Only forcibly sterilzed??
On the other hand, there ARE some women and men who really need to be sterilized. My mom works in an inner city health care center, and she can tell you stories. Like someone who didn’t have a place to live but who bought a purebred dog. There is a small percentage of chronic welfare folks, who really don’t have the abilty to make the right choices about their lives. They don’t feed their kids, they get mixed up with really horrible “boyfriends”
Of course you can’t know anything I don’t tell you, but there’s no reason for you to assume facts not in evidence. I didn’t enter college directly from high school, I got married and got a job and an apartment and have paid my own way ever since.
Yes, that’s a problem. I have bad teeth, I have endometriosis, I need new glasses every couple of years. I have a grandma that died from cervical cancer so I would like to have a Gardasil shot. Not having health insurance is a huge problem, but what can I do about it? Even the “low-cost” insurance that’s offered at my work takes $90 from your check every week. I can’t afford that.
And if I’m dead then I still won’t be a burden to society, will I?
She is, for all the good it does. Not that I have a problem with that, she’s entitled to spend her money when and how she wants, whatever. But not having a familial support system that’s willing to catch you if you fall is a major confidence destroyer, in my opinion.
It is so.
But my failure to tell you anything doesn’t give you an excuse to assume a bunch of stuff that is not in evidence.
Sorry, but you do come off as being pretty condescending. I’d like this thread to not end up in the pit with that other one.
I don’t have insurance because I can’t afford it. Didn’t I already say that? There’s no law requiring me to insure myself, and if I become sick or injured the emergency room is always happy to work out a payment plan for the uninsured.
I can afford to go to college because of my loans. I can care for nine animals because I care enough to live on sandwiches and ramen in order to feed them and pay the vet. There are no hoops for getting Depo, just an annual exam. No, I can’t afford to go to a doctor. If I am sick enough, emergency room. But I’m not the sort that camps out at the doctor’s office anyhow, so that insurance would rarely be used.
I know plenty of people who forget their pills and get pregnant. Hell, I know at least 5 people who claim to have gotten pregnant on Depo. When I question them further, they admit to having missed a shot. So no, they didn’t get pregnant on Depo, they got pregnant off it.
There are a lot of options, and I did mention that there would be exempt. Did you miss that part?
So what if there are? Have the schools provide the uniforms if they require one. Most jobs provide you with a uniform if they require you to wear one, why not schools?
And what reason did you have to assume these things? Furthermore, why would you automatically adopt a condescending attitude toward a “typical” college student?
Fair enough.
If addicts choose crack over food and water, then we hand them food and water instead of cash. Simple. And yes, we do want to stop those intelligent, responsible, sober ones from having kids and digging themselves into a hole.
We will just have to agree that we disagree here. We are a civilized society–can you point to one that is more civilized than us? (OK, maybe England.) Socialized medicine is based on providing a minimum standard of care for everyone because it’s the right thing to do, but I don’t think that means that anyone is entitled to it. I’m not entitled to be breathing right now. It’s a dog eat dog world, and that’s how it is.
So we mail each family a package of MREs every week instead of having them pick up food. Cheaper, no need for the massive distribution centers, and nothing will go bad.
What world view do you think I have? I’d jokingly say that I take Fox news seriously, but somebody would just come along in a few hours and believe me.
I don’t see it as coercive, but you know what? So what if it was? The government is here by the people and for the people, right? If we have a responsibility to help each other in this society, that includes keeping people in bad situations from making it worse for themselves.
The point is that I like to learn things. Sure, it’s supposed to help me get a better job someday, but that’s not really what it’s about. I’ve taken several classes that are outside of y degree plan just because I wanted to take them. I am focused on getting my education, but why on earth would I want to do only that for four years straight? That would be dull, and at least 7 of those 9 animals would be dead.
I spend about $125 a month on pet food in a month. Even if I didn’t I still couldn’t afford the insurance offered by my job, which costs $90 a week. A freaking week, dude.
My neighbor is disabled and unable to dog sit. Looking out the window to make sure the dog is still in the yard every so often isn’t the same thing as dogsitting. I appreciate their help very much, they are kind people and have helped me out, but that doesn’t mean I depend on them or anyone but myself to make it in life.
I happen to think my dog is worth more than half the people I meet on the street. Sure, you can say my priorities are messed up, but it won’t make me go to the doctor.
In another thread I suggested a state run daycare system that would be perhaps be staffed by retired folks who needed hobbies or volunteers who were otherwise unemployed. I think this is a good idea.
