I AM WHITE/AMERICAN PRIVILEGE

[caulfield12]

As the Senate rewrites the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the GOP’s bill to repeal Obamacare, the RAND Corporation released a new, in-depth report about chronic disease—a matter central to the health insurance debates.

According to the report, people with five or more chronic conditions – which constitutes 12% of the population – accounted for 41% of total healthcare spending in 2014, the latest year of data. Adding people with three to five chronic conditions, these two groups constitute 28% of the population and account for 67% of spending.

 

On the other end, 71% of the population, with two or fewer conditions, make up just 33% of total healthcare expenditures in the United States.

 

The RAND Corporation’s report, which was done in conjunction with FightChronicDisease.org, paints a picture of a fairly standard insurance model: a large group subsidizes the other, smaller group, which uses more resources.

 

This is the KEY part, IMO.

 

In effect, these premium declines (predicted to be in the neighborhood of 20%) come out of two basic changes. The first is simple: fewer services cost less—though perhaps not for everybody because benefits like maternal care, substance abuse among others would run up a pretty big bill, and quickly. But the other factor comes from simply how insurance works. A group of people pay dues so that if something bad happens, the fund will help pay for them. If you take out the people who draw on the account – in this case, sicker people – the pool doesn’t need as much money and premiums go down.

 

Besides pointing out who pays for whom, the RAND Corporation study colored debate around the CBO score and preexisting conditions by showing just how thin the line is between having one and not having one. According to the findings, six in 10 adult Americans had at least one chronic condition in 2014. Four in 10 had more than one.

 

Chronic conditions aren’t necessarily preexisting conditions. (52 million adults have preexisting conditions today, touching 53% of households, according to a survey from Kaiser Family Foundation.) But as the editor-in-chief of Kaiser Health News Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed, the pre- and perhaps post-ACA landscape had insurers deciding to lower the bar for what a preexisting condition could be.

 

This article does a pretty decent job of summarizing the problem succinctly.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-shows-...-205859200.html

Edited June 1, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

This is a MUCH more constructive discussion, IMO.

 

Let's keep in mind that 58% of live births in the United States over the last 2-3 years had full/partial reimbursement through the Medicaid program as well. It's a massive number of aid recipients.

 

 

Rabbit, here are three potential answers to your question. I haven't had a chance to read through them all.

 

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/tr...1a4bcf887a.html

Trauma in the ER: Who pays for the uninsured?

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/g...t-insurance.htm

What happens if you go to the ER and don't have insurance?

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/...someone_doesnt/

How does it work in America when someone doesn't have health insurance?

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

I thought you'd already know given your arguments. I have been taking your greater point here as that we need to mandate governmental health care because there are poor people. Essentially, so there are no situations where an uninsured poor person ends up in the hospital with insurmountable bills and can't get care. I get that your heart is in it and I applaud you. My point is that this is more of a business/operational issue than humanity issue. The business operates in a way so that we don't need the humanitarian efforts. The uninsured and poor get covered when they themselves can't cover it. It's fixed into the industry.

 

This is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.

 

The Democratic argument is that it's a fundamental responsibility of government to keep the people of a country as healthy as possible...with better family health leading to better parenting leading to each succeeding generation attaining higher educational levels and more success (at least theoretically).

 

The problem is at least four-fold...those people who don't have the money to pay 1) going bankrupt/family breakdown/divorce as a result of medical bills, 2) family breakdown because of the opioid crisis, not enough funds for treatment/counseling, 3) not being able to pay results in either higher insurance premiums or higher government reimbursements, which come out of tax revenues and mean funding from SOMEWHERE else has to be cut or taxes have to be raised and 4) the incalculable long-term costs of families being hesitant to go to the doctor until the health situation has degenerated into an ER room type of situation, which leads to even more expensive treatments and often deaths that could have been prevented.

 

Health care costs here in China are CONSIDERABLY lower per person because so much money is invested in preventive care, stressing a healthy diet (no soda for kids!) with lots of vegetables and rice/noodles...maintaining a lifestyle leading to a longer life and less health care issues. The US system tends to be MUCH more REACTIVE. And obviously surgeries like aortic bypass will carry the highest price tag possible.

