Anonymous wrote:I didn't vote for Trump, but the big bill benefits me financially. I lack empathy for many of those who the bill will negatively impact because they supported him. They stormed the capital; if they didn't, they stood behind it. A part of me feels like they will reap what they sowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

What does "can't afford the premiums" mean? You spend too much elsewhere and don't want to spend less so that you can reallocate money to health insurance? You don't want a less expensive insurance plan?

I suspect you have the money to pay for health care, but you don't want to cut back on other spending in order to do so. That's nobody's choice but yours.

A medically fragile child with less Medicaid can ruin the finances of a hard working family in no time. And tighter abortion laws mean more medically fragile children being born. What are your solutions for those families?

To be blunt, don't have children without a plan for how you're going to support the ensuing family financially, including paying for their health care needs.

Well, then don’t restrict abortions

How about practicing birth control through other means than abortion? Of course, that requires a modicum of self-control.

Because what PP is responding to is medically fragile children. In some cases you can detect serious issues in the ultrasound. Birth control doesn't fix the problem that banning abortions but then also defending Medicaid leaves someone with day, a Trisomy 18 pregnancy absolutely screwed. Their child will have a short, painful, and extremely expensive life. The government is forcing women to bring terminally ill pregnancies to term and now defending the programs that pay for the unbelievably expensive care needed.

Birth control doesn't fix the fact that wanted pregnancies can go horribly wrong.

The edge case of people with appropriate health insurance and income to support a family who are nevertheless caught later with medical expenses which were somehow uninsured is not the big driver of social welfare costs. It's people who voluntarily have more children than they can afford, and therefore need government support to feed and house them. The first category is infrequent and arguably merits public support; the latter not so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

What does "can't afford the premiums" mean? You spend too much elsewhere and don't want to spend less so that you can reallocate money to health insurance? You don't want a less expensive insurance plan?

I suspect you have the money to pay for health care, but you don't want to cut back on other spending in order to do so. That's nobody's choice but yours.

A medically fragile child with less Medicaid can ruin the finances of a hard working family in no time. And tighter abortion laws mean more medically fragile children being born. What are your solutions for those families?

To be blunt, don't have children without a plan for how you're going to support the ensuing family financially, including paying for their health care needs.

Well, then don’t restrict abortions

How about practicing birth control through other means than abortion? Of course, that requires a modicum of self-control.

Because what PP is responding to is medically fragile children. In some cases you can detect serious issues in the ultrasound. Birth control doesn't fix the problem that banning abortions but then also defending Medicaid leaves someone with day, a Trisomy 18 pregnancy absolutely screwed. Their child will have a short, painful, and extremely expensive life. The government is forcing women to bring terminally ill pregnancies to term and now defending the programs that pay for the unbelievably expensive care needed.

Birth control doesn't fix the fact that wanted pregnancies can go horribly wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

Anonymous wrote:Selfishly: I work as a healthcare consultant, and this is going to be *devastating* for healthcare. I worked in hospital administration previously and my former colleagues went to the Hill to address our representatives directly on this issue - and they were far from alone.

Even though my firm is privately held and for-profit, we will be impacted, and we may even have layoffs, and I can almost guarantee we won’t get bonuses this year. But much, much larger than that is how people *who depend on Medicaid for healthcare* are going to be impacted and lives will be lost so a few rich schmucks get a few dollars off their tax bill. PATHETIC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

What does "can't afford the premiums" mean? You spend too much elsewhere and don't want to spend less so that you can reallocate money to health insurance? You don't want a less expensive insurance plan?

I suspect you have the money to pay for health care, but you don't want to cut back on other spending in order to do so. That's nobody's choice but yours.

A medically fragile child with less Medicaid can ruin the finances of a hard working family in no time. And tighter abortion laws mean more medically fragile children being born. What are your solutions for those families?

To be blunt, don't have children without a plan for how you're going to support the ensuing family financially, including paying for their health care needs.

Well, then don’t restrict abortions

How about practicing birth control through other means than abortion? Of course, that requires a modicum of self-control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

What does "can't afford the premiums" mean? You spend too much elsewhere and don't want to spend less so that you can reallocate money to health insurance? You don't want a less expensive insurance plan?

I suspect you have the money to pay for health care, but you don't want to cut back on other spending in order to do so. That's nobody's choice but yours.

A medically fragile child with less Medicaid can ruin the finances of a hard working family in no time. And tighter abortion laws mean more medically fragile children being born. What are your solutions for those families?

To be blunt, don't have children without a plan for how you're going to support the ensuing family financially, including paying for their health care needs.

Well, then don’t restrict abortions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

I agree overall, except for stop and frisk. I get that it comes with racial profiling more often than it should, but I think there’s a way to make it permissible only when there’s a pursuit of a crime. It’s warranted in dc, where so much crime is committed by juveniles with illegal guns. But of course our police do nothing, so we have to live with the crime.

Well stop in first cause nothing to do with pursuit of crime. Also stopping risk increases crime.

So if you wanna decrease crime, you definitely don’t want to stop and Frisk

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

I agree overall, except for stop and frisk. I get that it comes with racial profiling more often than it should, but I think there’s a way to make it permissible only when there’s a pursuit of a crime. It’s warranted in dc, where so much crime is committed by juveniles with illegal guns. But of course our police do nothing, so we have to live with the crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

Schools will lower the price to match the loan ceiling. That’s the whole point of this. Tuition prices were out of control.

Colleges, maybe, med schools, maybe not. There are a lot of wealthy people who can pay fully for medical school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?