Anonymous wrote:Your stereotypical assumptions are rather ridiculous.

Guess who receives tax-funded assistance?

Pretty much everyone. Did you receive a pell grant or financial aid for college? That's basically welfare.

You know who else receives assistance?

People with disabilities---mental and physical.
(Damn those lazy, greedy people with disabilities!)

You know who else?
The elderly.
(Damn those greedy little old ladies!)

You know who else? Kids transitioning from the child welfare system.
(Damn those kids!)

I could go on, but why bother?

I encourage you to make friends with someone who works at your local housing authority so you can learn about the critical services they provide to our vulnerable neighbors.

I encourage you to research the meals on wheels programs that fill the gap for vulnerable people who need food.

I can't imagine having the time or energy to waste on obsessing over "who's getting a free ride." It's befuddling. A normal, happy person would be grateful for what he has, and would be similarly grateful to the government and community providers for assisting vulnerable people.

I for one do not want to live in a community where vulnerable people are left to fend for themselves.

Sorry, sister, but you cannot lump Meals on Wheels in with the other giveaway programs. I have been working with Meals on Wheels and most people pay for the food, even those with very low incomes. As someone else pointed out, if one pays for something it is more worthwhile to the recipient, and we want people to eat the food delivered to them. IMHO, Meals on Wheels is a model for the type of assistance government should provide. It is amazing to watch a group of people show up, deliver the food, and get the job done in a very low tech way and with virtually no overhead or expense from the band of mostly volunteers who get the work done.

And I do know people who work at the local housing authority and they understand the ripoffs that are perpetrated on the local governments everyday but they are powerless to do anything about it. For example, go to the Larkspur Apartments off Cleveland Street and Lee Highway in Arlington and you will see numerous taxi cabs with DC registrations parked in the lot. These residents are mostly emigres and exported from DC because the taxi cabs won't pay them enough to get market rate housing. Look at some of the other subsidized housing in Arlington -- Woodland Hills is prime. They are filled with first generation emigres who children impoverished them so that they would not have to pay for their care.

So while you dance around and beat your chest to your do gooder song, recognize that all is not what you want it to be. But then, I suppose, you have never worked in any of the programs you described. Only tut tut at them from afar.

No one is saying we shouldn't care for less fortunate folks. The question is, when you yourself are struggling to make ends meet and pay for health care, it is tough to be required to pay more to subsidie others. We live on one income. I have a chronic disease. Medication, specialists appointments really add up and insurance costs are higher every year. It's becoming a real hardship to afford medical care.

The middle class is not allowed to complain I guess.

Anonymous wrote:Part of this is of no fault of the free users of healthcare. Expensive new therapies are adopted without good evidence that they improve patient outcomes. A recent example comes from the approval of new cancer drugs, which can cost well over $100,000 per year and are often expected to extend life for little more than a month. (Cutler DM, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff. 2001;20(5):11-29.). Because healthcare is delivered in a way where some consumers do not have to critically evaluate best value alternatives for best patient outcome and best use of resources AND sellers of healthcare services are rewarded for providing more services, there's little incentive to drive healthcare costs down. Since the insurance system spreads out total costs as premiums for the whole group, costs for the group increase.

This.
My aunt had breast cancer and it was clear that the end was months, if not weeks away. Still, she got some new drug that cost something exorbitant (like low hundreds per pill) and lengthened her life by a few (sleepy) days.

Part of this is of no fault of the free users of healthcare. Expensive new therapies are adopted without good evidence that they improve patient outcomes. A recent example comes from the approval of new cancer drugs, which can cost well over $100,000 per year and are often expected to extend life for little more than a month. (Cutler DM, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff. 2001;20(5):11-29.). Because healthcare is delivered in a way where some consumers do not have to critically evaluate best value alternatives for best patient outcome and best use of resources AND sellers of healthcare services are rewarded for providing more services, there's little incentive to drive healthcare costs down. Since the insurance system spreads out total costs as premiums for the whole group, costs for the group increase.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your stereotypical assumptions are rather ridiculous.

Guess who receives tax-funded assistance?

Pretty much everyone. Did you receive a pell grant or financial aid for college? That's basically welfare.

You know who else receives assistance?

People with disabilities---mental and physical.
(Damn those lazy, greedy people with disabilities!)

You know who else?
The elderly.
(Damn those greedy little old ladies!)

You know who else? Kids transitioning from the child welfare system.
(Damn those kids!)

I could go on, but why bother?

I encourage you to make friends with someone who works at your local housing authority so you can learn about the critical services they provide to our vulnerable neighbors.

I encourage you to research the meals on wheels programs that fill the gap for vulnerable people who need food.

I can't imagine having the time or energy to waste on obsessing over "who's getting a free ride." It's befuddling. A normal, happy person would be grateful for what he has, and would be similarly grateful to the government and community providers for assisting vulnerable people.

I for one do not want to live in a community where vulnerable people are left to fend for themselves.

That's because you're not struggling. If you were, and saw other people provided for free what you could not afford for yourself, you might feel differently.

You are precisely right. I'm the person you are quoting, pp, and I get it. It's actually a real thing. It's precisely why the poorest white people tend to be racist: because their "whiteness" is literally the only perceived asset they have--so they feel compelled to put others down to feel better about themselves.

Here's the thing: most people feel like they are struggling...even when they really aren't.

I'm not rich. Money is tight. But I don't resent people who are less fortunate than I am. I mean, how bizarre!

I'm glad that we don't have families living on the street in my county. I'm glad that people aren't starving. I recognize that some people simply aren't equipped to provide for themselves, and I'm glad we have a safety net. The safety net is there for you, too, if you lose your job (unemployment) or your home is destroyed by a natural disaster (fema). Rather than assume that lazy people are getting handouts, why not feel pride in being self-sufficient and feel grateful that you aren't poor enough to qualify for assistance? Let me assure you that your life has to super suck in order to qualify for the type of assistance you envy perceived "welfare queens" are receiving.

Let it go. If you are struggling financially, then perhaps you could step away from DCUM and focus on improving your situation?

They do - sales taxes, fees, etc.

Regressive taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does seem the liberals always defend the underdog. I noticed at the debate the other night that Hillary was talking about the benefits to illegal immigrants if they are made citizens. Well, DUH. Of course it's to their benefit. But she didn't consider if it's to the benefit of current American citizens. With the system already overwhelmed with people, there are definitely some downsides to a huge influx of new citizens who rely to a greater degree (than native-born citizens) on government aid. That really needs to be considered before we convert all these illegals to citizens.

And since the thread has focused largely on health care, what about that? There's a real shortage of doctors, and we can't provide timely care as it is. If we add millions more to Medicaid or subsidized Obamacare, what then? I hear stories of people waiting for minths to see their doctor, and it will only get worse. I'm not saying no immigrants, but if we don't follow a reasonable pace, the system simply can't handle it.

Oh, the irony...
More than a quarter of the doctors practicing in our county are foreign-born.

That is because people in the US are no longer bothering with math or the hard sciences needed to succeed in medical school, internships, and residencies. People prefer gut communication courses to organic chemistry. People from other countries will work much harder to get a shot at living in the States. Without foreign born doctors, a huge portion of the rural population in the States would have no nearby medical care. You also understand that doctors make more money in under-served areas rather than on the coasts where life is a lot more pleasant.

Your post makes it souod as if med schools have empty spots that US students are too dumb and lazy to fill. Med school is hard and expensive, but there are plenty of qualified applicants.

Agreed. There is no shortage of qualified applicants. There is however a shortage of med school slots.

Anonymous wrote:Your stereotypical assumptions are rather ridiculous.

Guess who receives tax-funded assistance?

Pretty much everyone. Did you receive a pell grant or financial aid for college? That's basically welfare.

You know who else receives assistance?

People with disabilities---mental and physical.
(Damn those lazy, greedy people with disabilities!)

