How come most Americans are poor?

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Matthias99
You can eliminate your need for auto insurance by not driving, or reduce it by driving a cheaper car, etc. You can't eliminate your need for medical care if you get sick or injured.

The ER is a fine example of another overly abused victim of the instant-gratification-for-zero-cost cost phenomena that is largly responsible for the majorty of our nations problems.

9 times out of 10 the problem is momentary and goes away, or it's something the ER can't help you with anyway, like the flu. Or after spending thousands of dollars and several hours to diagnose you they concur that you have X, here, take some tylenol for the pain and go and see your doctor tomorrow. Now we have $3,000 less in our healthcare fund for life saving emergency transplants because someone was too lazy or cheap, or simply ignorant of their own body, to keep a bottle of tylenol in their cabinet.

Go visit a ER in Tucson, Arizona in the middle of the night and see what we have flooding the lobby like a plague non stop and what kinds problems they have... I'll give you a hint, it has to do with illegal immigration and free service. And they aren't there to discover they have life ending cancer or because they are in immediate need of a blood transfusion because of an auto accident.

Repeat after me: As cost tends to zero, demand tends to infinity

And you can make it as cheap and affordable as you want in order to say "they still have to pay *something*", but there will be people out there that still say it's too expensive, because $0 a month < $20 a month. Make it free and not only will we have more people than the system can handle, but they will start demanding courtesy gift certificates to Red Lobster when they go to the ER. Then what do you do, since we don't want to alienate them and let them suffer!

Okay, you've contradicted yourself a few times in this thread. You don't mind paying for a child to have cancer treatment, but you mind paying for children from people who keep having kids while working minimum wage jobs. So, I take it that your view is that having children is a priviledge for only the wealthy? Anyways, in regards to this post:

It's not a contradiction: Those two examples were not related that way as I was not comparing the kids themselves. On one hand you have an example of a kid with cancer who needs help. On the other hand the example is a bad parent crying for help. One who had too many kids and can't support his/her family. One is a result of uncontrollable circumstances; the other is a result of irresponsibility and poor planning. Though I realize by penalizing the irresponsible parent, it affects the kids who have nothing to do with their parent?s mistakes. But I made no statement regarding my willingness or lack thereof of helping the kids themselves. Just the parents who use mass reproduction as a crutch to garner sympathy and a way to get on the government dole.

The point is however that I am free to draw my own line and determine who needs help and who doesn't. It was a statement of my value judgment relative to someone else?s. As for the kids themselves? I'd like to know that every child has a fair chance at a good life, but I know realistically that will never happen. But then again look at how many smart, famous, or rich people there are who had crappy childhoods and crappy parents, or no parents. People who want to succeed or change their position in life will find a way if they try hard enough. That is the whole idea behind this country. You aren't assured anything at all, but to be left alone to pursue your own success and measure that success on your own terms no matter how fair or unfair that pursuit is relative to others. Just because you are born poor doesn't mean you are being forced to stay that way, unlike other systems in the world.

But if you would like me to make that direct comparison now in relative terms, here goes:
A kid with cancer or born without arms and legs has a genuine reason for not being able to help himself vs. a perfectly healthy and able bodied poor kid who lives in the slums with ****** parents in poverty and simply chooses not to walk to school with his perfectly working two legs.

9/10 times, it does turn out to be nothing. That leaves the 1 time out of 10 that it DOES turn out to be something. Do you propose that everyone should go to med school so they can tell the difference between a heart attack and just really bad indigestion? I went, no, make that I was taken to the ER for severe pain in my chest - by a medical professional. That person thought there was a significant chance that the symptoms I was feeling were actually a heart attack (pain in the chest, and I was sweating from the pain.) When I got to the ER, they had me on a bed, with needles stuck in me and probes stuck all over my body before I could say "uncle." They thought there was a significant chance that it was a heart attack too. Happy to say, after all the tests came back, it wasn't. Something about my esophogus and stomach or something; basically, indigestion. So, my trip to the ER cost thousands of dollars and turned out to be indigestion. But, do you realize how many cases of "indigestion" actually turn out to be heart attacks?

