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.
After reading the OP's post all the way through and then reading the responses I just have a few questions to ask the responders.
1)Do you pay for health insurance in any way shape or form? My family does.
2)Do you use your health insurance often? We hardly ever find need to use ours, thankfully.
3)If you don't use it very often, then why do you have it? We have it because one never knows when it may be seriously needed.
If you do use it often or have needed it for an emergency and it has helped you and your family out in keeping you from going into major debt, I just want to say you are welcome!!! Because technically you are spending the money that we (my family) too have been paying in on health insurance.
In all essence what the policy is trying to do, is set up an insurance where if someone should need to take leave because of family medical issues they would get a small check to keep them from going into debt. while they are on leave. Some people will never have need of it, while others will. Just like workman's comp., un-employment and health insurance. In all honesty do you really miss the small amount of money that is taken from your paycheck for these things? If it wasn't being taken out, would you put that amount of money into a savings account that you could fall back on, just in case something happens? Do you really think that there would be enough saved up in that account to live on the whole time you would need it or cover the medical bills that were incured?
After reading the OP's post all the way through and then reading the responses I just have a few questions to ask the responders.
1)Do you pay for health insurance in any way shape or form? My family does.
2)Do you use your health insurance often? We hardly ever find need to use ours, thankfully.
3)If you don't use it very often, then why do you have it? We have it because one never knows when it may be seriously needed.
If you do use it often or have needed it for an emergency and it has helped you and your family out in keeping you from going into major debt, I just want to say you are welcome!!! Because technically you are spending the money that we (my family) too have been paying in on health insurance.
In all essence what the policy is trying to do, is set up an insurance where if someone should need to take leave because of family medical issues they would get a small check to keep them from going into debt. while they are on leave. Some people will never have need of it, while others will. Just like workman's comp., un-employment and health insurance. In all honesty do you really miss the small amount of money that is taken from your paycheck for these things? If it wasn't being taken out, would you put that amount of money into a savings account that you could fall back on, just in case something happens? Do you really think that there would be enough saved up in that account to live on the whole time you would need it or cover the medical bills that were incured?
Your logic here is interesting. It is one of those things that anyone may use the benefits at any given time. I do not see why anyone has to say thanks to you. It is a VOLUNTARY system where all pitch in to have financial medical assistance. The intent of your joining is self motivated. If you joined so somebody else can use your funds as the primary reason, OK, maybe then thanks should go your way. But if it is for you to make sure you are covered, no thanks should be there.
Now, as far as federal programs forcing everybody to pay for others, that is socialistic, forced on you. That is what some in this forum and I are referring to.
I have no problem helping people but the choice should be how and whom I want to help.
The original concept of the Constitution is to set up programs that are for the benefit of the whole nation i.e. raise and maintain an Army. Everybody is protected with this force. However, it is not for the nation to take money away from some to support the choices others make in their lives like having a baby.
Do not take me wrong. I can go along with certain social programs for the benefit of society. We can get into that later if you want so I can explain my points on that.
Now, as far as federal programs forcing everybody to pay for others, that is socialistic, forced on you. That is what some in this forum and I are referring to.
Do not take me wrong. I can go along with certain social programs for the benefit of society. We can get into that later if you want so I can explain my points on that.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Well I know that Social Security is one of those "socialistic" programs that is forced onto everyone. I feel that money that I have paid into social secuirity is paying for people who do not need it but are sure darn greedy enough to still get it, because it's there and they can. The people I am refering to are those that have other sources of income to live suffeciantly off of when they retire, like pensions. Is that one of the social programs you can go along with? At least this proposed "socialistic" program that the OP posted, will only be used by those who really need it. I think I would much rather help out those in need then keep putting pocket change into the pockets of those who don't.
Well I know that Social Security is one of those "socialistic" programs that is forced onto everyone. I feel that money that I have paid into social secuirity is paying for people who do not need it but are sure darn greedy enough to still get it, because it's there and they can. The people I am refering to are those that have other sources of income to live suffeciantly off of when they retire, like pensions. Is that one of the social programs you can go along with? At least this proposed "socialistic" program that the OP posted, will only be used by those who really need it. I think I would much rather help out those in need then keep putting pocket change into the pockets of those who don't.
