6 ms·

"the distribution in QUALITY OF LIFE is less extreme" You're kidding right? Ever have someone in your family get an unexpected major medical problem while thei

by jshen 16y ago

"the distribution in QUALITY OF LIFE is less extreme" You're kidding right? Ever have someone in your family get an unexpected major medical problem while their young and either have no insurance or have the insurance refuse to cover care? That is a quality of life killer! Or the simple fact that wages for the average person are stagnant or slightly down in the past few decades while healthcare costs are rising as well as the cost of an education. People are realizing that their children are likely to be worse off than they were and that is a quality of life killer! Have you had a house foreclosed on? Again, quality of life killer! I can go on, but you get the idea. What exactly do you mean by "quality of life"?

ipince 16y ago
Well... on his/her defense, the quality of life might still suck for some people, as you aptly pointed out, but that doesn't contradict the original statement..
- jshen 16y ago
  and there was no evidence given to support the original statement. How is quality of life for the middle class better now even though the disparity between them and the rich is far larger than before. I think I gave concrete examples of how it's worse, which is more than the OP.
  - zacharypinter 16y ago
    An economist (I forget which one) posed an interesting thought experiment: Would you rather be a millionaire 100 years ago, or middle-class today. Sure, some people would choose 100 years ago, but a large majority of people, when asked, would rather live a middle-class life today than as millionaires 100 years ago. Clean water, sewer systems, restaurants, the Internet, television, microwaves, dishwashers, transportation, etc all make a middle-class lifestyle today far better than it was 100 years ago.
    - jshen 16y ago
      I'm talking about how the middle class is disappearing. A thought experiment that guarrantees middle class status for your whole life seems to miss the point.
    - billybob 16y ago
      I'd also choose being middle-class today, but there are several complicating factors. 1) Loss aversion. I know that I like modern conveniences and would hate to lose them. Psychologically, we place greater weight on losing something than getting something. Maybe I'd be dumb not to give up my microwave burritos for fresh roasted grouse, but the burritos are comfortingly familiar. 2) I'm just guessing about fresh roasted grouse. What ARE the nice features of being a millionaire 100 years ago? I'm probably ignorant about most of them. Maybe people back then would pity me for not experiencing what they did. 3) I'm a bad estimator of what will make me happy. Sure, I like the internet. Does it make me happier, or does it just scratch weird psychological itches? People WANT to play Farmville, but does it make them happy? Maybe I'd be happier having 10 close friends in my neighborhood and no telephone than having 200 friends on Facebook. The one thing that's hard to dispute is that illness was more likely and more painful in the past. Other than that, whether then or now is better is something I'm unable to judge well. And I suspect the same is true for most people.
redwood 16y ago
My point was that it's a lot less bad than it was 100 years ago. Today even the poor will get antibiotics at the ER when dying of infection.
- jshen 16y ago
  "Today even the poor will get antibiotics at the ER when dying of infection" You're moving the goal posts a bit aren't you? For starters, those antibiotics will be followed by bankruptcy for the poor person in most cases. And most importantly, that alone isn't convincing me that quality of life for the poor is better than ever. I also didn't mention in my last comment that who is really seeing their quality of life decrease is the blue collar middle class, not the poor.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > For starters, those antibiotics will be followed by bankruptcy for the poor person in most cases. So? Bankruptcy eliminates debt, which is a good thing for poor folks. And yes, I've read the studies about "health care bankruptcies" - have you? They counted anyone who had health care expenses, and they included gambling and drug abuse as health care problems.
    - krschultz 16y ago
      I don't need the studies, I'm living it. Right now my girlfriend and I are having a hell of a time with medical bills. She recently started her job, but they won't give her health insurance for the first 5 months. To cover the gap we bought our own individual plan. So far she has gone to the hospital for an allergic reaction to food she has never been allergic to before, and also needed to see 2 doctors along the way. Total cost is around $1,000 in 2 months, and her individual plan doesnt cover any of it because it was extremely limited. I also needed surgery recently and I've racked up a total of about $1,000 in the same 2 months (thats after my insurance paid quite a bit). We just graduated college, so we have a sum total of about $2,000 in the bank. We have around $2,000 in expenses a month to live in our apartment, buy food, pay for our cars, etc. Our income is pretty good for two fresh college grads, but we just started so there were the expenses of moving out along with waiting for the pay to catch up. It wasn't pretty, but we made it through with a $4k loan from my parents (which we have since paid back). Without that, we would be bankrupt or riddled with credit card debt. Considering we have no kids, our expenses are <$2k a month, and we make decent money, I don't consider us poor. Yet it was just one thing after another that was unusual and unplanned for. If one or the other of us had health issues, it would have been no big deal. If her insurance had kicked in earlier, it would have been no big deal. If she had been able to start sooner, it would have been no big deal. But with all of that screwing us, we got in a bad position despite being extremely frugal and planning really well (how many 22 year olds know to get an individual health care plan to cover the gap between when they are dropped off their parents and their employer one starts. Our only mistake as putting the deductible at $1,000 instead of $500.) So this isn't an academic exercise. It's not just "poor folks" that you so readily dismiss. Our healthcare system is a freaking mess and anyone denying it hasn't lived through the rough edges. Right now we'd love to have real health insurance for my girlfriend. I would love to put her on my insurance but I can't. Her parents would love to put her on their insurance but they can't. She would love to buy an individual plan that covered more than just catastrophic hospital visits, but she can't. So maybe you should stop reading the academic studies and start talking to people living in the real world.

by jshen 16y ago

ipince 16y ago

Well... on his/her defense, the quality of life might still suck for some people, as you aptly pointed out, but that doesn't contradict the original statement..

jshen 16y ago
and there was no evidence given to support the original statement. How is quality of life for the middle class better now even though the disparity between them and the rich is far larger than before. I think I gave concrete examples of how it's worse, which is more than the OP.
- zacharypinter 16y ago
  An economist (I forget which one) posed an interesting thought experiment: Would you rather be a millionaire 100 years ago, or middle-class today. Sure, some people would choose 100 years ago, but a large majority of people, when asked, would rather live a middle-class life today than as millionaires 100 years ago. Clean water, sewer systems, restaurants, the Internet, television, microwaves, dishwashers, transportation, etc all make a middle-class lifestyle today far better than it was 100 years ago.
  - jshen 16y ago
    I'm talking about how the middle class is disappearing. A thought experiment that guarrantees middle class status for your whole life seems to miss the point.
  - billybob 16y ago
    I'd also choose being middle-class today, but there are several complicating factors. 1) Loss aversion. I know that I like modern conveniences and would hate to lose them. Psychologically, we place greater weight on losing something than getting something. Maybe I'd be dumb not to give up my microwave burritos for fresh roasted grouse, but the burritos are comfortingly familiar. 2) I'm just guessing about fresh roasted grouse. What ARE the nice features of being a millionaire 100 years ago? I'm probably ignorant about most of them. Maybe people back then would pity me for not experiencing what they did. 3) I'm a bad estimator of what will make me happy. Sure, I like the internet. Does it make me happier, or does it just scratch weird psychological itches? People WANT to play Farmville, but does it make them happy? Maybe I'd be happier having 10 close friends in my neighborhood and no telephone than having 200 friends on Facebook. The one thing that's hard to dispute is that illness was more likely and more painful in the past. Other than that, whether then or now is better is something I'm unable to judge well. And I suspect the same is true for most people.

redwood 16y ago

My point was that it's a lot less bad than it was 100 years ago. Today even the poor will get antibiotics at the ER when dying of infection.

jshen 16y ago
"Today even the poor will get antibiotics at the ER when dying of infection" You're moving the goal posts a bit aren't you? For starters, those antibiotics will be followed by bankruptcy for the poor person in most cases. And most importantly, that alone isn't convincing me that quality of life for the poor is better than ever. I also didn't mention in my last comment that who is really seeing their quality of life decrease is the blue collar middle class, not the poor.
- anamax 16y ago
  > For starters, those antibiotics will be followed by bankruptcy for the poor person in most cases. So? Bankruptcy eliminates debt, which is a good thing for poor folks. And yes, I've read the studies about "health care bankruptcies" - have you? They counted anyone who had health care expenses, and they included gambling and drug abuse as health care problems.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    I don't need the studies, I'm living it. Right now my girlfriend and I are having a hell of a time with medical bills. She recently started her job, but they won't give her health insurance for the first 5 months. To cover the gap we bought our own individual plan. So far she has gone to the hospital for an allergic reaction to food she has never been allergic to before, and also needed to see 2 doctors along the way. Total cost is around $1,000 in 2 months, and her individual plan doesnt cover any of it because it was extremely limited. I also needed surgery recently and I've racked up a total of about $1,000 in the same 2 months (thats after my insurance paid quite a bit). We just graduated college, so we have a sum total of about $2,000 in the bank. We have around $2,000 in expenses a month to live in our apartment, buy food, pay for our cars, etc. Our income is pretty good for two fresh college grads, but we just started so there were the expenses of moving out along with waiting for the pay to catch up. It wasn't pretty, but we made it through with a $4k loan from my parents (which we have since paid back). Without that, we would be bankrupt or riddled with credit card debt. Considering we have no kids, our expenses are <$2k a month, and we make decent money, I don't consider us poor. Yet it was just one thing after another that was unusual and unplanned for. If one or the other of us had health issues, it would have been no big deal. If her insurance had kicked in earlier, it would have been no big deal. If she had been able to start sooner, it would have been no big deal. But with all of that screwing us, we got in a bad position despite being extremely frugal and planning really well (how many 22 year olds know to get an individual health care plan to cover the gap between when they are dropped off their parents and their employer one starts. Our only mistake as putting the deductible at $1,000 instead of $500.) So this isn't an academic exercise. It's not just "poor folks" that you so readily dismiss. Our healthcare system is a freaking mess and anyone denying it hasn't lived through the rough edges. Right now we'd love to have real health insurance for my girlfriend. I would love to put her on my insurance but I can't. Her parents would love to put her on their insurance but they can't. She would love to buy an individual plan that covered more than just catastrophic hospital visits, but she can't. So maybe you should stop reading the academic studies and start talking to people living in the real world.