Originally Posted by pizal81

In China hospitals have what are called "death rooms" when a patient is uninsured and can't pay their bills they put them in that room to die. That is the worst case scenario that we will let people die. I think charities can step in there, but that isn't guaranteed. The Chinese are very distrusting of charities for good reason. American's are must trusting in that regard.
I think Galen does make a good point though. Our health care system started costing more when medicare and medicade were started. Hypothetically speaking would prices drop if we just dropped those programs. My guess is that they would eventually drop and everything would even out after some growing pains. "Is it worth the risk?" is a very hard question in this case.

Hum, that's a very good hypothetical. I do think the cost of health has increased significantly over the past 10 to 15 year though. I do remember when my oldest son was born, the cost of a visit to the pediatrician was $35. Now when I take my kids to see the doctor, our pediatrician bills the insurance company $200 per visit. (Now a good chunk of that is written off because of the PPO, but still.)

But back to your theory. You could be correct about that. First of all, senior citizens require much more medical care than other portions of the population. Whenever I go to my doctor, the waiting room is filling with seniors and I'm usually the only non-senior there. Doctors only get what medicare agrees to pay them. It's a set amount. So they probably do pass the expense onto their younger patients to make up for their losses. They may only make say $30 when treating a senior citizen but then make $100 per visit off of the rest of the population. So it's hard to say.

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

We are not a free country--unless you are wealthy. Poverty, homelessness, and lack of access to health care and jobs is NOT freedom. It is tyranny. The way I see it, making a profit off the misery and suffering of others is the epitome of evil. It is perfectly fine to make a profit on certain goods and services. it is NOT okay to make a profit over things that are RIGHTS and not priveleges. Access to basic needs such as a decent education, health care, and a roof over one's head are not privileges , they are rights. America needs to get with the program and emulate countries like Canada, France and Germany that actually care about their citizens and make sure everyone's basic rights are met. Funny that we criticize those countries for their evil "socialism," yet I don't hear people who live in those places exactly complaining about their lot. Most feel sorry for Americans, and feel fortunate they do not have the type of government that is based on greed and wealth rather than being a good place to live for the majority of their citizens.

I'm sorry, but I had to rant. I simply do not understand the thinking of these people, and I also don't see us changing to anything better soon. In fact, it's pretty obvious things are going to get a lot worse. It's pretty scary.

Don't apologize for telling the truth. I thought this whole post was awesome. Thank you!

"I have called them Pharisees, but perhaps that's too harsh."

What an insult to the Pharisees!

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

This is a topic that makes me very angry and emotional, so I've tried to avoid posting on this thread. But I feel so strongly about this. I do not see America converting to a single payer healthcare system anytime soon.

I work in health insurance and can tell you this. It's the biggest money making scam ever, and only exists to make a profit off human misery. Talk about a Ponzi scheme. Every day I hear the most horrible stories from members. My job is to analyze their claims, adjust them when necessary, but mainly my job is to find the loopholes so we don't have to pay their claims. We are talking about people who have lost everything they own, houses, everything, because they have become sick. The premiums they pay, even for the most basic policies, are absolutely insane. In return, their claims may (and probably will) still deny. One of the biggest problems for these people are pre existing conditions. They pay thousands --THOUSANDS--a month for insurance, only to find that because they didn't have prior coverage within a month of their coverage, that we will not pay their claims. Obamacare has eliminated that problem for children under 19 (for now), but for adults? There's no guarantee their claims will be paid. Oh, I could go on and on about the evils I hear about every day, but I won't because just thinking about it makes ME ill. Suffice to say that working in this industry has convinced me of the the true motives of health insurance companies, and their motives are evil. If you're fairly healthy you are almost better off without insurance at all.

Here's my feelings about the issue. Government may not be a panacea, and it may not be perfect, but why are we the ONLY industrialized nation that doesn't offer free or cheap health care to its citizens? Single payer health programs run by governments have a huge advantage over our system--they are not motivated by PROFIT. They are set up as a safety net for all their citizens. In America, health care is a profit making industry, like computers, cars and luxury items. Hospitals (which are ALL for profit now), doctors and the greedy health insurance companies are getting rich off human misery and illness. Think about it. It is not in their best interests to keep people well, or to find a cure, because then where would their livelihood come from? Their objective is to keep people just sick enough to keep needing their services, NOT on finding a cure. In what world are corporations less evil than governments?

When a person is faced with cancer or some other life threatening or debilitating disease, do they and their families REALLY NEED to also have to worry about bankruptcy and losing everything they own because of inability to pay their bills--or afford the exhorbitant rates of health insurance? Aren't they being faced with enough heartache already?

Apparently in America, the answer is no. How dare we let all those parasitic and unmotivated ill people get any kind of care for free? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a better job, or work three jobs to pay for health "care." So what that they have cancer and need chemo three times a week and can barely stand up, never mind earn their keep to stay alive? Why should poor and middle class people get a free ride and take tax money away from the rich and keep insurance companies from raking in profits so their CEOs can buy another yacht and a third house in Bali? Boo hoo! The 2 % at the top might have to pay more TAXES! That's not the American Way! Let's bring out the world's smallest violin.

I don't understand any society that thinks this way. I never have. The gap between the top 2% and everyone else is shameful--and embarrassing. We are becoming a third world country. We have the richest people in the world, and tens of millions of people who live an existence not much better than those some third world countries. People are starving and dying because of lack of opportunity. So I'm a bleeding heart liberal? Good, it's better than being a soulless social Darwinist. America has lost its heart and has lost its way. I suppose having a heart makes you a (gasp!) socialist! I guess that made Jesus a socialist too. These Randian types also often call themselves Christians. How can you reconcile Ayn Rand's social Darwinism and true Christian values like charity, compassion, unselfishness, and caring for the less fortunate, without expecting anything for yourself. Short answer-- you can't! Those who think you can are as deluded as those who insist the economy has recovered and we are not entering a super Depression far worse than the 1930s. I have called these soulless Ayn Rand followers Pharisees, but perhaps that's too harsh. Most of the sheep who vote this way are not in the top 2%--far from it in fact. Most of them are just ignorant and have drank the koolaid fed to them by the Powers That Be for too long. They don't know any better.

The Tea Partiers and wealthy Republicans act like free enterprise and the power of huge corporations over everyone else is a good thing, less evil than government. If they had their way, there would be NO government, just megacorporations running everything and probably watching everything we do too. There have been attempts to privatize the police, and fire departments! They want to tear down schools and libraries that give regular folks a chance at the American dream. Under their regime, nothing would be free, and everything from health care, to education, to your house being saved from fire or robbery would be run by the private companies motivated by profit rather than helping others. So tell me, how is this state of affairs less evil than government run programs paid for through taxation? The idea of an America with no government, and corporations running things with greed their only motive instead is a truly terrifying prospect to me. Give me socialism any day if that's the only choice! At least socialism, while admittedly misguided and often badly managed, attempts to achieve human equality and make life more bearable for the poor. Most European nations are not socialist countries anyway--they are social democracies that allow some wealth and as much free enterprise as you want but also attempt to make things more fair and help those who need it, rather than just letting less fortunate people who for whatever reason can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" suffer, starve and die. Now they want to take away social security and Medicare too. They got theirs, now screw you. Lovely.

We are not a free country--unless you are wealthy. Poverty, homelessness, and lack of access to health care and jobs is NOT freedom. It is tyranny. The way I see it, making a profit off the misery and suffering of others is the epitome of evil. It is perfectly fine to make a profit on certain goods and services. it is NOT okay to make a profit over things that are RIGHTS. Access to basic needs such as a decent education, health care, and a roof over one's head are not privileges , they are rights. America needs to get with the program and emulate countries like Canada, France and Germany that actually care about their citizens and try hard to make sure everyone's basic rights are met. Funny that we criticize those countries for their evil "socialism," yet I don't hear people who live in those places exactly complaining about their lot. Most of their people feel sorry for Americans, and make fun of us. They realize they are fortunate they do not have the type of government that is based on greed and wealth rather than being a good place to live for the majority of their citizens. Why are the only new immigrants those from third world countries? Doesn't that tell you something? And we're becoming another one.