Thanks for the reply.
Social Security? I do not believe we should have it. In the past people did not have social security and found ways to take care of themselves.
Some people may say it is so cruel to not provide assistance for those that need it. I say people in need can still get help but a program that forces everybody to join is wasteful and not fair.
When the government forces programs on everybody it is actually saying the people do not know how to take care of themselves so they will do it for you.
A pension? Is it a program someone joined if a company offered it? Sure, it is private agreement between a company and the individual and it is mutual. I have no problem with that. However, when the government forces companies to provide medical, retirement, maternity leave, etc. is not right in my book.
Who is responsible for you family medical care? I or You? I will venture to guess you are. If so, why should I pay for you medical services in the form of higher prices for let us say the engine you built in some factory?
You are supposed to get paid for your services and skills, not include my supporting your medical needs.
You shop around for the medical services you want.
Now, does that mean that I believe we should just let people rut on the streets because they do not have medical insurance?
No, not at all. The moral fiber of a society is reflected on how we take care of our people that cannot afford for their needs regardless if they ended up like that due to irresponsibility or simply bad luck.
I have no problem for the states to provide free medical services for those at the lowest economic end of society.
Example: A family have a child that needs medical care and their income is only is very low. I have no problem if in their state they qualify for medical services. However, they need to know it is not free. Maybe they cannot pay now but later when they may go up in the economic ladder at least pay part of it back or they may pay back with community service. Many government agencies could use some free services and save the county or the state some tax money.
The higher a family is at the economic ladder the more is expected to pay for the services. So let us say there is another family at higher economic status with the same problem. Maybe this family may still get partial help from the state but may have to pay part because they have a better income. At some point a family is expected to be able to afford insurance. If they did not, we may still help for the sake of the child but that family will have to pay back in installment payments and maybe required to have insurance. People are forced to have car insurance, correct? Well, then the same with medical if someone ends up being irresponsible.
A socialistic program is wasteful. Example: Now let us say a national care program is in place. Usually, these type of programs have caps across the board. This is what I mean. Maybe for dental care you have to pay a certain percentage as the initial payment and the program the rest. Usually, this is across the nation. Now, compare New York to let us say here in El Paso, TX. Where do you think a percentage may cover more? In El Paso or in New York where things are much more expensive?
Does it make sense for everybody across the nation to pay the same? No in my book. Besides, you are telling everybody they are forced to join the program. Let the states decide what level of income qualifies for assistance without making everybody pay.
I and many other people want to have that choice of selecting who we want us to care for us. I and others do not mind paying with our taxes for those at the lower end but expect to be done efficiently.
I can go on and on but I hope this gives you and idea of where I come from.
Well, considering my husband and I are at the lowest end of the economic ladder (both of us are in school, full time, paid for 100% ourselves), have money in savings, and know that we can't have a baby...I have no pity.
That said, if we did have a baby, we have enough in savings that we could swing it. Seriously, I'm tired of my meager tax bill supporting people in my very same situation who just make stupid choices. I think those idiots should just stop procreating anyways.
After reading the OP's post all the way through and then reading the responses I just have a few questions to ask the responders.
1)Do you pay for health insurance in any way shape or form? My family does.
2)Do you use your health insurance often? We hardly ever find need to use ours, thankfully.
3)If you don't use it very often, then why do you have it? We have it because one never knows when it may be seriously needed.
If you do use it often or have needed it for an emergency and it has helped you and your family out in keeping you from going into major debt, I just want to say you are welcome!!! Because technically you are spending the money that we (my family) too have been paying in on health insurance.
In all essence what the policy is trying to do, is set up an insurance where if someone should need to take leave because of family medical issues they would get a small check to keep them from going into debt. while they are on leave. Some people will never have need of it, while others will. Just like workman's comp., un-employment and health insurance. In all honesty do you really miss the small amount of money that is taken from your paycheck for these things? If it wasn't being taken out, would you put that amount of money into a savings account that you could fall back on, just in case something happens? Do you really think that there would be enough saved up in that account to live on the whole time you would need it or cover the medical bills that were incured?
