How come most Americans are poor?

[exdeath]

Oh yeah, I'm about to spend $4,200 on a new blower for my car, but I would like... no I *need* one of those new QX6800 Intel CPUs that just came out too. And with school and my reduced hours and all, I can't really afford both in the short term... poor college student and all that. Any of you kind and generous types with more money than you need care to donate some money so I can get a QX6800 too? Thx!

I just need someone to pay my 401k contributions, my taxes, and my healthcare premiums, then I can save the money faster myself!



Come on, you know you want to completely disregard the most fundamental concept of economics by allowing me to get everything I want at once whenever I want without having to ration or make a choice.

 

[voodoodrul]

Anyone have any ideas for my current health insurance situation? Family coverage through my employer is $720/mo. That's half of my net monthly income. So that's not happening. Lets talk about ways to get me insured, be those private or public means. If all I want is to be covered, this should be easy, right?

I start with around $2,500/mo gross. I take home $1,500. Yup, that's right. $1k off the top to taxes and "child support" which doesn't go to support the child.

So I can't qualify for any form of public assistance for the insurance and I can't find cheaper private insurance plans, even though we are all in perfect health. This same insurance plan was $360/mo in 2002 and offered a $1,000 deductible. It is now $720/mo with a $3,000 deductible, $6,000 family.

Good luck on this seemingly simple, yet impossible, task. ;o)

Housing prices doubled in less than 5 years as did health insurance.. Man, it's just paradise. Good thing the average salary doubled in the last 5 years for all of us, huh?

And arguing that my $500 8800GTX is really breaking the bank is stupid. That's far less than one month's rent or a single insurance premium. I save for many months to buy the new gear.. So I guess I could afford a single month of insurance coverage if I saved for about 6 months.. ha

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
Anyone have any ideas for my current health insurance situation? Family coverage through my employer is $720/mo. That's half of my net monthly income. So that's not happening. Lets talk about ways to get me insured, be those private or public means. If all I want is to be covered, this should be easy, right?

I start with around $2,500/mo gross. I take home $1,500. Yup, that's right. $1k off the top to taxes and "child support" which doesn't go to support the child.

So I can't qualify for any form of public assistance for the insurance and I can't find cheaper private insurance plans, even though we are all in perfect health. This same insurance plan was $360/mo in 2002 and offered a $1,000 deductible. It is now $720/mo with a $3,000 deductible, $6,000 family.

Good luck on this seemingly simple, yet impossible, task. ;o)

Housing prices doubled in less than 5 years as did health insurance.. Man, it's just paradise. Good thing the average salary doubled in the last 5 years for all of us, huh?

And arguing that my $500 8800GTX is really breaking the bank is stupid. That's far less than one month's rent or a single insurance premium.

And that's just it... it didn't double for all of us; it only doubled for the people making minimum wage.

Anyway sounds like that company needs some motivation to re-assess the value of its employees or you need another employer. That?s ridiculous.

As for your computer stuff (which of I was referring to in a generic since and no single person in particular), what you spend your money on is your business, I don't fault anyone for spending their money on whatever they want.

But I see you have a 8800 GTX, 2 GB ram, a 24" LCD, and a laptop that is better that most peoples desktops. And it's all current top of the line stuff, so it's fairly safe to say that you also had a 7800 GTX, and will have a 9800 GTX, etc. Thats a good chunk of money to be spendingly monthly on upgrades constantly. Again, I'm not saying you couldn't afford those things or don't deserve them or anything, I'm just pointing out the choices people make. I could care less how people spend money on as long as its not mine they are spending.

I don't even have a laptop. Are you going to give me yours when I can no longer afford to save for one because my taxes increased to pay for national health care for you?

It's not that I don't believe there are serious problems with our current systems; it's just that I believe forcibly taking from someone else to fix those problems is wrong and fundamentally flawed and will actually make the problems worse.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
Anyone have any ideas for my current health insurance situation? Family coverage through my employer is $720/mo. That's half of my net monthly income. So that's not happening. Lets talk about ways to get me insured, be those private or public means. If all I want is to be covered, this should be easy, right?

I start with around $2,500/mo gross. I take home $1,500. Yup, that's right. $1k off the top to taxes and "child support" which doesn't go to support the child.

