haha. yet another reason to hate poor people

it's not enough to hate a poor person for being poor.

now we hate poor people for having poor health.


quit being so goddamn unhealthy, poor people! you're making the rest of us look bad!

9/18/2009 9:58:14 PM

that's not the point, idiot.

rather, it's to say that our health stats are skewed by the POOR CHOICES of our poor. no one is saying "fuck the poor.:

9/18/2009 10:11:07 PM

-damnit Vanessa, why did you choose to get breast cancer?

-there goes Andy, choosing to get lupus again.

-Rhonda, when stuck with decision to be healthy or get sickle-cell, selfishly chose sickle-cell.

-Jimmy, you should have thought about how poor you were before you chose to fall down the stairs and break your spine.





Fuck. all these poor people making stupid decisions... costing me money.

[Edited on September 19, 2009 at 2:10 AM. Reason : ]

9/19/2009 2:02:44 AM

Quote :

"rather, it's to say that our health stats are skewed by the POOR CHOICES of our poor. no one is saying "fuck the poor.:"

Have you been to the grocery store lately? Healthy food ain't cheap.

9/19/2009 8:59:33 AM

Bread, water, and beans?

There is cheap healthy food, but you won't enjoy eating it. There is also expensive unhealthy food, but it doesn't taste much better than the cheap unhealthy food. As I understand it, that is the only difference between the two food subsets.

9/19/2009 2:20:42 PM

Quote :

"Bread, water, and beans?"

I'm no nutritionist, but I'm pretty sure a healthy diet consists of more than bread, water, and beans.

Bread, water, and beans likely provide subsistence, but probably not the type of sustenance necessary to ensure a long, healthy life.

9/19/2009 2:40:55 PM

you can get a 2lb bag of carrots for like 1.50. bananas are frequently less than $1/pound.

fruits and vegetables are only expensive if you let them go to waste

9/19/2009 2:57:40 PM

Who needs 2 lbs of carrots though?

9/19/2009 3:27:40 PM

Quote :

"-damnit Vanessa, why did you choose to get breast cancer? -there goes Andy, choosing to get lupus again. -Rhonda, when stuck with decision to be healthy or get sickle-cell, selfishly chose sickle-cell. -Jimmy, you should have thought about how poor you were before you chose to fall down the stairs and break your spine."

You are a fucking moron.

the irony, though, is that when you look at statistics for those illnesses, America is #1 in the healthcare effectiveness. I wonder what the difference could be...

[Edited on September 19, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2009 4:32:05 PM

Even in the very poor, nutrient deficiency diseases are extremely rare in the United States. So is extreme malnourishment. Further, incidence of obesity or Type II diabetes crosses the entire socioeconomic spectrum in this country.

The argument that lifestyle choices can reduce the risk of chronic disease has been shown time and again to be sound. One could say that, in this case, the difference between the poor and affluent is that the affluent have the financial ability to use modern health care to live a less healthful lifestyle while still achieving a similar level of overall health.

9/19/2009 5:02:36 PM

Quote :

"you can get a 2lb bag of carrots for like 1.50. bananas are frequently less than $1/pound. fruits and vegetables are only expensive if you let them go to waste"

This still costs more than being a dollar menuaire.

Statements like:

Quote :

"rather, it's to say that our health stats are skewed by the POOR CHOICES of our poor."

are just inane. "Oh, they just make bad choices" is a lazy statement--one that allows you to walk away from a situation. Why do poor people make the choices they do? Is being poor a lifestyle choice? Do they consciously and willingly choose to eat McDonald's instead of something healthier?

Quote :

"One could say that, in this case, the difference between the poor and affluent is that the affluent have the financial ability to use modern health care to live a less healthful lifestyle while still achieving a similar level of overall health."

No--If you make poor health decisions, it will catch up to you. You don't get to buy yourself out of bad health. One could say being affluent (or not poor) allows you to:

1) eat better in the first place--say fresh fruits, veggies, cheese, meats, and milk with cereal instead of fruit cocktail, canned string beans, processed cheese spread, vienna sausage, and watery wheat-o's.

