Charlatan

David Frum... a Canadian that most of us would be happy to forget is a Canadian. That said, what he had to say was some of the most pragmatic utterances I've heard from *any* Republicans in this debate. Interesting to hear it now that the voting is over. I wonder if this form of spin will get any traction given the new paradigm or will Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and company continue to push their tired agenda on America?

How long can the sort of hysteria that I am seeing (and even reading in this thread) be maintained? How long before it (needlessly) boils over?

Hopefully calmer heads prevail.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Frosstbyte

This is something of a threadjack, but every "kid" "over there" that I know (and, having graduated college in the last 10 years, I know a lot of them), wants desperately to come back or desperately not to ever go there again, having already been once before.

I can't imagine what "kids" you know who think being able to come home from a hostile country is a sucker punch, but hey.

This isn't what I wanted, but, as an independent contractor, I'll sure as heck take it over the alternative.

rahl

I'm sure their push will only get stronger. They will put on the fake outrage and do their best to influence elections in november.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Baraka_Guru

I could never get this sentiment. If the passing of a health care bill such as this can destroy America, what does that say about America? Is it really that weak? That fragile?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

the astonishing thing about this logic, such as it is, remains for me that the right is now saying effectively that "the american way" is defined by a health care arrangement that is a permanent expression of class warfare in the context of which over 30 million people do not have access to insurance and so do not have access to basic health care.

of course, you can't say that because the correlates of the argument are really ugly--you know, that these 30 million are extraneous people, or that they're not "real americans" or whatever---so instead the right's meme-machine shifts to matters of abstract "individual" rights as if "individuals" exist outside of society. so then social goals, like raising american capitalism from the barbaric conditions it allows to exist insofar as health care is concerned for the uninsured---become read as some kind of Imposition on the individual. which sets up the conservative Individual as wholly infantile, unable to distinguish itself from the world. the conservative individual is the world until Bad Reminders Come that maybe conservative individuals are not the world. these Bad Reminders typically come from the Persecuting State which is always bad unless it is being used to fund conservative-friendly constituencies like the military. then it is good. conservative Individuals, it seems, like diverting resources to systems that kill people but not so much to resources that make living easier or better for all. whatever.

it'd be amazing were it not so prevalent. read this thread. geez.

depressing stuff.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

flstf

From the hysterical accusations from the Republicans one would think that this healthcare bill was some kind of radical change like single payer or something. Instead it is a middle of the road proposal similar to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan or the Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994. You can only cry "the sky is falling" so many times before you loose all credibility.

I don't think this bill will hurt the Democrats nearly as much as the Republicans think once people realize that life goes on and no one is pulling the plug on grandma.

rahl

The dangerous thing is that most of the benefits won't go into affect for a few years, so the republicans have plenty of time to ramp up the propoganda machine saying "see we told you it wouldn't work, what has this done for you so far?" Even though they know full well it's not going to do a whole lot until 2014.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

silent_jay

I'm surprised the guy who said 'Behave like grown-ups' if healthcare bill is passed' in Smeths article is the same guy I saw on CN last night while flipping through the channels say 'The next 24 hours are "armageddon" because the health care bill proposed by Democrats will "ruin our country".
Boehner: It's 'Armageddon,' Health Care Bill Will Ruin Country | The FOX Nation

Quite amusing to be watching from the outside though, especially in this thread, I mean we've had it all, factual errors, people saying politicians said things when they didn't, some laughs, yep pretty amusing.

dippin

Markets are up. What is your spin?

Baraka_Guru

Yeah, not only are health-care stocks surging, but even U.S. bonds are ticking upward, suggesting that the bond markets aren't overly concerned about the implications of health care.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

SecretMethod70

The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You?ll Get When Health Care Reform Passes | House Democrats

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

SecretMethod70

HuffPo has compiled a list of the top 18 immediate effects of the health care bill as well as some that will take effect in the first year of implementation:

Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

SecretMethod70

Opinions turn favorable on health care plan - USATODAY.com

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

filtherton

I know you can't actually hear the defeat in his voice when you read the article, but here's a bit more on Kucinich. Click the link for the full article.