No, it won’t, it will be borne by me. Unless I’m injured on the job, that is, I have every intention of paying by some means or another. I have emergency credit cards put away, and I know that my local hospital will work out a payment plan even if you can only pay ten bucks a month.
I don’t deny that I have borrowed money, but since it will be paid back with interest it isn’t a form of welfare. My neighbors don’t dogsit. And I would pay the hospital somehow, as I don’t want my credit to be ruined by a car wreck.
You can only be truly independent if you live in the wilderness away from civilization. I depend on the grocery store being there, and on the gas station being there, and on my vet knowing what he’s doing. That doesn’t mean society supports me financially. I consider myself to live under our government, not off of our government.
Why should those who are doing well give more back? They have earned their place in society, have they not? We all have the opportunity to do the same. I don’t believe anyone should be punished for being successful.
Don’t excuse your placing a stereotype on someone with "I’m not a mind reader " You specifically complained of the OP making stereotypical assumptions about “welfare moms” {and you were wrong about them} while placing a stereotype on her. There’s no good excuse for stereotyping someone.
Or you could just not stereotype people and find out more about them. It seemed to me you didn’t approve of stereotyping.
That sounds great. At what point do we allow people to bear the consequences of their own choices? That’s the very real line that is difficult to draw. Is there a point where you stop providing for someone who is capable of providing for themselves but just won’t? Is it realistic to make demands and say Hey, we’re willing to help. Here’s what we expect you to do while we’re helping.
Funding programs is also a way of avoiding looking at the needy. Let the government and the appropriate department handle it because I’d rather not look them in the eye.
It’s not really a contradiction. We decide as a society what type of society we want to be. We decide what is best for us as a society. The idea is that socialized medicine, or a national health care plan that covers most if not all citizens, is better for society. It’s something we choose and implement as a group.
She’s right, nobody is entitled to health care, food, or shelter. I resist the term that leads to a sense of entitlement by citizens as if, as an American citizen someone owes it to me to provide the certain things. What we need to stress is as an American citizens we choose together and share the burden and responsibility as a group. That means each citizen has a personal responsibility to do their best to provide for themselves and contribute to society.
I think these are good suggestions. I’d point out that nothing is really free. I’d rather see our tax money put to better use but that requires some sacrifice from all citizens and some dedication on our part to change our priorities. Saying we want to do these things to make society better precedes the real issue of funding them. State funded means us.
There are realistic difficult questions when you get into specifics. How far do we as taxpayers go to fund rehab clinics? Do we demand more of our students, our teachers? I think part of the reason these programs haven’t happened is because we as a people haven’t wanted to face the real challenges that these ideas present.
You’re reaching to find fault. Yes, catastrophic illness or injury might mean that but missing a few days of work or paying for basic doctors appointments do not.
Wow. Didn’t you just say you weren’t a mind reader? Now here you are assigning motives. I’d say someone who does as much as they can for themselves before asking for help and is willing to do without or with less with no complaint in order to live within their means is fairly independent.
You’re right we’re interdependent. That also means that it becomes the responsibility of each person to do their best and give more than they take most of the time. The challenge is to provide that social safety net without encouraging and enabling people being irresponsible and dependent.
Let’s address another popular myth as well. For many rugged individualists the problem isn’t an unwillingness to help the poor. The problem for them is the government taking more of their income and taking the choice of how it is spent away from them. If more private citizens and organizations helped the needy and helped education there would be little need for the government programs to do it.
Obligated? It’s not selfishness for people to want to reap the rewards of their own hard work and sacrifice is it? Did you resent how GWB spent your tax money?
That’s interesting.
If you think anyone prefers to be on welfare than earning a decent living, you have no idea.
Blaming victims is always popular, and it’s always wrong. The reason girls become professional baby makers is not because they’re stupid or evil, it’s because (out of the options that are realistically available to them) it seems like the best choice.
The reason people get stuck on welfare is that there are no jobs for people who have been unemployed long-term. No employer is going to hire someone who has years of unemployment on their work history. Never.
In an environment where there are more people than there are jobs, it doesn’t matter how much training you give a long term unemployed person, it doesn’t matter how many qualifications you load them up with, and it doesn’t matter how much you harass them and blame them and make their lives miserable, no employer is ever going to give them a chance.
Every economic downturn since the 70s has created a group of people that will simply never be able to get a job. People who have fallen into that situation know this. People who have never had to deal with long-term unemployment usually have no clue what it’s like, and prefer the idiotic assumption that anyone who no longer wastes time and energy on trying to fit into a system which has permanently excluded them is “lazy” and deserves to be punished.
