Medicaid

[Jabberwocky12]

Pg 2.

I really think we're getting off on a tangent now saying how social darwinism =/= eugenics and such.

SHC (not to single you out but you seem the most anti-medicaid representative here), how would you change the system around in your mind for medicaid? You admit that some people do need the coverage so what would you do? How would you provide coverage for just the people who deserve it without giving it to the people who do deserve it?

Who does deserve coverage? People with no/bad insurance? Children of welfare moms but not the moms themselves? Or do you want to scrap the program altogether. And if you feel no one should get the coverage, what would you do then about the rising healthcare costs for these people who go to hospitals for expensive life-saving surgeries and medicines and then they ditch out on the bill because the can't pay for it? There is still a vacuum of money regardless if the program is out there or not. I'd prefer an insurance to pay out money on smaller, regular increments rather than hundreds of thousands at once because people got infections or diabetes and couldn't get the necessary medicines for 3 dollars.

As for programs that provide education to people to try and get them better jobs, I believe the state does that (or they are the ones who opt to do it.) I live in NC and there are programs here that will allow you to go to CPCC or other community colleges around here to try and get a professional training (full time since you are unemployed) if under a certain dollar amount. This would include things like medical billing and coding, plumbing, electrical work, etc. They aren't the best jobs but they are jobs that require a special skillset that a lot of people don't really want to learn. But the state I think has to provide that rather than federal or at least that is how it looks through my looking glass.

Finally, the only other thing I'm going to mention is what if someone's house burns down? Are you going to feel sorry for them or are you going to be mad that your tax dollars got a firefighter out there to help put out the flames and get stuck children out? You might not use the coverage but it comes out of your taxes just like medicaid and they serve similar functions of helping people who are in a bad position who cannot help themselves. So you can want to scrap the program and be angry that you never get to use the coverage and that arsonists out there abuse the firefighter system all the time because they feel like it, OR you can be happy that is does help people who are in need from dying a terrible death because they can't do anything themselves. That is how the medicaid system works.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[owlegrad]

Pg 2.

I really think we're getting off on a tangent now saying how social darwinism =/= eugenics and such.

It developed organically over the course of the discussion. Plus it is nice to mix up these discussions, otherwise they get kinda monotonous.

I like your firefight/arsonist analogy.

 

[pharm B]

It developed organically over the course of the discussion. Plus it is nice to mix up these discussions, otherwise they get kinda monotonous.

I like your firefight/arsonist analogy.

Reminds me of the news story from a few months ago where the fire fighters let a guy's house burn down because he hadn't paid the county fee for their services.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

All over a $75 fee.

Is this an example of an efficient system?

 

[Jabberwocky12]

Reminds me of the news story from a few months ago where the fire fighters let a guy's house burn down because he hadn't paid the county fee for their services.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

All over a $75 fee.

Is this an example of an efficient system?

This is where the insurance agent comes out in me. If the house burns down because of something like that, for any insurance policy (renters, homeowner,landlord, etc.) then you get NO coverage. You are supposed to take all reasonable actions to protect your home when the loss happens; if something was proven to be out of negligence (like not turning the water off for vacation and your pipes freeze and bust) then you get no coverage. The adjuster will just sit down and laugh at you for trying to file that claim.

All over 75 damn dollars... I was going to mention that article but it didn't fit the tone of my post.

This is the face of someone who could use $75.

EDIT: Checking that article again it looks like the insurance policy did pay for some of his stuff. I think that was either out of a loophole or charity from the insurance company, similar to how they paid flood claims in New Orleans despite not having to. Probably bad publicity otherwise. It doesn't make sense otherwise for the insurance to cover such gross negligence .

 

[owlegrad]

Reminds me of the news story from a few months ago where the fire fighters let a guy's house burn down because he hadn't paid the county fee for their services.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

All over a $75 fee.

Is this an example of an efficient system?

This is a perfect example of why people should not be allowed to make these kinds of decisions for themselves. You can't let people pay the fee when their house is on fire because nobody would pay until their house is on fire. Remind you of anything? Everyone should just be charged the fee, end of story.

The man should not have let his "fire coverage" (wtf?) lapse. Of course he would be mad when he does not get a service he didn't pay for.

 

[SHC1984]

It's already been pointed out in other threads that there are people who work far harder than your average pharmacist, but make peanuts in comparison.

As far as whether I think people with problems should be entitled to my hard-earned money? If I have a five in my pocket and see someone who could make better use of it, I give it to them. I tried telling you in another thread that some of us have left careers that were more or at least equally as lucrative as pharmacy to enter a field where we could help others. As you have pointed out time and time again, there are other careers where you can make much more money.

My question is: why aren't you pursuing one of them?

You're constantly down on pharmacy, and you've joined the rainy day brigade and their oversaturation rhetoric.

In the pre-pharmacy forum, people are asking if saying "I want to help people" sounds too cheesy in an interview. Do you even want to help people? Is it all people, or just the ones who are on your level of materialism or above?

Well I guess I shouldn't have asked pharmacy students/pre-pharmers if they would mind paying 40% taxes on their hard earn paycheck b/c none of them have ever work as a pharmacist before. So the answer would not be accurate. If you read this thread you will notice that ACTUAL pharmacist (OP, Dr Wario etc) seem to dislike medicaid. While it is all the people that have never worked as a pharmacist before that are saying they would not mind paying the high taxes. I guess once we actually get a job as a pharmacist and experience how hard/stressful the job is will we be able to actually answer this question.

All the people that say pharmacists do not work as hard as some other jobs have never worked a day as a pharmacist! I am aware that tons of people think it is an easy job.

My dream career would be Tyra Bank's career. Supermodel/having my own talk show. Or if I was born with money, I would go into investing...there is nothing more rewarding then to see your money grow FAST. It's unfortunate that I wasn't born with money...so I have to actually MAKE money before I can invest money! LOL...

Why did I choose pharmacy? well, at the time I thought pharmacy was a very secure profession that is in high demand...I had no idea it would turn out the way it did. I also choose pharmacy b/c I am very good at science and math and I would be good at pharmacy. Also family wanted me in the healthcare profession.

I have never put down pharmacy. I do hate that they are opening up a million diplomia mills and accepting unqualified students. I do hate the fact that pharmacy is saturated. I do hate the fact that the tuition is insanely high. Other than that...I have never say anything negative about pharmacy. Oh I have advise people that already have 6 figure jobs to stay where they are and don't go into pharmacy...that isn't putting down pharmacy...that is just saying...be smart and don't waste time and money. That was all that I was saying.

Do I mind helping people? if it doesn't inconvience me or hurt me in any way I do not mind at all...I would never help someone if it will result in hurting myself..but otherwise I do not mind helping people.

I am also very generous when it comes to supporting causes that I believe in. For example, I believe in animal rights. I believe human beings have no right to hurt any animals PERIOD. I hate animal abusers more than anything else. I have donated ~10K to animal's rights organizations and if I had more money I would donate MORE. I do not mind supporting causes that I believe in. I however just don't like the fact that the government is taking out 40% of my paycheck just b/c they can. I would rather donate 40% of my paycheck to the animal's rights organization then to give it to the government to be honest! lol...

 

[All4MyDaughter]

SHC - does the government REALLY take 40% of your paycheck to give to other people? Do you believe that you receive NOTHING in exchange for the taxes that you pay?

 

[confettiflyer]

This is a perfect example of why people should not be allowed to make these kinds of decisions for themselves. You can't let people pay the fee when their house is on fire because nobody would pay until their house is on fire. Remind you of anything? Everyone should just be charged the fee, end of story.

The man should not have let his "fire coverage" (wtf?) lapse. Of course he would be mad when he does not get a service he didn't pay for.

Yeah this is an argument I see all the time... this drastic move to a purely a la carte system of government. I don't know, I can't explain it, but I see a clear delineation between government providing basic K-14 education, providing roads/bridges, and fire/police protection vs. health care/payments to the poor and NOT demanding changes/results in the recipients' education/job level.

If you attach that proviso to Medicaid, then you can make an argument that such payments are investments and not simply encouraging subsistence.

 

[owlegrad]

Yeah this is an argument I see all the time... this drastic move to a purely a la carte system of government. I don't know, I can't explain it, but I see a clear delineation between government providing basic K-14 education, providing roads/bridges, and fire/police protection vs. health care/payments to the poor and NOT demanding changes/results in the recipients' education/job level.

If you attach that proviso to Medicaid, then you can make an argument that such payments are investments and not simply encouraging subsistence.

You are suggesting that Medicaid should require changes in education/job level? I don't understand. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[confettiflyer]

You are suggesting that Medicaid should require changes in education/job level? I don't understand. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Sorry that was unclear, I meant that government aid should be temporary and assistive in nature (again, exceptions for the elderly, infirm, children, and others who would otherwise not having the same choices as a robust adult).

If you are in a situation where you need assistance (ie medicaid), the government should provide it but with the proviso that you also bring yourself up to a position where you can sustain yourself within a reasonable amount of time. I mentioned it above, but provide the aid and provide any other aid the person might need (free community college, free child care) to give them opportunity to better themselves, but only for a set amount of time.

Say, you have a janitor with 2 kids and you're like <150% FPL....have medicaid coverage take care of you for 5 years but also provide free/subsidized babysitting and night classes at the local ROP/CC. Ideally, our janitor becomes an HVAC technician or something (heck, pharmacist?) and comes off of welfare. All that money was then an investment, janitor turned pharmacist pays it back through taxes on the higher income.

Temporary assistance w/ investment, makes sense now?

 

[owlegrad]

Temporary assistance w/ investment, makes sense now?

A little idealized perhaps, but yes it makes sense. Very reasonable. Help up, not a hand out, etc. I like the way you think.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

health care/payments to the poor and NOT demanding changes/results in the recipients' education/job level.

If you attach that proviso to Medicaid, then you can make an argument that such payments are investments and not simply encouraging subsistence.

But many (perhaps most) of the recipients of Medicaid and other government assistance are mostly incapable of changing their educational or job level. Namely the elderly, terminally ill, children (at least until they grow up), the mentally ******ed, the disabled, etc. You could make the argument that government benefits paid to help children are an investment, though.

I do think that most benefits are time limited, at least for some recipients. Obviously not for the disabled or elderly, but at some point the AFDC program was changed to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program and benefits last a certain number of years. I don't remember any more details than that. It's been over a decade since I worked in that field.

EDIT: This is a pretty good explanation of TANF, and is consistent with what I remember from working in the social services field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families Pay particular attention to the part about time limits and the work requirements necessary for benefits.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I see a clear delineation between government providing basic K-14 education, providing roads/bridges, and fire/police protection...

