The iPhone is doomed, and Spain as well
-
@dhromed said:
You said that money is being distributed from better people to inferior people, and used all kinds of subjective, damning language to make it unambiguously clear that you're better than the poor, incidentally suggesting that fixing the poor can be done by making them poorer.
Bullshit. He said, "some people (the successful, wealth creating members of society) are punished through taxes while other people (the weak, unsuccessful, unemployed, criminal) are rewarded through welfare." He did not attach a value judgment. As he said, it was a factual statement. There may be good reasons for doing some of this, but you shouldn't be pretending that this isn't what you are doing, nor should you avoid talking about it because someone doesn't want to be called weak or unsuccessful.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I don't know how welfare works in the EU
In the UK, it appears to be much the same as you describe the US. It provides no incentives to those whose career choice appears to be welfare, since it pays more and means less work, than if they actually got off their arses and got a job. Oh - and the thing about kids being a meal-ticket also applies (usual Daily Mail disclaimers apply):
Joanne WatsonJoanne Watson, 40, has 14 children, ranging in age from three to 22 and survives largely on state benefits after the breakdown of her marriage in 2010.
Carl and Samantha GillespieIt has been revealed that the couple - neither of whom work and who receive an astonishing £44,000 in benefits a year - have been housed in the £500,000 property by their local council.
West Berkshire County Council gave them the keys after their previous council home burnt down in a blaze sparked by one of the couple's [twelve] children.
-
@boomzilla said:
He did not attach a value judgment. As he said, it was a factual statement.
Que? His stuff was positively dripping with value judgment. Like, a thick, rich layer of gravy and sauce flowing slowly over nearly every word. Using the word "punishment", for instance, when you're really not being punished at all, is intense judgment. I thought you could read, boomy. What happened.
His second reply (a rephrasing of the original classism-laden) was wholly dry and factual, though, I will of course grant him that.
You hear? I grant you that, KillaCoda.
@boomzilla said:
nor should you avoid talking about it because someone doesn't want to be called weak or unsuccessful.
Que? We're talking about it right now. Nobody is avoiding anything. Why did you bring that up? People are weak and unsuccessful in a myriad of way all th time. My anger comes from your, and Killa's, and morbs response to that weakness and neediness, which seems to be adequately summarized by "Fuck the weak; fuck 'em; the bastards, I hope they die; fuck 'em. Got mine." except the language used isn't so explicit.
-
@PJH said:
Joanne Watson
Joanne Watson, 40, has 14 children, ranging in age from three to 22 and survives largely on state benefits after the breakdown of her marriage in 2010.
Carl and Samantha GillespieIt has been revealed that the couple - neither of whom work and who receive an astonishing £44,000 in benefits a year - have been housed in the £500,000 property by their local council.
West Berkshire County Council gave them the keys after their previous council home burnt down in a blaze sparked by one of the couple's [twelve] children.These people are heroes!
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
He did not attach a value judgment. As he said, it was a factual statement.
Que? His stuff was positively dripping with value judgment. Like, a thick, rich layer of gravy and sauce flowing slowly over nearly every word. Using the word "punishment", for instance, when you're really not being punished at all, is intense judgment. I though you could read, boomy. What happened.
OK, I will grant you that punishment is a value judgment of what is being done. But it does not at all say that one person is better than another. Though all things being equal, I'd judge the non-criminal as better than the criminal. Saying that one person was successful (at earning an income, in this case) and another was not is simply an objective fact.
@dhromed said:@boomzilla said:
nor should you avoid talking about it because someone doesn't want to be called weak or unsuccessful.
Que? We're talking about it right now. Nobody is avoiding anything. Why did you bring that up?
Often, people use language like you did, "How dare you judge these people!" in order to shut down a debate or conversation. I suppose it's unlikely you were doing that given how this place works, and your experience here.
@dhromed said:
People are weak and unsuccessful in a myriad of way all th time. My anger comes from your, and Killa's, and morbs response to that weakness and neediness, which seems to be adequately summarized by "Fuck the weak; fuck 'em; the bastards, I hope they die; fuck 'em. Got mine." except the language used isn't so explicit.
