Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 13

The patient, mother of a month-old baby, was crying on the phone because for the past two days she had been tormented by head lice (Pediculosis capitis, if you really want to know). A simple problem,... Read More

  1. by   bollweevil
    Quote from Jolie
    Before you vilify politicians and taxpayers who are tired of funding entitlement after entitlement, how about demanding some personal responsibility? People shouldn't have children they can't reasonably afford to raise.
    Accidents happen. Rape, too. Failed contraceptive measures. Religion, customs, social mores, ignorance. Yes, silliness, immaturity, carelessness, self-indulgence, all do play a part in populating the world, not to mention just plain being in love and actually wanting children.

    But if people think poverty is hazardous to health, well, I have seen people who are not impoverished, who have insurance, who are pretty well-off have lots of surgeries that the uninsured don't get. To me, these are not always necessary. They are pay the mortgage surgeries.
  2. by   bollweevil
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Let's stipulate that we want the same thing: to improve the lot of the poor; to assist them in pulling themselves up out of poverty.

    What we really disagree about is how to do that.

    We don't disagree on assistance; we disagree on the method of assistance.

    I think the private sector within a free market economy is the best method. I think that is preferable over gov't because it involves hard work and, when necessary, charity. It involves the necessity to 'be thankful' for what has been given and proud of what is earned.

    Whereas. Gov't aid isn't charity. It is an entitlement. As such, any morality is divorced from that aid. That makes all the difference.

    My biggest beef with social welfare is that it is destroying all concepts of family and community for the poor. So, in addition to BEING poor, the poor are also disconnected from a community that can help them to rise above.

    I mentioned this before: the two most reliable ladders out of poverty are marriage and full time employment. So, of course, our social welfare programs consistently penalizes both. Why is that? Why, oh why must you renounce the ladders out of poverty in order to receive gov't aid?

    Fatherhood is NOT optional. 75% of children in poverty have no fathers at home. An additional 75% have no full time earners at home (some of those populations overlap). Just by correcting those two things we can bring the vast majority of children OUT of poverty. Gov't has no vested interest in such things because making a dad step up is a MORAL directive.

    The gov't is not a vehicle for morality. Nor does anybody really want it to be. None of us want or need the gov't to dictate the morality of our lives. However. Therein lies the problem. BECAUSE the gov't isn't a suitable vehicle for morality, it isn't a suitable vehicle for charity. In point of fact, the gov't isn't in the business of charity. It is in the business of entitlement. Those are very different things.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Government is dictating morality - atheism, worship of government, dependence upon government. There is a candidate who advocates turning us back to the Constitution and self-reliance. Ron Paul. Check him out.
  3. by   BlueRidgeHomeRN
    Quote from bollweevil
    failed contraceptive measures. religion, customs, social mores, ignorance. yes, silliness, immaturity, carelessness, self-indulgence, all do play a part in populating the world, not to mention just plain being in love and actually wanting children.
    couples can have 17 children if they prefer, as long as they can afford to raise them.

    is it time to point out the obvious--no child is conceived (outside the lab) by a female alone. don't want to marry or pay child support? keep it zipped. (the exact advice i gave my now-adult sons).
    Last edit by BlueRidgeHomeRN on Feb 6, '08 : Reason: typo
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Just a little reminder. There is an amendment to the constitution that reads:

    <H4 class=nav>Amendment XVI

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
    </H4>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxvi.html

    As a people we have decided that government at all levels needs to be able to fund itself through taxes.

    Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is not in the real world. I took some time to read up on objectivism awhile back. IMO her philosophy is just an excuse for personal selfishness and disregard for the needs of the community as a whole.
  5. by   banditrn
    Quote from bollweevil
    Government is dictating morality - atheism, worship of government, dependence upon government. There is a candidate who advocates turning us back to the Constitution and self-reliance. Ron Paul. Check him out.

