Friends of CwG Discussion Board

No one in the USA is starving to death unless they choose to be. Your hyperbole doesn't support your opinion at all. The USA, government combined with public and private social service organizations, provides for the basic necessities of ALL citzens of our country. Food, drinking water, clothing, shelter. Health care is not a basic necessity, and has never been a basic necessity, in this country.

Granted, if you're down and out "shelter" might mean sleeping on a church floor. Food might be whatever the local food pantry and put on a plate that day, you might not -like- the taste of that overcooked undersalted pulled turkey in cream sauce on white toast, but you also don't have to do anything to get it other than show up. Your clothing might not be Dolce & Gabanna but it's clean, and it covers your body and protects you from the elements.

People in our country who are down and out, are given the basic necessities. Some choose not to take them. Some fall off the radar charts by going insane and living under bridges. That doesn't mean we've ignored them; it means they have, for whatever reasons of their own, made the decision to remove themselves from society. The rest of the population who are down and out and seek help, will find it, often with a healthy measure of compassion.
Yes there are starving people in the world. But in the USA, no one needs to starve, because the food is available to anyone and everyone.

Affordable health care, on the other hand, is only available to the poor (and ALWAYS HAS BEEN), the wealthy, and the insured. And now, thanks to the new program, all those other people who have not been able to afford health insurance but weren't too poor to get it free, will be fined and have even less money to pay when they actually need to pay it.

That's not what I heard. I heard that in America, if you look SO hard to find a job, but don't get one-through no fault of their own-you end up in homeless shelters, as landlords just kick people out that fail to pay the rent regardless of their circumstances. That said, I would be very glad if what you were saying was true, and I was wrong. Though your attitude does seem to reek of capitalist arrogance, no offense (I talking about your attitude, not you personally), because you say that food, drinking, water, clothing and shelter is a necessity but you are saying that if you got that, it doesn't matter if you are suffering with a treatable disease, it's not a necessity for it to be fixed, so if it's life threatening you should just lie down and die from the flu or whatever.



Have you ever been in such a situation AnonChick? Don't take this the wrong way, but I would have more respect for your point of view if you had. Chances are, you're one of those people that say "oh I never let myself be in that situation", obviously, yes, if you put in effort you're less likely to end up in that situation, but I've never taken any job for granted.



Well that's very good to hear, I suppose though it must be harder in America, given your huge population. We only have 22 million here. Then again, most of our land is a barren desert.



So if you lost your job, house, and had no friends or family who were willing to offer you shelter, what place would you go to, to get your food and shelter Anon?



I don't understand what you mean by fined, is fined a slang American word for a tax? I am a bit confused...I guess I have my concerns about the Labor governments health reforms down here though (democrats equivalent). They planning a Federal take over of the hospitals, which is a concern to me. This is about US healthcare though, so I will stick to that topic-I still am of the point of view though, that despite the hiccups, it will be better for those 34 million people that I heard DIE each year because of lack of health care available.

By fined, I mean fined. It's a financial punishment. Like, if you are caught speeding and get a ticket, you have to pay a fine. With this bill, if you are caught not having health coverage and not qualifying for public assistance, you will have to pay a fine. You will be punished, financially, because you are not poor enough to qualify for public assistance, but not rich enough to afford your own health care, and not fortunate enough to work for a company that provides the health care for you.

If I was out of work, out of shelter, out of money, I would go to the public shelter and eat whatever they serve me, and sleep on whatever cot the shelter organizer assigns to me. When you are in SUCH a desperate situation, you can't afford to be picky. If you could afford to be picky, you wouldn't be in a situation of having to sleep in a public shelter.

In the USA, there are public housing and private housing. If I -own- a apartment building, and you rent a 2-bedroom flat in my building, and you tell me you can't afford to pay for it, I will evict you and find new tenants who can afford to pay for it. *I* am not a charity organization. *I* have to pay the taxes and mortgage and sewer and water fees for the property, *I* have to pay for repairs and upkeep and maintenence of the property, and your rent is what is covering that cost. If you can't pay for it, then no, you are not entitled to live in my building.

