34 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

http://seattletimes....ifespan22m.html

[Heliotrope]

thanks for posting this , almost forgot about it, i read a similar thing in NY TImes or USA Today. probably cited the same study.

not only is it falling for least -healthy americans but also for the underclass and poor people , while the upper-middle , upper class, SUPER RICH folks continue to enjoy increasing life expectancies. This increases the "gap" .

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The healthy get healthier and the disease-ridden/illness-inflicted/sick Americans get UN-healthier. ,

who knows? Maybe immortality will only be available to the rich for a very very long time. Eventually the immortals are the elite and the non-elites die off, Population DECREASES

Edited by HYP86, 03 May 2008 - 05:40 AM.

[VictorBjoerk]

Well it hasn't just to do with money but the obvious thing is that many people of the underclass is not interested in healthy behaviour.They may have psychological issues and are often smokers.They may find comfort in their life through eating fast food which provides them with pleasure.
In Sweden with our good social security system money is not the issue since everyone can access good health care if they want to.

[forever freedom]

thanks for posting this , almost forgot about it, i read a similar thing in NY TImes or USA Today. probably cited the same study.

not only is it falling for least -healthy americans but also for the underclass and poor people , while the upper-middle , upper class, SUPER RICH folks continue to enjoy increasing life expectancies. This increases the "gap" .

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The healthy get healthier and the disease-ridden/illness-inflicted/sick Americans get UN-healthier. ,

who knows? Maybe immortality will only be available to the rich for a very very long time. Eventually the immortals are the elite and the non-elites die off, Population DECREASES

Depending on the circumstances, a population decrease wouldn't be a bad thing. But i find it unlikely that after a while (one or two decades -after immortality becomes available to the richest- at most) immortality won't be available to most of the population.

[Heliotrope]

thanks for posting this , almost forgot about it, i read a similar thing in NY TImes or USA Today. probably cited the same study.

not only is it falling for least -healthy americans but also for the underclass and poor people , while the upper-middle , upper class, SUPER RICH folks continue to enjoy increasing life expectancies. This increases the "gap" .

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The healthy get healthier and the disease-ridden/illness-inflicted/sick Americans get UN-healthier. ,

who knows? Maybe immortality will only be available to the rich for a very very long time. Eventually the immortals are the elite and the non-elites die off, Population DECREASES

Depending on the circumstances, a population decrease wouldn't be a bad thing. But i find it unlikely that after a while (one or two decades -after immortality becomes available to the richest- at most) immortality won't be available to most of the population.

Of course if one is determined, immortality will be available to most people. The rich folks will be the experimenters to test the new technologies. The birth rate among elites will decrease , since if they get to live forever , then why have a lot of children? their genes survive just thru them being alive. The poor will continue to die off, but they'd have kids to get their genes into the future, if their kids are smarter than parent generations, their kids will try to be elites/immortal too. hopefully end up w/ a world with little death, conquering blight of involuntary death

[VictorBjoerk]

If possibilities of immortality appeared it would probably be accessible to everyone very fast.At least in developed countries.That is actually quite obvious...

[forever freedom]

If possibilities of immortality appeared it would probably be accessible to everyone very fast.At least in developed countries.That is actually quite obvious...

I'm not sure it would be very fast. There are many types of treatments today that still haven't become accessible for most of the population, like some cancer treatments and some other sorts of treatments. I assume that a treatment as complex as one that would stop and even reverse aging in the human body would not come in the form of a magic pill and would involve many different steps, some of them being potentially very expensive.

I think that it will not be something so fast...

[Ghostrider]

I don't think the reason for so many poor and unhealthy is anything strongly related to money, but probably decision making. There are a lot of poor who will sacrifice their health before their cable television or ringtones. It's like software, you can take the fastest computer, put bad software on it and it will totally suck. Not all poor people are stupid and incapable, but a lot make really bad decisions. In some cases though, a fool and his money are soon parted...the same probably applies to health as well. On the other hand, Warren Buffet for example likes sugary soft drinks. I have a rich uncle who smokes. I guess it comes down to what is important. Oh well, I can understand why some people do not want to live forever.