  6. by   Jolie
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Just a little reminder. There is an amendment to the constitution that reads:

    [B]</H4>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxvi.html

    As a people we have decided that government at all levels needs to be able to fund itself through taxes.
    Funding the legitimate, constitutional functions of the government is one thing. If we stuck to those few functions our tax bills would be small, indeed. They exploded when we began to pay our able-bodied neighbors' living expenses.
  7. by   banditrn
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Just a little reminder. There is an amendment to the constitution that reads:

    [B]</H4>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxvi.html

    As a people we have decided that government at all levels needs to be able to fund itself through taxes.

    Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is not in the real world. I took some time to read up on objectivism awhile back. IMO her philosophy is just an excuse for personal selfishness and disregard for the needs of the community as a whole.
    So, let's say that I dream up some perfect piece of medical equipment - sell the idea, and get a lot of money.

    Then it would be 'selfish' of me to want to keep the money I earned, and instead I should want to redistribute my money to 'the community'?
  8. by   HM2VikingRN
    that is a distortion of my criticism. objectivism is destructive of the concept of a common good. i have written repeatedly of the benefit to society of giving people the tools to effectively engage and benefit from society. to bring this on topic the staes in the us with a more broadly shared prosperity tend to have better health outcomes, higher average hs graduation rates and lower levels of poverty when compared to states with higher levels of poverty. jim hightower's father always said "everybody does better when everybody does better." community means just that community.

    for another take on this idea see:

    there is a new concept: "social capital" -- originally coined by j. s. coleman, now expanded by professor kawachi of harvard and his colleagues, and recently spotlighted in a scientific american article. (5)
    when researchers get into the streets and survey people's opinions, they can rate communities and neighborhoods on the results. a community has high social capital if people say they trust one another and help each other out, and if they belong to local groups (service groups, tenant associations, unions, etc.) which have an impact; the community has an atmosphere of cohesiveness. a community has low social capital if residents don't belong to organizations, don't trust each other and say others try to take advantage of them. researchers like kawachi also check out health statistics and crime rates. he and his colleagues have found that communities with low social capital also have worse health, higher mortality rates, and higher rates of violent crime. (6) also, cohesive communities turn out to be more egalitarian.
    ayn rand's advice destroys social capital. you can't be dog-eat-dog selfish, competitive, helping nobody, and at the same time expect to grow a cohesive community. by deduction, ayn rand's prescription would have a devastating effect on health and lead to crime and indifference.
    ...
    notes
    1. kalat, j.w. introduction to psychology, belmont, ca: thomson wadsworth, 2005. p. 564. (back)
    2. mccord, c. and h.p. freeman. "excess mortality in harlem," new england journal of medicine, 1990, 322, 173-177. (back)
    3. nord, m., andrews, m., carlson, s. "household food security in the united states," 2004. united states department of agriculture report ers-err-11, october 2005. (back)
    4. walker, j. the ayn rand cult, chicago, ill. open court, 1999. (back)
    5. sapolsky, r. "sick of poverty," scientific american, 2005, 293 (december), 92-99. (back)
    6. kawachi, i, kennedy, p. and wilkinson, r. (eds) society and population health reader: income inequality and health, new press, new york, 1999. this excellent book is a collection of research articles with a summary chapter 40 by wilkinson. (back)
    7. edney, j.j. "the nuts game: a concise commons dilemma analog," environmental psychology and nonverbal behavior, 1979, volume 3, pp.252-254 -- also at http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/nuts%20game.htm (back)
    http://www.swans.com/library/art12/jedney01.html#01
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Feb 28, '08
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Just a little reminder. There is an amendment to the constitution that reads:

    As a people we have decided that government at all levels needs to be able to fund itself through taxes.

    Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is not in the real world. I took some time to read up on objectivism awhile back. IMO her philosophy is just an excuse for personal selfishness and disregard for the needs of the community as a whole.
    The ability to collect an income tax does NOT relieve the gov't of it's cage, it's enumerated, limited powers. All that ill-conceived amendment does is allow direct taxation to pay for its enumerated powers. And. Nothing. Else.

