I think it’s hilarious that curlcoat can make any thread all about her just by posting in it, yet this thread about her has been hijacked to everyone calling everyone else names.
I wonder what this thread would be about if cc posted to it?
I think you and 5-4 Fighting are right. That helps a lot. She wasn’t yelling at me. She was yelling at her own mother. She isn’t aware that there are those of us who despite our income, are making the best efforts to raise our children well. Thanks for that. 
I may have done things backwards, and I have never claimed to have done everything right. We weren’t as secure as we thought we were when we got pregnant with my oldest, and my youngest came despite the low dose pill I was on so I could nurse. But although I wasn’t in the absolute greatest position ever, I still felt that my youngest deserved a chance. I also don’t know if she’s aware of how young my kids are. My oldest is only 20 months old. I’ve been pregnant most of the last two years. It’s not like I have been sitting my ass on the couch for years on end. I’m going back to school with a six month old. We’re also poor, I guess, but not destitute by any means. We comfortably make enough to feed and clothe them and pay our housing costs on our own. I work as a nanny overnight for a man who has two children and a 3rd shift job. We still don’t have enough to buy insurance on our own and we still manage to make little enough to qualify for medicaid in my state. I’m not the welfare queen she thinks I am.
My husband and I have talked a lot about the past and we have decided to abandon regret and focus on the fact that we have hard-learned lessons we can pass on. My kids are here now, and we are determined to do right by them. A few years on a government health plan won’t negate that.
And now I feel like I am just repeating myself, which tells me I’ve probably have said all I need to on this subject.
torie, since you are discussing your personal business here and taking part in dubious e-psychiatry I do have a question about something you said earlier.
On one hand you state that your husband makes “a good living” but his employer doesn’t offer insurance so you can’t afford it. I realize that jobs aren’t as plentiful as they used to be, but to me " a good living" is one that allows you to support your own family. If you’re using government assistance for healthcare then it really isn’t all that good of a living, no?
You said that you’re going back to school with a six month old child. Wouldn’t it be more financially sound to find a job (even part time) that offers insurance? Target, Trader Joe’s, IKEA, Starbucks, Wegnman’s, and others offer insurance benefits for families through part-time work.
I think going back to school is a fantastic thing for anyone and everyone, but wouldn’t it be better to do so when you can actually afford to do that? Basically you’re saying “Government, take care of part of my bills while I do other stuff for my future.” Planning for your family’s future is admirable and important, but waiting until you can do it yourself is an option too.
Er… wouldn’t that apply to everyone who takes student loans?
Er…student loans are paid back. With interest.
How on earth does it make sense to forgo school to take a part-time shift as a barista for privately provided insurance when the government is willing to provide you with insurance (in part, of course, to prevent people from having to decide between vocational skills training and health care coverage)?
The government provides those benefits for people who cannot afford it. For me, that means all able bodied adults attempting to work to cover their self-made expenses. Her family has the capability, but chooses not to for their own convenience. Until her husband can find a job that provides insurance she could choose to work and obtain medical coverage.
I’m not saying forgo education forever, just until they are able to afford all of their bills.
I’m still just not understanding how a making a good living = not being able to pay for your family’s needs, but no one can answer that except for torie.
Plenty of jobs offer a half-way decent wage and overtime without offering insurance. It’s a good living in the sense that we can pay everything without help but for health insurance. It’s what we have right now and we are looking at it positively, choosing to focus on what it is doing for us rather than what it’s not.
I considered that, but I thought it was a little short-sighted. My goal is too get off any healthcare assistance and never need it again (hopefully). The best way to do that is to have a viable skill-set. That’s a fairly short list of companies and there is no guarantee that any of those places would even hire me, even though I do have a decent work record. There’s no Trader Joe’s, IKEA, or Wegnman’s where I live. So I am down to Target and Starbucks. If neither of them hires me, I’m in the same position I am now. And if they decide to fire me or lay me off, I go back on Medicaid. I want to make real and lasting change in my life, and that’s going to take more than a job.
I may be saying ‘government pay part of my bills while I do other stuff for my future’ but I feel it’s the best strategy for the long term, for both my family and the taxpayers in the state.
Besides, I don’t think being on Medicaid qualifies as not doing it myself. I’m going to schlep my ass to school and leave my kids with relatives. I’m going to bust my ass and learn the shit out of my skills for the next 15 months. I will be doing it myself, regardless of where I get my healthcare.
I suspect by “making a good living” she meant “above the poverty line”, rather than “working on a second BMW”.
Not to mention that torie states that she’s working 3rd shift and overnight. The only part-time employer on SWB’s link that offers a third shift AFAIK is Wegmans, which is a regional employer, not nationwide. That’s assuming any of these places actually has job openings, that is. It costs about $16,000/year for a family of 4 to buy private insurance, which would pretty much wipe out any part-time earnings torie made if she didn’t get employer provided health care.
I don’t see what the problem is in accepting government provided health care for your kids until you can get a job and provide it for yourself. She’s taking steps to make it happen. Then, she will pay back what she took and then some, just as with student loans.
Because it can only be those two things, right? Right above the poverty line and working on a second BMW? Seriously, wtf?
You’re so cute when you’re mad. Hyperbole, dear. Have you never seen me employ it before?
Ah, Skimming your article again, I see that I have more options than just those two. Well, my original answer still stands. I did inquire with the local Barnes and Noble last month, filed an application, but was told that they are not hiring right this second. I still feel it’s best to find a long term answer to this situation.
She says she works for a man who works 3rd shift, overnight. I think you’re assuming that means that is the only time she can work? Are we also assuming that only THOSE employers listed in that article provide part time benefits? Anything else we need to assume so that I am kept up to speed?
