Scott Walker says denying poor people health care coverage helps them "truly live the America dream"

[fast]

Once again, I must restate the obvious.

Much appreciated

The problem is that workers at the lower end don't earn enough money in wages to provide for the necessities of life, especially health care.

That seems true, but isn't it also true that the costs are too high? I mean, aren't they higher than they would be if not for certain expensively unnecessary things happening that drive up the costs significantly higher than they would be otherwise? Just guessing here, but I tend to be a good guesser.

The solution is to raise wages.

That may very well be true ... not sure, but if it's a dual problem on both sides of the equation, wouldn't that only be part of the solution ... such that minimum wages ought to be life necessity appropriate AND government changes be such that government-driven costs are alleviated?

 

[RavenSky]

I find it interesting that on this board so many people at opposite ends of the political spectrum agree on this topic; agree that the US should have a proper universal health care system. The reasons may be vastly different, but the end result is the same.

I wonder how reflective this is of the general public?

 

[arkirk]

I never really understood why mainline Republicans take the stance that they do. They are usually pro-employer, but on this issue, they seem to want to force employers to pay for something that they really have no responsibility for.

I can see employers being responsible if the job itself causes physical harm to an employee, but for general health, why should this be the employer's responsibility? It should either fall to the employee themself, or to society as a whole, if we decide (and we should) that the health of the populace is something we should all care about. It is unfair to shoulder this on those who hire others to work for them, while other companies and individuals don't pay their share.

Single payer universal health care is the only sensible solution. It also removes for-profit insurance companies from the mix, making preventative care viable, and cutting out a profit drive to deny people the care that they need.

You clearly are agreeing with about 80+% of Americans on this. The problem we have with all the social issues is a kind press obscurantism of the issues sponsored by big pharma, the hospitals and the medical insurance "industry." Republicans and many Democrats will not let single payer national health policy be considered because of their own self interest in being re-elected. Once it goes there (single payer), Congress will be forced to examine the costs that are being imposed on health maintenance by the medical (for profit) industry's army of PAC's and lobbyists in public.

A lot of cash watering holes provided to politicians by these "industries" will dry up. Government could also bring an economy of scale to health care, and also medical education...a field that should become greatly expanded. Why have a country full of overworked Doctors whose lives are shortened by overwork and whose work suffers from over occupation with economic survival of their practices? Why not have a whole lot more doctors with sufficient time to better handle the concerns of their patients.

All these problems are the result of under-taxation of the rich AND FAILURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO INVEST IN TRUE AND COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM.

I am not sorry I cannot oblige Simple Don's request because there is no good reason for healthcare remaining a for profit business or for our government stoking the profit machines of those who are already way too wealthy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, I must restate the obvious.

The problem is that workers at the lower end don't earn enough money in wages to provide for the necessities of life, especially health care.

The solution is to raise wages.

If we want to turn health care into a for profit business from a largely not for profit enterprise we will have to raise wages even higher because profits add to the cost of health care.*

We must give up what is apparently an overwhelming national obsession to continually increase the incomes of the already wealthy.*

* I don't agree with the last two but I seem to be in the minority. I have repeatedly asked for those who believe that health care should be a for profit business and that it should be a matter of national policy to increase the incomes of the already wealthy to explain why. So far no one has obliged me.

Thus ensuring more of those poor have an income of $0.

Furthermore, the biggest cause of poverty is inadequate hours, not the pay rate. Raising the minimum wage does nothing about this.

 

[fast]

Once again, I must restate the obvious.

The problem is that workers at the lower end don't earn enough money in wages to provide for the necessities of life, especially health care.

The solution is to raise wages.

If we want to turn health care into a for profit business from a largely not for profit enterprise we will have to raise wages even higher because profits add to the cost of health care.*

We must give up what is apparently an overwhelming national obsession to continually increase the incomes of the already wealthy.*

* I don't agree with the last two but I seem to be in the minority. I have repeatedly asked for those who believe that health care should be a for profit business and that it should be a matter of national policy to increase the incomes of the already wealthy to explain why. So far no one has obliged me.

