Reply to How will the “big bill” affect you?

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "How will the “big bill” affect you?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die.  That's an exaggeration.

[b]The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working.  Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. [/b] Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities.  Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare.  Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels.  Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses.  The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living.   That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government?  That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer.  Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living.  In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles.  Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that.  High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments.  Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

[/quote]

This is easy to argue with. What do you think happens to all the people who lose coverage? Do you think they will try to seek treatment in an ER? Who will bear the cost of that treatment? Do you think you might? Because the answer is yes. This idiocy will be costing *you* more money. Which lowers *your* standard of living. Same thing for all the rest of us.[/quote]

Maybe they'll choose less expensive housing, or a less expensive car, or a less expensive cell phone plan, or maybe not to have a number of children beyond what they can afford, just like any other financial decisions all of us make all the time.  If someone doesn't want to reallocate their funds to prioritize health insurance, that's their choice.  We're speaking here of people with income, not the disabled with no options but the government.  People always have choices, they just frequently would like to have everything they want without sacrificing elsewhere.   Many voters seem to not be interesting in subsidizing preferred lifestyles, and view government subsidies as the last resort for those who truly have no viable alternative.  A shift in policy towards the latter from the former is what the voters asked for and seem to have received.  [/quote]

You really don’t have a clue, so you. Choose a less expensive car?  Shut your sanctimonious piehole — when I worked for Legal Services I had elderly clients who wouldn’t eat for 2 days so they could afford the bus fare to our office for a consultation after being denied Socisl Security disability. You have no idea how poor people in this country live. Most of my clients worked hard their whole lives until their bodies gave out from physical labor. Do you know what 40 years on your feet waiting tables does to your legs? I do, because I’ve seen my clients’ swollen varicose veins and watched them hobble into my office. A lifetime of no or little healthcare takes its toll too. I can’t even talk about the client i had who was in constant agony from his infected teeth but couldn’t afford to see a dentist.

You really need to get out of you privileged bubble and have some empathy. [/quote]

People who are poor are poor for a reason.  Sometimes it's bad luck, more often it's bad life choices, starting with their approach to their education, having children they can't afford, a failure to prioritize retirement savings over current spending throughout their lives, and other choices.  The government provides a floor level of income and medical care for the truly indigent; others are expected to allocate their resources to their priority needs.  If someone is denied Social Security disability benefits, it's because they are not disabled as defined not by them in their self-interest but by the government, and such decisions are not merely capricious even if you think otherwise.  An appeal is always possible for wrongly decided cases.

The question is how much lifestyle support should be provided by the government versus by the individual through their own efforts.  A "right" to being subsidized by the government is being examined more carefully and granted more sparingly, but is not being eliminated for all people under all circumstances.  Pointing to the truly indigent who cannot support themselves is a red herring, the legislative changes occurring are reducing or eliminating benefits for the edge cases who are able to manage on their own without subsidies, even though such people will have to adjust their spending priorities to compensate for the absence of government largesse.   [/quote]

You don’t know anything. Systemic racism and a stacked deck create poverty. It’s more bad luck and terrible policy than you believe. Yes, there are many people who shouldn’t go to grad school, but that’s not the norm. [/quote]

Sure, individuals cannot take responsibility for themselves, because "the system" is so stacked against them that success is literally impossible.  Somehow, some racial minorities are able to become educated and gainfully employed, while others fail to do so.  Clearly the fault belong with "someone else".      [/quote]

Do you know the story about Black Wall Street?

Do you know that every time there was a successful black community the federal government would build a road through it and declare eminent domain.

Do you know what Jim Crow laws are?

Do you know about red lining?

Do you know what stop and frisk is? Do you know how it destroys communities? Can you name what racial groups this was used against?

Do you know about three strikes you’re out? Do you know that that policy increased crime? Can you guess which communities this was enforced in?

Can you name another community that had these things happened to them?[/quote]

What does any of that have to do with contemporary society?  Are you arguing that past discrimination prevents parents today from properly supervising their children, instilling values and a work ethic in them, and demonstrating responsible adult behavior?  History currently compels minorities or others to have excessively large families they cannot afford, requiring government assistance to feed and house them?  History prevents minority children from taking advantage of educational opportunities which can prepare them for gainful employment and an income they earn for themselves?  They can't study today for exams because, you know, Jim Crow?  They're on welfare because of Jim Crow laws absent now for 70 years or more ago?  Welfare paid for by taxes is necessary because stop-and-frisk results in some people being found with illegal drugs, weapons, or burglary tools, like that's a fault of a majority racial group and not of the people caught red-handed?  Being caught in criminal behavior is somehow the fault of law enforcement, and not of the criminals themselves?  Who incurred those 3 strikes you're on about?  Did somebody force all those criminals to engage in three or more crimes so they'd be eligible for enhanced penalties when caught?  Sure, it's all "someone else'" fault, as usual.

An unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for oneself because that requires actual work is not a sufficient excuse for a lack of personal success.  It is also not a sufficient basis for transferring wealth earned by productive members of society to those who have been voluntarily unproductive.  "But, they're poor!" is simplistic.  Some unfortunate poor people deserve some level of social support in a civilized society; other poor people are underserving of public support  and of our tax dollars.  Thoughtful public policy recognizes the distinction.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics