6 ms·

So the 40 million Americans living below the poverty line with zero access to health care or dental services are living like kings? Really? May I suggest that y

So the 40 million Americans living below the poverty line with zero access to health care or dental services are living like kings? Really? May I suggest that you talk to some of them and ask if they feel like Kings/Queens?

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Source? Why don't they have medicaid? It covers everyone under the 140% the poverty line.
- t-3 5y ago
  140% of the poverty line doesn't even reach $20,000.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > 140% of the poverty line doesn't even reach $20,000. Median household size is around 2.5. Poverty line for household size 2 is $17,420, for 3 is $21,960.
    - t-3 5y ago
      And for an individual is 12,280.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Why don't they have medicaid? It covers everyone under the 140% the poverty line. No, it doesn't; in states that have expanded, it covers up to 138% of the FPL, but in some states for adults without dependent children who are neither aged, blind, disabled, nor pregnant, it covers nothing, and for parents of dependent children the limit is still not 138%.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  How about the millions of people who are just above the poverty line but can't afford private health/dental?
WalterBright 5y ago
They still have better health and dental care than medieval kings, who had zero of both. They didn't even have toothbrushes or any notion of dental or medical hygiene. BTW, those miniseries on the lives of medieval royalty that are popular today are romantic fantasies. For example, the only warm place in a castle in winter is right next to the fireplace. They had no concept of central heating, not even an iron stove. Do you want to live through a winter in England with no heating? How about being around people who never, ever bathed? What do you think happened to all the poop in the castle? Did the cooks ever wash their hands? Most of your kids are going to die before they're adults.
- jaclaz 5y ago
  >Most of your kids are going to die before they're adults. If they survived and if your wife surviived, a large number of women would have likely died giving birth, possibly at an age of 15 or 16 or so.
amadvance 5y ago
Just consider antibiotics. A medieval king could die for a banal infection.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  There's a fallacy at play here. Some kings died due to lack of knowledge how to treat them. In the US, poor people die from diseases we know how to treat but society refuses to treat them because they don't have money. Measuring the increase in possible outcomes is irrelevant if you don't take into considerable how accessible/affordable those outcomes are. It's just like if you said "but medieval kings didn't have space travel" because you see Jeff Bezos going into space as a sign of social progress for the rest of us.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    There is no way that modern poor have worse health care than medieval kings, because those kings HAD NO HEALTH CARE, and in fact, what doctors they did have did harm to their luckless patients. For example, they would bleed a person to try to drain out what was making them sick. For another, they did not wash their hands or their instruments.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      I'm not arguing otherwise. All i'm saying is you can't compare apple to oranges: it's fine if you can't walk on the moon. Except when every one else is doing it because it's become trivial and you're denied it because of your caste/class or social status. That many Americans die due to illnesses we know how to treat for cheap for decades is unbelievable. And don't even get me started on long-term conditions, like insulin or HIV-medication prices skyrocketing for zero reason (well, there's one: profit) decades after their first commercialization. In much of the world, the USA is (rightfully) derided for being so backwards when it comes to health care. I would even go so far as to argue that some traditional medicines (plants, kine/ostheo, acupuncture...) are/were far more advanced than the medical treatments available to poorer US citizens (i.e. none), but i'm not versed in medical sciences so don't take my word for it.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Source? Why don't they have medicaid? It covers everyone under the 140% the poverty line.

t-3 5y ago
140% of the poverty line doesn't even reach $20,000.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > 140% of the poverty line doesn't even reach $20,000. Median household size is around 2.5. Poverty line for household size 2 is $17,420, for 3 is $21,960.
  - t-3 5y ago
    And for an individual is 12,280.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Why don't they have medicaid? It covers everyone under the 140% the poverty line. No, it doesn't; in states that have expanded, it covers up to 138% of the FPL, but in some states for adults without dependent children who are neither aged, blind, disabled, nor pregnant, it covers nothing, and for parents of dependent children the limit is still not 138%.
mbrodersen 5y ago
How about the millions of people who are just above the poverty line but can't afford private health/dental?

WalterBright 5y ago

They still have better health and dental care than medieval kings, who had zero of both. They didn't even have toothbrushes or any notion of dental or medical hygiene. BTW, those miniseries on the lives of medieval royalty that are popular today are romantic fantasies. For example, the only warm place in a castle in winter is right next to the fireplace. They had no concept of central heating, not even an iron stove. Do you want to live through a winter in England with no heating? How about being around people who never, ever bathed? What do you think happened to all the poop in the castle? Did the cooks ever wash their hands? Most of your kids are going to die before they're adults.

jaclaz 5y ago
>Most of your kids are going to die before they're adults. If they survived and if your wife surviived, a large number of women would have likely died giving birth, possibly at an age of 15 or 16 or so.

amadvance 5y ago

Just consider antibiotics. A medieval king could die for a banal infection.

southerntofu 5y ago
There's a fallacy at play here. Some kings died due to lack of knowledge how to treat them. In the US, poor people die from diseases we know how to treat but society refuses to treat them because they don't have money. Measuring the increase in possible outcomes is irrelevant if you don't take into considerable how accessible/affordable those outcomes are. It's just like if you said "but medieval kings didn't have space travel" because you see Jeff Bezos going into space as a sign of social progress for the rest of us.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  There is no way that modern poor have worse health care than medieval kings, because those kings HAD NO HEALTH CARE, and in fact, what doctors they did have did harm to their luckless patients. For example, they would bleed a person to try to drain out what was making them sick. For another, they did not wash their hands or their instruments.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    I'm not arguing otherwise. All i'm saying is you can't compare apple to oranges: it's fine if you can't walk on the moon. Except when every one else is doing it because it's become trivial and you're denied it because of your caste/class or social status. That many Americans die due to illnesses we know how to treat for cheap for decades is unbelievable. And don't even get me started on long-term conditions, like insulin or HIV-medication prices skyrocketing for zero reason (well, there's one: profit) decades after their first commercialization. In much of the world, the USA is (rightfully) derided for being so backwards when it comes to health care. I would even go so far as to argue that some traditional medicines (plants, kine/ostheo, acupuncture...) are/were far more advanced than the medical treatments available to poorer US citizens (i.e. none), but i'm not versed in medical sciences so don't take my word for it.