[Mind]

I am with Shonghow and Ghostrider on this one. A LOT of people make bad decisions like smoking, over eating, drinking, too much fast food, no exercise, etc... and there is nothing we can do about it if we want to live in a free society. We could ban cigarettes, ice cream, soda, even noodles, and make it a law that everyone has to exercise, but then it would be like living in a tyranny.

I get a little upset at times that healthy people are increasingly having to pick up the medical tab for the people who engage in activities that bring on self-inflicted illness. I guess all the more reason to find advanced medical interventions, stuff that will reduce the cost of long term care.

[forever freedom]

It has a lot to do with poor people's culture. They have this belief that "wanting to get rich is evil" and stuff like that. At least here in brazil there's a lot of this kind of mentality going on in the population, probably because the country is a catholic one...

But surely, poor people are only poor because of their mentality. Maybe the guy who was born with poor parents and that didn't receive a decent education would have a hard time. But what about this guy's parents? Didn't they try to go up in life, at least until they could afford to give their children a decent education? That's how families can rise in the country's social levels. The parents may be poor, but they can get enough to educate their children, that in turn can manage to be successful.



That's why i don't care about poor people. A large part of their poorness is their own responsability, they just don't want to admit it. So if poorer people are dying sooner because on top of being poor they also don't take care of their bodies, who cares? If don't even they care why should the government. Those who bring the damage to their bodies because of bad habits should pay for their own medical bills. If they can't afford it, then they have to take as much care as they can for their bodies. At least that would be a start on their road of finally starting to help themselves instead of staying for generations in a constant glorified lazyness and "poor pride".

[kenj]

Children being exposed to sugar rushes and fast food is just heartbreaking to me. What an effective way to ruin long-term health! Serious business.

[Ghostrider]

It has a lot to do with poor people's culture. They have this belief that "wanting to get rich is evil" and stuff like that. At least here in brazil there's a lot of this kind of mentality going on in the population, probably because the country is a catholic one...

But surely, poor people are only poor because of their mentality. Maybe the guy who was born with poor parents and that didn't receive a decent education would have a hard time. But what about this guy's parents? Didn't they try to go up in life, at least until they could afford to give their children a decent education? That's how families can rise in the country's social levels. The parents may be poor, but they can get enough to educate their children, that in turn can manage to be successful.



That's why i don't care about poor people. A large part of their poorness is their own responsability, they just don't want to admit it. So if poorer people are dying sooner because on top of being poor they also don't take care of their bodies, who cares? If don't even they care why should the government. Those who bring the damage to their bodies because of bad habits should pay for their own medical bills. If they can't afford it, then they have to take as much care as they can for their bodies. At least that would be a start on their road of finally starting to help themselves instead of staying for generations in a constant glorified lazyness and "poor pride".

Yeah, I think it all comes down to decision making...and unfortunatually, making good decisions is something that has to be learned rather than inherited. Children need to learn these traits from their parents. The real problem comes from people having children who should not be having children. Think about it, if only people who could properly care for their children -- food, shelter, education, had children, there would be no world hunger...it would be completely gone, off the map. Imagine what that would do for average human longevity.

Edited by Ghostrider, 05 May 2008 - 07:10 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

It has a lot to do with poor people's culture. They have this belief that "wanting to get rich is evil" and stuff like that. At least here in brazil there's a lot of this kind of mentality going on in the population, probably because the country is a catholic one...

But surely, poor people are only poor because of their mentality. Maybe the guy who was born with poor parents and that didn't receive a decent education would have a hard time. But what about this guy's parents? Didn't they try to go up in life, at least until they could afford to give their children a decent education? That's how families can rise in the country's social levels. The parents may be poor, but they can get enough to educate their children, that in turn can manage to be successful.



That's why i don't care about poor people. A large part of their poorness is their own responsability, they just don't want to admit it. So if poorer people are dying sooner because on top of being poor they also don't take care of their bodies, who cares? If don't even they care why should the government. Those who bring the damage to their bodies because of bad habits should pay for their own medical bills. If they can't afford it, then they have to take as much care as they can for their bodies. At least that would be a start on their road of finally starting to help themselves instead of staying for generations in a constant glorified lazyness and "poor pride".

Yeah, I think it all comes down to decision making...and unfortunatually, making good decisions is something that has to be learned rather than inherited. Children need to learn these traits from their parents. The real problem comes from people having children who should not be having children. Think about it, if only people who could properly care for their children -- food, shelter, education, had children, there would be no world hunger...it would be completely gone, off the map. Imagine what that would do for average human longevity.

I agree completely

[Heliotrope]

Children being exposed to sugar rushes and fast food is just heartbreaking to me. What an effective way to ruin long-term health! Serious business.

Hey whats the point of living forever if i can't have my sugar once in a while and pig out now and then ? J/k


problem is, there are vastly more poor people in the world than the relatively few rich ppl, poor as compared to the high standards of living in some communities

Out of the 6.7 , almost 7 Billion people on earth, how many do you think are poor? I'll ATTEMPT to put up a guess, say the poor are 5 Billion strong (actually 5.5 billion are in under-developed/not-as-developed countries, and they grow fastest) , and there are perhaps 1 Billion "middle class people" living very comfortably, and another 0.7 -0.8 billion relatively "rich" , maybe 0.01 million super rich and a few thousand super super rich . Very hard to bring everyone to the equal playing-field level. eventually problem for everyone, but

Who do you think is really on the losing side?

Edited by HYP86, 05 May 2008 - 09:54 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

There are more overweight than underweight people in the world....

[Heliotrope]

There are more overweight than underweight people in the world....

really? i agree in U.S. there're definitely more overweights than underweights and the overweights in general actually are the unhealthy, poor people. greasy fattening Fast-food is cheapter than healthier foods. if you're poor, would you spend $10 on a huge pack of frozen hot dogs or a little pit of lean steak/veggies ?

according to Wiki, 5.3-5.5 billion in underdeveloped countries will reach 7.8 Billion by 2050. though i personally don't think over-population is too big of a problem yet. IF we colonize Mars and other planets/satellites and have better techs, even can accomodate one Trillion people. The problem is too high a % of poor ppl


Out of the 6.7 , almost 7 Billion people on earth, how many do you think are poor? I'll ATTEMPT to put up a guess, say the poor are 5 Billion strong (actually 5.5 billion are in under-developed/not-as-developed countries, and they grow fastest) , and there are perhaps 1 Billion "middle class people" living very comfortably, and another 0.7 -0.8 billion relatively "rich" , maybe 0.01 million super rich and a few thousand super super rich . Very hard to bring everyone to the equal playing-field level. eventually problem for everyone, but


immortals /elites will be in the minority for a long long time , but more and more should join

Edited by HYP86, 05 May 2008 - 10:09 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

http://www.theage.co...5407742378.html

[VictorBjoerk]

The main reason to the increase is the development of obesity in China.The poor people doesn't know how to eat healthy,
http://news.national...-china-fat.html

[VictorBjoerk]

Just like the inuits which ballooned in size when MCdonalds arrived to Greenland.

[JonesGuy]

One can recognise that having abundant poverty is not a good idea, even if you don't feel sympathy for poor people. Reducing cyclical poverty means that the total economy grows faster and in a more healthy fashion. "A rising tide raises all boats" in that sense as well.

[VictorBjoerk]

Well I guess many people here may have read Fat Land by Greg Critser.It gives a good wiev of not only fat but the choices poor people can make that are contraprodctive to themselves.

[forever freedom]

One can recognise that having abundant poverty is not a good idea, even if you don't feel sympathy for poor people. Reducing cyclical poverty means that the total economy grows faster and in a more healthy fashion. "A rising tide raises all boats" in that sense as well.