Thus ensuring more of those poor have an income of $0.

Furthermore, the biggest cause of poverty is inadequate hours, not the pay rate. Raising the minimum wage does nothing about this.

What about post #11?

 

[SimpleDon]

Once again, I must restate the obvious.

The problem is that workers at the lower end don't earn enough money in wages to provide for the necessities of life, especially health care.

The solution is to raise wages.

If we want to turn health care into a for profit business from a largely not for profit enterprise we will have to raise wages even higher because profits add to the cost of health care.*

We must give up what is apparently an overwhelming national obsession to continually increase the incomes of the already wealthy.*

* I don't agree with the last two but I seem to be in the minority. I have repeatedly asked for those who believe that health care should be a for profit business and that it should be a matter of national policy to increase the incomes of the already wealthy to explain why. So far no one has obliged me.

Thus ensuring more of those poor have an income of $0.

Furthermore, the biggest cause of poverty is inadequate hours, not the pay rate. Raising the minimum wage does nothing about this.

Does increasing the income of the very wealthy not result in unemployment but increasing the income of the poor does? How does that work? If raising the wages of the poor means that fewer will be hired why is it different for the wealthy? I seem to remember that you believe that money coming from involuntary increases in income is somehow different than money from voluntary increases, as if the money was somehow sentient, that it could remember where it came from and adopt its impact accordingly. Is this still your position, is this why you support income inequity so strongly?

And why do you support converting health care into a for profit business? It only increases the cost of what is already the world's most expensive health care. Why does anyone consider this to be a benefit?

 

[TV and credit cards]

I never really understood why mainline Republicans take the stance that they do. They are usually pro-employer, but on this issue, they seem to want to force employers to pay for something that they really have no responsibility for.

I can see employers being responsible if the job itself causes physical harm to an employee, but for general health, why should this be the employer's responsibility? It should either fall to the employee themself, or to society as a whole, if we decide (and we should) that the health of the populace is something we should all care about. It is unfair to shoulder this on those who hire others to work for them, while other companies and individuals don't pay their share.

Single payer universal health care is the only sensible solution. It also removes for-profit insurance companies from the mix, making preventative care viable, and cutting out a profit drive to deny people the care that they need.

You clearly are agreeing with about 80+% of Americans on this. The problem we have with all the social issues is a kind press obscurantism of the issues sponsored by big pharma, the hospitals and the medical insurance "industry." Republicans and many Democrats will not let single payer national health policy be considered because of their own self interest in being re-elected. Once it goes there (single payer), Congress will be forced to examine the costs that are being imposed on health maintenance by the medical (for profit) industry's army of PAC's and lobbyists in public.

A lot of cash watering holes provided to politicians by these "industries" will dry up. Government could also bring an economy of scale to health care, and also medical education...a field that should become greatly expanded. Why have a country full of overworked Doctors whose lives are shortened by overwork and whose work suffers from over occupation with economic survival of their practices? Why not have a whole lot more doctors with sufficient time to better handle the concerns of their patients.

All these problems are the result of under-taxation of the rich AND FAILURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO INVEST IN TRUE AND COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM.

I am not sorry I cannot oblige Simple Don's request because there is no good reason for healthcare remaining a for profit business or for our government stoking the profit machines of those who are already way too wealthy.

With a focus on prevention that would drive down costs, ensuring doctors are not overworked, not necessarily requiring more of them in the process, and paying a premium for those serving the rural poor. At the same time stopping the food industry from getting people hooked on sugar, salt, and fat.
Oh, if only such things were possible. If only such a country could exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thus ensuring more of those poor have an income of $0.

Furthermore, the biggest cause of poverty is inadequate hours, not the pay rate. Raising the minimum wage does nothing about this.

What about post #11?

