Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why America hates its children


Kittens Are Jerks

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

A friend of mine in the US (who's a single mother) has a disabled son whose monthly medical costs run approximately $5,000. That's $60,000 per year, in spite of her supposedly great insurance plan. During the day she has a high-powered government job, in the evenings she cleans offices for the much needed extra cash. In Canada, her son's medical costs and prescriptions would cost her $0.

Stories like these are heartbreaking. So are stories about efforts to ban things like free universal school meals. Why would anyone even think about doing something like that? For some kids, the meals at school are the only meals they get.

 

 

That's what happens when conservatives run the government - 60+ attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the only insurance some people have.

Simple solution:  outlaw the lifetime and yearly caps on insurance outlays, or

Plan B (Implement a single-payer model of health insurance (Medicare for All - opposed by Republicans).

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

That's what happens when conservatives run the government - 60+ attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the only insurance some people have.

Never before has a healthcare act had so many near-death experiences lol. But seriously, why even try to repeal it? Is it because of pressure from the insurance industry? Even more baffling is why many Americans also opposed it. Again, why? Was it a lack of trust in their federal government? Or did they not understand it?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Never before has a healthcare act had so many near-death experiences lol. But seriously, why even try to repeal it? Is it because of pressure from the insurance industry? Even more baffling is why many Americans also opposed it. Again, why? Was it a lack of trust in their federal government? Or did they not understand it?

Vast majority were happy with their plans before obamacare.  Basically screwed up insurance for 99٪ to help 1٪.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Never before has a healthcare act had so many near-death experiences lol. But seriously, why even try to repeal it? Is it because of pressure from the insurance industry? Even more baffling is why many Americans also opposed it. Again, why? Was it a lack of trust in their federal government? Or did they not understand it?

Mostly it was the lack of trust in the federal government.  They have not earned much trust.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

Vast majority were happy with their plans before obamacare.  Basically screwed up insurance for 99٪ to help 1٪.

My understanding of it is limited, but from what I know the Act requires health insurance companies to provide certain levels of coverage with every plan. I can understand how changes in insurance coverage might have confused some people, but it shouldn't have impacted them in any significant way, and if it did, wouldn't it have been to their benefit?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

My understanding of it is limited, but from what I know the Act requires health insurance companies to provide certain levels of coverage with every plan. I can understand how changes in insurance coverage might have confused some people, but it shouldn't have impacted them in any significant way, and if it did, wouldn't it have been to their benefit?

My understanding is that for many obamacare increased costs.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Why America hates its children

Every country has its share of adults who pose a threat to children. But the difference in how America treats its kids goes far beyond the "it takes a village" attitude that prevails in countries like Greece. Virtually every other industrialized nation provides more government aid for their children than America does. Of the 38 countries that belong to the leading Western trade alliance, the US ranks No. 32 in spending on early childhood.

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-america-hates-its-children-parenting-expensive-childcare-schools-kids-2024-1

Some stats: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm

NOTE: It's not my intent to turn this discussion into a US-bashing party. I'm particularly interested in comments from our American members, not just on the subject of childcare, but also on universal healthcare, price controls on the costs of pharmaceuticals, and other social programs. I have seen countless interviews where US citizens decry such programs because... socialism. Are some Americans that brainwashed? I cannot even begin to understand why people are not up in arms about the lack of affordable healthcare, affordable childcare. affordable education, etc. Why is that?

I think it’s because children don’t generate money for the system, they don’t buy unnecessary items, they don’t pay taxes, they don’t produce goods for sale … they just have money spent on them there’s no immediate return for the non-parents investment in them. 
You saw the shadow of this during the spicy cough lockdowns here in Oz, when schools closed the very pro-business government we had at the time worked VERY hard to exempt us from being closed entirely (in fact, IIRC at one point we weren’t going to be closed at all) and they literally said that it was because if we closed workers wouldn’t be working they’d instead not be generating income by caring for their family. The message was clear, children don’t make money, therefore they matter less than that. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Never before has a healthcare act had so many near-death experiences lol. But seriously, why even try to repeal it? Is it because of pressure from the insurance industry? Even more baffling is why many Americans also opposed it. Again, why? Was it a lack of trust in their federal government? Or did they not understand it?

At this stage, people really don't like Obamacare, but they're reasonably happy with the ACA.

Riddle me that, Batman.

Once you understand that, you understand USA politics.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

My understanding is that for many obamacare increased costs.  

From my own experience, insurance companies just charged really high premiums. The one's that had lower premiums just had really high deductibles. For the ones who couldn't afford either, the government took their income tax returns. Obamacare was an attempt but it was still ruled by the insurance companies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

At this stage, people really don't like Obamacare, but they're reasonably happy with the ACA.

Riddle me that, Batman.

Once you understand that, you understand USA politics.

I was about to reply, but aren't they one and the same? And then it hit me. I get the picture, thanks.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big issue with health care in the US is that we have some very archaic regulations that significantly hamper the market from functioning normally.

With regard to to insurance, the big problem is that health insurance is tied to your employer.  This is a throw back from government regulations during WWII.  An easy fix is to just completely decouple insurance from the employer so that the insurance policy stays with the individual.  Employers can still subsidize insurance as a benefit through direct cash payment, but all of the shopping for insurance is done by the employee with whatever provider they way.  They also wouldn't' have to change insurance companies when changing employers.

The other issue is that state laws have created state monopolies and oligopolies with insurance providers where most states only have one or two providers.  There is little to no intrastate competition of insurance providers.

Finally, health insurance is not really insurance but more like prepaid healthcare.  Insurance is supposed to be for catastrophic events, not to pay for every little sneeze and sniffle.  People want insurance to pay for every little doctor's visit instead of just having insurance for serious health issues.  Everything else should be paid out of pocket.

The issue with prescriptions is that the US subsidizes other countries.  Drug companies charge as much as possible in the US since they can't in other countries.

Imagine how messed up car insurance would be if it operated under the same manner as health insurance.  You'd have to change car insurance everytime you changed jobs.   Car insurance would pay for things like car washes and oil changes.  You'd only have one or two car insurance providers in your state.  Depending on your plan, you could only fill up your car at certain gas stations if they were "in network".... etc, etc...

We know the free market works in healthcare because there are areas like elective surgery which is mostly paid out of pocket that are cheap and readily acessible.   Things like LASIK, dental work, boob jobs, etc.  There is competition that has driven down prices, improved service, etc.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I think it’s because children don’t generate money for the system, they don’t buy unnecessary items, they don’t pay taxes, they don’t produce goods for sale … they just have money spent on them there’s no immediate return for the non-parents investment in them. 

Perhaps this is why several American states are not only attempting to roll back regulations that govern the number of hours children can be employed, they are also seeking to lower restrictions on hazardous work.

59 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You saw the shadow of this during the spicy cough lockdowns here in Oz, when schools closed the very pro-business government we had at the time worked VERY hard to exempt us from being closed entirely (in fact, IIRC at one point we weren’t going to be closed at all) and they literally said that it was because if we closed workers wouldn’t be working they’d instead not be generating income by caring for their family. The message was clear, children don’t make money, therefore they matter less than that. 

That, unfortunately, was the case in many countries. It was a little different in Canada as parents (and teachers) were extremely concerned about children returning to an unsafe environment. I know that in my province (Ontario), for example, nearly $800 million was allocated for the creation of adaptive learning spaces, improved air ventilation, and the purchase of personal protective equipment and other supplies. There were no significant attempts to keep the schools open, or to open them early, that I was aware of. Most schools across the country remained closed for 30+ weeks, with ongoing disruptions for another year after that.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is systems as much as attitude.  We have been schooled for generations to revere unregulated capitalism. as sacrosanct and elitists as our role models and saviors.  The epitome of the American Dream.

We seem to have a lot of citizens who  are  to a committed to a Darwinian view of society. Those on top deserve it.  Those on the bottom deserver it too.  Its almost become a religious reversal. Jesus  seemed to  value the poor as humans.  Our modern religion in the US tells us God hates poor people and loves rich people.

Reagan told us that the elites were job creators.  That is not true.  The economy and demand creates jobs, not rich people.  He promoted trickle down.  How well does that work?  He cut taxes on the rich and made up for it by taxing social security. Precisely how the current Republicans want to fill the 8 trillion dollar deficit from Trump, by reducing Medicare and Social Security to the poor to keep the wealthy whole and happy.

We hate labor unions and collective bargaining, because business hates them..  We want workers to stand alone against management and make no demands but take what the are offered with a nod of the head and a thank you sir.  Keep wages low so theoretically goods will be cheap,  How well does that work?

We hate poor people, and a lot of kids are poor, hungry , and living in desperate circumstances, but their parents are poor so they are doomed to follow that example.

Look around the world at other nations who shares our views that rich people are blessed and poor people are worthless.   Mostly you will find them in nations #45 called SH****** countries.    Maybe there is a tip there.

We also hate children because they may have different ideas and want to change things in the future.  A third of the country wants no change but to go back in time.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

My understanding of it is limited, but from what I know the Act requires health insurance companies to provide certain levels of coverage with every plan. I can understand how changes in insurance coverage might have confused some people, but it shouldn't have impacted them in any significant way, and if it did, wouldn't it have been to their benefit?

Most of the people who were "happy" with their insurance before Obamacare had plans that covered very little and so were very cheap.  If they had ever needed a good plan, they would have been bankrupt.

 

My daughter, a pedestrian, was hit by a car on July 4, 1994.  She was brain-injured and spent 84 days in the hospital, 16 of them in intensive care.  The final bill came to $305,000.  With me owing another $10,000.  And that's just to get her out the door.  I am still paying $200 a month on her medical expenses.  And I had "good" insurance.

Obamacare provided health care to a great many people who could not afford it before.  That being said, I think Medicare-for-All would be better.

But:  you get what you pay for.  Most people are just lucky they never needed insurance.

Doug

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in this thread seem to be accidentally equating healthcare with childcare. Just an observation.

The article is about childcare standards, not healthcare. And arguably it's a stitch up that has little basis in reality. Sure, America could do better, but "could do better" is a far cry from "America hates kids". The article stated that America is #32 in spending on childcare. That means there are 163 countries spending less on childcare than America is. Sure, 31 are spending more, but does this mean 163 countries hate their children more than America does? 

Furthermore, America is in such a good financial position that arguably they don't need the resources put into childcare that many other nations do. They can put their funds into other industries and bring those industries up rather than spending money on kids who are already among the richest people on earth by simple virtue of living in America, even if they fall below the poverty line they have a standard of living that beats the hell out of large swathes of the planet.   

Not sure why guns became an issue here, this isn't a children's rights issue.... 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

People in this thread seem to be accidentally equating healthcare with childcare. Just an observation.

It’s not really an accident though.  When comparisons are made between the US and other developed nations on state funded children’s services it falls under the overall banner of health and social care, and health care is inextricably linked, from maternity services to vaccinations and community healthcare, and dental services, and as children approach adulthood, sex education, advice and contraception.  In many western nations this is all available for free to any and all.

What is a rather disturbing proposition, and this plays into the NATO argument.  Western nations enjoy a great deal of security under the blanket of a US defence alliance.  That this may be being made possible at the expense of the health of Americas young people is… as I say disturbing.  I wonder what the national bill would be to implement a U.K. style health system in the states?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

My daughter, a pedestrian, was hit by a car on July 4, 1994.  She was brain-injured and spent 84 days in the hospital, 16 of them in intensive care.  The final bill came to $305,000.  With me owing another $10,000.  And that's just to get her out the door.  I am still paying $200 a month on her medical expenses.  And I had "good" insurance.

I'm sorry that you and your family, especially your daughter, had to go through such an ordeal. The stress waiting for her to heal was no doubt hell unto itself, and the medical bill just added fuel to the fire. I cannot believe that you've been paying $200 a month since then.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the biggest problem is the left-right polarization in your country. In Canada such polarization is significantly less pronounced and the convergence between left and right has led to some meaningful joint ventures of benefit to the Canadian public.

Yes, it is purposely divided even though most republicans and democrats do not fit the "left/right" or even the "conservative/liberal" descriptions but we are told (the Big Lie) that we have a two party system and you have to choose one of those 2 parties.   And in 2016 we finally had a 3rd party in all 50 states, but if you don't belong to any of the 3 parties you can't vote in the primary elections unless you choose one of those threee primaries to vote in, which in some places (Texas) automatically changes your registration from independent to which ever party primary you voted in.   There are groups now that are trying to get ranked choice voting and have all registered voters voting in the primary regardless of their registration party or lack of party.   It is an up hill drive though, and the groups are now at the point that they are begging people for money but I have never recieved any response to my requests to explain what the money is for.    I will buy a t-shirt if it says something I agree with, but I am not going to donate money to any political group.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Plan B (Implement a single-payer model of health insurance (Medicare for All - opposed by Republicans).

 

The way our government runs the result of a single payer model would be inferior care for the people while the insurance carriers, the pharmaceutical companies, the doctors, and the hospitals made record profits all while our federal taxes increase by at least 20%.  It would be a politicians wet dream come true to be on the committee in charge of that as it would be our biggest budget item and run like complete ****.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the biggest problem is the left-right polarization in your country. In Canada such polarization is significantly less pronounced and the convergence between left and right has led to some meaningful joint ventures of benefit to the Canadian public.

I forgot to mention, you all have what, 16 parties, and when the election comes around some of those will support each other, is that how it works in Canada?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Is it because of pressure from the insurance industry?

No, it was a boon to insurance carriers who soon made more than ever.  It's just a political talking point.  Notice they never actually repeal it.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

People in this thread seem to be accidentally equating healthcare with childcare. Just an observation.

I opened up the discussion to include things like healthcare as it relates both to children and the population as a whole. That's why we've been discussing a range of social and other issues.

49 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Furthermore, America is in such a good financial position that arguably they don't need the resources put into childcare that many other nations do. They can put their funds into other industries and bring those industries up rather than spending money on kids who are already among the richest people on earth by simple virtue of living in America, even if they fall below the poverty line they have a standard of living that beats the hell out of large swathes of the planet. 

Child poverty and hunger are acceptable in the US because there are children elsewhere in the world who have it worse? What kind of logic is that?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

 

Child poverty and hunger are acceptable in the US because there are children elsewhere in the world who have it worse? What kind of logic is that?

Conservative boot licker logic

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The way our government runs the result of a single payer model would be inferior care for the people while the insurance carriers, the pharmaceutical companies, the doctors, and the hospitals made record profits all while our federal taxes increase by at least 20%.  It would be a politicians wet dream come true to be on the committee in charge of that as it would be our biggest budget item and run like complete ****.

The only way single payer medical care would work in this country is if we got rid of all the private insurance companies.   We need to get them corraled and under control, right now they have cart blanch to charge without service.   And if you are on medicare you are required to get a private insurance premium for drugs, but they sell more than that claiming you get better service, though it isn't true.  The only people who don't have to do that are in poverty and depending on the state they are in qualify for medicaid.   I am really ticked right now because I paid in to the medicare system since the mid 70's and now I have to pay 175.00 a month to social security for my Part B, which is the doctors and specialists (the part I don't pay for is hospital charges, and that covers up to 80% of charges, but usually a lot less).   Then I have to sign up for a Part D with a private insurance company or I get a fine for the rest of my life based on the number of months I was without coverage, in my case those months were because Social security did not get the paper work filled out in a timely manner.    It is a jacked system because it caters to corporations instead of humans.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

It is a jacked system because it caters to corporations instead of humans.

That's America in a nutshell 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.