HOWEVER - if you are living in a subsidized public housing complex, then you are livnig off the funds provided by the taxpayers. The complex is owned by the government, or is funded by the government, and the owner is paid by the government fund to maintain and run the property. So in a case like that, the tenant would not get kicked out for not paying the rent, because in a case like that, the tenant is only living there BECAUSE he can't afford to pay rent somewhere else. It's called Section 8 housing and is intended to help people who have nothing, boost themselves back up. It's primarily reserved for families with children, and is intended to be temporary. It's part of our welfare system, which covers food, clothing, shelter, emergency medical care, preventative medical care. Our welfare system already covers ALL of that. It has covered all of that, ever since the system was created.

So in other words you have to pay for some form of health care, even if you don't want it, is that what you are saying?


So you know the public shelter where you live?


Fair enough, as long as there's somewhere to go.



Yeah but TEMPORARY is the problem there, the reality is, people sometimes lack intelligence or job skills to be able to get ahead in the world, and few jobs in America seem to be based on award wages like we have down here.

I'm saying what I'm saying, Stephen.

Clearly, you need to educate yourself on topics before forming opinions about those topics. Didn't they teach you that in the debate class you bragged so much about?

Learn something about economics. Take a course in government. Check a few actual government websites, and stop relying on "what you've heard." If I relied on what I've heard about Australia, exclusively from you, my opinion of Australia would be that it's a great place for pedophiles who don't want to have to work for a living, to find a place to live free of charge, free food, health care, and they get paid for the privilege of all of this so they can afford to buy their extensive porn collection.

Fortunately for Australia, the known world doesn't form their opinions of the country based on anything you say about it.

Well most people vote for their governments based on barely a few policies...and don't do the research on ALL the policies. I would like to think that I keep quite well informed in comparison to most.



I do, but I don't trust them, because if politicans can tell a lie, then their websites can tell a lie.



I ask that this comment is insulting and defamatory, and the mods ask AnonChick respectfully withdraw? I don't want to go into a huge debate about this matter, but you know that I do NOT get attracted to girls under 18, every woman I've been with has been over 30. Though yes, it is an issue here, that dangerous criminals such as murderers etc are too often let loose in the community when they are still a threat to society, due to several faults in our justice system, and I would TOTALLY support any law enforced that kept dangerous criminals, such as the ones you mention behind bars until it is ABSOLUTELY 100% certain that they will not reoffend. And don't take this the wrong way, but from what I've seen, from shows such as Two-and-a-half men, Americans are much more obsessed with sexuality then Australians.



And nor should they!! I fully encourage people doing research and making up their own minds on who they vote for, etc.

I think the way many Americans are reacting to the health reform thing is a complete disgrace. I understand that you might not always get what you want in a democracy, but violence is not the answer.

"Many" people aren't reacting violently to it, Stephen. A few are. Out of millions and millions of people in this country, a few -dozen- people were arrested. More people than that stub their toes violently against curbsides every hour, than there have been violent reactions to the health care reform. What you're doing, is reacting to the _FEW_ incidences that have been splattered all over the media.

You probably wouldn't even have heard about this, if the internet hadn't existed. That's how much of a "non-issue" it is.

Well I don't think cameras lie. people do. i heard that there had been several black members that had got death threats and all the rest of it, and people been going around blowing up houses that they even suspect belongs to an American democrat. maybe the media has exaggerated it somewhat, but it sounds quite violent to me.

Ohh for the record, I did make one mistake it was not 34 million americans that die each year due to lack of health care year it's "only" 34 thousand sorry, my mistake.

It's 45,000. It's not -caused- by lack of health care (in your words, DUE TO)... it is LINKED to the lack of health care.

Basically, people are taking a crap-shoot with their lives, and losing. They're saying, "I -could- go to the hospital and incur a debt that I might or might not be able to handle. OR, I can pretend I'm just fine, and hope I don't die tomorrow."

So instead of incurring a debt, they die. Problem solved, gene pool culled.

If you're feeling sick, you go to the doctor. The hospitals are not -refusing- to help people. No one is turned down if they don't have health insurance, in emergency rooms of public or state hospitals. It's just, that if they aren't insured, they incur a debt. There are people who would rather die than be in debt. Sucks to be them, I guess.