I agree that these services are different than entitlement benefits. But the point I was trying to make (mostly to SHC) is that it's not like Uncle Sam takes 40% of our paychecks and gives every penny to someone else. We all receive quite a few government services in exchange for our tax payments. Federal, state and local services.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

I agree that these services are different than entitlement benefits. But the point I was trying to make (mostly to SHC) is that it's not like Uncle Sam takes 40% of our paychecks and gives every penny to someone else. We all receive quite a few government services in exchange for our tax payments. Federal, state and local services.

Right. Everyone has to pay their money but they get services they couldn't afford to purchase on their own. We all spend a few grand a year (or more) in taxes but we get roads, libraries, fire departments, police, hospitals, schools, and more.

 

[confettiflyer]

But many (perhaps most) of the recipients of Medicaid and other government assistance are mostly incapable of changing their educational or job level. Namely the elderly, terminally ill, children (at least until they grow up), the mentally ******ed, the disabled, etc. You could make the argument that government benefits paid to help children are an investment, though.

Exactly why I make the point that I'm excluding children/elderly/infirmed in every post I've made so far (everytime I forget, I get blasted that I hate old people and children).

I do think that most benefits are time limited, at least for some recipients. Obviously not for the disabled or elderly, but at some point the AFDC program was changed to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program and benefits last a certain number of years. I don't remember any more details than that. It's been over a decade since I worked in that field.

EDIT: This is a pretty good explanation of TANF, and is consistent with what I remember from working in the social services field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families Pay particular attention to the part about time limits and the work requirements necessary for benefits.

I am familiar with TANF, I believe it was the successor program that resulted from the 1996 reforms I talked about above.

It was simply a start, there are lots of programs that don't have a time element associated with them (medicaid, section 8, etc...).

but anyway, if i loan/give money to a downtrodden friend, i'm not going to be stupid and just give it to them. i'm going to make damned sure this doesn't happen again, even if i may seem like an a-hole doing it.

 

[Dr Wario]

I suppose your opinion of the program would have major correlation to those people on medicaid you have interacted with. In my pharmacy, 95% of patients are on state insurance and I would classify 85%+ as abusers. Very impatient people, rude, and we happen to be next to a McDonald's and of course many of them are sporting a soda/burger while they "score their oxys".

As to fixing the system, I'm not sure what we can do at this point because we have dug such a major hole. The people being screwed the most in this system are not the pharmacists, it is the technicians that work like dogs, but on top of all the stress of a busy pharmacy/rude customers, they have to go home and wonder how they are going to feed their families that week.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Confetti -

I had a longer post written but the forum ate it. The jist was that there ARE time limits on Medicaid eligibility, for many recipients. PLUS, not every poor person is eligible for Medicaid. You won't see many single, able-bodied, male or non-pregnant females on Medicaid. Take your example of the janitor from above. He would possibly qualify for benefits for his children if his income was low enough, but not for himself.

EDIT: SDN is being very finicky for me right now (damn hotel wireless) but it's outlined here - Mandatory Eligibility Groups

 

[HaleyRX]

I agree that the freebies we give people have gone too far. The benefits add up to quite a deluxe package.
What has happened is we ENCOURAGE people to have babies they cant pay for. If I had a child right now...
-food would be free (foodstamps + WIC)..foodstamps can be used for candy, sodas, Papa Murphy's pizza, etc..I'd be eating better than I do now
-school would be free (plus extra left over most likely)
-medical care would be free (medicaid)
-I would get the Earned Income Tax Credit of $5,000 minimum (probably more)

Whereas now, I work to pay for food, health insurance, and school and have very little left. Plus no whopping tax refund.
My grandma prepares taxes, and she said a 16 year old got a $5k check for her baby..and the girl's 12 year old sister told my grandma she was "so ready to be 14 so I can have a baby and get a bunch of money and be rich"..we are sending kids the WRONG MESSAGE.
Elderly, terminally ill, and children are in need of help. But I say after 1 kid on the system, you aren't given any more tax credits, additional food stamps, etc. People are only having these kids because they are getting REWARDED. There are LOTS more people on the system than some people care to realize. And YES, even the small amount (compared to Rphs) that I pay in taxes burns me up. I did everything I was "supposed" to--worked hard, went to college, got a job...but I'm paying for Suzie Prom Queen's baby and food..hmm..I'm hard at work ringing up $0 copay Differin and $0 copay Concerta and the customer has the nails done, iPhone, is buying $50 worth of make-up, and takes out the food stamp card for Cheetos, Dr. Pepper, and a huge Hershey's bar..

 

[PharmTheQuah]

Wow, I can't believe that I once had this same way of thinking. Shame on me! My wife and I worked our way through college and graduated without any debt and now I am in pharmacy school with a couple of kids that are supported by medicaid. (GASP!!!) Are we going to be on it forever? NO! We are trying to better ourselves. We don't make much now but when I start my service in the United States Air Force we will be off of medicaid. I do believe there are people who abuse the system but we can not group nor judge everyone who has received assistance. I certainly hope no one in this forum has to go on assistance but if it happens maybe you will be grateful to be part of country that helps its citizens. On another note, statistics show that 1 out of every 6 pharmacist divert or abuse drugs so I guess that makes about 17% of us "Junkies."

