Poverty in the US

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 13 2005, 06:50 PM


I've got pictures like that in my own house!!!

Cowperson

So that makes you rich! You gots one of them thar automatic dishwershers!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"he is able to get medical care" - isn't this the number one cause of bankrupcies in the US?[/b]

Your point? Is this argument against socialized medical care in the US?

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Erm, yea, living space. I live in Tokyo, and would live in less space than most people in the states. Why? Room. Lots of people, no where to go but up. It's bunk to use that yardstick as it means nothing. People who live in these European small places have health care and food on the table, even if they do it in smaller spaces.[/b]

Are you saying that living space means nothing? Sorry, that is BS. It is obvious that people prefer larger homes, all other things being equal. How much weight does this attribute carry depends on individual, but it is perfectly safe to say people prefer bigger rooms/flats/houses, not smaller. Ask your Japanese friends whether or not they dream about their own suburban house, instead of living in a cramped apartment buildings.

<!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@
what kind of car? One that works? Lots of people that are poor live in rural areas where cars are a necissity. I think if you address the issue of urban poor, you'll find a skew in those numbers.[/quote]
It might be a necessity, the point is – they have what is necessary (in your words). How on earth is that poverty? Poverty is when you have to walk 10 miles every day to get fresh water (never mind the quality of water). There is simply no comparison between American urban “poor” to tens of millions of people in the world living on 10 cents a day. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

<!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro
Anyway, i've gotta go home to the squalor of my smallish place in Tokyo. Interesting skewed piece of work again, FOD.[/quote]
Skewed piece of work, you say. You offered nothing but your own biased views, easily to be proven wrong. But no, it is the research done with official data that is skewed. And whatever FOD stands for...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Nice pictures Lanny. I suggest you get a mortgage and move the hell outta there. As for the Heritage Foundation, I pretty much expected your anti-right wing rant. No substance, just venom. Good work.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Oct 14 2005, 09:19 AM
Nice pictures Lanny. I suggest you get a mortgage and move the hell outta there. As for the Heritage Foundation, I pretty much expected your anti-right wing rant. No substance, just venom. Good work.

It still beat the shinguard out of anything you posted! What's next? Quoting Mein Kampf? Don't you ever get sick of wearing that brown shirt of yours?

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Oct 14 2005, 06:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Oct 14 2005, 06:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It might be a necessity, the point is – they have what is necessary (in your words). How on earth is that poverty? Poverty is when you have to walk 10 miles every day to get fresh water (never mind the quality of water). There is simply no comparison between American urban “poor” to tens of millions of people in the world living on 10 cents a day. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

<!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro
Anyway, i've gotta go home to the squalor of my smallish place in Tokyo. Interesting skewed piece of work again, FOD.

Skewed piece of work, you say. You offered nothing but your own biased views, easily to be proven wrong. But no, it is the research done with official data that is skewed. And whatever FOD stands for... [/b][/quote]
FOL - Let me understand this - you're calling my point of view "skewed". OK. Whatever. Live in three different countries for long periods of your life, see the way things are done in a few other countries on top of that, learn about the values of other cultures and try to learn or actually speak another language. If, at that point, you can point and say for sure things like "large home in the suburbs as the apex of civilization" or "Heritage foundation is reasonable", then bully on you - let's have a discussion and work it out.

Until then, there's really no point in arguing with someone who drags out the old "suburban home is next to godliness" argument and figures he's scored a knock out punch. But since I've started, here we go:

Medical care - most poor people in the US don't have medical coverage. And the lack of medical coverage is the number one reason why people go broke in the US. Your original argument was not true. Sorry you don't know this, as it sort of knocks a few holes in whatever point it was you were trying to make.

Space: What I find really funny is that you cling to this "large home in the suburbs" as some kind of anarcho-utopian worldview. Living and adapting to small places is part of the way of life here, and in many countries in the world. In Japan, if you lived in the suburbs, you spend at least two hours on a train a day, and some people prefer and are used to living in spaces that are smaller and more central as it provides them with more free time and access to cultural events. And there's nothing wrong with that. Besides, aren't the most expensive chunks of land in your free market worldview in the most central, cramped locations in the world? And how can that argument sync with your assertion that the 'burbs are the apex?

Car: Maybe they own a car. Maybe it's broken down a lot, or maybe the Heritage foundation decided to survey a bunch of rural poor places, because it would help them make their point. My assertion is that urban poor would almost not meet the same "car possession" rates (something you left out of my quote). Because the group you quoted typically likes to supply data that is skewed, and because a lot of the work I do is in a similar vien, I could see them constructing a survey in this fashion to support their hypothesis. And that doesn't even address the point of those who don't have cars and need them. In Tokyo (or New York), lots of people don't own cars, but get around just fine as they have access to transportation. Being able to get should be based on this access.