I didn't have health insurance for awhile, went to the hospital, turned out I just needed some cough medicine and rest (I had walking pneumonia) for four days. They billed me over $1000 for this. I worked it out with them and paid them $200. The state ate the rest of the debt.

That is how it works. But people have to actually -go- to seek medical care. If they refuse to seek it, they won't get it. And if they don't get it, they might die. A huge portion of the 45,000 is the *direct* result of people NOT SEEKING medical care. A huge portion of the people who don't seek care, have no insurance. They assume that the reward for not going to the hospital is greater than the risk of not going. They assume that the risk of going, is greater than the reward for going. They assumed wrong, but that was their choice to make.

You can always get out of not paying a debt. You can't always get out of being dead because you didn't want to incur a debt.

sorry I don't know how to respond to that, that figure is higher then was reported here in Australia. It's weird how you say it's LINKED to the lack of health care (implying that there IS a lack of health care) yet your entire post seems to argue that there is not.



Well I can understand that, doctors recommend I go to a dentist rather then going on antibiotics when I get gingavitis, but it's cheaper for me to go on the antibiotics as it cost a few hundred dollars to go to a dentist and that's way too much for me when I trying to get out of debt on my credit card.



Oh, don't get me wrong, I got NO problem at all with culling the gene pool.



Well you don't have much of a life, if your only option to remain alive is to remain POOR while you're alive, so I see why many people give up hope and just allow themselves to die. here, that's unthinkable, the only health issue that's a problem for us is dentists, as it's considered your own fault if you need dental work for not brushing your teeth properly.



That's an outrageous sum.

So if I'm in America, and I'm in a position where I'm sick with pneumonia, and have tried SO hard to find a job, but haven't been unable to find one (and my unemployment is about to run out), I have to either cough up every penny to my landlord or whatever to survive for another week or $1000 to a hospital (or at least $200, which is bad enough) for the right to life? It figures...



Well who would want to live when there's not much to live for anyway?

I do hope the mandatory clause is found unconstitutional. I think it will be. If not, the insurance companies will have won, yet again. If I haven't made my position clear, I say do without the insurance companies and let free market be that which governs the business of health care in America. Since that is unlikely to occur anytime soon, then I would say allow for option where government provides a plan, paid for by taxpayers, that (hopefully) reduces costs and profits in this racket called "insuring health care for all" who can afford it.

I'm satisfied with the bill that passed, minus the mandatory thing. Many compromises were made and I'm sure it will be tweaked a good dozen times in the years to come. I highly doubt it will be repealed, though I think tweaking could lead to certain things that amount to "screw those who think health care is an entitlement." I pray it does not.

In my own passive aggressive way, I long to confront those who show up bent out of shape over the passing of this bill. Claiming it as government take over and move toward socialism. My ongoing desire is to throw the whole military spending (aka big government, psuedo socialism) thing in their hypocritical face(s). So far my quest has left me dry and yet, feeling proud that America finally got to place where the "promoting of the General welfare" aspect, as found in Constitution, can occur by "we the people." Only took us about 235 years to get here.

The problem is, probably like here in Australia, politicians are usually earning thousands of dollars each year, and the majority of the population is more vulnerable to exploitation which means politicians can get away with whatever they want until the election which comes every 3 to 4 years in each state and territory as well as the Federal election. No political party can deliver on all its promises, and I think the right leader is the one that says he's committed to bringing change about, but won't make promises he can't keep. Which seems to be what Obama is all about imho.

Josh, I don’t know what you are talking about really, to me this has nothing to do with we the people promoting general welfare at all and that’s not the experience, I think it does the opposite and it kills the part where we the people do so; this is just a big government take over and I think in general people will be surprised as this bill unfolds. All I know is, like with everything else socialism has been evolving for a long time, and I think I get there was an intention in the beginning, but the intention is definitely lost in today’s socialism as far as I am concern, and it is not heading in the direction I would like, and I wouldn’t mind going back to the intention and pealing off some of the unnecessary stuff at this point. If that makes me a hypocrite I am ok with that. It is almost like the americans are my last chance to peal off this mountain a bit to make it more manageable or move it altogether; btw, I am stuck on this mountain metaphor lately… did I ever tell you I am afraid of heights?