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

[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.

He will just insist that the shelf stocker didn't work hard enough or he did something wrong thus deserves to be poor a miserable .

[John V]

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.

Fair enough. You haven't been here long. Over the years, people have posted links to quizzes that assess your politics. Lots of people here end up far left. I end up just right of center. I have a pretty strong libertarian streak.

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.

I'd have to disagree from my personal experience. When I've had bottom-rung jobs, most of my coworkers were pretty lazy. They generally worked just hard enough to not get fired. A number of them stole from the business if they could.

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.

Yes, the bottom-rung people are replaceable, so it's no surprise that they're treated as such. That's why the guy stocking shelves at Wal-Mart should ask about how he should advance to the next level, then the next, until he's not so easily replaceable.

Hell, my 19 year old daughter has authority over people twice her age who have been there longer than she has. It's not luck. It's not a lottery. She works hard and has a good attitude.

---

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?

We've been through this before. I have no issues with your lifestyle. Don't know why you judge mine. I support a wife and three children, and I like vacations and nice phones and such. That means I have to work more than you. I'm neither complaining nor bragging about it. It's just how life works. You can't have it all.

[CapnAwesome]

LI'm going to Europe for 3 months on Thursday. I like vacation too, and I have a smart phone, but it's pay as you go and I'm giving it up while I'm in europe. How many hours of your life is a smartphone plan worth? If someone was given the choice to shorten their life by a year for their phone plan, nobody would do it, but that's about the amount of work that people will do in a lifetime to pay for a phone plan.

I understand working to support a family. That makes sense. But working 70 hours to have an iPhone and a payment plan (the propaghanda term for debt) on a brand new big, useless truck makes no sense. That's the little traps that cause people to get stuck working so much, meanwhile other people are the ones who really are getting rich off your labor.

The whole "I work 70 hours a week" sounded like bragging. It's hard to tell through text. I'd think the more valuable lesson for your children is to spend time with them and teach them what Jesus did, to eschew personal possessions and reject materialism. Seems like that center part of the new testament gets swallowed up by capitalism though.

I don't mean to sound judgemental, just reacting to the 70 hours a week thing from a point of trying to understand why people would be proud of that, or think they need to do it, when there is a better way.

---

A skilled worker doing a 30-hour workweek will very often make more than say a laborer doing 60. There are innumerable good reasons why a person is a laborer and can’t work their way up, so don’t bother with the “if he just gets a better job” schtick.

That's true. But many skilled workers have to sign contracts and work 40 hour work weeks at a minimum anyway, so who cares. You are just buying shinier crap.

[John V]

I understand working to support a family.

I don't think you really do.

The whole "I work 70 hours a week" sounded like bragging. It's hard to tell through text. I'd think the more valuable lesson for your children is to spend time with them and teach them what Jesus did, to eschew personal possessions and reject materialism. Seems like that center part of the new testament gets swallowed up by capitalism though.

Jesus may have eschewed materialism, but not work. God set a 6-day work week, and Jesus said “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” (John 5:17. I believe there will still be work in heaven, but more fruitful work.

I don't mean to sound judgemental,  just reacting to the 70 hours a week thing from a point of trying to understand why people would be proud of that, or think they need to do it, when there is a better way.

When you say that your way is better, rather than different, you sound judgmental, because you're making a judgment.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

I understand that.  I’m asking you to think hypothetically for one second, since you’re so quick to toss people away like garbage for their poor lifestyle choices.  Would you be okay if your insurance company took that same approach to what they’re willing to cover you for?  

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.

So, you’d rather just penalize them? Is that the humane thing to do? Or is that just what would give you a nice, vindictive sense of satisfaction?

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?

The problem is, you have yet to demonstrate this asserted “rule” that people who work harder are necessarily more financially secure.

[John V]

I understand that.  I’m asking you to think hypothetically for one second, since you’re so quick to toss people away like garbage for their poor lifestyle choices.  Would you be okay if your insurance company took that same approach to what they’re willing to cover you for?  

No, and neither would my boss. He'd change insurance.

I've seen this many times before around, here, but this thread is amazing me in showing how some of oyu just feel like you have no control over your lives, and that everything comes down to luck or government policy.

So, you’d rather just penalize them?

No, Id rather that they put down the cigarette or donut and go to the gym. Wouldn't you? Wasn't the point of the penalties in Obamacare that people buy insurance rather than be penalized?

The problem is, you have yet to demonstrate this asserted “rule” that people who work harder are necessarily more  financially secure.

It's a general rule. It obviously doesn't apply in every single instance. I thought that was obvious but if not - there you go.

[Shell B]

An astounding amount of medical problems do come down to "luck," or more accurately genetics, environment, etc. A lot of things you have no control over. Since we're talking about medical problems and not "everything," your assessment that people here think everything comes down to luck and policy is unfounded.

I've never had a medical problem caused by something I did. Injuries, sure, but they were legitimate accidents (cutting part of my finger off with a chef knife while a dumb fry cook was in my face talking, throwing out my back, etc.).

[Amarok]

The problem is, you have yet to demonstrate this asserted “rule” that people who work harder are necessarily more  financially secure.

And he never will . He as he has will just a assert it's a general rule without demonstrating a rule period,

[Shell B]

It's a general rule. It obviously doesn't apply in every single instance. I thought that was obvious but if not - there you go.

It's not a rule at all. The people who work the hardest are most often the people who make the least amount of money. You think that most people who make less than you don't work as hard as you do? That's hilarious.

[Amarok]

And essentially Beta pushing social eugenics.