Are You Too Stupid to Enjoy the Economy?

If the people don’t like the economy, there must be something wrong with the people. This is the new line from the administration and its flacks: Growth is up! Unemployment is down! Incomes are soaring! So why, according to a poll taken up the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, do 63 percent of Americans say that the economy is on the wrong track? Obviously they are deluded. Or maybe they’re just not all that bright.

Weighing in on the side of delusion is New York Times columnist David Brooks, who wrote on September 7 that:

. . . workers over all are not getting a smaller slice of the pie. Wages and benefits have made up roughly the same share of G.D.P. for 50 years . . . Jobs are not more insecure. Workers are just as likely to hold a job for 20 years as they were in 1969 . . . workers are not stuck in dead-end jobs.

And, in a statement that has economists scratching their heads: “The typical male worker with some college but no degree has seen his income rise from $34,000 in 2000 to about $40,000 today.” (Who is this guy and how do I find him?)

If the public is pessimistic, Brooks argues, it must be because “The populists, who usually live in university towns, paint a portrait of unrelieved misery that badly distorts reality.” And the public, sated as it is by a steady diet of high-end restaurant meals and distracted by constant mall sprees, is dumb enough to believe those academic cranks.

Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Labor, tacitly endorses the intellectual defect theory, stating on CNN last week that “our economy is evolving and transitioning to a knowledge-based economy” that favors the highly educated and highly skilled. Translation: If you’re not enjoying the economy, it must be because you’re just not too smart. And if you’re not smart enough for our knowledge-based economy, you’re clearly too dumb to understand how great it really is.

Connoisseurs of American political ideologies will note the delicate bind the Pew survey puts the conservatives in. For years, they’ve styled themselves as the “populists” – upholding the supposed simple virtues and gut patriotism of the common person against the cynicism and “moral relativity” of the over-educated, Chardonnay-swigging, stem-cell-hating, “liberal elite.” What to do then, when the average Joe and Joan say the economy sucks? Brooks falls back on the liberal elite theory – attributing public pessimism to the baleful influence of those who dwell in “university towns.” Chao wants us to believe that the disgruntled are simply those who haven’t yet grasped the wonders of a “knowledge-based economy.”

But rightwing populism never applied to economics. While bravely championing chastity, fetuses, and heterosexual marriage, the right has pursued an unabashedly elitist economic program: cutting taxes for the wealthy and services for everyone else. The effects of these policies-- along with private sector lay-offs and cuts in wages and benefits-- are finally coming to roost: Real wages are declining, in fact the share of the GDP that goes to wages and salaries has reached a 59 year low, while the share going to corporate profits is at a 40 year high.

Meanwhile the number of Americans without health insurance rose by 1.3 million in 2005. And while the unemployment rate is admirably low, it fails to take account of the large numbers of people who have given up looking for work or who are working at low-paid jobs for which they may be far overqualified. Odd, isn’t it, that in a “knowledge-based economy” so many college graduates are waiting tables and laid-off engineers are driving airport limos?

Here’s another explanation for the economic disgruntlement of the American public: They’re not dumb or deluded, they’re hurting. Stagnant wages and salaries, combined with rising costs of health care, energy, tuition and rent, have left a majority – somewhere around 63 percent – battered and bruised. Real populists don’t call the people dumb. They listen to what they’re saying.

Comments

[eternalsquire]

I see entirely too much of the discussion focused on top-down thinking.

I have a better suggestion: we need to remove employment as a prerequisite for human dignity. Read Dorothy Day for details, but in a nutshell: the worth of any person is intrinsic, and doesn't depend on that person's usefulness. It therefore follows that we need to become a welfare state again, imposing univeral welfare regardless whether one is man, woman, or child. We need to increase personal and corporate income taxes to cover the cost. We also need to impose a federal property tax upon all persons and corporations. We need tough laws to forbid capital flight overseas and to enforce these laws vigorously.
It is time to WAKE UP, notice that we are back in a cleverly disguised 1930's -style Depression, and go back to "soaking the rich".

Let's give the homeless and helpless a hand up first, since one day or other could or will be in thier boots someday. Then we as a society will have security sufficient to focus on the next step of the ladder: us!

