|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/08/2011 : 20:30:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Medicare doesn't have to play by the same rules as private insurers so they don't have the costs associated with it. How about comparing apples to apples for a change?
States have prompt pay laws for medical insurance. Medicare doesn't have to follow them. Most states allow no more than 90 days between the bill being presented and when the bill must be paid.
Medicare typically runs 6-9 months behind. And at no penalty. Plus, they can't be sued to pay their arrears.
That takes manpower to comply with that plus the myriad other laws that insurance companies must follow that Medicare and Medicaid does not. |
Again, this reads like all good reasons to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and the insurance companies, and nationalize health care entirely. Government employees get paid every two weeks. Contracts for supplies get paid within 30 days of invoicing, yes? No more worries about myriad state laws or about changes in DHHS regulations costing insurance companies money.
Still boils down to elected officials deciding to do what's best for their constituents instead of doing what's best for their donors, though, doesn't it? Maybe we should nationalize elections, too, where anyone who wants to run for office and who can get enough petition signatures gets X dollars (depends on which job they want) for their entire campaign. Criminalize private donations entirely. And while we're at it, get rid of the Electoral College and move up to 1-2-3 voting so real independents will have a chance.
Hell, just vote me in as President for Life, and I promise I'll take care of all yalls' asses. Just let me ignore the bulk of the Constitution (except the Bill of Rights) for a few dozen years while I reorganize it and all the government agencies, and things will be awesome after I croak. Trust me. I'll rake in tons of extra cash by renting out the Capitol for fancy-dress balls. It'll be sweet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 06:10:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| Anyway, it seems clear that the disadvantages with regards to productivity and career advancement after having kids are dis-proportionally a problem for mothers, not fathers... |
| It all comes down to a little story about cake and eating... |
Must be nice to totally dismiss something that has no effect on you. I'm glad you are so comfortable with acknowledging a huge economic disadvantage that far disproportionately impacts women, and then essentially saying: tough shit, ladies. I know you gotta work harder than men for the same resources, but I think trying to even things out through social programs would be unfair. I mean, men have always had those advantages by biology and culture. Women have always been at a disadvantage. Who are we to mess with that legacy?
|
I am not trying to be dismissive. I am trying to get the point across that everyone can't have everything they want all the time. Choices need to be made. What's more important? A career or a family? Sometimes things need to be sacrificed. It is possible to have it all if you are willing to work hard enough... and here I go with more anectdotes. My oldest sister (younger than me though, she is your age) had her first kid nine years ago and her second 6 years ago. She managed to have her career, be involved in the raising of the kids, and earn her BS all at the same time! It took her 6 years of working her ass off to accomplish all of this. She had to sacrifice any kind of social life she may have had and any hobbies she had. She and her husband have not had a vacation in 9 years! The kids were both in day care and my Mom helped watch them for a couple of summers to help save them some money. She is now reaping the rewards of her hard work. The youngest just started Kindergarten so no more Day Care bill!! She and her husband are finally taking a vacation next month, then taking the kids to visit Mickey Mouse next winter.
All of these things are possible if you take the bull by the horns.
Then there is my youngest sister. She is a single mother with a career. She is eligible to receive day care assistance from our state but does not take it because her mother (my step-mother) takes care of the baby during the day (and loves every minute of it). She also owns her own house, at 24 years old I think that is pretty damn impressive. She does not recieve any child support from her loser-ass baby daddy (and I will kick his ass if I ever run into him). She seems to manage just fine.
Now that I think about it more our state has a pretty good setup when it comes to day care assitance. I guess I don't know what happens in other states but the system seems to be sufficient here anyway.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 07:46:11 [Permalink]
|
Ebone, it doesn't matter that you don't mean to be dismissive. You are being dismissive. You acknowledge that women are at an inherent disadvantage with regards to earnings and earning potential, and yet you oppose any social policies to even the score. Examples of women who do okay or who even do exceptionally well doesn't change the facts. We don't set policies based on the experiences of individuals. We set policies based on overall trends. We can never know how a single social policy might have changed things for any one individual - we can only speculate. But we CAN study how social policies change outcomes in the general population. When the outcomes are positive, that is proof that the policies are working for individuals, whoever they specifically are.
You can try to sugar coat it all you want, what you are saying is basically: Sorry you ladies have a disadvantage. But we can't possibly develop social programs that would eliminate them, 'cause, well, this is the way things are supposed to be.
And I find it so damn telling that most of the clear majority of people who oppose social policies to even the playing field for disadvantages minority are white men, while women and racial minorities overwhelmingly support such policies. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 08:04:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| You acknowledge that women are at an inherent disadvantage with regards to earnings and earning potential, and yet you oppose any social policies to even the score. |
What you call a disadvantage I would call "differently advantaged". Wouldn't that be the politically correct term?
I also acknowledged that, at least in my state anyway, there is already a pretty good system set up to provide day care assistance to those who need it. Why the Hell should it be made a Federal program?
You can try to sugar coat it all you want, what you are saying is basically: Sorry you ladies have a disadvantage. But we can't possibly develop social programs that would eliminate them, 'cause, well, this is the way things are supposed to be.
|
Again, my state is set up pretty good.
| And I find it so damn telling that most of the clear majority of people who oppose social policies to even the playing field for disadvantages minority are white men, while women and racial minorities overwhelmingly support such policies. |
Ah, a good new topic for discussion!
I see that many liberals are always pointing to European countries as good examples of how things should be run and want to emulate it (and I agree with some of it). How's 'bout studying what the white men are doing and try emulating that instead of showing contempt for the people who obviously have their shit together! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 09:55:05 [Permalink]
|
Ebone:
Again, my state is set up pretty good. |
That so? Are you basing your assessment entirely on stuff your wife mentions at the dinner table and the anecdotal examples you see among your own friends and family, or do you bother actually learning about the trends and demographics of Wisconsin? Because I recall you being very surprised in a previous discussion on SFN about the high percentage of single mothers under the poverty line in your state.
According to The Status of Women in Wisconsin, 2002 report published by The Institute for Women's Policy Research (you can download the report from the link and the below quote is from page 66 "Focus on Wages and Self-Sufficiency"):
The Self-Sufficiency Standard published by the Wisconsin Women's Network itemizes expenses for various
family types in different locales in the state. The Standard shows that a single parent with two children
in Milwaukee County needs $3,541 per month, or $42,492 annually. In a rural county, such as Juneau
County, the same family needs $2,579 per month, or $30,948 annually (based on 1999 data; see Table 6.4). |
Obviously these numbers are much higher than the poverty line, so families earning over the poverty line but under these amounts are in the "gap" I've been talking about. The table then breaks down the expenses, and guess what? Child care for both Milwaukee and Juneau Counties comes to a full third of total expenses. Just so you know, I'm not harping on this particular issue of child care randomly or as a personal pet peeve. Child care is a huge financial hurtle for working class families with young children.
Looking at the Wisconsin Shares Elligibility Guidelines, depending on how much the co-pays actually are, it seems like maybe Wisconsin is doing an okay job dealing with aid working class families need to get by. However, one of things I find hugely problematic about this system is that it has all these requirements and a sliding scale based on income, none of which take into account unique individual circumstances. And all these requirements sound nice in theory, but they are developed by policy makers rather arbitrarily often in order to make the programs more politically feasible. They can say "Look, we're giving out aid, but we're making them recipients do this and that to get the aid, so they really are working for it." It ends up being a very complex system that is hard to enforce and easy to abuse. And indeed, according to the Census, women in Wisconsin, particular single mothers, overall do not do better than the nation at large in terms of what percentage slip under the poverty line or how much they earn compared to men with comparable jobs.