2) seek preventative health care.

3) take the time to do healthy things like exercise, get plenty of sleep, relax, take vacation, engage in hobbies, etc.

[Edited on September 19, 2009 at 6:46 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2009 6:45:07 PM

Quote :

"Do they consciously and willingly choose to eat McDonald's instead of something healthier? "

Yes. Look there are a number of things about being poor that can lead to an unhealthy life that you don't have much control over. Working 2 jobs, never having time to take a vacation or sick day, working shit jobs in shitty conditions, those are all things that when you're poor, you don't have much control over other than working your way out of it. However, food, alcohol and drugs are ALL choices you make, and are ALL choices that can be made correctly, even if you're poor. A meal at McDonalds is $5. Two adults can eat well on ~ $10 - 13 / day, and can eat as badly as eating McDonalds 3 times a day for considerably less.

9/19/2009 7:13:18 PM

Why do poor people make that decision then?

9/19/2009 7:20:01 PM

A number of reasons. Most likely reason is that mcdonalds is easier. Eating well, like anything worthwhile in life, takes effort and yes time. But one can not work their way out of being poor if one spends all their money on crappy food. But even still, let us say for the sake of argument that each meal takes a half hour to prepare, at a wage of 8 / hour that means the meal cost $4 to prep. So $5.50 per meal and that's healthier than mcdonalds.

Let's also not discount all the wellmeaning but misguided fools running around telling us how expensive eating healthy is. Say something longs enough and people will begin to beleive it even if it isn't the truth.

9/19/2009 7:30:27 PM

Thanks for calling me a fool, jackass. Fuck you, too.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the two ideas that (1) enough poor people are making enough poor decisions to have a significant impact on the country's health statistics and (2) these are all conscious decisions (that the more affluent apparently don't make).

There's something that compels people to make these decisions. Maybe the fact $5.50 * 3 * 30 = $495/month is a lot of money?

9/19/2009 7:47:27 PM

^x5

Your statements 1), 2), & 3) are obviously true. I see that you are trying to argue against statements in this thread which would seem to blame the poor for all of their health problems or blame the health of the poor for our country's health issues. While not stating it specifically, I believe you point toward the logical assertions that poverty is not always by choice and that poverty comes with certain limitations to lifestyle. However, the type of condemnation you refute was not my intention. My first statement was a general counter to the notion in this thread that poverty must equal a lack of proper nutrition, at least in this country. It does not.

My second statement seems to have missed you. Yes, money does allow you to buy yourself out of bad health. True, you can't avoid the development of health problems just because you have more money sitting in the bank, but that money can be used to identify and treat symptoms, effectively nullifying the health problem in some cases. What I'm saying is that everyone, rich or poor, has the capacity to make lifestyle choices which impact overall health.

For example, take two American men, separated at birth twins even, one rich and one poor, who choose to eat a high fat, high cholesterol diet for many years. (Don't get stuck on "choose to eat..." here. Yes, it is a choice. If you tried hard you could talk about the poor man not being educated enough to make the decision correctly, but this is for the sake of argument) Both men develop hypertension and high cholesterol, risking heart attack, stroke, etc. The rich man has the money to regularly see a competent doctor, purchase the prescribed beta blockers for hypertension and statins for high cholesterol. He does not follow his doctors orders to eat a healthful diet or exercise. The medications lower his blood pressure and cholesterol, and the rich man continues his unhealthy lifestyle. The poor man has not seen a physician in many years. He dies from a heart attack, his chronic conditions never having been diagnosed by a physician.

9/19/2009 8:39:41 PM

Quote :

"Thanks for calling me a fool, jackass. Fuck you, too."

What else would you call someone that unwittingly or at the very least without malice regurgitates easily falsified statements to the detriment of those that might hear them? I don't ascribe any malice to you (threats of sexual deviance notwithstanding), but it is nothing short of foolish to declare that eating healthy is more expensive than eating McDonalds every day.

