As a native Floridian, still living in Florida, I am over the state of the state.
The elderly have routinely voted against their best interests. I have moved on from social security, medicare and plan on not having any government support by the time I retire.
We cannot vote to fix our insurance costs, adapt to climate change, or provide any form of transit other than your own car.
They even voted the guy who's company commited medicare fraud into governorship, and then into congress. You cannot even make this shit up.
That's why this Trump 2.0 is not at all bothering me. I mean, I'm sorry to see the loss of America's unrealized potential, being a great theoretical govt framework, the best in the world, looks to me.
But when it gets really shitty, it'll be shitty for all of us, but I'm not going to deserve it because I haven't been living with my head up my arse. The fools here have voted for a lying, cheating, raping bastard who is obviously beholden to foreign interests.
So, when the Trumpers get to suffering, I ain't gonna have one iota of pity for them. They're going to learn how it feels when no one cares about them, those dumb fucks.
And, know that I don't want them to be miserable, but I'm gonna let them reap what they've sown, and make sure they know that they deserve it.
Maybe some of them will actually WAKE UP.
You should all embrace compassion for one and all before shit gets messy.
I don't see any hate in it, it seemed like a post talking about sympathy for hateful people. They even said they didn't want the hateful people to be miserable. That's really nice.
I love how the ignorant go out of their way to prove their ignorance. Their words are worth less than the fleeting vibrations they emit into the ether.
All that matters in this world is our compassionate service to humanity. Our happiness, peace and contentment are completely correlated to it.
Justice is in the fabric of this universe, though most people are too ignorant and selfish to realize the truth all around them.
The truth is hidden behind the door of compassion, which we all have the choice to walk through or avoid entirely. Choose your destiny well, for you will reap what you sow.
If one wants to read flowery story arcs like some sort of renfaire fourth-wall instant karma narrator on a sitcom, then perhaps try Trump 2.0 as punishment Biden and the DNC deserves.
> try Trump 2.0 as punishment Biden and the DNC deserves.
It’s a shame you are being downvoted for this comment because it’s spot on.
Trump v.1 was an indictment on the DNC for running HRC who was a dreadful candidate.
Let’s face it, in 2020 Biden was an over the hill terrible candidate who every other time he ran for president was considered a joke. Biden’s only benefit was that he was “not Trump” during a pandemic. If no pandemic Trump would have won 2020 easily.
DNC repeats their mistakes in 2024, with their two dreadful candidates. 1) The obviously diminished Biden which became apparent that the democrats were intentionally hiding his decline. Then 2) Harris, who was so unpopular within her own party that she had to drop her run before the first primary votes for 2020.
I long for one decent presidential candidate from the democrats. I’d love to be able to vote again after 3 presidential cycles where I could not.
I hate to say it this way but Fox News is 100% the reason for this. They’ve realized some formula for engaging elderly people in an addictive way.
I have an elderly neighbor family friend whose husband watches nothing but Fox News all day every day. It’s a very strange reality to visit. Every so she will ask me some reality check like whispering to me “do you really think we need to be this worried about the communists?”. All I am able to do is reassure her that liberals are generally good people and have a sense of morality and virtue that would rival that of any “Christian right wing” person. I tell her the world is filled with good people and what she sees just isn’t a true reality.
Name a blue state that has voted in to congres the person responsible for the biggest Medicare fraud in history. Name a blue state that routinely bans books like Florida. Name a blue state that is regularly devastated by the increasing effects of climate change and elects people who deny it. Name a blue state that has a government so fragile and detached from reality they had to fire the person who was responsible for releasing covid statistics. No, this is not a full endorsement for everything the democratic party has ever done and no, this is not saying blue states don't have problems. I'm just so tired of this "both sides" nonsense.
They won't because they can't. That they're making such absurd arguments is that they refuse to admit they've been and are wrong about the direction this world needs to take.
Only the cruel vote for a cruel bastard, only the racists vote for Nazi-adjacent racists, and only wannabe dictators vote for obvious fascists.
Anyone who tries to both-sides this is a willfully ignorant fool. They have eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, and hearts that do not understand.
That's the nature of the cruel, compassionless fools of this world. They are asleep at the wheel of life. And they must embrace compassion to wake themselves up. We cannot do it for them, but their free will lets them be as stupid and cruel as they choose, but we ALL reap what we sow, for good or ill.
> Only the cruel vote for a cruel bastard, only the racists vote for Nazi-adjacent racists, and only wannabe dictators vote for obvious fascists.
That's true for much of Trump's base, but it's not especially true for the marginal Trump voter.
> willfully ignorant fool
That's what they are.
We've been celebrating ignorance for a long time now. But this isn't like Xkcd's "lucky 10,000". This willful choice to embrace ignorance has deadly consequences.
Americans have a civic duty to vote, and they have a civic duty to be informed when they vote. This isn't like a local election where information is hard to find. Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
"Willfully ignorant fool" should be an insult as strong as "Fascist".
Florida had public transit before the 1950s. All those Northerners that came down for the winter during the 1920s land boom traveled on train. It isn't like they bought a car just for their visit. For example, Coral Gables, next to Miami, had an electric trolley system.
My aunt used busses to get around the Tampa area back in the 1960s, when Florida transit was segregated.
There's a bunch of rails-to-trails routes because many places used to have train service. Take Perry, for example. It's only a few thousand people but it's over 100 years old (with an infamous massacre of blacks in the 1920s), and you can see the old stationhouse at https://maps.app.goo.gl/NJK8B6mjJpEXRrdK6 right next to the tracks, a few blocks from the town center. (If you visit, Johnson's Bakery has some of the best donuts I've tasted, though they've changed ownership since I was last there.)
So no, Florida is not too big for Public Transit.
That there is too much sprawl is a rather different topic. A Florida developed around mass transit instead of personal car ownership would look very different even if it had the same population and area.
“Florida is too big for public transit” is entirely circular reasoning.
Things are so spread out because of dependence on private transit.
The more densely (and public-system connected) we can make our cities, the more divine Ocala National Forest-like experiences we can access and preserve for our children.
DNR. Make sure you hang that around your neck or they will resurrect you from a stroke or other event as an invalid requiring 24/7 care in one of these facilities. Draining your wealth to keep you "alive."
The monetary cost stings, but the calculus they are talking about really is about quality of life / expectancy. You are a relatively healthy 85 year old but you are still an octogenarian, you get a gnarly stroke.
Do you want to?
A: Get resuscitated and get "lucky". You are completely dependent on 24/7 care draining little Timmy's college fund or worse putting your adult kids in to debt. If a family member takes cares of you personally you will mentally break them. Also you cannot do anything fulfilling ever again.
B: Get resuscitated, die after 3 weeks with broken ribs. Yay morphine.
C: Get resuscitated and "just" get a little brain damage, maybe you become asshole or forget someone. Also, broken ribs and will probably happen again.
D: Quit while you are ahead.
So yeah, I'll get a DNR when a broken hip becomes inevitable.
You support your disabled son/daughter and have set up a trust to make sure their house is maintained in perpetuity. You get resurrected and end up in long term care. Not dead, so the part of the trust that kicks in is the lawyer selling/using assets to pay your bills that flow in after you or your medical POA fuck up the Medicare situation accidentally. You live for years and your son/daughter get booted out of the house you paid off and had meant for them.
One little slip up and ALL your money is gone while you drool helplessly in hell.
The goal is for major industries to stop paying taxes, loot national assets, and repress threats to their dominance and income streams.
This requires short-circuiting all of the machinery that makes civil society possible. And if you get to sicken, impoverish, and kill Americans in the process? Bonus!
Yes it is. Maybe it is not? (edit, same in the UK). Why is left as an exercise on the blackboard. If you do have elderly parents I would look into the actual costs of facilities near you because you are in for a shock.
However, if you think about it, most people age 40-70 have to keep working and can't afford to slow down to take care of their parents, so they have to outsource it. Keep the job to pay for that care plus all the other expenses of life. It would be nice if I could take a part time job and take care of my parents. But if I quit my full time job, my entire family would be homeless. So, I have to work and pay. Same story for child care, unfortunately. And since it is a for profit sector, the market charges as much as it can, which is always going to be more than you want, and just enough to leave the patient alive for future bleedings.
If a facility managed to keep their average cost of those state-minimum direct care hours down to $30/hour - that'd still be $40k/year. On top of that, they must have higher-level medical staff, admin. staff, laundry service, 365x3 meals per year of healthy-ish food, and pay for a facility that meets all the legal requirements. (And probably a bunch of other stuff, that IDK about.)
$104k is 1.5x the average salary. That's cheaper than most of the rest of the world. Nursing homes require a low ratio of nurses to patients, and 24/7 coverage means that you need 5x as many nurses to maintain that ratio. Add cooks, cleaners, maintenance, management and all the other necessary staff and it's easy to see that a proper nursing home has more staff than residents.
Double staff costs to account for overhead and you see how $104k is not generous at all.
In the US, there's a continuum of care, from senior living facilities to assisted living to nursing homes.
Nursing homes provide high intensity care to people that are unable to care for themselves, far more than housing. Many of the patients will have significant mobility issues.
Assisted living facilities provide things like optional meals and cleaning services and the like.
Senior living is housing that is relatively designated to older people.
Good. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for those who didn't prioritize saving? Private charity is fine, but there is no reason for the government to supplement this.
Because society learned quite a while ago that allowing people to die starving on the street and similar fates has some significant downsides for society as a whole. Saying that they just should have saved better or suggesting private charity should handle it might be emotionally satisfying for some people, but it doesn't address the actual problem and the downsides that go along with it.
Person A: I save and live below my means, purchase elderly care insurance at a premium, and am set for later years.
Person B: I live a lavish lifestyle, spend my money on experiences or depreciating assets, and have nothing left saved for a likely future event, such as elderly care. But it's okay because the state will steal from Person A to pay for me.
I argue that Person B having to rely on charity, family, or ultimately starving is a better outcome than the present model.
This is a clear false dichotomy. You’re saying this as if everyone is able to find work that can actually pay the bills and provide a savings.
I’ll suggest a third “way”: 25 yo with medical problems working a full-time job, living with their 30 yo partner who is working a full-time job. 25 yo has medical issues with weak insurance coverage and their partner helps with expenses; they struggle to make rent every month (two thirds of the rent for their apartment because they live with a third person).
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which side of the proposed false dichotomy these people land on.
These people land on neither side of what I proposed, except that their taxes are subsidizing Person B, causing them to have less money leftover for things like rent.
A 25 year old with medical problems that is able to work full time is good news; the fiscal penalty of the reality is likely just their yearly deductible and time lost to medical appointments. Thankfully they can work!
Losing 2/3 of their income to 1/3 of a rent share makes it seem like they should move, however. Our that they should try to find a better paying job.
Is ypur point that this person is in such a destitute situation that they cannot possibly save for retirement given 40+ years of career ahead of them? Does this person have no family upon which they can lean? Do they not belong to any community that can help? Do we expect someone with their medical condition to even make it to their golden years?
This situation seems unlikely for the majority of folk. And I always recommend LTD insurance to everyone, regardless of whether it would apply here.
We tried it for the first couple thousand years. Turns out it really sucked, which is why 100% of civilizations (in which you’d have any desire to live) figured out alternatives.
We tried what exactly? I think the mideval church, for all its well known bads, did a great job at encouraging charity for the less fortuned. Americans tend to be some of the most charitably giving on the planet as well.
The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need instead of governmental violence is always: but someone might starve. Why is it preferable to steal under threat of imprisonment/death rather than let society funnel alms to where it is most needed, where most is dictated by those that actually give?
I thought the medieval church was adept at funnelling money towards the church - that's why so many Roman Catholic churches are dripping in gold and jewels. There was also the racket of them selling "indulgences" - salvation for a price.
> Luther did an excellent job of correcting that at the expense of a schism.
Well, that was pretty much at the end of the medieval period, so for the vast majority of medieval times, the church let poor people starve and die whilst hoarding money, power and land. The church only really started to embrace charity and social care from around the 12th century or so. If we say that the medieval period was approximately 500AD to 1500AD, then it's a stretch to claim that the church was a bastion of social care.
> The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need
Well you're kind of begging the question in your proposal. Sure, if we could ensure (the word you used) that needs would be met by private charity, that would be great. But the government IMO is a useful backstop to prevent the absolute worst case outcomes, and there's no reason private charity can't stack on top of that: which indeed it does.
If requesting private charity is sufficient to solve the problem (let's say... homelessness?), then why isn't it solved already? Is your contention that if people didn't have to pay taxes, they'd charitably give enough to solve the problems that today's combination of government and private charity cannot? It seems like if we're going to charity our way out of these problems (not that I believe that's necessarily the right directional solution), we need at least both of the forms we currently have.
I personally have not met anyone ever who believes private charity is undesirable, so not sure what change you're proposing.
> The problem is that the rich have been getting govt charity for decades
I agree. This is also a massive problem! The government should not be in business or the business of subsidizing private companies, such as Tesla, simply because they want specific private market products. It definitionaly creates biased markets amd breeds politicla corruption.
The government has no responsibility to look after their citizens beyond offering public goods/services, which Healthcare is decidedly not.
The article itself is a bit rubbishlike. To date Congress has repeatedly stated they are not going to cut ss, Medicaid, Medicare. This article posits that Medicaid must be cut with no citation or logical argument:
> While the depth and scope of potential Medicaid cuts are unknown, House Republicans can’t meet their target of $880 billion in savings to pass President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda without making significant cuts to programs like Medicaid. All states rely on federal matching funds to finance their Medicaid programs.
That’s your definition of “the government” and it’s wrong at the very least in the sense that things aren’t that simple, except maybe if the government you’re talking about a military junta. But in a mature, stable, functioning society the government is part of society and serves a myriad of purposes, in a myriad of ways. And that’s actually OK.
It’s the basic math of the funding bill. The amount required to continue operating does not equal the amount allocated for social security, Medicare or Medicaid. So no matter what anyone says about “not cutting” there will be cuts. Lawmakers have been asked about this repeatedly with no answers.
I thought that bill was tabled for a continuing resolution that maintained spending through Sept?
It seems like the moonshot is for doge to cut enough non ss/medicare/medicaid over the next several months so that end of summer can pass a bill that keeps welfare unchanged with much of the rest of the gov gutted. But maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I suspect the plan won't work out as the Republicans hope and midterms will put them into a lame duck situation.
>The government has no responsibility to look after their citizens beyond offering public goods/services, which Healthcare is decidedly not.
The responsibilities of the American government are (presumably) determined by the voting public, Congress and the Constitution. Congress decided in 1965 that the responsibilities of the government would include providing healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare, and the majority of the American people support it.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers granted to Congress. Exactly zero of the powers authorize social security or Healthcare spending. These programs are entirely unconstitutional!
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare. Healthcare is often cited as being part of the general welfare.
The same article also creates the foundation for Congress to create spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid as being "proper and necessary" to carry out its enumerated powers, which include providing for the general welfare.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of this interpretation as far back as 1937 with regards to the Social Security Act, and has not declared these programs unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court alone determines what is and isn't constitutional.
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;
What is the point of drafting enumerated powers that have a catch-all phrase as the first enumeration? Literally anything can be argued to be for the "General Welfare" of the United States, because why would Congress pass something that wasn't? Why later state the gov can establish a Navy when you've already stated that Congress can provide defense? Why would you need that explicit authorization? The preamble sets the precedence for the actual powers. One cannot enumerate a catch-all, as it no longer requires enumeration.
But I do agree: the Supreme Court, being the only such construct with the capacity, declared it Constitutional, just like they blew the Wickard v. Filburn decision. But I still consider them unconstitutional because these landmark decisions were only judged to be Constitutional by traitorous corwards that abandoned the Constitution in and of itself!
> I still consider them unconstitutional because these landmark decisions were only judged to be Constitutional by traitorous corwards that abandoned the Constitution in and of itself!
This is dangerous thinking: 'my proclamations are truth, everyone who disagrees is a traitor'. With that mindset, how do you expect to change your mind when you're wrong?
The $880 billion is the amount that the House Republican budget plan adopted on February 25 directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find ways to cut. That committee has jurisdiction over Medicare, Medicaid, and a few smaller programs.
Republicans have ruled out Medicare cuts. With Medicare off the table Medicare accounts for 93% of the funding that the House Energy and Commerce Committee can cut to reach their $880 billion target. That other 7% is way way below $880 billion meaning that to actually cut $880 billion from programs that committee has jurisdiction over must involve cuts to Medicaid.
As far as SS goes, the current Republican party platform does say it is safe: "FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE" (yelling from the original). (BTW, note that they mention Medicare but not Medicaid).
However there is a good reason to not feel reassured by that. The Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House whose membership is around 60+% of House Republicans had repeatedly said that there are three ways to address ~2034 expected insolvency of the SS Trust Fund which are (1) increase revenue to the fund, (2) cover shortfalls from the general budget, and (3) reduce benefits. They also repeatedly say that #1 and #2 are off the table.
If #1 and #2 are off the table, and Congress does not reduce benefits, then there will be a benefit cut when the trust fund runs out. I suppose technically they could argue that letting that happen through inaction rather than passing legislation to cut benefits would mean that they didn't violate their promise not to cut benefits.
Even if you think the system wasn’t set up perfectly, destroying it in a way that affects vulnerable people can’t be called “good”. That’s sociopathic.
By your logic, the government can never take away a welfare program without that action being not good, since necessarily some vulnerable people will be impacted.
But let us not forget the poor Floridans! Lots of elderly move to Florida to retire, which means that the tax dollars from the state are being spent disproportionately on folks that did not pay into that system during their working years. How is that fair?
Government subsidy of Healthcare necessarily raises prices by removing competition from the market. So not only are Floridans paying for people that didn't pay in, but they're paying more to do it!
Muck-raking at its finest!
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-does-republican-budget-c...
As a native Floridian, still living in Florida, I am over the state of the state.
The elderly have routinely voted against their best interests. I have moved on from social security, medicare and plan on not having any government support by the time I retire.
We cannot vote to fix our insurance costs, adapt to climate change, or provide any form of transit other than your own car.
They even voted the guy who's company commited medicare fraud into governorship, and then into congress. You cannot even make this shit up.
That's why this Trump 2.0 is not at all bothering me. I mean, I'm sorry to see the loss of America's unrealized potential, being a great theoretical govt framework, the best in the world, looks to me.
But when it gets really shitty, it'll be shitty for all of us, but I'm not going to deserve it because I haven't been living with my head up my arse. The fools here have voted for a lying, cheating, raping bastard who is obviously beholden to foreign interests.
So, when the Trumpers get to suffering, I ain't gonna have one iota of pity for them. They're going to learn how it feels when no one cares about them, those dumb fucks.
And, know that I don't want them to be miserable, but I'm gonna let them reap what they've sown, and make sure they know that they deserve it.
Maybe some of them will actually WAKE UP.
You should all embrace compassion for one and all before shit gets messy.
What a hateful thing to say.
I don't see any hate in it, it seemed like a post talking about sympathy for hateful people. They even said they didn't want the hateful people to be miserable. That's really nice.
I love how the ignorant go out of their way to prove their ignorance. Their words are worth less than the fleeting vibrations they emit into the ether.
All that matters in this world is our compassionate service to humanity. Our happiness, peace and contentment are completely correlated to it.
Justice is in the fabric of this universe, though most people are too ignorant and selfish to realize the truth all around them.
The truth is hidden behind the door of compassion, which we all have the choice to walk through or avoid entirely. Choose your destiny well, for you will reap what you sow.
If one wants to read flowery story arcs like some sort of renfaire fourth-wall instant karma narrator on a sitcom, then perhaps try Trump 2.0 as punishment Biden and the DNC deserves.
> try Trump 2.0 as punishment Biden and the DNC deserves.
It’s a shame you are being downvoted for this comment because it’s spot on.
Trump v.1 was an indictment on the DNC for running HRC who was a dreadful candidate.
Let’s face it, in 2020 Biden was an over the hill terrible candidate who every other time he ran for president was considered a joke. Biden’s only benefit was that he was “not Trump” during a pandemic. If no pandemic Trump would have won 2020 easily.
DNC repeats their mistakes in 2024, with their two dreadful candidates. 1) The obviously diminished Biden which became apparent that the democrats were intentionally hiding his decline. Then 2) Harris, who was so unpopular within her own party that she had to drop her run before the first primary votes for 2020.
I long for one decent presidential candidate from the democrats. I’d love to be able to vote again after 3 presidential cycles where I could not.
I hate to say it this way but Fox News is 100% the reason for this. They’ve realized some formula for engaging elderly people in an addictive way.
I have an elderly neighbor family friend whose husband watches nothing but Fox News all day every day. It’s a very strange reality to visit. Every so she will ask me some reality check like whispering to me “do you really think we need to be this worried about the communists?”. All I am able to do is reassure her that liberals are generally good people and have a sense of morality and virtue that would rival that of any “Christian right wing” person. I tell her the world is filled with good people and what she sees just isn’t a true reality.
Well to be fair, this can be true for many "red" States and areas of "blue" States as well.
It is not like people were not warned, but I expect many people in nursing homes no longer vote.
Name a blue state that has voted in to congres the person responsible for the biggest Medicare fraud in history. Name a blue state that routinely bans books like Florida. Name a blue state that is regularly devastated by the increasing effects of climate change and elects people who deny it. Name a blue state that has a government so fragile and detached from reality they had to fire the person who was responsible for releasing covid statistics. No, this is not a full endorsement for everything the democratic party has ever done and no, this is not saying blue states don't have problems. I'm just so tired of this "both sides" nonsense.
They won't because they can't. That they're making such absurd arguments is that they refuse to admit they've been and are wrong about the direction this world needs to take.
Only the cruel vote for a cruel bastard, only the racists vote for Nazi-adjacent racists, and only wannabe dictators vote for obvious fascists.
Anyone who tries to both-sides this is a willfully ignorant fool. They have eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, and hearts that do not understand.
That's the nature of the cruel, compassionless fools of this world. They are asleep at the wheel of life. And they must embrace compassion to wake themselves up. We cannot do it for them, but their free will lets them be as stupid and cruel as they choose, but we ALL reap what we sow, for good or ill.
Peace be with you, friend.
> Only the cruel vote for a cruel bastard, only the racists vote for Nazi-adjacent racists, and only wannabe dictators vote for obvious fascists.
That's true for much of Trump's base, but it's not especially true for the marginal Trump voter.
> willfully ignorant fool
That's what they are.
We've been celebrating ignorance for a long time now. But this isn't like Xkcd's "lucky 10,000". This willful choice to embrace ignorance has deadly consequences.
Americans have a civic duty to vote, and they have a civic duty to be informed when they vote. This isn't like a local election where information is hard to find. Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
"Willfully ignorant fool" should be an insult as strong as "Fascist".
>>>or provide any form of transit other than your own car.
My last visit in November I hiked 4 miles on a trail in Ocala National Forest.
It was devine. No other humans encountered.
Florida is too big for Public Transit. Some of the train routes seem successful.
Florida had public transit before the 1950s. All those Northerners that came down for the winter during the 1920s land boom traveled on train. It isn't like they bought a car just for their visit. For example, Coral Gables, next to Miami, had an electric trolley system.
My aunt used busses to get around the Tampa area back in the 1960s, when Florida transit was segregated.
There's a bunch of rails-to-trails routes because many places used to have train service. Take Perry, for example. It's only a few thousand people but it's over 100 years old (with an infamous massacre of blacks in the 1920s), and you can see the old stationhouse at https://maps.app.goo.gl/NJK8B6mjJpEXRrdK6 right next to the tracks, a few blocks from the town center. (If you visit, Johnson's Bakery has some of the best donuts I've tasted, though they've changed ownership since I was last there.)
So no, Florida is not too big for Public Transit.
That there is too much sprawl is a rather different topic. A Florida developed around mass transit instead of personal car ownership would look very different even if it had the same population and area.
“Florida is too big for public transit” is entirely circular reasoning.
Things are so spread out because of dependence on private transit.
The more densely (and public-system connected) we can make our cities, the more divine Ocala National Forest-like experiences we can access and preserve for our children.
DNR. Make sure you hang that around your neck or they will resurrect you from a stroke or other event as an invalid requiring 24/7 care in one of these facilities. Draining your wealth to keep you "alive."
That sounds dystopian to me - people are unwilling to keep living due to the costs?
The monetary cost stings, but the calculus they are talking about really is about quality of life / expectancy. You are a relatively healthy 85 year old but you are still an octogenarian, you get a gnarly stroke.
Do you want to?
A: Get resuscitated and get "lucky". You are completely dependent on 24/7 care draining little Timmy's college fund or worse putting your adult kids in to debt. If a family member takes cares of you personally you will mentally break them. Also you cannot do anything fulfilling ever again.
B: Get resuscitated, die after 3 weeks with broken ribs. Yay morphine.
C: Get resuscitated and "just" get a little brain damage, maybe you become asshole or forget someone. Also, broken ribs and will probably happen again.
D: Quit while you are ahead.
So yeah, I'll get a DNR when a broken hip becomes inevitable.
Here is another scenario:
You support your disabled son/daughter and have set up a trust to make sure their house is maintained in perpetuity. You get resurrected and end up in long term care. Not dead, so the part of the trust that kicks in is the lawyer selling/using assets to pay your bills that flow in after you or your medical POA fuck up the Medicare situation accidentally. You live for years and your son/daughter get booted out of the house you paid off and had meant for them.
One little slip up and ALL your money is gone while you drool helplessly in hell.
True story, happening right now.
I think it's mostly quality of life. I would rather die than survive in an extremely diminished capacity. There are worse things than death.
The goal is for major industries to stop paying taxes, loot national assets, and repress threats to their dominance and income streams.
This requires short-circuiting all of the machinery that makes civil society possible. And if you get to sicken, impoverish, and kill Americans in the process? Bonus!
It’s $104k+ to house a senior? Is that in line with what it costs in other countries?
Yes it is. Maybe it is not? (edit, same in the UK). Why is left as an exercise on the blackboard. If you do have elderly parents I would look into the actual costs of facilities near you because you are in for a shock.
However, if you think about it, most people age 40-70 have to keep working and can't afford to slow down to take care of their parents, so they have to outsource it. Keep the job to pay for that care plus all the other expenses of life. It would be nice if I could take a part time job and take care of my parents. But if I quit my full time job, my entire family would be homeless. So, I have to work and pay. Same story for child care, unfortunately. And since it is a for profit sector, the market charges as much as it can, which is always going to be more than you want, and just enough to leave the patient alive for future bleedings.
IDK about other countries, but...
Nursing homes are required to have trained care staff, 24x7x365. For example, check Florida here:
https://www.nursinghomelawcenter.org/news/nursing-home-staff...
If a facility managed to keep their average cost of those state-minimum direct care hours down to $30/hour - that'd still be $40k/year. On top of that, they must have higher-level medical staff, admin. staff, laundry service, 365x3 meals per year of healthy-ish food, and pay for a facility that meets all the legal requirements. (And probably a bunch of other stuff, that IDK about.)
$104k is 1.5x the average salary. That's cheaper than most of the rest of the world. Nursing homes require a low ratio of nurses to patients, and 24/7 coverage means that you need 5x as many nurses to maintain that ratio. Add cooks, cleaners, maintenance, management and all the other necessary staff and it's easy to see that a proper nursing home has more staff than residents.
Double staff costs to account for overhead and you see how $104k is not generous at all.
In the US, there's a continuum of care, from senior living facilities to assisted living to nursing homes.
Nursing homes provide high intensity care to people that are unable to care for themselves, far more than housing. Many of the patients will have significant mobility issues.
Assisted living facilities provide things like optional meals and cleaning services and the like.
Senior living is housing that is relatively designated to older people.
Yea, elderly care is really labor intensive + you have housing etc costs on top of it.
UK nursing home fees are £80k = 103k USD.
It's in line with very high COL countries like Switzerland, but higher than most other OECD countries.
The biggest cost factor is also not the housing itself but care/nursing.
it sounds about comparable with housing prisoners? you pay less in security and more in medical care and on call nurses, I imagine.
Google tells me Florida spends about $25k / year / inmate. I’m not sure if that’s before or after the $18k / year each inmate is charged.
Sources show a fairly wide range of rates for Florida, it’s 42k here.
https://247wallst.com/crime/2024/06/20/see-what-each-state-s...
that lines up. it's easily 10k to 20k of housing cost, food, medical costs, and a ton of personnel depending on how old they are
Good. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for those who didn't prioritize saving? Private charity is fine, but there is no reason for the government to supplement this.
Because society learned quite a while ago that allowing people to die starving on the street and similar fates has some significant downsides for society as a whole. Saying that they just should have saved better or suggesting private charity should handle it might be emotionally satisfying for some people, but it doesn't address the actual problem and the downsides that go along with it.
There are downsides both ways.
Person A: I save and live below my means, purchase elderly care insurance at a premium, and am set for later years.
Person B: I live a lavish lifestyle, spend my money on experiences or depreciating assets, and have nothing left saved for a likely future event, such as elderly care. But it's okay because the state will steal from Person A to pay for me.
I argue that Person B having to rely on charity, family, or ultimately starving is a better outcome than the present model.
> both ways
> I save and live below my means
> I live a lavish lifestyle
This is a clear false dichotomy. You’re saying this as if everyone is able to find work that can actually pay the bills and provide a savings.
I’ll suggest a third “way”: 25 yo with medical problems working a full-time job, living with their 30 yo partner who is working a full-time job. 25 yo has medical issues with weak insurance coverage and their partner helps with expenses; they struggle to make rent every month (two thirds of the rent for their apartment because they live with a third person).
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which side of the proposed false dichotomy these people land on.
These people land on neither side of what I proposed, except that their taxes are subsidizing Person B, causing them to have less money leftover for things like rent.
A 25 year old with medical problems that is able to work full time is good news; the fiscal penalty of the reality is likely just their yearly deductible and time lost to medical appointments. Thankfully they can work!
Losing 2/3 of their income to 1/3 of a rent share makes it seem like they should move, however. Our that they should try to find a better paying job.
Is ypur point that this person is in such a destitute situation that they cannot possibly save for retirement given 40+ years of career ahead of them? Does this person have no family upon which they can lean? Do they not belong to any community that can help? Do we expect someone with their medical condition to even make it to their golden years?
This situation seems unlikely for the majority of folk. And I always recommend LTD insurance to everyone, regardless of whether it would apply here.
We tried it for the first couple thousand years. Turns out it really sucked, which is why 100% of civilizations (in which you’d have any desire to live) figured out alternatives.
We tried what exactly? I think the mideval church, for all its well known bads, did a great job at encouraging charity for the less fortuned. Americans tend to be some of the most charitably giving on the planet as well.
The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need instead of governmental violence is always: but someone might starve. Why is it preferable to steal under threat of imprisonment/death rather than let society funnel alms to where it is most needed, where most is dictated by those that actually give?
I thought the medieval church was adept at funnelling money towards the church - that's why so many Roman Catholic churches are dripping in gold and jewels. There was also the racket of them selling "indulgences" - salvation for a price.
Yes, hence my "bads". Luther did an excellent job of correcting that at the expense of a schism.
> Luther did an excellent job of correcting that at the expense of a schism.
Well, that was pretty much at the end of the medieval period, so for the vast majority of medieval times, the church let poor people starve and die whilst hoarding money, power and land. The church only really started to embrace charity and social care from around the 12th century or so. If we say that the medieval period was approximately 500AD to 1500AD, then it's a stretch to claim that the church was a bastion of social care.
Fair enough criticism. I was indeed thinking of the later times within the period when I made that statement.
> The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need
Well you're kind of begging the question in your proposal. Sure, if we could ensure (the word you used) that needs would be met by private charity, that would be great. But the government IMO is a useful backstop to prevent the absolute worst case outcomes, and there's no reason private charity can't stack on top of that: which indeed it does.
If requesting private charity is sufficient to solve the problem (let's say... homelessness?), then why isn't it solved already? Is your contention that if people didn't have to pay taxes, they'd charitably give enough to solve the problems that today's combination of government and private charity cannot? It seems like if we're going to charity our way out of these problems (not that I believe that's necessarily the right directional solution), we need at least both of the forms we currently have.
I personally have not met anyone ever who believes private charity is undesirable, so not sure what change you're proposing.
The problem is that the rich have been getting govt charity for decades, and getting more by the year thanks to the GOP and top Dems.
The corporate tax rate is a joke, as are Elmo's tax subsidies and backroom dealings.
But it doesn't matter, because the chickens that are coming home to roost are going to feel a lot more like t-rexes.
> The problem is that the rich have been getting govt charity for decades
I agree. This is also a massive problem! The government should not be in business or the business of subsidizing private companies, such as Tesla, simply because they want specific private market products. It definitionaly creates biased markets amd breeds politicla corruption.
Because they paid their taxes during their working years?
Edit: let’s not forget it’s the governments responsibility to look after their citizens? Not just their frugal ones.
The government has no responsibility to look after their citizens beyond offering public goods/services, which Healthcare is decidedly not.
The article itself is a bit rubbishlike. To date Congress has repeatedly stated they are not going to cut ss, Medicaid, Medicare. This article posits that Medicaid must be cut with no citation or logical argument:
> While the depth and scope of potential Medicaid cuts are unknown, House Republicans can’t meet their target of $880 billion in savings to pass President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda without making significant cuts to programs like Medicaid. All states rely on federal matching funds to finance their Medicaid programs.
That’s your definition of “the government” and it’s wrong at the very least in the sense that things aren’t that simple, except maybe if the government you’re talking about a military junta. But in a mature, stable, functioning society the government is part of society and serves a myriad of purposes, in a myriad of ways. And that’s actually OK.
It’s the basic math of the funding bill. The amount required to continue operating does not equal the amount allocated for social security, Medicare or Medicaid. So no matter what anyone says about “not cutting” there will be cuts. Lawmakers have been asked about this repeatedly with no answers.
I thought that bill was tabled for a continuing resolution that maintained spending through Sept?
It seems like the moonshot is for doge to cut enough non ss/medicare/medicaid over the next several months so that end of summer can pass a bill that keeps welfare unchanged with much of the rest of the gov gutted. But maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I suspect the plan won't work out as the Republicans hope and midterms will put them into a lame duck situation.
>The government has no responsibility to look after their citizens beyond offering public goods/services, which Healthcare is decidedly not.
The responsibilities of the American government are (presumably) determined by the voting public, Congress and the Constitution. Congress decided in 1965 that the responsibilities of the government would include providing healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare, and the majority of the American people support it.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers granted to Congress. Exactly zero of the powers authorize social security or Healthcare spending. These programs are entirely unconstitutional!
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare. Healthcare is often cited as being part of the general welfare.
The same article also creates the foundation for Congress to create spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid as being "proper and necessary" to carry out its enumerated powers, which include providing for the general welfare.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of this interpretation as far back as 1937 with regards to the Social Security Act, and has not declared these programs unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court alone determines what is and isn't constitutional.
Try again.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_a1sec8-html/
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What is the point of drafting enumerated powers that have a catch-all phrase as the first enumeration? Literally anything can be argued to be for the "General Welfare" of the United States, because why would Congress pass something that wasn't? Why later state the gov can establish a Navy when you've already stated that Congress can provide defense? Why would you need that explicit authorization? The preamble sets the precedence for the actual powers. One cannot enumerate a catch-all, as it no longer requires enumeration.
But I do agree: the Supreme Court, being the only such construct with the capacity, declared it Constitutional, just like they blew the Wickard v. Filburn decision. But I still consider them unconstitutional because these landmark decisions were only judged to be Constitutional by traitorous corwards that abandoned the Constitution in and of itself!
> I still consider them unconstitutional because these landmark decisions were only judged to be Constitutional by traitorous corwards that abandoned the Constitution in and of itself!
This is dangerous thinking: 'my proclamations are truth, everyone who disagrees is a traitor'. With that mindset, how do you expect to change your mind when you're wrong?
Interesting: "entirely unconstitutional" according to whose judgement?
The $880 billion is the amount that the House Republican budget plan adopted on February 25 directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find ways to cut. That committee has jurisdiction over Medicare, Medicaid, and a few smaller programs.
Republicans have ruled out Medicare cuts. With Medicare off the table Medicare accounts for 93% of the funding that the House Energy and Commerce Committee can cut to reach their $880 billion target. That other 7% is way way below $880 billion meaning that to actually cut $880 billion from programs that committee has jurisdiction over must involve cuts to Medicaid.
As far as SS goes, the current Republican party platform does say it is safe: "FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE" (yelling from the original). (BTW, note that they mention Medicare but not Medicaid).
However there is a good reason to not feel reassured by that. The Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House whose membership is around 60+% of House Republicans had repeatedly said that there are three ways to address ~2034 expected insolvency of the SS Trust Fund which are (1) increase revenue to the fund, (2) cover shortfalls from the general budget, and (3) reduce benefits. They also repeatedly say that #1 and #2 are off the table.
If #1 and #2 are off the table, and Congress does not reduce benefits, then there will be a benefit cut when the trust fund runs out. I suppose technically they could argue that letting that happen through inaction rather than passing legislation to cut benefits would mean that they didn't violate their promise not to cut benefits.
Even if you think the system wasn’t set up perfectly, destroying it in a way that affects vulnerable people can’t be called “good”. That’s sociopathic.
By your logic, the government can never take away a welfare program without that action being not good, since necessarily some vulnerable people will be impacted.
But let us not forget the poor Floridans! Lots of elderly move to Florida to retire, which means that the tax dollars from the state are being spent disproportionately on folks that did not pay into that system during their working years. How is that fair?
Government subsidy of Healthcare necessarily raises prices by removing competition from the market. So not only are Floridans paying for people that didn't pay in, but they're paying more to do it!