Audience at Tea Party Debate Cheers Leaving Uninsured to Die

[Broomstick]

In the US "social security" is a retirement program, it is not health care.

"Medicaid" is the state medical "insurance" for the very poor. It is possible to be poor, but still not be poor enough to qualify for medicaid.

"Medicare" is the national level of medical insurance for those over 65 and some of the disabled.

If you don't qualify for any of the above then.... well, if you can't pay for medical care out of your own funds you're at the mercy of charity in the US.

And yes, standard procedure for a hospital that doesn't want a poor patient is to stabilize him/her then transfer the patient to a publicly funded facility.

[Lord Baal]

How dare you to defy me human!!! *eyes glowing...

Ok, now I get a better picture, well, it's pretty fucked up then... I don't know why would I cheer up to some one to pay insurance or about some one being discharged to die on the basis of it's current ability to pay a bill, but meh...

Oh wait, what if the guy is on coma or something and are unable to identify him for let's say, a week? Would he be dumped on a dumpster as soon he's stabilized or something?

And in case you wonder here is not really that different, clinics can't turn down vital emergencies (people with bullets or otherwise literally dying) but as soon they are out of immediate risk generally two things happen, either the police move in and "the suspect destabilize and die on it's way to the hospital" or he's simply moved out elsewhere (I.E. the street or a hospital). However, having said this most clinics don't have full fledged emergency rooms, so this level of emergency are threated by hospitals like 99.99% of the time, even if you are rich and owns an insurance.

[Broomstick]

Oh wait, what if the guy is on coma or something and are unable to identify him for let's say, a week? Would he be dumped on a dumpster as soon he's stabilized or something?

Nope. If attempts to identify him or find relatives are unsuccessful he'll be destitute (having no known assets) and thus be transferred to a state-owned facility that will provide minimal necessary care.

[PainRack]

No it certainly doesn't, though the execution of criminals who are viewed as guilty in light of their sentence (we'll ignore the issue of the problems with the U.S judicial system, as most are probably as misinformed about it as they are about the U.S. health care system) and allowing someone to die because you don't want to pay for their health care are different things. I went in expecting much worse, having read this thread prior to seeing the incident in question. The event isn't exactly what I picture when I read a headline about an audience cheering about something.

Agreed.

It could even be possible to defend the person who made the "yeah" bit by pointing out that he probably simply didn't understand the question and was just continuing on the high note from Paul speech regarding personal responisibility and freedom.

[Covenant]

This was particularly chilling for me (and my family, who I heard it from first) because this is my situation--sans coma. I'm at a place where I have good financial prospects, no debt, but I don't yet bring in much more than I spend out and for me Health Insurance is something I've forgone so that I'm able to keep myself treading water for another year or two. I could get some catastrophic health insurance but if I get hit by a bus they're not going to pay for it enough anyway and then I'm fucked.

It's pretty easy to be in a situation where the relatively high costs of health care are simply outside your reach as a single individual. I don't get it through my work so there's no option for me there, and buying it solo means only "legs blown off by terrorists" level insurance and not "broke a toe, got sick, developed an infection" style non-critical coverage or preventative checkups. I haven't been to a doctor in YEARS. Thankfully I take very good care of myself and I do go to dentists and so on, since I can get really cheap discount cards for stuff like that. But it's not INSURANCE.

When I first got my dentist card, my teeth were kinda a mess from years and years of not being to one of those either. My gums, really. I brush too hard, so it was a lot more abuse. So I paid it all out-of-pocket, which (with the discount card) actually added up to about a fourth of what I woulda been charged on health insurance. It was a really great deal and I am thankful every time I get the chance to go to a medical professional. But with anything other than catastrophic insurance (which will be my next major life commitment) it would be a choice between eating, paying car insurance, or having medical insurance. With no support for insurance out there, it's not surprising so many people go without.

[Lord Baal]

What about working insurance? Do you have this things at those latitudes?

I mean, a insurance company goes to your work and offer a regular insurance (where you can get your partner, parents and children's in by paying an extra) but since they offer a discount by volume it gets actually pretty accessible. I have one that covers up to 7 grands that covers my girl and me, and only cost about 30 bucks per month. Ok, it's not a big deal of covering, but it can cover standard things like a broken bone, a severe indigestion and the sorts or partially cover some more serious things.

[Broomstick]

That's basically what we have as employer-sponsored insurance. The employer - assuming the employer offers insurance at all - goes to the insurance agent and the group is the pool of employees. But the insurance agent won't go to the individual employees, just the employer. And more and more employers that offer insurance at all are ONLY covering the employee and not spouses or children. In such circumstances there would be no way to buy additional coverage through the work policy. The employer decides what will or won't be offered and it's either take that or shop on your own (yeah, good luck with that!).

One important point here - the situation has been deteriorating over time. 30 years ago, when I was just out of college, it was possible for the average, healthy college student, even with some minor condition like hayfever, to purchase and individual policy for an amount that would result in choosing between eating and coverage. That is no longer possible today. It went from "we'll cover you" to "we'll cover you but not your pre-existing condition for 6 months". Then 12 months. Then 18 months. Then "We'll never cover anything pre-existing, ever". And so on.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Rick Perry is right: if the Republicans are going to take up the label of "pro-life" they better apply that across the board.

