• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Family has money for international travel, but not healthcare

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
You'll have to refer me to the appropriate quotes, since I don't recall Jesus saying much about government programs. Was Medicare expansion one of his miracles? Were government welfare programs amont the Beautitudes? Did Jesus start choose as Disciples "sinners and tax collectors" in order to ensure Romans had more revenue to care for the poor via Single Payer Insurance?
Jesus didn't specify either way, except to say that paying taxes is fine because money is a thing of the secular world, and of little interest or value to a Christian. Except insofar as money can be used to help the poor and downtrodden, in which case you're explicitly mandated to give all you can. But since people don't actually do that, and we still need to help people, we use government to solve the collective action problem.

It's not like Jesus said "don't use government!" Nor did he say "use government!" He said 'accomplish these goals,' and if we believe those goals are valid (whether we're Christian or not), it's up to us to do that.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Name me one person who doesn't make bad financial choices sometimes, rich or poor.
I wouldn't call having 7 children with an illegal immigrant a bad financial choice.

I wouldn't call having

Wow, you're a simpleton. And how do you think all of the above items I listed, affect the the 1,2,3 you listed? Let's think here.

Does an adult with an education need to connect the dots for you?
Having children out of wedlock is in fact a WORSE idea if you are poor.

Not speaking the predominant language is in fact a WORSE idea if you are poor.

Marrying an illegal immigrant is a bad idea for any geographic or socioeconomic status.

Let us think here.
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
They weren't asked to fund it, this is a federal program. All they had to do is get out of the way. What priorities do the supposedly "pro-life" citizens of Texas have that are higher than saving unnecessarily lost human lives?
Your ignorance is astounding. The Feds foot the bill this year, but in 3 years time, that burden would have shifted to place a significant portion on the backs of taxpayers in Texas. They are not OK with that. I only wish my state government were as forward looking.
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,896
11
81
I wouldn't call having 7 children with an illegal immigrant a bad financial choice.

I wouldn't call having



Having children out of wedlock is in fact a WORSE idea if you are poor.

Not speaking the predominant language is in fact a WORSE idea if you are poor.

Marrying an illegal immigrant is a bad idea for any geographic or socioeconomic status.

Let us think here.
*Woosh*, right over your head. Not surprised at all.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,468
4,204
126
Texas is still on the hook for federal taxes to pay for Medicaid expansion in other states.
On top of that, they are still on the hook for unreimbursed health costs for the poor who they are blocking from getting Medicaid. That's extra taxes and higher hospital bills and insurance rates for employers. So Texas employers and taxpayers are subsidizing those in other states, because Rick Perry wants to score some political points off the backs of the poor. If you want to cut off your nose to spite the poor, you can. When your local hospital goes out of business, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you screwed some poor people out of Medicaid.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,012
126
Jesus didn't specify either way, except to say that paying taxes is fine because money is a thing of the secular world, and of little interest or value to a Christian. Except insofar as money can be used to help the poor and downtrodden, in which case you're explicitly mandated to give all you can. But since people don't actually do that, and we still need to help people, we use government to solve the collective action problem.

It's not like Jesus said "don't use government!" Nor did he say "use government!" He said 'accomplish these goals,' and if we believe those goals are valid (whether we're Christian or not), it's up to us to do that.
Good post, and I don't have a problem with government per se although I think it's supremely counter-productive in helping the poor at times. But trying to use Jesus to shame either side in a discussion about social welfare programs is foolish. The most relevant passage is Romans 13:1-7 which is of course not made by Jesus at all. But I'd argue the more relevant passage is Matthew 17:24-27 which makes it obvious that Jesus was already doing God's work and paying a temple tax was besides the point (yet he paid it anyway "so as to not offend"). Christians should behave likewise IMHO - do your good work for the poor via charity, but don't grumble about the government's parallel efforts to help the poor, just help make it redundant. Non-Christians should stop behaving like they alone have all the answers and using religion as a club against believers for their own selfish ends and stop outsourcing your charity efforts to Uncle Sam.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Your ignorance is astounding. The Feds foot the bill this year, but in 3 years time, that burden would have shifted to place a significant portion on the backs of taxpayers in Texas. They are not OK with that. I only wish my state government were as forward looking.
That assumes that people without Medicaid were not already getting free health care at hospitals and walking out without paying.

Texas currently foots 100% of the bill for the healthcare of its poor by subsidizing its hospitals. It had a chance to foot only 20% of that bill by expanding Medicaid.