Edited June 1, 2017 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

Thank you to everyone in this thread. I have been too busy to read and post much the past month. This was a great way to catch up in the 'buster.

[ptatc]

That's just the first general summary I googled up. Tort reform has been discussed for years, and the trials in Texas and other states did not show much of a reduction in overall costs or premiums, 1-2% for some plans but no effect for others. These are just some of the top google results, but I used to follow this more frequently.

 

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/2009no3/w15371.html

 

 

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-st...WdJtVa35WvZCCL/

 

 

It's possible that tort reform could help on the margins, but the idea that it's the primary or even a main driver of increasing health care costs just doesn't seem to hold to to the data.

I still think the privitazation and cross state issues are more important. However you still haven't addressed the majority of the population with tort reform. All of your studies discuss the margins. These discuss HMO, and medicare not the regular insured

But since you brouhht up medicare, fraud inthis area is also a significant burden to increase healthcare costs.

[Texsox]

Let's look at the view from space.

 

Add up all the care that all the patients have received from all the medical facilities in the US. That's the total cost (plus profit).

Now the challenge is to equitably and ethically pay for all that care.

 

Fairest? Each person pays directly for what they used. I mean 100% paid for. Not through insurance because that spreads the cost around people that did not receive the service. Need surgery, fork over the $25,000. Break an arm $3,000 will take care of that. Of course that will not work because most people can not afford a major medical bill under that system, many can't afford the broken arm. So that is immediately rejected as unworkable and unsustainable.

 

So now we have to deal with an unfair system where the costs are shared among a large group of people. Call it insurance, call it whatever you like. But we are all going to pitch in and everyone covers those costs.

 

What is the best way to share a large cost across a large number of people? Up until the 21st century we formed smaller groups of people who happened by chance to be grouped together, typically based on the company they worked for. Those people banned together and joined a larger group pulled together by a company that specialized in that service, called an insurance company. They carefully eliminated undesirable people from the group, they carefully eliminated expenses that hurt profits. The problem becomes even though they eliminated those undesirable (unprofitable) people from their group, those people were making things more expensive for everyone. The groups received all the pain and only small gain by eliminating those people who are all part of the same system whether they are in our group or not.

 

Not only will we have to recoup the expense but we need to reduce the cost. Each reduction in cost hurts someone. Less care? Hurts patients. Less profits? Hurts providers. Are there ways to cut costs? Of course.

 

Now we are moving towards a system that does just group everyone together. We are beginning to deal with the totality of the cost of medical care in the US. Who needs it and who pays for it. That is truly the point we are reaching. It will be fundamental shift that will impact society in ways both obvious and perhaps less so. I see an advantage for small companies that will not have to compete on the basis of benefits. Where workers are free to switch employment without the worry of health care changes and preexisting conditions. Small and medium businesses are less likely to move across the country or across the globe.

[ptatc]

I thought you'd already know given your arguments. I have been taking your greater point here as that we need to mandate governmental health care because there are poor people. Essentially, so there are no situations where an uninsured poor person ends up in the hospital with insurmountable bills and can't get care. I get that your heart is in it and I applaud you. My point is that this is more of a business/operational issue than humanity issue. The business operates in a way so that we don't need the humanitarian efforts. The uninsured and poor get covered when they themselves can't cover it. It's fixed into the industry.

 

This is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.

 

The Democratic argument is that it's a fundamental responsibility of government to keep the people of a country as healthy as possible...with better family health leading to better parenting leading to each succeeding generation attaining higher educational levels and more success (at least theoretically).

 

The problem is at least four-fold...those people who don't have the money to pay 1) going bankrupt/family breakdown/divorce as a result of medical bills, 2) family breakdown because of the opioid crisis, not enough funds for treatment/counseling, 3) not being able to pay results in either higher insurance premiums or higher government reimbursements, which come out of tax revenues and mean funding from SOMEWHERE else has to be cut or taxes have to be raised and 4) the incalculable long-term costs of families being hesitant to go to the doctor until the health situation has degenerated into an ER room type of situation, which leads to even more expensive treatments and often deaths that could have been prevented.

