Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No.. the children shouldn't starve. Nobody wants that. And as far as mom goes... is she non-working due to no fault of her own. Load her up with food! Is she non-working because it was easier to lay on her back, pop out a few more puppies from a few different daddy's, and then loot the Wal-mart when the EBT system goes down? We only have enough money in the vault to pay for so much... priorities..
I wonder if the government or the left were given a finite amount of money and told... make do. Never ever again can you raise taxes or come up with another fee or fine out of the American Peoples pockets for social programs. You have X number and X number only to spend. Who would they leave out?
And how do you enforce that? If someone is so lazy that they'd rather pop out kids than work, what makes you think that interrupting their lifestyle is going to move them to do anything other resort to crime? And then you saved $10k/year to stop a welfare mooch, so that you could spend $50k/year to imprison them?
No one approves of welfare leeches, but there isn't a reliable, responsible, or effective way to clean them from the system w/o affecting even more innocents.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
1. I am an Ex-pat Canuck who took advantage [unknowingly I'll add...] of their so-called "free health care" before I fled the mass socialism I see running rampant up there. (Sorry sans...). But only if the household or purchaser has a minimum income of ≈$30k /yr. Perhaps children / dependents under the age of, let's say, 14 or so, would be covered for free. If the individual has literally insufficient income, then of course they need and would also receive premium-free help.
While I appreciate how it would work... and appreciate that everyone is covered... Once again... nothing is free! Does the doctor not get paid for treating the child under 14? The family who makes under 30k? No.. The doctor is going to get his pay correct. So if the family isn't paying.. and obviously the child isn't paying.. Who is? The government right? Okay... so the people paying for the health care are doing so by taxes. I don't think that any of us on the right would have a problem paying our fair share of health costs for others, if we knew that most were contributing. That is was done fair and equally. That it wouldn't become just another big giant cesspool of waste and fraud like everything else here in the States has become. Obamacare is the straw that's breaking the camel's back. We simply cannot afford to keep going back to the citizens for more and more with total disregard for who actually is paying the bills.
No.. the children shouldn't starve. Nobody wants that. And as far as mom goes... is she non-working due to no fault of her own. Load her up with food! Is she non-working because it was easier to lay on her back, pop out a few more puppies from a few different daddy's, and then loot the Wal-mart when the EBT system goes down? We only have enough money in the vault to pay for so much... priorities..
I wonder if the government or the left were given a finite amount of money and told... make do. Never ever again can you raise taxes or come up with another fee or fine out of the American Peoples pockets for social programs. You have X number and X number only to spend. Who would they leave out?
So how do the kids get fed if the mother is not working because she is a lazy scumbag? Those kids still need feeding no matter the reason why their mother isn't working.
And how do you enforce that? If someone is so lazy that they'd rather pop out kids than work, what makes you think that interrupting their lifestyle is going to move them to do anything other resort to crime? And then you saved $10k/year to stop a welfare mooch, so that you could spend $50k/year to imprison them?
No one approves of welfare leeches, but there isn't a reliable, responsible, or effective way to clean them from the system w/o affecting even more innocents.
One very small start would be to let the prospective new moms to know that they will only receive benefits for the first child and if they're under age(well, hell, why not make it 26 now that the government has made that the new 'dependent ' age)they get no housing, etc....they'll have to stay home with mom and dad.
wow, for someone who complains about personal attack, you sure like to throw it around too
why would it be ''uter crap'''
the FACT is almost EVERY docotor out there will take cash...yes there are a few that wont take cash, (why...because they have been burnt before) and some that wont take new patients( their books (scheduling) is full)
it is a simple fact that everyone...EVERYONE has access to a provider of the service of health care
the issue that has been pushed by the left is they always want SOME ONE ELSE PAYING FOR IT
I did not attack YOU. I said nothing about you, and I didn't use the word "crap", either. Please tell me where someone would go if they a) didn't have the cash upfront to pay the dr, and/or b) couldn't find one who would take cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
I can see not taking cash payments if said payer also wants to be billed later but can anybody name a doctor that won't see you if you pay cash up front?
Working in the health care field as I do, I have heard of it. Some docs won't take cash b/c their charges are more cash than the pt. is likely to have, so they get left holding the bag. Most don't want to work for chickens these days. In my office, we are very careful about cash patients. The charges can add up fast, as in a well child check and immunizations, a circumcision, etc.
One very small start would be to let the prospective new moms to know that they will only receive benefits for the first child and if they're under age(well, hell, why not make it 26 now that the government has made that the new 'dependent ' age)they get no housing, etc....they'll have to stay home with mom and dad.
Awesome. Now to make a "point," you're going to force people that come from broken homes, crime-ridden areas, or drug dens to return home to raise a child? And what about stay at home moms that suddenly find themselves widows? Or whose mate ends up in prison? Or any bunch of reasons where in trying to stamp ONE possibility of laziness, you just end up catching more people with legit needs?
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natsku
So how do the kids get fed if the mother is not working because she is a lazy scumbag? Those kids still need feeding no matter the reason why their mother isn't working.
Oh we still have to feed the kids... but... I'm all for letting Mom either get up and contribute in some way.. any way... whether it's picking up trash along the side of the road or serving up the soup in a soup kitchen... or... Let her go hungry for awhile and learn that decisions have consequences.
Oh we still have to feed the kids... but... I'm all for letting Mom either get up and contribute in some way.. any way... whether it's picking up trash along the side of the road or serving up the soup in a soup kitchen... or... Let her go hungry for awhile and learn that decisions have consequences.
Who's going to look after her children while she's contributing? Now you have to pay even more for childcare.
That said, I have nothing against getting long term unemployed to do some work in exchange for their payments as long as that work isn't taking away jobs from people who would do them otherwise. A better idea would be to put them in job training schemes.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
Awesome. Now to make a "point," you're going to force people that come from broken homes, crime-ridden areas, or drug dens to return home to raise a child? And what about stay at home moms that suddenly find themselves widows? Or whose mate ends up in prison? Or any bunch of reasons where in trying to stamp ONE possibility of laziness, you just end up catching more people with legit needs?
This right here is the KEY to the problem. The left assume that we on the right want people to starve. That we want to punish the less fortunate. Nothing could be farther from the truth! We want to help those in need.. What we don't want to do is pay and pay and pay some more for those who are unwilling to help themselves. Even in just the smallest way. Why is it that instead of admitting that there are those who DO take advantage of the system and help to come up with a cost-effective solution that takes both sides into consideration... ya'll continue to paint us as the big bad people who want to put starving children on the streets? All we want is some accountability! I think we deserve that from those who have their hands in our pockets so regularly. And we'd appreciate the fact if the left would finally admit that the vault is dry. That no matter how we ALL would love to live in this Utopia where everyone is all happy and money flowed down the creeks that it isn't reality. If I give you 75% of my paycheck is that enough for you? If I give you every last single dime that it doesn't take me to put a decent roof over my head and food in my mouth will that finally be enough to cure hunger in this country? To never see someone living in substandard conditions again? If that's what it takes... then I might as well quit busting my butt out here trying to make a living and just let you take care of me too.........
Hey, knock yourself out. Whatever floats your boat.
IMO, most compassion is misplaced. I save mine for those who truly deserve it - those who suffer truly through no fault of their own or those who's misfortune was not caused by the failures of someone else who truly was responsible. To me, the fault and the guilt lies with a responsible party - e.g., the non-working mother who has six kids and no way to feed them. While I may feel sorry, the fault is with that woman and in no way obligates me to intervene. Someone else taking my money by force to assist is still robbery.
"Those who truly deserve it"!!! According to WHO??? You?????? Who made you God?
Your example is truly pathetic and paints a picture of an extremely selfish and self centred person. Are you really that person who wants to cause suffering for the children of parents who have made some kind of mistake. Hey, maybe when parents are jailed we should send the kids right along to jail with them. There was a time in western history when the RWNJs ruled without any opposition that this was the way it was done. Either that or the work house or indentured servitude. Ah the good old days EH????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
