Ah, I see why it is that these folks didn’t contribute to the GD thread on the subject - they couldn’t just post - ahem - idiotically there. More folks prefer to post in the Pit style, even the Pit-lite style, eh? 
All that does is show you are incapable of discussing the subject in anything approaching an adult fashion. Your loss.
You are an adult? Well, ignorance fought… I think.
You are really not getting the Greek thing are you? Or should I assume you really were whooshed? Or should I assume real idiocy from you? 
Dude. C’mon.
Shrug. If you want to nitpick, I guess I’m bored enough for it. Now, when I originally said “a legal living”, I was talking about those that make any of their living thru illegal means, such as dealing drugs, robbery, etc. Yes, there is that etc again, but I am certainly not going to list every illegal act one might use to make a buck.
This does not include those that sit on welfare and food stamps and Medicaid and subsidized housing and whatever else is out there, but it should. Unfortunately there are many things that people do that aren’t illegal that result in their receiving aid. There are so many aid programs that those who do work for a living are having more and more trouble staying ahead of the taxes.
I don’t know why you include folks who are at home while their spouses work, since they obviously aren’t making a living if they are unemployed and (I assume?) you didn’t mean they were doing anything illegal.
I didn’t say “so far”, I said below it somewhat, or a lot compared to others. Meaning, many (most?) folks live above their means, with high credit card bills, a big mortgage, almost continual car payments and other expenses that we don’t indulge in. Such as, we have never “gone on vacation” as so many do - the most we do is spend a weekend in Vegas or Napa. I have never been to Hawaii, much less overseas. We did not have children, so we didn’t have to pay to raise them nor send them to college. We live in an older home, that my husband has owned for over 25 years, so our property taxes are lower than those with newer homes or those who have purchased more recently. We don’t have a HD TV, high speed internet, only basic cable, no electronic toys, no lawn service, no maid service, I buy used furniture, we only buy clothes when we are in danger of being arrested for indecent exposure.
And what it all boils down to, we pay cash. As much as possible. And the money we don’t spend goes into savings and retirement funds. But we probably won’t be able to keep up with the amount of taxes we have to pay to support other peoples’ lifestyle choices. I fail to see why we should have to keep struggling to maintain our position, just because there are so many out there who cannot be bothered to be responsible.
I definitely disagree that it would be better economically since there don’t seem to be many government programs that run within budget, with anything like efficiency. Socially, well, I don’t see that it makes lives better when people get things they didn’t earn. Morally - how can it be moral for you to want to force me to pay for yet another thing, to go to people who have most likely made stupid and selfish decisions, who I don’t know but you assure me somehow “deserve” for me to help pay for their healthcare. All however many million of them.
Far too many lose their motivation, yes. Been there, saw it.
Interesting that my desire to hold on to some of my hard earned money is viewed as greedy. Do you give ever last available penny to the needy? If not, why am I greedy and you aren’t?
Oh, and FWIW, I had the same attitudes when I was dirt poor.
As for those jobs, they used to be manned by teenagers who of course are too entitled to bother these days. They could be covered by college students or in Welfare to Work. Or eliminated - do we need people making a living picking up dog poo?
You said reproductive health, not natal and post natal. And all I said was being poor didn’t seem to affect their reproductive abilities. It appears that the only way you can support your opinions is to twist and attack. Not a very good way to make your vision of universal healthcare attractive.
Which of course I haven’t said, but you all just keep twisting those posts around and keep showing me how folks like you all should be the ones deciding who is “deserving”.
So, you are going to focus on the numbers (and the typo) and ignore everything else?
Not a strawman. Most of the people that I would have to support on a UHC would be the same people who don’t pay or pay full rate for their food, shelter, clothing, education, and/or child care and don’t tend to have luxuries. Because they are already getting those things from the government.
Look at it logically. Right now there are a bunch (I forget the number) of people in the US without insurance and for the most part they fall into two catagories - not working and so not eligible for group insurance or able to pay for anything else, or working but their employer doesn’t provide group and they cannot afford private. You want to take these people and essentially add them to my group policy, even tho they can’t afford the premiums. Who pays for that?
Shrug. Our economy is seriously bad, we owe how much? in the national debt and you think it’s a good idea to add a highly expensive program to that?
Oh please. You really believe that one thing, no matter how wonderful and perfect it is, can be the only reason for life expectancies, good or bad?
OK, so you are saying that a German leader who lived decades ago is a good example as to why a UHC is the best thing every for the US?
True that. Problem is, you want us to gamble that you are right. A gamble that wouldn’t affect you in the slightest so it does make it easier for you to insist that you are right.
Ah. So you believe that anyone that works, no matter at what, should be getting perks from either their employer or their government? That a teenager working 20 hours a week at McDs should have health insurance? How about their pay - you’d have to raise it at least 3x in order for them to be able to afford that insurance. Oh wait, no, you want me to pay for it, that’s right.
There will always be jobs available that require almost zero education and skills, such as flipping burgers and mowing lawns. Why in the world do you think those jobs should pay enough that someone could make a living at it? And now you want to add subsidized insurance to them? Tell me, do people make a living picking up dog poo in Ireland?
All of that is on the backs of the taxpayer here - one reason we are such a large economy is because the salaries have to be high to those who do work so we can afford to pay for all of the welfare programs we have here. If we had Alabama’s weather, we wouldn’t be able to keep people here even with the high salaries, but even that doesn’t hold them when things go bad with our economy. Of course, this time around they won’t be able to afford to move elsewhere, since they won’t be able to sell their houses, so we’ll have even more people to support. Yeah, all of those taxpayer funded programs are working out really well for us.
