Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 234 posts

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#81

Post by jamiek88 »

mabbo wrote: post #61
rfugger wrote: post #7

And this is in Canada, where the author's surgery and other medical care was covered in full by universal health care. Without that, her situation likely would have been far worse, and yet we can still do so much better.

The smug Canadian "well, we don't have these problems here " look on my face dropped into a shocked one when I read that she lives in the same city as me. Probably one of my neighbors. Going to go make a donation to North York Harvest now. Seems like I don't understand poverty enough to say that it's not needed.

Thank you.

This was a real eye opener to me too which sounds fucking stupid in hindsight.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#82

Post by manfredo »

coldtea wrote: post #59
malvosenior wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the ACA (Obamacare) was extra bad (for me and others in my situation). Not only do I have to subsidize the poor through taxes but now I have to subsidize higher risk individuals through my own increased premiums. I also make enough money to get zero tax breaks on any of it and the "marketplace" has removed all competition and downward price pressure. EDIT: People seem to think I'm being flippant or cruel…

You're so well paid that you don't get tax breaks, and you are forced to help poor people through taxes and insurance premiums? Sounds like a good situation to be in...

Not exactly. The people who saw their premiums rise the most as a percentage of their income as a result of the ACA were mostly low income.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#83

Post by jamiek88 »

malvosenior wrote: post #73
coldtea wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're so well paid that you don't get tax breaks, and you are forced to help poor people through taxes and insurance premiums? Sounds like a good situation to be in...

It's not. I'd rather support my family than someone else's.

That’s not how society works.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#84

Post by techsupporter »

malvosenior wrote: post #54
and0 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's way off. While it's true public hospitals can't turn you down for emergencies, they'll still send a bill (which is normally much higher due to not negotiating through an insurance company) that would bankrupt the author. And a lot of things people need to survive don't fall under medical emergencies but rather preventative care. A heart attack is an emergency, but not surgery to stop it from happening / the pa…

You're incorrect. I've seen people get full cancer treatment and multiple surgeries and have all of the bills 100% covered by the government. You have to have little or no income to qualify though.

I don't know why you've decided to tell everyone in this thread that they're wrong and how the government is oppressing you with taxes to find a social safety net but your really need to understand and acknowledge that your anecdotes are not helpful and they are not indicative of the health care system in this country at large.

I can state similar anecdotes of people I know having gone bankrupt due to medical debt or having died due to inability to afford care at the time (what with having no income for almost two years). "The government" did not step in to completely or even mostly cover life saving yet expensive long term care.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#85

Post by microcolonel »

rfugger wrote: post #7

And this is in Canada, where the author's surgery and other medical care was covered in full by universal health care. Without that, her situation likely would have been far worse, and yet we can still do so much better.

To be fair, this person would likely qualify for Medicaid in the U.S. Also, in Ontario there's a healthcare-specific tax which is not eligible for credits like normal income tax, but instead uses a standard deduction like the U.S. Federal income tax.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#86

Post by meditate »

sametmax wrote: post #42
agumonkey wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the recent decades turned us away from ~natural gathering/solidarity mindset. Consumerism drugs you thinking the best thing is to satisfy envy with things, and without a context of cultural sharing habits, many people end up alone struggling thinking people are selfish because today's mainstream is selfish and so it's hard to connect.

Not that simple. Social connections require work, they also are slow and unreliable. Before the information age, to get to know something, talking was the main way. But now with books, panels, displays, packaging, signs, internet, GPS, etc., we have access to a huge quantity of information without having to talk to each others. And we choose to do so because on average it's faster, more accurate, and avoid to deal wi…

I don't see much of a difference. There still is a popularity game and it's played with corporations, not people. Though I agree that it's not necessarily a bad thing in comparison.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#87

Post by throwaway2048 »

mabbo wrote: post #61
rfugger wrote: post #7

And this is in Canada, where the author's surgery and other medical care was covered in full by universal health care. Without that, her situation likely would have been far worse, and yet we can still do so much better.

The smug Canadian "well, we don't have these problems here " look on my face dropped into a shocked one when I read that she lives in the same city as me. Probably one of my neighbors. Going to go make a donation to North York Harvest now. Seems like I don't understand poverty enough to say that it's not needed.

Canada definitely isn't mirror universe America where everything is good instead of bad, we have a ton of our own chronic social issues (such as housing affordability).

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#88

Post by agumonkey »

sametmax wrote: post #42
agumonkey wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the recent decades turned us away from ~natural gathering/solidarity mindset. Consumerism drugs you thinking the best thing is to satisfy envy with things, and without a context of cultural sharing habits, many people end up alone struggling thinking people are selfish because today's mainstream is selfish and so it's hard to connect.

Not that simple. Social connections require work, they also are slow and unreliable. Before the information age, to get to know something, talking was the main way. But now with books, panels, displays, packaging, signs, internet, GPS, etc., we have access to a huge quantity of information without having to talk to each others. And we choose to do so because on average it's faster, more accurate, and avoid to deal wi…

I think you're pushing it too far, even my parent's generation is confused how culture changed from a lot of social interactions to barely nothing. They had radio/phone/tv (a lot lot less of course) but the social quality was still present.

I agree with your conclusion though.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#89

Post by rayiner »

techsupporter wrote: post #84
malvosenior wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're incorrect. I've seen people get full cancer treatment and multiple surgeries and have all of the bills 100% covered by the government. You have to have little or no income to qualify though.

I don't know why you've decided to tell everyone in this thread that they're wrong and how the government is oppressing you with taxes to find a social safety net but your really need to understand and acknowledge that your anecdotes are not helpful and they are not indicative of the health care system in this country at large. I can state similar anecdotes of people I know having gone bankrupt due to medical debt or…

His anecdote refuted the point he was responding to, which inaccurately stated that only emergency care is covered. Medicaid covers long term care for poor people. (In 18 mostly southern states Medicaid doesn’t cover childless adults, but that encompasses a distinct minority of the population of poor people even in those states. In the other states Medicaid covers everyone below a certain income level). Most people who fall into the “went bankrupt from medical bills” category are ones who weren’t poor before the medical bills and didn’t qualify for Medicaid.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#90

Post by throwaway2048 »

chimi wrote: post #40
malvosenior wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are poor in the US your healthcare costs will mostly or entirely be covered. This includes major surgery.

Which I never understood. USA provides free healthcare for people who are poor because they don't work and healthcare for people who are retired and don't work. But the USA does not provide healthcare for people who work and keep machine turning. Hmm... I wonder if it's a political lobbying by healthcare industry to get more money for people who wouldn't provide it on their own by extracting it from the tax payers wh…

This is definitely one of the most ridiculous points about the American system.

Medicare for all already exists, it just requires that you quit your job (forever if you have a chronic medical issue) sell your house and assets and stop paying taxes, or having productive input into the economy entirely.

What kind of sense does that make?

Post reply on HN