Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, March 12. 2014

The Minimum Wage, Health Care, Cell Phones, and Cable

The point Obama makes here is valid, but begs a larger question, because it impacts his argument in support of a higher minimum wage.


The caller on this program made $36,000 per year, more than double minimum wage (and likely due to multiple household earners).  However, if minimum wage is so low, can people on minimum wage who have cable and a cell phone (and many do) make the same choices?  Minimum wage is providing enough for certain 'luxuries' which, in the grand scheme of things, are really just trade-offs for what we consider important in our lives.  Obama's response indicates even the most leftish of liberals recognize this.


The discussion on minimum wage is much larger, of course.  Most people earning it are not Head of Household, and most live in larger family groups with several earners.  Regarding the president's response, however, we exposed to insight on the man's psyche.  He realizes that managing your life is a series of choices, some better and some worse.  But he's unwilling to allow people to make most of those choices on their own.  It must be on his terms.  His healthcare, his minimum wage, his regulations must all be in place before you or anyone else is allowed to make the necessary choices needed to run your life.


Me? I'd rather have health care than a cell and cable when my finances are strained. But you may not. Right now, Obama's argument to raise minimum wage is that you shouldn't have to make this choice. But we all make choices, Mr. President. It's how an economy works.

Posted by Bulldog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 11:27 | Comments (12) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

But obamaphones are free, and obamacare health insurance is almost free for people making minimum wage. If a big minimum wage increase is needed, it must be because of massive inflation. The purpose of the Federal Reserve used to be to prevent inflation, but congress changed that. Maybe Federal Reserve, congressional and executive government salaries (nonmilitary) should be reduced by the percentage of any proposed minimum wage increase?
#1 jaybird on 2014-03-12 13:53 (Reply)
The poor and downtrodden are much too dumb to know what's good for them, so the Dems will tell them what's good for them.
#2 Sam L. on 2014-03-12 14:49 (Reply)
Thing is, the way the system worked until O-care, if you didn't have money, there were ways to get expensive medical care. A carpenter that I hired for a small job had to have stents put in his heart and was talking to me about it. Said he didn't have insurance. The hospital had him show his tax returns and bills and whatnot and they wrote off the expense.

The folks that get caught are the ones that earn just enough... and those are the folks O-Care hits. The guy that makes $85K a year.. He's not rich, but gets no help from the prior system and gets no subsidy in the new.
#3 Rob on 2014-03-12 15:19 (Reply)
Yup, all true. My father (a doctor) used to tell me to call hospitals and work out payment plans or discuss lowering fees back when I wasn't making much money and got dinged for some work I had done.

It works. In fact, it works in many different ways. Not only did I get the hospital to lower my fees, I worked out a payment plan for the remainder.

Another way it works is when I tore my ACL and went to my father's hospital for the work rather than staying here in NYC. The insurance company considered the region he was in to be 'depressed' and paid out a pittance to the doctor who did the work on me. I called the insurance company, told them if I'd gone to NYC they'd have paid X, as opposed to Y, which it cost in the city where the work was done. Insurance company sent the full NYC payment to the doctor who did the work.

That's how life works. If you take the time to do the legwork, you can get what you need.
#3.1 Bulldog on 2014-03-12 16:55 (Reply)
Although I'm not sure what you mean by those are the folks O-care hits? That it hurts them or 'helps' them?
It may 'help' some people. That's a given. But at what expense to everybody else?
#3.2 Bulldog on 2014-03-12 16:57 (Reply)
Only in ObamaWorld does anything he say make sense. He has to be the stupidest person alive. And he's our leader. Putin is looking like a genius.
#4 jma on 2014-03-12 17:59 (Reply)
Our County property tax includes a levy for the local hospital system for "indigents". Since medicaid covers what we used to call indigents, I would assume that the hospital could use the funds to cover care provided to the working poor.
#5 fiona on 2014-03-12 21:51 (Reply)
"I'd rather have health care than a cell and cable when my finances are strained. "

But it's not health care your'e getting with
Ofsckupcare, it's access - and you still get to pay. And you didn't need Ofumblecare for access - you only needed insurance against catastrophic care costs.

And Odingbatcare gives you access - at high rates, to few providers, at extremely high deductible rates, with coverage you do not need.

So I'd rather have internet and a phone, and pay for health CARE when I need it, not paying for access, and coverage I will never need (maternity for single males - GMAB).

So FOAD, Obamacare and all supporters.
#6 Bill Johnson on 2014-03-12 21:51 (Reply)
I didn't say I wanted OBAMACARE. I said I'd make the choice for healthcare. Real insurance.