Good point, it sickens me that republicans are (speaking broadly of course) against abortion, yet quite happily put criminals to death, and have a rather cold view of uninsured people. I would love to sit down with one of them and ask them to explain that little nugget.

On the other hand, fair play I suppose to Paul for not just playing to the crowd and saying he would not turn away an uninsured patient. The fact that even a few people in the audience though that way would suggest a deep illness in America's psyche.

Well, Dr. Paul at least has said he no longer supports the death penalty. He has been saying for 2 election cycles now that he is opposed. Take that for what its worth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXAsg4RvdI

Can't find where he stated it in the recent debates, but I do believe it came up. Furthermore:

The death penalty issue is not only about mistakes that governments make. It is about the power they wield. If the government can legally kill, it can do just about anything. I no longer believe this government should be trusted with this power. The death penalty has an effect on the society that endorses it. The more civilized the society is, the more likely it has moved away from the death penalty. The more authoritarian a government becomes, the greater is the number of executions.

- Liberty Defined, p. 34

[Lord Baal]

That's basically what we have as employer-sponsored insurance. The employer - assuming the employer offers insurance at all - goes to the insurance agent and the group is the pool of employees. But the insurance agent won't go to the individual employees, just the employer. And more and more employers that offer insurance at all are ONLY covering the employee and not spouses or children. In such circumstances there would be no way to buy additional coverage through the work policy. The employer decides what will or won't be offered and it's either take that or shop on your own (yeah, good luck with that!).

One important point here - the situation has been deteriorating over time. 30 years ago, when I was just out of college, it was possible for the average, healthy college student, even with some minor condition like hayfever, to purchase and individual policy for an amount that would result in choosing between eating and coverage. That is no longer possible today. It went from "we'll cover you" to "we'll cover you but not your pre-existing condition for 6 months". Then 12 months. Then 18 months. Then "We'll never cover anything pre-existing, ever". And so on.

Oh.. that indeed sucks big balls... I mean, not that those 30 bucks are easy to come around on this latitudes, but they are, pretty affordable at least for a guy like me, and even people with minimum wage (it would be like 1.5 days of work at minimum wage). But once you get insurance there's no fucking way they can't cover any preexistence condition unless is too bad in which case they will probably simply charge you a lot more or will simply not cover you, but that's only if you have something like cancer or a really bad heart condition. In any way this insurance policies will only cover up to X amount and then you are good (or not) to go.

As for individual policies at work, I guess I'm lucky at that aspect too, here the employer did contact an insurance company, but from that point on the insurance deals, through HR with each employee individually and each one can customize their policies (if affordable) like I did.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Well, as usually happens, the Market provides when allowed to do so....

Drive-Thru Medical: Retail Health Clinics' Good Marks

Doctors are having a hard go of things. Squeezed by falling reimbursements, soaring malpractice insurance and punishing patient loads, they shouldn't have much to fear from the likes of Wal-Mart. But the fact is, the greeter in the red vest is increasingly going toe-to-toe with the doctor in the white coat — and winning — thanks to the growing phenomenon of retail health clinics.

Retail clinics — free-standing, walk-in medical providers located in drug stores, shopping malls and stores like Wal-Mart, Target and Walgreens — are rapidly becoming to the health-care industry what Fotomat was to the camera world. There are roughly 1,000 clinics now operating in the U.S., offering acute care for such routine problems as throat infections and earaches as well as providing diabetes and cholesterol screenings, routine checkups and vaccinations. The fees are low — and conspicuously posted; nearly all of the clinics treat both the insured and uninsured, and there is little or no waiting time. With 50 million Americans lacking health insurance and family budgets collapsing under the weight of medical costs, what's not to like about the clinics? (See pictures of the Cleveland clinic's approach to health care.)

Plenty, say physicians associations, whose members warn that clinics — which are typically staffed by nurse practitioners and are positioned in stores that also sell prescriptions — will be inclined to misdiagnose and overprescribe. Worse, they are not built to provide long-term care for chronic conditions such as hypertension, and they threaten the ideal of a lasting doctor-patient relationship, denying consumers a so-called "medical home."

Those, at least, are the arguments, though it was impossible to know how well-founded they were — until now. In twin studies published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the Rand Corp. reports on an extensive survey of cost, quality and availability of retail health operations, and on nearly all measures, the clinics scored high.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 54,00.html

Is it perfect? No, but its how things work. Its like black markets. People will get what they want in some fashion. There will be people who will provide said services cheaper than something in a managed/mixed economy such as we have now. Throwing more money at the problem will only exacerbate things by increasing the amount of inflation. That hurts poor people the worst by completely pushing them beyond the margins and turns middle-class people into poor people.

[Simon_Jester]

These clinics are fine if you get a cold or an ear infection or need a flu shot.