So I can't qualify for any form of public assistance for the insurance and I can't find cheaper private insurance plans, even though we are all in perfect health. This same insurance plan was $360/mo in 2002 and offered a $1,000 deductible. It is now $720/mo with a $3,000 deductible, $6,000 family.

Good luck on this seemingly simple, yet impossible, task. ;o)

Housing prices doubled in less than 5 years as did health insurance.. Man, it's just paradise. Good thing the average salary doubled in the last 5 years for all of us, huh?

And arguing that my $500 8800GTX is really breaking the bank is stupid. That's far less than one month's rent or a single insurance premium.

And that's just it... it didn't double for all of us; it only doubled for the people making minimum wage.

Anyway sounds like that company needs some motivation to re-assess the value of its employees or you need another employer. That?s ridiculous.

Agreed. This place is like some kind of experiment in how to do everything wrong. They refuse to listen to reason. I'm still looking for another employer. Every day. =o)

Waiting to hear back on the last interview. Fingers crossed.. However, their insurance plan isn't much better. $500/mo out of pocket for family coverage and $500 deductible. It's better, but I still can't pay the $500/mo.

However, the minimum wage doesn't affect, in any practical way, the price of housing, health insurance or my ability to afford either.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: exdeath
As for your computer stuff (which of I was referring to in a generic since and no single person in particular), what you spend your money on is your business, I don't fault anyone for spending their money on whatever they want.

But I see you have a 8000 GTX, 2 GB ram, a 24" LCD, and a laptop that is better that most peoples desktops.

I don't even have a laptop. Are you going to give me yours when I can no longer afford to save for one because my taxes increased to pay for national health care for you?

It's not that I don't believe there are serious problems with our current systems; it's just that I believe forcibly taking from someone else to fix those problems is wrong and fundamentally flawed.

If I could have a nice retirement or health insurance for the same amount of money this computer stuff costs, this wouldn't be an argument. The problem is that the system has failed. Now you have fewer people insured, which means the burden of paying claims falls on a smaller group. The only solution is to get the entire country under one group policy of some kind. That way, one massive claim doesn't cause major problems when the plan renews.

I don't care if that system is public or private. But for-profit insurance certainly isn't helping anyone here and having people completely uninsured means those people aren't paying into the system and only the insured are. How is that fair? The cost of health care needs to be shared between everyone in the country. I don't care how that is achieved, but it will have to happen eventually.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
The problem is that the system has failed. Now you have fewer people insured, which means the burden of paying claims falls on a smaller group. The only solution is to get the entire country under one group policy of some kind. That way, one massive claim doesn't cause major problems when the plan renews.

I don't care if that system is public or private. But for-profit insurance certainly isn't helping anyone here and having people completely uninsured means those people aren't paying into the system and only the insured are. How is that fair? The cost of health care needs to be shared between everyone in the country. I don't care how that is achieved, but it will have to happen eventually.

Well according to those in P&N only the rich deserve health care

Topic Title: Just who is getting all the medical coverage assistance?

 

[voodoodrul]

Universal Healthcare

Good read if you are interested.

 

[voodoodrul]

And this pretty much sums it all up - From this link:

Money spent on well-applied medical technology might be worth it. But, perversely, our extra spending doesn't seem to buy us better medical care. According to virtually every meaningful statistic, from simple measures like infant mortality to more carefully constructed data like "potential years of life lost," Americans are no healthier (and are frequently unhealthier) than the citizens of countries with universal health care. Nor do Americans always get "more" medical care, as is commonly assumed. The citizens of Japan, for example, have more CT scanners and MRI machines than we do. And the French, whose system the World Health Organization recently declared the planet's best, have more hospital beds. They get more doctor visits, too, perhaps because their access to physicians is nearly unfettered--a privilege even most middle-class Americans surrendered with the spread of managed care. In fact, aside from cost, the measure on which the United States most conspicuously stands out from other advanced nations may be public opinion: In a series of polls a few years ago, just 40 percent of us said we were "fairly or very" satisfied with our health care system, fourth worst of the 17 nations surveyed.