I swear that seems to be the fiscally conservative approach to government these days. Under-fund social programs and structure them in ways that are dysfunctional, then turn around and say "See, they don't work and they are just wasting tax dollars. The free market works better so let's just get rid of these social programs."
| I see that many liberals are always pointing to European countries as good examples of how things should be run and want to emulate it (and I agree with some of it). How's 'bout studying what the white men are doing and try emulating that instead of showing contempt for the people who obviously have their shit together! |
The only way I can interpret this statement is that you are saying the reason men earn more than women for comparable jobs, the reason white people earn more than minorities when they do the same type of work, and the reason white men disproportionately dominate higher-paying positions in general is because they have their shit together, and the women and minorities falling behind do not have their shit together. According to you, if women and minorities would just get their shit together, we'd have real equality. It's our fault that we don't have equality.
Wow. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/09/2011 09:58:16 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 10:54:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone:
I see that many liberals are always pointing to European countries as good examples of how things should be run and want to emulate it (and I agree with some of it). How's 'bout studying what the white men are doing and try emulating that instead of showing contempt for the people who obviously have their shit together! |
The only way I can interpret this statement is that you are saying the reason men earn more than women for comparable jobs, the reason white people earn more than minorities when they do the same type of work, and the reason white men disproportionately dominate higher-paying positions in general is because they have their shit together, and the women and minorities falling behind do not have their shit together. According to you, if women and minorities would just get their shit together, we'd have real equality. It's our fault that we don't have equality.
Wow.
|
Wow. You completely missed his point.
You are accusing white males of being the clear majority of people making your percieved problem.
Yet the European model is primarily written by white males.
His point is that you are singling out one group for attack that, in Europe, have a solution. Kinda shows your bias.
Don't expect me to get screwed and not object to it, marf. Ain't happening. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 11:18:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| That so? Are you basing your assessment entirely on stuff your wife mentions at the dinner table and the anecdotal examples you see among your own friends and family, |
Yeah, pretty much. My wife knows all those facts and figures since she was working for the system for nearly 13 years. I will take it under advisement to check it out for myself though.
marf,
I just have to let you know that over the last couple of days I have developed a distrust in your interpreting of facts and figures. It seems that you deliberately tried to misinterpret some things so that they went along with your agenda.
I don't know if you saw the fact sheet that was attached to the link you provided. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not see it.
Here is the federal povery guidline.
For a family of three the poverty level is $18,530
from the fact sheet
Who's eligible?
All low-income working families, including families in W-2 approved activities, with gross income at or below 185% of poverty may be eligible. Once found eligible, the family may continue to receive assistance until their income exceeds 200% of poverty as long as the parent continues to participate in an approved activity.
|
That means a family qualifies for assistance at an income of $34,000!!!
Seems pretty damned good to me.(and fine with me)
Now please stop making me work for this argument so fucking much! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 11:20:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone:
I see that many liberals are always pointing to European countries as good examples of how things should be run and want to emulate it (and I agree with some of it). How's 'bout studying what the white men are doing and try emulating that instead of showing contempt for the people who obviously have their shit together! |
The only way I can interpret this statement is that you are saying the reason men earn more than women for comparable jobs, the reason white people earn more than minorities when they do the same type of work, and the reason white men disproportionately dominate higher-paying positions in general is because they have their shit together, and the women and minorities falling behind do not have their shit together. According to you, if women and minorities would just get their shit together, we'd have real equality. It's our fault that we don't have equality.
Wow.
|
Wow. You completely missed his point.
You are accusing white males of being the clear majority of people making your percieved problem.
Yet the European model is primarily written by white males.
His point is that you are singling out one group for attack that, in Europe, have a solution. Kinda shows your bias.
Don't expect me to get screwed and not object to it, marf. Ain't happening.
|
Thanks Val. I got too caught up in my last post and forgot to address this. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 11:29:38 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | How's 'bout studying what the white men are doing and try emulating that instead of showing contempt for the people who obviously have their shit together! |
I'm still digesting the stupidity of this statement.
Obviously the biological disadvantages posed to women can't be changed. Unless they are adopting, mothers have to deal with pregnancy, fathers do not. Mothers who want their kids to benefit from breast feeding have to deal with that. Fathers do not.