Since I have no idea how you got that, can’t help.
Oh wait, I guess I do have an idea about it - you are just jumping to some negative conclusion about what I post because of the examples of others, right? :dubious:
Ah, another one. Funny how things I haven’t said are attributed to me.
From your definition then, you’re not making a “living”, legal or otherwise. Wouldn’t that make you one of the people you are bitching about, the “…the huge number of people we have who cannot be bothered to make a legal living…”, as you said?
Actually, you don’t live below your means at all, from what I now understand, as you seem to be claiming that you don’t personally have any “means”, contrary to how you answered me earlier in the thread. Isn’t it true that you are making no money whatsoever, and that your husband is the only person bringing in the dough? As a hypothetical, what would you do if your husband divorced you? What if you had no family at all? I’m pretty sure you’d be one of those people you are bitching about having to pay for through taxes. I’d be one of those people willing to help you out through taxes.
Since a lot of companies are notorious for scheduling people to work fewer than full time hours in order to avoid paying for health care and other benefits, I think that this loophole should be eliminated. If someone works fewer than 40 hours (or whatever would be considered a full time job), then they should get pro-rated benefits. And, since we no longer have wage ceilings, I think that all companies should have to offer a cash equivalent. The reason we have health care insurance and suchlike is because it was a way to offer additional compensation when companies couldn’t raise wages and salaries.
As for low skill jobs, I think that more and more we’re gonna see them performed by robots. We already have robot lawn mowers, robot vacuum cleaners, and I’m pretty sure that there’s robotic burger flippers, too. The reason why we don’t have more of them is because they cost more than humans do…for right now, anyway.
I think that we should offer basic universal health care because it’s more humane, AND because it’s cheaper. Right now, people who have no health care go to the ER for things that could have been taken care of in a simple office visit, if they had proper insurance.
What is illegal about the way I am making my living?
Hardly. Altho I don’t have any family and altho I would not take my husband to the cleaners should he divorce me, I do have friends that would be happy to give me a place to live and I know that my husband would give me something to live on. I can also cash out my 401Ks and live on those. All it takes is planning ahead and personal responsibility.
Who said there was anything illegal about it? I said you weren’t making a “living” at all, by your own definition. Do you always respond to questions or statements by first trying really hard to avoid actually reading them?
In my hypothetical, your husband cashed out those 401Ks already, and left without a trace. How long do you think these friends are going to support you? What if they move, die, or otherwise become unavailable? Are you going to live in a box and eat dirt, or are you going to take advantage of the system that was created to help you survive under those circumstances?
The only definition you asked from me was illegal ways of making a living.
He can’t cash out mine. Aint’ gonna happen anyway.
Well, when I was in similar situations in the past I dealt with it without having to go on welfare, food stamps or anything else funded by taxes. So, even tho you probably cannot come up with a hypothesis that would have me ending up without any resources, I still doubt that I am going to end up living off the taxpayer.
Which, of course, is immaterial since most of those who do live off the taxpayer end up that way because they couldn’t be bothered to plan ahead and/or put off gratification and/or feel entitled to freebies.
Really? Got a cite for that? Since this entire conversation takes place in this thread, you shouldn’t have to look far.
Care to share how you “dealt with it” in similar situations? I’m betting your “similar situations” aren’t in the same ballpark, but let’s give it a shot.
That’s just silly. I can come up with a metric buttload of hypothetical situations that have you ending up without any resources. Hell, I just have to look at actual people who have ended up in similar situations, through no fault of their own. It’s not like there’s a shortage of them these days.
You can plan all day long, but shit happens which people are not only not expecting, but couldn’t even conceive of happening to themselves.
Neither should you - have fun.
You can find that in this thread too (hint - I lived well below the poverty level for many years). Altho I am aware that you the all knowing will decide that it isn’t a “similar situation”, I will point out that I lived on the Canadian border for awhile in a house without heat, and in another house with a hole in the roof. Back then, I did any work I could get ahold of to earn some money, lived on about $1 a day in food, eventually got a job at a bank which taught me some computer skills, then I built on that. By the time I was about 26 I’d made it to upper lower class and at 35 lower middle class. Good enough? - oops, sorry, silly question.
Actually, you most likely can’t as easily as you think because so far noone has. “No fault of their own” is extremely rare these days what with all of the entitled boomers out there.
Which would be extremely uncommon. What is more common is people who live well above their means and then when something happens they end up “in similar situations, through no fault of their own” as you say. Currently, if it is because they agreed to an incredibly stupid mortgage or if they have children, the taxpayer is bailing them out.
You made the claim, you back it up.
What part of living in a house, with or without heat, is the same as being destitute without a penny to your name? Remember, my hypothetical situtation doesn’t include a house, and not being able to work any more kind of kills the money-making prospects. So, box and dirt it is, correct?
Whose fault is it that you’re disabled? I’m guessing that wasn’t an entitlement.
Actually, you made a claim too. You have also forgotten what you previously posted. Two against one - you lose.
Wow, did I call that or what? Now, what is your definition of “similar” - just so we are clear, ok?
Uh, not making sense here. Technically I suppose it’s my fathers fault. What does that have to do with entitlement?
What are you drinking, and do you share?