Quote :

"I'm having a hard time reconciling the two ideas that (1) enough poor people are making enough poor decisions to have a significant impact on the country's health statistics and (2) these are all conscious decisions (that the more affluent apparently don't make)."

Why? As we as a society define poverty, 12% of americans are poor. That would be 1 in every 8. Combine that with the number of people in the US that just make poor lifestyle choices regardless and I would say that our choices of lifestyle can easily sway our health statistics.

As for conscious decisions, they are. They may be heavily influenced by lifestyle, circumstances and well meaning fools, but they are choices none the less. No one forces these poor people to give their money to McDonalds.

Quote :

"There's something that compels people to make these decisions. Maybe the fact $5.50 * 3 * 30 = $495/month is a lot of money?"

And still as expensive or cheaper than eating at McDonalds 3 times a day. Of course, if the poor were better at budgeting, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. I have sympathy for the poor, that doesn't mean I forgive them for their own errors.

9/19/2009 9:17:03 PM

no, b4k4, it's clear that you just hate poor people. you poor people hater, you

9/19/2009 9:34:02 PM

I think it's safe to say that everyone on the planet has made at least a few, "poor lifestyle choices". To use "perfection" as the measuring stick to decide who gets healed when they're sick is crazy, and a sliding scale based on "lifestyle choices" is a witch hunt. Do you really want someone digging through your trash looking for Doritos bags?

Most discussion is this regard is just a matter of, "See, this is why I'm so much better than they are." I don't know why, but I'm always suspicious of people that claim to be perfect, or even better than most.

9/20/2009 10:00:35 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don't would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. "I absolutely reject that notion," the president said. Obama said "Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.""

Wait..when we argue that insurance companies should be able to sell across state lines like AUTO insurance...we are told by liberals "You can't compare auto to health insurance!"

Quote :

""I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier is part of the way that we're going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press.""

Obama went on to state that "Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength"

Quote :

"Obama told Univision's "Al Punto" ("To the Point") that the strong opposition to his plan is part of a political strategy. "Well, part of it is ... that the opposition has made a decision," he said. "They are just not going to support anything, for political reasons.""

Mr. Obama... You Lie!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

9/20/2009 10:38:04 AM

Quote :

"Wait..when we argue that insurance companies should be able to sell across state lines like AUTO insurance...we are told by liberals "You can't compare auto to health insurance!""

i'm curious who is against letting health insurance companies compete across state lines?

edit: with safeguards to prevent all the insurances companies fleeing to one state that will look the other way with regards to regulation.

[Edited on September 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2009 1:00:57 PM

Quote :

"I think it's safe to say that everyone on the planet has made at least a few, "poor lifestyle choices". To use "perfection" as the measuring stick to decide who gets healed when they're sick is crazy, and a sliding scale based on "lifestyle choices" is a witch hunt. Do you really want someone digging through your trash looking for Doritos bags? "

I said nothing of using eating choices as a method of determining who gets healed. As far as sliding scales on lifestyle choices, I can assure you that any government program will do so. I can assure this because private plans are beginning to do so (see BCBS plans for state employees).

My purpose was merely to dispel the notion that eating healthy (or healthier) is expensive and therefore not an option for someone who is poor.

However, poor lifestyle choices can and do affect your health, and your health options, this is true regardless of whether you have insurance or not, and it seems to me, that if one were in a position where their income did not allow them to purchase expensive health care, that one would do as much as they can to avoid engaging in behaviors that pose a significant risk to their health.

The biggest problem being faced here is the same as the "war on poverty" which is to say there is always a baseline, and that healthcare is relative to those around you. Even assuming there was a basic .gov care that gave everyone equal care, those with more money would be able to obtain better care, and in 50 years we'll be having this same discussion all over again.

[Edited on September 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ghfj]

9/20/2009 1:52:30 PM

Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper

Quote :

"VANCOUVER — Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday. Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million. “This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.” The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only. “It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo. Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.” “Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” Brodie said."