What about first making the cake get bigger and then sharing it? That's the system of the US and it worked wonders, in comparison with socialist countries that tried massively to reduce poverty.

[Ghostrider]

One can recognise that having abundant poverty is not a good idea, even if you don't feel sympathy for poor people. Reducing cyclical poverty means that the total economy grows faster and in a more healthy fashion. "A rising tide raises all boats" in that sense as well.

What about first making the cake get bigger and then sharing it? That's the system of the US and it worked wonders, in comparison with socialist countries that tried massively to reduce poverty.

Yeah, no doubt. The best way to raise the standard of living is to raise overall production. The excess will spill over into the lower classes in terms of better education (or at least the access to better education -- it takes 2 people to educate one, eventually the one should be able to educate him/herself). Really, decision making comes from education, but the subjects being educated have to "want it". If everyone had a valuable skill or trade, then everyone would be able to contribute to the economy, everyone would be able to take care of him/herself.

[Ghostrider]

Hey whats the point of living forever if i can't have my sugar once in a while and pig out now and then ? J/k

Funny you should mention that. I just consumed about 4/5ths of a 16 oz can of Monster Energy before my midterm today. I have never used amphetamines, but from what I have heard, I think the Monster Energy produced a similar effect, complete with a very subtle sense of euphoria. Note though, I usually avoid caffeine and sugar, for health and also that when I really need it, it kicks in swiftly and gives me a nice boost. Whatever is in that stuff is very effective for concentration and quickness of thought. It seems similar to speed, but only when used rarely. I'll be up late tonight...but it will be a productive night.

Edited by Ghostrider, 06 May 2008 - 02:34 AM.

[niner]

One can recognise that having abundant poverty is not a good idea, even if you don't feel sympathy for poor people. Reducing cyclical poverty means that the total economy grows faster and in a more healthy fashion. "A rising tide raises all boats" in that sense as well.

What about first making the cake get bigger and then sharing it? That's the system of the US and it worked wonders, in comparison with socialist countries that tried massively to reduce poverty.

It didn't really happen that way in America, if the whole "trickle down theory" is what you're talking about. Since 1980, the rich have gotten WAY richer, while the lower classes have barely moved. I agree that communism was a disaster, but there are social democracies that work pretty well. America has a serious case of social pathology in the "inner cities", which is a euphemism for poor Blacks. It is multifaceted in nature, but children having children is a big part of it, along with a perverse disrespect for education or intelligence and our failed "war on drugs", among other things. This is a problem that will be expensive to fix, and more expensive to ignore, I fear. The other, very different part of America's lower classes are the rust-belt types who have lost their good-paying jobs to globalization. There's a reasonable chance we can fix that to some degree if we attend to it before social pathology sets in there as well. There was a time when the Black community in many parts of America was a lot better off. They were the first ones hit by the loss of low-skilled jobs. It was after that that their social pathologies really took off.

[niner]

It has a lot to do with poor people's culture. They have this belief that "wanting to get rich is evil" and stuff like that. At least here in brazil there's a lot of this kind of mentality going on in the population, probably because the country is a catholic one...

We have very little of this mentality in America. It seems like everyone wants to be rich. They think it will make them happy. Many of the ones who are rich think they aren't.

But surely, poor people are only poor because of their mentality. Maybe the guy who was born with poor parents and that didn't receive a decent education would have a hard time. But what about this guy's parents? Didn't they try to go up in life, at least until they could afford to give their children a decent education? That's how families can rise in the country's social levels. The parents may be poor, but they can get enough to educate their children, that in turn can manage to be successful.

This is an oversimplification. Somewhere in the past, wrong decisions were probably made. If a kid is born to a 15 year old welfare momma who does a terrible job raising him, is it right to blame the kid? Sure, everyone should be responsible for themselves, but left to his own devices, that kid is headed to prison where he will be a burden on the rest of us instead of an asset. Personally, I'd be in favor of temporary sterilization of girls like that (and/or their boyfriends), reversed when they can support themselves, but I guess that makes me a fascist...