Until you can persuade employers that hiring a long-term unemployed person is a good idea - and good luck with that - a certain percentage of society will always be on welfare, and not by choice. Until there are so many vacancies that employers are forced to give long term unemployed people jobs because no-one else is available, then they’ll stay unemployed no matter how much you punish them for it.
What ended the 1930s level of unemployment was a massive rise in productivity from war industries and a massive level of conscription. Unless we can arrange something similar, society is stuck with a lot of people who will never work because there is no work they can actually get. All the punitive measures in the world will have no effect on those people, and that includes Nazi-style eugenics programs.
This.
Regards,
Shodan
I appreciate what you’re saying here but here’s the thing. One of the big problems I saw with the welfare system was that when a single Mom had nothing she’d get her rent paid, groceries paid for, and medical. When that person showed some initiative and got a job she’d lose far more benefits than the job paid for so the obvious thing was to not have a job while they were raising kids. That’s not the person’s fault it’s a flaw in the system that should encourage or even require some effort on their part but doesn’t.
You’re right, it’s a mistake to assign a lazy label to anyone who has been unemplyed long term. It’s also good to realize that there are people who willingly take advantage of the system. Some people would work several untrained jobs rather than stay home and collect a check. Single mothers get work after 20 years of no employment history. It’s a hard struggle to be sure but it does happen.
OTOH I’ve seen first hand how people will work the system to get their fellow taxpaying citizens to pay a position of their bills. Sadly some people do prefer to be on welfare rather than face the long hard road to independence. No generalization covers all the bases.
Poor does not mean without resources. One does not go from middle class to absolutely destitute, there’s a spectrum of poverty. It is not unheard of, or unreasonable, for someone qualifying for quite a few benefits to have, say, $1,000 in their possession at a particular point in time. Usually just before they pay the rent. Poor people should be encouraged and allowed to save money, the idea that if you have anything you should be stripped of benefits is pernicious because it encourages people to spend as soon as they get which is not good long term.
Living off the government is curable. Giving up a child for adoption is an option that, oddly, people seem entirely resistant to considering. There’s more than one way out of any given situation. Perhaps that’s the reason for my distate at hammering everyone into a one-size-fits-none “solution”.
Yes. In my opinion. Which I will continue to voice. Our current jacked-up health system is cruel and inhumane, particularly since we have multiple examples from other countries that cover more people for less money with better results.
In your opinion. I disagree. So does my husband, who was born into poverty. Sure, being born into wealth would have been a lot more comfortable, but he seems to hold to the opinion that being poor is better than being dead. I’m not sure where this meme comes from that poverty is worse than death - some forms of poverty might be, but most poor people in the US can still live a physically comfortable, if spartan, existence.
Because she said she was caring for nine animals. Her words.
Hormonal birth control like a shot or the pill is temporary, reversible sterilization. You can’t take it off like a condom, you have to wait for it to wear off. It is one thing for a woman to freely choose it, quite another to have it forced on her.
[/quote]
It isn’t being forced on her - she has a choice. Live off the government and delay having kids, or have the kids now and raise them in squalor and poverty, until CPS takes them away.
[/quote]
Or… give her infant up for adoption. Or send the children to live with relatives until she is back on her feet (an option that has been used throughout history). There are actually a number of options for a poor parent with children.
And, this may be a shock to you, but CPS does not take children away just because the family is poor. Really, they don’t. Homeless parents don’t automatically lose custody, either. Poverty doesn’t always equal squalor - I’ve been in some poor peoples homes which were MUCH cleaner and better manintained than some middle class homes I’ve seen. I realize that some people think poverty is somehow inherently abusive but it’s not - the kids may be in second hand clothes and eat a lot of rice and beans, but that’s not abuse or neglect.
Why didn’t we set this up when the Fed debt was lower? Why does every other western country manage to afford social safety nets even though their countries have less total wealth than ours, yet somehow we can’t? Do you think that Europe is somehow less affected by the current economic crisis than we are?
We stopped taking away poor peoples’ children because the results weren’t good - yes, I do think that on average the result of keeping families together is better (barring actual abuse). Again, you seem to think that poverty is worse than death. Why?
MOST college students enter college from high school - you are an exception. There’s nothing wrong with that, but like I said, there’s no reason to assume you aren’t typical until you tell us.