I guess I can see how you would interpret things like that. But my POV is that (like morbs said) subsidizing this sort of behavior is much crueler than forcing them to support themselves. I certainly don't hope anyone dies (at least not for being lazy or on welfare, morbs' MMV). I mean, much better to have never gone down this path, and I'm not sure how you can transition people out of it, especially since many don't care enough to even want to improve themselves. But that's not an excuse to give them incentives to suck.
People don't even consider that there might be other options than whatever fuck up the government has come up with. There used to be all sorts of mutual aid societies in the US before FDR started crowding them all out. So people contributed, and they got help when they needed it. But if they didn't, they were socially shunned and kicked out of the aid society, which meant that people who drew upon the funds really needed them, and there wasn't a free ride.
This obviously isn't about people who are crippled in some way that truly prevents them from supporting themselves. And as high paying jobs in general require more intelligence, I'm not sure what the answer is for the guy with the 80 IQ.
-
@dhromed said:
These people are heroes!
More...Pete and Sam Smith receive £95,000 [equivalent to a single £150K or two £66K wages] a year in state benefits to look after their ten children aged one to 15. They live in a four-bedroom house rent-free and the council even pays for breakfast to be delivered.
...
She claimed they were so short of money that the children had only one Nintendo Wii games console between them.
...
The couple have not worked since Mr Smith, 40, resigned from the Army in 2001 to care for his wife, who has curvature of the spine [must be a symptom of not being able to keep your damn legs shut - ed.].MUM of ten Moira Pearce receives £30,000 a year [equivalent to a single wage-earner getting £40K] from the state.
She picks up £600 every week in child benefit, tax credits and income support.
Moira, 35, lives in a three-bedroom home in Gillingham, Kent, and her handouts add up to nearly double the average wage for a soldier.
Last year, we revealed she sought charity aid [which is even more fucked-up - ed.] to give her kids the “lifestyle they deserve”.
Moira [...] said she would buy her kids clothes if the Government gave her an extra £120 a month. Locals branded her a “scrounger”.
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
you see paying them off as a way to assuage your white, middle-class guilt without actually ever having to think about the damage--to society and to the recipients themselves--that's being done.
See, personally, that right there is the ONLY decent argument for a welfare state that I've ever heard. Not because it's more "fair" or because they somehow "deserve" it, but just to get the assholes out of the way so they don't turn on the rest of us and bring society down in flames. Making sure that some redneck douche gets his bread and circuses is a whole lot more cost-efficient than stiffing him and having to run for the hills when he and his other idiot buddies decide to start killing anyone with a college degree.@morbiuswilters said:
(And by "you" I don't mean "you dhromed", because your ignorance comes from living in Europe and knowing even less about the American welfare state than most Americans. I don't know how welfare works in the EU, but it's probably a hell of a lot smaller and less ludicrous than it is in the US. It also probably comes with lots of disincentives.. like "We'll give you food stamps, but one night a year Silvio Berlusconi is going to spend the night at your house and sleep in your underage daughter's bedroom.")
HAHAHAHA. No. Europe's welfare state is so bloated and ridiculous, the US might as well be back in the nineteenth century in comparison. We still have the lingering hatred of communists around these parts. In Europe, it's basically a contest between socialists and slightly-less-socialists.
-
-
@dhromed said:
Seen that - and the research itself isn't entirely flawless. For example@PJH said:
More...
A few cases are also probably cases of people answering slightly different questions to the ones MORI asked or intended to ask. For example, on average people thought 34% of people in Britain were Christians, whereas 59% of people identified themselves as Christian in the census. Did people get it wrong? Well, we don’t really know, as while 59% describe themselves as Christian in the census, we know most of them don’t go to church and polling shows many don’t even believe in a God…so exactly how were respondents defining “Christian”? Respondents said that on average that 28% of people in Britain are single parents (my emphasis), when the actual figure is 3%. 28% would be absurdly high once you factor in the proportion of people in Britain who are children themselves or don’t have children… but my guess is that many people have probably mentally parsed that as having asked what percentage of parents are single parents (I suspect they’ve still overestimated it, but not by so much!)
-
@boomzilla said:
many don't care enough to even want to improve themselves.
You say many, and I say a minority.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@dhromed said:
@PJH said:
More...
This seems relevant also.I said fuck it and watched/belistened the whole thing.
Because it's a good song and I like it.
-
@Snooder said:
In Europe, it's basically a contest between socialists and slightly-less-socialists.
Yeah, The USA is pretty much a full-on crazed right wing socially conservative, economically liberal country.
Well, except for the people I know who live there, of course. They don't even own guns! How un-american is that?
-
@PJH said:
Seen that - and the research itself isn't entirely flawless.
The conclusion is good, though:
"We need to see three things happen. First, politicians need to be better at talking about the real state of affairs of the country, rather than spinning the numbers. Secondly, the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise.
"And finally we need better teaching of statistical literacy in schools, so that people get more comfortable in understanding evidence."
I was taught statistics in math class in an abstract way, this is the average, this the median, this is the bell curve, sigma, delta etc etc.
My statistical literacy comes from critical discussions on the interwebs, and, interestingly, from RPGs.
-
@dhromed said:
Yeah, The USA is pretty much a full-on crazed right wing socially conservative, economically liberal country
This is a confusing sentence. I would agree that we're too liberal economically. But that's in the modern Orwellian meaning of the word, not in the original meaning. Here's an interesting counter-point to your value judgment heavy assessment of the state of social policy in the US: If you tried to pass common European abortion laws, you'd be labeled a Christofascist, or something similar. Or the scientifically illiterate baby killers would whine about how you're making war on their vaginas.
-
@boomzilla said:
Here's an interesting counter-point to your value judgment heavy assessment of the state of social policy in the US: If you tried to pass common European abortion laws, you'd be labeled a Christofascist, or something similar. Or the scientifically illiterate baby killers would whine about how you're making war on their vaginas.
I'm getting a really weird vibe from this post.
-
@dhromed said:
Que? His stuff was positively dripping with value judgment. Like, a thick, rich layer of gravy and sauce flowing slowly over nearly every word. Using the word "punishment", for instance, when you're really not being punished at all, is intense judgment.
To me, it is a punishment. Because I work 40ish hours a week, the gov takes money from me. If I didn't work at all, they'd be giving me free money. To me, that's a reward.@dhromed said:
His second reply (a rephrasing of the original classism-laden) was wholly dry and factual, though, I will of course grant him that.
You hear? I grant you that, KillaCoda.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to discuss things with rational people :)@dhromed said:
adequately summarized by "Fuck the weak; fuck 'em; the bastards, I hope they die; fuck 'em. Got mine." except the language used isn't so explicit.
No, my attitude is STOP stealing money from wealth creators in order to subsidise wealth consumers. Don't let people starve to death, but don't give them hundreds for big TVs and cars and holidays and drink and drugs either. Make it so that living on welfare is fucking awful, just barely enough to survive, and be shocked at how quickly those numbers drop. We are in the crazy situation (at least in my country) where welfare can pay more then working low end jobs. We are incentivising people to NOT work, using cash stolen from the people who do. That shit is crazy.
-
@dhromed said:
I said fuck it and watched/belistened the whole thing.
Because it's a good song and I like it.
You are wise.
-
@flabdablet said:
@spamcourt said:
What economy is supposed to do is distribute those things among people and motivate people to make more things.
This is exactly why it is undesirable for a pure free market to consitute the whole of the economy. A free market, by its very nature, allocates scarce resources to the wealthy who, by gaining control of those, become even more wealthy. Concentration of wealth is an inbuilt, unavoidable side effect of the pure free market, and unchecked concentration of wealth leads to unchecked concentration of power, which is socially destructive.
The free market's wealth creation dynamo needs to be harnessed to a wealth redistribution mechanism to stop it spinning out of control, and this is the fundamental economic justification for taxation and the welfare state.
The only real world economic sector that currently operates in an almost completely pure free market is organized crime, which unfortunately seems to have become something of a role model for multinational corporations in other sectors.