 

Health care costs here in China are CONSIDERABLY lower per person because so much money is invested in preventive care, stressing a healthy diet (no soda for kids!) with lots of vegetables and rice/noodles...maintaining a lifestyle leading to a longer life and less health care issues. The US system tends to be MUCH more REACTIVE. And obviously surgeries like aortic bypass will carry the highest price tag possible.

Prevention is always the more cost effective way. However, you take away many choices and Im not willing to force that on people. .

[Reddy]

Let's look at the view from space.

 

Add up all the care that all the patients have received from all the medical facilities in the US. That's the total cost (plus profit).

Now the challenge is to equitably and ethically pay for all that care.

 

Fairest? Each person pays directly for what they used. I mean 100% paid for. Not through insurance because that spreads the cost around people that did not receive the service. Need surgery, fork over the $25,000. Break an arm $3,000 will take care of that. Of course that will not work because most people can not afford a major medical bill under that system, many can't afford the broken arm. So that is immediately rejected as unworkable and unsustainable.

 

So now we have to deal with an unfair system where the costs are shared among a large group of people. Call it insurance, call it whatever you like. But we are all going to pitch in and everyone covers those costs.

 

What is the best way to share a large cost across a large number of people? Up until the 21st century we formed smaller groups of people who happened by chance to be grouped together, typically based on the company they worked for. Those people banned together and joined a larger group pulled together by a company that specialized in that service, called an insurance company. They carefully eliminated undesirable people from the group, they carefully eliminated expenses that hurt profits. The problem becomes even though they eliminated those undesirable (unprofitable) people from their group, those people were making things more expensive for everyone. The groups received all the pain and only small gain by eliminating those people who are all part of the same system whether they are in our group or not.

 

Not only will we have to recoup the expense but we need to reduce the cost. Each reduction in cost hurts someone. Less care? Hurts patients. Less profits? Hurts providers. Are there ways to cut costs? Of course.

 

Now we are moving towards a system that does just group everyone together. We are beginning to deal with the totality of the cost of medical care in the US. Who needs it and who pays for it. That is truly the point we are reaching. It will be fundamental shift that will impact society in ways both obvious and perhaps less so. I see an advantage for small companies that will not have to compete on the basis of benefits. Where workers are free to switch employment without the worry of health care changes and preexisting conditions. Small and medium businesses are less likely to move across the country or across the globe.

 

Here's the fundamental impasse. I completely disagree that your assessment of the most fair scenario is, in fact, fair at all.

 

That doesn't take into account people being born into poor socio-economic situations through no fault of their own. Is it then fair if they can't afford to pay for medical treatments that someone like me was able to afford, simply out of sheer luck?

 

[caulfield12]

Here's the fundamental impasse. I completely disagree that your assessment of the most fair scenario is, in fact, fair at all.

 

That doesn't take into account people being born into poor socio-economic situations through no fault of their own. Is it then fair if they can't afford to pay for medical treatments that someone like me was able to afford, simply out of sheer luck?

 

Beyond that, it's even worse to unfairly penalize children who were born into cyclical poverty before they even have a chance to fight for their share of the American Dream.

 

 

The shift stems from a combination of factors, including a plan to reduce Medicaid by $1.4 trillion over the next decade and a roughly 20 percent decrease in funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), along with proposed changes to eligibility requirements and the way federal matching funds are calculated.

 

Medicaid provided health benefits for 37.1 million children over the course of fiscal 2016, according to federal officials, while CHIP covered 8.9 million during that same period. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Tuesday that the administration was acting responsibly by curbing the growth of Medicaid. He did not address funding for CHIP, which covers children of the working poor.

 

“There are no Medicaid cuts in the terms of what ordinary human beings would refer to as a cut,” Mulvaney said. “We are not spending less money one year than we spent before.”

 

Several Republicans, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (Ky.), quickly joined Democrats, medical experts and children’s advocates in pushing back.The overall budget, they said, would reduce coverage for children in families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford comprehensive health plans.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hea...m=.aeecee112b1f

 

 

 

One of the best things Clinton ever did as President...you know you're too far out to the right here when Orrin Hatch is seeming like a bleeding heart liberal on this particular issue.

 

Weren't the dying kids from the chemical attack in Syria the reason for our Tomahawk strikes? Why are our own children's health and wellness even more of a priority to the President?