 

[FarscapeGirl]

Sorry that was unclear, I meant that government aid should be temporary and assistive in nature (again, exceptions for the elderly, infirm, children, and others who would otherwise not having the same choices as a robust adult).

If you are in a situation where you need assistance (ie medicaid), the government should provide it but with the proviso that you also bring yourself up to a position where you can sustain yourself within a reasonable amount of time. I mentioned it above, but provide the aid and provide any other aid the person might need (free community college, free child care) to give them opportunity to better themselves, but only for a set amount of time.

Say, you have a janitor with 2 kids and you're like <150% FPL....have medicaid coverage take care of you for 5 years but also provide free/subsidized babysitting and night classes at the local ROP/CC. Ideally, our janitor becomes an HVAC technician or something (heck, pharmacist?) and comes off of welfare. All that money was then an investment, janitor turned pharmacist pays it back through taxes on the higher income.

Temporary assistance w/ investment, makes sense now?

So we move people up to "better" jobs, who's going to be the janitors? Who's left to do the jobs no one wants? If people got paid living wages for working full time, we wouldn't have this problem. But that would eat into corporations' profits. Guess we can't have that.

Breaking another of the stereotypes, a lot of the janitors I've met are people who come here from other countries. They often faced persecution in their previous homes, and at one point, some of them even had really good careers. But because of unrest in their home country, they emigrate here, and it's too late to start over. However, their kids often go on to become highly educated people and contribute much to our society. Don't these janitors, who are working 40 hours a week, often at night, deserve to make enough to live? Shouldn't the high-school drop-out who's putting in those same hours doing the same job also get enough to live on?

What happens when your body gives out, and you can no longer do the job you used to have? Machinists, gardners, car mechanics, and janitors who come down with arthritis, etc. are often incapable of working the same hours, but that doesn't mean they don't want to. And some people are just not capable of moving on to something else. Who wants to hire some arthritic 50-year-old anyway? Who's going to pay for his/her schooling while he's trying to support his family? There are programs, but they're underfunded, and it's very hard to go back to school, especially if it wasn't your strong point to begin with.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

The problem with this example is that in a feudal society, you were kept in your place by law backed with military force. You are not a noble? learning to read is outlawed. In today's United States (and most places in the world) there is no one holding a gun to your head and saying that you can't better yourself. That is what got us out of tyrannical/feudal systems, freedom. I'm sorry to say this, but in a society where you are free to succeed, you also must be free to fail, and people will fail. How many more fail though, because the social safety net keeps their lives just above intolerable and they never gain the will to better themselves?

As to social Darwinism, this term is a bastardization of a revolutionary idea. Charles Darwin was a proponent of evolution through natural selection, the term social darwinism, in most contexts refers to artificial selection. Being highly attributed to Hitler, he wanted to select for attributes that he thought best, not ones necessarily best suited to the environment. This can be quite dangerous for a society, imagine if you will, the modern poodle living without the aid of humans.

No one can escape natural selection, we as humans are always evolving, however our physical evolution is trumped by the evolution of ideas. Would you not want the best ideas to survive and weaker ones to die? This is how science works (or is supposed to work), the best and most accurate ideas live, and ones that are less supported die. Should we force weaker ideas to survive, is that fair?

I do not think you got my post. You, and the others who don't want those "medicaid frauds," seem to want to go back to the feudal world, but it won't work in today's economy. You keep saying we should keep our money and not give it to those that aren't worthwhile. That's how feudalism worked.

Besides, it's harder than you think to "better" yourself. Your life is the way it is for a large part of what your parents did for you and what social class you were born in. Very few escape that. A lot of life is nurture, and not everyone will have the knowledge and skills to go to school/get a good job (but again, who does the other jobs if everyone becomes doctors, lawyers, and CEOs??). I don't think the social net is as great as you seem to think it is, and nor is the lack of one that motivating, especially if you see no way out of your situation. When you're barely surviving and have all that stress, it doesn't seem very likely to add on evening college classes to it...

So science says that the weaker ideas should die, huh? We should just let all the old and/or stupid people die, because that is what natural selection would do? I have no idea where you were going with that last paragraph, but that's basically what you implied.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

I agree that the freebies we give people have gone too far. The benefits add up to quite a deluxe package.
What has happened is we ENCOURAGE people to have babies they cant pay for. If I had a child right now...
-food would be free (foodstamps + WIC)..foodstamps can be used for candy, sodas, Papa Murphy's pizza, etc..I'd be eating better than I do now
-school would be free (plus extra left over most likely)
-medical care would be free (medicaid)
-I would get the Earned Income Tax Credit of $5,000 minimum (probably more)

Whereas now, I work to pay for food, health insurance, and school and have very little left. Plus no whopping tax refund.
My grandma prepares taxes, and she said a 16 year old got a $5k check for her baby..and the girl's 12 year old sister told my grandma she was "so ready to be 14 so I can have a baby and get a bunch of money and be rich"..we are sending kids the WRONG MESSAGE.
Elderly, terminally ill, and children are in need of help. But I say after 1 kid on the system, you aren't given any more tax credits, additional food stamps, etc. People are only having these kids because they are getting REWARDED. There are LOTS more people on the system than some people care to realize. And YES, even the small amount (compared to Rphs) that I pay in taxes burns me up. I did everything I was "supposed" to--worked hard, went to college, got a job...but I'm paying for Suzie Prom Queen's baby and food..hmm..I'm hard at work ringing up $0 copay Differin and $0 copay Concerta and the customer has the nails done, iPhone, is buying $50 worth of make-up, and takes out the food stamp card for Cheetos, Dr. Pepper, and a huge Hershey's bar..