 

[voodoodrul]

And another perfect description of how I feel:

It's time for the government to be much bolder, to try something even more far-reaching than what it attempted in the '60s: making health care a right, not a privilege. And doing so for everybody, even if that means having the government provide insurance directly. Such a proposal might confound the conventional notions about what works and what doesn't work in public policy. But providing health insurance happens to be a job the public sector has already proved it can do very well. The most popular health insurance plan in the United States is Medicare--which, except for the drug benefit and a few HMOs that contract for the business, is a government-run health care program. And Medicare isn't only popular. It's also efficient. Nearly all of the money that goes into the program, via taxes and the premiums seniors pay, goes back out to purchase actual medical services. Private insurance, by contrast, inevitably diverts a much greater share of its premium dollars to administration, marketing, and profits, which means less money for the beneficiaries. In theory, insurance companies should be competing to provide their subscribers with the best, most cost-effective medical care. In practice, they compete over who can enroll the healthiest patients, since that is the surest way to improve profit margins.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: exdeath
As for your computer stuff (which of I was referring to in a generic since and no single person in particular), what you spend your money on is your business, I don't fault anyone for spending their money on whatever they want.

But I see you have a 8000 GTX, 2 GB ram, a 24" LCD, and a laptop that is better that most peoples desktops.

I don't even have a laptop. Are you going to give me yours when I can no longer afford to save for one because my taxes increased to pay for national health care for you?

It's not that I don't believe there are serious problems with our current systems; it's just that I believe forcibly taking from someone else to fix those problems is wrong and fundamentally flawed.

If I could have a nice retirement or health insurance for the same amount of money this computer stuff costs, this wouldn't be an argument. The problem is that the system has failed. Now you have fewer people insured, which means the burden of paying claims falls on a smaller group. The only solution is to get the entire country under one group policy of some kind. That way, one massive claim doesn't cause major problems when the plan renews.

I don't care if that system is public or private. But for-profit insurance certainly isn't helping anyone here and having people completely uninsured means those people aren't paying into the system and only the insured are. How is that fair? The cost of health care needs to be shared between everyone in the country. I don't care how that is achieved, but it will have to happen eventually.

Corruption and excessive government intervention are the problems.

The problem with any kind of socialized service is that you are forced whether you like it or not. If I want to opt out of national healthcare to save $100 a month in taxes so I can afford more computer parts, thats my business. Just don't feel sorry for me when I get seriously injured and can't afford the medical bills.

I don't think even the most diehard capitalists and conservatives would care if it was not a mandatory program (ie: threat of government violence to enforce collection and adherence).

And the reason MY premiums keep going up is because we have more and more people in the company turning down our excellent and reasonably cheap company healthcare plan because they can save $45 a paycheck by getting on AHCCCS, the state funded free healthcare system. Many of them have their lower income or jobless spouses apply because they wouldn't qualify.

It is supposed to be a system in place to protect the poor and unfortuneate experiencing a down turn and it is paid by my Arizona state taxes. But here we see abled body people who are well within their means to afford the best healthcare in the state through their employer. It's like $120 or something for a family and most of these people are making $10/hr and get 40+ hours. They turn it down because they are just looking to subsidize their personal pockets with whatever freebies they can get. It is precisely this kind of activity, also observed with disability, social security, welfare, etc, that causes me to not support socialized systems of any extent where the government takes my money and offers things for 'free' to the public. Such systems will be abused and bankrupted just like everything else.

If we started throwing people in jail or executing them for fraud, I think many of these problems would solve themselves.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: exdeath
The problem with any kind of socialized service is that you are forced whether you like it or not. If I want to opt out of national healthcare to save $100 a month in taxes so I can afford more computer parts, thats my business. Just don't feel sorry for me when I get seriously injured and can't afford the medical bills.

I don't think even the most diehard capitalists and conservatives would care if it was not a mandatory program (ie: threat of government violence to enforce collection and adherence).

And the reason MY premiums keep going up is because we have more and more people in the company turning down our excellent and reasonably cheap company healthcare plan because they can save $45 a paycheck by getting on AHCCCS, the state funded free healthcare system. Many of them have their lower income or jobless spouses apply because they wouldn't qualify.