I can certainly empathize with that, but my point is that you shouldn’t have to do without preventive and early care that will prevent major problems later on. Letting peoples’ teeth rot out is not good social policy when a cleaning every six months will either prevent or put off full dentures. Bad teeth are also associated with poor nutrition and heart disease - and heart disease is a major health problem in this country. Endometriosis doesn’t usually kill people, but it certainly causes suffering and dimished quality of life. If you lived in, say, Canada dentistry and treatment for your endo would be yours without question, your teeth would be better, and you wouldn’t suffer so much. And this is somehow terrible?
As for the grandma with cervical cancer/Gardasil shot… that’s a bizarre link to me, as the risk of cervical cancer is more closely linked to multiple sex partners and HPV than having a relative with the disease. Also, given that you are well past your early 20’s (based on what life history you have related) you either have HPV already, in which case I’m not sure what good the shot will do, or else you don’t have it and assuming you and your husband are faithful to each other you won’t catch it. In any case, what really dropped the cervical cancer rate was the regular Pap smear. Do you get those or do you forgo those due to expense?
Maybe that’s why some folks without family build support systems out of friends. Maybe that’s why some of us think society should provide a safety net for those without family - because a lot of us may outlive our families.
Sometimes, it is reasonable to make assumptions. Such as when I tell people I’ve been married 20 years and they assume I have children. I don’t, in fact, have children but MOST women married that long at my age do have children, so I don’t get huffy - the odds are much better than 50/50 that guessing I have children would be correct. Likewise, MOST college students are 18-22. Those who aren’t, are frequently called “non-traditional” students.
We’re nowhere near Pit right now.
Actually, in Massachusetts, there IS such a law - but I’m going to guess that you don’t live there.
Actually, they are not required to work out a payment system. You can certainly ask, but they are also able to take you to court for the money if they want.
I also wonder if you could handle a $100,000 hospital bill. Or a $500,000.
Then look into a “catastrophic” policy, if you haven’t already. That doesn’t cover the little things - which perhaps you don’t need - but if you get into a really bad accident or illness it will help cover the really big bills. They also allow for savings accounts dedicated to health needs, which might help you save up to take care of those items you say you do need - dentistry, eye care, etc. They certainly aren’t for everyone, but it might be something you can work into your budget that covers your needs. Seriously, look into it.
And I know plenty of people who haven’t. I’m in my mid-40’s with no children and no pregnancy scares and that was no accident. Obviously, some people need a system where they don’t have to worry about daily doses or condoms and other people have no problem with swallowing a daily pill or making sure their barriers and creams are well stocked.
My concern is that, again, the tendency is to hammer women into the hormonal birth control from the start. I come from a family at VERY high risk of severe side effects from hormonal birth control: blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, I’ve got relatives who’ve had them all at very young ages (as young as mid-20s). Assuming I fall into your category of people given the choice of birth control or starvation, do I get to present my family history and proceed immediately to other options than hormones, or do I have to wait until I have a potentially disabling or even fatal reaction in order to have an exception made?
Usually, they cite lack of money. Seriously, we have public schools around here with dress codes and no help to families who have genuine problems affording them. If they schools are providing uniforms NOW what makes you think they will do so under your proposed system?
I assumed it because most college students are that young, and most of them are naive and inexperienced. I haven’t duly noted that you are an exception.
Not really - they’ll trade the food and water for more crack. I think some of them would rather take crack than breathe.
The intelligent, reasonable, and sober ones usually don’t have to be coerced into avoid pregnancy - usually the biggest obstacle is access to birth control.
I can do that.
Pretty much anywhere else in western Europe.
Why don’t we want to do the right thing, then?
During the Great Depression the original welfare was in the form of food given to families (my mom’s family was on “relief” for a number of years - she remembered her brothers going to pick up the family allotment once a month). And I think it had a great deal of merit in that people didn’t have to worry so much about getting enough to eat, so they could concentrate their energy on other things that, hopefully, would improve their life. It worked for my mom’s family, in that by 1950 all of them were solidly middle class. Of course, they didn’t have MRE’s back then.
Back in the Reagan years there was the famous free cheese give-away, along with other staple food items.
Sure - distribute MRE’s. Give them free to those worst off (the homeless, for example) and on a sliding scale for those not so bad off.
The government also has a responsibility to “provide for the general welfare”. Keeping people from starving to death seems to fall into that cateogry for me.
You are being quite condescending by assuming that everyone who is poor today is too stupid to make good decisions and needs a nanny-state to keep them from hurting themselves. Well, the family in my neighborhood whose house burned down earlier this week are now homeless and have lost everything except their lives, but I’m not going to assume that if the mother isn’t immediately forced onto birth control she’s going to immediately get pregnant again, and I’m not going to assume they’re strung-out druggies, or that their child is somehow better off dead than in his current circumstances. These people had something bad happen to them, that doesn’t mean that the intelligence and motivation that enabled them to buy that house in first place have suddenly vanished. Fact is, those folks are poor today. Doesn’t mean they will continue to be poor unless bludgeoned into making the decisions someone else views as most correct.