Dennis Kucinich on Health Care Bill - What Obama Didn't Say by Dennis Kucinich - Esquire


I think that once people stop irrationally assuming the worst about this bill, we'll all be a great deal better off. Nobody thinks it's perfect, and nobody is completely satisfied. Unfortunately, there seems to be an entire political party that exists purely to feed irrational fear of the bill.

This isn't the end of the United States. It isn't the end of the economy. It isn't the cause of a crippling deficit that will crush the will of our grandchildren. My prediction is that most of the doomsaying that is currently occurring will fail to be borne out in reality and that most of the folks currently predicting doom won't even realize that they were wrong (much less publicly acknowledge the fact that they were wrong).

Derwood

The GOP's Dirty Health-Care Secret - The Daily Beast

The GOP has a really short memory, eh?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

aceventura3

In this thread post #50 I wrote:

I have been constantly writing about the consequences (how market participants will respond) and there is constant pretense that there will be no unintended consequences. Market responses are not irrational, to the contrary it is very rational and predictable:

Read more: When will children be covered? - CharlotteObserver.com

I suggest we keep our eyes open and ask questions, demand answers and try to get politicians off of their talking points. This should be truly embarrassing to Obama, I wonder if he read the legislation?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

good that you've got your shit straight and are asking the important questions, ace--how will the insurance companies react?
it's a bit mysterious that you don't seem to pay any attention to any of the....um....medical situations in the states that call out for the reforms, no matter how watered down they may be by the obama administrations mistaken approach that had them taking seriously what conservatives said. stuff like this:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/as...10192010en.pdf

maternal mortality rates have gone from 6.6/100k in 1987 to 13.3/100k in 2008. the problem, as this report makes clear, is really the radically unequal quality of care afforded different populations in the united states under the system that's being changed.

so these are people dying in childbirth. there's lots of other examples. but clearly the question is how the insurance companies will react.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Wow, so the left has to go to Nixon to make a point? Wasn't Nixon the guy who imposed wage and price freezes? Certainly not a free market concept.

But, there are two types of mandates regarding health care, there is the type like with medicare were everyone is required to participate through taxation and there is the type like in Obama's bill and like in Massachusetts. No matter who proposes the latter, odds are that the Constitutionality will be challenged.

If a low income person is living pay check to pay check on average I understand they will pay about 10% of their income on health insurance - fro people living pay check to pay check this is a big deal. Some will face paying their heat bill or pay for health insurance and would rather pay the heat bill - but they are going to get hit with a fine so they may not have a choice. Welcome to the new America.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

rahl

Insurance companies will no longer be able to turn away those with pre-ex's. They can't deny them, so there won't be a flood of people going into the exchange.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

aceventura3

The point is that there needed to be a real open debate on the subject, there was not. Obama's approach to this complicated issue, was his way or no way.
This comment assumes there was not a better way to address reform, I think there is.

It is frustrating reading reports like this when from the start they make it clear there is a political agenda. In the first paragraph they make this statement which is false:

There are almost no women in this country who can not get access to good prenatal care. How is the report to have any credibility?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

because of the documentation behind it ace.
i don't think researchers are calling you up to see if their results are ok with you.
so it's really not important whether you like the information or not.

class stratification of access to medical care is a basic reality.
i hardly expect you to see that because i don't expect you acknowledge the existence of economic classes.

there is a debate in here somewhere that will come---not here---about whether medical care should be understood as a business---whether any of it should be for profit---whether that is ethical at all.

but for the moment of course, what's important are conservative bromides about rational markets and dismissing information about actual problems of access to medical care.

way to go.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Do you wanna make a wager? If this is not an issue, I will make a charitable donation to your charity of choice, if it is you make a donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, on the honor system.