There's only one way to do this, and everyone has a single and infinitely precious resource that is extremely effective in creating change: the Vote.

Start locally first: Vote for humane sherrifs who won't treat the homeless as criminals. Vote for mayors committed to working with you in creating a new social safety net. Vote for school board members committed to educating the whole child in how to challenge assumptions and question authority. Vote for judges committed to handing down local rulings that upset the local powers that be. Vote for state legislature representatives that represent at least ONE of your issues. Vote Democrat, they have traditionally been the party of the weak, the poor, and the marginalized.

And do try to run yourself even if you have no funding or qualifications, if ever you see a candidate running unopposed.

If everyone simply attempts to finding something to vote for or against at least once per month... the train running over the common man or woman will quickly slow down, stop, then reverse on a course aimed to crash into the plutocrats.

VOTE TO SOAK THE RICH AND PROTECT THE HELPLESS!

[Holly Redmond]

Oh, no! I'm an economical-enjoyment impaired individual. I'm an Economic-Moron!
Ok, I got that out of my system, moving right along..
I may be alone in this- given I am not rich, and many of my peers may disagree with me- but I don't see how "soaking the rich" or hating on them does anyone any good, save for building up piles of resentment and creating ulcers that most of us have no health care to treat.
Sure, I'll make a snarky comment here and there, but aside from that, I do not blame the wealthy for my situation. The blame game's a bit useless for me, anyway and gets me into a pretty circular and crummy mindset.
Though, I do agree with your statements on voting. HOWEVER, moreso, I think the need to EDUCATE those voting should be key.
Keep in mind, I live in Missouri- where new voter turnout was high (literally and chemically) because one of the governer-candidates' last name was a drug reference.
BOY, I bet the ones who voted BLUNT because "her her...how funny!" that have since decided to go clean are regretting that one, now that their wordplay based voting's put a man in who's screwed the disabled, the addicts and the mentally ill in our state to a wall, eh?

[eternalsquire]

Holly,

Who said anything about hating? Think of it this way, if the plutocrats indeed got there by stepping on the backs of those less fortunate, then yes, some hating and payback is called for. This may be the case in a minority of situations. Many of them are simply Old Money, we just simply need to provide compelling reasons for them to ante up toward the collective welfare, and they will come around. New Money, on the other hand, is a little closer to us in mood or outlook, getting there either by genius or creativity or luck of some sort, and they simply need to realize that no man or woman is an island... genius today is old hat tomorrow, creativity today becomes out of fashion, luck can always turn. In any case, a massive transfer of wealth is called for from those who have far more than they need to survive, to those who can barely survive. So the plutocrats need to be soaked simply to provide an object lesson on humility and remind them that they are indeed part of humanity and owe humanity its due.

[ability7]

I enjoy reading your columns. You have a wonderful knack for pointing out some of foolishness that is printed by the media today.
Claiming that education is the cure for all the uncertainty of today's global economy is one of those foolish ideas. And not incidentally, a way of controlling people by making them think that somehow --if they are laid off or can't find a job to begin with--the reason their "skills" are not needed is just because they chose the wrong major.
I thought you'd be interested to know that there is an interesting discussion of Brooks' column by Dean Baker, (an economist and Co-Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research) at his blog where he points out the obvious flaws in Brooks "statistics": http://www.prospect.org/deanbaker/2006/09/david_brooks_swings_and_misses.html#006190.
. . . and a second post where he questions Brooks' "education solution": http://www.prospect.org/deanbaker/2006/09/david_brooks_and_inequality_ro.html#006236.

[Hattie]

I can't remember any time in my lifetime when so many people I know are destitute or close to it. Nor have I ever seen so many unemployed or underemployed people with good higher educations.
Ten years ago, lots of these people were doing OK. Divorce, illness, losing jobs for various reasons, have really put them in a bad place. And so many have no resources any more. They just get by day to day.
Over a certain age, it's impossible to get back into things once you have been ushered out.
That's just the truth.

[Greg]

"don't be a hater" is one of the rights' recent (I just started coming across it about 4 or 5 months ago) tricks to respond to anyone who contradicts one of their leaders or one of their ideas by raising any critical viewpoint to the level of hate speech.