Again, my own personal choice and value judgement, in a reply to the statement that I could not choose whether or not to seek medical care. I never said you or anybody else couldn't go to the ER whenever you wanted. Just don't expect someone else to pay for it if they don't want to. You have choices to make, and when someone elses is paying for it, you are more likely to not face those choices.

There's a saying: "better safe than sorry." Sometimes, delaying medical treatment can have dire consequences. When did you pass your medical boards which would allow you to tell people that their symptoms can wait? Since when did you start doing cultures of what's in your throat which will tell you it's actually strep throat? And, do you go back to work, likely infecting others, before you've been on the antibiotic a sufficient amount of time?


"As cost tends to zero, demand tends to infinity " No, costs won't trend toward zero, because you're ignoring some of the other costs. As demand goes up, response time decreases. People have to wait longer. Time is a cost. People are not going to go to the ER if there's a 7 hour wait; or rather, they're going to evaluate whether or not their condition really merits possibly waiting 7 hours. Even the illegal immigrants. (The cost to them is zero... I don't see an infinite number of them in the ER's, do you?)

Where do you live? Our ER and UC facilities in Southern Arizona are overrun by illegals. Several trauma centers have been closed left and right due to money management problems as a result of being unable to afford this burden. I'll say it again: "As cost tends to zero, demand tends to infinity" How many people waited in line for 24+ hours for a PS3 even though they had to *pay* $600? How many more people would have been in line and how much longer would they be waiting in line if they we're giving them out for free, and not only that, you were guaranteed to get one eventually if you kept your place in line? Healthcare is worth a lot more than a $600 toy to many people.

I've spent plenty of time in the ER (as a patient, and visiting my wife who once worked in that part of the hospital.) So, I do know that some people will go to the ER with the most minor, non-emergency symptoms. But, when walking in and discovering that they'll probably have to wait several hours, many people without life-threatening injuries will turn around and leave (usually to go to a different hospital.) Last May I was lucky that I waited - I had a *very* painful infection in my elbow. It ended up that every day of treatment really counted - the infection turned out to be an anti-biotic resistant staph infection. By the time this was determined, my elbow was huge and swollen. Had I delayed the initial treatment, it likely would have progressed to the point where I'd have to have taken off a significant amount of time from work - at taxpayer's expense. (It marks the only time in 7 years that I took a sick day at my present job, and the 3rd time in 20 years.) Heyyy, there's another reason for the ER for me: I don't have to take time off from work!

Once again, to each their own!

 

[Sonix7]

As Zack de la Rocha (RATM Vocalist) said once: Oh greed oh yes oh greed!!.

Like some of the wildest capistalist & imperialist countries in the world, in my opinion USA has poverty because of its unique economic & imperial political focused system.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Sonix7
As Zack de la Rocha (RATM Vocalist) said once: Oh greed oh yes oh greed!!.

Like some of the wildest capistalist & imperialist countries in the world, in my opinion USA has poverty because of its unique economic & imperial political focused system.

No one in the US lives in poverty (compared to the rest of the world).

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Sonix7
As Zack de la Rocha (RATM Vocalist) said once: Oh greed oh yes oh greed!!.

Like some of the wildest capistalist & imperialist countries in the world, in my opinion USA has poverty because of its unique economic & imperial political focused system.

Greed is a relative personal opinion.

If could donate $1 billion to charity, would you consider that a good thing? Would I be greedy or generous in your eyes?

To most people it would probably be considered generous... but some people will refuse to decide until they know what percentage that is of my total income... what does it matter?