An insurance company can simply stop taking new applicants if the "pre-existing" condition issue is expected to be a problem. So, in 2013 they write as much "profitable" business as possible and basically close their doors in 2014. The rush begins, all the people without insurance with pre-existing conditions go into exchanges. 2015, insurance companies start accepting new clients, or perhaps they don't - because the costs for their pool will be significantly lower and so will the premiums. Perhaps, they start a separate company with separate books - oh, you must get it - insurance companies will have people actually read the law, find the holes, and use them as they see fit. The insurance companies know the battle is not over. Insurance companies know the business better than the folks in Washington.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

I understand the issues, my point was pretty clear. I started reading the report and right from the start they make a b.s. statement. They could have worded the statement in a manner to make the point and be truthful without the actual implication they made. As the reader, I made an assumption, which is my right, I believe they have a political agenda and truth is secondary.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace...the average cost of prenatal care and delivery in the US is nearly $8,000.

Is that affordable and accessible if you are a working family making $30-50K and have no insurance?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

The vast majority of people with insurance have it through their employer. Beginning immediatly all children under 19 can not be excluded. Beginning in 2014 no one can be excluded. Your scenario could hypothetically happen to people buying individual policies, but it won't affect employer sponsored plans, which is what most americans have.

I don't doubt that insurance companies will follow only the letter of the law and no more. They will in all likelyhood try to exploit any and all loopholes, but the language is very specific in terms of group health insurance.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

roachboy

by chance i just saw this post from the mit press blog. i'll paste up the relevant paragraphs:

MITPressLog: After reform...what's next?

do you think mongan provides a useful orientation for thinking about the process that's underway with this legislation?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

flstf

Yes, however I think the first type of reform "financing" will be modified by the addition of a public option before much progress is made on the others.

aceventura3

There is a difference between the average cost and what a low income woman would pay, if anything. There are many reasons why prenatal care is at unacceptable levels in this country for some women but to suggest the issue is one of availability is untrue. That is my only comment on this issue at this time.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

We already have business owners who have gone on record saying that if they pay a penalty for not offering coverage their costs would be lower. At some point some of those people may very well drop the benefit to their employees. This is important - the costs of those plans will go up because of the preexisting conditions issue, not go down, increasing the probability the benefit will be dropped by some employers. Those employees will most likely go into the exchanges. As the cycle continues, employers who want to maintain the benefit may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage and either face declining market share, profitability, or going out of business. they may be forced into dropping the benefit, putting more in the exchanges. And, even if insurance companies simply take new insured's with preexisting conditions, costs will go up and passed on to all insured's. Insurance companies have a mandated medical pay-out ratio, but on the other-hand this is a guaranteed profit margin once the get a handle on their non-medical costs.

This is not going to hurt insurance companies or business owners, ultimately these cost will be incurred by the American public one way or the other.

My preference with children is to have a system where we simply cover the medical costs for all children in this country period, no questions asked. If a child is being treated for a condition upon obtaining the age of majority, we should continue that treatment for the remainder of their lives, otherwise they buy a policy on their own. That and a free market approach for adults, up to qualifying for Medicare is what I would do - short of a true single payer system with individuals having the option of buying supplemental coverages.

But, that is the point. Perhaps, the stop offering group coverage and focus on individual policies. Or perhaps they do the opposite. Perhaps, the write coverage in Arizona but not Michigan, etc, etc, etc., They are not going to go out of business over preexisting conditions - they will make a profit or not participate. the legislation does not have simple little loop-holes, it has major problems that contradict the broad promises made.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

It is a convoluted way to get to single payer. If government thinks it can control real costs and control market behaviors including delivery systems, it has to control the system from A to Z. I think there are simpler more efficient ways to incrementally get to full single payer system, including what I stated above, taking the next step with children.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace...it may be your only comment, but you are wrong.

There are millions of women in working families above the Medicaid level and w/o insurance. Unlike women (or a spouse) with employer-based health coverage where 85% the cost, on average, is covered by insurance, the cost of pre-natal care and delivery for these women is beyond their means....in the range of $7,000-$8,000.