It's another rip off from the civil rights era-- like "reverse discrimination".

I'm not surprised to see it pop up here--for whatever reason--this site is like the clearing house for the right wing bs.

To wit:

"Claiming that education is the cure for all the uncertainty of today's global economy is one of those foolish ideas."

The right is furiously at work attacking "liberal" higher education. As this quote implies, we just don't need it.

[Barbara E]

Ability7 -- Thanks for the Dean Baker link. Maybe people should write to the NY Times complaining about Brooks' pseudo-statistics.

[ability7]

Perhaps these little short comments are not the greatest way to discuss sometimes complex thoughts, but I wanted to clarify/expand a tiny bit on my comment, concerning
"education not being the cure-all for the uncertainty of today's global economy"
which Greg found as damning evidence of a ring-wing nut trying to condemn "liberal" higher education.

I really want to be clear that I do think that "education" is a very good and desirable thing. I think that it is a very desirable "public good" and should be readily available to all. I think the more educated the population, the better it is for the country, etc, etc. It is also fairly obvious that education is often the way to obtain a good salary/standard of living. Yes indeed, education is GOOD.

However, I think that the point under consideration here is when, after a person makes a decision to undergo years of training or years of obtaining a degree in a specialized field, they find that their knowledge and/or skills are not in demand, whether this is something that is under their individual control? And specifically, whether lately, something is seriously wrong in this country, when people can be considered so very "educated" and yet so very unemployable. And thus so very unable to support themselves.

Perhaps Greg, the distinction I should have made, is the difference between "education" and "training in some specialized area."??

Anyway, it would seem that the inability of many people to "chose" the right training to find a fulfilling and financially secure job is not something that should be the individual's "fault" but instead something that is a concern of the entire society. Because it is not just a harm for the individual person--although, of course it IS--but the also a serious harm for the entire country.

And it is also why (to get back, in a circular way, to the point of Barbara's article) such inane editorials, which make up completely outlandish statistics to misrepresent the state of the U.S. economy, are also a harm (or at least seriously annoying) to find on the pages of the NYTimes.

And yes, Barbara E., I should write a letter!

[Lynne]

Greg, yes they are busy attacking higher education. It is number 11 on the Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism list:
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

And Barbara, I'm so glad I found your blog. Your book Nickel and Dimed really opened my eyes. I have made some changes in my life because of it. Thank you.

[Anarcissie]

"Soaking the rich" depends upon having a bunch of rich people to soak. After awhile, you wind up cultivating them. ("Growthsmanship") After you cultivate them they run wild and take over. Better avoid having anything to do with them -- maybe they'll go away.

[donaldduck]

How are the uninsured the government's responsibility? I can get health insurance for twenty three dollars a month because I don't smoke and drink. This is through Humana, not a company program. There are comparable plans available for 48 dollars a month. Yeah, if I made the really dumb decision to have several kids on my low income job, it would be difficult to buy them all insurance, but why would any responsible person do that?

Answer: a responsible person wouldn't.

Moreover, if real income continued to decline, as you purport it to do, how can you reconcile this with the fact that most poor people have access to the technology that was once only reserved for the rich - cell phones, computers, and even internet access. Hell, if real is income described in terms of purchasing power, the flourishing of the luxury goods/services industry surely suggests that all people are getting richer, the Spa-ification of America trend we've recently seen.

Then again, nobody really wants to hear that one of the biggests boosts to real income in America has been "The Evil Empire", Wal-Mart, who, according to many accounts, help families pay 3/4 of what they previously paid for groceries.

And then there was that comment about "owing humanity an issue". The whole claim about owing humanity anything in Eternal squire's sense comes down not to an altruistic value, but rather, to base consequentialism: people should feel obligated towards other people because one day they might be unfortunate, too.

That doesn't mean you're being generous because you want to be, it means your being generous out of petty fear. What a beautiful idea.

[eternalsquire]

Donald Duck said:

'And then there was that comment about "owing humanity an issue". The whole claim about owing humanity anything in Eternal squire's sense comes down not to an altruistic value, but rather, to base consequentialism: people should feel obligated towards other people because one day they might be unfortunate, too.'

Duck, you are too high up the ladder of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to be making any sense.

Consequentialism is part of the human condition. Humanity for millions of years survived because of mutual support compacts, with consequentialism as the base. I don't see a damn thing wrong with that.

Family members do not support each other out of altruism, they support each other out of the duties which derive from kinship.

For better or worse humanity is one large family, we have a shared kinship. As human beings we have the duty to support and protect others to the best extent that we are able.

This is never a value based on altruism or generosity, it is the simple common sense of survival.

Only in the face of security can altruism exist. In the absence of security, mutual fear easily becomes the see of mutual support.

Fear is important, because it motivates us to DO SOMETHING about that which makes us feel threatened.

And the current human condition regarding the rapidly diminishing middle class is something we SHOULD all feel fear about.

[Hattie]

Well, what would you expect Donald Duck to say?

[Sharon]

That whole "knowledge-based economy" idea is a crock. I don't mean to say that that's not what's happening--it is. But the idea that a nation can subsist that way is a crock. We now depend so heavily on other countries to do our manufacturing that we have all but forgotten how. We depend so heavily on factory farms to produce our food for us, and then to ship it to us over long distances, that if anything happens to disrupt that chain, we will be hard pressed. The local farmers are being driven out of business by the "low, low prices" of the factory farms, but we're going to need them again someday.

[Sharon]

There is one bright spot--just one. The "Guilded Age" of the last century was followed by the Depression, which was accompanied by the most powerful rise of populism this country has ever seen. There was even a strong socialist movement in Oklahoma, can you imagine that?! I think we're going to see history repeat itself yet again.

[Sharon]

Oops, I meant "Gilded Age," of course!

[lc2]

I realize I'm taking DD's bait here, but I had to respond to his comment about the irresponsible poor with children:

My husband who works in retail hired a single (teenage, h.s. drop-out) mom yesterday who elected to donate $2/week to United Way, out of her minimum wage job. Talk about a wake-up call to a person who makes almost quadruple her hourly rate, and elects to donate the same amount. Who's more responsible? Or are we only responsible for ourselves and our own nuclear families? If so, then what's the point of being a member of a species of social animals? Seems to me we didn't have much choice in the matter of being born human, and the child of this single mom sure didn't ask to be born.

Our society's sense of responsibility should extend to people like this. I'm just sad that this woman will have to work there for 2 years before her health insurance kicks in, and even then it will only cover her, since she's part-time.

I am sick and tired of seeing/hearing people demonize the working poor. There is a problem in the US when there is a direct, negative correlation between income and charitable giving. The states with the two highest rates of per capita income, CT and MA, have the two lowest rates of charitable giving, respectively. And Mississippi has the lowest per capita incomes and highest degree of charitable giving. That is a problem that Wal-Mart cannot solve. I'm not a religious person, but I believe increasingly that it is a disease of our national soul. It chips away at our humanity to limit our sympathy and resources to people who we've decided deserve them. I'm sorry, there is just no place for this in the United States in 2006! If other countries can manage to do this and still not have vast quantities of people loafing around on the taxpayer's dole, what, exactly, are we doing wrong?

[Anarcissie]

lc2: "My husband who works in retail hired a single (teenage, h.s. drop-out) mom yesterday who elected to donate $2/week to United Way, out of her minimum wage job. Talk about a wake-up call to a person who makes almost quadruple her hourly rate, and elects to donate the same amount."

I have read in more than one place that the poor donate more to charity than the rich both relatively (proportion of their income) and absolutely (total money). This makes sense: the poor are acutely aware of the need for the customs and institutions of mutual aid, whereas the rich can take care of themselves; their main interest in charity is egotism, narcissism, and guilt. However, the role of the poor is often invisible because the media tend to focus on the doings of the rich -- they are of higher status and therefore more important, and the owners of the media corporations have more in common with them.

I doubt if this is a peculiarity of the United States. After all, several centuries ago, a noted rabbi pointed it out in a very different place and time ("the widow's mite"). To change it would require a profoundly radical shift in people's consciousness, something I think is apparently going to be accomplished one person at a time, and not very rapidly at that.