This sure sounds like something a Marxist would say. Please provide examples of three unrestrained free markets where this has happened. You may find it instructive to consider socialist economies (or partial ones) which have had results just as bad as what you're talking about, like the recent news about Britain's NHS, where 1200 people starved to death in hospitals over a few years because the nurses couldn't be bothered to get around to feeding them.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
The 1968 Ford Mustang retailed for around $2600 and was a kick-ass car. Assuming the lowest minimum wage of the time--$1.60--it would take a worker 1625 hours to buy one. The MSRP for a 2014 Mustang is $22,200. With a minimum wage of $7.25, it would take 3062 hours to buy one. So almost double.
Now, you could say "Well, cars of today are more efficient, more reliable, less polluting and safer!" and that's certainly all true. But it also ignores the fact that: 1) those features hardly double the price of the car; and 2) technological advances become cheaper over time.
You could also point out that the base model of 2014 is significantly powerful than the base model of 1968, which is also true. But the upgrade cost for 1968 was significantly cheaper than the upgrade cost for 2014.
So, just to look at a couple of points, how many 1968 Mustangs had, say, power steering, power windows, automatic transmissions, rear cameras, air bags, and so on. Also, just out of curiosity, how much effort do you think it would take to build a monocoque "frame" vs old-style i-beams and roll bars?
If someone could build (and sell) a car that was the modern-day equivalent of a '68 Mustang, I bet it wouldn't cost 22,000, so your comparison isn't really apples-to-apples.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
When people say "health care is expensive", what they mean is that cutting edge life-saving medical care is expensive.
No that's not what I'm saying, you fucktard. Sure, cutting-edge, live-saving treatment is expensive. A doctor's visit to get a prescription I've had for 10 years refilled costs $220. How do you think that compares to a few decades ago? Do you realize how cheap it used to be to get something like stitches or anti-biotics? Try breaking your arm now and see if it costs less than $3000.
I'm assuming, then, that you're not talking about basic medicines, because thanks to my insurer's EOBs, I can see that an office visit to get my Metformin refilled is billed at $90. I have a $10 co-pay, and the agreement with the insurer means they reimburse about half the remainder. And my Metformin--which, admittedly, I chose because it's cheap--is $4 a month for a bottle of 60. $220 is specialist-level billing.
-
@dhromed said:
@PJH said:
More...
Yeah, when you define down "fraud", it becomes easy to claim nobody is committing it. By their definition, probably the only people they think are committing fraud are millionaires who are twirling their mustaches while carrying around a big sack of welfare monies with the pound sign on it.
-
@Snooder said:
HAHAHAHA. No. Europe's welfare state is so bloated and ridiculous, the US might as well be back in the nineteenth century in comparison. We still have the lingering hatred of communists around these parts. In Europe, it's basically a contest between socialists and slightly-less-socialists.
Yeah, but that's different. The European welfare state is much more all-encompassing. It's more like our Medicare and SS: programs everyone is forced into. And while that might be evil, it's not the same as what I'm talking about, which are layabouts scamming the system. Heck, Europeans welfare bennies might be really fantastic, but I bet they have far fewer lazy fucks sitting around and getting paid to smoke dope. I doubt that one-in-six Europeans get food stamps, like the situation is in America.
-
@FrostCat said:
I'm assuming, then, that you're not talking about basic medicines, because thanks to my insurer's EOBs, I can see that an office visit to get my Metformin refilled is billed at $90. I have a $10 co-pay, and the agreement with the insurer means they reimburse about half the remainder. And my Metformin--which, admittedly, I chose because it's cheap--is $4 a month for a bottle of 60. $220 is specialist-level billing.
SURPRISE: Some doctors charge more than others. And, yes, and office visit is $220 and that's not a specialist.
And I consider $90 to be a rip-off, too. For a 5 minute office visit? Are you fucking kidding?
-
@FrostCat said:
So, just to look at a couple of points, how many 1968 Mustangs had, say, power steering, power windows, automatic transmissions, rear cameras, air bags, and so on. Also, just out of curiosity, how much effort do you think it would take to build a monocoque "frame" vs old-style i-beams and roll bars?
If someone could build (and sell) a car that was the modern-day equivalent of a '68 Mustang, I bet it wouldn't cost 22,000, so your comparison isn't really apples-to-apples.
Yes, those are technologies that get cheaper over time. How expensive do you think power steering is? (And the $22k I quoted was w/out automatic transmission or rear cameras.) And with gains in productivity, it's actually cheaper to manufacture shit today than it was in the 60s. Yes, people are getting poorer. Deal with it.
-
@dhromed said:
Yeah, The USA is pretty much a full-on crazed right wing socially conservative, economically liberal country.
No, it's not. Where you do people get this idea? We are a hyper-socialist country full of vice, sleaze and depravity. Europeans are choirboys by comparison.
@dhromed said:
They don't even own guns! How un-american is that?
They will be the first to die in the coming civil war.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
SURPRISE: Some doctors charge more than others. And, yes, and office visit is $220 and that's not a specialist.
And I consider $90 to be a rip-off, too. For a 5 minute office visit? Are you fucking kidding?This reminds me of those lawyers in Vegas. Even if they are cheaper I'm not sure if I would hire lawyers with that name:
I trust GET GLEN! a lot more. This guy has his own catchy jingle and his own fleet of A-Team panel vans.
-
Hey, did you know that lawyers actually had to go to the Supreme Court to get the right to have tacky ads? Back in the day shitty lawyer ads were considered an ethics violation, until someone sued, claiming that the Bar Association's rules on just how big the font on your ad could be were an infringement of right to property or some shit.
There were also allegations that the Bar Associations were engaging in anti-competivive practices. Cause you know, the rich firms didn't have to advertise, but some no-name just out of law school needs to get his name out there any way he can.
-
One lot looks like incompetent morons, and the other guy looks like he has the very special breakfast cereal every morning.
-
@Snooder said:
Hey, did you know that lawyers actually had to go to the Supreme Court to get the right to have tacky ads? Back in the day shitty lawyer ads were considered an ethics violation, until someone sued, claiming that the Bar Association's rules on just how big the font on your ad could be were an infringement of right to property or some shit.
There were also allegations that the Bar Associations were engaging in anti-competivive practices. Cause you know, the rich firms didn't have to advertise, but some no-name just out of law school needs to get his name out there any way he can.
The Supreme Court was wrong. They should also have taken that opportunity to crack down on real estate agent ads.
-
@Ronald said:
I trust GET GLEN! a lot more. This guy has his own catchy jingle and his own fleet of A-Team panel vans.
Dafuq? David Gruber has the same slogan, but he's "that creepy lawyer guy from TV"
-
@Ben L. said:
@Ronald said:
I trust GET GLEN! a lot more. This guy has his own catchy jingle and his own fleet of A-Team panel vans.
Dafuq? David Gruber has the same slogan, but he's "that creepy lawyer guy from TV"
Weird, "Get Glen" does not seem like a winner slogan for someone called David.
-
@Ronald said:
I trust GET GLEN! a lot more. This guy has his own catchy jingle and his own fleet of A-Team panel vans.
Better Call Saul
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@FrostCat said:
I'm assuming, then, that you're not talking about basic medicines, because thanks to my insurer's EOBs, I can see that an office visit to get my Metformin refilled is billed at $90. I have a $10 co-pay, and the agreement with the insurer means they reimburse about half the remainder. And my Metformin--which, admittedly, I chose because it's cheap--is $4 a month for a bottle of 60. $220 is specialist-level billing.
SURPRISE: Some doctors charge more than others. And, yes, and office visit is $220 and that's not a specialist.
And I consider $90 to be a rip-off, too. For a 5 minute office visit? Are you fucking kidding?
Of course $90 is a ripoff. Doctors charge rates like that because they know the insurance company's going to apply a 50% discount (or pick your own numbers.)
Your doctor's pretty pricey. I hope you're either in a generally expensive place or he's very good. Nonetheless, I bet you--unless you are paying cash and haven't said so--that he's not actually GETTING $220. Do you get EoBs from your insurance company?
-
@Snooder said:
Back in the day shitty lawyer ads were considered an ethics violation, until someone sued, claiming that the Bar Association's rules on just how big the font on your ad could be were an infringement of right to property or some shit.
The Bar Association is still pretty stiff on ad ethics, too. It's a shame these ads are permitted.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@FrostCat said:
So, just to look at a couple of points, how many 1968 Mustangs had, say, power steering, power windows, automatic transmissions, rear cameras, air bags, and so on. Also, just out of curiosity, how much effort do you think it would take to build a monocoque "frame" vs old-style i-beams and roll bars?
If someone could build (and sell) a car that was the modern-day equivalent of a '68 Mustang, I bet it wouldn't cost 22,000, so your comparison isn't really apples-to-apples.
Yes, those are technologies that get cheaper over time. How expensive do you think power steering is? (And the $22k I quoted was w/out automatic transmission or rear cameras.) And with gains in productivity, it's actually cheaper to manufacture shit today than it was in the 60s. Yes, people are getting poorer. Deal with it.
I have a quad-core 1.4GHz phone with a 5" screen. Cable has 200 channels. I have a car with power steering, power brakes, and an automatic transmission. My parents had none of those things in the 70s. "Getting poorer" is relative.
-
@FrostCat said:
My parents had none of those things in the 70s.
Yes, the first two didn't exist. Of course, if you think cable TV or a computer have improved the quality of your life, I feel something is really wrong.
@FrostCat said:
"Getting poorer" is relative.
So a few cheap, mass-produced gadgets are cheaper and this convinces you you are better off. Meanwhile, the fundamentals: food, housing, energy are more expensive, despite massive gains in productivity. The number of good jobs is abysmally low compared to 1970. It's enough to make one wonder if there isn't a conspiracy to make iPhones cheap because it's so effective at duping people into ignoring very plain reality.
-
@FrostCat said:
Your doctor's pretty pricey. I hope you're either in a generally expensive place or he's very good.
It's probably more expensive than average, but not outrageously so. And he's adequate but hardly a superstar. However, I've lived lots of places, including some very poor areas, and I haven't seen a $90 office visit for at least a decade. I don't know where the fuck you live, but it's fucking rock-bottom for office visits, I'll tell you that much.
@FrostCat said:
Nonetheless, I bet you--unless you are paying cash and haven't said so--that he's not actually GETTING $220. Do you get EoBs from your insurance company?
Wait, are you saying your insurance company only pays $45 for an office visit? Where the fuck do you live? 1981? Sorry, I'm starting to suspect you are full of shit.
And yeah, he's getting $220. That's why I said it costs $220. What the fuck is with you people assuming you're the first people who have ever heard of something like an EoB?
-
@Snooder said:
See, personally, that right there is the ONLY decent argument for a welfare state that I've ever heard. Not because it's more "fair" or because they somehow "deserve" it, but just to get the assholes out of the way so they don't turn on the rest of us and bring society down in flames. Making sure that some redneck douche gets his bread and circuses is a whole lot more cost-efficient than stiffing him and having to run for the hills when he and his other idiot buddies decide to start killing anyone with a college degree.
A few M-132 tanks would be more cost-effective. Let the crybabies in the Free Shit Army riot. We've got a real Army that could mop them up in a few days.
Or, as I said when all that Occupy nonsense was going on: Less Welfare State, More Kent State
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@FrostCat said:
Your doctor's pretty pricey. I hope you're either in a generally expensive place or he's very good.
It's probably more expensive than average, but not outrageously so. And he's adequate but hardly a superstar. However, I've lived lots of places, including some very poor areas, and I haven't seen a $90 office visit for at least a decade. I don't know where the fuck you live, but it's fucking rock-bottom for office visits, I'll tell you that much.
@FrostCat said:
Nonetheless, I bet you--unless you are paying cash and haven't said so--that he's not actually GETTING $220. Do you get EoBs from your insurance company?