When they find out that I still have $10 billion left... now suddenly I would be considered greedy to some despite giving more to charity than they ever could in their entire lifetime spanning multiple generations. When was the last time you gave $1 billion to help people you didn't know? The cost of food and basic services costs the same whether you donate $1 or $1 billion dollars and is not affected by what percentage of your worth the donation is. If the cost of a meal is $5, that one person is feeding 200 million people more than you and millions of others only paying $1, so why should that person be expected and required to pay a higher percentage than you? He is already helping more people than could ever dream of, who are you to say it's not enough when your paltry contribution can't even buy one meal in this example?

The same idea applies to taxes too and is the idea behind a 'flat tax' or 'fair tax', I forget the exact numbers but right now its something like the top 5% of the income pays like 95% of the taxes or something like that. So think twice when you hear nonsense like 1% of the country owns 99% of the wealth. Now as for other problems like oil oligopolies, lack of competition, corruption in governments, price manipulation, special interest payments to political parties, etc... thats another story.

Remember, no matter where you are on the political scale, there is always someone more conservative than you or more liberal than you.

You might say I should give $5 billion dollars in that case for me to not be greedy. Some people feel that everyone should give everything and keep nothing for yourself, and would call *you* greedy. Whose definition of 'greed' do we consider to be the 'real' definition?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: exdeath
"As cost tends to zero, demand tends to infinity" How many people waited in line for 24+ hours for a PS3 even though they had to *pay* $600? How many more people would have been in line and how much longer would they be waiting in line if they we're giving them out for free, and not only that, you were guaranteed to get one eventually if you kept your place in line? Healthcare is worth a lot more than a $600 toy to many people.

You overlooked something with that example: A lot of the people waiting for PS3's actually were viewing them as free - they intended to buy the PS3 then turn around and sell it for a massive profit on ebay.

However, your statement: "as cost tends to zero, demand tends to infinity" is still wrong. Then again, I've got about 2 tons of goat manure, and llama manure that you can have for free! And, it makes a great fertilizer, so it isn't worthless. (It's amazing how much tree-huggers will pay for a package of llama manure.)

Where do you live? Our ER and UC facilities in Southern Arizona are overrun by illegals.

I live in a place where there are no illegals. None, nada, zip. They're welcome to come here though; I could pay a couple of them to shovel out the barn today

edit: weird thought: There are a lot of Amish families near me... I wonder if the Amish would ever higher an illegal immigrant to do some of the chores they didn't want to do?? But, in all honesty, I'd rather do that work myself (shoveling in the barn) - it's good exercise, builds character, and builds muscle.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: exdeath
"As cost tends to zero, demand tends to infinity" How many people waited in line for 24+ hours for a PS3 even though they had to *pay* $600? How many more people would have been in line and how much longer would they be waiting in line if they we're giving them out for free, and not only that, you were guaranteed to get one eventually if you kept your place in line? Healthcare is worth a lot more than a $600 toy to many people.

You overlooked something with that example: A lot of the people waiting for PS3's actually were viewing them as free - they intended to buy the PS3 then turn around and sell it for a massive profit on ebay.

Yeah, and how many people would have waited in line if they knew they wouldn't get jack squat on ebay? Probably nobody I've witnessed myself people trying to return them to retail stores because they couldn't sell it. I audiably chuckled when they were denied.

Another fine example of the law of demand. You may be on to something here though: in this case the price wasn't seen as $600, or even $0, but say -$600. This would be like the ER not only being free, but they start handing out gift certificates to Red Lobster

Then there is the price of bragging rights and pride. The things people will do to be first or better than someone else (myself being no exception).

However, your statement: "as cost tends to zero, demand tends to infinity" is still wrong. Then again, I've got about 2 tons of goat manure, and llama manure that you can have for free! And, it makes a great fertilizer, so it isn't worthless. (It's amazing how much tree-huggers will pay for a package of llama manure.)