What of it? The point is that raising the minimum you pay people doesn't magically get them jobs.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus ensuring more of those poor have an income of $0.

Furthermore, the biggest cause of poverty is inadequate hours, not the pay rate. Raising the minimum wage does nothing about this.

Does increasing the income of the very wealthy not result in unemployment but increasing the income of the poor does? How does that work? If raising the wages of the poor means that fewer will be hired why is it different for the wealthy? I seem to remember that you believe that money coming from involuntary increases in income is somehow different than money from voluntary increases, as if the money was somehow sentient, that it could remember where it came from and adopt its impact accordingly. Is this still your position, is this why you support income inequity so strongly?

And why do you support converting health care into a for profit business? It only increases the cost of what is already the world's most expensive health care. Why does anyone consider this to be a benefit?

The income of the wealthy is set by negotiation, not by government fiat. As such it will be approximately at the market-clearing price and thus not cause unemployment.

You get unemployment when wages are above the market-clearing price.

 

[fast]

The point is that raising the minimum you pay people doesn't magically get them jobs.

Oh, I thought the point had to do with inadequate hours. Each problem may need a different solution. For instance, the problem of not having a job may require a different solution than a completely different problem. Suppose someone has a job, and suppose it's a standard full-time job with adequate hours (oh say, 40 to 50 hours a week).

Is it unreasonable (or reasonable) to think that things should change such that (for instance) a young man making minimum wage (on a 45 hour a week job) should, at a minimum, be able to afford the basic necessities of life, (including insurance) for a family of three?

Sorry for all the comma's and parenthesis--I was accentuating.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If the problem is that people can not afford food and housing and the other life needs, then why do we address that be looking at employment? Why be so indirect? Why not simply make sure that everybody has enough to eat and a place to live? Guaranteed minimum income is the way to go, with no minimum wage. Level the bargaining table so that employees can survive without working and then employers will need to create incentives to get workers, and we don't need to intrude on the the labour market. People can bargain fairly for their pay and get paid what their labour is worth to the market.

 

[arkirk]

Once again, I must restate the obvious.

The problem is that workers at the lower end don't earn enough money in wages to provide for the necessities of life, especially health care.

The solution is to raise wages.

If we want to turn health care into a for profit business from a largely not for profit enterprise we will have to raise wages even higher because profits add to the cost of health care.*

We must give up what is apparently an overwhelming national obsession to continually increase the incomes of the already wealthy.*

* I don't agree with the last two but I seem to be in the minority. I have repeatedly asked for those who believe that health care should be a for profit business and that it should be a matter of national policy to increase the incomes of the already wealthy to explain why. So far no one has obliged me.

Thus ensuring more of those poor have an income of $0.

Furthermore, the biggest cause of poverty is inadequate hours, not the pay rate. Raising the minimum wage does nothing about this.

You are talking like an expert on how many hours a man must work. You don't really care about these people anyway. You just want to see them work. Considering the free time you have to post here (over 100,000 posts), I regard your remarks highly hypocritical. Raising the minimum wage makes whatever hours one works in an employment of some kind closer to adequate in terms of supplying what the worker needs to live.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is that raising the minimum you pay people doesn't magically get them jobs.

Oh, I thought the point had to do with inadequate hours. Each problem may need a different solution. For instance, the problem of not having a job may require a different solution than a completely different problem. Suppose someone has a job, and suppose it's a standard full-time job with adequate hours (oh say, 40 to 50 hours a week).

Is it unreasonable (or reasonable) to think that things should change such that (for instance) a young man making minimum wage (on a 45 hour a week job) should, at a minimum, be able to afford the basic necessities of life, (including insurance) for a family of three?

Sorry for all the comma's and parenthesis--I was accentuating.

No job = no hours. They're just two aspects of the same problem: Most people in poverty aren't working full time. Raising their hourly rate will only make the problem worse, not better.