I'm sorry, but I had to rant. I simply do not understand the thinking of these people, and I also don't see us changing to anything better soon. In fact, it's pretty obvious things are going to get a lot worse. It's pretty scary. As culturally bland as the 1950s may have been, I'd gladly return to that, if only because back then, the government actually cared about its people and built institutions to make that possible. I don't think the next High will be anything like the 1950s, however. I think it will be more like the Gilded Age or worse. I hope I'm wrong but I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about the direction we seem to be going in this turning. The only way out of this mess we are in is revolution. We have numbers on our side. We need to stop being pussies and fight for our basic rights as human beings.

Preach it, Sister!!!

We need some of that Boomer righteous anger on the Left now. I fear the DLC corporatist "centrists" have mostly purged then from the party.

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

We are becoming a third world country. We have the richest people in the world, and tens of millions of people who live an existence not much better than those some third world countries.

How many "third world countries' have you visited?
I ask because when people say stuff like this, the answer is usually "zero."

I do think there is a real difference in how things were done 30/40 years ago when I was a kid. I don't remember my mother taking me to the doctor every time I sneezed. We only went to the doctor when something was seriously wrong. Actually, I don't have any memories of going to the doctor as a child other than to get my booster shots, although I know I must have gone at some point when I was sick. But when we got sick as kids, my mom would give us some aspirin and we would just stay in bed until we recovered. I do remember being given antibiotics at times, but something tells me that the doctor probably just called in a prescription over the phone without us actually going into to see him.

Now a days there is no "take two aspirin and call me in the morning". Whenever one of my children is sick and I call the nurse just to get medical advice I get the same response. "Well, you had better bring them in so the doctor can look at them. It could be strep." So I have to bring them them, get the strep culture (which they always want to do) only to find out nine times out of ten that it's not strep, just a bad cold or flu virus and the doctor suggests I give them over the counter medicine. I leave there thinking, what a waste of time and money. I could have saved myself the money and sitting in the doctors office for 2 hours and done that myself. It's very frustrating. I assume they want me to bring my kids in for a combination of two reason. #1 They are afraid to prescribe anything over the phone for fear of malpractice suits and #2 They want us in the office so they can bill us. After all these years of raising kids, I pretty much know when they actually need an antibiotic when they don't. I wish they would just take my word for it over the phone.

So IMO, part of the problem is combination of greedy doctors and fear of malpractice law suits.

Amy,

Good post.
And the kicker is that the doctors need the money because they have to pay off their student loans.
We don't believe in public health or public education very well.
At lest not compared to the period between 1950 and 1980 where we ran off of a more humane and universalist ethos.
And student loans were less of a worry to med. students.

Nevertheless we keep hearing that the poor are too rich and the rich are too poor.

Originally Posted by Odin

Preach it, Sister!!! We need some of that Boomer righteous anger on the Left now. I fear the DLC corporatist "centrists" have mostly purged then from the party.

Agreed. The Democratic party are almost as bad as the far right. They continue to pander to the wishes of the wealthy and powerful. I thought Obama would be different, but he's proving to be just another centrist with no backbone. It's time for a new party that actually dares to speak for and work toward the needs of regular people. The Democratic party has become a party of wimps and sycophants. No wonder the zRrpublican party is winning. They actually get things done.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Amy,

Good post.
And the kicker is that the doctors need the money because they have to pay off their student loans.
We don't believe in public health or public education very well.
At lest not compared to the period between 1950 and 1980 where we ran off of a more humane and universalist ethos.
And student loans were less of a worry to med. students.

Nevertheless we keep hearing that the poor are too rich and the rich are too poor.