It is supposed to be a system in place to protect the poor and unfortuneate experiencing a down turn and it is paid by my Arizona state taxes. But here we see abled body people who are well within their means to afford the best healthcare in the state through their employer. It's like $120 or something for a family and most of these people are making $10/hr and get 40+ hours. They turn it down because they are just looking to subsidize their personal pockets with whatever freebies they can get. It is precisely this kind of activity, also observed with disability, social security, welfare, etc, that causes me to not support socialized systems of any extent where the government takes my money and offers things for 'free' to the public. Such systems will be abused and bankrupted just like everything else.

If we started throwing people in jail or executing them for fraud, I think many of these problems would solve themselves.

Wrong, because if something did happen to you, you weren't paying into the system, yet the health care costs are still eaten by the hospital. You *should* be required to pay *something* for your own liability.. Just like you are required to have liability coverage for your car in case you do something stupid and cost someone else money, the same should be true if you do something stupid with your body and cost other people money.

We both agree that we don't want to pay a single penny for someone who is obese and does stupid things with their body.. But if they aren't paying into the healthcare system, their impact on you and me is only worse.

And I have no idea what to say with your Stalin-like tatics in the last sentence.. Universal healthcare would solve the freeloader issue because as long as you are working, you are paying your share.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: exdeath
The problem with any kind of socialized service is that you are forced whether you like it or not. If I want to opt out of national healthcare to save $100 a month in taxes so I can afford more computer parts, thats my business. Just don't feel sorry for me when I get seriously injured and can't afford the medical bills.

I don't think even the most diehard capitalists and conservatives would care if it was not a mandatory program (ie: threat of government violence to enforce collection and adherence).

And the reason MY premiums keep going up is because we have more and more people in the company turning down our excellent and reasonably cheap company healthcare plan because they can save $45 a paycheck by getting on AHCCCS, the state funded free healthcare system. Many of them have their lower income or jobless spouses apply because they wouldn't qualify.

It is supposed to be a system in place to protect the poor and unfortuneate experiencing a down turn and it is paid by my Arizona state taxes. But here we see abled body people who are well within their means to afford the best healthcare in the state through their employer. It's like $120 or something for a family and most of these people are making $10/hr and get 40+ hours. They turn it down because they are just looking to subsidize their personal pockets with whatever freebies they can get. It is precisely this kind of activity, also observed with disability, social security, welfare, etc, that causes me to not support socialized systems of any extent where the government takes my money and offers things for 'free' to the public. Such systems will be abused and bankrupted just like everything else.

If we started throwing people in jail or executing them for fraud, I think many of these problems would solve themselves.

Wrong, because if something did happen to you, you weren't paying into the system, yet the health care costs are still eaten by the hospital. You *should* be required to pay *something* for your own liability.. Just like you are required to have liability coverage for your car in case you do something stupid and cost someone else money, the same should be true if you do something stupid with your body and cost other people money.

And I have no idea what to say with your Stalin-like tatics in the last sentence.. Universal healthcare would solve the freeloader issue because as long as you are working, you are paying your share.

No, they should either leave me lying there, or send me the bill afterward, or put a lean on my future income to pay for the expenses I caused if they are forced to tend to me by law. At least I'm good for the money and won't ditch my financial obligations by running back to Mexico free and clear. Nobody should ever be responsible for another persons poor choices.

As for the last part, you missed the point. How about people that don't work because they know they will get everything they need anyway? Why bother?

And what if I never, ever consume anything from a system I involuntarily paid into, is my family going to get a big fat $50,000 refund check when I die?

The Stalin like tactic is 100% appropriate given the proposed solution to theproblems with the current systems in place. As long as we are going to be socialist about it why not go all out communist? We need an authority figure to make sure that everyone is going to put in their fair share and not leech and let their comrades carry the load while they sit on their ass. That means rounding up all the leeching people who aren't working with the system and putting in what they take out.

Current systems are supposed to be there to help people in genuine times of crises. But instead we have able bodied people leeching off the system. You'd be surprised at how quickly a 'disabled' person can hit the Best Buy and carry that big screen TV to his car all by himself once he gets that government check in the mail.

Making it MORE accessible will make that problem worse.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: exdeath
No, they should either leave me lying there, or send me the bill afterward, or put a lean on my future income. Nobody should ever be responsible for another persons poor choices.

As for the last part, you missed the point. How about people that don't work because they know they will get everything they need anyway? Why bother?

