living on the street, and am lucky to not have any health problems. But I think my story really can perhaps reveal how incredibly easy it can be for one to have the misfortune to end up in such situations. My own experiences have opened my eyes to how abusive people can be, and perhaps this is a significant aspect o…

Do you know of the book "Evicted" by Matthew Desmond? It was for me both enlightening (in what it revealed) and depressing (in what it revealed). Yeah, some people make bad decisions. We. All. Do. The difference is, some are more unlucky than others. Life is hard. I'm not sure why we go out of our way to make it hard for others (who need our help). http://evictedbook.com/

I personally think that the reason that some people act callous towards those who are poor/experiencing misfortune is ultimately because they're afraid. If you tell yourself that people end up poor because of a moral failing, you make poverty seem like something that won't and can't ever happen to you, because the very fact that you're not currently in poverty proves that you must have a better moral constitution somehow.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#296

Post by foldr » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #283

foldr wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you make much less than that in SF or NYC, there is no point in living in such an expensive place. Go make that London salary working in a rural area of the US. The median household income in New York is $50,000. I would rather live in London than in a rural area of the US - thanks. You talk as if people have no preferences besides maximizing the salary to cost of living ratio. > So basically, insurance said they…

You are citing bustle who is in turn citing tweets with that article. That's your best evidence? Can't find a AP article anywhere? Shouldn't there be thousands and thousands of examples to pick from?

You asked for personal stories. If you want something more robust, check the Harvard Medical School study:

https://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality...

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#297

Post by mrlala » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

11235853211 wrote: post #282

mrlala wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And how "free" is it when we pay the taxes for it? It's free as in... when someone needs it, no matter how much money they make or do not make.. whether they are employed or unemployed.. they can use it "FOR FREE". Calling the police for me "IS FREE". My kids going to public school for me "IS FREE". Calling the fire department "IS FREE". Going to the doctor when you are sick should also be "FOR FREE".

Right, just pointing out that the media often uses the term "free" when referring to public programs that workers pay for with their tax dollars. It is deceptive.

I still don't understand why you are pointing this out? You seem to be the one hung up on the word free. It IS FREE when using the public program- and that's what people want. Calling the police when you need help is free- I don't care how it's been funded. When I need it, I don't need to think about a cost whatsoever.

If you are a disabled person who has never been able to work in your entire life and has never been able to pay a dime in taxes.. yet you are able to use all of these public programs, that is completely 100% free, right?

You say the media is being deceptive when using free.. no, you know what they mean by free, so if anything I would call you the 'deceptive' one because you are intentionally making the discussion more complicated by getting so hung up on semantics.

What everyone in this entire planet wants is to be able to get healthcare when they NEED it and not worry about the cost. So they want FREE healthcare. If you still have a hard time with this concept then just think about free as in "use". If using something means you don't have to think about the cost, then using it is free. Was it funded by someone somewhere? Well no shit- you can put a 'cost' on anything no matter what it is.

Next you will tell me free healthcare isn't free because you need to drive yourself to the doctor, or take a bus. And that costs money. So it's not free anymore! Scandal!

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#298

Post by Balgair » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #172

boromisp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A possible explanation for what you've experienced can be found in the just-world hypothesis [0], or in the belief that we live in a meritocracy. It is simply a foundational part of many people's worldview and nothing sort of experiencing similar traumas will make them reconsider. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

> A possible explanation for what you've experienced can be found in the just-world hypothesis [0] As a sub-class of that, see also the Prosperity Gospel: > Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, the gospel of success, or seed faith)[A] is a controversial religious belief among some Protestant Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-be…

Job is a fantastic piece of Hebrew literature and a great look at an important question in religion: Why does bad happen to good people? I'd be hard pressed to find a better look into it.

Unfortunately, the KJ and NIV translations of Job are, well, almost incomprehensible. You have to read it a few times before you begin to grok it. If you are interested, the CEB translation is a lot more accessible for first time readers: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1&version=C...