You've seen this person? Suzie Prom Queen? Really? I want proof.

The money you get from having an extra kid is not enough to actually support one. Most people would figure that out pretty quickly, oh, after baby #2 or so. $5,000 isn't a lot of money, but you can't judge all on a 12 year-old's comment. She's 12. Most 12 year-olds have no idea how much things cost and think things like toilet paper magically appear. Didn't you ever get mad at your parents for not buying you something at 12? Or refusing to turn up the heat because it cost money?

I do support possibly having some co-pays for Medicaid patients, like between $1-3. I do think it'd prevent people from going out of the door with medication they have no intention of taking. Maybe for the really bad off/those with several chronic conditions could get a debit card for Rx's for a certain amount. I think it'd reduce costs and reduce waste.

 

[confettiflyer]

So we move people up to "better" jobs, who's going to be the janitors? Who's left to do the jobs no one wants? If people got paid living wages for working full time, we wouldn't have this problem. But that would eat into corporations' profits. Guess we can't have that.

There will always be a steady supply of low wage workers, there's always this churn going on. Booming societies import their lower end work. Not everyone can be successful, but at least the "confettiflyer welfare plan" of 5 years gives you an honest shot w/ proper assistance in everything you mentioned in your 2nd post about "not having time for evening classes."

And yes it would be absolutely irresponsible for corporations to lower their profits to simply feel good about themselves and pay more than market value for their labor. I would be outraged as a shareholder and would vote the bums out for squandering my investment in their company.

Breaking another of the stereotypes, a lot of the janitors I've met are people who come here from other countries. They often faced persecution in their previous homes, and at one point, some of them even had really good careers. But because of unrest in their home country, they emigrate here, and it's too late to start over. However, their kids often go on to become highly educated people and contribute much to our society. Don't these janitors, who are working 40 hours a week, often at night, deserve to make enough to live? Shouldn't the high-school drop-out who's putting in those same hours doing the same job also get enough to live on?

a janitor, like a pharmacist, deserves what the market will pay them. Who then gets to decide/decree what is "hard work" and deserves money? You? Go ahead and raise the minimum wage, prices will go up anyway and you're back to square one.

What happens when your body gives out, and you can no longer do the job you used to have? Machinists, gardners, car mechanics, and janitors who come down with arthritis, etc. are often incapable of working the same hours, but that doesn't mean they don't want to. And some people are just not capable of moving on to something else. Who wants to hire some arthritic 50-year-old anyway? Who's going to pay for his/her schooling while he's trying to support his family? There are programs, but they're underfunded, and it's very hard to go back to school, especially if it wasn't your strong point to begin with.

this falls under my long term disability proviso that, as i mentioned to All4, i seem to have to mention each and every time lest someone thinks i hate children/older folks/disabled people. this also falls under my "confettiflyer plan" that covers your "downtime" for up to 5 years. i've addressed this in my fantasy world where i'm congress & president all in one.

Back to philosophy here...society is predicated on stratifying different classes of people based on education/ability/connections. not everyone can be rich, not everyone is built for college, people have problems. fine. in my world, you at least get (what i believe to be) a fair shot at improving your life by suspending the realities of economics for 5 years by giving you some health care, some section 8, some babysitting, some free tuition, etc... this contrasts with the feudal system some of you think us fiscal conservatives want to return to (apparently we also hate children/seniors/disabled, but anyway)...

at some point, we as a people (via government) have to say no. either we can't afford it, or there's some giant opportunity cost in sinking billions into programs that don't have clear expectations for their recipients. to me, a dollar you spend on the health care of someone with no expectation to improve themselves = net return of zero. In fact, so long as there's no strings attached, it's a negative return because now they're around until tomorrow to collect again (teaching a man to fish analogy would make a great point here). That same dollar can yield so much more if strings are attached.

Example: student loans. Government gives you a dollar, but you HAVE to go to school, and you HAVE to pay it back. Therein exists your incentive to better yourself.

Anyway, I'm gonna end up rambling beyond this point. But to conclude, sob stories do wonders in tugging at peoples' primal emotions, but I live in the real world (& my congressional/presidential fantasy one on SDN too). Tax $$ are limited, our country is going to crap...what's the best way forward? Do we act all lovey-dovey and put everyone on the government teat? Or do we incentivize increasing your socioeconomic status?

 

[SHC1984]

So science says that the weaker ideas should die, huh? We should just let all the old and/or stupid people die, because that is what natural selection would do? I have no idea where you were going with that last paragraph, but that's basically what you implied.

And what would be wrong with that? Personally, if I was mentally ******ed I would prefer death. I would not want to just sit at home everyday and do nothing but take up space. That might sound offensive to you, but that is my opinion. If I can't be successful, intelligent, and productive then I see no point in me being here. I see no point in living if all I am doing is sitting at home and taking up space. And I really can NOT see why anyone would want to do the same.

SHC - does the government REALLY take 40% of your paycheck to give to other people? Do you believe that you receive NOTHING in exchange for the taxes that you pay?

Fair enough...I do take out sub stafford loans and I drive on the roads etc. But I am still cheap and prefer taxes to be as LOW as possible. And I do agree with you that Bush shouldn't have started the war in Iraq. Worst idea ever...that money could have gone into improving the school systems and of course the animal's rights organizations can always use some help!