I'm assuming if your family needs to use your medical insurance it wouldn't be for a "tummy tuck" because that's elective surgery, correct? I don't think you would expect other people's premiums to cover that. Well having a baby is an "elective" decision. If you decide to increase the size of your family, well you better be prepared to pay for it and that includes time off for one of the parents to stay home with the new baby. If your finances are so stretch that you can't afford to live on one paycheck for a couple of months then you can't afford the baby. Sorry.
I guess a big part of this is how people want to raise a family, or provide for someone who is ill or elderly.
I feel that so much of what we do as a society, is to let others take care of those that we should be taking care of ourselves.
Too many times our elderly are put into homes, our sick are taken care of by others, and we have to put our children into daycare.
I think that society condones all of this now, because it has become the social norm to let others take care of our ill, elderly and to raise our children.
I think that this thread raises the question of our values in this country.
We have become too busy, and we don't make enough money to give the care to these situations ourselves.
If our values would change, I feel that we would be more accepting of creating a system where we can become the full-time nurturer, and that it can be supported.
A while back I posted a thread where I reiterated a suggestion that is currently circulating whereby those who are choosing to caretake, can receive a tax credit.
If we were to closely look at some other countries; countries that support caretaking, and how they take care of the young, sick and elderly; you will see that they are many times fully-backed to provide, and are also horrified at how we, as a country, treat those who need us the most.
Here is the link with more info about the tax credit. Child Tax Credit Information Refund Taxes Credits Family New
And although this may not be the only solution, I do feel that we need to create diaglogue on how we can improve the way we care for the sick, elderly and the young.
I'm assuming if your family needs to use your medical insurance it wouldn't be for a "tummy tuck" because that's elective surgery, correct? I don't think you would expect other people's premiums to cover that. Well having a baby is an "elective" decision. If you decide to increase the size of your family, well you better be prepared to pay for it and that includes time off for one of the parents to stay home with the new baby. If your finances are so stretch that you can't afford to live on one paycheck for a couple of months then you can't afford the baby. Sorry.
I myself would not use my medical insurance for a tummy tuck, at least not right now, one never knows how I will feel in a few years. But whether I use my medical insurance for a tummy tuck or not, the point is by my family paying in for that insurance we're helping others. Both by the money we pay in and the fact that we have insurance, which means that we help keep the cost down for premiums and increase the amount insurance covers. I know having health insurance is something that is not mandatory but a choice to have. But the more people that have health insurance the lower the premiums will be (or at least should be), and the more they will cover.
I do agree that folks shouldn't be having babies if they can't afford them. However the proposed policy that the OP posted was not just for families having babies, but for families who find themselves having to suddenly care for an ailing loved one. I think if you really think about it, it would be cheaper in the long run to pay in a little every paycheck to go towards an insurance that would help a family out who has an emergent situation, than pay a heck of a lot more in taxes that covers some sort of welfare program for them.
I really think that if you look this country from schools;to income tax ;to programs for infants/mother has bentover backwards to support mothers. Certainly just looking at what is available to a non-parents to what parents get is enough to see that. Now you want paid family leave when what your really proposing is to have others that are not parents do your work for you. Otherwise what do single people get other than the shaft in this country. That comes from a married man that see single people and those without children actually paying to suport enough of the ladder as it is.Its called greed and selfishness basically ;instead of be appraciative of what society already does for parents.
I recently moved from NJ...was a member of momsrising.org
Thought I will share a recent email I got from them.....hoping i am not breaking any forum rules here by posting this.
Email content below:
I'm willing to bet that every single person in this country has a story about a time they, or someone they know, needed -- really needed -- to take time away from work to welcome a new baby or to address a family crisis. I know I do: I took time after my son was born. My friend took time when her daughter got critically injured, and my cousin took time when his mother needed intensive care near the end of her life.
Each of us will likely be required, at some point in our lives, to look after someone we love. But we don't have any system to deal with the economic hardship that comes with these needs like the majority of other countries in the world do. That means that the birth of a baby or a family crisis too often puts people on the fast track to poverty (In fact, having a baby is indeed a leading cause of "poverty spells" in our nation).
It doesn't have to be this way. Studies show that policies like paid family leave cut wage gaps between women and men, drop infant mortality, and stop family poverty: It's time!