    I'm not a fan of objectivism. Rand was an athiest; I am not. I think morality IS at issue. Nevertheless, the free market is better than gov't. Everytime it's tried.

    How can gov't be the solution when, much more often than not, gov't IS THE PROBLEM?

    To compel an individual to regard the collective needs of the community, and to force them to share a portion of their labor against their will, is slavery for whatever portion of labor the gov't takes by force. Slavery is evil. Holding people down with just enough aid to keep them in place is economic enslavement. Slavery is NOT a necessary evil. Neither is it a necessary good.

    Nowhere in the enumerated powers does the Federal gov't have the right to take from me and to give to somebody else. It's forbidden.

    And by the way, we are NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic, so designed to prevent the mob from determining the appropriate amount to steal from the other 49% of the population. . . The Constitution was designed to prevent just that kind of mob rule.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 6, '08
  10. by   twotrees2
    Quote from bollweevil
    Accidents happen. Rape, too. Failed contraceptive measures. Religion, customs, social mores, ignorance. Yes, silliness, immaturity, carelessness, self-indulgence, all do play a part in populating the world, not to mention just plain being in love and actually wanting children.

    But if people think poverty is hazardous to health, well, I have seen people who are not impoverished, who have insurance, who are pretty well-off have lots of surgeries that the uninsured don't get. To me, these are not always necessary. They are pay the mortgage surgeries.
    not only that- in teh prison system we keep lifers and i mean very evil doers alive by taxpayers expense with dyalysis and transplants just for teh sake of keeping them alive even when they want to die! it is very difficult to get an ok to let them go - for instance in the world if we are sick of dyalysis and just want to go we can make that decision - they dont just get to do so - i suppose in fear of lawsuits from family? this i am not sure on really. there is a lot of waste in medical world for uneeded things though that is on many boards here im sure.
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    "There is a new concept: "social capital" -- originally coined by J. S. Coleman, now expanded by Professor Kawachi of Harvard and his colleagues, and recently spotlighted in a Scientific American article."
    It's not a new concept, at all. The concept, at its core is, because socialism is such a stunning failure by itself, some capitalism is needed to keep funding the government so that it can continue to be a power base to exercise control over the people.

    The goal is to find just the balance where freedom can be kept just viable enough to get the workers to continue to produce just enough to placate the moochers just enough for the looters to stay in power. Just that much freedom and nothing more. Capitalism is freedom. It is the freedom to choose free from government compulsion.

    This so-called social capital isn't new. Shoot. China perfected it.

    A fair share in a dismal gov't outcome isn't very fair.

    Of course, the inherit danger of trying to leash and harness freedom for such purposes is that, by definition, freedom can't be bound. It flows free, or dies.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 6, '08
  12. by   pickledpepperRN
    Denying healthcare to prisoners is considered a violation of the 8th amendment.
  13. by   twotrees2
    Quote from spacenurse
    Denying healthcare to prisoners is considered a violation of the 8th amendment.
    i was not talking about denying anyone health care- iwill fight for the inmates as i do now for pain control, adequate health care and the right to be heard by the doc ( even though he has been written about in the paper how jerkish he is and we nurses all agree noone removes him we have to fight every day for the inmates to get care though it is getting better so i think since the big news article about him he may be on warning ) just as i would anyone in the community.

    i am talking about a patient being kept alive with dialysis and or transplant when they do not want it. they are basically forced to keep taking health care they dont want- is that an 8th amendment thing to - to force them to keep up with something they do not want?

    i have a friend right now who's mom has declined dialysis and they are going through the grieving/dying process's etc. very few inmates have the right to choose death. THAT is what i am talking about. if i am an inmate or a person on the street - if i am so sick i have to keep up with dialysis ( along with all my other heath issues i already have ) i dont want it- i want to be allowed to die with dignity and free of pain. period. they as a general rule cant choose that. at least from what i have seen and heard so far.

close