Obviously the cultural disadvantages posed to women that are rooted in culture can't be changed. Among people who want and plan to have children, far more women are mentally prepared and willing to deal better with the minutia of care-taking, and to sacrifice time and efforts toward their career in exchange for necessary care-taking (assuming they can't afford to hire nannies and housekeepers and don't have family willing and able to do those tasks.) Of course these are generalizations, and there are individuals all the time that break stereotypes, but most individuals do not break these stereotypes all that much, and the facts remain: Mothers devote more time and effort into the unpaid work of child care and househouse chores, while fathers devote more time and effort to their jobs.
Back then I cited the latest figures from the University of Wisconsin National Survey of Families and Households, which showed that the ratio of housework done by women to that done by men was about two to one, that the child care ratio was three to one and that both measurements had been at those levels for decades.
...
Also, the historical expectations that women “succeed” at home while men do the same at work mean that even while “men and women alike work hard and feel work-family conflict,” Ms. Konigsberg writes, “that conflict manifests itself in different ways.” As one researcher tells her, “For working fathers, work interferes with family more than family interferes with work,” while for women it appears to be the other way around. |
The idea that mothers should just start emulating fathers to gain equal career advantages is laughable. In general, mothers can't become more like fathers unless fathers starting acting more like mothers. If only the mothers change their behavior, who the fuck is going to put the kids to bed on time, plan and prepare all the family meals, get all the housework done, drive the kids to all their appointments, make sure they do their homework, read to them, bath them, make them brush their teeth, and so on? You think if full time working wives start neglecting all the caregiving and household chores that they do in lieu of focusing so much on their careers that their husbands that their husband will start magically putting more into home life and less into their careers? 'Cause that sounds to me like a great way to destabilize the home environment for the kids and break up a lot of marriages. It'd be great if the ideals of Marc and Amy Vachon - a highly unique couple that have as a team made it a hard-core priority to equally share in breadwinning and housework/childcare - were a realistic possibility for most families, but they just aren't. These are fundamental cultural changes you are talking about here, and probably also fundamental biological changes.
As for encouraging minorities to act more like whites, oh, is that why they have a harder time getting ahead? I thought it was mostly because of this pesky little thing we call discrimination. Silly me. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 11:37:48 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: Wow. You completely missed his point.
You are accusing white males of being the clear majority of people making your percieved problem.
Yet the European model is primarily written by white males.
His point is that you are singling out one group for attack that, in Europe, have a solution. Kinda shows your bias.
Don't expect me to get screwed and not object to it, marf. Ain't happening. |
No, I didn't miss any point. I don't have contempt for white males. I recognize the importance, no, the necessity of getting white men to advocate for policies that equalize the playing field for disadvantaged minorities and women. And in America, the social policies that we do have that make things more equal would never have came about were it not for the efforts of a great deal of white men.
I'm confused as to why Ebone brought up Europe, since he obviously disagrees with the much more socialistic programs and policies and culture that I am advocating. Also, when I mentioned minorities and women overwhelmingly supporting the creation of more such programs in the States and the majority of white men opposing those programs, I was clearly speaking about the American population. Ebone was NOT suggesting that we emulate the white men of Europe by implementing the same sort of social attitudes and policies and programs as they have there. He was suggesting that instead of emulating Europe, that American women and minorities look at American white men who are more financially successful and emulate their behaviors that in theory lead to that success. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 11:47:03 [Permalink]
|
Val:
His point is that you are singling out one group for attack that, in Europe, have a solution. Kinda shows your bias. |
Oh please. What group am I singling out for attack? I pointed out that the vast differences in popularity of certain policies among different demographic groups reveals profound differences in perspective. Ebone has said many things in these discussions that makes his scorn for people who ask for and accept social aid. He has outright called people on government assistance "lazy" and "losers." Because in his mind, they simply need to work harder. He acknowledges that they have to work even harder than he does to get to the same place, but he doesn't regard that as significant. I am pointing out that his and many other white men's lack of understanding - because of their lack of direct experience with being a disadvantaged minority - is part of what has lead that mindset. I ask for policies that would put me at less of a disadvantage as a woman, and he literally tells me I want to have my cake and eat it too. It doesn't bug him that he gets to have his cake and eat it too. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 11:57:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by marfknox
| That so? Are you basing your assessment entirely on stuff your wife mentions at the dinner table and the anecdotal examples you see among your own friends and family, |
Yeah, pretty much. My wife knows all those facts and figures since she was working for the system for nearly 13 years. I will take it under advisement to check it out for myself though.
