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.
If they are accurately reporting their household size and income, what is the problem? Are you familiar with the current Medicaid thresholds? I am. A household of 10 can be bringing in $72,133 and still be eligible for Medicaid. Each person over that needs another $6,100 in income to retain eligibility. I've processed NYSOH applications for households that size, with a $70,000 income, and yes, they qualify for Medicaid.
This is what I have been saying. It is not that poor women are having more babies (birth rate is declining) but medicaid covers more births.
That's actually not true. Poor women have a 3 times higher birth rate than women who, single or otherwise, can financially support themselves and their children. There are actually statistics on that.
Women who receive public assistance, as a group, outbreed women and their partners who actually financially support themselves and their children by a rate of 3 to 1. Yes, you read that correctly, 3 to 1. Of course, the more children they bear, the more in means-tested welfare program benefits they collect. And each of those kids receive public assistance benefits for 18 years, if not more, given the fact that 70% of those born into poverty or very-low income never rise above it. Many of the girls will start bearing their own children even before they're age 18.
Here are the stats, published by the US Census Bureau:
Quote:
"The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) gave states greater flexibility to formulate and implement initiatives to reduce welfare dependency and encourage employment for members of low-income families with children. For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women)."
"For the nation, the birth rate for women receiving public assistance was 160 births per 1,000 women, almost three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (56 births per 1,000 women)."
If you can find more recent stats published by the US Census Bureau, please do so.
I'm sure you and everyone else can understand that the compounding effect on population growth will make that dependent-class increasingly more impossible to support with freebie welfare handouts. Eventually, the Fed Gov is going to run out of OPM (other people's money) with which to artificially fund their subsistence. Then what???
That's actually not true. Poor women have a 3 times higher birth rate than women who, single or otherwise, can financially support themselves and their children. There are actually statistics on that.
But I did not say poor women did not have more children than women who had financial means.
The rate at which poor woman are having children is not increasing. The rate at which financially stable women are having children is not increasing.
Birth rates are declining. Have been and are continuing to do so.
It is. Where's the CA law requiring mothers to name their baby's father on the BC in order to qualify for public assistance benefits?
While states typically require disclosure of the bio father as a condition to receive welfare benefits, Father unknown is an acceptable response. Some women prefer to take this route for two primary reasons:
Protecting the bio father, or
Cutting all ties with the bio father
Conversely, the legal name of the bio father ( let alone his SS# or address or place of employment) may or may not be known to the mother. Same deal on the bio father’s side.
It takes a male and female to engage in unprotected sex to create a baby. No shortage of people hook up without knowing anything about each other.
Seems like alot of poor, single females are going from relationship to relationship having a baby as a trophy for each man and expecting hard-working Americans to pay every single penny for their massive housing vouchers, free utility bills, four-digit monthly food debit cards and respite daycare if they decide to make the welfare office happy by working in hour or two once in a while.
Sort of will be a crisis before long and will impact alot of different things next generation. There basically is huge segment of millennial women out there who are in poverty having baby after baby when they can't take of themselves and are clueless on how to raise a child even with a welfare bonanza from confiscated tax dollars.
The birth rates among poor women are absolutely stunning and I guarantee that it's going to have implications in 20 years when you have a tremendous amount of children growing up in absolutely horrid upbringings and then there is a large segment of middle and upper-middle class who skipped out on having children who have much more potential on average and would likely pay much more in taxes for the massive rise in retirees.
I admit it's a few years old but it's just incredible how millions and millions and millions of poor women babies each decade, one after another when they don't have the ability to take of themselves.
It's amazing how very low the birth rate has become for successful women who put in an honest 40 hours as opposed to those in poverty.
OK. So what do you want? You don't want to offer free/reduced cost birth control for these women because they can't afford it themselves. You don't want to subsidize education so they can get better jobs. You don't want to increase the minimum wage so they can support themselves. You want to take away their legal right to an abortion. You want to take away welfare. That leaves them with one option; have a kid they can't afford which you and I will still end up paying for. Thus, you got exactly what you asked for. Congratulations on your shortsightedness
That's actually not true. Poor women have a 3 times higher birth rate than women who, single or otherwise, can financially support themselves and their children. There are actually statistics on that.
Women who receive public assistance, as a group, outbreed women and their partners who actually financially support themselves and their children by a rate of 3 to 1. Yes, you read that correctly, 3 to 1. Of course, the more children they bear, the more in means-tested welfare program benefits they collect. And each of those kids receive public assistance benefits for 18 years, if not more, given the fact that 70% of those born into poverty or very-low income never rise above it. Many of the girls will start bearing their own children even before they're age 18.
If you can find more recent stats published by the US Census Bureau, please do so.
I'm sure you and everyone else can understand that the compounding effect on population growth will make that dependent-class increasingly more impossible to support with freebie welfare handouts. Eventually, the Fed Gov is going to run out of OPM (other people's money) with which to artificially fund their subsistence. Then what???
Poor people have higher birth rates than non- poor throughout the world, regardless of welfare benefits.
Countries with the strongest social welfare systems tend to have the lowest birth rates.
Niger Birth Rate- 7.24
Iceland Birth Rate- 1.71
Religion and culture are common factors. Muslims, Haredi Judaism and Mormons tend to have more children, regardless of where planted.
Education and access to birth control and to some extent, abortion are highly variable throughout the world.
If a person waits until they can afford them, they will never have them. Life is not perfect, waiting for perfection in marriage and children ... the person is going to be waiting a very very long time.
We are people, not money, I wish people would stop acting as if we were ...
While states typically require disclosure of the bio father as a condition to receive welfare benefits, Father unknown is an acceptable response. Some women prefer to take this route for two primary reasons:
Protecting the bio father, or
Cutting all ties with the bio father
Conversely, the legal name of the bio father ( let alone his SS# or address or place of employment) may or may not be known to the mother. Same deal on the bio father’s side.
It takes a male and female to engage in unprotected sex to create a baby. No shortage of people hook up without knowing anything about each other.
It's about holding the father equally responsible for the resultant child. Name the father on the birth certificate, or neither you nor your child are eligible for public assistance benefits. Why on earth are we giving men a pass on irresponsibly reproducing?
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.
