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.
Yes, after the implementation of Obamacare America's health got worse. Thank you for confirming this.
Two can play After Trump's election everything got worse, even the weather:
March 2017: Tornado outbreak and wind damage across many Midwestern states, Missouri and Illinois were impacted by numerous tornadoes while Michigan and New York were affected by destructive, straight-line winds following the storm system. Nearly one million customers lost power in Michigan alone due to sustained high winds, which affected several states from Illinois to New York.
What about them? It's tragic, we need to educate all children on how to be responsible adults...but what do you suggest doing with that 20 year old with 3 kids? leave the kids to starve and deny them medical care because they have a child for a parent? Can I remind you that those kids didn't have any choice in the matter?
No reason not to implement UHC, or even Medicaid/Medicare expansion. Even the feared abuses of the system represent a mere drop in the ocean when compared to the vast amounts of corporate welfare our tax dollars currently pay for. By this very same argument, we should first focus on eliminating all forms of such welfare that exist today (carry forward tax breaks, favorable bankruptcy protections, bailouts, tax loopholes, etc) until we can afford it. In fact, I would advocate for using those tax reform savings to partially fund UHC, a much more worthwhile cause.
What about them? It's tragic, we need to educate all children on how to be responsible adults...but what do you suggest doing with that 20 year old with 3 kids? leave the kids to starve and deny them medical care because they have a child for a parent? Can I remind you that those kids didn't have any choice in the matter?
How about taking away those kids and giving them permanently, not on a foster basis, to families that can and want to raise them? And not restricting the adoptive parents on a racial basis. And then sterilizing the mothers in question.
What do you suggest, keep on keeping on with this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You are speaking about the people you interact with. I have never met an adult who does not understand UHC is paid through taxes.
People talk in terms of Trump "taking away" benefits. The moneys to fund those benefits are "taken away" from others.
How about taking away those kids and giving them permanently, not on a foster basis, to families that can and want to raise them? And not restricting the adoptive parents on a racial basis. And then sterilizing the mothers in question.
What do you suggest, keep on keeping on with this?
People talk in terms of Trump "taking away" benefits. The moneys to fund those benefits are "taken away" from others.
Older kids can't even find adoptive homes, what are you suggesting? No one restricts parents on a racial basis for heaven's sake but the fact remains that white adoptive parents aren't usually looking for 11 year old black or hispanic boys. So if no one adopts them, what then? Open hundreds of orphanages across the country (I'd love to see someone do the math on what that would cost)
And you want to take them away from their parents because the parents aren't good with money? Then you'd better start taking middle class kids away from their spendthrift parents too because there are plenty of them out there.
And it is not legal to involuntarily sterilize people.
What do I suggest? Better education for all kids not just the middle class and wealthy. More after school opportunities for latch key kids, required classes in money management and budgeting. In urban areas with a high poverty rate pay senior citizens to serve as surrogate grandparents. Provide free and easy access to birth control and financial incentives for young unmarried women under the age of 25 to use LARC. And access to abortion services, forcing women to have babies then screaming bloody murder about them getting public assistance to raise the kids they didn't want just screams of hypocrisy
Older kids can't even find adoptive homes, what are you suggesting? No one restricts parents on a racial basis for heaven's sake but the fact remains that white adoptive parents aren't usually looking for 11 year old black or hispanic boys. So if no one adopts them, what then? Open hundreds of orphanages across the country (I'd love to see someone do the math on what that would cost)
The need for adoption is usually apparent by the time of birth, not only at 11 years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
And you want to take them away from their parents because the parents aren't good with money? Then you'd better start taking middle class kids away from their spendthrift parents too because there are plenty of them out there.
If the "parents" are serial drug abusers they should be taken away. I am not talking about money management and you know that quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
And it is not legal to involuntarily sterilize people.
It should be. Democracy and freedom are for self-governing adults. Maybe some people can't use the freedom productively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
What do I suggest? Better education for all kids not just the middle class and wealthy. More after school opportunities for latch key kids, required classes in money management and budgeting. In urban areas with a high poverty rate pay senior citizens to serve as surrogate grandparents. Provide free and easy access to birth control and financial incentives for young unmarried women under the age of 25 to use LARC. And access to abortion services, forcing women to have babies then screaming bloody murder about them getting public assistance to raise the kids they didn't want just screams of hypocrisy
I am pro-choice. Don't set me up as an anti-abortion strawman. As you know I am NOT a conservative.
The need for adoption is usually apparent by the time of birth, not only at 11 years old.
If the "parents" are serial drug abusers they should be taken away. I am not talking about money management and you know that quite well.
It should be. Democracy and freedom are for self-governing adults. Maybe some people can't use the freedom productively.
I am pro-choice. Don't set me up as an anti-abortion strawman. As you know I am NOT a conservative.
We aren't going to go to hospitals and take babies away from mothers for no reason other than their economic status or some kind of 'guess' about how they will parent.
There are not enough foster homes for the kids who need them and a large number of foster homes are worse than leaving the kids with their parents , there are plenty of foster parents who take in large number of kids just for the money and spend as little as possible on the kids.
I personally know of a young woman who was placed in a foster home and given so many psychiatric drugs to keep her 'under control' that she couldn't stay awake in school. After a year or so she was able to contact a relative who got her out of the home and raised her.
You claim that kids should be taken from serial drug abusers and put in foster homes, well of those who are, 65% end up homeless and only 6% go to college I think you need to look at the drug being abused, how often it is used and other factors that might contribute to the environment being harmful to a child, but to create a situation where a 'serial marijuana user' has their kids carted off to a foster home...that is just f'in stupid. And if you really think taking kids away from drug users is a great idea, then let's throw chronic alcohol abuse into the mix and we will probably end up with 40% of the kids in the US needing foster homes.
We aren't going to go to hospitals and take babies away from mothers for no reason other than their economic status or some kind of 'guess' about how they will parent.
There are not enough foster homes for the kids who need them and a large number of foster homes are worse than leaving the kids with their parents , there are plenty of foster parents who take in large number of kids just for the money and spend as little as possible on the kids.
I personally know of a young woman who was placed in a foster home and given so many psychiatric drugs to keep her 'under control' that she couldn't stay awake in school. After a year or so she was able to contact a relative who got her out of the home and raised her.
You claim that kids should be taken from serial drug abusers and put in foster homes, well of those who are, 65% end up homeless and only 6% go to college I think you need to look at the drug being abused, how often it is used and other factors that might contribute to the environment being harmful to a child, but to create a situation where a 'serial marijuana user' has their kids carted off to a foster home...that is just f'in stupid. And if you really think taking kids away from drug users is a great idea, then let's throw chronic alcohol abuse into the mix and we will probably end up with 40% of the kids in the US needing foster homes.
.
I guess you have no problem with the present welfare/underclass cycle. If you don't why don't you sponsor a few children yourself?
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.
After Trump's election everything got worse, even the weather:
So if no one adopts them, what then? Open hundreds of orphanages across the country (I'd love to see someone do the math on what that would cost) 