That's morally atrocious and reduces the value of human life to a checkbook register. If it's not profitable, lets just let him die.. Now that is another discussion entirely. The truth is, many hospitals perform the work anyway and divert the cost to increased healthcare prices. That's a major factor in the rise of healthcare costs nationwide. You are responsible for your own medical liability to others.

A requirement to use the system could be that you must be a student enrolled full time, a part time student and part time worker, or a full time worker to qualify. Children and the elderly always qualify unless they have other coverage. Sliding scales of coverage could apply to those without full-time work. Perhaps a requirement could be that you must have been eligible in the last 6 months to qualify. Those without jobs of any kind will only be given emergency services and are required to pay back that money. Barring that, you could setup a system of restitution to repay the debt over time. Or, upon re-employment, that money could be taken out in a higher rate over time. Lots of solutions here. And if you have to repay via restitution, there's some serious motivation to get back on the job.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: exdeath
No, they should either leave me lying there, or send me the bill afterward, or put a lean on my future income. Nobody should ever be responsible for another persons poor choices.

As for the last part, you missed the point. How about people that don't work because they know they will get everything they need anyway? Why bother?

That's morally atrocious and reduces the value of human life to a checkbook register. If it's not profitable, lets just let him die.. Now that is another discussion entirely. The truth is, many hospitals perform the work anyway and divert the cost to increased healthcare prices. That's a major factor in the rise of healthcare costs nationwide. You are responsible for your own medical liability to others.

A requirement to use the system could be that you must be a student enrolled full time, a part time student and part time worker, or a full time worker to qualify. Children and the elderly always qualify unless they have other coverage. Sliding scales of coverage could apply to those without full-time work. Perhaps a requirement could be that you must have been eligible in the last 6 months to qualify. Barring that, you could setup a system of restitution to repay the state over time. Or, upon re-employment, that money could be taken out in a higher rate over time. Lots of solutions here. And if you have to repay the state via restitution, there's some serious motivation to get back on the job.

Sorry for the edits, I am always revising things as nothing is ever perfect in writing.

Anyhow, yes, the fundamental flaw with the system is people taking more than they put in, if they put in at all. Unless we address that, even socialist health plans will fail, but I would say that if we fixed that, the majority of the current problems would fade away thus negating the need to even change it in the first place.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: exdeath

And what if I never, ever consume anything from a system I involuntarily paid into, is my family going to get a big fat $50,000 refund check when I die?

No, you receive no refund for car insurance if you never use it, but you are required by law to do so because you are a potential liability. The same is true for healthcare.

There will always be situations where someone's medical liability will exceed their ability to repay. Say I needed $5,000,000 worth of insane medical work done over the course of a lifetime with a rare disease. I could never be expected to cover my own costs. That's why people need to overpay into the system so that it is available to all at a reasonable cost.

Again, I don't care if that is private or public. Government run or otherwise. But once again, for-profit health care is a drain on society and a fundamentally flawed concept. As stated here:

"In theory, insurance companies should be competing to provide their subscribers with the best, most cost-effective medical care. In practice, they compete over who can enroll the healthiest patients, since that is the surest way to improve profit margins."

Labelling a system as "socialist", "capitalist", or "communist" doesn't really do anything. Those have become coined phrases that many don't understand and are simply afraid of.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Sorry for the edits, I am always revising things as nothing is ever perfect in writing.

Anyhow, yes, the fundamental flaw with the system is people taking more than they put in, if they put in at all. Unless we address that, even socialist health plans will fail, but I would say that if we fixed that, the majority of the current problems would fade away thus negating the need to even change it in the first place.

Well I do my share of editing too. ;o) Written text can never be precise, for sure. A few edits is a sign of careful thinking and analysis.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Mrfrog840

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Most Americans are "poor" because they insist on living beyond their means. They want instant gratification when it comes to expensive purchases. Buy now, pay later with interest!

should be at the top with that answer..

Couldn't agree more

This is why I don't own a credit card, and for as long as I can possibly stand, I wont.

Also, no HUGE purchases, except for something like a new car, or a house in 3-4 years from now... All of which I'm saving for. Also, I buy used cars, and I pay the whole amount right there. How's THAT for using my own damn money??

