9 ms·

So this country doesn't make enough money to be able to keep some unlucky people alive without throwing them or their family into poverty? Or is it simply that

So this country doesn't make enough money to be able to keep some unlucky people alive without throwing them or their family into poverty? Or is it simply that nobody cares for anybody else as long as you are better off then them?

visarga 8y ago
I think the second explanation works better - if we look at the way people vote. It's a religious thing to abandon people in suffering to banks and creditors. This way the holy right to make money is put in the first position.
WhompingWindows 8y ago
I believe it is highly American to believe in self-sufficiency and to minimize the role of luck in success or failure. Whether we go back to the Protestant work ethic, the Puritan sensibility, gold rushes, unfettered capitalism, the Gilded Age, and our current second gilded age, to me it is clear that caring for others is a secondary concern for many Americans. Just look at the "makers/takers" model of our populace put forward by the top current lawmakers. In this framework, sick people are takers and capitalists are makers.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > to believe in self-sufficiency and to minimize the role of luck in success or failure. I think that, frankly, those two are in opposition to one another. Self-sufficiency at scale is a game of numbers and luck; systems of thinking that try to put more emphasis on mutual support and shared responsibility for success seem to work more towards eliminating luck as a factor.
- NegativeK 8y ago
  This is never how it's framed when you actually discuss these problems with people who believe in small government. Every time I've pressed the issue, it's a two pronged response: A) Healthcare costs are too high, and it's due to malpractice/overregulation/other government influences. B) In the event that an individual can't afford healthcare, the community will pick up the tab -- and have the money to do it, since the government isn't taxing it away from them.
  - plassma 8y ago
    Ya I have never once heard of someone's neighbor or whoever picking up their medical tab for them.
- netsharc 8y ago
  It's meritocracy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ - If you're taught you can achieve success by just working hard enough, then the opposite must be true, that poor people are poor because they're lazy. Paul Krugman has also mentioned, the insane thing is, many of the rich in the USA who inherited their wealth or got lucky with investments also believe that they're successful not because of luck, but because they're hard workers...
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  > American to believe in self-sufficiency and to minimize the role of luck Not at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Th... If you multiply inequality times lack of social mobility, US scores at the bottom across developed countries.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Decades of pop-econ has pushed the narrative that GDP or Purchasing Power Parity is somehow related to how individuals can access capital. It always finds the form of "America is the richest country in the world, yet they can't [insert problem]." This assumes that there is some objective resource need recognition system and misses that there is no overarching explicit capital allocation system to direct funds in such a way. The cash balance of Apple corporation has no connection to whether a blogger can afford brain surgery or not. So I'm not sure why this keeps coming up.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Except that's not true. Our government could very, very, very easily enact single payer, and we have plenty enough wealth to do it.
  - dmfdmf 8y ago
    >...and we have plenty enough wealth to do it. Whose wealth?
    - 24gttghh 8y ago
      Yours (if you are a US citizen), mine, the 1%, the other 99%...at least a government mandated reform of the private healthcare system should be able to enforce transparent pricing structures and fight graft.
      - dmfdmf 8y ago
        So everyone's wealth is free for the taking?
        DanBC 8y ago
        Everyone's wealth is already being taken, but spent in fucking weird ways. The US government pays more for healthcare than some other western countries, but gets worse outcomes across a range of measures.
white-flame 8y ago
I think the fundamental personal issue in this country is that nobody wants to be told exactly what their government-mandated health regimen should be, or have the government decide which procedures they'll be allowed to have for their condition. That ultimately means that they're locked into what their insurance company mandated health regimen should be. But at least they can sort of choose their insurer, or no insurer (which is usually 10-100 times cheaper on the total medical bill).
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  When the government is responsible for your healthcare, and also has a fiduciary duty to it's taxpayers, then the government has a further responsibility to restrict what you can eat, drink and do (not just safe or unsafe, but to penalize snack foods and restrict sports that have a higher risk of injury.) All of a sudden, my choice to say, engage in martial arts or boxing, goes from a personal decision (Do I want to do this? Do I have the money for the gear? Is this in my risk comfort zone?) to a decision involving the government (is this behavior too risky for the general pool of insured people?) Healthcare is not free. Healthcare research and technology is in fact, extremely expensive. Somebody is paying - whether that's the individual via an insurance pool or the government through taxpayers. Does the person paying your bill have your same prerogatives in mind?
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    Please provide an example of a country with socialized/universal healthcare that prevents one from performing martial arts.
  - tom_ 8y ago
    You can tell, based on what we are badgered about in the UK at least, what stuff is presumably expensive to treat: drinking-related stuff (health effects, violence, general misadventure), smoking (esp. tobacco), eating shit food and not doing any exercise, driving too fast or carelessly and getting into an accident (see also: drinking). I've never seen anything about martial arts, or indeed about sports in general. I'm sure it costs more than £0/year to treat the resulting injuries, just not enough more to make it worth worrying about by comparison.
Reedx 8y ago
A lot of people have a lack of imagination and empathy. It's not a problem until it happens to them. If everyone really internalized that it could just as easily happen to them, I bet things would change pretty quick.

visarga 8y ago

I think the second explanation works better - if we look at the way people vote. It's a religious thing to abandon people in suffering to banks and creditors. This way the holy right to make money is put in the first position.