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

9/21/2009 10:18:38 PM

Why do conservatives even pay for private insurance at all? Isn't private insurance just like socialism? You're all contributing into one large pot, and whoever gets injured the most gets all that money, and if you don't get injured you don't get that money back. Isn't that socialism? Why don't you just drop your private insurance and save your own money up?

9/21/2009 11:12:09 PM

nope, it's not socialism. because the insurance company isn't run by the gov't and the people are free to buy or not buy the insurance. durrrrrr, basic dictionary definition.

9/22/2009 4:35:58 AM

Quote :

"Why do conservatives even pay for private insurance at all? Isn't private insurance just like socialism? You're all contributing into one large pot, and whoever gets injured the most gets all that money, and if you don't get injured you don't get that money back. Isn't that socialism? Why don't you just drop your private insurance and save your own money up?"

For the same reason that you'll give a dollar to the homeless guy on the street, but will report him to the police if he mugs you for that same dollar. Voluntary vs involuntary. If BCBS does something I don't like, I can drop them and never pay them another dime. If the federal government does something I don't like, I can piss and moan and hope they don't raise my taxes again. Or to put it another way, how long do you think the war in Iraq would have gone on if the government didn't have the power to force you to pay for it?

As to dropping private insurance and saving, there are a number of people who do just that. Anywhere from 10-20% of the "47 million uninsured" are eligible for private insurance and choose not to pay for it.

9/22/2009 7:51:59 AM

To the ones arguing about poor people not being able to afford healthy food, you have to first ask why is healthy food expensive?

Corn and soy subsidies are the answer, we've turned into a culture feeding off Soylent Green and we do it willfully and cheerfully. If we had a decent and proud food culture you fuckers would all know how to make things from scratch on the cheap. Instead, you just live off Little Debbie and McDonalds.

9/22/2009 11:04:16 AM

HHS investigates Humana for Medicare mailer warning seniors on health overhaul
September 21, 2009

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration warned insurance companies Monday they face possible legal action for allegedly trying to scare seniors with misleading information about the potential for lost benefits under health care legislation in Congress. 'As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your Web sites,' said a notice from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-health-care-overhaul-medicare,0,1506314.story

Good thing Uncle Sugar is "looking out" for us.

And just as many liberals have demonstrated here concerning competition, David Axelrod doesn't want competition in health insurance, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuasvdr3FY

Just wow.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

9/22/2009 1:31:50 PM

Back to a discussion healthcare reform, the Republicans seem to have picked up a lesson from Sun Tzu :

Quote :

"If you can't win, stall."

They did a great job of killing healthcare reform during the Clinton era (starting 1993). That was 16 years ago. At that time concern was mounting because of graphs like this:



Of course, per capita healthcare costs have doubled since then ( http://media.artdiamondblog.com/images2/HealthCareCostsGraph.jpg ). In the interviening time, Republicans have had 8 years to implement some kind of healthcare reform (any kind). The truth of the matter is that the Republican Party just doesn't think we have a problem with our healthcare system (Oh, they say they do, and they say they just want to slow things down, but actions speak louder than words).

Quote :

"The cry of impatience has won out," said Senator Charles Grassley, the panel's senior Republican and a member of the "Gang of Six" negotiators who failed to reach agreement. "They have put moving quickly over moving correctly."

I think they have had ample opportunity to do something. Anything.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090922/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_5

9/22/2009 1:41:36 PM

^

Quote :

"Back to a discussion healthcare reform. . . ."

Yeah, that's exactly what my post above was about.

9/22/2009 1:48:06 PM

good thing we passed the HMO act in 65 to keep costs down. Worked well, as do most govt options.

9/22/2009 1:58:28 PM

^^^that seems to be the case. saying you "don't support health reform" is as politically toxic as saying "you support socialism."

yet, there are no alternatives to provide affordable health coverage. i'm sure some in here will come in and say that the republican party has provided numerous alternatives and that the wicked liberal media isn't covering it but the simple matter is that these alternatives do not provide affordable coverage to those in need.

so instead, they just stomp their feet and say, "i support health reform, just NOT THIS ONE," often peppering in the words "socialism" "free market" and "pelosi" for variety.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/22/2009 1:59:52 PM

Outlaw low deductable health insurance. That should help.