Foolishness... You *should* have a credit card to help establish good credit - that is, unless you plan to pay cash for a house. Otherwise, without an established credit record, you're going to pay a higher interest rate. No one said you had to use the credit card, and, more importantly, no one said you had to have an unpaid balance on the credit card. Many cards have things like %back on gasoline purchases, etc. You're throwing away a chance to actually save some money.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
And this pretty much sums it all up - From this link:

Money spent on well-applied medical technology might be worth it. But, perversely, our extra spending doesn't seem to buy us better medical care. According to virtually every meaningful statistic, from simple measures like infant mortality to more carefully constructed data like "potential years of life lost," Americans are no healthier (and are frequently unhealthier) than the citizens of countries with universal health care. Nor do Americans always get "more" medical care, as is commonly assumed. The citizens of Japan, for example, have more CT scanners and MRI machines than we do. And the French, whose system the World Health Organization recently declared the planet's best, have more hospital beds. They get more doctor visits, too, perhaps because their access to physicians is nearly unfettered--a privilege even most middle-class Americans surrendered with the spread of managed care. In fact, aside from cost, the measure on which the United States most conspicuously stands out from other advanced nations may be public opinion: In a series of polls a few years ago, just 40 percent of us said we were "fairly or very" satisfied with our health care system, fourth worst of the 17 nations surveyed.

Finally... I gave up on helping the OP with his argument about 400 posts ago. I posted links around the 80th post in this thread that pointed to this very same thing. All these people who say that have freedom of choices in the US with their healthcare are sadly mistaken. I know of no health insurance plans that don't specify which doctors are in-network. And, with most health insurance plans that doctors make agreements to take, doctors are limited in what approaches they can take to cure various ailments. i.e. they have to attempt treatment A before they can attempt treatment B. And tracking all this (as well as the insurance company making a nice profit) adds to the costs of healthcare.

Hey, OP... look at one of my first posts in this thread. You've dug a deep hole for yourself. Maybe you can use some actual statistics to help your argument out. The US is NOT ranked first for quality of life, and we're far from first in our health care system. Go with that, and good luck - you'll need it, because you're sadly getting your butt kicked in this debate.

 

[Wreckem]

Last I checked the US only spends $40-60billion on foreign aid. They spend several hundred billion of social programs for the poor already.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
We have grants for most people in the U.S when it comes to colleges. Those who family make the median income can expect thousands of dollars in grants for schools from the government,...

Nope, blatantly wrong information here.

Im getting $6000 in grants for the 2007-2008 academic year. That covers 90% of my tuition and fees.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: Queasy
BTW, poor compared to what? Even poor Americans enjoy a standard of living much higher than the rest of the world...including Europe.

hahahaha. I read that "standard of living" all the time. Its total BOLLOCKS.

Dont get me wrong, as someone who lived 7+ years in the states its NOT my intention to bash the usa. But..please define "standard of living" ?

As an example, and i can ONLY speak for Germany now:

* health care, health insurance, social security, unemployment security
NO WAY IN HELL the us comes even close there. We pay A LOT of taxes, i totally agree....but....we also get something BACK from the taxes we pay....in the US those go to IRAQ.

* Public Transportation

*Price of groceries
Germany is known to have VERY LOW priced grocery discounters. Thats one reason Walmart FAILED in Germany since they couldnt compete with the low margins here. (This was new to me too)


* CERTAIN internet infrastructure.
Most/Many people in Europe have a 16MB/1MB DSL line....i havent even SEEN speeds like that advertized ANYWHERE over in the US...be it comcast or whatever provider i had....

Give me examples please for "higher standard of living" in the us


Edit: Yes...i agree...my personal impression is that the MIDDLECLASS is big in the states..many people DO have average jobs, barely paying bills etc..etc. Not really "poor" tho. But then there ARE many really poor people since (as said) things like unemployment insurance etc. are as good as nonexistent.

And...i dont need to mention that very known term "working poor"...the many people who work hard 40+ hrs but STILL are poor because the jobs just pay **** and no H/Ins.

Ill take this point for point.

The US has the worlds best medical care. They also produce the majority of the drugs in the world. The US ends up subsidizing the rest of the worlds medicine through our R&D.

The US is far to spread out to have a relible public transportation system. However older cities like NY and Boston have pretty good public transit systems.

