Tweet
Oddly, I would have to say this about the whole Universal Health Care debate.
And no the rich get richer and poo get poorer isn't always because of bad decisions, especially not in first world countries where debt is rampant, it's ultimately, the rich get richer because they can pass on their wealth to subsequent generations, while the poor get poorer (now at least) due to debt that gets passed on the same (for an example of how bad this is, Washington has a lovely little law that forces the next of kin to pay off any debts)
so how does this follow into the healthcare debate? We'll use a little example here, persons A & B have a genetic predisposition toward Arrythmia (not big until you get past a certain age usually, but it's well before Medicare would kick in.) Person A is in the Upper Middle Class, has private health care, and can afford to have an episode caused by this (read heart attack) and pay off the medical bills sometime before he dies, and goes back to making money for his kids. Person B works a 9-5 job and is in only the middle portion of the middle class, and like most companies that aren't office jobs or progressive, has no health insurans, has an episode, and is pretty much indebted since he has to make ends meet while paying off his debts. In three generations, which one is getting richer and which is getting poorer because of a bad decision? I guess I'm one of those freaky Americans who actually takes a centrist view, The rich get richer because they have the money to actually get richer, or they have something that actually bends around the rules to make themselves the newly rich (for an example here musicians that have lasting careers for the second, their children for the first.) Meanwhile the poor get into debt sometimes just to live (far too common in places that seem to WANT some sort of healthcare safety net, as in both coasts.) And thanks to these places having wonderful next of kin debt laws well their kids get the debt. So while it was true in the early 1900's that the rich got richer and poor got poorer from a drive (or lack (there-of) to work since about 1970 or so with the massive scale of debt, it's quite less so, and more of the rich get richer because they can work less, and the poor get poorer because they can work more but can't get out of debt.
So how do I know a bit of this.... Medical bills for my Grandmother.... yup, my Grandfather is still paying off medical bills because of her family's predisposition towards Diabetes... and before you ask, this is 10 years after her death and some of these bills are from the early 90s... so yeah, he dies it goes onto the next of kin...
unfortunately things have changed so much we're having to go towards things we would have never thought of doing (universal health care, trading with countries that have human rights abuses worse that Stalin's Russia, subsidizing the auto industry) mainly because we seem to have forgotten that we have to change as things come up, and change quickly, we're still pretty much running our ideas off the way they were run in 1985, yet the world's only gotten smaller, and well if the S&L scandals of the late 80s early 90s, the fact that we were only ONE requirement off from Black Tuesday (buying stock on credit), and the ultimate failure of NAFTA and Outsourcing on making sure Americans have actual jobs, it's no wonder we're seeing the extremes in politics being reflected in socio-economic status.
In truth it's yet another good idea that is the Left will say this is good help us pay for this poorly wrought bill, and the right will use sound bites to defeat anything remotely good about it.
As far as hyperbole goes, I'm actually enjoying getting into debates on the subject (such as it'll essentially force euthanasia on the elderly, when that's truthfully not much different to the way things are now... but that's something I'd have to put into a full on conversation.)
aaaaand I think I'll stop before I ramble on way too much.
And no the rich get richer and poo get poorer isn't always because of bad decisions, especially not in first world countries where debt is rampant, it's ultimately, the rich get richer because they can pass on their wealth to subsequent generations, while the poor get poorer (now at least) due to debt that gets passed on the same (for an example of how bad this is, Washington has a lovely little law that forces the next of kin to pay off any debts)
so how does this follow into the healthcare debate? We'll use a little example here, persons A & B have a genetic predisposition toward Arrythmia (not big until you get past a certain age usually, but it's well before Medicare would kick in.) Person A is in the Upper Middle Class, has private health care, and can afford to have an episode caused by this (read heart attack) and pay off the medical bills sometime before he dies, and goes back to making money for his kids. Person B works a 9-5 job and is in only the middle portion of the middle class, and like most companies that aren't office jobs or progressive, has no health insurans, has an episode, and is pretty much indebted since he has to make ends meet while paying off his debts. In three generations, which one is getting richer and which is getting poorer because of a bad decision? I guess I'm one of those freaky Americans who actually takes a centrist view, The rich get richer because they have the money to actually get richer, or they have something that actually bends around the rules to make themselves the newly rich (for an example here musicians that have lasting careers for the second, their children for the first.) Meanwhile the poor get into debt sometimes just to live (far too common in places that seem to WANT some sort of healthcare safety net, as in both coasts.) And thanks to these places having wonderful next of kin debt laws well their kids get the debt. So while it was true in the early 1900's that the rich got richer and poor got poorer from a drive (or lack (there-of) to work since about 1970 or so with the massive scale of debt, it's quite less so, and more of the rich get richer because they can work less, and the poor get poorer because they can work more but can't get out of debt.
So how do I know a bit of this.... Medical bills for my Grandmother.... yup, my Grandfather is still paying off medical bills because of her family's predisposition towards Diabetes... and before you ask, this is 10 years after her death and some of these bills are from the early 90s... so yeah, he dies it goes onto the next of kin...
unfortunately things have changed so much we're having to go towards things we would have never thought of doing (universal health care, trading with countries that have human rights abuses worse that Stalin's Russia, subsidizing the auto industry) mainly because we seem to have forgotten that we have to change as things come up, and change quickly, we're still pretty much running our ideas off the way they were run in 1985, yet the world's only gotten smaller, and well if the S&L scandals of the late 80s early 90s, the fact that we were only ONE requirement off from Black Tuesday (buying stock on credit), and the ultimate failure of NAFTA and Outsourcing on making sure Americans have actual jobs, it's no wonder we're seeing the extremes in politics being reflected in socio-economic status.
In truth it's yet another good idea that is the Left will say this is good help us pay for this poorly wrought bill, and the right will use sound bites to defeat anything remotely good about it.
As far as hyperbole goes, I'm actually enjoying getting into debates on the subject (such as it'll essentially force euthanasia on the elderly, when that's truthfully not much different to the way things are now... but that's something I'd have to put into a full on conversation.)
aaaaand I think I'll stop before I ramble on way too much.
Comment