And you could be right about that too. However, in my particular case our pediatrician is in his 60's, so I'm pretty sure his student loans are paid off.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Huh. That's interesting.
I wonder if there are any real "old school" docs left anymore.

One of the things on that Ron Paul video was how he wanted to open up medical licensing to allow for alternative practitioners. I think it's a great idea.

Well, I will say this. My oldest son was delivered by a traditional OB. It was all very medical and sterile. You know, sheet over me with the feet up in the stir ups, the whole nine yards. My second was delivered by a mid-wife and what a totally different and wonderful experience that was. It felt much more laid back and seemed more "homey" and natural. She sat next to me on the bed telling me stories about her kids while saying "ok you need to push now" from time to time. I was completely relaxed and it almost felt like I was just visiting with a friend more than having a baby. It was awesome. Had I have had a third child, I would have gone with the midwife without a second thought.

Originally Posted by The Rani

How many "third world countries' have you visited?
I ask because when people say stuff like this, the answer is usually "zero."

FWIW, on the WHO rankings of health care systems, the US scores worse than Oman, Colombia, Morocco, and Chile -- and not much better than Cuba, either.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Huh. That's interesting.
I wonder if there are any real "old school" docs left anymore.

One of the things on that Ron Paul video was how he wanted to open up medical licensing to allow for alternative practitioners. I think it's a great idea.

My husband's doctor is an osteopathic physician. I think she may be the only one at the local clinic. He thinks she's a great doctor.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Correlation is not causation.

True. But correlation doesn't mean lack of causation, either.

The 'tech is more expensive' line is put to lie by the simple fact that the exact same stuff and, more importantly, much the exact same level of care, is available on a for-pay basis in numerous places outside America for at least one order of magnitude less money. The cause in the USA is certainly more complicated than just 'Medicare/whatever', but those programs, being one of the major unique features of the American system, are certainly at least a large contributor.

Originally Posted by James50

I guess my vision is that some state would say to the feds to give them all the federal revenue going to that state for Medicare and Medicaid and let the state take over the responsibility for all medical care in the state. The state would then begin with a public option but quickly would leave the insurance indemnity model behind and actually begin a brick and mortar health care system. It could build on pre-existing county health systems which exist in most parts of the country.

I am not sure who it would be popular with, but if you could show it reduced costs, I think it would spread like wildfire (actually I like my blooming crocus metaphor better). Some of the more conservative states would be the last to the party. But for this to work, you would have to get out of the insurance/fee for service model. It would have to appear more like Kaiser Permanente or Group Health in Seattle.

Our business problem is because we operate in four states, we need a national carrier. We had a great Kaiser program for our Atlanta employees at one time, but we had folks in North Carolina that had to drive 2 hours to get to an in-network hospital. We had to go with Aetna that had good coverage more or less everywhere. This would make it hard to take, eg just our CA employees, and put them into a single payer system. There are lots of problems, but the current system is likely to collapse so we better come up with something.

James50

Interesting. Of course for this to work the state needs three sources of revenue: Medicare, Medicaid, and at least most of the money business and people are now paying insurance companies, which would have to come in taxes. The first thing that would happen is the elimination of caste distinctions among patients which would be wonderful in itself. The key, it seems to me, would be doctors, who would also have to give up fee for service. But they complain more than patients about insurance companies, so they might well be willing to do that.

I just heard from a former student, a reservist, who will be visiting Newport. He works for the Department of Commerce in a Rocky Mountain state, and told me, with a grin, that he spends his time stealing jobs from the coast states. I will ask him if he thinks such a system would make his job easier.

In fact, James, would you be tempted to shift operations from a private insurance state to the public one?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Looks like we're ahead of most "third world countries" on that list.

Here's the quote again:

I guess that could be true if you compare our poor people to their rich people.
But that's not exactly a fair comparison, is it.