You know who else?
The elderly.
(Damn those greedy little old ladies!)

You know who else? Kids transitioning from the child welfare system.
(Damn those kids!)

I could go on, but why bother?

I encourage you to make friends with someone who works at your local housing authority so you can learn about the critical services they provide to our vulnerable neighbors.

I encourage you to research the meals on wheels programs that fill the gap for vulnerable people who need food.

I can't imagine having the time or energy to waste on obsessing over "who's getting a free ride." It's befuddling. A normal, happy person would be grateful for what he has, and would be similarly grateful to the government and community providers for assisting vulnerable people.

I for one do not want to live in a community where vulnerable people are left to fend for themselves.

That's because you're not struggling. If you were, and saw other people provided for free what you could not afford for yourself, you might feel differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the poor lady died because she couldn't have surgery, would that solve your problem or make you feel better?

And what if the middle-class person responsible for coming up with the money couldn't have the surgery, and she died? Why does the sympathy always go to the people on government aid, and insults go to lower-middle class people struggling to pay their own way?

OP is lower-middle class? Like DCUM "lower-middle class," or for real?

Just curious. What's your definition of lower-middle class for real? And for DCUM lower-middle class (in this high COLA)?

I don't really have one. I'm just thinking of all the hand-wringing "ohmygod, our HHI is only $300K, we cannot afford to live!!" bullshit threads I've read here over the years. Forgive me for not immediately assuming OP is actually remotely hard luck.

Here I am, the OP. Just around $60k, before taxes. That would be straight middle-class in the rest of the country (other than big cities), but the DCUM crowd might consider that lower-middle. Everything was fine budget-wise until the insurance premiums starting zooming up at a much faster rate than pre-Obamacare, and remember - I'm also on the hook for my own medical bills for the first $5200. It really is a hardship.

And that's just me. My brother and his wife have a combined income of just under $100k, also before taxes. (Two kids...wife working part-time until youngest enters school.) They also were doing fine until their premiums started zooming up - last year especially. He told me their premiums are $23,000 a year, and they still have to pay a high deductible. I guess a family of four in the DC area making $100k is straight middle-class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does seem the liberals always defend the underdog. I noticed at the debate the other night that Hillary was talking about the benefits to illegal immigrants if they are made citizens. Well, DUH. Of course it's to their benefit. But she didn't consider if it's to the benefit of current American citizens. With the system already overwhelmed with people, there are definitely some downsides to a huge influx of new citizens who rely to a greater degree (than native-born citizens) on government aid. That really needs to be considered before we convert all these illegals to citizens.

And since the thread has focused largely on health care, what about that? There's a real shortage of doctors, and we can't provide timely care as it is. If we add millions more to Medicaid or subsidized Obamacare, what then? I hear stories of people waiting for minths to see their doctor, and it will only get worse. I'm not saying no immigrants, but if we don't follow a reasonable pace, the system simply can't handle it.

Oh, the irony...
More than a quarter of the doctors practicing in our county are foreign-born.

That is because people in the US are no longer bothering with math or the hard sciences needed to succeed in medical school, internships, and residencies. People prefer gut communication courses to organic chemistry. People from other countries will work much harder to get a shot at living in the States. Without foreign born doctors, a huge portion of the rural population in the States would have no nearby medical care. You also understand that doctors make more money in under-served areas rather than on the coasts where life is a lot more pleasant.

Your post makes it souod as if med schools have empty spots that US students are too dumb and lazy to fill. Med school is hard and expensive, but there are plenty of qualified applicants.

Your stereotypical assumptions are rather ridiculous.

Guess who receives tax-funded assistance?

Pretty much everyone. Did you receive a pell grant or financial aid for college? That's basically welfare.

You know who else receives assistance?

People with disabilities---mental and physical.
(Damn those lazy, greedy people with disabilities!)

You know who else?
The elderly.
(Damn those greedy little old ladies!)