Edited June 1, 2017 by caulfield12

[EvilMonkey]

This is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.

 

The Democratic argument is that it's a fundamental responsibility of government to keep the people of a country as healthy as possible...with better family health leading to better parenting leading to each succeeding generation attaining higher educational levels and more success (at least theoretically).

The problem comes when you decide that you know better than someone else as to what is good for them. It is not the government's responsibility to keep the people healthy, just keep them safe from outside harm. When you decide to outlaw salt and Big Gulps because YOU decide it isn't a good thing, you are being a tyrant. And you use the threat of violence to enforce that. You are not the parents of Americans, You are not kings or rulers, you don't get to dictate how people lead their lives like that. I also dislike when the religious part of the R party starts trying to dictate morals (I mean there is a point, no child porn, incest, beastiality, etc.) , but I really hate it when you try and tell me I can't eat or drink something 'for my own good'. My response to that is usually to say go f*ck yourself and then have a beer and a steak.

 

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.L. Lewis

Edited June 1, 2017 by Alpha Dog

[caulfield12]

The problem comes when you decide that you know better than someone else as to what is good for them. It is not the government's responsibility to keep the people healthy, just keep them safe from outside harm. When you decide to outlaw salt and Big Gulps because YOU decide it isn't a good thing, you are being a tyrant. And you use the threat of violence to enforce that. You are not the parents of Americans, You are not kings or rulers, you don't get to dictate how people lead their lives like that. I also dislike when the religious part of the R party starts trying to dictate morals (I mean there is a point, no child porn, incest, beastiality, etc.) , but I really hate it when you try and tell me I can't eat or drink something 'for my own good'. My response to that is usually to say go f*ck yourself and then have a beer and a steak.

 

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.L. Lewis

 

 

Three responses:

 

1) Seat belts or child safety seats, helmets for motorcycle riders

 

2) Firearms, 1792 law passed..."Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball..."

 

3) Broccoli and Spinach (see the article below)

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...nd_constitution

 

 

Providing health checks, nutritious food and vaccinations to kids under the age of 12 is really a form of tyranny?

How so?

 

And mandatory automobile insurance, at least general liability insurance to protect others (if not yourself): You disagree and think it should be a personal choice to pay or not to pay???

Edited June 1, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's the fundamental impasse. I completely disagree that your assessment of the most fair scenario is, in fact, fair at all.

 

That doesn't take into account people being born into poor socio-economic situations through no fault of their own. Is it then fair if they can't afford to pay for medical treatments that someone like me was able to afford, simply out of sheer luck?

 

Here's the problem though, and someone mentioned this to you before but you never responded: Ok great, we all agree, whites are privileged. They get a leg up. So what? What's the next step? Should white people pay more? Should white people feel sorry for winning the life lottery?

 

Very few people out there believe that we should treat minorities differently than whites. We all object to racism and discriminatory practices. OK, so that's the baseline. What you're suggesting, I guess, is that white people should go beyond that. But the reason why white people (as a generalized whole) object to that is because not all white people are in positions that are well enough to pay more/be discriminated against. That's my objection to affirmative action or minority preferences when it comes to contracting. On a macro level that may seem like a good idea, but on the micro level you're making a victim out of an otherwise innocent person based strictly on their skin color.

 

So, I'm still curious, now that we're all aware that we are privileged, what next?

[illinilaw08]

Here's the problem though, and someone mentioned this to you before but you never responded: Ok great, we all agree, whites are privileged. They get a leg up. So what? What's the next step? Should white people pay more? Should white people feel sorry for winning the life lottery?

 

Very few people out there believe that we should treat minorities differently than whites. We all object to racism and discriminatory practices. OK, so that's the baseline. What you're suggesting, I guess, is that white people should go beyond that. But the reason why white people (as a generalized whole) object to that is because not all white people are in positions that are well enough to pay more/be discriminated against. That's my objection to affirmative action or minority preferences when it comes to contracting. On a macro level that may seem like a good idea, but on the micro level you're making a victim out of an otherwise innocent person based strictly on their skin color.

 

So, I'm still curious, now that we're all aware that we are privileged, what next?

 

I'm not sure this part is as true as we would all like it to be.