Or is this all a bit too skewed to the side of reason for you?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>FOL - Let me understand this - you're calling my point of view "skewed". OK. Whatever. Live in three different countries for long periods of your life, see the way things are done in a few other countries on top of that, learn about the values of other cultures and try to learn or actually speak another language. If, at that point, you can point and say for sure things like "large home in the suburbs as the apex of civilization" or "Heritage foundation is reasonable", then bully on you - let's have a discussion and work it out.

Until then, there's really no point in arguing with someone who drags out the old "suburban home is next to godliness" argument and figures he's scored a knock out punch. But since I've started, here we go:[/b]

I have lived in 4 different countries, English is my 4th language, so please stop judging me when you know nothing whatsoever about me. All your shots at me are wide misses. One thing that is certain is that people everywhere prefer larger homes, all other things being equal (something you left out of my quote too).

So if people fancy apartments, they prefer larger ones, not smaller. If they prefer suburban houses, they prefer larger ones. Are you really arguing this?

And drop that suburban home next to godliness nonsense. I did not say people prefer suburban homes, I said people prefer larger living spaces, all other things being equal.

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Medical care - most poor people in the US don't have medical coverage. And the lack of medical coverage is the number one reason why people go broke in the US. Your original argument was not true. Sorry you don't know this, as it sort of knocks a few holes in whatever point it was you were trying to make.[/b]

My original argument? I haven’t even touched this argument. I merely quoted one report which said US poor are able to get medical care. You know, as opposite to African poor, who are not able to get medical care, because nearest “hospital” is 100 miles away and is more that likely to be short staffed and without medical supplies. Is medical care expensive? Sure it is, and I would make an argument that it is so because medical care is socialized. But you will shoot it down as cold hearted anti-social stance so we can save ourselves time.

The point is– American poor people will receive expensive medical care, and as a result they may go broke. African poor people won’t get any care whatsoever and are likely to die even if the illness is easily curable. Which one is worse off? Are these two cases even comparable? In my view, no they are not. In your bizzaro world they are.

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro
Space: What I find really funny is that you cling to this "large home in the suburbs" as some kind of anarcho-utopian worldview. Living and adapting to small places is part of the way of life here, and in many countries in the world. In Japan, if you lived in the suburbs, you spend at least two hours on a train a day, and some people prefer and are used to living in spaces that are smaller and more central as it provides them with more free time and access to cultural events. And there's nothing wrong with that. Besides, aren't the most expensive chunks of land in your free market worldview in the most central, cramped locations in the world? And how can that argument sync with your assertion that the 'burbs are the apex?

Again, you are arguing something I did not say. If people want to live in more central areas, they still prefer larger flats/room, don’t they? This is silly, I would wager you are the only one who suggests otherwise.

In the same central area apartment house, the same floor, the same rent, the same flats, one 2 bedroom, one 3 bedroom. Are you really saying people wouldn’t prefer the 3 bedroom one? Give your head a shake.

<!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@
Car: Maybe they own a car. Maybe it's broken down a lot, or maybe the Heritage foundation decided to survey a bunch of rural poor places, because it would help them make their point. My assertion is that urban poor would almost not meet the same "car possession" rates (something you left out of my quote). Because the group you quoted typically likes to supply data that is skewed, and because a lot of the work I do is in a similar vien, I could see them constructing a survey in this fashion to support their hypothesis. And that doesn't even address the point of those who don't have cars and need them. In Tokyo (or New York), lots of people don't own cars, but get around just fine as they have access to transportation. Being able to get should be based on this access.[/quote]
The Heritage foundation didn’t survey anyone, the report is done with official US government data. Nice try though.

However, back to the original point. Are you really comparing a poor New Yorker who could use a car, but has to ride a subway instead, to a poor African/Asian who doesn’t even dream about a car, and lives without running water, electricity and such? The degree of poverty is ridiculously different, and I can’t understand why it is so hard for you to see. No car vs. no drinking water. Yeah they are comparable.


<!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro
Or is this all a bit too skewed to the side of reason for you?[/quote]
To tell you the truth, I don’t think your arguments make much sense at all.

PS Lanny, your brown shirt comment is beyond pathetic. I am sure you can do better.

[RougeUnderoos]

It's not a given that people want larger living-spaces so you might want to back off that stance.

Here in the land of suburban monstrosity and unparalleled sprawl, the richest people (grandparents) sell their big house when the kids are gone and move into a much smaller one, or a condominium.

Myself, I also prefer a smaller living space to a larger one, for several reasons. Not everyone wants a big suburban home or the largest flat possible.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Oct 16 2005, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Oct 16 2005, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> My original argument? I haven’t even touched this argument. I merely quoted one report which said US poor are able to get medical care. You know, as opposite to African poor, who are not able to get medical care, because nearest “hospital” is 100 miles away and is more that likely to be short staffed and without medical supplies. Is medical care expensive? Sure it is, and I would make an argument that it is so because medical care is socialized. But you will shoot it down as cold hearted anti-social stance so we can save ourselves time.

The point is– American poor people will receive expensive medical care, and as a result they may go broke. African poor people won’t get any care whatsoever and are likely to die even if the illness is easily curable. Which one is worse off? Are these two cases even comparable? In my view, no they are not. In your bizzaro world they are.