So every economics and social sciences expert in the world has been wrong for the last several hundred years? While there is no 'proof' for this as there is no 'proof' for gravity, it is a basic law of economics that predictably works the same way every time in any circumstances. Have you ever taken advantage of a 'buy one get one free' or a mail in rebate that essentially made the item free, even to buy something you really weren't wanting, if only to take advantage of the deal? Everybody likes something for nothing, there is no denying that. (only with those deals those 'freebies' are accounted for as advertising costs to gain market share and future customers)

It's really not a hard concept to grasp. When you put a cost on something you force people to make choices and realize they can't have everything they want. They get to make their own choice how to ration their own limited resources in any way they please. And who better to decide that cost than the people buying and selling those items first hand?

But give it away without cost to the recipient, they don't have those choices to make and therefore they set no limit on how much they are willing to take or how often they are willing to take it. The reason that doesn't work is the real fact that the items in question ARE in fact limited, and are not able to fill the unlimited needs and wants of the people who can now get them without cost to them. You no longer have effective rationing of a limited good or service.

ER = Emergency Room. What percentage of people waiting in the ER lobby are their for true 'emergencies'? About 80% of the ER patients at any given time could be kicked out for non emergencies and asked to get a regular doctor. If they don't have insurance or don't want to pay $100 for a office visit, they can sit outside the ER all night and claim it's an emergency, because thanks to our congress, they are not allowed to kick people out who don't need to be there for serious emergencies.

The result? ERs are now overcrowded and being used as a free personal healthcare plan by people who don't have actual emergencies because they are lazy, cheap, or who just want a bottle of free tylenol instead of going to walgreens and spending $10 (even if it is only the percieved value of being free and they don't take into account the wait time and the driving). Cost goes down, demand goes up. It's as easy as that.

But it's free so take as much as you want, right? Wrong! Somebody is paying for it somewhere. I don't want to be that somebody.

As an example of why socialized healthcare and government meddling will make things worse:

Before the government started regulating and messing with healthcare and before the ambulance chasers came along, we used to have doctors that visted peoples homes and everybody could afford antibiotics out of their pocket.

Where do you live? Our ER and UC facilities in Southern Arizona are overrun by illegals.

I live in a place where there are no illegals. None, nada, zip. They're welcome to come here though; I could pay a couple of them to shovel out the barn today

edit: weird thought: There are a lot of Amish families near me... I wonder if the Amish would ever higher an illegal immigrant to do some of the chores they didn't want to do?? But, in all honesty, I'd rather do that work myself (shoveling in the barn) - it's good exercise, builds character, and builds muscle.

:thumbsup:

I can pick my own weeds thank you very much.

 

[BronX BooGiE]

American poor is way different then most other countries poor. You have section 8 and welfare were you can get money for rent and food and your bills every month. Then you have medicare so you don't have to pay for your doctors and medicine.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: malG
My point is Bill Gates could eradicate American homelessness for the next ten years but made minimal effort in helping millions of homeless fellow Americans. It would appear the super rich of American society don?t really care about America's poor.

This is why I've ignored this thread for the last few days.....

Bill Gates chairs one of (if not the?) largest endowments in the world. More than half of his income is devoted to fighting worldwide problems: poverty, malaria, AIDs, etc.

Unlike most Americans, Gates recognizes that there is a population outside of his own country, and that by tackling serious issues that affect everyone, we will benefit as well. I'm not saying homelessness is not a serious issue, but he has chosen his path, and I'm sure that you are completely unqualified to declare his charitable contributions inappropriate.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: malG
My point is Bill Gates could eradicate American homelessness for the next ten years but made minimal effort in helping millions of homeless fellow Americans. It would appear the super rich of American society don?t really care about America's poor.

You really are proving to be an incredible tool

Bill Gates is worth >50 billion dollars, where does it say that he's contributed >1% of his wealth towards AMERICAN HOMELESNESS?

Do dumb people grow on trees in America?

No, but they appear to hide under Eucalyptus trees in the Outback....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Strk
There are worst things than homelessness.

