Man Uses $1m Win To Finally Visit Doctor, Gets Terminal Cancer Diagnosis, Dies

[vulcanlogician]

Sure. If we're talking about helping a part of the population, then children of poor parents, the elderly, and the disabled should get help.

Beyond financial criteria, I'd also say that people who take reasonable care of their health yet develop a serious problem deserve help more than people who engage in activities known to put their health at risk.

Alternatively, we could go to a single-payer system, which I've said that I don't oppose. But, Dems are no more eager to go their than Repubs. Dems just pay lip service to it. Well, some. Some don't even bother.

Research by Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, shows that “being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things and feeling stressed.”

His study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure.

Well it's good to hear you would endorse a single-payer solution. I didn't think you had it in you. Kudos!

As to your study, there are a lot of things that Kahneman might not have factored in. I noticed he said "passive" leisure... that may be a key word.

When you work hard every day in a factory or warehouse setting to make a profit for someone else (which I have done), it's a lot different than having business lunches and meetings from dawn to dusk in order to make more money for yourself (which I have also done). People in executive positions are often given better vacation packages so they can go to Italy and Greece for a couple weeks and unwind. People who work "in the trenches" are often disregarded as replaceable, and aren't offered such vacation packages so that they can "recharge their batteries" so to speak.

All I'm saying is, it's not such a simple issue as "wealthier people work harder." They often are treated like more than a machine to their employers. And on a large scale, the difference in treatment begins to show.

[John V]

Well it's good to hear you would endorse a single-payer solution. I didn't think you had it in you. Kudos!

I'm just slightly right of middle on most issues. The lefties here just project a far-right bogeyman caricature onto anyone right of HRC.

As to your study, there are a lot of things that Kahneman might not have factored in. I noticed he said "passive" leisure... that may be a key word.

Maybe. Still, other things being equal, paychecks tend to rise with hours worked.

When you work hard every day in a factory or warehouse setting to make a profit for someone else (which I have done), it's a lot different than having business lunches and meetings from dawn to dusk in order to make more money for yourself (which I have also done). People in executive positions are often given better vacation packages so they can go to Italy and Greece for a couple weeks and unwind. People who work "in the trenches" are often disregarded as replaceable, and aren't offered such vacation packages so that they can "recharge their batteries" so to speak.

All I'm saying is, it's not such a simple issue as "wealthier people work harder." They often are treated like more than a machine to their employers. And on a large scale, the difference in treatment begins to show.

Aside from old money, people who are treated as more than a machine by their employers worked hard to get to that point. People treated as replaceable are generally...replaceable.

[GrandizerII]

Sure. If we're talking about helping a part of the population, then children of poor parents, the elderly, and the disabled should get help.

Beyond financial criteria, I'd also say that people who take reasonable care of their health yet develop a serious problem deserve help more than people who engage in activities known to put their health at risk.

Alternatively, we could go to a single-payer system, which I've said that I don't oppose. But, Dems are no more eager to go their than Repubs. Dems just pay lip service to it. Well, some. Some don't even bother.

Well it's good to hear you would endorse a single-payer solution. I didn't think you had it in you. Kudos!

As to your study, there are a lot of things that Kahneman might not have factored in. I noticed he said "passive" leisure... that may be a key word.

When you work hard every day in a factory or warehouse setting to make a profit for someone else (which I have done), it's a lot different than having business lunches and meetings from dawn to dusk in order to make more money for yourself (which I have also done). People in executive positions are often given better vacation packages so they can go to Italy and Greece for a couple weeks and unwind. People who work "in the trenches" are often disregarded as replaceable, and aren't offered such vacation packages so that they can "recharge their batteries" so to speak.

All I'm saying is, it's not such a simple issue as "wealthier people work harder." They often are treated like more than a machine to their employers. And on a large scale, the difference in treatment begins to show.