 

As to the rest of this, I think the point with "white privilege" is a simple acknowledgement that it exists. We've previously talked in these threads about how people with African sounding names are discriminated against in hiring (don't have the time to pull back up those posts). So once that becomes common knowledge, then maybe people in hiring positions stop striking those candidates because of their name on a resume.

 

There's policy that tends to favor affluent neighborhoods (particularly re: using property taxes to fund schools). That policy gives an advantage to kids in relatively affluent neighborhoods - areas that are majority white.

 

The point here is this - once it becomes accepted wisdom that whites have a certain leg up (generally speaking), we can start looking at the root causes of that privilege and finding ways to truly level the playing field thereby providing equal opportunity to all races and genders.

[EvilMonkey]

Three responses:

 

1) Seat belts or child safety seats, helmets for motorcycle riders

 

2) Firearms, 1792 law passed..."Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball..."

 

3) Broccoli and Spinach (see the article below)

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...nd_constitution

 

 

Providing health checks, nutritious food and vaccinations to kids under the age of 12 is really a form of tyranny?

How so?

 

And mandatory automobile insurance, at least general liability insurance to protect others (if not yourself): You disagree and think it should be a personal choice to pay or not to pay???

Providing healthy food? No. Forcing them to eat it under penalty of jail or huge fines? yes.

[ptatc]

Three responses:

 

1) Seat belts or child safety seats, helmets for motorcycle riders

 

2) Firearms, 1792 law passed..."Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball..."

 

3) Broccoli and Spinach (see the article below)

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...nd_constitution

 

 

Providing health checks, nutritious food and vaccinations to kids under the age of 12 is really a form of tyranny?

How so?

 

And mandatory automobile insurance, at least general liability insurance to protect others (if not yourself): You disagree and think it should be a personal choice to pay or not to pay???

Number 2 is for the protection of the US and it's citizens at the times. Not really applicable now (although I don't have a problem with it, I like shooting muzzle loaders).

 

 

Most of the rest are money saving measures for the government. The only one that should be a law is the vaccinations as it protects the lives of the other children in school.

 

All of number 1 and mandatory auto insurance are just to save on medical and legal costs. Are all a good idea to protect yourself, yes but they shouldn't be forced on people. Darwin theory, if you're dumb enough to do it, maybe your genes shouldn't stay in the pool.

 

health check and the opportunity for good food. Yes, they should be available. Mandatory, no.

 

Spinach? Only occasionally on pizza. Usually pizza should have sausage and pepperoni.

Edited June 1, 2017 by ptatc

[knightni]

Here's the problem though, and someone mentioned this to you before but you never responded: Ok great, we all agree, whites are privileged. They get a leg up. So what? What's the next step? Should white people pay more? Should white people feel sorry for winning the life lottery?

 

Very few people out there believe that we should treat minorities differently than whites. We all object to racism and discriminatory practices. OK, so that's the baseline. What you're suggesting, I guess, is that white people should go beyond that. But the reason why white people (as a generalized whole) object to that is because not all white people are in positions that are well enough to pay more/be discriminated against. That's my objection to affirmative action or minority preferences when it comes to contracting. On a macro level that may seem like a good idea, but on the micro level you're making a victim out of an otherwise innocent person based strictly on their skin color.

 

So, I'm still curious, now that we're all aware that we are privileged, what next?

You support those that don't have the same opportunities that you do - or are treated unfairly because they didn't win the "life lottery."

 

You learn everything that you can about other ethnicities, cultures, and classes in America -read articles, talk to people, get to know them and where they come from.

 

Don't pass it off as someone else's problem and don't jump to conclusions and pass judgement on others that don't live the same life as you do.

 

Everything that we are is a product of our environment and opportunities.

 

Go out of your way to use your connections and abilities to help raise someone else up that wouldn't normally have the same opportunity that you do.

 

Put yourself in someone else's shoes and act upon that experience in a positive way.

[BigSqwert]

You support those that don't have the same opportunities that you do - or are treated unfairly because they didn't win the "life lottery."

 

You learn everything that you can about other ethnicities, cultures, and classes in America -read articles, talk to people, get to know them and where they come from.