[eternalsquire]

Hattie, I had a feeling he was going to say what he said, so I figured it was high time for me to demonstrate the recipe for roast duck.

Anarcissie, I think you might be onto something. It seems that Old Money is best motivated by guilt and New Money is best motivated by fear of reversal. If we can manage to serve up these emotions in a soft sell then we can bring these people on board. As far as selling this to Scrooge, we'll need nothing less than the ghosts of Christmases past, present, and future.
And this gives me a thought: why not create a non-profit that coordinates the funding and underwriting of private unemployment insurance... Premium to be based on a formula involving monthly income, monthly rent, and number of dependents. Benefits equate to State minimum wage times 1.X where X is number of dependents, for a period of 3 years. Claims must be made for layoff, fire, medical, or documented constructive termination, a normal quit does not qualify.
Tax deductable donations above and beyond normal premium payments.
Think it could fly?

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"I have read in more than one place that the poor donate more to charity than the rich both relatively (proportion of their income) and absolutely (total money)."

The preceding is utter nonsense. Charitabe giving in the US totals about $250 billion a year. Between 70%-80% of all Americans give to at least one charity.

The rich give extraordinary amounts of cash to millions of beneficiaries. The "poor" give virtually none.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is currently endowed with about $30 billion. Where did that money come from?

Answer: From Bill Gates' personal fortune.

Warren Buffett has recently committed to adding another $30 billion of his own money to the Gates Foundation.

What's the source of his gift?

Answer: his personal fortune. In fact, in both cases, the gifts account for far more than half the net worth of both men.

By the way, there's already a Buffett Foundation. The portion of his estate that isn't headed for the Gates Foundation is in his foundation.

Meanwhile, the list of foundations endowed with huge gifts from wealthy families is as long as the list of wealthy families. The Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and many more.

You wrote:

"the poor are acutely aware of the need for the customs and institutions of mutual aid, whereas the rich can take care of themselves; their main interest in charity is egotism, narcissism, and guilt."

More nonsense. The poor are the recipients of charity. Welfare, housing, food stamps and other support is given by way of the tax system.

Meanwhile, rich benefactors add more. They are confident they can change the worlds of the people to whom they award money or benefits. Many Wall Streeters pay private-school tuition for bright and promising kids whose families have no money. Some Wall Streeters have funded entire schools for poor kids.

You wrote:

"However, the role of the poor is often invisible because the media tend to focus on the doings of the rich -- they are of higher status and therefore more important, and the owners of the media corporations have more in common with them."

The preceding is total idiocy. With respect to the charitable activities of poor people, well, there really aren't any. The poor receive the benefits of charities funded by the rich.

Meanwhile, every newspaper has its "society pages" and coverage of local "charitable events." Every small-town paper covers the local charity balls and fundraising events of all types. No event is too small for coverage by the local paper.

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any beggars-banquet fundraisers. But I do know that every day on the New York City subway, some drug addict will probably attempt to pass the hat while he shares his tale of woe.

The usual pitch involves a bargain, which is usually a form of mild extortion. The drug addict panhandler tells us he won't have to resort to crime if we just give him a little money. The undertone is that by giving generously to a subway panhandler today we might avoid a mugging tomorrow.

[chris]

lc2, you wrote:

"My husband who works in retail hired a single (teenage, h.s. drop-out) mom yesterday who elected to donate $2/week to United Way, out of her minimum wage job. Talk about a wake-up call to a person who makes almost quadruple her hourly rate, and elects to donate the same amount. Who's more responsible?"

As many employees know, it's a good career move to kick in the minimum to United Way when the boss asks/suggests that you consider it. Two bucks a week to United Way is a small kickback for the goodwill of the boss who is usually given a hazy quota for contributions.

You wrote:

"Or are we only responsible for ourselves and our own nuclear families?"

Hardly. Our social programs are funded by tax revenue. Thus, most people with jobs are contributing to the support of those on the low end.

You wrote:

"If so, then what's the point of being a member of a species of social animals? Seems to me we didn't have much choice in the matter of being born human, and the child of this single mom sure didn't ask to be born."

