Who hurts the US Healthcare system worse?

You've forgotten the question already?!
Look back up the thread if you are having trouble remembering what you are talking about.
Or just make some shit up again. I had come to the conclusion that your were either lying or insane and I assumed you were lying. I had assumed incorrectly.

Because that would be a stupid thing to do and not a solution to poverty.Raising minimum wage makes things worse because it decreases the value of the dollar. You get more dollars, but have to pay more dollars out. For those making minimum wage, the increase in wages and increase in cost of goods cancel each other out.It just raises the prices for everyone who makes more than minimum wage without including any sort of cost of living increase for us. Everyone else makes the same amount but things cost more, which actually put more people under the poverty line.Only people who make minimum wage and don't understand economics think raising it is a good idea, because they want a free handout. Why don't you take your training seriously and put forth every effort and a bit of time? You should earn your living, not ask the government to force your employer to pay you more than you are worth.Especially when you are bitching about welfare. Don't bitch about welfare and then ask for welfare in the form of a wage hike. It still comes out of other people's pocket.

That's because he makes assumptions and reaches conclusions based on assumptions before gathering data, then tries to retrofit whatever he skims off the internet into some flimsy support structure for his argument.Essentially he either doesn't bother to read what he sources or he can't actually comprehend what the sources mean if he does read them.Given that he will stick by his claims and repeatedly post the same material no matter how thoroughly the charts, models or concepts have been explained to be irrelevant to his conclusions, I think he probably does read them, but can't understand them.Or, his issue is simply pathological and he can't refrain from being dishonest, even though he knows he is wrong.

I understand the economic point you are making, but people who are making minimum wage actually have to do work in order to get what you are calling a free handout. And of course what they are worth, is whatever the business decides to pay them after the business owner pays himself. If you work at diligently and hard at a job for a full day, is the value of human time and effort truly only the amount that the owner, who may actually be fairly lousy at business, is able or willing to pay?When businesses pay a worker less than a livable wage, the rest of us pick up the tab by having to supplement that pay with food stamps and free medical care for the worker and his family.

They have to do the same amount of work whether they get a hike or not, so the hike is essentially a handout.And what they are worth is a negotiation between employer and employee.I consider myself and everyone who works as self employed. They provide a service of labor to someone who hires them in exchange for compensation. It's purely contractual.The value of human time and effort is agreed upon within that contract, which either party can dissolve if they become dissatisfied with the arrangement.The value on human time and effort is only relative to what the market is willing to bear.And, yes, I fully understand that there are hard working people out there who work 40 hours a week or more and are still under the poverty line. It took me a long time of arguing that this could simply be solved by raising the minimum wage.I rationalized it much in the same way I imagine kofh2u does. If they had more money, they would be less poor. (forgive my wording.)But that fails to address the economic impact of inflation and the accompanying "basket of goods" as well as an employer having to decrease hours and cut back on payroll (employees) because of his or her increased costs, which actually puts more people out of work.There are other consequences as well.I agree with your point that making less than a livable wage bears a burden on the rest of society which is a problem that need to be addressed.But there are better solutions than raising minimum wage. Increasing the value of the dollar, for example, to maximize buying power without changing the nominal value of wages seems like a good way to push people over the poverty line, rather than moving the nominal value of wages and then moving the nominal value of the poverty line in the same direction.

I don't agree that increased wages as a handout. If that were the case, then every pretty much every raise is a handout. If we allow an employer to pay wages so low that the community has to subsidize them, then it is the employer who is getting the handout. I don't see how your suggestion could possibly work. If a dollar is increased in value, so that one dollar purchases more goods and services, that would mean fewer dollars in the till for everyone who is selling anything, and thus fewer dollars to divvy up between employer and employee thus lowering wages. How would this help?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, it's just that the way you keep quoting me out of context makes it hard for me to follow along. Also, I'm told by almost everybody that I'm pretty stupid, so you have to keep things simple for my tiny frog-brain.So what, in particular, was the exact value you were looking for, and why weren't you able to find it on Table 2 of my source? As I said, I'm sorry that you'll have to click a link and follow it but I can't copy and paste an image out of a PDF onto a website. Why? Did I describe events that, in fact, did not occur? Which events are you asserting did not happen?

You being bat-shit crazy explains that reply better than you being a liar.
I should have noticed it earlier.

Ok, fine, you need more. Here is some peer-reviewed research. Although the pages I linked had these links if you followed it. Erythrocyte fatty acids, plasma lipids, and cardiovascular disease in rural ChinaProlonged infection with hepatitis B virus and association between low blood cholesterol concentration and liver cancerCorrelation of Cervical Cancer Mortality with Reproductive and Dietary Factors, and Serum Markers in ChinaRisk factors for stomach cancer in sixty-five Chinese counties.Diet and blood nutrient correlations with ischemic heart, hypertensive heart, and stroke mortality in China.Dietary calcium and bone density among middle-aged
and elderly women in ChinaThere's 6 peer-reviewed papers. Let me know if you need more, there's about another 20 of them. It's the animal proteins. But I don't want to distract from the correlation between the food we eat and our diets and the many diseases, including cancer, that has been found.So let's first concede on that, then maybe I'll start a thread on grass fed vs regular meat.- Oni

But again, crazy in what sense?What events that I described did not occur?

That's a lot better. I like that quite a bit.Why couldn't you have started with that?Now, to address them - do you think China is a good model for dietary and cancer modelling of the population of the United States? How many Americans are Chinese, for instance? It's the animal proteins if they come from grains, you said. So it's the grains. What's different about an animal protein when the animal is fed on grains instead of grasses? And are you aware that grains are grasses? I'm pretty sure I stipulated this from the get-go. There's an enormous correlation between eating food and cancer.

"Affected with madness; insane."
Y'know - crazy. Bat-shit crazy.Crazy like a crazy person saying crazy things; asking crazy questions.
Questions like: "Crazy in what sense?" or "What events that I described did not occur?"Crazy like loss of reality crazy.

From my understanding of it, China was a good model because they were able to measure the difference in humans who's diet changed after the introduction of a higher animal protien diet - which was not normal to them. So they were able to measure a before and after.Something like that. You can read the Wiki article the explains it better. We should probably start a new thread on this but, the issue is not the grains. Yes it's the animal protien, and yes it's because of what the animals are fed. But no it's not because of grains. The cattle for instance, are fed mostly corn and soy, and "other things.". There's a lot of problems with all that that again should probably be the discusion of another thread.Grass is much healthier for the animals and doesn't produce all the things that was found in the animal protiens that was covered in the China Study. There is a lot of info to support that also. Not "eating food", but "the food we eat." Big difference, and you know that.- Oni

Right, no, I get it, but again - what did I say happened that did not, in reality, happen? Be specific.

Well, right. Not normal to them. But Europeans have been eating high animal protein diets for more than a hundred generations. In just one example, persons of European descent are typically able to eat dairy products like milk and cheese well into adulthood. In China, not so much.I mean, don't get me wrong - stuff we eat is frequently carcinogenic. But it doesn't follow from that that we can broadly and significantly reduce the incidence of cancers by a change in diet. So many things are carcinogenic - stuff we can't just avoid, like exposure to sunlight - that it's just not possible that mere dietary changes could have a significant effect on cancers. Things? What "things" were found in the animal protein? No, eating food. Caloric intake is associated with cancer rates, because cancers need more energy than surrounding tissues (as they're in a constant state of accelerated growth.) Starvation is one way to keep cancer incidence down, if that's the only thing you care about.