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#299

Post by celticmusic » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

ShinTakuya wrote: post #269

esailija wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "good choices are likely to lift you out of poverty" like OP claims, it logically follows that "you are unlikely to be poor if you make good choices". "There will be cases where it doesn't work" let's say that means 99%/1%. So the statements become "you would have 99% chance to be lifted out of poverty if you made good choices" and therefore "you have 1% chance of being poor if you make good choices". Whether you…

Sure but the statement the original commentor made wasn't that it was "unlikely" for you to be poor. He said "cannot". What you mention in your comment is logical, but you moved the goalposts by using the word "unlikely". Can and cannot are vastly different words to likely and unlikely. Put simply, one claims it's impossible to be poor if you do X. The other claims it's possible to be poor but you have a better chanc…

thank you for calling that out, more people need to be called out when doing that crap.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#300

Post by CalRobert » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #244

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My girlfriend recently moved in with me so we've done a lot of research. It's relatively easy to move here from within Europe, as in, if you move from an EU country you have a right to work and live here, and you get the same rights and responsibilities as soon as you register yourself as living here. If you want to move here from outside of the EU it's a whole other matter though. It boils down to two things though:…

How ironic that the “progressive” European welfare states have highly restricted immigration and America naturalizes more new citizens each year than the rest of the world combined. The US also allows illegal aliens de facto residence assuming they haven’t committed a significant crime. We even provide free education. If those illegal aliens have a child in the US, we give that child citizenship and subsequently make…

"De facto residence" - hardly. Living without papers is dubious and stressful. Trying to build a life when you could be deported is not easy.

"You can’t have nearly open borders and free everything." - don't disagree, free riders are a problem. How many people show up to the US to get their free healthcare and leave, exactly?

"I was a legal resident of France and two of my children were born there and they didn’t get French citizenship, nor even automatic permanent residence."

OK. This is how it ought to be per your views, right? I sympathize for your kids.

Many people do not have family, do not live near their family, do not attend church (for damn good reasons, aside from just not feeling like it. Pretending to have faith so you can have your church friends bail you out is not sound policy).

Your approach won't help the gay former Baptist estranged from their parents.

Even if your motivations are purely selfish, it is worth noting that the US spends more per capita on health care than other countries, so maybe we could learn from them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

However, public health care spending is ALSO quite here -

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-... (note they provide source data and references)

Ultimately, though, the big problem is that poor people are poor because the system putting them there is a fantastic way to limit freedom in all but name.

If you restrict housing near decent jobs, then most people will, BY DEFINITION, be spending an inordinate amount of money on housing, because all it takes is a few people to say "well I'll push myself and spend 70% of my takehome on rent" before everyone has to do it. This is great if you need compliant workers who fear losing their job.

If you make medical pricing opaque and inconsistent (charging individuals differently from insurance companies) you're telling someone "well you can die or you can just pay whatever we feel like charging you". This is great if you need compliant workers who fear losing their job (and you're willing to offer health insurance). It works even for better-paid jobs too!

Lasik and dentists have price competition, and are pretty affordable, but not critical for life. Hell, even ambulances are losing out to Uber/Lyft (thankfully).

If you make going to college a prerequisite for most decent jobs (18 years of "if you don't go to college you'll be flipping burgers!" in popular media will do that), make it scarce by underfunding it, then offer people draconian loans that can't be repaid by a decent chunk of them, it will be extremely expensive. In fact, the more loans you make available, the more expensive it becomes as people chase it (same goes for mortgages for that matter - increasing funds without increasing supply just raises prices). This is great if you need compliant workers who fear losing their job.

There's a path out of this, even in the US - fortunately folks like Mr. Money Moustache have gained traction as people call bull on the whole system. It involves telling your metaphorical parents their advice is outdated bullshit, among other things, and avoiding the ponzi schemes of housing and student debt.

But don't get sick.