The Heritage foundation didn’t survey anyone, the report is done with official US government data. Nice try though.

However, back to the original point. Are you really comparing a poor New Yorker who could use a car, but has to ride a subway instead, to a poor African/Asian who doesn’t even dream about a car, and lives without running water, electricity and such? The degree of poverty is ridiculously different, and I can’t understand why it is so hard for you to see. No car vs. no drinking water. Yeah they are comparable.


<!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro
Or is this all a bit too skewed to the side of reason for you?

To tell you the truth, I don’t think your arguments make much sense at all.

PS Lanny, your brown shirt comment is beyond pathetic. I am sure you can do better. [/b][/quote]
Living abroad:
Bully on you. Still have a hard time believing that someone with such a hard, shut and closed world view has actually lived in more than one place. A quick question - where did your beliefs actually come from?

Medical Care:
Since you brought up the whole social medicine versus free market medicine being more expensive, I thought I'd provide you with some research that suggests otherwise:

Most Expensive

But this evidence is from those dum-dums at Harvard

Yes, I can get medical care if I'm poor and in the states, but in the end I will wind up being poor again.

In terms of what I am trying to say, and what you seem to want to miss is that despite America's wealth, crippling poverty is growing, not shrinking. The riots in New Orleans is a good example of civil unrest that took place along those lines. That some people tend to just blanket the reasons for it is simply "it's their fault" is something I don't do well with (though for some it is true), which is where we diverge.

[Azure]

I wonder if people actually have a clue what socialized health care would cost in the US. Look at how expensive it is in Canada, now add 250 million more people. Talk about a budget deficit.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Azure@Oct 18 2005, 11:46 AM
I wonder if people actually have a clue what socialized health care would cost in the US. Look at how expensive it is in Canada, now add 250 million more people. Talk about a budget deficit.

It's still less expensive than the current system they have in place.

And here's another way at looking at it - GDP is really big in Canada. Now add another 270 million and just imagine how HUGE it would be. Talk about a huge GDP!

Perspective is lovely.

[Azure]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 17 2005, 10:31 PM
It's still less expensive than the current system they have in place.

And here's another way at looking at it - GDP is really big in Canada. Now add another 270 million and just imagine how HUGE it would be. Talk about a huge GDP!

Perspective is lovely.

Look at how expensive socialized health care is to Canada, billions upon billions of dollars, now add 250 million people.

Personally I support a two-tier system, that way the rich people can generate their money back into the economy while the not so rich people have their basic health needs met.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Azure@Oct 18 2005, 01:47 PM
Look at how expensive socialized health care is to Canada, billions upon billions of dollars, now add 250 million people.

Personally I support a two-tier system, that way the rich people can generate their money back into the economy while the not so rich people have their basic health needs met.

To be fair, it's not 'Socialized' health care that, by itself, makes health care costly.

The US pays _way_ more than Canada, per capita, for it's health care. And that's with the Private Sector contributing heavily in (private insurance/hospitals) footing the bill, as opposed to just under 2% Private health dollars spent in Canada.

This interesting study pegs a lot of the blame at higher labour, and specifically, higher administrative costs in the States as a reason for inflated costs... Canada's 'socialized' system spends .8% (public) on administrative costs, the US spends 3.1%.

Per Capita health spending, in public dollars, is higher in the US than Canada. The US clocked in at $1901 public money per person, as opposed to Canada's $1517.

Of course, the average income of physicians in the US is twice as high as Canada, so that probably also drives up costs.

http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

[Azure]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 18 2005, 07:39 AM
To be fair, it's not 'Socialized' health care that, by itself, makes health care costly.

The US pays _way_ more than Canada, per capita, for it's health care. And that's with the Private Sector contributing heavily in (private insurance/hospitals) footing the bill, as opposed to just under 2% Private health dollars spent in Canada.

This interesting study pegs a lot of the blame at higher labour, and specifically, higher administrative costs in the States as a reason for inflated costs... Canada's 'socialized' system spends .8% (public) on administrative costs, the US spends 3.1%.

Per Capita health spending, in public dollars, is higher in the US than Canada. The US clocked in at $1901 public money per person, as opposed to Canada's $1517.

Of course, the average income of physicians in the US is twice as high as Canada, so that probably also drives up costs.

http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

Another cost factor would be the fact that the prices are controlled by a private company, if they feel the need to up the cost a little more they certainly can without any restrictions from the government.

Even with the cost of health care being higher in the US, prices would only go up with the socialized system being put in place.

As hospitals are allowed to be privately owned, massive amounts of money are currently being pumped into the economy. That is single-handely the biggest benefit of the US System. I'm sure we all know the problems with it as well. And there are problems with the public system in Canada as well, waiting lists, people abusing the system and so on. That is exactly why I want the two-tier system. Many, many people would be willing to pay money to have their operation a hell of a lot sooner, rather then being on the waiting list. Why refuse those people to throw the money back into the economy?