 

[confettiflyer]

and of course the animal's rights organizations can always use some help!

mm i love animals, especially steak

 

[SHC1984]

mm i love animals, especially steak

You are SOOOOOOOOOO WRONG!!!!!!!!! Become a vegan!!!!! As of right now I only eat seafood and vegatables...I am slowly converting to a vegan.

 

[confettiflyer]

You are SOOOOOOOOOO WRONG!!!!!!!!! Become a vegan!!!!! As of right now I only eat seafood and vegatables...I am slowly converting to a vegan.

good, more meat for me. and once you swear off seafood, more sushi for me!

 

[SHC1984]

good, more meat for me. and once you swear off seafood, more sushi for me!

I have never had beef in my entire life! Killing a cow is just terrible and WRONG! But I do love sushi...

 

[Moxxie]

I posted this over a year ago (surprisingly, in response to one of SHC's posts!), but here I go again (edited to match the content of this thread):

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on StudentDoctor.net about how taxes are evil and everyone on medicaid is a fraud because the government can't do anything right.

Seriously - do you only think that your tax money goes to others? That you get NO benefit from it? How many people on welfare (or WIC, or Medicaid) do you know personally? Probably more than you think, and they are likely not all freeloaders and ne'er-do-wells. But I forget; I went into this profession because I want to help the less fortunate - NOT because I want to make oodles of money in retail. The people that I have met while volunteering at indigent clinics have been far better people than those that I've met who spend $$$$ on crap like Latisse.

By the way, I *love* the firefighter/arson parable.

 

[confettiflyer]

I have never had beef in my entire life! Killing a cow is just terrible and WRONG! But I do love sushi...

what? but you're asian...how the heck...

lol i changed my image cuz that was too big but i guess you replied faster than i thought, haha.

 

[confettiflyer]

stuff

who said taxes were evil?

i hate your post...it's like a random variation of an email/article that's been circulating and it essentially cherry picks the government programs that most of america agrees with having and frames those who view it as inefficient or needing improvement as heartless.

the discussion here, i think, is a philosophical one as to whether we should support those who are unable to support themselves and to what extent. We are getting arguments ranging from hippie free love/give everyone everything to eugenics/pure darwinism/survival of the fittest.

THis isn't about whether cutting money from meat inspection is heretical, this is about how we structure our society's safety net and whether it serves its purpose and provides for the greater good and doesn't just create a class of dependent and entitled moochers.

 

[SHC1984]

what? but you're asian...how the heck...

lol i changed my image cuz that was too big but i guess you replied faster than i thought, haha.

LOL...my family usually cooks rice, chicken and vegs or rice, fish and vegs, or rice, seafood and vegs, or rice, tofu and vegs. We never were big on beef or pork...I don't know why...and I always thought it was sad when people kill animals for food. The animals didn't do anything wrong they don't deserve that kind of treatment! WTF.

 

[rxlea]

LOL...my family usually cooks rice, chicken and vegs or rice, fish and vegs, or rice, seafood and vegs, or rice, tofu and vegs. We never were big on beef or pork...I don't know why...and I always thought it was sad when people kill animals for food. The animals didn't do anything wrong they don't deserve that kind of treatment! WTF.

Fish are animals, too......

 

[confettiflyer]

LOL...my family usually cooks rice, chicken and vegs or rice, fish and vegs, or rice, seafood and vegs, or rice, tofu and vegs. We never were big on beef or pork...I don't know why...and I always thought it was sad when people kill animals for food. The animals didn't do anything wrong they don't deserve that kind of treatment! WTF.

lol, i dunno...you do what you need to do to survive. i've seen plenty of pig, goat, and chicken slaughters growing up. kind of shocking at first, but then you realize you need to eat. a hungry person wouldn't think twice.

soapbox: as a society, we're too disconnected from our food. to most of us, a chicken is that flabby thing in a tray surrounded by plastic, or some breaded/fried amorphous blob. go into any other country (chinatown counts) and see the ducks hanging from the windows and whatnot.

i kinda wanna lock you in a room with a chicken and a machete and see what you do (not let you out until you put a meal together). it's like the movie Saw except...you could probably put this on Discovery Channel or Food Network, hahah.


Oh, SHC, you should really watch this. I think you'd enjoy it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nByH6yPWYj8

 

[SHC1984]

Fish are animals, too......

Yeah...I am techincially not converted yet...have you read the book Skinny Bitch? I am going to follow that book when I finish school and have more time to cook and monitor my diet. I am going to go all organic and no more animal products. If you read that book you would want to do the same.

 

[schamj01]

SHC, I want to know why it appears that you care more about animals than people. You would rather the government give out money to help (non-sentient) animals, instead of people who have found themselves down on their luck? You seem to forget that life doesn't always go the way a person would like it to, and sometimes circumstances take opportunities away from people. Do you honestly believe that you would want to die if you became disabled, and unable to work?

I'm not saying that I don't love animals; they deserve to be treated fairly. But if I had the choice between saving a person from being hit by a car or saving a cute little puppy, the person would win, every time....even if they were on Medicaid.

BTW...if a cow's so important, why aren't fish??