That's why i don't care about poor people. A large part of their poorness is their own responsability, they just don't want to admit it. So if poorer people are dying sooner because on top of being poor they also don't take care of their bodies, who cares? If don't even they care why should the government. Those who bring the damage to their bodies because of bad habits should pay for their own medical bills. If they can't afford it, then they have to take as much care as they can for their bodies. At least that would be a start on their road of finally starting to help themselves instead of staying for generations in a constant glorified lazyness and "poor pride".

If you came to America, you could run for public office as a Republican. Subjected to appropriate enzymatic digestion, poor people could be the solution to the world's food price problems. It would make a great platform.

[forever freedom]

But surely, poor people are only poor because of their mentality. Maybe the guy who was born with poor parents and that didn't receive a decent education would have a hard time. But what about this guy's parents? Didn't they try to go up in life, at least until they could afford to give their children a decent education? That's how families can rise in the country's social levels. The parents may be poor, but they can get enough to educate their children, that in turn can manage to be successful.

This is an oversimplification. Somewhere in the past, wrong decisions were probably made. If a kid is born to a 15 year old welfare momma who does a terrible job raising him, is it right to blame the kid? Sure, everyone should be responsible for themselves, but left to his own devices, that kid is headed to prison where he will be a burden on the rest of us instead of an asset. Personally, I'd be in favor of temporary sterilization of girls like that (and/or their boyfriends), reversed when they can support themselves, but I guess that makes me a fascist...

Let's look at it this way. Poor immigrants come from a remote place in europe to the US with nothing in their pockets, just the need to survive and improve their life conditions. They manage to do that, and although their lives wasn't the greatest and they spent most of their lives working very very hard, they can give better life conditions to their kids. These kids, in turn, are able to prosper and give better conditions to their kids and so on for the next generations.

If only one generation can break this "poor misery" habit and give the next generation a good upbringing, chances are that most of the descendants will be better off, because they will be able to receive a decent education and upbringing, increasing the possibilities that most if not all of them, for many generations, will have all the opportunities they need to have a good life.

This is basically the story of my family. Just trade the "US" for "Brazil", in the beggining of my paragraph.


The 15 y.o. mother, if she had good parents, would be able to nurture the child well. If these parents weren't capable of doing it, then chances are their parent's also didn't nurture them well. And on and on... what's the problem with these families?? And those who do receive a good upbringing and end up in misery too, well then it's their own fault (and this is how a "poor misery" cycle in a whole bunch of new generations begins, with one incompetent/incapable ancestor passing his genes further, which makes me remember your point of sterilization. But this is not the only cause of poor families).

That's why i don't care about poor people. A large part of their poorness is their own responsability, they just don't want to admit it. So if poorer people are dying sooner because on top of being poor they also don't take care of their bodies, who cares? If don't even they care why should the government. Those who bring the damage to their bodies because of bad habits should pay for their own medical bills. If they can't afford it, then they have to take as much care as they can for their bodies. At least that would be a start on their road of finally starting to help themselves instead of staying for generations in a constant glorified lazyness and "poor pride".

If you came to America, you could run for public office as a Republican. Subjected to appropriate enzymatic digestion, poor people could be the solution to the world's food price problems. It would make a great platform.

If i were to label myself it would be some sort of liberal republican indeed.

But what are you suggesting? That the state should be responsible for the health of those who do not take care of themselves and in top of that bring very little value to the economy? Hell let their bodies pile.


edit: but as the news displayed in the topic says, this is already happening.. lol. Poorer people are having their lives shortened because they have bad habits and don't have the proper health care to help them. No value creation, no gain; that's capitalism at it's best and i love it. Gets rid of the parasites.

Edited by sam988, 06 May 2008 - 06:10 AM.