In the 1990’s I looked into private insurance for my husband and was quoted $1200/month premium I later got insurance for both of us through work, to the tune of $125/week. Yes, I understand. I’ve been there.
That’s why I suggest you look into a catastrophic policy, outside of what you can get at work. It may or may not be affordable to you, but it doesn’t hurt to look.
But why would it be so terrible to depend on someone else? Not forever, but if you had some misfortune occur would asking for help really be sooooo terrible?
Why don’t you value daycare services enough to pay the people who provide them? Your volunteers “otherwise unemployed” - shouldn’t they be looking for paying work so as not to be a burden on society?
What if your bill is in six figures? Do you really think you can work out a $10/month payment plan on a $100,000 bill? A bad accident or cancer can result in costs of $100,000, $200,000 or more. Much more. If your house burns down and you’re burned the bill could top $1,000,000. If that happens, what will you do?
What if you develop a chronic problem? My husband’s health problems cost an average of $400-500 a month before insurance - yet you say you can’t afford $90/week? Are you immune to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and accidents? I don’t think you quite realize just how expensive medical care can be. Sure, you can negotiate for an appendix removal, but something requiring long-term management is not a one-time charge. And there are plenty of problems that can cost incredible amounts of money.
If such misfortune befalls you, you can 1) appeal for help to a charity or government program (which means being dependent on someone else) or 2) try private fundraising (good luck) or 3) refuse care you can’t pay for and go home to die. Which do you plan to choose.
Back when I worked in corporate America I had a coworker injured in a car accident on her way to work. The bill ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars. She was bankrupt and her credit destroyed before she even left the hospital despite being insured. She is also now disabled (her legs were almost severed at the thigh) which means it is far more difficult for her to find employment these days. Her old job? She lost it - because she couldn’t physically do it anymore. There went here six figure income and what health insurance she had. Last I heard she had lost her house and was living in a woman’s shelter while waiting to get on disability. I’m not sure where putting people into that situation helps anyone - in Canada or Britain she’d be equally hurt, but she wouldn’t be in debt, she’d still have her savings to help pay for basic necessities, and if she had to accept a lower income at least her paycheck wouldn’t be garnished to pay incredible medical debt.
Are you immune to car accidents? Sure, most of them don’t result in such catastrophic injuries, but it can.
But if something catastrophic occured - your house burned down, for example - would you refuse help, or seek it out?
Did the family in my neighborhood “earn” their current homeless state? Did my husband “earn” being born into poverty? (which, by the way, he did manage to climb out of) Did my co-worker “earn” her car accident and her current homeless and destitute state?
Are you saying that every poor person somehow deserves poverty, and that bad things can’t possibly happen to responsible people?
I don’t think anyone should be punished for genuine misfortune.
Since I don’t have that idea, it’s not relevant here.
Right now I’m down to 8.
This is true. Right now I have $31 to my name, but my house is spotless in spite of the 8 critters running around here. I’m not against adoption, but there are so many kids already in need of homes that I think preventing more is a better alternative.
But there’s also no reason for you to assume anything about me.
Generally speaking, people are responsible for their own teeth. Brush and floss twice a day, and you’re okay. When I say “bad” I mean “weak”. I once broke a tooth eating banana pudding. My head isn’t full of cavities, my teeth are just fragile. I could use braces, and I could use to have my wisdom teeth pulled, since last week they bothered me so bad I wasn’t able to eat anything but pudding and overcooked noodles.
I’m all for socialized medicine, I think I already said that upthread. Every female on my mother’s side of the family except for those in her generation have had both cancer and heart disease, with the exception of my mother’s mother who died from cervical cancer before developing heart disease. I have an aunt in her early 60’s who has two pacemakers and a defibrillator, and still only 20% of her heart works. Depo Provera has dramatically decreased the symptoms of endometriosis (cite), so as long as I stay on it I don’t suffer terribly–but wouldn’t it be great if I could get actual treatment for it?
As I stated up there somewhere, I am required to have a pap smear annually a condition of keeping my birth control free. The death rate from cervical cancer is very low (compared to other cancers), but having a family history of death from it increases my risk of dying from it. Say the nurses at the health department, anyhow. I would much rather not get it to begin with. So far I’ve had exactly 2 sex partners my whole life so no, I probably don’t have HPV. My husband and I have been separated for over a year. Also, for what it’s worth, one of my 19 year old employees is currently undergoing chemo for cervical cancer. You may think I’m paranoid, but the danger seems very real to me.