Wait, are you saying your insurance company only pays $45 for an office visit? Where the fuck do you live? 1981? Sorry, I'm starting to suspect you are full of shit.
And yeah, he's getting $220. That's why I said it costs $220. What the fuck is with you people assuming you're the first people who have ever heard of something like an EoB?
Yeah, my insurance company--Cigna, not exactly fly-by-night--pays about $45 of a $90 visit. They would pay around $100-150 of a $220 visit, but I haven't been to someone that charged that much in a while, so I don't know how much exactly. 1981...no, try 3 months ago. I don't think it's so much that I'm full of shit as you're a sucker.
-
@FrostCat said:
I don't think it's so much that I'm full of shit as you're a sucker.
no that's neither Queen Latifah or Oprah Winfrey, racist.
-
@FrostCat said:
Yeah, my insurance company--Cigna, not exactly fly-by-night--pays about $45 of a $90 visit.
I still have to wonder where you live.. Poorsylvania? Let me put it this way: a $45 office visit is absurd. Ask any other person here and I doubt they're paying that little. So maybe Cigna isn't fly-by-night, but are you sure your doctor isn't working out of the back of a taco truck?
@FrostCat said:
I don't think it's so much that I'm full of shit as you're a sucker.
I'm a sucker for.. paying what it costs? You're not going to find a cheaper office visit here that takes Blue Cross. And places I lived previously, you weren't going to find a cheaper office visit with a reputable clinic for anything less than $150. I remember maybe 7 or 8 years ago paying $120 for office visits in a very economically-depressed part of the country. So $45 is absurd.
Besides, why does any of this make me a sucker? I pay the same whether the office visit is $45 or $220. Actually, I'm arguably getting more than you for the same out-of-pocket you're paying. Winner: me.
Edit: Shit, I think my vet charges more than $45 for an office visit. Are you sure you're not visiting an animal clinic?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I pay the same whether the office visit is $45 or $220. Actually, I'm arguably getting more than you for the same out-of-pocket you're paying. Winner:
methe doctor.FTFY
-
@Ronald said:
@FrostCat said:
Is that Ben L.?I don't think it's so much that I'm full of shit as you're a sucker.
no that's neither Queen Latifah or Oprah Winfrey, racist.
-
@drurowin said:
@Ronald said:
@FrostCat said:
Is that Ben L.?I don't think it's so much that I'm full of shit as you're a sucker.
no that's neither Queen Latifah or Oprah Winfrey, racist.No that's his sister. (On an unrelated matter: his mom's OBGYN is a black guy).
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
Here's an interesting counter-point to your value judgment heavy assessment of the state of social policy in the US: If you tried to pass common European abortion laws, you'd be labeled a Christofascist, or something similar. Or the scientifically illiterate baby killers would whine about how you're making war on their vaginas.
I'm getting a really weird vibe from this post.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I doubt that one-in-six Europeans get food stamps, like the situation is in America.
You're probably right. In the UK they just get the money to spend on what they please. Every time someone broaches the subject of restricting what those on welfare can spend their money on, we get lots of shroud-waving and gnashing of teeth. e.g. this year we had
Daily MailCritics said the scheme may stigmatise those already in trouble [aw, diddums - ed], but the Government insists the plans, which will enable local authorities to set their own eligibility criteria, will mean the money will go where it is needed most.
.
GuardianHeadline: Food vouchers to provide emergency help but prevent spending on alcohol
Sub: Campaigners raise alarm as English councils replace cash loans with payment cards for people facing short-term financial crises
Lady Lister, a Labour peer and poverty expert, said the shift from cash loans to in-kind help would leave the most vulnerable people "high and dry". [no it wouldn't you stupid bitch - ed.]
Guardian again:Headline: The problem with food stamps is that people need more than food
Sub: Prepaid cards have their use, but prescribing what they can buy is folly – what use is food when your boiler has broken down?[and getting paid cash is sufficient to repair that boiler - thought not - ed.]