I can get by without cable and a cell. I can't get by if I get injured and have no insurance.

But that's my choice.

My point, of course, is something other than Obamacare, it's that Obama RECOGNIZES that choices MUST be made all the time.
On the other hand, he'd rather rig the system so some people don't have to make that choice (and they thank him for this) while another class can't make this choice, but rely on him for their welfare. Either way, he wins a whole chock full of votes.

I agree with you on all counts regarding Obamacare. I'm talking big picture, not the details.
#6.1 Bulldog on 2014-03-12 22:24 (Reply)
Our local hospital has periodically levied mandatory surcharges of 25-30% on the insured "for the uninsured" that our insurance doesn't cover. I remember when my husband was between jobs and we were eating into savings to pay for insurance, this REALLY bugged us. I made a huge stink and refused to pay, they threatened us with bill collectors until I asked if they wanted a news story about unemployed Americans being mugged to pay for the free care of illegals. We paid what we legitimately owed. However, now that I get insurance with a high deductible and lots of copays thru my work (average out of pocket costs in a good year approx $15-20 K for the family for me), what I notice happening is that my insurance gets charged $2000 when I go to the ER for say my finger getting cut by exhausted-mommy-being-careless-preparing-dinner-after=work. After waiting 4 hours while the feckless I won't say whos bring in their kids for coughs and sniffles ahead of me get treated (NOT an Emergency, and their cars are newer than mine, so they could obviously afford a pediatrician with their under the table jobs with no taxes) I am cranky. In the end, I get charged $500 of this overcharge. Regular MDs and the Doc in the Box won't do stitches or check routine injuries (liability around here) so you are forced to the ER, but the ER overcharges the insured to cover the moochers.

What the chattering classes on NPR miss is that the reason certain people don't want to sign up for Obamacare (I am NOT talking about those who object on principle) is why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. Certain people in our society are already getting free medical care. It's only native born middle class Americans who have to go bare, and who face destitution if they get sick without insurance. By the way, the hospitals in my area are VICIOUS about going after anyone who has any property, and are only merciful to the immigrants and the literally destitute. If you are middle class and have a house, they will go after that if you get sick and need care.

I'm not for Obamacare. One of the points never fleshed out, for example, is what is going to happen to all the people who don't sign up. Will ERs still be forced to treat the uninsured? If so, certain groups will continue NOT to buy insurance who currently make a gamble.

I served as a hospital chaplain in youth, and most of my patients were paralyzed and/or brain damaged formerly healthy young males with "no risk factors" except being daredevils. Some form of catastrophe insurance is "a good thing" for everyone, no matter how healthy. No matter how poor I've been, I've always bought it for my family.
#7 retriever on 2014-03-13 07:06 (Reply)
Even Libertarians recognize the capricious nature of catastrophic injury. Every Libertarian I know is willing to engage some kind of voluntary 'shared risk' for the uninsured, mainly for catastrophic care, just not through the government.

Your points are all valid, however. But even in making it, you then run into the liberal morons, such as the Daily Show, which recently attacked views like yours by doing a supposedly 'funny' account on how the poor may get free care, but 'it's not as good' or 'its' delayed'.

It's the nature of the liberal left to ratchet up expectations.

The minimum wage is a classic example. You can live better, today, on minimum wage than you could in 1972 (for some reason the benchmark year liberals use). You can buy more food, shelter and clothes on a comparable hours worked basis (Cafe Hayek has broken this down extensively).

But to the liberals that isn't the discussion point. It's cellphones, cable, flat screens, cars, and a host of other 'stuff' the average US citizen has that the poor have to 'skimp' on.

Obama has said, during is minimum wage discussion, that they shouldn't HAVE to choose between the things he suggested in the discussion posted. But he KNOWS it's essential. He's just too much of a coward, a thief, and a liar to outright admit it.
#7.1 Bulldog on 2014-03-13 07:56 (Reply)
Regarding the free health care for illegal aliens, I do not understand why the U.S. government does not at the least: 1. Bill the government of the country of origin for the health care for their citizens and 2. Use this information to imediately find and deport the illegals. You cannot get treated in a hospital today without showing ID and insurance info if yu have it (unless of course you are unconsious). These two simple steps seem to be no brainers. Most people who have traveled to Mexico have been offerred insurance to cover health care while in Mexico because if you don't have it or the cash to pay for it you won't get it. And there have been well known cases where the injured American had to get the American consulate to authorize medical care un the promise that our government would pay for it. This is true for most countries in the world. If you get sick overseas you won't get "free" health care.
#8 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-03-13 10:32 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.