No one asks to be born, but everyone's parents have a choice about childbearing. No mother is surprised when the stork arrives.

You wrote:

"Our society's sense of responsibility should extend to people like this. I'm just sad that this woman will have to work there for 2 years before her health insurance kicks in, and even then it will only cover her, since she's part-time."

No one lives on the income from a part-time job. Meanwhile, she is probably eligible for food stamps and welfare and housing. With a job she is likely to qualify for the Earned Income Credit, which means any income tax payments she makes will be refunded.

You wrote:

"I am sick and tired of seeing/hearing people demonize the working poor."

You must look very hard to find these demonizations. I've never heard any discussion in which people with low-wage jobs were demonized. In fact they are generally praised for having either staying off welfare rolls or breaking free of public support.

You wrote:

"There is a problem in the US when there is a direct, negative correlation between income and charitable giving."

It's completely rational. Those with more assets give more, and those with less, give less. Very simple.

You wrote:

"The states with the two highest rates of per capita income, CT and MA, have the two lowest rates of charitable giving, respectively. And Mississippi has the lowest per capita incomes and highest degree of charitable giving."

I think the preceding statements are a crock and you have no evidence to support either claim.

Meanwhile, just on the surface, you're way off. Massachusetts, otherwise known as Taxachussets, nails its workers in a big way. The more they make, the more they pay. While taxes aren't charity, the tax revenue performs much of the same functions.

Public schools are funded by property taxes and some of the revenue from better neighborhoods is drawn off to fund schools in crappy neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, Harvard quite generously gives free educations to deserving poor kids. Harvard can afford such largesse because its endowment fund is substantial. That fund exists because Harvard grads donate to it.

The same story is replayed at every private college in the country. But Harvard is the wealthiest. Nevertheless, Massachusetts is brimming with private colleges and universities that do what they can to cut the cost of education for those kids who've worked hard through high school but need the financial break.

[lc2]

chris is so out of touch with reality, it's frightening. I will respond only to the comments I have time and interest for, namely his first: since my husband *is* "the boss" I guess the fact that he saw this employee's United Way deduction while processing her paperwork, puts the lie to your assumption that "management" had something to do with it. He came home humbled and reflective, which is the reaction any rational and halfway decent person should have. There's a value judgment for you, and I stand by it.

You should probably save your comments about Massachusetts for someone who doesn't live there. You know nothing about this state, particularly the well-documented correlation of per capita income and charitable giving that I mentioned. If you're interested, you won't have to look far for this information. And the "taxachusetts" label is overplayed and overrated, so get a clue.

[chris]

lc2, you wrote:

"since my husband *is* "the boss" I guess the fact that he saw this employee's United Way deduction while processing her paperwork, puts the lie to your assumption that "management" had something to do with it."

Your anecdote notwithstanding, increasing United Way contributions is a task many bosses shoulder. Why do you think UW receives so much funding? In my experience the someone up the ladder hands you the form and tells you it's a good idea to throw a few bucks in the pot.

That's usually enough of a push to pull a little more out of employees who don't want to look like cheapskates.

As for MA, well, like everywhere else, the poor receive the benefits of charity and the better-off provide them. It's that simple.

[chris]

p.s. to lc2:

According to various charitable giving sources, MA ranks 12th in the nation for giving, with a per-capita donation of $521 versus a national average of $484.

Meanwhile, there's no escaping the reality that MI is a net RECIPIENT of federal tax dollars while MA is a net CONTRIBUTOR.

By the way, the explanations for personal generosity boiled down to this: Prostestants are generous, Catholics are cheapskates and blacks are generous.

Meanwhile, baby-boomers are also labeled as cheapskates, but Bill Gates is a baby-boomer who created a $30 billion charity. Meanwhile, virtually every baby-boomer with a corporate job is a contributor to United Way.

As for me and Taxachusetts, well, I live in New York City, a city that abuses its residents with taxes while the state is working them over at the same time.

NY State spends $40 billion on Medicaid. That's one heck of a generous gift.