I do volunteer work with a group that sends medical supplies to "third world countries," and they are more than happy to get our second-hand equipment, because they simply don't have any.
For a reality check, visit http://www.mission-outreach.org/index.html

Just was speaking to a former student who volunteers for a group that sends second-hand fire equipment to 3rd world countries. He was wearing a jacket that a Georgian fire dept wears to fires. It was cloth and looked like a basketball jacket. They are more than happy to get our old stuff.

I don't think there is anyone out there who would disagree that most Americans are better off than people living in 3rd world countries. Obviously the people of America (regardless of income level) are in much better shape than the millions of starving refuges from Ethiopia. But that still doesn't mean there isn't suffering in America.

You can always look around and find someone else better off than you are. It's kind of like saying to the cancer patient who is laying on their death bed with only days or hours or left live, "Well, you are still better off than the guy who died last night of the same condition who is now laying in the morgue. You aren't dead."

We are all products of the culture and environment we are raised in. The norm is what sets the standard for we live. What is considered middle class in America would be considered the ultra rich in some other countries. And what is poverty in America would be considered middle class in those other countries. But we aren't talking about the people of those other countries. We are talking about the people here in America and what is considered the norm or standard here.

It's kind of like when my mother would used the argument with me when I was a kid as to why I should eat my vegetables, "Because there were children starving in India." And I would think, Fine, but what does that have to do with me and these lima beans?

Originally Posted by ASB65

I don't think there is anyone out there who would disagree that most Americans are better off than people living in 3rd world countries. Obviously the people of America (regardless of income level) are in much better shape than the millions of starving refuges from Ethiopia. But that still doesn't mean there isn't suffering in America.

You can always look around and find someone else better off than you are. It's kind of like saying to the cancer patient who is laying on their death bed with only days or hours or left live, "Well, you are still better off than the guy who died last night of the same condition who is now laying in the morgue. You aren't dead."

We are all products of the culture and environment we are raised in. The norm is what sets the standard for we live. What is considered middle class in America would be considered the ultra rich in some other countries. And what is poverty in America would be considered middle class in those other countries. But we aren't talking about the people of those other countries. We are talking about the people here in America and what is considered the norm or standard here.

It's kind of like when my mother would used the argument with me when I was a kid as to why I should eat my vegetables, "Because there were children starving in India." And I would think, Fine, but what does that have to do with me and these lima beans?

When I was growing up it was "starving people in Africa", LOL.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Sorry, I'm not following your train of thought here. Could you clarify that statement?

You're willing to use the government to inflict your christian religious views on everyone else.

Just like the anti-choice types.

But I'm sure you'll have some excuse as to why your position is different.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

True. But correlation doesn't mean lack of causation, either.

The 'tech is more expensive' line is put to lie by the simple fact that the exact same stuff and, more importantly, much the exact same level of care, is available on a for-pay basis in numerous places outside America for at least one order of magnitude less money. The cause in the USA is certainly more complicated than just 'Medicare/whatever',

IIRC, you made an observation one time that everything needed for a basically middle class lifestyle tends to be more expensive in America than anywhere else. There does seem to be a built in cost premium to doing anything in America. I suspect that one factor is the fact that that land is generally more expensive here.

Originally Posted by Justin77

but those programs, being one of the major unique features of the American system, are certainly at least a large contributor.

I believe that a single payer system would be a step up from where we are now.
Nevertheless, within the context of the very flawed American health care system, Medicare has a lower cost overhead. Scrapping Medicare in order to line the pockets of the health insurance conglomerates, which is where a lot of our politicians want to go, is going to make the problem worse if it happens.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You're willing to use the government to inflict your christian religious views on everyone else.

Just like the anti-choice types.

But I'm sure you'll have some excuse as to why your position is different.

Treating people decently is not a uniquely Christian value. As far as I know, all of the major religions, and even most secularists, want to live in a society that values compassion over reckless indifference. I'd wager that even the extreme individualists, deep down, would rather be in a community where people cared and that there is at least a semblance of a safety net. If you consider that an "infliction," I feel sorry for you.