9/22/2009 3:02:11 PM

Quote :

"good thing we passed the HMO act in 65 to keep costs down. Worked well, as do most govt options."

Get your facts straight. It was the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 - passed during the Nixon administration (Republican). It was a market driven inititive to keep costs down by: 1) Letting HMO's aggragate patients so that they get a group discount, 2) Assuming that when when healthcare costs effect an HMO's profit margin, then costs will go down, 3) Implementing Tort Reform, because HMOs were immune from being sued, and 4) By forcing doctors cost compete against each other to get patients.

We can all see how well that has worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmo

P.S. to Hooksaw - I was writing that before you posted ... thank you for bringing us back to topic, and away from blaming lazy, irresponsible poor people for their illnesses.

9/22/2009 3:34:53 PM

9/22/2009 3:43:34 PM

Back in the day, Railroad companies often had the ability to choose whether it was the state or the federal government that regulated them. This would be a good idea for today. The Federal Government should leave state rules and regulations in place for locally chartered insurers, but allow insurance companies to seek federal charters. Companies with a federal charter would be federally regulated and immune to state regulation. This would introduce regulatory competition between the two levels of government, as regulators love regulating, but if the regulated have a choice between regulators, then regulators will have an incentive to attract the regulated. They would only have one method at their disposal, that being fair and reasonable regulation.

Similarly, customers would be able to choose which regulatory regime they want to buy a policy under.

9/23/2009 1:40:30 AM

Thanks for the video. Amazing the stupidity, yet power that hollywood has over some people.

I guess Will Ferrell took a break from making profits on his new movie, "Old Man Yelling"


thanks for the correct date on the HMO act bobo. 65 was the social security act, which gave us medicare and medicaid. HMO act was trying to keep down the exploding costs. haha. No doubt govt is the answer THIS time around too.

[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 8:39 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2009 8:37:18 AM

is no government the answer?

9/23/2009 8:43:23 AM

That government is best which governs least.

9/23/2009 8:49:21 AM

so be that description the best government would be no government at all.

it would be the leastest governing government ever!

9/23/2009 8:54:01 AM

Er, eyedrb, maybe you missed the part about the HMO act being an attempt at free-market cost controls, passed by a Republican administration.

9/23/2009 9:33:43 AM

Quote :

"That government is best which governs least."

I would love for you to live in Sweden for 5 years.

9/23/2009 9:42:49 AM

Quote :

"maybe you missed the part about the HMO act being an attempt at free-market cost controls,"

Yikes! HMOs didn't work out the way we wanted...so let's turn the whole thing over to the government... They will run it efficiently.

The Constitution be damned, we have to force everyone to buy health-care...but let's not tell anyone how much they are going to have to pay before the bill is passed...or how easy rates can be further increased after passage.

9/23/2009 10:22:24 AM

The complete and total disconnect between what the bills actually say and what people are saying will happen is absolutely amazing to me. Let me post this picture again.



Show me the part where the government takes over the health care industry. Show me the part where private health insurance companies are being forced out of business. Show me the part where unhealthy poor people and illegal aliens get free health care. It just isn't there.

9/23/2009 10:31:07 AM

The part where it prevents health insurers from denying applicants combined with the insurance mandate.

9/23/2009 11:39:10 AM

denying patients?

i thought the health care bill was going to kill old people?

9/23/2009 11:47:50 AM

Only if Herr Obama, head of the Reichstadt Panel of the Dead, decides so.

9/23/2009 12:36:19 PM

I'm glad that we have the ability to sum up several hundred pages on unwritten legislation into a one page flow chart.

9/23/2009 1:12:26 PM

Quote :

"I'm glad that we have the ability to sum up several hundred pages on unwritten legislation into a one page flow chart."

9/23/2009 1:14:01 PM

Quote :

"HMO act being an attempt at free-market cost controls"

Because by definition the free market requires a govt act for it to work.

9/23/2009 1:20:08 PM