 

[KeepTalking]

Oh, I thought the point had to do with inadequate hours. Each problem may need a different solution. For instance, the problem of not having a job may require a different solution than a completely different problem. Suppose someone has a job, and suppose it's a standard full-time job with adequate hours (oh say, 40 to 50 hours a week).

Is it unreasonable (or reasonable) to think that things should change such that (for instance) a young man making minimum wage (on a 45 hour a week job) should, at a minimum, be able to afford the basic necessities of life, (including insurance) for a family of three?

Sorry for all the comma's and parenthesis--I was accentuating.

No job = no hours. They're just two aspects of the same problem: Most people in poverty aren't working full time. Raising their hourly rate will only make the problem worse, not better.

Incorrect. Even if you are not working full time, if you get paid more for the hours you do work, then you are making more and therefor your situation is at least a little bit better. If you don't have a job, then you are not making an hourly wage anyway, and a raise of the minimum wage will not affect you either way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh, I thought the point had to do with inadequate hours. Each problem may need a different solution. For instance, the problem of not having a job may require a different solution than a completely different problem. Suppose someone has a job, and suppose it's a standard full-time job with adequate hours (oh say, 40 to 50 hours a week).

Is it unreasonable (or reasonable) to think that things should change such that (for instance) a young man making minimum wage (on a 45 hour a week job) should, at a minimum, be able to afford the basic necessities of life, (including insurance) for a family of three?

Sorry for all the comma's and parenthesis--I was accentuating.

No job = no hours. They're just two aspects of the same problem: Most people in poverty aren't working full time. Raising their hourly rate will only make the problem worse, not better.

30 hours a week isn't full-time for most companies. A $1 increase would mean $120 more a month.

 

[Jarhyn]

If a company needs to have 30 man-hours to sell their 30 customers 30 widgets, they do not save money by hiring a third as many people and only selling ~20 widgets, if minwage goes up by 1/3. If they increase the price of widgets, and they lose half their customers, they still only sell 15 widgets. If they hire more workers, they're still spending 30 man hours on widgets, and still have to pay an increased total of wages.

The only outcome that doesn't hurt the company as much is hiring as few people as possible for ~30 man hours and paying the damn wage and increasing the price only so high as total net profit does not begin losing more sales than their price makes up for. More money still ends up in the pocket of the workers except in the worst of situations.

 

[fast]

Oh, I thought the point had to do with inadequate hours. Each problem may need a different solution. For instance, the problem of not having a job may require a different solution than a completely different problem. Suppose someone has a job, and suppose it's a standard full-time job with adequate hours (oh say, 40 to 50 hours a week).

Is it unreasonable (or reasonable) to think that things should change such that (for instance) a young man making minimum wage (on a 45 hour a week job) should, at a minimum, be able to afford the basic necessities of life, (including insurance) for a family of three?

Sorry for all the comma's and parenthesis--I was accentuating.

No job = no hours. They're just two aspects of the same problem: Most people in poverty aren't working full time. Raising their hourly rate will only make the problem worse, not better.

There could be several reasons for that, and each reason can be dealt with in turn, but should they aspire to work full time and have the opportunity, then it seems to me that once the obstacles and hurdles are dealt with, they should be making enough money such that they are neither in poverty or unable to support a family--ideally anyways.

The underlying reasons causing the high cost of living isn't being dealt with, nor are the wages keeping pace with the increasing disparity between wages and costs of living. Perhaps a minimum wage (at full time) isn't meant to support a family. I don't know enough about this stuff to say, but if I had to guess, people are so inundated by costs stemming from every aspect of government, the costs are exuberantly disproportionate to income from generations past. In other words, we can't buy now what we used to buy then with the money we make now compared to what we made then. A dollar won't go as far.

I think it's a colossal clusterfuck. Still guessing, but we're constantly trying to make improvements to a system with a flawed foundation--doing things we would not otherwise do if not amidst a misconfigured system. I can't support any of this, but I'd be a bit slow to disbelieve it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No job = no hours. They're just two aspects of the same problem: Most people in poverty aren't working full time. Raising their hourly rate will only make the problem worse, not better.