So I guess they shouldnt have children, huh? Or maybe they should just skimp and skip the pre-natal and save about $1,500-$2,000 of that total.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

The language in the bill is specific. They can no longer choose to deny a person be it group or individual. As far as not participating in certain states, that won't work either because those with pre-ex's are spread out over the entire country.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

aceventura3

I can not believe I am doing a search on prenatal care access...

But for example New York, they have a PCAP/MOMS program:

A healthy baby starts with a healthy pregnancy.

If you look at their guidlines manual there is a presumption of qualification and the qualification for the program is up to 200% of the poverty level:

Even if they don't qualify, don't have insurance, nor enough income, I am pretty sure there are other programs or even some doctors or clinic who would provide prenatal care a little or no cost, or even allow payments over time. The resources are out there and available.

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

O.k., I throw up the white flag. You don't think it will be an issue, I do. Time will tell.

{added}

DC, here is more infor for you, if you need it:

http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com/...ncial_help.htm

So, far I have only done three searches.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

The average cost...from pre-natal to deliver is $7,600

Healthcare 411: Audio Feature

And you are sure that women w/o health insurance and above the Medcaid threshold will find someone to cover the majority, or a significant portion, of that cost?

200% of the poverty level, ace? Thats $28K (ave) for a husband/wife. Above that and w/o insurance, you are sol.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I throw up the white flag here too. Hell, if I knew a pregnant woman I would help her pay for care if she needed help and I would help her connect to resources.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

Sorry, but I need to add one more thing, thinking about unintended consequences.

One of the reasons the out-of-wedlock birth rate is so high is because of arbitrary cut-offs like this. If the man has a good job paying over $28,000, it would be in his and her interests not to get married and incur the costs, but to have her go through the government subsidized care saving about $8k. People are not dumb. And, I don't suggest we don't help people, but some programs are set up to make people act in dishonest ways and have negative consequences. Once the guy knows the government is going to do his job, his connection gets weakened. A better way is simply to get the costs lower and not "penalize" people for making a little too much money in a all or nothing approach.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

So now you are suggesting that a couple making $35-50K will seek a lesser page job under $28k to qualify for medicaid and save $7 - 8K?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Come on, read what I wrote. Are you really pretending that the issue I presented is not real or are you just being argumentative? If you are serious, I do strongly suggest getting out and interacting with low income people.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

You have data to prove the issue is real...that people take a cut in pay in order to get govt. assistance?

I dont doubt you can find a few anecdotal examples....but it far from the norm.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

What is the unwed birth rate for those in poverty?
What was that rate before the "war on poverty"?
What do you think are the top 10 contributors to the trend of unwed births in low income areas?
How does the trend in unwed birth in low income areas compare to middle and upper class income areas? Why are the trend lines different?

I can not persuade you, I know that, but if you honestly looked at this issue, the way that I have, your conclusions would be very similar to mine.

the fundamental issue I have with the liberal approach to issues like this is the presumption that poor people are not rational. What is common or not, here is what you want to believe:

Example: Joe 22 years old, with a job paying $27,000 per year, and a girl friend, who is 18. He loves her, and he just got good news on two fronts. First he was offered a promotion to be a crew chief, it offers $1,100 dollars more per year. His girl friend tells him she is pregnant. He is on cloud nine, and says let's get married.

His girl friend already did some research and knows that she can get free prenatal care, free delivery, free post natal care, coverage for her child, food and diapers. Adding all that up over two years it comes to a value of let's say $12,000.

If they get married they are looking at his income of $28,100, or $100 over the cut-off. So, marriage will cost them $12,000.

You think they are not rational, I do.

They don't get married - his connection to his family is weakened. What may have been the beginnings of a wonderful family has been hurt by government policy. I say rather than these arbitrary cut-off and high "marginal tax" (or loss of benefit) situations, let's come up with a better solution.

