if the wannabe commie skinned had his way, 32 million taxpaying workers would be sent to northern alaska permanently for "labor" in an oilfield that doesnt exist so he could put the other 32 million in their stead so they could have "healthcare"

They create value because they consume and that consumption is what drives our economy. Somewhere awhile back the United States turned from a manufacturing based economy to a service and information based economy. All those poor people exist to create an underclass that keeps labor prices low for the owing class (min wage will be going up in many places tomorrow). Also these people are doing things that generate money because they aren't living for free, and their consumption drives the economy as well because they have a much higher marginal propensity to consume rather than save. A dollar given to them will be spent on a good or service, while 75% of a dollar given to a 1% will go and collect interest and doing nothing beneficial for the economy as a whole.

This urban underclass exists because it is functional. As pragmatist we should find creative ways to keep the cost of this highly functional population down (lets get structural functionalist). We have universal health care in the United States. It is called EMTALA and it means that if you walk into a hospital with a hospital problem they have to treat you. Your solution to this governing problem is to say that it is a hospital problem. Dismissing it and saying it is a hospital problem is probably one of the reasons health care costs so much in the current situation. We don't get paid for a lot of what we do and the system I work within gives away ~$1 mil in health care a day. When an individual comes in with a Medicaid plan instead of "self pay-financial aid" the services needed are clear, and things like primary care are available so that outpatient level problems don't become expensive hospital problems due to the neglect of something simple a nurse practitioner could diagnose and treat within 30 minutes for pretty cheap and do things like ongoing medicine management so that people didn't have to go into urgent cares once a month to get their blood pressure pills or whatever.

Ultimately, whether or not you have no insurance, Medicaid/care, or private insurance, you get health care in the same places. When the place you get health care from is hurting or having problems due to shitty governance it affects and can harm you.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 30 2017 11:14pm

Reaction to a poor unemployed man: "We should cut them off from all benefits, it'll make him perform better and get a job."

Reaction to rich CEO:"We should give him more bonus incentives, it'll make him perform better."

what do you even mean by bonus incentives?

Financial bonuses. Which happens quite a lot at top level management positions, even when they perform poorly. I mean, I'm definitely for postive reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement, but make sure that that is the same across all classes and not just reversed for the lower class.

100% of the dollars given to workers that don't deserve it end up doing nothing but raise the price level.

be more specific

I don't think you really understand this stuff.



Its pretty fucking simple majorblood. One person says "if you harm this person they will do better" and then say "if you treat this person well they will do better". They contradict themselves by implication as they're talking.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 1 2017 08:47am

na i need the specifics here

That concrete operational, eh?