They're not so fine if you need psychiatric care, or have a back injury that prevents you from working, or if you're stuck choosing between prescription medication and food. And yet those are the things where if you don't get the treatment you need, you might die or be crippled for the rest of your life. You can tough out a cold, you can hope an ear infection will go away on its own. You can't expect your back to heal up on its own.

Is this the way the future is supposed to look? With the working poor unable to afford medical treatment for anything worse than a sniffle without going into bankruptcy? Sure, the sniffle-treaters may be cheap, but they're cheap for a reason: they won't do anything challenging enough to take expensive equipment or training.


Remember, Redleg, every developed country, including the ones who throw plenty of government money into providing health insurance for the population, winds up spending less money than we do per capita. It beggars the imagination that we'd find ourselves having to sink more money into health care and somehow drive up inflation that way if we replaced the current (very expensive per capita) system with a (cheaper per capita) system that included a state-run health insurance plan, either optional or universal.

Complain if you like about other aspects, but it's silly to complain about the costs.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

These clinics are fine if you get a cold or an ear infection or need a flu shot.

I don't disagree. It was never implied otherwise. The idea is that this is taking pressure off the ERs and doctor's clinics which will hopefully cause prices to go downwards.

Is this the way the future is supposed to look? With the working poor unable to afford medical treatment for anything worse than a sniffle without going into bankruptcy? Sure, the sniffle-treaters may be cheap, but they're cheap for a reason: they won't do anything challenging enough to take expensive equipment or training.

Except that part of the problem now is that people go to the ER with a head cold when they could go to clinic and get the same kind of treatment, far cheaper.

Remember, Redleg, every developed country, including the ones who throw plenty of government money into providing health insurance for the population, winds up spending less money than we do per capita.

Inflation is a major part of the problem. I'm not unaware of that aspect. Our fiat currency is collapsing and this is the end result. Its predictable. It sucks cause I lived to see it, but I am not unaware of this. But the fact remains that throwing more money, via the government, at the problem is only going to make things worse. The insurance industry as it stands now is a con game and the government has its claws in that too courtesy of corrupt politicians who give their buddies juicy government contracts and the like.

[Broomstick]

The article is just a little disingenuous - my comments to follow:

Drive-Thru Medical: Retail Health Clinics' Good Marks

Doctors are having a hard go of things. Squeezed by falling reimbursements, soaring malpractice insurance and punishing patient loads, they shouldn't have much to fear from the likes of Wal-Mart. But the fact is, the greeter in the red vest is increasingly going toe-to-toe with the doctor in the white coat — and winning — thanks to the growing phenomenon of retail health clinics.

Except it's NOT the greeter in the red vest treating anyone - the people working in those clinics are fully trained medical professionals. They aren't second-rate by any means, or discount doctors (or nurse-practitioners).

Plenty, say physicians associations, whose members warn that clinics — which are typically staffed by nurse practitioners and are positioned in stores that also sell prescriptions — will be inclined to misdiagnose and overprescribe. Worse, they are not built to provide long-term care for chronic conditions such as hypertension, and they threaten the ideal of a lasting doctor-patient relationship, denying consumers a so-called "medical home."

Yes, the same "physician associations" who for years schemed to put chiropractors, osteopaths, and podiatrists out of business. The same "physician associations" who have and in some cases still oppose single-payer health care. The same "physicians associations" who want to do away with midwives, and who opposed nurse-practitioners willing to serve those communities the MD's couldn't be bothered with.

Doctor-patient relationship? Medical home? It is to laugh - the people going to those clinics don't have either of those things to begin with. If they didn't go to these Big Box Store clinics they likely wouldn't be seen at all.

Saying nurse-practitioners are prone to "misdiagnose" is a slap in the face - these people are, in many cases, doctorate-level medical people with extensive clinical experience. They are competent to diagnose simple, common ailments and to refer to MD's when it's not simple or common. I have never seen any indication they are any less likely to miss exotic or complicated cases than the average internist.

Inclined to over prescribe? Please - in most states nurse-practitioners are quite limited in what they can prescribe, unlike MD's who can and do prescribe anything and everything, frequently without checking to see what other medications the patients are on first.

On top of that - all of the Big Box stores in my area, including those that don't have in-store clinics, offer certain common medications for free. Back when I had no medical insurance it was the pharmacy at the Big Box store that directed me to a county program to assist people in that very position, which is what made it possible for my spouse to keep getting his diabetes medication.

These clinics are fine if you get a cold or an ear infection or need a flu shot.

They're not so fine if you need psychiatric care, or have a back injury that prevents you from working, or if you're stuck choosing between prescription medication and food.

The psychiatric care and back injury, yes, would need to be referred - but your average general practioner MD might not be able to adequately handle those, either, and would also have to make a referral.

As for "stuck choosing between prescription medication and food" - in my area such clinics are a point of contact that allows the medical folks there to direct people towards potential programs to assist them.

And really, you shouldn't minimize the utility of such basic level care. Making flu shots available does quite a lot to reduce the illness burden in a community. Untreated ear infections can damage hearing. After the floods in 2008 these clinics served as point to distribute tetanus shots and treat the inevitable minor wounds and occasional infections resulting from flood clean up - poor people could get that taken care of BEFORE they needed to go to an ER for something out of control.