 

Don't pass it off as someone else's problem and don't jump to conclusions and pass judgement on others that don't live the same life as you do.

 

Everything that we are is a product of our environment and opportunities.

 

Go out of your way to use your connections and abilities to help raise someone else up that wouldn't normally have the same opportunity that you do.

 

Put yourself in someone else's shoes and act upon that experience in a positive way.

 

 

[greg775]

So, I'm still curious, now that we're all aware that we are privileged, what next?

Be ready to check your white privilege and cite your white privilege when a white privilege mob approaches you in the library. Be ready to publicly cower and proclaim that privilege. Like you said in your post or implied, it's silly. The white privilege mob wants you to scream in agreement with them that you have privilege. That's all. And you could be the best person imaginable for all they know. You could be Mother Theresa in terms of helping people. They don't know and won't bother to find out. They'll just be furious that you have white privilege and you better be ready to check it.

And if you have a shred of pride you won't state any privilege cause they don't have the right to threaten you or yell at you if you don't declare your privilege.

I agree with your post. What next? My point is nothing will satisfy those who say whites have privilege because of all the past atrocities. Rather than put their energy 100 percent into being successful, they want you to check your privilege. Why?? Cause they said to do so. It accomplishes very little except to harbor resentments and fighting. So I state my privilege to them when they ask me to. What happens next? Nothing. They move on to the next person if you are lucky enough.

 

You support those that don't have the same opportunities that you do - or are treated unfairly because they didn't win the "life lottery."

 

You learn everything that you can about other ethnicities, cultures, and classes in America -read articles, talk to people, get to know them and where they come from.

 

Don't pass it off as someone else's problem and don't jump to conclusions and pass judgement on others that don't live the same life as you do.

 

Everything that we are is a product of our environment and opportunities.

 

Go out of your way to use your connections and abilities to help raise someone else up that wouldn't normally have the same opportunity that you do.

 

Put yourself in someone else's shoes and act upon that experience in a positive way.

You could still do all these things (and a lot of people on this board DO do those things) and be lambasted by the white privilege gangsters if they approach you. Why? Cause they don't want to hear positive things like this. Would an angry person asking you to state your privilege care or even listen to you as you tell them you've done these positive things? Of course not. I love your post but like most things in life the only thing you'll get out of doing these things is the personal realization you are a good person (which is nice enough). But my point is you could still do all these things and be blasted if you refused to check your privilege or state it when approached by somebody who rudely tells you to do so. I like your post but like most positive things in life, the benefit it personal. You know you are a good person, a better person. But to the privilege monsters? They will STILL blast you. They're not going to listen to you rattle off these good things you've done. They'll just scream that you have privilege by gosh!

Edited June 1, 2017 by greg775

[knightni]

You could still do all these things and be lambasted by the white privilege gangsters if they approach you. Why? Cause they don't want to hear positive things like this. Would an angry person asking you to state your privilege care or even listen to you as you tell them you've done these positive things? Of course not. I love your post but like most things in life the only thing you'll get out of doing these things is the personal realization you are a good person (which is nice enough). But my point is you could still do all these things and be blasted if you refused to check your privilege or state it when approached by somebody who rudely tells you to do so. I like your post but like most positive things in life, the benefit it personal. You know you are a good person, a better person. But to the privilege monsters? They will STILL blast you. They're not going to listen to you rattle off these good things you've done. They'll just scream that you have privilege by gosh!

Honestly, if you're doing what is good and right, who the f*** cares what others say about you? Internet critics are always going to be there no matter what you do. There's no pleasing everyone on everything.

 

Being a good person and helping out your neighbor should be a part of your duty as a citizen of the world. If you're born in the lemon orchard, offer to show people born outside of the orchard not only how to make lemonade, but how to start their own orchards.

[greg775]

Honestly, if you're doing what is good and right, who the f*** cares what others say about you? Internet critics are always going to be there no matter what you do. There's no pleasing everyone on everything.

 

Being a good person and helping out your neighbor should be a part of your duty as a citizen of the world. If you're born in the lemon orchard, offer to show people born outside of the orchard not only how to make lemonade, but how to start their own orchards.