It blows my mind that poor people with no insurance are 'free' to the healthcare system. They're not. They are the most expensive consumers because they consume limited resources, only do so when they're in a critical state, and then provide no compensation.

If Texas ran restaurants like they did their hospitals they'd require every restaurant to give a free meal to anyone that asked regardless of whether they could pay or not. If you had to run a restaurant that way, how much would you charge your paying customers?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,468
4,204
126
Your ignorance is astounding. The Feds foot the bill this year, but in 3 years time, that burden would have shifted to place a significant portion on the backs of taxpayers in Texas. They are not OK with that. I only wish my state government were as forward looking.
In 3 years, it's still 90% Federal funded. So burden would not have shifted. Texans are still on the hook for the federal taxes that pay for 90% of the cost. But because they don't want to pay 10% in 3 years, they will get no benefit from the 90% they are going to pay anyways.
Texas will end up expanding Medicaid, they will just miss out on the 3 years when it's 100% reimbursed, cost their taxpayers and businesses billions, and thousands of their poor citizens their health and lives in the process.
Small price to pay to throw a political tantrum.
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
That assumes that people without Medicaid were not already getting free health care at hospitals and walking out without paying.

Texas currently foots 100% of the bill for the healthcare of its poor by subsidizing its hospitals. It had a chance to foot only 20% of that bill by expanding Medicaid.

It blows my mind that poor people with no insurance are 'free' to the healthcare system. They're not. They are the most expensive consumers because they consume limited resources, only do so when they're in a critical state, and then provide no compensation.

If Texas ran restaurants like they did their hospitals they'd require every restaurant to give a free meal to anyone that asked regardless of whether they could pay or not. If you had to run a restaurant that way, how much would you charge your paying customers?
It blows my mind that the solution to people not paying their bills when they use a hospital is to have the Federal government start paying for it instead of perhaps holding them responsible for their own costs.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,012
126
In 3 years, it's still 90% Federal funded. So burden would not have shifted. Texans are still on the hook for the federal taxes that pay for 90% of the cost. But because they don't want to pay 10% in 3 years, they will get no benefit from the 90% they are going to pay anyways.
Texas will end up expanding Medicaid, they will just miss out on the 3 years when it's 100% reimbursed, cost their taxpayers and businesses billions, and thousands of their poor citizens their health and lives in the process.
Small price to pay to throw a political tantrum.
If it's such a great deal, why didn't Congressional Democrats just make it mandatory and fund the states 100% forever? It wasn't like the 90% was some compromise with the GOP since it was pushed through on strictly party line votes using whatever parliamentary tricks you could. It makes no sense to blame states for a situation that Democrats created by their own law.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
If it's such a great deal, why didn't Congressional Democrats just make it mandatory and fund the states 100% forever? It wasn't like the 90% was some compromise with the GOP since it was pushed through on strictly party line votes using whatever parliamentary tricks you could. It makes no sense to blame states for a situation that Democrats created by their own law.
It makes perfect sense. According to liberalism no one should ever be held responsible for their stupid choices.

So why should Democrats take responsibility for passing a stupid law?:colbert:
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,468
4,204
126
If it's such a great deal, why didn't Congressional Democrats just make it mandatory and fund the states 100% forever? It wasn't like the 90% was some compromise with the GOP since it was pushed through on strictly party line votes using whatever parliamentary tricks you could. It makes no sense to blame states for a situation that Democrats created by their own law.
A lot of Republican amendments were accepted in Obamacare, even if Republicans ended up voting against the whole bill later.
But math is still math, that if you are already paying federal taxes for the 90%, it's worth paying extra 10% to get 100% than not to pay it and get 0%.
That 90% is sunk cost, so the only decision is, do you want to get $9 match for each $1 you put in or not. For any rational party, this is what's called a no-brainer.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,506
1
81
Name me one person who doesn't make bad financial choices sometimes, rich or poor.

