5 ms·

Going against the grain, I don't think Chaffetz meant it literally. While he may or may not have been taking an extremist Right ideological view of poverty, th

by shas3 10y ago

Going against the grain, I don't think Chaffetz meant it literally. While he may or may not have been taking an extremist Right ideological view of poverty, the OP article takes another extreme ideological view, that poverty is inevitable and individuals can do little to avoid it. While it sounds heartless, I think there is some truth to the assertion that sound financial choices can lift you up from poverty. Duflo, Banerjee, etc. from the randomista economists crowd have shown that poor people are sometimes likely to spend extra cash in suboptimal ways (TV ownership when they need extra calories, etc.). http://economics.mit.edu/files/530 http://economics.mit.edu/files/530 This includes buying health insurance. That health insurance is too expensive is unfortunate, and I think GOP earnestly believes that their plan makes it cheaper for people to buy health insurance. This is not unlike how Obama and Democrats implemented their healthcare overhaul with the best of intentions, yet it lead to expensive premiums, etc. While we are loathe to admit it, poverty is a result of both poor choices and unavoidable bad-luck. Like the common debate of 'nature vs. nurture', it is hard to delineate bad-luck and poor-choices as causes leading to poverty. At the end of the day, we should have compassion and understand that many things that affect our situation are beyond our control, and yet not be afraid to consider honestly and objectively, the various causes of poverty.

seppin 10y ago
> At the end of the day, we should have compassion and understand that many things that affect our situation are beyond our control, and yet not be afraid to consider honestly and objectively, the various causes of poverty. Do you let people die on the street, no matter what got them there, or not? It's a simple question.
- shas3 10y ago
  You wouldn't if you had compassion. Holding compassion and objectivity in your head simultaneously would enable you to both help the person and acknowledge that the person may have made poor choices and decisions to get them to where they are. If you ignore that people make poor choices, you are doing a disservice to the poor, since you won't then be able to address this cause/aspect of poverty.
  - grasshopperpurp 10y ago
    What about people with mental health issues? Why are Republicans always in favor of cutting mental-health programs? Oh, that's right. It's because they really don't care at all about poor people. And, only schmucks believe that they're ever being earnest when they present their boot-strap, trickle-down bullshit.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Plus, there's money in prisons, not so much in complicated home-care, lifelong mental health support, and even housing. A person who's desperately ill, earns your cronies supplying the prison with soap and "food" money. A person who hears voices can still stamp out license plates and make a buck for the state or the company. We're slavers who've just put some steps in between the misery and ourselves, while making sure the slaves are also all "bad people". Treating them like just... people... even only a percentage of them, would destroy the system and its profits. (Not to mention power, control, and political power)
Tepix 10y ago
I guess you missed the part of the article where it explained that the largest group of poor people are children. Do you think they made poor financial choices? And you also missed "Rates of intergenerational income mobility are, in fact, higher in France, Spain, Germany, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and other countries in the world than they are here in the United States." Governments can do a lot to help people get out of poverty. Blaming them isn't one of them.
- shas3 10y ago
  > I guess you missed the part of the article where it explained that the largest group of poor people are children. Do you think they made poor financial choices? And you also missed "Rates of intergenerational income mobility are, in fact, higher in France, Spain, Germany, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and other countries in the world than they are here in the United States." Are you suggesting that I am not acknowledging bad-luck (the sole reason for childhood poverty) as a factor? Because, I do. As to Germany, Japan, etc. there are many reasons why those countries are better off. "Germany does this, their poverty is lower, so America should do this," isn't a valid argument for anything. > Blaming them isn't one of them. Blaming them (i.e. chiding them) doesn't serve any purpose. But helping them modify behavior, educating them, etc. does. The Government should acknowledge this.
AbrahamParangi 10y ago
I agree with your final point and the general assertion that situations can drive behavior just as behavior can drive situations- but I think giving Chaffetz credit for a more reasonable point of view than expressed is unwarranted. Even if you (very reasonably) want to resist demonizing folks who disagree with you, it's important to not overcorrect. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity"
wiredone 10y ago
I think you might find this interesting: http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-media-busted-americas-poverty-myths/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-media-busted... A few logical fallacies to your point: - People without healthcare are charged more for healthcare as they are unable to negotiate bulk rates for care and medication. - The system is setup in a way that people who live day-to-day are unable to respond to life-events such as a car accident or a death of a income generating family member. They live hanging by a thread. - It costs more to be a poor person. You can't buy things in bulk or pay by the quarter/year for things at a discount. - poor people eat less-healthily, and have less free time to excercise. This leads to poorly health outcomes (the aggregate stats don't lie). - "poor decisions" often come from education. poor people live in neighborhoods where their ability to learn other life skills but surviving is limited a(critical thinking, long term planning etc) and the public education on offer leads to poorer outcomes.
maxerickson 10y ago
Yes, discarding standardization will make plans with lower premiums available. Massively cutting the subsidies people have been getting won't make plans any more affordable, at least not in the short to medium term. Wanting to reduce government spending is an ideologically coherent position to take. Trying to sell it as fixing the healthcare system is awful.
smhenderson 10y ago
And there is just no room in your view that there is systemic racism in this country that precludes some people from "making it" in America? And that beyond racism that the economic system in America is basically geared toward those who have a lot of wealth collecting more and those that don't basically staying put in the bracket they are currently in? I'm not saying there are not exceptions. Poor minorities make out of the neighborhood they grew up in sometimes. Middle class people get lucky and get rich, I'm sure both of these happen everyday in a large population like ours. But I believe these occurrences to be the exceptions not the rule and that for a large majority of Americans in our time working hard and making perfect decisions isn't an automatic ticket to success and wealth.
mnm1 10y ago
So he didn't mean it literally, just meant to insult the poor and shirk his own party's responsibility for providing healthcare to people (especially children) that can't afford it out of no fault of their own. But hey, if you're making $20k a year, you should be able to throw down $10-$15k a year on health insurance with no problem, right? Conservative math is amazing!

by shas3 10y ago

seppin 10y ago

> At the end of the day, we should have compassion and understand that many things that affect our situation are beyond our control, and yet not be afraid to consider honestly and objectively, the various causes of poverty. Do you let people die on the street, no matter what got them there, or not? It's a simple question.

shas3 10y ago
You wouldn't if you had compassion. Holding compassion and objectivity in your head simultaneously would enable you to both help the person and acknowledge that the person may have made poor choices and decisions to get them to where they are. If you ignore that people make poor choices, you are doing a disservice to the poor, since you won't then be able to address this cause/aspect of poverty.
- grasshopperpurp 10y ago
  What about people with mental health issues? Why are Republicans always in favor of cutting mental-health programs? Oh, that's right. It's because they really don't care at all about poor people. And, only schmucks believe that they're ever being earnest when they present their boot-strap, trickle-down bullshit.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Plus, there's money in prisons, not so much in complicated home-care, lifelong mental health support, and even housing. A person who's desperately ill, earns your cronies supplying the prison with soap and "food" money. A person who hears voices can still stamp out license plates and make a buck for the state or the company. We're slavers who've just put some steps in between the misery and ourselves, while making sure the slaves are also all "bad people". Treating them like just... people... even only a percentage of them, would destroy the system and its profits. (Not to mention power, control, and political power)

Tepix 10y ago

I guess you missed the part of the article where it explained that the largest group of poor people are children. Do you think they made poor financial choices? And you also missed "Rates of intergenerational income mobility are, in fact, higher in France, Spain, Germany, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and other countries in the world than they are here in the United States." Governments can do a lot to help people get out of poverty. Blaming them isn't one of them.

shas3 10y ago
> I guess you missed the part of the article where it explained that the largest group of poor people are children. Do you think they made poor financial choices? And you also missed "Rates of intergenerational income mobility are, in fact, higher in France, Spain, Germany, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and other countries in the world than they are here in the United States." Are you suggesting that I am not acknowledging bad-luck (the sole reason for childhood poverty) as a factor? Because, I do. As to Germany, Japan, etc. there are many reasons why those countries are better off. "Germany does this, their poverty is lower, so America should do this," isn't a valid argument for anything. > Blaming them isn't one of them. Blaming them (i.e. chiding them) doesn't serve any purpose. But helping them modify behavior, educating them, etc. does. The Government should acknowledge this.

AbrahamParangi 10y ago

I agree with your final point and the general assertion that situations can drive behavior just as behavior can drive situations- but I think giving Chaffetz credit for a more reasonable point of view than expressed is unwarranted. Even if you (very reasonably) want to resist demonizing folks who disagree with you, it's important to not overcorrect. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity"

wiredone 10y ago

I think you might find this interesting: http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-media-busted-americas-poverty-myths/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-media-busted... A few logical fallacies to your point: - People without healthcare are charged more for healthcare as they are unable to negotiate bulk rates for care and medication. - The system is setup in a way that people who live day-to-day are unable to respond to life-events such as a car accident or a death of a income generating family member. They live hanging by a thread. - It costs more to be a poor person. You can't buy things in bulk or pay by the quarter/year for things at a discount. - poor people eat less-healthily, and have less free time to excercise. This leads to poorly health outcomes (the aggregate stats don't lie). - "poor decisions" often come from education. poor people live in neighborhoods where their ability to learn other life skills but surviving is limited a(critical thinking, long term planning etc) and the public education on offer leads to poorer outcomes.

maxerickson 10y ago

Yes, discarding standardization will make plans with lower premiums available. Massively cutting the subsidies people have been getting won't make plans any more affordable, at least not in the short to medium term. Wanting to reduce government spending is an ideologically coherent position to take. Trying to sell it as fixing the healthcare system is awful.

smhenderson 10y ago

And there is just no room in your view that there is systemic racism in this country that precludes some people from "making it" in America? And that beyond racism that the economic system in America is basically geared toward those who have a lot of wealth collecting more and those that don't basically staying put in the bracket they are currently in? I'm not saying there are not exceptions. Poor minorities make out of the neighborhood they grew up in sometimes. Middle class people get lucky and get rich, I'm sure both of these happen everyday in a large population like ours. But I believe these occurrences to be the exceptions not the rule and that for a large majority of Americans in our time working hard and making perfect decisions isn't an automatic ticket to success and wealth.

mnm1 10y ago

So he didn't mean it literally, just meant to insult the poor and shirk his own party's responsibility for providing healthcare to people (especially children) that can't afford it out of no fault of their own. But hey, if you're making $20k a year, you should be able to throw down $10-$15k a year on health insurance with no problem, right? Conservative math is amazing!