Incorrect. Even if you are not working full time, if you get paid more for the hours you do work, then you are making more and therefor your situation is at least a little bit better. If you don't have a job, then you are not making an hourly wage anyway, and a raise of the minimum wage will not affect you either way.

The problem is that you'll end up cutting the hours worked. Some will benefit, some will really get hurt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a company needs to have 30 man-hours to sell their 30 customers 30 widgets, they do not save money by hiring a third as many people and only selling ~20 widgets, if minwage goes up by 1/3. If they increase the price of widgets, and they lose half their customers, they still only sell 15 widgets. If they hire more workers, they're still spending 30 man hours on widgets, and still have to pay an increased total of wages.

The only outcome that doesn't hurt the company as much is hiring as few people as possible for ~30 man hours and paying the damn wage and increasing the price only so high as total net profit does not begin losing more sales than their price makes up for. More money still ends up in the pocket of the workers except in the worst of situations.

This is assuming companies are monolithic, there's nothing they can cut out. That's almost never the case, in the real world companies provide a variety of services (although some might not be commonly thought of as services), some which have a greater return on the cost than others.

When the cost of providing a given service exceeds what they get for that service they'll drop that service. For example, look at fast food--most places these days give you a drink cup rather than a drink. They judged the cost of paying their employee to fill the cup higher than the value of the customer happiness from having the cup filled rather than doing it themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

No job = no hours. They're just two aspects of the same problem: Most people in poverty aren't working full time. Raising their hourly rate will only make the problem worse, not better.

There could be several reasons for that, and each reason can be dealt with in turn, but should they aspire to work full time and have the opportunity, then it seems to me that once the obstacles and hurdles are dealt with, they should be making enough money such that they are neither in poverty or unable to support a family--ideally anyways.

The underlying reasons causing the high cost of living isn't being dealt with, nor are the wages keeping pace with the increasing disparity between wages and costs of living. Perhaps a minimum wage (at full time) isn't meant to support a family. I don't know enough about this stuff to say, but if I had to guess, people are so inundated by costs stemming from every aspect of government, the costs are exuberantly disproportionate to income from generations past. In other words, we can't buy now what we used to buy then with the money we make now compared to what we made then. A dollar won't go as far.

I think it's a colossal clusterfuck. Still guessing, but we're constantly trying to make improvements to a system with a flawed foundation--doing things we would not otherwise do if not amidst a misconfigured system. I can't support any of this, but I'd be a bit slow to disbelieve it.

There are big problems but raising the hourly wage isn't anything like the solution it's presented as. The real beneficiaries are the full-time workers earning near the new minimum wage--people who almost certainly aren't in poverty in the first place.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Incorrect. Even if you are not working full time, if you get paid more for the hours you do work, then you are making more and therefor your situation is at least a little bit better. If you don't have a job, then you are not making an hourly wage anyway, and a raise of the minimum wage will not affect you either way.

The problem is that you'll end up cutting the hours worked. Some will benefit, some will really get hurt.

And we could have full employment if we just didn't pay people

 

[KeepTalking]

Incorrect. Even if you are not working full time, if you get paid more for the hours you do work, then you are making more and therefor your situation is at least a little bit better. If you don't have a job, then you are not making an hourly wage anyway, and a raise of the minimum wage will not affect you either way.

The problem is that you'll end up cutting the hours worked. Some will benefit, some will really get hurt.

They will only cut the hours worked if they can, and with the companies we are talking about (those that typically offer minimum wage), if they could cut those hours they already would have done so. They don't suddenly need workers to work less hours for no reason, and they are not about to let any minimum wage workers work more hours than they need them to work, regardless of the minimum wage they are forced to pay. Simply put, your words sound great to anti-minimum wage raising ideologues, but when examined closely they do not hold water.