The complaining about "coercion" is simply an academic argument, and I think a good number of them realize it, but just like to mess with people's heads anyway. For my part, I've listened to them for several years, seriously considered the real-world consequences of their philosophy, and have finally decided to reject it.

The slings I've gotten in return -- that I'm a serf, slave-to-the-Man, hater of "freedom," whatever -- it doesn't matter. They can have their little intellectual enclave.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Looks like we're ahead of most "third world countries" on that list.

True enough. I suppose if you want to keep hammering on that single phrase in Susan's post, have at it.

I guess that could be true if you compare our poor people to their rich people.
But that's not exactly a fair comparison, is it.

Perhaps it's more relevant to compare the US with other "First World" nations, in which case we don't fare so well at all, do we?

I do volunteer work with a group that sends medical supplies to "third world countries," and they are more than happy to get our second-hand equipment, because they simply don't have any.
For a reality check, visit http://www.mission-outreach.org/index.html

That's great, and I applaud you for doing it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Agreed. The reason I keep using quotations around the phrase "third world countries" is that it's a demeaning and rather meaningless term. People are people, and they deserve the same consideration no matter where they live.


I used to say "let's send the food to them, then." And I meant it!

That was my come back line too.

I do agree with you that people are people regardless of where they live. They have the same needs, wants, and emotions as the people living here do. Well, maybe not "wants" exactly. I know I will never be able to afford sprawling mansions or a private jet, so I don't even think about having those things. I think some of things that the people in America have been accustomed to having, like perhaps ipads or cell phones, people starving in Ethiopia probably don't think about having. They would just be happy to have a meal.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Agreed. The reason I keep using quotations around the phrase "third world countries" is that it's a demeaning and rather meaningless term. People are people, and they deserve the same consideration no matter where they live.


I used to say "let's send the food to them, then." And I meant it!

The term "3rd World" originally meant a country that was unaligned to either the US or the Soviet Union. Since all those countries were poor developing countries the term "3rd word" came to mean the same thing as "developing country", and when the USSR fell the two terms became synonyms.

Maybe my choice of words about America not being much better off than third world countries was the wrong one. That being said, I think some people are taking that one line far too literally. Of course even the poorest of the poor in America are better off than, say, the starving people of Ethiopia, but IMO that's not saying very much. The poor in America are probably not literally dying of starvation--yet, but many if not most of them are malnourished. Of course there's the problem that many of them probably don't know how to choose the right foods. There are healthy foods that are not that expensive--and cost less than eating at McDonalds. But I'm digressing. Compared to other "first world countries" we are not doing so well. Unemployment is at its highest point since the Great Depression, and even college graduates can't find jobs. People are not leaving jobs they hate to improve themselves--that's a thing of the 2T and 3T. The good jobs just aren't there--or even many bad jobs. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and create your own wealth? Reality check--not everyone has the temperament, talent or tools to become an entrepreneur and create their own job. Most self employed people have some kind of capital--or at least access to the Internet. Many people don't have these things. If you're an Aspie like myself and lack "people skills," it's even harder. Every day I feel grateful I even have a job--and I'm just a drone for one of the biggest [s]scam operations[/s] health insurance companies that exists. I'd be insane to leave it, especially at my age.

People who have jobs, even if they dislike them, are hanging onto them for dear life so they don't slip into the ranks of the impoverished. And still, even if working they may be poor because one income from a service job is almost never enough to even cover the basic necessities of living. I have been reading a lot lately about adults in their 30s and 40s being forced to move back home with their parents, or older people being forced to live with their children. If there are no relatives or friends willing or able to take you in, you are out of luck. There have been a lot of articles lately about people living in their cars--we are talking about formerly middle class and many college educated people having to do this. There's even websites about how to live fairly well in your car. I read an article today that said fast food jobs are in high demand right now, and many of the applicants are college graduates or people who used to hold professional jobs or positions at much higher pay. Any safety nets people have left are being chipped away at or outright taken away,. The problem isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Every day more people slip into poverty and even extreme poverty, and the middle class continues to shrink. The media keeps saying we're "recovering" from a recession--what a lie that is. Who is recovering? The top 2%? Today I started to type "are we in a depression" in Google and that entire phrase came up before I even finished typing "are we in..." Try it. That alone says a lot.