In addition, and this is my experience only, but I think it can be fairly generalized:

As someone who works both part-time white-collar (automated testing for a bank) and casual blue-collar (cleaning schools) jobs, it's pretty obvious that cleaning is more demanding than just sitting on a chair and doing some relatively relaxing and easy stuff on the computer, and yet I get paid slightly more by the hour for the automated testing than I do for the cleaning job, and we get several breaks (totaling two hours) during the work day with the former. With cleaning, maybe 15 minutes max break (for 4-hour shift) and 30 minutes max (for 8-hour shift), if you're fast enough to finish the job on time.

Keep in mind this is Australia, so it's def worse for cleaners in US. Here, they do treat cleaners fairly well (leaves for full-time workers and all), if you know which organizations to go apply with.

[LadyForCamus]

In your mind, Alpha, who does deserve help?   Anyone?

Sure. If we're talking about helping a part of the population, then children of poor parents, the elderly, and the disabled should get help.

I agree.

Beyond financial criteria, I'd also say that people who take reasonable care of their health yet develop a serious problem deserve help more than people who engage in activities known to put their health at risk.

How would you propose establishing and regulating those determinations?  Have you ever had an alcoholic drink in your life?  Have you ever eaten bacon, or BBQ chicken?  Do you meet or exceed the minimum recommendations for daily physical activity?  Do you keep track of your vitamin and mineral intake and compare them against the national recommendations for good health?  What’s your waist circumference?  Have you ever drank out of a plastic bottle that contains BPA?  If you have, then maybe you don’t deserve help with healthcare.

Furthermore, if someone developes a serious illness, like cancer, how do you suggest healthcare providers determine beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the cancer was due to modifiable lifestyle factors rather than non-modifiable ones?  

Do you really believe that every single person who works hard will be financially comfortable and have quality, affordable healthcare?

Nope.

Me neither.

I was speaking from my own experience, in which the people at the top have always been the hardest working. Also I didn't think it was controversial to think that, other factors being equal, a person working 60 hours a week will have more money than a person working 30 hours but I guess that math is beyond you guys. Here's some support:
https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/30/...an-others/

Research by Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, shows that “being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things and feeling stressed.”

His study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?  I didn’t say, “more”, I said, “harder”.  There is a huge distinction to be made there.  I’ll use my husband as an example, not as evidence, but to better illustrate my point.  My husband works for himself.  He’s recently had a dip in business.  A client, who accounted for $600 of our monthly income passed away unexpectedly, and someone else moved out of town.  My husband has been working tirelessly, almost around the clock, staying up until 3:00AM, trying to generate some business to make up for that lost income.  But, the fact is, that hard work does not guarantee him anything.  Hard work does not necessarily lead to more money.

[vulcanlogician]

I'm just slightly right of middle on most issues. The lefties here just project a far-right bogeyman caricature onto anyone right of HRC.

I have mostly talked religion here w/ you. The only taste of your politics I've gotten is your "Conservatives are better looking" or "Wal-Mart pays more because of tax cuts" threads, so (in my case at least) you projected that boogey man on yourself.

But anyway, you've clarified your position as a right-leaning centrist, so now I know.

Aside from old money, people who are treated as more than a machine by their employers worked hard to get to that point. People treated as replaceable are generally...replaceable.

The problem is that a lot of hard working people are treated as replaceable, and so many conservatives like to gloss over this point. They like to paint people who make low income as "a bunch of bums" when that is a gross mischaracterization.

The heart of the issue is this: the person stocking shelves at your local Wal-Mart is replaceable--it doesn't matter if he's hard-working or not. But without somebody doing that job, nobody could go to Wal-Mart and buy shit. People like to tout the value of job creators, but forget the fact that job creators wouldn't be able to do jack without an army of job doers. Regardless of how expendable the market regards such people, the working class offers something valuable to society, and we couldn't live without them.

[Amarok]

Wow pushing the long rejected Poverty Culture  theory

[Shell B]

If he's slightly right, the Leaning Tower of Pisa stands straight up and the Earth doesn't have a tilted axis. I find far-left liberals as repulsive as far-right conservatives and I've definitely found myself repulsed by some of beta's statements, so I don't believe his slight-right assessment of his political views for one second, the solitary instance of single-payer healthcare being the only example to suggest otherwise.

Sorry, beta. You're very much the bible-thumping far-right bogeyman unless you've exaggerated your beliefs here.

[Amarok]

I'm just slightly right of middle on most issues. The lefties here just project a far-right bogeyman caricature onto anyone right of HRC.

I have mostly talked religion here w/ you. The only taste of your politics I've gotten is your "Conservatives are better looking" or "Wal-Mart pays more because of tax cuts" threads, so (in my case at least) you projected that boogey man on yourself.

But anyway, you've clarified your position as a right-leaning centrist, so now I know.

Aside from old money, people who are treated as more than a machine by their employers worked hard to get to that point. People treated as replaceable are generally...replaceable.

The problem is that a lot of hard working people are treated as replaceable, and so many conservatives like to gloss over this point. They like to paint people who make low income as "a bunch of bums" when that is a gross mischaracterization.

The heart of the issue is this: the person stocking shelves at your local Wal-Mart is replaceable--it doesn't matter if he's hard-working or not. But without somebody doing that job, nobody could go to Wal-Mart and buy shit. People like to tout the value of job creators, but forget the fact that job creators wouldn't be able to do jack without an army of job doers. Regardless of how expendable the market regards such people, the working class offers something valuable to society, and we couldn't live without them.

Yup i'll say it once i'll say it a million times the economy is in reality bottom up . The lower half drives it.

---

Oh and beta be center right .Fuck off with that nonsense .

[John V]

How would you propose establishing and regulating those determinations?  Have you ever had an alcoholic drink in your life?  Have you ever eaten bacon, or BBQ chicken?  Do you meet or exceed the minimum recommendations for daily physical activity?  Do you keep track of your vitamin and mineral intake and compare them against the national recommendations for good health?  What’s your waist circumference?  Have you ever drank out of a plastic bottle that contains BPA?  If you have, then maybe you don’t deserve help with healthcare.

I'm not asking for help. I have insurance through my job. Regarding such a proposal - yes, it would be difficult and could only be done in general terms. Charge if you test positive for tobacco and other drugs. Charge if you're overweight without a diagnosed medical condition that puts weight management beyond your control. If there are tests that can accurately show exercise levels, that would be huge. You'd get tested when going to a doctor for whatever reason. It will never happen, as our politicians are fat drunk fucks themselves.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

No. This is a discussion forum and I'm speaking in very general terms. For instance, working smarter - choosing the correct skill sets to develop - is also a big factor, but I'm just lumping it all into one term.

I didn’t say, “more”, I said, “harder”.  There is a huge distinction to be made there.  I’ll use my husband as an example, not as evidence, but to better illustrate my point.  My husband works for himself.  He’s recently had a dip in business.  A client, who accounted for $600 of our monthly income passed away unexpectedly, and someone else moved out of town.  My husband has been working tirelessly, almost around the clock, staying up until 3:00AM, trying to generate some business to make up for that lost income.  But, the fact is, that hard work does not guarantee him anything.  Hard work does not necessarily lead to more money.

Yes, there are anecdotal exceptions to the rule, and there are no guarantees. And?

[CapnAwesome]

Here's an article from a more liberal source:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc...ca/499826/

Elite men in the U.S. are the world’s chief workaholics. They work longer hours than poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in other advanced countries. In the last generation, they have reduced their leisure time by more than any other demographic. As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”

I'm not elite, but I do OK. I worked 71 hours last week. I do that for about 13 weeks each year (tax season), and work the standard 40 for the rest of the year (although we do get good holidays and vacation in the off season). Unlike the elites, I don't enjoy doing it. It's just the price of a decent standard of living.

Why would anyone brag about how much they worked to make someone else rich?? We as Americans work some of the longest hours in the world. The rest of the world gets by without working so much. Last week I worked 20 hours and saved money, now I'm not going to work for a good 3-6 months.

What is it that they say about people and their death beds?