Then consider that it's easier to make good financial choices when you're surrounded by people who know about personal finance (because how else would you learn when school doesn't cover it?), which means easier for the rich and harder for the poor. You seriously seem to be expecting poor people to just magically have perfect knowledge about how to manage personal finances, then also act in a perfect manner, because otherwise, sure, you can find a "WTF" moment in anyone's life. Especially when the "WTF" moment is construed as broadly as wanting to go visit your kids once a year.
Poor people don't have much money so they don't even need to make many financial decisions beyond very basic ones that anyone with common sense can do. Unfortunately, the reason many poor people are poor is because they lack common sense.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,249
3,047
126
The conservative brain is defective. It engages in low effort thinking. It sees that folk make poor decisions and thinks the answer is for the poor to suffer for that, that suffering will make them better. This is how they create the feeling that they deserve what they have, that the fact that they have something is because they are good. They have every right to look down on others. But there is no doubt at all that the price of bad decisions is real. What is sick is that the conservative mind wants the poor to suffer because they feel they deserve it. But its not that they deserve it. It is just the inevitable result of bad decisions. The liberal hope is that the damaged can be fixed, that education, care, support, opportunity, etc will give the damaged an opportunity to reverse the state of mind that produces bad decisions. People who love themselves don't make so many bad decisions and that's all this really is. The people of hope, the people destroyed, and the people who want the destroyed to suffer for it.

But to hope is not enough. One must know how to help. We all hate ourselves and that is the source of our problem. The liberal wants to help without knowing his own suffering and the conservative doesn't want to touch anything that reminds him of his inner condition, so no real help ever happens.

The enemy is self hate and it is that that must be faced and repaired. That can be done in two ways, via therapy of religious faith, spirituality and via achievement of any kind.

We can attend to the damage that has been done while building a new person over the damaged one. It's in the Bible. You teach a man to fish. You teach a person how to make a hook a line and a pole and then you take him fishing. When the fish are caught and the family fed, the soul is freed.

People make bad decisions because they want to destroy themselves because they feel they deserve it. They have been exposed to conservative mentality and have internalized it. The work to be done is to help people achieve. Create opportunities where people can do something that brings reward, it matters little what, only that they do not feel it is a gift that they had to earn it, and start small but never give up. Nobody values what is given for free, but to help we who have will have to put in more than we get back in the beginning with anybody who has been defeated by self hate.

If the government is to help then the government must create work of some kind for those who are capable of doing something. The government could do something even like what is done at the Grameen Bank.
 

Zodiark1593

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2012
2,232
4
81
And as well all know, making good 'life choices' is a black and white affair. Your socio-economic status, geographical location, and upbringing have nothing to do with them! Everyone should just make good life choices!
In this particular case, it was simply a matter of common sense. I have no problem with giving the disabled and veterans support, but the stupid get no sympathy.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,468
4,204
126
Poor people don't have much money so they don't even need to make many financial decisions beyond very basic ones that anyone with common sense can do. Unfortunately, the reason many poor people are poor is because they lack common sense.
It's a poor financial decision to spend $300 to see 4 of your kids once a year?
She can't afford insurance or to treat her condition out of pocket with it anyways. At least she'll see her kids before her health gets worse, but even that is too much for Republicans to accept a poor person being able to do.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
It's a poor financial decision to spend $300 to see 4 of your kids once a year?
She can't afford insurance or to treat her condition out of pocket with it anyways. At least she'll see her kids before her health gets worse, but even that is too much for Republicans to accept a poor person being able to do.
The reason she can't see her kids everyday is because she CHOSE to have kids with an illegal immigrant.

You make bad choices you face consequences.
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,896
11
81
In this particular case, it was simply a matter of common sense. I have no problem with giving the disabled and veterans support, but the stupid get no sympathy.
Great, thanks for showing your true colors.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You are going to make sure she suffers.
She is suffering because of the logical consequences of her own choices.

But it seems like you are answering the question I posed earlier:
Are the people writing the stories unable to find poor people that didn't make bad life choices? Are they secretly being paid off by the Koch Brothers to reduce support for social welfare programs? Or do they really think the choices people make shouldn't matter and society should bail them out regardless?
You think people should be able to do whatever they want and get bailed out by society.D:
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,468
4,204
126
She is suffering because of the logical consequences of her own choices.
But it seems like you are answering the question I posed earlier:
You think people should be able to do whatever they want and get bailed out by society.D:
No, I think she should have had more abortions. But we are where we are, and exacerbating her suffering is not going to help the situation, even though it brings you much joy that she's facing the "consequences."
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,012
126
You are going to make sure she suffers.
She already is suffering because of her bad choices, and nothing you or anyone else will change that including providing her with taxpayer funded healthcare. You would think alll the stories about Lotto winners who are bankrupt and depressive a year or two after getting their big check would cure you of the idea that only lack of money is the root cause of the troubles and unhappiness of so many people.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY