I'm also a libertarian god-hating moral sack of sh!t. Which probably helps.
DShiznit wrote:
Furthermore, how are the poor and working class supposed to continue to live within their means when wages aren't rising with inflation?


Yes they are. They've been holding steady relative to inflation over the last 30 years, actually.

Quote:
How many more people need to lose their homes, their livelihoods, and their lives before we say enough with this bullsh!t?


Life's unfair, always has been always will be. Also, you only lose your home if you can't pay for it - aka, living outside your means. Sucks if you're unemployed, but that's life and that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about someone whining that they don't have access to the same level of health care as those that can pay for it.
However the thread brings up an interesting point: Are we ethically obligated to give someone potentially expensive medical care that may save their life if they cannot afford it? If the answer is no, then that implies that a human life is worth the cost of the medical care necessary to prolong it. If the answer is yes, then some form of universal health care program should be implemented.

So, the question is, how much is your life worth?
Qwerty.55 wrote:
However the thread brings up an interesting point: Are we ethically obligated to give someone potentially expensive medical care that may save their life if they cannot afford it? If the answer is no, then that implies that a human life is worth the cost of the medical care necessary to prolong it. If the answer is yes, then some form of universal health care program should be implemented.

So, the question is, how much is your life worth?


well, if they ruined themselves finantially out of greed and other things do they deserve the care?

<note, I am just wondering...>
Well, does someone deserve to die because they're greedy?
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/19/rising-inflation-outpaces-wages/

Healthcare is part of your cost-of-living, and is thus tied-in to rising inflation vs. stagnant wages.

Also, enough with the "poor people are lazy and greedy" bullsh!t. It's despicable and makes me contemplate murder just thinking about it. The poor and middle classes are the hardest-working in this country, and the fruits of their labor all seem to go to the top. The f--king least we could do is provide them with decent healthcare.
DShiznit wrote:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/19/rising-inflation-outpaces-wages/


From that article: http://www.postandcourier.com/photos/2011/mar/18/67852/

It's down from the past couple of years (and note, this is mostly speculation as the real data isn't in yet), but it is barely lower than it was 10 years ago, and much higher than it was 15 years ago. Also note that they used the age old trick of playing with the scale to exaggerate the growth/drop. The economy does not grow constantly, it always rises and falls - you have to look at it over a significant length of time to determine the trend, and if you do that it is obviously rising. The problem is nobody does that anymore. Nobody saves for a rainy day. People immediately spend every dime they make.

Quote:
Also, enough with the "poor people are lazy and greedy" bullsh!t.


Pretty sure nobody said that in this thread, we said people can't manage money - which, like it or not, is *very* true. In fact, the poor and lower classes are less likely to be as educated, and thus are more likely to be worse at managing money.

The rich tend to be the best at managing money - you are imagining a playboy lifestyle when you talk about the rich, but that isn't true. Most millionaires live in modest homes, drive modest cars, and dress modestly. Their income goes into investments and savings. You don't get rich by spending lots of money. In fact, most rich people are *self made*, and do not come from wealth. You seem to have it stuck in your mind that rich people were born wealthy, and don't deserve it. That image is simply false.

Fun read: http://www.onlyinfographic.com/2010/millionaire-confidential-a-look-at-americas-millionaire-population/
DShiznit wrote:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/19/rising-inflation-outpaces-wages/

Healthcare is part of your cost-of-living, and is thus tied-in to rising inflation vs. stagnant wages.

Also, enough with the "poor people are lazy and greedy" bullsh!t. It's despicable and makes me contemplate murder just thinking about it. The poor and middle classes are the hardest-working in this country, and the fruits of their labor all seem to go to the top. The f--king least we could do is provide them with decent healthcare.


ah, but I never said all, I said What if a certian poor person was lazy and greedy and put himself in said situation?
If education is the solution then(And I agree), why are the Republicans cutting that?
DShiznit wrote:
If education is the solution then(And I agree), why are the Republicans cutting that?


because education money isn't spent effectively. And the sort of education we're talking about comes through organizations like NeighborKeepers.
Then make reforms so the money IS spent effectively. Cutting education funding doesn't magically make schools better. In fact it does quite the opposite. And education is the basis for solving a lot of other problems. An educated voting base, for example, will make far-better decisions than an uneducated one. I'm guessing this is why Republicans are so intent on ending public education entirely: an educated voter tends to(though not always) lean democratic.
DShiznit wrote:
Then make reforms so the money IS spent effectively. Cutting education funding doesn't magically make schools better.

Unfortunately real education reform is a hot mess and certain death to a political career. And while correlation ≠ causation, the amount of spending on education has gone drastically upwards in recent years, and the quality of education has gone drastically downwards, which could lead people to believe that there is a relationship of some sort implied by that correlation.