marf,
I just have to let you know that over the last couple of days I have developed a distrust in your interpreting of facts and figures. It seems that you deliberately tried to misinterpret some things so that they went along with your agenda.
I don't know if you saw the fact sheet that was attached to the link you provided. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not see it.
Here is the federal povery guidline.
For a family of three the poverty level is $18,530 |
Her single mother criterion drops that to $14,710. (Family of two)
185% of that is $27,213.50.
This applies to gross income, not net.
from the fact sheet
Who's eligible?
All low-income working families, including families in W-2 approved activities, with gross income at or below 185% of poverty may be eligible. Once found eligible, the family may continue to receive assistance until their income exceeds 200% of poverty as long as the parent continues to participate in an approved activity.
|
That means a family qualifies for assistance at an income of $34,000!!!
Seems pretty damned good to me.(and fine with me)
Now please stop making me work for this argument so fucking much!
|
Assistance may be available to those folks and they may be eligible for local daycare services at reduced rates. This depends on the state and municipality.
$34,000 gross doesn't pay for what it used to. It's also $16/hour. My girlfriend would stab someone in the neck to get a job paying that well. Her company is screwing her over. But, with a poor economic outlook, companies aren't hiring and they are paying cheaply for labor. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:06:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Her single mother criterion drops that to $14,710. (Family of two)
|
Yep, I was using the assumption that the same single mother had two kids.
Still seems fair to me. But what do I know, I am just one of the bad white males! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:07:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val:
His point is that you are singling out one group for attack that, in Europe, have a solution. Kinda shows your bias. |
Oh please. What group am I singling out for attack? I pointed out that the vast differences in popularity of certain policies among different demographic groups reveals profound differences in perspective. Ebone has said many things in these discussions that makes his scorn for people who ask for and accept social aid. He has outright called people on government assistance "lazy" and "losers." Because in his mind, they simply need to work harder. He acknowledges that they have to work even harder than he does to get to the same place, but he doesn't regard that as significant. I am pointing out that his and many other white men's lack of understanding - because of their lack of direct experience with being a disadvantaged minority - is part of what has lead that mindset. I ask for policies that would put me at less of a disadvantage as a woman, and he literally tells me I want to have my cake and eat it too. It doesn't bug him that he gets to have his cake and eat it too.
|
That would be white males.
There are plenty of working poor white males, but they don't count according to you.
I don't call people on federal assistance lazy or losers unless they have no interest in looking for a job when they are completely able to.
Disadvantaged minority......
You want to enable corporations to work people like dogs because "they have no cost daycare".
Reminds me of the strike we had over the summer. Operating engineers were striking because they weren't getting the hours they wanted even though there wasn't much work being planned. Instead they demanded a raise. They didn't want the bad economy to effect them.
You just want everyone else to pay for a perk. I'm through with paying for perks. Especially perks that will ill serve the people they are supposed to. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:23:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| I ask for policies that would put me at less of a disadvantage as a woman, and he literally tells me I want to have my cake and eat it too. It doesn't bug him that he gets to have his cake and eat it too. |
You are asking for a policy that already exists at the state level. To be fair though I have not studied your state. If your state does not have a program in place then by all means FIGHT for one!
I see the program the my state has in place as being pretty fair.
By the way, I baked my own damn cake so I shall eat it if I wish. Every move I have made that contributed to my success (I have to kind of laugh when I say "success", never thought about myself that way) has been carefully planned and executed. I do not feel guilty about it at all. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Day Care Should Be Free