[Jacqueline]

Donaldduck wrote: " How are the uninsured the government's responsibility? I can get health insurance for $23/mo because I don't drink and smoke. This is through Humana, not a company program. There are complete plans for $48/mo. Yeah, if I made the really dumb decision to have several kids on my low-income job, it would be difficult to buy them all insurance...."

First, what you pay has to do with your age and pre-existing conditions that you have no control over, like congenital heart defect, diabetes, etc. So if you're without a job and health benefits in your 40's, have endometriosis and an age-related metabolism problem (requiring medication)adversely affecting your weight, cholesterol and blood sugar, you can't get affordable health insurance on your own on an individual plan - period. Second, is your Humana plan an HMO or a PPO or is it an indemnity plan like Blue Cross? There's a big difference in what is covered, and what is not depending on each type of plan. Also, where you live depends on wht is available to purchase for health insurance, too. I happen to work as an independent insurance agent, so you aren't fooling me with your caustic posts in your attempt to hijack this thread with misinformation like a typical troll.

Your arrogant tripe about the poor having too many kids...do you plan to tell all poor families which kid they should let starve to death or die from lack of access to healthcare so they can then go to jail for child welfare endangerment, too? What a concept! It has obviously not occurred to you that many legal assaults have been underway against reproductive choice in this country for quite some time. Pharmacists can now legally refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills in all states which makes it impossible for poor women without cars to get contraceptives so they CAN prevent having several kids on their low-income jobs.

Abortion has been totally outlawed in South Dakota, even in the instance of rape and incest, and thus, women have less and less options for exercizing any real choice in their childbearing - unless they never marry and never have kids because God forbid something bad should happen to them like divorce, disability or job loss which would put them and the children in poverty.

As a result, this is EXACTLY what is happening: as of the 2000 Census, only 44% of women of childbearing age have ever given birth or had kids. So now we have an increasing generation of future "old maids" who have deprived themselves of healthy and fulfilling marriages in order to avoid the possibility of getting pregnant when they couldn't afford a child. The consequence of that is we now have an aging population that is not being replenished - all because of the past 20 years of judicial and legal assaults on women's reproductive choices, attacks on social programs for the middle class and the poor, and the evisceration of safety nets like welfare - compunded by the off-shoring of too many jobs ensuring that there won't be enough jobs to go around so that everyone can live. But none of this is our collective responsibility though, is it?

As far as the government's responsibility toward the uninsured: Securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity and promoting the general welfare IS the responsibility of our government - a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people (ALL people, not just the top 1% rich). Now part of that includes providing protection against public health threats such as pandemics of fatal and costly diseases that will adversely affect the health of ALL. Since w are guranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, any deprivation of healthcare resulting in untimely premature and preventable deaths (as is already occurring w/ over 18,000 uninsured Americans each year)IS a deprivation of the basic human right to life - which our government has a duty to protect - outside the womb regardless of age.

Chris wrote: " The poor receive the benefits of charity and the better-off provide them. It's that simple."

Chris, the only thing simple here is your mind. You are quite naive if you think that the poor actually receive the benefits you claim they do from charities. Charities are 501(3)c corporations and foundations, meaning they are tax-exempt. The lion's share of what the better-off provide goes to the obscene six figure salaries of these charities' executive directors and CEO's. They live large driving luxury cars, living in palacial estates in the most exclusive of gated communities, have closets filled with $2000 suits, and enjoy a regular diet of canapes and champaigne commensurate with their exclusive country club and yacht club memberships. Very little is left to pay the salaries of the charities' "lesser lights" who rank among the working-poor, if they indeed get anything at all since many are unpaid volunteers. There is nothing left for the poor but a few token crumbs, if even that. Meanwhile, these charities take up valuable taxable real estate space in various municipalities throughout every community in ever state, leaving the poor homeowners and small businesses to pick up the tax slack on their property taxes to make up for what the non-profits are NOT paying under their tax-exempt status.

So the primary beneficiaries of charity are the rich. They get the tax breaks for donating and the charity directors and CEO's who are also rich get all the money to support their lavish lifestyles of the rich and shameless. If you believe otherwise, you are either a fool, or you overdosed on the Kool Aid.