You know who else? Kids transitioning from the child welfare system.
(Damn those kids!)

I could go on, but why bother?

I encourage you to make friends with someone who works at your local housing authority so you can learn about the critical services they provide to our vulnerable neighbors.

I encourage you to research the meals on wheels programs that fill the gap for vulnerable people who need food.

I can't imagine having the time or energy to waste on obsessing over "who's getting a free ride." It's befuddling. A normal, happy person would be grateful for what he has, and would be similarly grateful to the government and community providers for assisting vulnerable people.

I for one do not want to live in a community where vulnerable people are left to fend for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does seem the liberals always defend the underdog. I noticed at the debate the other night that Hillary was talking about the benefits to illegal immigrants if they are made citizens. Well, DUH. Of course it's to their benefit. But she didn't consider if it's to the benefit of current American citizens. With the system already overwhelmed with people, there are definitely some downsides to a huge influx of new citizens who rely to a greater degree (than native-born citizens) on government aid. That really needs to be considered before we convert all these illegals to citizens.

And since the thread has focused largely on health care, what about that? There's a real shortage of doctors, and we can't provide timely care as it is. If we add millions more to Medicaid or subsidized Obamacare, what then? I hear stories of people waiting for minths to see their doctor, and it will only get worse. I'm not saying no immigrants, but if we don't follow a reasonable pace, the system simply can't handle it.

Oh, the irony...
More than a quarter of the doctors practicing in our county are foreign-born.

That is because people in the US are no longer bothering with math or the hard sciences needed to succeed in medical school, internships, and residencies. People prefer gut communication courses to organic chemistry. People from other countries will work much harder to get a shot at living in the States. Without foreign born doctors, a huge portion of the rural population in the States would have no nearby medical care. You also understand that doctors make more money in under-served areas rather than on the coasts where life is a lot more pleasant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does seem the liberals always defend the underdog. I noticed at the debate the other night that Hillary was talking about the benefits to illegal immigrants if they are made citizens. Well, DUH. Of course it's to their benefit. But she didn't consider if it's to the benefit of current American citizens. With the system already overwhelmed with people, there are definitely some downsides to a huge influx of new citizens who rely to a greater degree (than native-born citizens) on government aid. That really needs to be considered before we convert all these illegals to citizens.

And since the thread has focused largely on health care, what about that? There's a real shortage of doctors, and we can't provide timely care as it is. If we add millions more to Medicaid or subsidized Obamacare, what then? I hear stories of people waiting for minths to see their doctor, and it will only get worse. I'm not saying no immigrants, but if we don't follow a reasonable pace, the system simply can't handle it.

Oh, the irony...
More than a quarter of the doctors practicing in our county are foreign-born.

Not so ironic. There's a big difference between educated, self-sufficient professionals and the illegal immigrants, the majority of whom will depend on government assistance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the poor lady died because she couldn't have surgery, would that solve your problem or make you feel better?

And what if the middle-class person responsible for coming up with the money couldn't have the surgery, and she died? Why does the sympathy always go to the people on government aid, and insults go to lower-middle class people struggling to pay their own way?

OP is lower-middle class? Like DCUM "lower-middle class," or for real?

Just curious. What's your definition of lower-middle class for real? And for DCUM lower-middle class (in this high COLA)?

I don't really have one. I'm just thinking of all the hand-wringing "ohmygod, our HHI is only $300K, we cannot afford to live!!" bullshit threads I've read here over the years. Forgive me for not immediately assuming OP is actually remotely hard luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the poor lady died because she couldn't have surgery, would that solve your problem or make you feel better?

And what if the middle-class person responsible for coming up with the money couldn't have the surgery, and she died? Why does the sympathy always go to the people on government aid, and insults go to lower-middle class people struggling to pay their own way?

OP is lower-middle class? Like DCUM "lower-middle class," or for real?

This is not an either/or question. Neither of you should go without necessary medical treatment. If you are lower middle class then you were the targeted beneficiary of the ACA. You need medical insurance.