Pay it back and then some? Taxes you pay go to all sorts of things. Using roads, providing public schools, providing police and fire, etc etc. Are we going to earmark their taxes for payback?
Of course it is easier to accept government money to help, but why is it okay for her but not for curlcoat? You personally took part in the trainwreck about children where she was insulted up one side and down the other for DARING to apply for SSDI (not RECEIVE it, just APPLY for it) when she says she doesn’t want to keep paying for other people to have children they can’t afford.
People can help having children as much if not more than people can help being disabled. By all means, if the children need insurance and don’t have it then they should be covered. Kids can’t help their circumstances. I’m glad that torie and her husband want to improve their situation and learn from it. That’s great. I just don’t see what’s wrong with saying what it is. “Government, pay for our kids while we do other things we’d rather do first.”
I’ve seen you say plenty of stupid things if that’s what you mean, Sugarlumps. Also, this entire topic doesn’t begin to have the capacity to make me mad. Why, are you mad?
Hyperbole doesn’t assist the discussion and you are known for dropping these odd one liners in for whatever reason you choose to.
It’s not the actual action of getting assistance that people are objecting to, so much as the double standard. I’ve paid taxes too. I also want to be treated like a human being and not being assaulted with guilt. Pointing that out was an attempt to get her to think about what she was saying. It didn’t work, obviously.
I don’t really see it that way, but if you see it that way, then that’s fine. I had to get used to most of the judgments people make. I’m a mommy after all, everything I do is judged. 
Look, I looked at the recidivism (i think I’m using that word right. Am I?) rates for people on any kind of assistance. They seem to be kind of high. I wanted to avoid that. I want to get off and have a reasonable shot of staying off. So I thought for a long time about why those rates were so high. It seems that it’s because people want off now, so they go get some job, and then when the job runs out or falls through, as unskilled jobs tend to do, they only made enough to stay off assistance (ugh. I can’t seem to edit that to be less awkward, but you get my drift.). They weren’t able to really change their circumstances permanently. I want to avoid being that statistic, because I feel that we’ll be less expensive that way.
Oh, I think you’re assuming plenty without my help. She’s doing child care for a man who works 3rd shift, and she works overnight. Presumably, so she can go to school and care for her children during the day. torie can correct me if I’m wrong here. I think you’re also overestimating the job market; unemployment in my state is around 9%. She’s working the jobs she could get, going to school, caring for two small kids… any more demands you want to make on her?
Earmark? My point is, if you spend most of your life paying your federal taxes, but for some amount of time in your life need government assistance, then there’s no shame or harm in that. Feel free to disagree if you want.
Oh, still pissed about that, are you? I don’t see torie begrudging anyone else receiving government assistance; thus, I don’t think torie is being a hypocrite. curlcoat’s husband makes a six figure salary. She doesn’t “need” that SSDI, but she paid in, so she feels like she can take out. OK, fair enough. torie has paid federal taxes, and will again at a higher rate, so when she needs to take out for some finite period of time, why should she be shamed for it? But that was exactly what curlcoat did-- attempted to dole out personal shaming for torie while doing a very similar thing for herself. If that’s the sort of gal you want to play Captain Save-a-ho for, knock yourself out.
Government is paying for health care, which is outrageously, criminally fucking expensive, while torie and her husband better themselves so they can eventually pay more taxes and improve their lives, so they never need government assistance again. See how different that sounds when you don’t phrase so snidely?
I’m known for something? Sweet!
Do you think she is engaged in benefits fraud? Otherwise, she lawfully qualifies for them and it would seem to me that, as far as the questions of intended beneficiaries go, that decision has been made–and it includes her. Now different people might have different ideas about what the government should provide, but that’s life in the big city. I certainly wouldn’t advise her to fall on her sword in the service of other people’s ideologies.
No, the “government” isn’t paying for healthcare, the taxpayers are. And as much as 46% of the population doesn’t pay federal income taxes, at all. Of course, they want “free health care”, why wouldn’t they? Something for nothing, and your chicks for free.
You don’t see a problem with that? :dubious:
Oh Rubystreak, thank you so much for giving me the right to disagree. You’re always such a peach on these topics. Thank you, sincerely.
And pissed about that? You must be out of your mind if you think any of this stuff matters enough to me to make me pissed. These are words on a page and not worth getting actually mad about, at least for me. You? No idea. I know your claws come out any time I’ve seen you take on this topic. I find it pretty funny that you want to give me lessons on how to make something not seem snide. I really don’t know if you get how funny that truly is.
I see you (again) bring up curlcoat’s husband’s six figure salary. That seems to be something you really can’t let go of. Was it you that suggested that they move to where that salary would actually mean something, or was that someone else? I know someone did. If that can be suggested (which is funny, because why would you assume his salary would be the same if he goes somewhere else?) but it isn’t okay to suggest that maybe torie’s husband go find a job with insurance? Double standards for unpopular posters and sympathy for anyone with a child. Why am I not surprised around here?
I didn’t expect you to see it that way. Is it anyone who disagrees that you consider judging you or just anyone asking? I haven’t told you that you should have aborted or anything like that. Just that if you want to go to school and keep yourself off government assistance in the long run (which is what you say you want) I was just wondering why you didn’t wait until you could afford to do that. That is your choice, obviously. If you’re happy with the government paying, then that settles it. After all, it’s your life.
And now, if it’s okay with Rubystreak, I’m done with this topic. Thanks for the answers torie, you certainly didn’t have to provide them. We just see things differently, that’s all.