Quote:
I'm guessing this is why Republicans are so intent on ending public education entirely: an educated voter tends to(though not always) lean democratic.

Actually, I seem to remember debunking this in the tea party thread.
http://www.cemetech.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=113757#113757
Quote:
The NY Times/CBS Poll discussed here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15mbox.html?fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html?ref=politics#tab=9

Tea Party, All respondent, Difference wrote:
Education
Not a high school graduate 3 % 12 % –9
High school graduate 26 35 –9
Some college education 33 28 +5
College graduate 23 15 +8
Post-graduate 14 10 +4

The only area where the general public has a higher percentage is in people who didn't graduate high school, and people who only graduated high school.


Given those statistics, it's funny to hear someone who dislikes the Tea Party so much saying this, though I certainly agree with you Razz
Quote:
An educated voting base, for example, will make far-better decisions than an uneducated one.
According to the mid-term poll results, post-grads voted more democratically, though all the education levels before that went progressively more right the farther up you went. It's a weird statistic, I'll grant you.

And your stats on education spending are BS in my first-hand experience. The school I go to now doesn't even have a freaking librarian, as a result of budget cuts made by Republicans 8 years ago.
DShiznit wrote:
According to the mid-term poll results, post-grads voted more democratically, though all the education levels before that went progressively more right the farther up you went. It's a weird statistic, I'll grant you.

And your stats on education spending are BS in my first-hand experience. The school I go to now doesn't even have a freaking librarian, as a result of budget cuts made by Republicans 8 years ago.

The question is there, although it didn't have a librarian, what did it have that they might have not spent their money on wisely. See, sometimes (and granted, this is how it should be), when you have less money, you have to make it go a little farther. I think that's what the republicans are hoping for here.

And I really don't like when someone says vote democrat or republican. I like to look at the person themselves, and see if I like their ideas and platform and then decide on them.
DShiznit wrote:
And your stats on education spending are BS in my first-hand experience. The school I go to now doesn't even have a freaking librarian, as a result of budget cuts made by Republicans 8 years ago.

Mileage may vary by locality, but on a national level: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1996_2011&view=1&expand=20&units=b&fy=fy12&chart=20-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=Education%20Spending%20Chart&state=US&color=c&local=s

Quote:
The question is there, although it didn't have a librarian, what did it have that they might have not spent their money on wisely. See, sometimes (and granted, this is how it should be), when you have less money, you have to make it go a little farther.

Exactly this. Having less money makes you consider more carefully how you are going to spend what you have. I'm not saying we should take that philosophy to an extreme, but it's certainly not an idea to be dismissed.
Lets see, they have textbooks from 1987, a fire alarm system from the 1930s, a few poster memorials to shooting victims, and an expectant parents class with resources from the 80s as well. Yeah they're really being bad with their lavish amounts of money Rolling Eyes
elfprince13 wrote:

Exactly this. Having less money makes you consider more carefully how you are going to spend what you have. I'm not saying we should take that philosophy to an extreme, but it's certainly not an idea to be dismissed.


I'm not defending the school, but there's only so far you can stretch a dollar, particularly when your hands are bound by the sheer amount of regulation surrounding education. For example, my old HS put out a budget report each year. It's also a problem when much of the money is wasted on ineffective programs. I remember seeing year after year how the drug intervention programs and the teenage pregnancy programs got literally millions of dollars in state funding. Both of these programs had spectacularly low success rates, as the drug usage and teen pregnancy rates went up almost every year and the rates were among the highest in the country (very little impact before/after implementation). Those programs were state mandated. Sometimes it's just the bloody regulation.
DShiznit wrote:
Lets see, they have textbooks from 1987, a fire alarm system from the 1930s, a few poster memorials to shooting victims, and an expectant parents class with resources from the 80s as well. Yeah they're really being bad with their lavish amounts of money Rolling Eyes


I hate to sound calloused, but you can't argue about national policy from a single case. See the link I posted in my last post.

But, the fact that despite national increases in educational spending your school doesn't seem to be getting any budget increases is further evidence to me of why local community and government need to step up, because the federal government can't handle the whole country effectively. Working for small federal government doesn't mean republicans think education is bad, it means they want the decisions about it to be locally by the people who know what the problems are.

Qwerty.55 wrote:
I'm not defending the school, but there's only so far you can stretch a dollar ... sometimes it's just the bloody regulations

elfprince13 wrote:
I'm not saying we should take that philosophy to an extreme, but it's certainly not an idea to be dismissed.


Does it being regulated somehow make it more acceptable to waste our money on it?
Not in the least. It just means that not all of the fault is with the schools.
Qwerty.55 wrote:
Not in the least. It just means that not all of the fault is with the schools.

The fault is with the administration of the school system as a whole - this is at the local, county, state, and federal levels. I'm not sure what is meant by "with the schools" in this case, because schools aren't unified entities.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 2 of 3
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement