What do people think about income inequality?

[PoliSciStudent]

Greetings, all! I'm new here and hope that I will not offend anyone by confessing at the outset that my personal political leanings are probably farther to the left than is the norm in this forum, but I promise, I'm not here to be disruptive or disrespectful of anyone.

I am a graduate student in political science and would honestly like to hear the views of conservative thinkers on a point which has been troubling me with respect to the direction our country is heading, namely the widening gap between rich people and poor people.

According to the US Treasury Department, the richest 2% of the country own 80% of the wealth in the US. That's honestly not just some liberal's opinion, that's really true, you can check the statistics yourself if you don't belive me. Flip that around and that means that the remaining 98% of us have only 20% to go around amongst all the rest of us. In the last three years, the income of the wealthiest .001% has increased by 600%, in other words, for every $10 million/year they were making before, they're now making $60 million/year.

I read in another article that 5 of the 12 wealthiest individuals on earth are from the Walton family which owns Wal-Mart. At the same time, human resources staff for Wal-Mart, when they hire a new employee, will routinely complete paperwork for new hires to receive foodstamps, as the wages they pay their workers are so low that, even as full-time employees, they are assured of falling below the poverty level and qualifying for foodstamps, without which they wouldn't even be able to afford to feed their families.

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives? I've read studies which suggest that Americans by and large don't mind extremes of personal wealth as, this being the land of opportunity, we harbor some hope of one day rising to those lofty summits of affluence ourselves, so don't feel we should judge others for achieving that to which we ourselves aspire. Does that sound about right to you all? Anyone have any thoughts?

[Dad was my hero]

First off, there are many false assumptions out there about this "uninsured" number. Many are, as you state young and not concerned about the insurance. Working at a health insurance company, I know that many just go without insurance, about 85% of those without it chose not to pay for it themselves. There are many who do not carry it on themselves (for whatever reason, they may be between jobs or working at a small business that has chosen not to offer it to employees) but they are covered by their spouse's insurance. The fact that these people have coverage is often left out of that story. Furthermore, the majority of those who do not have it and chose not to buy it are more than able to cover their own normal routine bills. Consider, I get a cold and I go to see my doctor, the office visit costs me $40 to $50 (which is about statistically the norm through most of the U.S.) and I am given a script for an antibiotic. I go pick that up for another $25 to $35 and I'm good to go for most of the rest of the year. This is why people who chose not to buy health insurance at $3,000 plus a year make that choice.

Here poliscistudent's 2% 80% rule comes closer to reality. 5% of the population uses about 90% of the healthcare resources. Interestingly, if you're that sick and you don't have private insurance, the government probably already covers you.

So his solution is to have everyone pay for the health insurance of those who have voluntarily chosen not to buy it themselves?

[FITZ]

Basically people's wages are established based on their worth to others. As a medical professional I have a worth to others in this society that commands so much money for minutes of my time.

I wonder how much medical professionals would make without socialized health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

[JoeGar]

At the same time, human resources staff for Wal-Mart, when they hire a new employee, will routinely complete paperwork for new hires to receive foodstamps, as the wages they pay their workers are so low that, even as full-time employees, they are assured of falling below the poverty level and qualifying for foodstamps, without which they wouldn't even be able to afford to feed their families.

Not true -- unless the employee's family size will qualify them for food stamps. People shop at Wal-Mart because low prices enable them to buy more stuff with their paycheck. Buying more stuff employs more people to make more stuff for the shelves. Low prices creates more wealth for more people. (You need to take a few Econ courses before trying your hand at PolySci.)

[Axenolith]

Well said!

[Dad was my hero]

I have no idea, but I get no income from those sources as I'm not a doctor (nor do I play one on TV).

I can tell you that I have read many articles written by doctors with economics degrees that have said that the institution of Medicare (primarily) has altered the way medicine is practiced and has increased the pressure on private health insurance to pick up some of the problems created by that government run system. Many MDs and DOs I know would rather not participate in that system. (For what it's worth.)

[FITZ]

First off, there are many false assumptions out there about this "uninsured" number.

That's true -- I chose to have a very high deductible so I can have very low monthly premiums --- I would end up paying out of my own pocket for almost any kind of health care I or my family might end up using in one year --- although I'm insured. But since we're all quite healthy I've gotten by with that for years --- no doctors or health care costs at all --- and I can keep what I didn't pay out in premiums --- save it in a special account that would cover the high deductible if I ever need it --- otherwise I can keep the money.

[FITZ]

I'm also a health care professional and not a doctor --- but I wonder how good the salaries would be if it wasn't for so much government (taxpayer) dollars rolling in. In this region only 33% has any private health insurance --- the majority get or expect socialized health care. Without so much taxpayer money coming in, most of the hospitals here would shut down.

[Dad was my hero]

But how often do you hear the true facts about that 43 million figure continually thrown out?

A lot of people will say that this is not the ideal, but hospitals cannot refuse treatment to someone based on ability to pay. I agree it is not the ideal, but who cannot come up with the $50 to see a family doctor? And once you begin to talk about what's ideal, then you enter into, what about dental coverage, a low deductible or coinsurance, hey wait a minute, they need vision coverage too.

[FITZ]

agree it is not the ideal, but who cannot come up with the $50 to see a family doctor?

But who runs to the doctors the most? The so-called poor who have the government pay their way. It's the Medicaid and Medicare population who uses doctors and hospitals the most --- the Medicaid families who can afford to take their children into the ER everytime they cough. Those who actually pay $50 out of their own pocket tend to take care of their own health.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Same here. I'm comfortable enough that I'm not scraping by, never quite having enough for the basics, but not so comfortable that I get complacent and lazy.

[FITZ]

When CHIP came out many of the people dropped their employer health insurance plans for that --- because the government plan was only $20 a month and employer provided insurance cost them more.

[Dad was my hero]

That's a good observation and it is hard to tell because of the long history of government interference in the healthcare marketplace. If it would be suddenly removed there would be massive negative effects on suppliers of healthcare services. That is why we need a conservative in office to implement reform in steps with the overall direction toward free market initiatives. People would probably find that as a percent of GDP healthcare would probably drop, but this is theoretical as there is almost no large scale model to judge it by.

Unfortunately people who talk more like poliscistudent, we need limits on... and we need to nationalize... and we need more controls on the economy... are becoming more and more prevalent. Teaching basic economics is something everyone should be taught. At least they'd understand supply and demand so you wouldn't have to explain why people earn what they earn and why government interference in the economy is almost never a good thing.

[FITZ]

I guess that would make another good question. How many of us really would even want to be extremely wealthy? I would not --- I won't even buy lottery tickets for that reason --- when I think about it --- I would not like to win $10 million --- so just to make sure I don't, I never buy the tickets.

[nopardons]

People, in Canada and England, for instance, who have " free " ( who do you think is paying for it anyway ? NO GOVERNMENT " MAKES MONEY ", THEY TAX THOSE WHO MAKE IT ! )/Socialized medical plans, hate them. People DIE waiting to see a doctor, get worse treatment than those here with NO insurance. Those with enough money ( Canadians ) go to America for treatment, or pay for it ( in England) out of their own funds.

Who are YOU to decide who is more appreciative of the money they make and on what do you base this feckless assumption? Do you want the pay scale based on who appreciates what monies they get, or on their performance and value to the company they work for? What about entrepreneurs, who work for themselves? What about those with minimal skills, who are needed, but don't add all that much, but who would " APPRECIATE " the money " more "?

It sounds as though you want a FREE RIDE, at everyone else's expense and think that others should have one too. WHO DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR THAT " FREE RIDE ?

You lost your job and are unwilling to pay for your own health insurance. Not all that long ago,everyone had to pay their own way. It wasn't until just after WW II that the Unions demanded " free health insurance ", from companies. Do you realize that that caused employers to pay less in wages and give the cheapest possible health insurance to their employees; not to mention raising the cost of health insurance on those people who have to buy their own, as well as raising the medical costs fore everyone ?

Life in America is better for the poorest of the poor on up, than it is in ANYOTHER NATION! Don't use Afghanistan.Use France and Germany and Sweden and Canada.

You say that you're probably more left than all of here are. Yes, I think that you are. So WHAT are your Conservative positions? This is, after all a CONSERVATIVES forum and you have yet to say anything that sounds even remotely Conservative.

[Dad was my hero]

supposed to be to post 185, not my own.

[Dad was my hero]

It's getting too late, idiot, it was a response to 186.
sheesh!

[Ethrane]

"I wonder how much medical professionals would make without socialized health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare."

Medicare pays about 30% of commercial rates, and Medicaid about half that...it doesn't even cover our cost outlays/overhead.

It's kind of complicated...I guess we'd in theory lose the about 20% of our total revenues generated by these programs (which BTW, consumes a lot more than 20% of our time). But then again, I doubt all those seniors would go without health care...some would get private insurance, and some would pay cash.

Kind of hard to tell.

[weaponeer]

Nevertheless, the opportunity to freely amass such wealth must at some point carry with it compelling pressure to apportion increasing amounts of it for the good of others and/or the public good.

Probably individuals skilled at amassing such wealth would be much better than government bureaucrats at insuring that genuine public good arose from their wealth.

I think that the individuals skilled at amassing such wealth would get together and have you and your committees killed.

[FITZ]

I guess we'd in theory lose the about 20% of our total revenues generated by these programs (which BTW, consumes a lot more than 20% of our time).

It is complicated. The reimbursement might be less --- but then again it is the Medicaid/Medicare patients who go to doctors and hospitals the most. Partly because the healthy working types are less likely to need doctors or lab tests or nursing care, doctors are lucky to see them once a year or so. You see the children and infants of the Medicaid class actually admitted to the hospital more often --- doctors will assume the educated parents can care for a child with a fever or a premature infant but keep the children of the Medicaid hospitalized longer just because the parent is less capable.

[c-b 1]

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives?

No! It is none of my business what other people have.

What does bother me is having money I have earned taken from me by the government, and used to create and enforce regulations, mandates, and new taxes which are called fees, which make it more, and more difficult to make a living.