Many items in the US have certain level of price controls, that keep certain items partially inflated.

Almost every first world country, besides the US heavily subsidizes their internet capabilities. The US lets free market reign. Also to be noted, the US is a LOT larger than Germany. The initial outlay costs for faster speeds is a lot costlier in the US than in Germany or any other fairly small nation.

Americans own more land. Have thier own houses. Their own cars. More luxury items. Etc etc etc...

 

[Wreckem]

Three things that lead to poverty in the US

1. Spending beyond their means.
2. Having more kids than you can afford.
3. Lack of education.

Look at most poor people in the US, and all three apply to them.

 

[Agentbolt]

Most of the people at my job don't have health care because they'd rather spend the 120 bucks a month on beer and video games. These aren't rich people, but we pull in ~28K a year. Most people just don't give a crap.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: tasmanian
Americans arnt poor. Their low income. Most of America is middle class and brings in 40k+ a year.

have you EVER been to the midwest or the south?

Hoards of poor people.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: Queasy
BTW, poor compared to what? Even poor Americans enjoy a standard of living much higher than the rest of the world...including Europe.

hahahaha. I read that "standard of living" all the time. Its total BOLLOCKS.

Dont get me wrong, as someone who lived 7+ years in the states its NOT my intention to bash the usa. But..please define "standard of living" ?

As an example, and i can ONLY speak for Germany now:

* health care, health insurance, social security, unemployment security
NO WAY IN HELL the us comes even close there. We pay A LOT of taxes, i totally agree....but....we also get something BACK from the taxes we pay....in the US those go to IRAQ.

* Public Transportation

*Price of groceries
Germany is known to have VERY LOW priced grocery discounters. Thats one reason Walmart FAILED in Germany since they couldnt compete with the low margins here. (This was new to me too)


* CERTAIN internet infrastructure.
Most/Many people in Europe have a 16MB/1MB DSL line....i havent even SEEN speeds like that advertized ANYWHERE over in the US...be it comcast or whatever provider i had....

Give me examples please for "higher standard of living" in the us


Edit: Yes...i agree...my personal impression is that the MIDDLECLASS is big in the states..many people DO have average jobs, barely paying bills etc..etc. Not really "poor" tho. But then there ARE many really poor people since (as said) things like unemployment insurance etc. are as good as nonexistent.

And...i dont need to mention that very known term "working poor"...the many people who work hard 40+ hrs but STILL are poor because the jobs just pay **** and no H/Ins.

Ill take this point for point.

The US has the worlds best medical care. They also produce the majority of the drugs in the world. The US ends up subsidizing the rest of the worlds medicine through our R&D.

The US is far to spread out to have a relible public transportation system. However older cities like NY and Boston have pretty good public transit systems.

Many items in the US have certain level of price controls, that keep certain items partially inflated.

Almost every first world country, besides the US heavily subsidizes their internet capabilities. The US lets free market reign. Also to be noted, the US is a LOT larger than Germany. The initial outlay costs for faster speeds is a lot costlier in the US than in Germany or any other fairly small nation.

Americans own more land. Have thier own houses. Their own cars. More luxury items. Etc etc etc...

You are wrong. The US does not have the best healthcare in the world according to the World Health Organization. Nor does our healthcare system promote longer life or a better standard of health compared to socialist systems.

And this pretty much sums it all up - From this link:

Money spent on well-applied medical technology might be worth it. But, perversely, our extra spending doesn't seem to buy us better medical care. According to virtually every meaningful statistic, from simple measures like infant mortality to more carefully constructed data like "potential years of life lost," Americans are no healthier (and are frequently unhealthier) than the citizens of countries with universal health care. Nor do Americans always get "more" medical care, as is commonly assumed. The citizens of Japan, for example, have more CT scanners and MRI machines than we do. And the French, whose system the World Health Organization recently declared the planet's best, have more hospital beds. They get more doctor visits, too, perhaps because their access to physicians is nearly unfettered--a privilege even most middle-class Americans surrendered with the spread of managed care. In fact, aside from cost, the measure on which the United States most conspicuously stands out from other advanced nations may be public opinion: In a series of polls a few years ago, just 40 percent of us said we were "fairly or very" satisfied with our health care system, fourth worst of the 17 nations surveyed.