Why? Why do you think it’s okay to assume anything about anyone you don’t know? I would not have assumed you had children. I would not have assumed you were female except that you have said so. Maybe I’m an strange, but I don’t think it’s ever ok to stereotype anyone.
Not my original thought…saw it from a poster on this board in the past.
It was a new thought for me…and I think it has some merit.
Last time I was at the emergency room they had someone talking to me about payment before they even examined me. Kind of inconsiderate, but at least around here they are understanding. I probably wouldn’t be able to handle that much, but I don’t plan on being poor and without insurance for the rest of my life.
Since my budget doesn’t cover shampoo, it’ll have to wait.
But like you say, everyone isn’t as responsible as you and I. It’s the ones that aren’t tha we need to keep from reproducing.
I imagine you’d have the option of a copper IUD, or filing for an exemption. The system wouldn’t be heartless. And since we’re now handing out MRE’s, nobody’s going to starve.
Then we’ll need to work out an education reform as well. They can cut the cheerleader’s uniform budget to print up some t-shirts. I can think of a dozen things at my high school that I’d give up for a nice uniform so I didn’t have to look at skanky girls wearing tube tops anymore.
And you have no reason to note that I’m an exception or not. You have no reason to think anything about anyone you don’t know.
Then at that point we’ve done all we can do. Let them starve.
But they would be getting it, for free. Matter of fact, if they’d take a stroll down to their local health department or Planned Parenthood office, they can probably work out something free or low cost right now.
Let’s do it. I’ve already said I fully support socialized medicine.
Sounds fine to me.
I’m not assuming anything. I don’t think they are too stupid, but I think accidents happen and we as a society should protect ourselves from spending even more money on those who are already on welfare. I don’t assume they’ll continue to be poor, but if they want assistance from the government they have an obligation not to make themselves any more expensive.
It wouldn’t be. I depended on grandmas and aunts and uncles for the first 18 years of my life, didn’t I? Most of them are dead and my parents won’t help me, but if they would it wouldn’t be the end of the world as I know it.
Well, you say there aren’t any jobs for them to go find. Meanwhile, they ought to give something back to the society that’s paying their way so as to lessen their burden.
There is a huge history of heart attack/stroke/blood clots, diabetes, cancer and asthma in my family. So much so that I wouldn’t be surprised if I dropped dead tomorrow. I eat right and practice yoga, and walk for an hour every day in order to stave off disease. Hopefully none of those things will happen before I get myself out of this hole I’m in, but if they do I’m sure I’ll manage somehow. If I get hit by a car, surely I can take out a loan against my house to pay my hospital bills and living expenses until I get back on my feet.
The insurance company would come build another one.
No. I didn’t say that or anything like that.
And nobody will be. The birth control wouldn’t be a punishment, it would be a protection.
So if they slowly deteriorate to inability to provide for the kids due to non-emergent medical conditions, that’s OK?
Why not just shoot the poor useless deadbeat parents in the head, or maybe imprison them, & stick the kids in orphanages?
I’m sorry, but you have no idea - I know people who would rather live in Sec 8 housing in squalor than be bothered to get a job.
Uh huh. And yet, somehow, I managed to get my butt out of poverty without having even one kid. :dubious:
Shrug. Then don’t be unemplyed long term. I’ve never been unemployed against my will for more than a few months, and I only have a high school education. Of course, I took many jobs that some of the chronic welfare folks say are “beneath them”.
There are always more people than there are jobs, so we should quit having children at the rate we have been, eh? Particularly people who are chronically unemployed, since their children are likely to repeat that condition.
Give McDonalds a try, deliver newpapers or pizzas, work in a nursing home. Oh, you make more money on welfare? Then don’t talk to me about being unemployed long term.
Poor people live in places that cost $1000/month where you are? :eek: Anyway, back to the original subject - if the woman doesn’t meet the requirements for making sure she doesn’t get pregnant, then her benefits stop, but no one is going to take back whatever money she got prior to that time.
Not allowing people to have babies while being supported by the taxpayer is a one size fits all solution for everyone. Living off the government is generally not curable if babies are born and if these women truely love these babies they “accidentally” have while on welfare, they would be happy to see them in a home where the parents can afford to give the child a safe home, good clothes and three meals a day, not to mention that all important good head start in life.