WhompingWindows 8y ago

I believe it is highly American to believe in self-sufficiency and to minimize the role of luck in success or failure. Whether we go back to the Protestant work ethic, the Puritan sensibility, gold rushes, unfettered capitalism, the Gilded Age, and our current second gilded age, to me it is clear that caring for others is a secondary concern for many Americans. Just look at the "makers/takers" model of our populace put forward by the top current lawmakers. In this framework, sick people are takers and capitalists are makers.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> to believe in self-sufficiency and to minimize the role of luck in success or failure. I think that, frankly, those two are in opposition to one another. Self-sufficiency at scale is a game of numbers and luck; systems of thinking that try to put more emphasis on mutual support and shared responsibility for success seem to work more towards eliminating luck as a factor.
NegativeK 8y ago
This is never how it's framed when you actually discuss these problems with people who believe in small government. Every time I've pressed the issue, it's a two pronged response: A) Healthcare costs are too high, and it's due to malpractice/overregulation/other government influences. B) In the event that an individual can't afford healthcare, the community will pick up the tab -- and have the money to do it, since the government isn't taxing it away from them.
- plassma 8y ago
  Ya I have never once heard of someone's neighbor or whoever picking up their medical tab for them.
netsharc 8y ago
It's meritocracy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ - If you're taught you can achieve success by just working hard enough, then the opposite must be true, that poor people are poor because they're lazy. Paul Krugman has also mentioned, the insane thing is, many of the rich in the USA who inherited their wealth or got lucky with investments also believe that they're successful not because of luck, but because they're hard workers...
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
> American to believe in self-sufficiency and to minimize the role of luck Not at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Th... If you multiply inequality times lack of social mobility, US scores at the bottom across developed countries.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Decades of pop-econ has pushed the narrative that GDP or Purchasing Power Parity is somehow related to how individuals can access capital. It always finds the form of "America is the richest country in the world, yet they can't [insert problem]." This assumes that there is some objective resource need recognition system and misses that there is no overarching explicit capital allocation system to direct funds in such a way. The cash balance of Apple corporation has no connection to whether a blogger can afford brain surgery or not. So I'm not sure why this keeps coming up.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Except that's not true. Our government could very, very, very easily enact single payer, and we have plenty enough wealth to do it.
- dmfdmf 8y ago
  >...and we have plenty enough wealth to do it. Whose wealth?
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    Yours (if you are a US citizen), mine, the 1%, the other 99%...at least a government mandated reform of the private healthcare system should be able to enforce transparent pricing structures and fight graft.
    - dmfdmf 8y ago
      So everyone's wealth is free for the taking?
      - DanBC 8y ago
        Everyone's wealth is already being taken, but spent in fucking weird ways. The US government pays more for healthcare than some other western countries, but gets worse outcomes across a range of measures.

white-flame 8y ago

I think the fundamental personal issue in this country is that nobody wants to be told exactly what their government-mandated health regimen should be, or have the government decide which procedures they'll be allowed to have for their condition. That ultimately means that they're locked into what their insurance company mandated health regimen should be. But at least they can sort of choose their insurer, or no insurer (which is usually 10-100 times cheaper on the total medical bill).

vorpalhex 8y ago
When the government is responsible for your healthcare, and also has a fiduciary duty to it's taxpayers, then the government has a further responsibility to restrict what you can eat, drink and do (not just safe or unsafe, but to penalize snack foods and restrict sports that have a higher risk of injury.) All of a sudden, my choice to say, engage in martial arts or boxing, goes from a personal decision (Do I want to do this? Do I have the money for the gear? Is this in my risk comfort zone?) to a decision involving the government (is this behavior too risky for the general pool of insured people?) Healthcare is not free. Healthcare research and technology is in fact, extremely expensive. Somebody is paying - whether that's the individual via an insurance pool or the government through taxpayers. Does the person paying your bill have your same prerogatives in mind?
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  Please provide an example of a country with socialized/universal healthcare that prevents one from performing martial arts.
- tom_ 8y ago
  You can tell, based on what we are badgered about in the UK at least, what stuff is presumably expensive to treat: drinking-related stuff (health effects, violence, general misadventure), smoking (esp. tobacco), eating shit food and not doing any exercise, driving too fast or carelessly and getting into an accident (see also: drinking). I've never seen anything about martial arts, or indeed about sports in general. I'm sure it costs more than £0/year to treat the resulting injuries, just not enough more to make it worth worrying about by comparison.

Reedx 8y ago

A lot of people have a lack of imagination and empathy. It's not a problem until it happens to them. If everyone really internalized that it could just as easily happen to them, I bet things would change pretty quick.