Tell your Congressperson to co-sponsor the Family Leave Insurance Act today!
*Forward this email to your friends. Everyone has a story about a time that they or someone they know needed time to help their families--by forwarding this message today you can give your friends the opportunity to do something about it! Help this country become one that supports families when they most need the support.
Family Leave insurance works like Unemployment Insurance: Individuals and their employers pay a very small amount into an insurance fund. Then, when folks need to be away from work in critical times, they are able to collect insurance to help make ends meet. This simple program will keep families out of poverty, bankruptcy, or worse. And, we'll all have healthier, happier families.
In an economic crisis, the argument for Paid Family Leave becomes all the more powerful. Studies show that policies like paid family leave cut wage gaps between women and men, drop infant mortality, and stop family poverty. Research has found that countries with family-friendly policies in place like paid family leave have lower wage gaps between women and men.1 Closing the wage gap is important because the wage gaps mothers face are huge, and they significantly contribute to family poverty: Women without kids make about 90, women with kids make about 73, and single moms make about 60 cents per a man's dollar. In addition, studies show that paid family leave lowers infant mortality: One study found that infant mortality drops by up to 25% with paid leave-and that there isn't any significant impact in the mortality rates from unpaid leave.2 Since despite spending the most on healthcare per capita of any nation in the world, the U.S. ranks a low 43rd in infant mortality, we should be pursuing all possible avenues to lower infant mortality.3 Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance is one such clear avenue toward improvement.
Don't forget to tell your Congressperson that we need Family Leave Insurance now!
The benefits of Family Leave Insurance to businesses are clear, too. A New Jersey study found that employers would benefit from Paid Family Leave by increasing employee retention and decreasing costly employee turnover. Studies show that 98% of employees return to work for the same employer after taking their longest family and medical leave. Businesses also profit from higher productivity, greater morale, and reduced absenteeism.
There's a movement growing in the U.S. for family economic security, and you are a part of it. Together, we have won paid family leave laws in New Jersey and Washington State. And, thanks to your advocacy, Paid Family Leave bills are being introduced in Congress more now than ever before. You're speaking out, and our legislators are listening. But we have to keep the momentum going. Believe it or not, there are legislators who still don't understand that Family Leave Insurance is critical to ensuring the economic security of all families, and that it won't break the back of businesses. It's our job together to tell our leaders that this is a problem that won't go away without their leadership and action.
Passing Family Leave insurance will help every single family in this country. Tell Congress today that this program matters to you -- and forward this email to your friends so they can take action too. It's going to take all of us, together, to change the world and help our children and families grow up in a better country.
Take action today!
--Joan, Katie, Kristin, Mary, and the MomsRising.org Team
1. Jane Waldfogel, "Understanding the 'Family Gap' in Pay for Women with Children," Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, no. 1 (1998), 137-156
2. Sakiko Tanaka, "Parental Leave and Child Health Across OECD Countries," Economic Journal 115, no. 501 (2005), 7<\#208>28. And also: Christopher J. Ruhm, "Parental Leave and Child Health" (working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, May 1998), www.nber.org/papers/w6554.
3. WHO, World Health Report 2005, www.who.int/whr/2005/annex/annexe6_en.pdf and FACT: The U.S. ranks a low 43rd in infant mortality, tied with Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Thailand. SOURCE: World Health Organization, Core Health Indicators, Infant Mortality Rate per 1,000 live births, both sexes, http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm#
I'm always willing to do my part for worthwhile causes-- but this 'aint' one of them!!
"having a baby leads to poverty," huh? here are a couple of solutions:
1. quit looking at young unwed mothers remaining unmarried as a "lifestyle choice;"
2. quit thinking that young unwed mothers "belong in the workforce'- expected to 'do all' except raise their own children;
3. see "fathers" as an in-person part of children's lives, committed to their children's mothers, instead of government-mandated 'child-support' checks;
4. note that a 'man' isn't a man if he isn't supporting his family.
no, having a baby doesn't cause poverty-- poverty comes from young, uneducated, unskilled girls being forced into the workforce where they are expected to but unable to adequately support their kids; poverty comes from people-- married and single-- insisting that they must "live beyond their means" at the expense of their children.
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.