 

[SHC1984]

lol, i dunno...you do what you need to do to survive. i've seen plenty of pig, goat, and chicken slaughters growing up. kind of shocking at first, but then you realize you need to eat. a hungry person wouldn't think twice.

soapbox: as a society, we're too disconnected from our food. to most of us, a chicken is that flabby thing in a tray surrounded by plastic, or some breaded/fried amorphous blob. go into any other country (chinatown counts) and see the ducks hanging from the windows and whatnot.

i kinda wanna lock you in a room with a chicken and a machete and see what you do (not let you out until you put a meal together). it's like the movie Saw except...you could probably put this on Discovery Channel or Food Network, hahah.


Oh, SHC, you should really watch this. I think you'd enjoy it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nByH6yPWYj8

OMG...that would be terrible! I have never seen anything killed in my entire life and I never want to...

Just ONE drop of blood makes me sick to my stomach for hours. I can't take that kind of stuff. I haven't seen Saw before either....I don't like blood or guts or anything like that...hence why I am not in med school right now. lol...

And I am afriad to watch your youtube video...

I just saw 2 seconds of that video!!! You are SICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[johnconner]

The problem is that medicaid spends the money frivolously. I've seen people buy lobsters and steak with their food stamps.

When you see a script where medicaid paid $150 for a bottle of Lexapro as first line therapy (when celexa is $4 a bottle), it really is frustrating. Or when a patient is getting a bottle of benzoyl peroxide for $100 and it's available OTC for $10. Or when patients requests brand only...and medicaid pays. And you see it every day.

I wouldn't have a problem paying for someone's $20 omeprazole prescription, but what about their $150 nexium prescription? And they have never even tried any generic ppi.

I just wish medicaid would spend their money more wisely. If my mom says she is hungry and in desperate need of money, I would give her money. But would I give her $200 to go out for dinner to Morton's to blow in one night?

Medicaid needs to change. How about generics are tier 1 with $0 copay? Brands are are tier 2 with $25 copay.

 

[confettiflyer]

SHC, I want to know why it appears that you care more about animals than people.

haha, SHC should move to California. We banned gay marriage while simultaneously giving chickens the right to walk around ON THE SAME BALLOT!

Impressive.

 

[confettiflyer]

I wouldn't have a problem paying for someone's $20 omeprazole prescription, but what about their $150 nexium prescription? And they have never even tried any generic ppi.

man, what state are you from. i worked at a PBM and we put in step therapy for all the PPI's and built it into the claims system for a medicaid plan.

 

[SHC1984]

SHC, I want to know why it appears that you care more about animals than people. You would rather the government give out money to help (non-sentient) animals, instead of people who have found themselves down on their luck? You seem to forget that life doesn't always go the way a person would like it to, and sometimes circumstances take opportunities away from people. Do you honestly believe that you would want to die if you became disabled, and unable to work?

I'm not saying that I don't love animals; they deserve to be treated fairly. But if I had the choice between saving a person from being hit by a car or saving a cute little puppy, the person would win, every time....even if they were on Medicaid.

BTW...if a cow's so important, why aren't fish??

I think it is wrong to kill animals period. There is nothing sad about human beings. Animals get killed for no reason, nothing like that ever happens to a human.

This is getting off topic but my freshman year of college I gain 15 pounds...I was no longer skinny and I felt UGLY. I got really depressed and felt like **** b/c of that. My self esteem went from all time high to 0 in less than 6 months...I am glad I was able to lose that weight and get back to normal my 2nd year of college...if not I don't know what I would do. I value success, looks, intelligence, VERY HIGHLY. if I don't have those things I would want to die. I have never experience that before, but I can't imagine not having those things in my life. If I was mentally ******ed or unable to be productive and successful my self-esteem would be GONE and I would not want to be here on earth. Again, this might be offensive to some, but it is how I really feel. I DO NOT want to be a vegetable. I do NOT see the point in being one and wanting to be around to just take up space.

I apologize if I offend you or anyone with this post, but that is just how I really feel.

 

[chubsley2000]

I value success, looks, intelligence, VERY HIGHLY. if I don't have those things I would want to die.

You'd sound less crazy if you valued basic humanity "very highly"

 

[schamj01]

Not sure if you were being sarcastic...but a lot of humans are getting killed for no reason. Gang shootings, wars, genocide in places like Darfur, not to mention modern day slavery and human trafficking. All I'm saying, is I'd rather divert resources toward helping people and saving their lives, rather than increasing the quality of life for every animal around us.

I think it's great you love animals, but it begs the question....why don't you just specialize in veterinary pharmacy? You certainly wouldn't have to deal with the Medicaid issue.

Also, asking for clarification... do you value "success, looks, intelligence, VERY HIGHLY" mainly in just yourself? Or would an unemployed, goofy looking, mildly ******ed person not mean much to you. I think there's a lot more that defines worth in a person than these external features. Otherwise, you can instantly justify doing all of the above atrocities to people that don't match to your standards because they are not worth as much.

 

[rxlea]

Animals aren't sentient? Do you know what that word means?

 

[SHC1984]

Not sure if you were being sarcastic...but a lot of humans are getting killed for no reason. Gang shootings, wars, genocide in places like Darfur, not to mention modern day slavery and human trafficking. All I'm saying, is I'd rather divert resources toward helping people and saving their lives, rather than increasing the quality of life for every animal around us.

I think it's great you love animals, but it begs the question....why don't you just specialize in veterinary pharmacy? You certainly wouldn't have to deal with the Medicaid issue.