-
@PJH said:
Headline: Food vouchers to provide emergency help but prevent spending on alcohol
Sub: Campaigners raise alarm as English councils replace cash loans with payment cards for people facing short-term financial crises
Lady Lister, a Labour peer and poverty expert, said the shift from cash loans to in-kind help would leave the most vulnerable people "high and dry".Well, if you mean "dry" as in "free of booze", then "Lady Lister" is probably right.
Yeah, you guys almost sound more fucked than we are. Of course, in many US states you can use your EBT card (food stamp card) at ATMs. Somebody did a study and found that a surprising percentage (or not that surprising, if you aren't thick) of ATM withdrawals were done at strip clubs and liquor stores.
I remember a couple of years ago in Massachusetts there suddenly appeared signs at the registers of convenience stores: "Due to a change in law, EBT cards no longer accepted for purchase of alcohol or tobacco." All I could think was "WTF??? They just passed a law on this??"
Another amusing one was going to the grocery store. I lived in an area with several upscale, organic, co-op type grocery stores, as well as the normal kind. Now, people will always say shit like "You can't buy vegetables in the ghettos! It's a conspiracy by junk food manufacturers!" which honestly makes no sense, but all you have to do is go to a grocery store in the US to realize that the reason junk food is so easy to find in the ghetto is because that's what people buy. I have known several people who worked as cashiers at grocery stores and they all say "You can instantly tell if somebody is going to pay with food stamps because their cart will be piled high with Coca-Cola, potato chips, microwavable breakfast sandwiches, candy, etc.. Whereas the working class people will usually have generic brands of canned goods or rice or the cheap produce and the middle class folks will have the organic stuff and the high-end, name brand healthy foods."
And it's absolutely true. The grocery stores near me had lots of fresh produce, but one time I went down the candy aisle and every 2 feet was a little sign hanging from the shelf announcing "SNAP", which if you're unfamiliar SNAP is the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program--a bonus food stamp program for people already receiving food stamps. (Yes, we have multiple food stamp programs for some goddamn reason.) Anyway, those signs were only posted in the candy and junk food aisles, and it was clear why; most people on food stamps do not buy healthy foods.
Now, if I ran the program, you'd get 50lb bags of rice, 20lb bags of dried beans, and some fresh, cheap vegetables to balance things out. And that's all. If you were physically capable of labor and worked less than 50 hours per-week, you would have to do 8 hours of community service per-month to compensate society for the free food. People who need the food would have it and people who are scamming the system would suddenly decide that maybe it isn't such a good deal any more.
-
@FrostCat said:
@flabdablet said:
This is exactly why it is undesirable for a pure free market to consitute the whole of the economy. A free market, by its very nature, allocates scarce resources to the wealthy who, by gaining control of those, become even more wealthy. Concentration of wealth is an inbuilt, unavoidable side effect of the pure free market, and unchecked concentration of wealth leads to unchecked concentration of power, which is socially destructive.
This sure sounds like something a Marxist would say. Please provide examples of three unrestrained free markets where this has happened.
Easiest way to find unconstrained free markets is to look for places where the rule of law is ineffective in regulating and taxing trade; examples that instantly come to mind are the diamond trade in various African states, the drug trade in Central America, the international arms/security/surveillance trade, and the Icelandic investment banking system.
If you can find three examples of unconstrained free markets that are not leading (or have not lead, historical examples are fine) to socially destructive concentration of wealth and power, please do share.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Now, if I ran the program, you'd get 50lb bags of rice, 20lb bags of dried beans, and some fresh, cheap vegetables to balance things out. And that's all. If you were physically capable of labor and worked less than 50 hours per-week, you would have to do 8 hours of community service per-month to compensate society for the free food. People who need the food would have it and people who are scamming the system would suddenly decide that maybe it isn't such a good deal any more.
Thanks for the rice and beans you gave me yesterday. I took them back to where I've been sheltering under this bridge, but a bunch of frat boys came by last night and pissed on my face and kicked the shit out of the bags, and when I turned up to work at the sweat shop the guy threw me out because he said I stunk of piss. He already owes me five C's for the four months I've been there already but I don't think he's gonna pay, and his brother works for the police and told me not to make trouble. Help a brother out?
