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.
Non sequitur. How do corporations cause the welfare-dependent to over-reproduce at a rate of 3 to 1? Especially when 2/3 of the women ON Medicaid are at the childbearing ages of 19-44 and get birth control for free?
You can't follow a simple argument. I didn't say corporation cause poor people to have more kids.
You asked: why is Medicaid paying for 48% of all US births?
The hospital expenses are too high for people. Corporations WANT the government to pay for those expenses, because otherwise they would have to pay a wage high enough for them to pay for those services. It is the same with walmart, millions of people are not getting enough money to pay rent, food, etc., so they have the government give them food stamps, and which more than likely are used in walmart, a double win.
If you cannot see how it is possible for rich people to accumulate a lot of money, then you cannot understand the cause of poverty.
You can't follow a simple argument. I didn't say corporation cause poor people to have more kids.
You asked: why is Medicaid paying for 48% of all US births?
Your answer still makes no sense. The US poverty rate is only 13.5%. But 48% of all US births are paid by Medicaid. It should be only 15% or so, in reflection of the poverty rate.
"The government" is us. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. In most of American history the government was owned by the wealthy, and that is the case today.
The top 20% (1 out of 5 people) is not rich. The top 0.01% is rich.
at the top 0.01% or do you mean 1%? I think you have trouble with decimals. There are more than 35,000 or so rich people.
The government is THEM not us. Plus I am fine earning what I have. I don't need the government looting others in order for me to have things. But lots of people are fine with the process. I have a good life, have nice things and no financial worries. I am not obsessed or jealous of those at the very top. The left is especially the poor unsuccessful left. The economic pie is not finite. Just because a wealthier person has a huge net worth does not automatically mean they are taking it from poorer people.
Your answer still makes no sense. The US poverty rate is only 13.5%. But 48% of all US births are paid by Medicaid. It should be only 15% or so, in reflection of the poverty rate.
Poverty is measured as a family of 4 earning no more than $22,350. So Even if the same family is earning 30k hospital expenses are still too high.
You are confusing very simple things. I suggest you listen a little to people who are interested in changing the economy for the good, not the people who benefit from the current corrupt system.
David Korten is a ph.d in economics and author. This is a short video, and you may need to watch it several times to understand it.
Your answer still makes no sense. The US poverty rate is only 13.5%. But 48% of all US births are paid by Medicaid. It should be only 15% or so, in reflection of the poverty rate.
Not saying anyone's numbers are correct, but the poster stated 48% of births, that is all.
You are implying the birth rate is steady across the income spectrum, which it is not, for all we know, 48% of births are by those 13% in poverty you cited.
But like I said, I am not couching for the numbers, just demonstrating the logic issues in your post.
That's because it provides... wait for it... well-paying JOBS. The alternate is throwing good money after bad at people who will perpetually sponge off the rest of society.
Let's do a little math...
48% of all US births are paid by Medicaid. In a country that only has a 13.5% poverty rate. The US Census Bureau has determined that, consistently, women on public assistance as a group have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance.
Anyone who understands compounded population growth projection will understand that this is a recipe for disaster. It's mathematically unsustainable. Period.
I'll give an example of the future consequences using the following formula (compounded population growth projection) and values, given the rate ratios we already know (non-poor : poor = 1 : 3), after a time period of 50 years (roughly, the time span of two generations), and using a small sample size for the sake of making an easier comparison.
The formula is:
present value x (e)^kt = future value
where e equals the constant 2.71828..., k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, e.g. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or other unit, as long as it is the same as k) over which the growth is to be measured.
Given: 100 births/year. 52 non-poor. 48 poor.
k for the non-poor = 1% = 0.01
k for the poor = 3% = 0.03
Non-poor population after 50 years: 85.73
Poor population after 50 years: 215.12
They began at:
Non-poor: 52%
Poor: 48%
And after 50 years of population growth given the rate ratios we already know, that results in:
Non-poor: 28.5%
Poor: 71.5%
The poor/low-income are WAY overbreeding, encouraged and enabled to do so by all the freebie public assistance benefits they get. Do you recognize the problem for society that presents? What's the plan to PAY for that?
The percentage of the US population that cannot support themselves and their dependents will increase exponentially, while those paying taxes will be increasingly unable to pay enough to support them all. It's completely mathematically unsustainable, and the US's society is already beginning to feel the effects.
Thus we can agree on something, if not Hitler's political leanings. Only stupid people are breeding. (Okay okay, don't everybody go taking that literally. Some smart and responsible people have children, just not enough to make any difference.)
The government shouldn't be subsidizing them. They should be living within their means. If that's all their labor is worth, that's the lifestyle they've earned.
Your opinion. I've went round and round enough with you over the years. We're never going to agree.
We have been conditioned to believe we are all millionaires-in-waiting. The one percent need to keep everyone believing that. It's what keeps all those good little workers toiling away their lives working for crumbs while the plutocracy takes the lion's share of the fruits of their labor.
Poverty is measured as a family of 4 earning no more than $22,350. So Even if the same family is earning 30k hospital expenses are still too high.
Why are people who can't afford the hospital bill having babies? Especially when so many low-income women are on Medicaid and get birth control for free? They can't afford food, clothing, and shelter for those babies, either, so WHY are they continuing to have them at a 3 times higher rate than self-supporting women/families?
Not saying anyone's numbers are correct, but the poster stated 48% of births, that is all.
You are implying the birth rate is steady across the income spectrum, which it is not, for all we know, 48% of births are by those 13% in poverty you cited.
But like I said, I am not couching for the numbers, just demonstrating the logic issues in your post.
Why is 13% of the female child-bearing age population in poverty having 48% of the babies?
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.