Again, I apologize if I offended anyone by my choice of words. It is probably an exaggeration. What I was trying to say was that if things continue the way they have been, and there is nothing put in place to replace what we had very soon, then we really won't be any better off than people in undeveloped countries. Our general standard of living ranks below Cuba, Greece, and Portugal, considered by most to be "poor" countries, even if not "third world." That's pretty embarrassing and sad. And we're supposed to be this great shining light and example to the rest of the world? I think not. The hubris and greed of the megawealthy and the CEOs of big corporatons in America is not only wrong, it's disgusting. Just my opinion. I know there are many here who agree.

Odin, I love your signature line! FDR is my favorite president ever--and we certainly need a new FDR right about now. I'm not sure we're getting one this time though. I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about this 4T, obviously.

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

Maybe my choice of words about America not being much better off than third world countries was the wrong one. That being said, I think some people are taking that one line far too literally. Of course even the poorest of the poor in America are better off than, say, the starving people of Ethiopia, but IMO that's not saying very much. The poor in America are probably not literally dying of starvation--yet, but many if not most of them are malnourished. Of course there's the problem that many of them probably don't know how to choose the right foods. There are healthy foods that are not that expensive--and cost less than eating at McDonalds. But I'm digressing. Compared to other "first world countries" we are not doing so well. Unemployment is at its highest point since the Great Depression, and even college graduates can't find jobs. People are not leaving jobs they hate to improve themselves--that's a thing of the 2T and 3T. The good jobs just aren't there--or even many bad jobs. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and create your own wealth? Reality check--not everyone has the temperament, talent or tools to become an entrepreneur and create their own job. Most self employed people have some kind of capital--or at least access to the Internet. Many people don't have these things.

People who have jobs, even if they dislike them, are hanging onto them for dear life so they don't slip into the ranks of the impoverished. And still, even if working they may be poor because one income from a service job is almost never enough to even cover the basic necessities of living. I have been reading a lot lately about adults in their 30s and 40s being forced to move back home with their parents, or older people being forced to live with their children. If there are no relatives or friends willing or able to take you in, you are out of luck. There have been a lot of articles lately about people living in their cars--we are talking about formerly middle class and many college educated people having to do this. There's even websites about how to live fairly well in your car. I read an article today that said fast food jobs are in high demand right now, and many of the applicants are college graduates or people who used to hold professional jobs or positions at much higher pay. Any safety nets people have left are being chipped away at or outright taken away,. The problem isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Every day more people slip into poverty and even extreme poverty, and the middle class continues to shrink. The media keeps saying we're "recovering" from a recession--what a lie that is. Who is recovering? The top 2%? Today I started to type "are we in a depression" in Google and that entire phrase came up before I even finished typing "are we in..." Try it. That alone says a lot.

Again, I apologize if I offended anyone by my choice of words. It is probably an exaggeration. What I was trying to say was that if things continue the way they have been, and there is nothing put in place to replace what we had very soon, then we really won't be any better off than people in undeveloped countries. Our general standard of living ranks below Cuba, Greece, and Portugal, considered by most to be "poor" countries, even if not "third world." That's pretty embarrassing and sad. And we're supposed to be this great shining light and example to the rest of the world? I think not. The hubris and greed of the megawealthy and the CEOs of big corporatons in America is not only wrong, it's disgusting. Just my opinion. I know there are many here who agree.

Odin, I love your signature line! FDR is my favorite president ever--and we certainly need a new FDR right about now. I'm not sure we're getting one this time though. I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about this 4T, obviously.

Sometimes our disclaimers end up being longer than the point of our original post. Been there. Done that...Many times.

Sorry if you felt like you were jumped up on. I don't think that was probably anyone's intent. And BTW, welcome to the Forum. You seem like a very caring person.