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.
You are claiming that we shouldn't give people any welfare benefits at all, and that's fine but it's a different argument. We already give the poor cash, and we give them food benefits, why not quit the give away to agra and stop the food stamp nonsense and give them an equivalent amount of cash?
Because I believe that in many, not all, but many cases, it will do more harm than good to give straight cash instead of food credit. I don't believe there is enough "extra good" to come out of giving straight cash to outweigh the "extra bad" to come out of giving straight cash.
Yes, for some of the honest folks, it will be that much easier to buy toilet paper and diapers. But it will also be that much easier for the honest folks to be bullied by less honest friends and family members into giving the cash to the friends and family members who will then use it towards ill ends. Receiving cash instead of food stamps makes you an easy target. You know that.
And I never argued for not giving any benefits at all. I am arguing against turning all benefits to straight cash benefits.
Once again, you fail to address the point I was making, I responded to a post which claimed that if we replaced the ACA with free clinics people would have "choice" and I responded that the only 'choice' created by free clinics would be exercised by those with enough money to avoid going to them.
No, it would give the poor a choice between a free clinic and an ER, which has to take you even if you can't pay, but still bills you, and bills you a lot, digging you even deeper into a hole that's even harder to escape from. You can go to the free clinic for an ear infection, and not be billed $800 for a dose of amoxicillin. That's a choice. Right now, if they can't pay, it's ER or nothing.
No, it would give the poor a choice between a free clinic and an ER, which has to take you even if you can't pay, but still bills you, and bills you a lot, digging you even deeper into a hole that's even harder to escape from. You can go to the free clinic for an ear infection, and not be billed $800 for a dose of amoxicillin. That's a choice. Right now, if they can't pay, it's ER or nothing.
And I would have no problem with free clinics for the poor, if they existed and were readily accessible, but I don't think you could replace the medcaid system with free clinics, the cost of building and staffing the clinics would be enormous
No, it would give the poor a choice between a free clinic and an ER, which has to take you even if you can't pay, but still bills you, and bills you a lot, digging you even deeper into a hole that's even harder to escape from. You can go to the free clinic for an ear infection, and not be billed $800 for a dose of amoxicillin. That's a choice. Right now, if they can't pay, it's ER or nothing.
Free clinics would they be open 24/7? How many doctors and rooms would they have? How would you zone them? These are a few problems other than the debt increase from it. That $800 bill may look a lot better if the clinics are maxed out, have hours long waits or are closed. The emergency room is always open and don't have caps.
Because I believe that in many, not all, but many cases, it will do more harm than good to give straight cash instead of food credit. I don't believe there is enough "extra good" to come out of giving straight cash to outweigh the "extra bad" to come out of giving straight cash.
Yes, for some of the honest folks, it will be that much easier to buy toilet paper and diapers. But it will also be that much easier for the honest folks to be bullied by less honest friends and family members into giving the cash to the friends and family members who will then use it towards ill ends. Receiving cash instead of food stamps makes you an easy target. You know that.
And I never argued for not giving any benefits at all. I am arguing against turning all benefits to straight cash benefits.
Um your "treat them like adults" comment did exactly that. Just another form of pull yourself up by your bootstraps rhetoric right there. You can't talk your way out of that one...
And I would have no problem with free clinics for the poor, if they existed and were readily accessible, but I don't think you could replace the medcaid system with free clinics, the cost of building and staffing the clinics would be enormous
The cost of Medicaid and Medicare is already enormous. The idea I was pondering was that perhaps the programs are so enormous because they incur costs from the middlemen government insurance folks. ACA subsidies are costly because, again, they incur costs from the middlemen private insurance folks. So what if you could remove the costs for the middleman? Make the healthcare itself free and/or subsidized, from public clinics? Every part of the country already has to be serviced by public schools, so in theory it could be done, although there would be a large startup cost. It's just an idea of how to possibly cut costs without cutting services. Of course the government folks would never vote for it because it takes money out of their pockets, but ya know, it's just an idea.
Free clinics would they be open 24/7? How many doctors and rooms would they have? How would you zone them? These are a few problems other than the debt increase from it. That $800 bill may look a lot better if the clinics are maxed out, have hours long waits or are closed. The emergency room is always open and don't have caps.
Um your "treat them like adults" comment did exactly that. Just another form of pull yourself up by your bootstraps rhetoric right there. You can't talk your way out of that one...
I'm sorry I don't understand your comment. Can you rephrase? My comment did exactly what? And which part of what I said is pull yourself up by your bootstraps rhetoric that I'm supposed to talk my way out of? It's not clear as to what you are referring.
Originally Posted by pkbab5 That's like if a friend of mine was on hard times, and asked to borrow some money to pay the rent. And I was feeling like I wanted to help my friend, so I just gave him the money, said pay your rent, and you don't have to pay me back. And then a month later my friend asks if he can sleep on my couch, because he is getting evicted, because he never paid his rent. He instead took the money I gave him and bought beer and smokes. And when I ask him about it he says "well you gave it to me, so it was my money". And when I say no you can't sleep on my couch, he calls me an unfeeling witch who just wants him to be homeless. THAT'S what it's like.
Yes of course it is his money once it left my hand, and he can do what he wants with it, no strings attached. That's not the issue. The issue is that when he comes back looking for a spot on my couch, and I say no, that I am now the cold hearted unfeeling witch that just wants him to be homeless. He blames me for his troubles, even though it's his own decisions that led to him being homeless, not my lack of generosity. He is forever the victim, and I am forever the perpetrator, in his eyes. That's the point.
Oh, and I routinely attempt to try and buy actual food for panhandlers. I don't carry cash, only credit, so whenever someone asks me for money to feed their hungry pregnant wife at home, I immediately offer to buy them food at the closest place I can (usually a gas station convenience store or food truck). I even ask them what they want to eat, and order what they asked for. Every time I go buy the food, the panhandler leaves. Every. Single. Time. Once I even bought diapers for the panhandler's "brand new baby". Guy was no where to be seen. Had to take them down to the local daycare.
Done this at least 20 times, still haven't fed a single "hungry" person. I keep doing it, just in case, but I'm pretty darn sure humanity is not going to live up to my expectations any time soon.
Panhandlers have nothing in common with the majority of families on SNAP; most panhandlers, etc are druggies or alcoholics. They don't want the diapers because they really wanted booze or drugs. That's not the case with SNAP recipients, since SNAP is only good for food.
Nothing's good enough for you guys. ERs that have to serve everyone regardless of ability to pay? Well it's a problem because the ER is too expensive and you get huge bills. Subsidize health insurance so you can see a regular doctor instead of going to the ER? Well it's a problem because the copays and deductibles to see the doctor are too expensive so no one gets preventative care. Okay, how about a public clinic where you can get free preventative care? Well, it's a problem because it's not the same place the rich folks go and the lines would be too long.
Gah! IT NEVER ENDS. It's ALWAYS OUR FAULT.
Medicare for all would solve this problem. The problem with the clinics is a real one....there is no way for ANY working person to go to one of them, because it literally takes ALL DAY to see anyone.
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.
Just another form of pull yourself up by your bootstraps rhetoric right there. You can't talk your way out of that one...