[Ghostrider]

This is an oversimplification. Somewhere in the past, wrong decisions were probably made. If a kid is born to a 15 year old welfare momma who does a terrible job raising him, is it right to blame the kid? Sure, everyone should be responsible for themselves, but left to his own devices, that kid is headed to prison where he will be a burden on the rest of us instead of an asset. Personally, I'd be in favor of temporary sterilization of girls like that (and/or their boyfriends), reversed when they can support themselves, but I guess that makes me a fascist...

That's a very good point. I really feel sorry for the kids who are born into horrible homes. It's really not at all their fault and given their environment, the odds might be against them. It's like those feed the starving children commercials. I immediately feel very sorry for the children, but then anger towards the parents. Parents who bring children into the world and cannot care for them are very horrible people. But if you were brought up in those parents situation, would you do differently? They have to know better, but they just don't care. It's very near the lowest point of human nature. They should be steralized because they caused much suffering, just like we steralize animals because if they reproduce (by nature) their products will not have homes, will suffer, die of starvation, or be euthanized. The same applies to people. I don't think people should be steralized by default because, honestly, if I was brought up in their environment, I could turn out the same as well. But seralization is justified by certain actions. Steralization is probably something that is misunderstood. It's not about removing people from society, but rather eliminating suffering. If a young teen has a child and cannot raise him / her, temporarily sterialization is justified because the person simply demonstrated irresponsibility with human life. That's why I am not a big fan of abortion. Not for any religious reason and I acknowledge that there would be more "bad apples" in society without it, but the issue is about being responsible with human life. Outside of rape or medical issues, there should be no need for abortion. It's very serious if someone "accidently has a baby". That implies vast recklessness with human life. What if that baby was born and did not have a family to care for it? How much suffering might that child experience? This sounds like a justification for abortion, but really, the need for abortion should never have come up. Sex can be used as an expression of love outside of procreation, but birth control is easily obtainable. Yes, the parents (both) should be steralized to prevent the problem from happening again. As an analogy, consider someone who drives recklessly on public roads, but does not cause an accident. Will that person be able to keep his/her liscence? These are probably some of the more extreme views that I have presented here, and it's not about eliminating people, but rather about eliminating suffering. How can a society embrace the concept of immortaility if it does not value human life?

[niner]

But surely, poor people are only poor because of their mentality. Maybe the guy who was born with poor parents and that didn't receive a decent education would have a hard time. But what about this guy's parents? Didn't they try to go up in life, at least until they could afford to give their children a decent education? That's how families can rise in the country's social levels. The parents may be poor, but they can get enough to educate their children, that in turn can manage to be successful.

This is an oversimplification. Somewhere in the past, wrong decisions were probably made. If a kid is born to a 15 year old welfare momma who does a terrible job raising him, is it right to blame the kid? Sure, everyone should be responsible for themselves, but left to his own devices, that kid is headed to prison where he will be a burden on the rest of us instead of an asset. Personally, I'd be in favor of temporary sterilization of girls like that (and/or their boyfriends), reversed when they can support themselves, but I guess that makes me a fascist...

Let's look at it this way. Poor immigrants come from a remote place in europe to the US with nothing in their pockets, just the need to survive and improve their life conditions. They manage to do that, and although their lives wasn't the greatest and they spent most of their lives working very very hard, they can give better life conditions to their kids. These kids, in turn, are able to prosper and give better conditions to their kids and so on for the next generations.

If only one generation can break this "poor misery" habit and give the next generation a good upbringing, chances are that most of the descendants will be better off, because they will be able to receive a decent education and upbringing, increasing the possibilities that most if not all of them, for many generations, will have all the opportunities they need to have a good life.

This is basically the story of my family. Just trade the "US" for "Brazil", in the beggining of my paragraph.

The 15 y.o. mother, if she had good parents, would be able to nurture the child well. If these parents weren't capable of doing it, then chances are their parent's also didn't nurture them well. And on and on... what's the problem with these families?? And those who do receive a good upbringing and end up in misery too, well then it's their own fault (and this is how a "poor misery" cycle in a whole bunch of new generations begins, with one incompetent/incapable ancestor passing his genes further, which makes me remember your point of sterilization. But this is not the only cause of poor families).