I agree. My point is this goes two ways. Do all the things you suggest and expect nothing out of it. Do it cause it's the right thing to do. At the same time, I don't need to be Mother Theresa-like and then have somebody aggressively scream at me and tell me to check my white privilege. At least show me the respect to get to know me or leave me the f*** alone in the library or on the street. Don't scream "check your privilege" at me.

[BigSqwert]

Be ready to check your white privilege and cite your white privilege when a white privilege mob approaches you in the library. Be ready to publicly cower and proclaim that privilege. Like you said in your post or implied, it's silly. The white privilege mob wants you to scream in agreement with them that you have privilege. That's all. And you could be the best person imaginable for all they know. You could be Mother Theresa in terms of helping people. They don't know and won't bother to find out. They'll just be furious that you have white privilege and you better be ready to check it.

And if you have a shred of pride you won't state any privilege cause they don't have the right to threaten you or yell at you if you don't declare your privilege.

I agree with your post. What next? My point is nothing will satisfy those who say whites have privilege because of all the past atrocities. Rather than put their energy 100 percent into being successful, they want you to check your privilege. Why?? Cause they said to do so. It accomplishes very little except to harbor resentments and fighting. So I state my privilege to them when they ask me to. What happens next? Nothing. They move on to the next person if you are lucky enough.

 

 

You could still do all these things (and a lot of people on this board DO do those things) and be lambasted by the white privilege gangsters if they approach you. Why? Cause they don't want to hear positive things like this. Would an angry person asking you to state your privilege care or even listen to you as you tell them you've done these positive things? Of course not. I love your post but like most things in life the only thing you'll get out of doing these things is the personal realization you are a good person (which is nice enough). But my point is you could still do all these things and be blasted if you refused to check your privilege or state it when approached by somebody who rudely tells you to do so. I like your post but like most positive things in life, the benefit it personal. You know you are a good person, a better person. But to the privilege monsters? They will STILL blast you. They're not going to listen to you rattle off these good things you've done. They'll just scream that you have privilege by gosh!

 

 

You have a strange world view.

[ptatc]

You support those that don't have the same opportunities that you do - or are treated unfairly because they didn't win the "life lottery."

 

You learn everything that you can about other ethnicities, cultures, and classes in America -read articles, talk to people, get to know them and where they come from.

 

Don't pass it off as someone else's problem and don't jump to conclusions and pass judgement on others that don't live the same life as you do.

 

Everything that we are is a product of our environment and opportunities.

 

Go out of your way to use your connections and abilities to help raise someone else up that wouldn't normally have the same opportunity that you do.

 

Put yourself in someone else's shoes and act upon that experience in a positive way.

 

1. What type of support? Just give them money? Give them preference for jobs over others?

2. Will this really help them or just make you feel better?

3. True but what are you going to do about it.

4. Do you do this over other more qualified people?

5. See 2.

Edited June 1, 2017 by ptatc

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/us/lebron-ja...hate/index.html

America's Week of Hate

 

 

As Smithsonian.com noted, in recent weeks someone hung nooses at the Port of Oakland in California, inside a University of Maryland fraternity house and outside a Crofton, Maryland middle school. That's in addition to the nooses and bananas found on American University's campus recently after students elected the first-ever black woman to head the student government.

 

...

 

The 33-year-old LeBron James, who is no stranger to speaking out on racial strife, further found himself lamenting the state of race relations in the country.

 

"No matter how much money you have, no matter how famous you are, no matter how many people admire you, being black in America is tough," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[greg775]

You have a strange world view.

Trust me, I do things for others. I'm not going to be Trump like and list them or boast about them here or mention anything I may do here. I just don't appreciate gangs of people telling me to do things that won't accomplish anything like "check your privilege now!" I feel like that's very very rude of them when they don't know me.

[caulfield12]

I agree. My point is this goes two ways. Do all the things you suggest and expect nothing out of it. Do it cause it's the right thing to do. At the same time, I don't need to be Mother Theresa-like and then have somebody aggressively scream at me and tell me to check my white privilege. At least show me the respect to get to know me or leave me the f*** alone in the library or on the street. Don't scream "check your privilege" at me.

 

Believe it or not, Mother Teresa had more than her fair share of critics...perhaps even more than Donald Trump if you count the entire world.