I challenge you to name 5 things worse than homelessness that society should more concerned about.

:roll:

AIDS
Malaria
Clean Water
Genocide
Despotic governments
Poverty
Starvation
Education
....

The continued breeding of Australian Homeschooled children...

Oh wait...that's 9!

EDIT: for more problems worthy of Bill Gate's attention before homelessness

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Strk
There are worst things than homelessness.

I challenge you to name 5 things worse than homelessness that society should more concerned about.

:roll:

AIDS


Malaria
Clean Water
Genocide
Despotic governments
Poverty
Starvation
Education
....

The continued breeding of Australian Homeschooled children...

Oh wait...that's 9!

EDIT: for more problems worthy of Bill Gate's attention before homelessness

Absolutely. I don't know about other parts of the nation, but all of the homeless people that I've seen here in Austin, TX are all worthless lazy bastards that could easily be working but instead choose to wave signs at people at left turn lanes and hold up traffic.

What Bill Gates, Warren Buffet are doing is absolutely brilliant and actually will make a difference. It amazes me that after these extremely talented people used their abilities to build great wealth, and provide jobs to thousands if not millions of Americans and give it all of their personal wealth away, that people can still be critical of them. Both, especially Buffet, are among the most humble and honest people in the world.

People like these guys are keeping the American economy alive. If it was full of whiny, entitled socialists, we'd all be poor.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Strk
There are worst things than homelessness.

I challenge you to name 5 things worse than homelessness that society should more concerned about.

:roll:

AIDS


Malaria
Clean Water
Genocide
Despotic governments
Poverty
Starvation
Education
....

The continued breeding of Australian Homeschooled children...

Oh wait...that's 9!

EDIT: for more problems worthy of Bill Gate's attention before homelessness

Absolutely. I don't know about other parts of the nation, but all of the homeless people that I've seen here in Austin, TX are all worthless lazy bastards that could easily be working but instead choose to wave signs at people at left turn lanes and hold up traffic.

What Bill Gates, Warren Buffet are doing is absolutely brilliant and actually will make a difference. It amazes me that after these extremely talented people used their abilities to build great wealth, and provide jobs to thousands if not millions of Americans and give it all of their personal wealth away, that people can still be critical of them. Both, especially Buffet, are among the most humble and honest people in the world.

People like these guys are keeping the American economy alive. If it was full of whiny, entitled socialists, we'd all be poor.

Equal poverty for all! Like I pointed out before, dividing Bill Gate's money amongst the population of the USA would give everybody like $200 ($16 a month for a year). Hardly going to make a difference in poverty to someone who can't pay their $400 rent every single month. You just have Bill Gate's as one more poor person, who now isn't going to bother trying to make any money since hes going to be poor anyway when its taken.

The major problem with the liberal communists in this country (aside from ignoring a fundamental problem like scarcity and rationing) is they don't truly believe in communism, that everyone should be equal... they believe that everyone should be equal but some (i.e.: themselves) are more equal than others...

In that light, there has never been a true communist economy in the world where the people run themselves... they have all had a problem at that last step where the government that exists to oversee the transition fails to dissolve itself due to power and greed... wait a minute, isn't that the same problem that plagues capitalism?

At least with capitalism you won't be shot and left to bleed out in a ditch if you make an effort to try to be rich too.

 

[Albatross]

http://www.comics.com/creators/zack/archive/zack-20070408.html

 

[Luthien]

because the government has given away all the nations natural wealth to private industry?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Luthien
because the government has given away all the nations natural wealth to private industry?

What exactly is the difference again between 'the nation' and the private individuals and businesses that make up that nation?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Luthien
because the government has given away all the nations natural wealth to private industry?

What exactly is the difference again between 'the nation' and the private individuals and businesses that make up that nation?

When walmart makes a buck, USofA doesn't get a buck, it gets a portion of that Buck.

 

[exdeath]

Text

Good to know I'm not the only one who sees it.