Also, asking for clarification... do you value "success, looks, intelligence, VERY HIGHLY" mainly in just yourself? Or would an unemployed, goofy looking, mildly ******ed person not mean much to you. I think there's a lot more that defines worth in a person than these external features. Otherwise, you can instantly justify doing all of the above atrocities to people that don't match to your standards because they are not worth as much.

I am not saying have a bunch of cows and pigs run around the city and spend a bunch of money on them etc....but I am just saying...lets not mass produce these animals and then kill them or torture them. I rather have the cows and pigs etc. go extinct then to have them mass produced and tortured.

I could specialize in veterinary pharmacy it it doesn't involve me seeing animals dying. I think that will make me depressed. I just don't like seeing anything like that.

I value those three things in myself. In other people I just value intelligence and productivity. I do not see the point of a mentally ******ed person being around. I am not saying it is their fault that they are mentally ******ed, but I feel that they do not contribute to society in anyway, shape or form so why have them around? To triple the national debt?

Once again, you asked for my opinion and I am giving it to you. I realize what I am saying is offensive to some (especially the super religious folks, but I am use to it I do live in the south) however, this is how I feel. If I sound mean...oh well. It's who I am. Hate me.

 

[rxlea]

Also, SHC, I think you've outdone yourself in this thread. Are you really this sheltered? Are you pulling our leg? To sit and say that mentally ******ed people or whoever should just not live is absurd. You are making the most ridiculous assertions that I am starting to wonder if you are unwell.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

at some point, we as a people (via government) have to say no. either we can't afford it, or there's some giant opportunity cost in sinking billions into programs that don't have clear expectations for their recipients. to me, a dollar you spend on the health care of someone with no expectation to improve themselves = net return of zero. In fact, so long as there's no strings attached, it's a negative return because now they're around until tomorrow to collect again (teaching a man to fish analogy would make a great point here). That same dollar can yield so much more if strings are attached.

Example: student loans. Government gives you a dollar, but you HAVE to go to school, and you HAVE to pay it back. Therein exists your incentive to better yourself.

There are limits to what the government can support. I agree with that and think we should be more responsible with what we fund (although it's hard when we're such a big country with so many different ideas). We can't help everyone, but there's still something wrong with a person working full-time and not making enough to live on. I don't care what it does to yours or anyone else's shares. I could make lots of money by stealing it from people, too, but that doesn't make it right.

But what's the difference between helping someone who's working for a non-living wage or even unemployed for more than five years and helping someone who's disabled? Where do you draw the line? What if that person has mental disabilities? In fact, with your logic, why do we support people dying of cancer? It's not like they're going to improve, and any money we spend on them isn't worth it.

Student loans are loans, but I don't think all of them do get paid back. What about all those people who get hundred of thousands of dollars to get degrees where they won't get jobs that pay any more than minimum wage?

 

[SHC1984]

Also, SHC, I think you've outdone yourself in this thread. Are you really this sheltered? Are you pulling our leg? To sit and say that mentally ******ed people or whoever should just not live is absurd. You are making the most ridiculous assertions that I am starting to wonder if you are unwell.

No, I am not lying. This is exactly how I feel. In fact I took a women's studies course in undergrad and I pissed off the entire class by saying what I said on here. I pretty much told them everything I said in this thread, plus the fact that I think abortion is 100% OKAY and women should have the right to do it anytime they want. Man, that class didn't like me too well. Oh well, they asked for my opinion, so I am just giving it to them.

I don't think I am unwell. If you were mentally ******ed and couldn't do a thing WOULD YOU want to live??? You would? seriously? I find that shocking actually. Again, I am not saying it is their fault that they are ******ed...it is simply pointless to go on if that is the case though is all that I am saying.

 

[schamj01]

Have you every had close contact with a mentally handicapped person? It can be quite the amazing experience. The way they look at the world; their naivety can be quite refreshing. My band director in high school had a son who had Down's syndrome. I had the opportunity to spend time with him, and he was a really cool guy. He had many great qualities independent of his intelligence level...friendliness, love of life...mad skillz driving a golf cart.

My point is, you are taking people and turning them into statistics. Everyone is different...that is what makes life interesting. I don't think it's right to judge a person because they are in the category of being mentally handicapped. This is coming from a person who has a sister-in-law who is borderline mentally handicapped and two brother-in-laws with learning disabilities.

I really think you just need to think about that for awhile and relate it to yourself too. You say that you would rather be dead if you weren't productive, but if you were truly in that situation...would you really want to die?

Also, please don't put money above people. Money may make the world go round, but people are what makes life worth living. Remember, that we Americans enjoy one of the highest standards of living on the planet. If you own just one car, that makes you richer than 96% of the world. Sure, your paycheck might be a little smaller, but you still have a roof over your head, means of transportation, food on the table, money in the bank, health insurance, the internet, a cell phone, video games, television, air conditioning, a 40 hour workweek, domestic security....

I know I digressed, and sure "maybe I'm super-religious (although the term religious is a pretty vague term....)", but I'd much rather live in a world where basic human rights are an assumption vs. a place where it's every man and his/her genome to him/herself.

 

[schamj01]

Ahah...but would an abortion of a fetus that would become a supermodel-neurosurgeon-billionaire be ok to abort?

And, yes, my sister-in-law does enjoy living. She enjoys spending time with us and her friends. She also enjoys Christmas and other nationally recognized holidays.