I don't get it, why do you keep playing pretend with these real world issues?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

filtherton

Do you actually have your analysis available, or is this just another one of those "I'm Ace and this is what seems plausible to me and so now you must argue with me about it as though it is fact" things?

I can vouch for this situation because I am in a similar one. The reason I'm not married to my lady is that we don't think marriage necessary. It isn't for financial reasons, though if we did decide to get married, financial considerations might present an obstacle. It isn't our fault we live in a society intent on overemphasizing the importance of marriage by tying finances to marriage status.

I get good financial aid benefits for school and our family benefits from having one stellar credit rating and one poor credit rating. If we got married we'd get to suffer with one shitty credit rating, and we'd end up in more debt because I'd likely get considerably less college money.

As far as connections with families being weakened, I think you're overstating the power of a marriage license here. A father's (or mother's) connection to their family exists completely independently of whether or not they are in a legally recognized marriage with the other biological parent.

*edit: in any case, just because you can fathom a scenario where it may be beneficial with respect to a specific program for a couple to not marry, you still can't plausibly assume that this scenario is significantly prevalent among the beneficiaries of said program to warrant consideration.

dc_dux

ace...IMO, what is rational is that most people want to do better for themselves and and their families and view federal assistance programs as a temporary safety net in times of need rather than a way of life.

Anecdotes and undocumented assumptions, based on a pre-conceived ideology that those "scamming the system" represent anything more than a very small minority, are not very convincing.

And the fact remains that most of those use benefit from federal assistance do so for relatively short, transitional periods of time.

So, no, my views would not be similar to yours.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I will be 50 years old this year, I have been poor, what some consider "rich", back down and on the way up again. In high school and college I did research papers on the subject, in the 70's and 80's it was a major topic of discussion. I intimately know poor people, "rich" people, people who were once poor and now "rich", etc. I have been in public debates and have given civic speeches and presentations on the subject. I had a corporate job where they supported my outside activities in this area. And I still devour volumes of data on the subject. Other than a pure and simple appeal for an understanding of the rational nature (either consciously applied or not) of decision making by "poor" people, I don't know where to start, given my belief that nothing I present will make a difference at this point.

So, I ask the question directly and simply, do you believe "poor" people tend to make rational decisions? If you think they do, does apply to economic decisions? It is very possible for you or others to believe that "poor" people are poor because they make irrational economic decisions, but in my experience that is less often true than the opposite. Actually, in my experience "poor" people on a whole may be more rational with money than "rich" people. In my view this question is at the core of what one's expectation of the role of government is in helping "poor" people, it also defines what one will accept and reject on what they will accept as evidence. Reading the postings on how this has progressed it is pretty clear to me that there is an element of not wanting to believe or pretending not to believe what is pretty obvious. And given that, there is nothing I can do.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

Look at this from a big picture point of view - the things that connect a family include many factors, one being the financial connection of willing to work and sacrifice for one's family. Another factor is the connection being reinforced by daily contact. If we take both of these away, it has a big impact, especially on males in the ages up to about 35.

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

I don't disagree. Nothing I said is consistent with your point about "a way of life", however, using an example not necessarily involving "poor", you have the phenomenon of something like subsidized housing in New York. You use "way of life" however, why would a person give up highly subsidized housing? They generally won't, unless there is a compelling reason. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am one of those people who say, "well they get pregnant to get more welfare". I am not - the the issue is a bit more complicated than that, but not so complicated that it can not be understood, modeled and predicted..

Prenatal care lasts about 9 months.

You have not clearly presented your views.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

filtherton

I don't think one's ability to make rational decisions is determined by class and I'm not sure how you could have come to the conclusion that I did. I also don't think that you're working with an objective definition of the word rational, but that's just my opinion.

So you're saying that without a marriage license it is more difficult to work and sacrifice for one's family? Or maintain daily contact? Did you know that unmarried couples with children can live together and collaborate on household finances?