It was the story of my family too. My grandfather came to America with 4 dollars in his pocket. His descendants have all done well. But he came with something other than money. He had some education, a skill that was in demand, a work ethic, and a strong family and social structure. Those were powerful advantages. Even in a good family, it's not that hard for things to fall apart, though. A factory closes, a father loses his job, starts drinking, leaves home. Mother does what she can, but isn't around enough, kids hang out with a bad crowd, start selling drugs for easy money, daughter gets pregnant... oops. So the parents were marginal, and had some bad breaks, and it all goes downhill from there. The influence of the other kids in the neighborhood is pretty big too. When there aren't any jobs to be had, but the drug dealers have a lot of money, pretty soon that looks like the way to go. I think you are overestimating the parenting skills of 15 year old girls. Even if they come from a good home, raising a kid in the modern world is hard. I know a girl (now a woman in her 30's) who came from a "good" family, but got pregnant as a teenager, and insisted on having the child. The kid is now a social basketcase. I think he's in jail, but I kind of lost touch with his mom.

That's why i don't care about poor people. A large part of their poorness is their own responsability, they just don't want to admit it. So if poorer people are dying sooner because on top of being poor they also don't take care of their bodies, who cares? If don't even they care why should the government. Those who bring the damage to their bodies because of bad habits should pay for their own medical bills. If they can't afford it, then they have to take as much care as they can for their bodies. At least that would be a start on their road of finally starting to help themselves instead of staying for generations in a constant glorified lazyness and "poor pride".

If you came to America, you could run for public office as a Republican. Subjected to appropriate enzymatic digestion, poor people could be the solution to the world's food price problems. It would make a great platform.

If i were to label myself it would be some sort of liberal republican indeed.

But what are you suggesting? That the state should be responsible for the health of those who do not take care of themselves and in top of that bring very little value to the economy? Hell let their bodies pile.

Well, I can see how you would feel that way, but society is funny about letting people die. For one thing, they don't die cheaply. Instead they show up at the E.R. and wind up consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of healthcare. Or instead they wind up in prison and consume hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of warehousing. Either way, it's an expensive waste of human life. Since society has decided that we can't just shoot them, I think a better solution would be to try to recognize problems and treat them early before they turn into much bigger problems. This is the job of a country's leadership. Instead of subsidizing agribusiness and big oil, we should be subsidizing industries that will provide the jobs of the future, and making sure that people are sufficiently educated to take part in the economy. Ideally we would be taking steps to prevent some of the social pathologies of the "inner city", but we believe in personal freedom, which unfortunately seems to include the freedom to impose huge costs on society.

edit: but as the news displayed in the topic says, this is already happening.. lol. Poorer people are having their lives shortened because they have bad habits and don't have the proper health care to help them. No value creation, no gain; that's capitalism at it's best and i love it. Gets rid of the parasites.

You probably shouldn't call yourself a liberal republican. You would have better luck with "Compassionate Conservative".

[JonesGuy]

What about first making the cake get bigger and then sharing it? That's the system of the US and it worked wonders, in comparison with socialist countries that tried massively to reduce poverty.

"Trickle down economics" certainly has a place for reducing poverty, but it's based on a less comprehensive understanding of economics. It helps and it works, yes, but it is far from optimal. It's (of course) not optimal for reducing poverty and suffering (but some people don't really care about that). It's also not optimal for improving the wealth (and opportunity) for people who are already well off.

Reducing poverty benefits YOU and it benefits ME, directly. We can reduce poverty by breaking cycles and by proper social investment. And I mean 'investment' when I say 'social investment'. It pays dividends, back into the society. Are you familiar with the concept of a "public good"? It's possible to greatly enhance the lives of 'well-to-do' people with investments in public goods: and reducing poverty is, intrinsically, a public good. It speeds the rate of progress and economic growth.