You opinion on that subject has nothing to do with the subject in this thread you know, right?
I was also born into poverty and didn’t get out of it until I “married up” when I was 35. And I didn’t say “death” was preferable, I said that not being born into poverty in the first place is preferable. Whatever your beliefs are about “where” people are before they are born, it seems to me that it is much better to wait to be born until you can land in a good place rather than suffer.
I asked you how you know how long she is gone from home, and how much time it takes her to care for her animals. You seem to be assuming that animal care takes all this time, when the truth is that it takes far less time than taking care of children. Animals are easy.
As long as the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay for any of it, I don’t care what they do.
All of which is why I said squalor - not “being poor”.
If you want to re open the UHC debate, start another thread.
Again, I didn’t say that. I also didn’t say anything about taking poor people’s children away, I am talking specifically about those babies born to people who are living on welfare. I don’t think that people who are living on welfare should have the option of creating more people to live on welfare.
I’m sorry but isn’t this whole welfare hysteria just a huge red herring? The welfare cost in relative numbers in the US is neglib… neig… really small. It seems like a case of picking on someone who can’t defend themself to score political points. Critisizing the stay-at-home-crack-mom rather than (for example) the huge spending on military, farm subsidising or corporate benefits.
The US already spends the least money relative to their budget on welfare of any western nation except Ireland (cite) but spends as much as the rest of the world put together on military. It strikes me as moralism of a quite unsavory kind to aim the boot at the unemployed and disenfrenchised,
Me too. I do wonder what percentage of people in need they are. It may be hard for some people to accept that there are people who will gladly live on welfare or woman that have babies to up their check but they’re out there.
IMO the more important issue is developing a system that encourages and rewards people who need help to keep trying. If a relatively few people abuse the system to hitch a free ride I’ll live with that to help many others. OTOH if we can tweak the system to help the needy while discouraging abuse that’s even better.
I agree. One problem I saw is that the system itself failed to encourage people to take those jobs. I mentioned up thread that single mothers or even families would lose far more than they gained with menial minimum wage jobs. That seemed like a failure on the system’s part rather than the persons.
The most significant loss for single mothers was medical. When they got a basic job they lost medical benefits for their kids. A better system IMO would be to encourage them to find work while still picking up some of the tab.
This is the discussion at hand. It doesn’t mean we support wasteful spending in other areas. It’s one facet of managing and improving our society. The question is "How do we help the needy without encouraging generational dependence?It may not be the the biggest issue financially but it is a legitimate question.
First, there is a very real problem that there are some people who aren’t capable of caring for themselves. The severely mentally ill were dumped out of institutions onto the street, with the “consequences” that many are now part of the chronically homeless population. What they need is a sheltered living situation or group home - which no one seems to want in their neighborhood. Again, I say we’re barbaric for leaving these people who can’t take care of themselves on the street where they can be repeatedly victimized and often die in preventable ways. Such people can not be expected to be fully responsible for themselves and a civilized society would find a way to make provisions for them.
Second, the help has to be reasonable - no catch-22 situations such as CNN has noted in regards to unemployment benefits and seeking education in this article, which points out that in many states enrolling in training for a new job can result in termination of your unemployment benefits, at the very time you probably need some additional financial support (fortunately, my state is not so unelightened - the unemployment office emphasises that you must be looking for a job or in training to receive benefits).
Here is a recent New York Times article on the fragmented nature of aid and how regulations for various programs are contradictory. At best aid to people who have true need is fragmentary. You won’t know this until a disaster hits your family, meanwhile, quite a few people sail along thinking they actually are in control of their destiny and nothing so bad will ever happen to them that they will need to become one of those horrible poor people on welfare.
Funny, though, how people would bitch about sick people starving to death on a public sidewalk. The collective we might say no one is entitled, yet we mandate that hospitals treat all emergencies that arrive at their door regardless of ability to pay, and there are soup kitchens and homeless shelters across the nation. In other words, we say one thing and do another. My only conclusion is that our society is delibrately self-deceiving on these matters.
Oh, I agree - some of this deals with some tough stuff, including the reality that in our society there are some adults who will never be responsible for their own selves due to mental issues - no amount of “tough love” is going to cure a schizophrenic or make someone of below normal intelligence smarter. As for rehab - our society decided, starting in the 1980’s, that we’d rather jail addicts than treat them. The result has been an explosion of inmates, followed by a lot of people who get out of jail no better than they went in, who are now nearly unemployable not only because of addiction issues but because now they are also convicted felons. In other words, long term it just made the situation worse.