Even for long-term serious conditions they can play a role, helping to monitor the patients' status and being available to answer questions. A lot of these people are going to these stores frequently for other needs, like groceries, so it becomes a convenient place to ask "Am I doing OK? Do I need to go to an MD?" without having to wait four hours or being charged $100 (or more).

Is this the way the future is supposed to look? With the working poor unable to afford medical treatment for anything worse than a sniffle without going into bankruptcy?

Of course not - it's a stop-gap measure. On the other hand, I'm not going to dismiss stop-gap measure that reduces suffering and can save lives.

Sure, the sniffle-treaters may be cheap, but they're cheap for a reason: they won't do anything challenging enough to take expensive equipment or training.

That's a slap in the face to the people staffing those places. In addition to needing an RN to start with, ALL nurse practitioners in the US must have at least a master's degree, and many, if not most, have a doctorate degree. They have to pass national-level medical board exams, usually in a specialty (the ones in the clinics at Big Box stores typically specialize in family, pediatric, or public health). They are not half-assed MD wannabe's. They most certainly DO have "training", whether you are talking about advanced or expensive.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Yes, the same "physician associations" who for years schemed to put chiropractors, osteopaths, and podiatrists out of business. The same "physician associations" who have and in some cases still oppose single-payer health care. The same "physicians associations" who want to do away with midwives, and who opposed nurse-practitioners willing to serve those communities the MD's couldn't be bothered with.

I don't disagree. The medical guild is rather powerful and they want to ensure the money flows in their direction. Its like that with all anti-competitive organizations. The problem is that they essentially have government force backing them up in their monopoly.

[Simon_Jester]

Excuse me.

I'm all in favor of stopgap measures- my point is that this is not a satisfactory model for the future of American health care for the average American citizen. So heralding it as "the Market has found a solution" is... grossly premature, shall we say. It's better than nothing, but it's not good enough. If we can't do better than this, we don't deserve to call our health care infrastructure modern.

As to the point that the people in the clinics are just as qualified as GPs, i.e. highly so, yes, you're right, I shouldn't ever have implied otherwise. But while this may make access to a general practitioner easier and more affordable, it doesn't really solve the basic problem of modern American health care- as you note, one really significant illness or injury can leave the average American bankrupt. Cheap flu shots don't change that.

For serious problems, the ones that require specialized equipment and training to deal with, which have their own attached medical specialties, grocery store clinics are just plain not enough. And yet it's the ability to treat serious medical problems that distinguishes between advanced and primitive health care systems for nations, more than anything else.


And Redleg, remember that the reason these people are going to the ER in the first place is that they can't afford insurance to cover treatment for mild problems, let alone serious ones. If we don't fix the insurance system and bring costs into line with what they are in other countries, then these clinics will remain all that is available, and the US will be stuck with a second-class system.

Inflation is bad, but if inflation was all that was going on, health insurance costs would be running in parallel with the cost of everything else. They aren't. They're increasing, and you wind up having to pay a larger and larger percent of your income for less and less return. The insurance companies have every incentive to screw over their clients, the clients are a captive audience because they're afraid of having to pay thousands of dollars they can ill afford if they should break a leg.

Why is it, Redleg, that the developed countries where public-option or single-payer health insurance is the norm do not have this problem? Why are they spending less money per capita to get comparable results for the majority of their population, if having government spend the money automatically leads to corruption? Perhaps the problem here is not "government is corrupt." Perhaps the problem is "corporate oligarchs have enough money and leverage to make politicians corrupt."

In this case, the insurance company is a middleman who's skimming an increasing share of profits from the operation into his own pockets. How do you go from this to assuming that government is responsible for the middleman's skimming?

[Broomstick]

I'm all in favor of stopgap measures- my point is that this is not a satisfactory model for the future of American health care for the average American citizen. So heralding it as "the Market has found a solution" is... grossly premature, shall we say. It's better than nothing, but it's not good enough. If we can't do better than this, we don't deserve to call our health care infrastructure modern.

Agreed.

But while this may make access to a general practitioner easier and more affordable, it doesn't really solve the basic problem of modern American health care- as you note, one really significant illness or injury can leave the average American bankrupt. Cheap flu shots don't change that.

Cheap flu shots can prevent serious problems... but then, the single-payer systems don't have any more (and arguably fewer) barriers to such public health and preventative measures.

And yet it's the ability to treat serious medical problems that distinguishes between advanced and primitive health care systems for nations, more than anything else.

True. And it's shameful that in the US such "primitive" clinics are seen as an improvement.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

And Redleg, remember that the reason these people are going to the ER in the first place is that they can't afford insurance to cover treatment for mild problems, let alone serious ones. If we don't fix the insurance system and bring costs into line with what they are in other countries, then these clinics will remain all that is available, and the US will be stuck with a second-class system.

Yes and no. People are using health insurance now to cover things they shouldn't. Its partially why costs went up. Doctors/clinics can get away with charging the maximum amount instead of the proper amount cause, hey, they know the insurance company will cough up the dough. And believe me, I understand completely that the insurance industry is a mess. I see the results of it all the time here in Florida. We have mandated auto-insurance, which has resulted in higher prices to fix simple accidents. A bumper that is a hunk of plastic costs about $2000 to fix (parts, labor et al) last time I got into an accident.

Inflation is bad, but if inflation was all that was going on, health insurance costs would be running in parallel with the cost of everything else. They aren't. They're increasing, and you wind up having to pay a larger and larger percent of your income for less and less return. The insurance companies have every incentive to screw over their clients, the clients are a captive audience because they're afraid of having to pay thousands of dollars they can ill afford if they should break a leg.

I don't disagree. The problem is systemic. A large part of it is, sadly, because of government meddling. Its the whole "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" shtick. Whether from monetary policy due to our fiat currency, government managed care or allowing Corporations to get away with murder, its not something that has a 1-stop cause. However, there are things that are driving our medical costs through the roof. One of them is the fact that the Pharmaceutical Industry is complicit in the (illegal) War on Drugs. As bizarre as it sounds, having to fork out money for pills that won't help you is somehow preferable to allowing people to ingest any number of plants (cannabis, coca etc) that could easily alleviate their problems. However, there is no profit motive in that as it would cut into the Corporate world's bottom line.

Why is it, Redleg, that the developed countries where public-option or single-payer health insurance is the norm do not have this problem? Why are they spending less money per capita to get comparable results for the majority of their population, if having government spend the money automatically leads to corruption? Perhaps the problem here is not "government is corrupt." Perhaps the problem is "corporate oligarchs have enough money and leverage to make politicians corrupt."

Of course its the corporate oligarchs. They're in bed together with their buddies in government. Remember, though, that a Corporation is a legal shield given by government. It allows companies to commit rapine, slaughter and theft at the end of a gun barrel, oftentimes with government troops and/or mercenaries.

In this case, the insurance company is a middleman who's skimming an increasing share of profits from the operation into his own pockets. How do you go from this to assuming that government is responsible for the middleman's skimming?

Because the government is an enabler, among other things.

Anyway, its not going to matter if our currency collapses into hyperinflation. The last few years have seen approximately $20 trillion in new liquidity, in various forms, pumped into the economy by The Federal Reserve. Those dollars tend to multiply quite fast due to fractional reserve banking practices. It may not even be a question of if, but when. The tipping point may be when China says "Screw y'all, we're dumping all your debt'. The government will be able to meet all of its debt obligations and a loaf of bread will cost you $400. The poor will be completely plowed under and what's left of the middle-class will be destitute. The rich will become those with commodities that are useful: gold and silver for some exchange (since that is all money is, a medium of exchange) but more likely beans, bullets and bandages. That is assuming the government Bush put the final pieces to doesn't go insane and start seizing assets left and right (arable land, etc). They have precedent for doing so via The Trading with Enemies Act and their skewed and, frankly sick, interpretation of The Interstate Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn).

[Edi]

The only problem that those walk-in clinics can cause is if they do diagnose something and later on a patient gets denied medical insurance on the basis of pre-existing condition (or gets jacked with much higher rates).

Of course, given the fragmented nature of the healthcare system in the US, anybody with any kind of smarts would completely neglect to mention any such visits while applying for health insurance.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Figured I would post this here instead of breaking it off into a new thread. If the mods disagree with this, please break it off into its own thread. Another great piece from ZeroHedge. Thanks to Robin Koerner/Blue Republican Facebook page for the tip

Poverty In America: A Special Report

Submitted by ilene on 09/18/2011 02:32 -0400

Solutions, anyone?

Courtesy of Michael Snyder of Economic Collapse

[Poverty In America A Special Report] America is getting poorer. The U.S. government has just released a bunch of new statistics about poverty in America, and once again this year the news is not good. According to a special report from the U.S. Census Bureau, 46.2 million Americans are now living in poverty. The number of those living in poverty in America has grown by 2.6 million in just the last 12 months, and that is the largest increase that we have ever seen since the U.S. government began calculating poverty figures back in 1959.

Not only that, median household income has also fallen once again. In case you are keeping track, that makes three years in a row. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income in the United States dropped 2.3% in 2010 after accounting for inflation. Overall, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation since December 2007. So should we be excited that our incomes are going down and that a record number of Americans slipped into poverty last year? Should we be thrilled that the economic pie is shrinking and that our debt levels are exploding? All of those that claimed that the U.S. economy was recovering and that everything was going to be just fine have some explaining to do.

Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty. Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty. The last time the poverty level was this high was back in 1993.

However, it is important to keep in mind that the government definition of poverty rises based on the rate of inflation. If inflation was still calculated the way that it was 30 or 40 years ago, the poverty line would be much, much higher and millions more Americans would be considered to be living in poverty.

So why is poverty in America exploding? Who is getting hurt the most? How is America being changed by this? What is the future going to look like if we remain on the current path?

Let's take a closer look at poverty in America....

The Shrinking Number Of Jobs

Unemployment is rampant and the number of good jobs continues to shrink. Once upon a time in America, if you really wanted a job you could go out and get one. Today, competition for even the lowest paying jobs has become absolutely brutal. There simply are not enough chairs at the "economic table", and not being able to get a good job is pushing large numbers of Americans into poverty.....

*There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States today than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million people to the population since then.

*Back in 1969, 95 percent of all men between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job. In July, only 81.2 percent of men in that age group had a job.

*If you gathered together all of the unemployed people in the United States, they would constitute the 68th largest country in the world.

*According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, if you factored in all of the short-term discouraged workers, all of the long-term discouraged workers and all of those working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment, the real unemployment rate right now would be approximately 23 percent.

*If you have been unemployed for at least one year, there is a 91 percent chance that you will not find a new job within the next month.

The Working Poor

The number of low income jobs is rising while the number of high income jobs is falling. This has created a situation where the number of "the working poor" in America is absolutely skyrocketing. Millions of Americans are working as hard as they can and yet they still cannot afford to lead a middle class lifestyle.

*Since the year 2000, we have lost approximately 10% of our middle class jobs. In the year 2000 there were about 72 million middle class jobs in the United States but today there are only about 65 million middle class jobs.

*Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

*Between 1969 and 2009, the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27 percent after you account for inflation.

*According to a report released in February from the National Employment Law Project, higher wage industries are accounting for 40 percent of the job losses in America but only 14 percent of the job growth. Lower wage industries are accounting for just 23 percent of the job losses but 49 percent of the job growth.

*Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.

*Last year, 19.7% of all U.S. working adults had jobs that would not have been enough to push a family of four over the poverty line even if they had worked full-time hours for the entire year.

*The number of Americans that are going to food pantries and soup kitchens has increased by 46% since 2006.

Unprecedented Dependence On The Government

Because they cannot get good jobs that will enable them to support themselves and their families, millions of Americans that used to be hard working contributors to society are now dependent on government handouts. Nearly every single measure of government dependence is at a record high, and there are no signs that things are going to turn around any time soon.

*One out of every six Americans is now enrolled in at least one government anti-poverty program.

*Nearly 10 million Americans now receive unemployment benefits. That number is almost four times larger than it was back in 2007.

*More than 45 million Americans are now on food stamps. The number of Americans on food stamps has increased 74% since 2007.

*Approximately one-third of the entire population of Alabama is now on food stamps.

*More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid.

*Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, approximately one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

*In 1980, just 11.7% of all personal income came from government transfer payments. Today, 18.4% of all personal income comes from government transfer payments.

The Suffocating Cost Of Health Care

Millions of American families are being financially crippled by health care costs. The U.S. health care system is deeply, deeply broken and Obamacare is going to make things even worse. Health care is one of the top reasons why American families get pushed into poverty. Most of us are just one major illness or disease from becoming financially wrecked. Just ask anyone that has gone through it. The health insurance companies do not care about you and they will try to wiggle out of their obligations at the time when you need them the most. If you talk to people that have been through bankruptcy, most of them will tell you that medical bills were at least partially responsible.

*In America today, there are 49.9 million Americans that do not have any health insurance. One single medical bill could easily wipe out the finances of most of those people.

*Only 56 percent of Americans are currently covered by employer-provided health insurance.

*According to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills are a major factor in more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States. Of those bankruptcies that were caused by medical bills, approximately 75 percent of them involved individuals that actually did have health insurance.

*According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3%.

More Children Living In Poverty

The United States has a child poverty rate that is more than twice as high as many European nations. We like to think that we have "the greatest economy on earth", but the reality is that we have one of the highest child poverty rates and it increased once again last year.

*The poverty rate for children living in the United States increased to 22% in 2010. That means that tonight more than one out of every five U.S. children is living in poverty.

*The poverty rate for U.S. adults is only 13.7%.

*Households that are led by a single mother have a 31.6% poverty rate.

*Today, one out of every four American children is on food stamps.

*It is being projected that approximately 50 percent of all U.S. children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives before they reach the age of 18.

*There are 314 counties in the United States where at least 30% of the children are facing food insecurity.

*More than 20 million U.S. children rely on school meal programs to keep from going hungry.

*It is estimated that up to half a million children may currently be homeless in the United States.

The Plight Of The Elderly

The elderly are also falling into poverty in staggering numbers. They may not be out protesting in the streets, but that does not mean that they are not deeply, deeply suffering.

*One out of every six elderly Americans now lives below the federal poverty line.

*Between 1991 and 2007 the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 that filed for bankruptcy rose by a staggering 178 percent.

*The Baby Boomers have only just begun to retire, and already our social programs for seniors are starting to fall apart. In 1950, each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 U.S. workers. According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.

Squeezed By Inflation

Rising inflation is squeezing the budgets of average American families like never before. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke claims that inflation is still low, but either he is delusional or he has not been to a supermarket lately.

Personally, I do a lot of grocery shopping at a number of different stores, and without a doubt prices are absolutely soaring. Many of the new "sale prices" are exactly what the old "regular prices" were just a few weeks ago.

Some companies have tried to hide these price increases by shrinking package sizes. But there is no hiding the pain on the old wallet once you fill up your cart with what you need to feed your family.

*Over the past year, the global price of food has risen by 37 percent and this has pushed approximately 44 million more people around the world into poverty.

*U.S. consumers will spend approximately $491 billion on gas this year. That is going to be a brand new all-time record.

*Right now, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States is$3.649. That is 94 cents higher than 12 months earlier and it is a brand new record for this time of the year.

A Smaller Share Of The Pie

The size of the "economic pie" in America is shrinking, and the share of the pie for those that are poor is shrinking a lot faster than the share of the pie for those that are wealthy.

*According to the Washington Post, the average yearly income of the bottom 90 percent of all U.S. income earners is now just $31,244.

*When you look at the ratio of employee compensation to GDP, it is now the lowest that is has been in about 50 years.

*At this point, the poorest 50% of all Americans now control just 2.5% of all of the wealth in this country.

*Big corporations are even recognizing the change that is happening to America. Just consider the following example from a recent article in the Huffington Post....

Manufacturers like Procter & Gamble, the household-goods giant responsible for everything from Charmin and Old Spice to Tide, are concentrating their efforts on luxury and bargain items, putting less emphasis on products aimed at the middle class, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Conclusion

America is fundamentally changing. We were a nation that had the largest middle class in the history of the globe, but now we are becoming a nation that is deeply divided between the haves and the have nots.

Perhaps you are still doing fine. But don't think that economic disaster cannot strike you. Every single day, thousands more Americans will lose their jobs or will discover a major health problem. Every single day, thousands more Americans will lose their homes or will be forced to take a pay cut.

If you still have a warm, comfortable home to sleep in, you should be thankful. Poverty is a very sneaky enemy and it can strike at any time. If you are not careful, you might be the next American to end up sleeping in your car or living in a tent city.

It is easy to disregard a couple of statistics, but can you really ignore the vast amount of evidence presented above?

It is undeniable that America is getting poorer. Poverty is spreading and hopelessness and despair are rising. There is a reason why the economy is the number one political issue right now. Millions upon millions of Americans are in deep pain and they want some solutions.

Unfortunately, it appears quite unlikely that either major political party is going to offer any real solutions any time soon. So things are going to keep getting worse and worse and worse.

Should we just keep doing the same things that we have been doing over and over and over and yet keep expecting different results?

What we are doing right now is not working. We are in the midst of a long-term economic decline. Both major political parties have been fundamentally wrong about the economy. It is time to admit that.

If we continue on this path, poverty in America is going to continue to get a lot worse. Millions of families will be torn apart and millions of lives will be destroyed.

America please wake up.

Time is running out.

http://www.zerohedge.com/node/438067

I will add something. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Throwing more money at the problem is only going to exacerbate everything. The latest 'Jobs Bill' is just another sign of a broken and flawed policy subscribed to by both major parties in The United States. You may see a slight 'rise', but it will be temporary. I realize that may not be a popular sentiment around here, but the simple fact is that this is a predictable consequence. The sad thing is that the people who did predict this are called 'crazy', 'nuts' and other pejorative terms by people.

http://mises.org/daily/3788

[Broomstick]

That's another reason the industry is so keen on a "medical home" - it makes it MUCH harder for people to just not mention prior conditions.

[Simon_Jester]

Redleg, I would argue that much of this is a consequence of laissez-faire economics, not something to be cured by it. If insurance prices are through the roof, making it harder to sue for medical malpractice isn't going to solve it for long. If wages in real terms are low and haven't been keeping up with inflation, eliminating the minimum wage or other labor laws will not raise them.

If wages are low, tax cuts will not make them higher for long, either- this involves a rather subtle argument, but I'm happy to expand on it when I have more time if you like.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Redleg, I would argue that much of this is a consequence of laissez-faire economics, not something to be cured by it.

Sorry to disagree with you, but you apparently do not know what the words laissez-faire mean. We have a mixed economy and it is not even remotely like laissez-faire.

If insurance prices are through the roof, making it harder to sue for medical malpractice isn't going to solve it for long. If wages in real terms are low and haven't been keeping up with inflation, eliminating the minimum wage or other labor laws will not raise them.

As I said, its systemic. You can't do just 1 thing and expect the cure. Minimum wage laws are a problem, but so is the fiat currency we are forced to use. The latter, more than the former, is the gaping wound we have to deal with.

If wages are low, tax cuts will not make them higher for long, either- this involves a rather subtle argument, but I'm happy to expand on it when I have more time if you like.

I never said just tax cuts. You have to cut massive amounts of government spending. The interest alone on the debt is set to explode. Just cutting taxes is only half the 'cure' (one that's already been accomplished).

[Simon_Jester]

Redleg, I would argue that much of this is a consequence of laissez-faire economics, not something to be cured by it.

Sorry to disagree with you, but you apparently do not know what the words laissez-faire mean. We have a mixed economy and it is not even remotely like laissez-faire.

Certain sectors are mixed or state-run. Others are laissez-faire. I would argue that it's the failures in relatively laissez-faire sectors (where people are free to do what they please without fear of the government, if nothing else because they can bribe the government to rewrite the rules so as not to inconvenience them) that are bringing about the present crisis.

If insurance prices are through the roof, making it harder to sue for medical malpractice isn't going to solve it for long. If wages in real terms are low and haven't been keeping up with inflation, eliminating the minimum wage or other labor laws will not raise them.

As I said, its systemic. You can't do just 1 thing and expect the cure. Minimum wage laws are a problem, but so is the fiat currency we are forced to use. The latter, more than the former, is the gaping wound we have to deal with.

Fiat currency leads to inflation, but inflation does not lead to impoverishment of the general public- it doesn't alter real wages in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The decline in real wages, or the rise in the costs of things like health insurance and college education in constant dollars, have to be explained by something other than inflation.

What's going on, if not a matter of what amounts to price gouging across the economic board by corporations at the public's expense? The average citizen is getting poorer and poorer as a fraction of GDP, which is an issue even when we calculate wealth in constant inflation-adjusted dollars. That money has to be going somewhere. Why is the blame on the government (which doesn't get to keep the money) instead of on the people who are keeping the money?

If wages are low, tax cuts will not make them higher for long, either- this involves a rather subtle argument, but I'm happy to expand on it when I have more time if you like.

I never said just tax cuts. You have to cut massive amounts of government spending. The interest alone on the debt is set to explode. Just cutting taxes is only half the 'cure' (one that's already been accomplished).

Why would cutting expenditure help? Is this not disregarding the question of what the money is being spent on? If the money is paying ten million people's salaries (a conservative estimate) and you stop spending it, those people are suddenly out of a job. What are they going to do, now that you're no longer engaged in deficit spending?

For that matter, why did tax cuts help? I would argue that tax cuts may have made the decline in American wages worse, not better- that same argument I was talking about earlier.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Certain sectors are mixed or state-run. Others are laissez-faire. I would argue that it's the failures in relatively laissez-faire sectors (where people are free to do what they please without fear of the government, if nothing else because they can bribe the government to rewrite the rules so as not to inconvenience them) that are bringing about the present crisis.

Actually, I cannot think of a single sector that is not affected by government intrusion. I realize you may not consider certain aspects to be intrusion, but they are. My own field (sadly) is private security. Where I live we have State regulations that govern our conduct (and I will end up in the klink for doing crap that donut-munching cops get a free pass for). And yes, bribing the government is a problem. That's essentially what most regulations are: a way for a bigger company to squash a smaller competitor.

Fiat currency leads to inflation, but inflation does not lead to impoverishment of the general public- it doesn't alter real wages in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Sorry, untrue. Wages in a fiat currency system will never be able to keep up with actual inflation (and I'm not talking the drek that the government now counts as inflation). They will simply print more and more money (or in this case, create it on a computer screen) and pass it out to their criminal buddies. Now, let me be clear about something. I am talking about an enforced fiat currency. If you want to be paid in fiat dollars, that's your business. The problem is the bankers have us by the testicles now thanks to government laws.

The decline in real wages, or the rise in the costs of things like health insurance and college education in constant dollars, have to be explained by something other than inflation.

No, I think not. It gets back to government meddling, whether directly or through their owners, the Banksters and big Corporations

What's going on, if not a matter of what amounts to price gouging across the economic board by corporations at the public's expense? The average citizen is getting poorer and poorer as a fraction of GDP, which is an issue even when we calculate wealth in constant inflation-adjusted dollars. That money has to be going somewhere. Why is the blame on the government (which doesn't get to keep the money) instead of on the people who are keeping the money?

Because this very problem is caused by government meddling. I would ask you to peruse the links I might post from time to time simply because I'm not a trained Austrian Economist and I may screw up something. I studied Military History in college.

http://mises.org/daily/2373

Why would cutting expenditure help? Is this not disregarding the question of what the money is being spent on? If the money is paying ten million people's salaries (a conservative estimate) and you stop spending it, those people are suddenly out of a job. What are they going to do, now that you're no longer engaged in deficit spending?

I can only refer you to what is called The Broken Window Fallacy. We have engaged in a massive policy of The Broken Window Fallacy by engaging in the wars that have now raged for 10 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs

For that matter, why did tax cuts help? I would argue that tax cuts may have made the decline in American wages worse, not better- that same argument I was talking about earlier.

But you have to cut spending as well.

[Vendetta]

Because this very problem is caused by government meddling. I would ask you to peruse the links I might post from time to time simply because I'm not a trained Austrian Economist and I may screw up something. I studied Military History in college.

No, to be a "trained" Austrian Economist you should have done creative writing, because praexology is a fancy word for "making shit up".

What you may not realise is that all currency is fiat currency. Even gold is only valuable because we agree that it is. (Also, protip for goldbugs: There is not enough gold left on or in the earth to back the US economy at current market value).