![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFrom Clickorlando.com 6/1/10:
Job hunters are facing a new hurdle: businesses asking recruitment companies to keep unemployed people out of their job pools.
Video here.
Yes, you read that right. Some businesses are now placing job ads that exclude all those icky unemployed people. A trend I first mentioned back in July of last year is continuing and, according to this story, growing.
So, many of the unemployed face, not only the cutting off of their unemployment benefits, not only potential employers holding bad credit ratings, (often a byproduct of not having a job) against them, they now are increasingly being barred by potential employers from applying for job openings -- because they are unemployed.
Apparently in today’s society, more and more, once you’re out, you’re out.
Think of the weapon this hands employers. The saying, so beloved of free market types, “If you don’t like the job, quit and find another one,” is becoming not just a platitude, but a mocking sneer. Quitting is no longer an option, being fired, or laid off, no longer a relatively minor blip in someone’s working life.
If this trend continues, unemployment itself could become a catastrophe that knocks someone permanently out of full time work.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/10 11:33 (UTC)If you mean consulting, a great many do that. Unfortunately, it often means going without health insurance and watching your savings slowly dwindle, especially if you have family members to support.
MD: accept employment at a lower level job (or even better, jobs) to make ends meet until they find something better.
That's what many, many people are doing. Working two or more jobs. And many of those people are STILL having to go to food banks at the end of the month.
MD: start asking for charity
They are. See above. Those charities are swamped and cannot help everyone who comes to them.
md: learn that kudzu is edible, move to the rural south, and never know hunger again - maybe malnutrition, but certainly not hunger.
If the above is a joke, it's not a very funny one.
Do you know what malnutrition does to people? Especially to children?
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/10 13:58 (UTC)and yet, I am consulting now and have health insurance (which I buy myself not through any work plan) and am saving money. It can be done.
" And many of those people are STILL having to go to food banks at the end of the month."
Then they racked up too much debt or are still trying to live beyond their means... I've made it on minimum wage before... it sucks but you can do it.
"If the above is a joke, it's not a very funny one. "
it is, but only partially. You CAN live off the land (people did it during the great depression)... AND multivitamins are not very expensive if you get your food for free (getting all the protein you need is harder from pills, but then, the I'm all for thinning out the squirrel population).
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/10 19:32 (UTC)Not easily, and not without considerable risk. If you're also supporting a family and dealing with serious health issues, it can be next to impossible.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/10 00:47 (UTC)um... ridiculously easy for me (hell, when I priced it, I could get catastrophic insurance for <$50/month. That's about what a tank of gas costs me). AND what risk? Less than the risk of having health care through work where it can disappear if I get fired (yeah, there's cobra, but that's a horrible deal and it's not forever).
"dealing with serious health issues"
No matter what system you use, someone will not get the health care they want. Ultimately it all boils down to who will die because they don't get that care and who chooses. You pointing out the corner case where someone dies is no more meaningful than me pointing to the fact that NICE (UK health care) has hard limits on how much they will pay (no more than X amount of money for Y probable months of extended life).
So the question becomes how do we decide who gets what health care. It's a complicated problem because if you plow too many resources into health care you negatively impact the quality of life (and I would rather have a good life and take some risks than have great healthcare and a horrible life). My answer is simple: I can't decide for anyone but myself and the same applies to everyone else. I'm curious what your answer is, and why you think your answer is correct.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/10 21:23 (UTC)You're working as a consultant and effortlessly supporting your children, along with someone in your family who has serious health issues?
Md: (hell, when I priced it, I could get catastrophic insurance for <$50/month.
And what does this catastrophic insurance cover?
MD: AND what risk? Less than the risk of having health care through work where it can disappear if I get fired .
I'll reserve judgement on what risk you (and your spouse and kids and perhaps that elderly parent with increasingly demanding healthcare needs) are running until I learn what that el-cheapo catastrophic insurance you've bought covers.
md: No matter what system you use, someone will not get the health care they want.
And yet other societies manage to minimize the instances of people having to go without healthcare much better than we do
Your rationale here is similar to saying that since all disease can't be cured, we should just eliminate doctors and medicine.
md: Ultimately it all boils down to who will die because they don't get that care and who chooses.
Most other western industrialized societies manage to do that kind of triage in a humane manner that maximizes life expectancy.
md: So the question becomes how do we decide who gets what health care. It's a complicated problem because if you plow too many resources into health care you negatively impact the quality of life (and I would rather have a good life and take some risks than have great healthcare and a horrible life). My answer is simple: I can't decide for anyone but myself and the same applies to everyone else. I'm curious what your answer is, and why you think your answer is correct.
I think that the decision about who gets what healthcare should not be based on how much money the patient can shell out, but on basic humanity and the likelihood of a good outcome. Other western industrialized societies, like Canada and France, maintain quite a nice standard of living and also manage to make healthcare available to a larger number of their citizens (which is why their life expectancy is longer than ours.) Being poor there is less likely to amount to a death sentence, or to permanent disability.
Why do I believe this? Because I believe part of the social contract in any stable society involves caring even for the poor and the destitute. Societies in which the poor have little hope, and little stake, tend to be dangerous societies for everyone. Because I believe it is in the long run less wasteful to offer medical care even to those who can't afford it. Otherwise, you have unnecessary deaths, and unnecessary disabilities.
What do you think should happen, in a free market society, to the diabetic who cannot afford to pay for insulin? To the victim of a head injury who cannot afford to pay for the rehabilitation that will enable him to return to normal and support his family? To the child with cancer whose parents cannot afford to pay for his treatment?
(no subject)
Date: 7/6/10 14:00 (UTC)no children, but I could afford it (I choose no at the moment). However, I am supporting a family member with serious health issues, helping some friends out who are currently in need, donating massive amounts of money to charity, etc. so... I'd say yes. (hell, I know consultants that get over $500/hr - I'm not one of them, but consultants can make boat loads of money).
"And what does this catastrophic insurance cover?"
everything but child delivery (with no complications) but it had a large deductible. BUT it would certainly keep you from going bankrupt with >$100k medical debt.
"I'll reserve judgement on what risk you (and your spouse and kids and perhaps that elderly parent with increasingly demanding healthcare needs) are running until I learn what that el-cheapo catastrophic insurance you've bought covers. "
I didn't buy the catastrophic health care - I choose better because I wanted a lower deductible. I could have survived on the cheaper... but the cost delta wasn't great so...
"And yet other societies manage to minimize the instances of people having to go without healthcare much better than we do"
so people claim... but I've yet to see a meaningful study that shows it. Oh sure you can point to the WHO/UN study - but 20% of your score comes from how 'universal' your health care is (which is a begging the question logical fallacy). You could point to life expectancies but that's a terrible measure as MANY things influence it that are not part of medical care (US has more murders and more traffic accidents). AND the US has the best survival rates for cancer and many major illnesses (far better than Europe, canada, etc...) AND that includes the poor.
"I think that the decision about who gets what healthcare should not be based on how much money the patient can shell out, but on basic humanity and the likelihood of a good outcome. "
it will ultimately be based on money no matter where you are (look at NICE in the UK) because there isn't enough to give every one the health care they need... so...
"which is why their life expectancy is longer than ours."
as said before - fewer traffic accidents and murders that kill disproportionately younger people and lower the life expectancy. University of Ohio (if memory serves correctly - I can dig up the study if you want) had a study that corrected for these and showed the US has a higher life expectancy when you account for these...