I’ve always favored treatment over incarceration (while recognizing there are situations where locking someone up is the best course, if only for the safety of others) and for four years put my money where my mouth is by working to help rehab addicts. Which only made me more convinced that rehab is the best choice in the majority of situations. Yet there is no vast funding of rehab - indeed, one year, in order to meet a budget shortfall Illinois simply didn’t send us any money for services rendered. That is, the state agreed to pay us X dollars for Y amount of services and simply didn’t pay the bill for eight months! Yet, because of the nature of the contract, we were legally required to keep providing those services. This is insane. Quite a few rehab centers went under that year, which left a lot of addicts who were seeking treatment out in the cold, others who were mandated by the courts to get treatment as part of their probation could not get that treatment and would up with a parole violation and back in jail through no fault of their own. This is NOT humane! It was a cruel, Kafkaesque farce of a trainwreck, meanwhile, my co-workers and I were bringing our own toilet paper to work because the clinic couldn’t afford to buy it anymore.
This is just one more example of how the “system” is crap and how it actively works against people getting better.
The problem is that privatizing aid just doesn’t provide enough. It never has, that’s why even in Privitzition Central, a.k.a. the USA, we have government programs for the needy. When times are hard, private assistance falls at the very time it is most needed. Boo-hoo-hoo, the government uses tax money to help those worst off - the government has an obligation to helps its citizens. Right there in the preamble to the constitution:
Seems to me that making sure everyone is educated to a minimum level and doesn’t starve to death or die of preventable causes would fall under “general welfare”.
Yes, I resent that he spent so much on a war in Iraq that never should have been started instead of feeding the hungry, tending the sick, and educating people.
This. If a woman gains more for herself by NOT working because of the way the system is built then her choosing to stay home and raise the kids is NOT her being lazy or irresponsible it’s actually an intelligent choice and her best option. When designing a social safety net you have to make sure that it does what it should do - provide incentive for genuine improvement - rather than provide perverse incentives where the best choice for an individual is to not work or not improve.
Another gripe I have is that many programs penalize people for saving money. This is just freakin’ stupid. As an example - a $2,000 savings account can disqualify you from the food stamps program. And no doubt some will say “well, good, if they’ve got that much money they can use it to buy food”. But by preventing people from saving money you make it that much harder for them to go to college, or perhaps to purchase tutoring services for a child having difficulty in school, or to get a reliable vehicle so they have more options as to where to look for work, or to relocate to a safer neighborhood. The poor folks who save money are NOT the ones who are blowing it on crack, iPods, and bling. Would should be encouraging these people to not only save money, but save much more money. Yes, have a sliding eligibility for something like food stamps, but not an abrupt cut-off that provides a perverse incentive to blow money on crap today if you get a windfall because if you don’t they’ll just cut off your aid.
Well, I hope number 9 went to a good home rather than succomb to tragedy. It’s hard to lose a pet - I’m an animal lover myself, but I’m very careful to limit myself only to the number and type of animals I can care for properly.
Well, I agree birth control is the ideal, but reality is, it doesn’t always work and I have issues with either coerced abortion, cooerced surrender of children, and coerced birth control. Of the three, the force birth control is probably least objectionable but I still don’t like it on ethical grounds. At best, it’s the least evil of the three. And you still have to deal with inevitable failure rates that occur even when birth control is used 100% of the time 100% properly.
Yes and no - as you point out, your teeth are weak and more prone to breakage, which should be properly repaired to prevent further problems. Myself, I inherited the family proneness to gum disease - my teeth are fantastic and strong, but my gums are “weak” and a mere twice a day brushing is NOT sufficient and I must have a cleaning every six months or I start having real problem no matter how much I brush and floss (I really hate biting into a sandwich and having my gums bleed, you know?). Everyone should have access to the dental care they need to properly maintain their teeth because long term it’s a heck of a lot less expensive.
I suspect our ultimate positions aren’t that far apart on a lot of these issues, but we are coming from very different philosophies and disagree on the best methods.
Absolutely.
Oh, not at all - I have an aunt who had cervical cancer at 26 - she was extremely lucky and it was caught very early (she was having other “woman’s problems” at the time - this was before the Pap smear was invented so if she hadn’t been having those other problems it would not have been caught). She’s one of the lucky ones - she has been cancer-free over 50 years. I am aware that it can strike very young women. However, your risk factor is very low. By all means, do continue to get Paps, and if you wish the vaccine go for it, but I’d prefer it go first to those at highest risk because that will be best for society at large.
Yet you characterize people on welfare as lazy, irresponsible, and foolish - why is that?