How SHOULD Health Care Work?

[Trader]

Thanks for the heads-up about COBRA.
I never have heard of this.
I’ll definitely look into it.

You are not alone and don’t take “no” for an answer on COBRA. My last job was for a NYSE listed company and my manager and local human resources did not know about it either. It took multiple phone calls to corporate headquarters and two email complaints to the US Department of Labor just to get the pricing for COBRA. I ultimately declined the coverage because I thought it was too expensive, but then I had no health problems.

There are major fines that can be imposed on the company if they do not comply within 30 days.

 

[boppaid]

For a start, go here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170859

Which person? Be specific, and we’ll explore that person’s situation in detail. Be prepared to show that person is “typical” – give us some data on that.

And while we’re on the subject, tell us what we should do for “Bill,” “Tom” and “Sally” and their children. They’re real people, too.

Vern, I typed up this for you once, already. I honestly don’t feel like it again, just because you don’t remember the question. C’mon. If you don’t want to reread the post, that’s fine. I get the feeling you don’t want to answer the question.

As far as being prepared to show that person is “typical”, no. First of all, they don’t** have to be **typical. What difference does it make if the situation is typical or not? You’re proving my point! They have to be real. And they are. Just because a situtaion isn’t typical, doesn’t mean the people in that situation shouldn’t be taken care of. Secondly, do you honestly need statistics to know that there are widows who are poor? Or people who work in low wage-earning jobs? Seriously? What kind of world do you live in that you don’t think that’s typical?

You are being evasive on purpose, which confuses me. Or you really think poverty is something people prefer to live in. Maybe you’ve led a comfortable life and just cannot understand that others do not. Naive, at best. Uncaring, at worst. I’m not sure what to make of you. That’s not meant to be mean…that’s simply my honest observation of you on this topic.

I checked out your stats from Cornell. It does not seem to prove your point. In fact, there are absolutely no statistics in your article. How is that proof? Look at the quotes: "Many teenage pregnancies aren’t accidental but intentional " and "Too many teenage girls see themselves as having nothing to strive ". Where are the numbers? Many? I never disputed that it happens. I said it was not as prevelant as you made it seem. (You made it seem like the majority of welfare recipients had children to get the money.) Regardless, let’s pretend that it is EXTREMELY prevelant in the welfare system. Let’s say that 8 in every 10 cases is someone popping out babies to get the extra $200 a month. There are still 2 people out of 10 who still genuinely need assistance. Do you cut out the program and leave them hanging?

I agree that welfare needs to be reformed. However, as a society we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot make ends meet. We just do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I typed up this for you once, already. I honestly don’t feel like it again, just because you don’t remember the question. C’mon. If you don’t want to reread the post, that’s fine. I get the feeling you don’t want to answer the question.

I gavre you a detailed account of “Bill,” “Tom” and “Sally,” and you never replied to it.

As far as being prepared to show that person is “typical”, no. First of all, they don’t** have to be **typical.

So we make rules that apply to everyone based on a one-of-a-kind situation>

What difference does it make if the situation is typical or not?

Because if you make rules and laws that apply to one unique situation, you have made bad rules and laws, of course!!

You’re proving my point! They have to be real. And they are. Just because a situtaion isn’t typical, doesn’t mean the people in that situation shouldn’t be taken care of.

“Taken care of?” What do you mean by that? Do we automatically assume we are the only support of everyone in the country – that no one has a duty to work?

Secondly, do you honestly need statistics to know that there are widows who are poor? Or people who work in low wage-earning jobs? Seriously? What kind of world do you live in that you don’t think that’s typical?

Without statistics, we cannot know if the problem is large enough to register on the screen.

That is exactly the problem with the present system – it is not designed based on actual numbers, but on assumptions – and therefore is actually keeping people in proverty.

You are being evasive on purpose, which confuses me. Or you really think poverty is something people prefer to live in. Maybe you’ve led a comfortable life and just cannot understand that others do not. Naive, at best. Uncaring, at worst. I’m not sure what to make of you. That’s not meant to be mean…that’s simply my honest observation of you on this topic.

When you stoop to insults and questioniing other peoples’ motives, you have lost the debate.

I checked out your stats from Cornell. It does not seem to prove your point. In fact, there are absolutely no statistics in your article. How is that proof? Look at the quotes: "Many teenage pregnancies aren’t accidental but intentional " and "Too many teenage girls see themselves as having nothing to strive ". Where are the numbers? Many?

You didn’t find numbers there? How deep did you read?

I never disputed that it happens. I said it was not as prevelant as you made it seem. (You made it seem like the majority of welfare recipients had children to get the money.) Regardless, let’s pretend that it is EXTREMELY prevelant in the welfare system. Let’s say that 8 in every 10 cases is someone popping out babies to get the extra $200 a month. There are still 2 people out of 10 who still genuinely need assistance. Do you cut out the program and leave them hanging?

And it’s okay to create a system that locks people in poverty to deal with another, smaller group?

My point exactly – “we doan need no steenkin’ statistics!”

I agree that welfare needs to be reformed. However, as a society we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot make ends meet. We just do.

We have a moral obligation to not insult others nor question their motives – because with that mindset we can never claim to be filled with Christian charity. We have a moral obligation to study the issue rationally, and not attack those who disagree with us.

 

[jman507]

I agree that welfare needs to be reformed. However, as a society we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot make ends meet. We just do.

I guess that means, until it is not possible for society to provide the assistance.

 

[boppaid]

I gavre you a detailed account of “Bill,” “Tom” and “Sally,” and you never replied to it.

What are their situations? I don’t find that in this thread. I must have missed it. I only see where you said, “And while we’re on the subject, tell us what we should do for “Bill,” “Tom” and “Sally” and their children. They’re real people, too.” Tell me their situation, and I’ll tell you how we should help them in my opinion.

So we make rules that apply to everyone based on a one-of-a-kind situation>

Yes, although you and I both know that it is not a “one-of-a-kind” situation. There are plenty more than just one person in those situations you claim are “one of a kind”. Are you serious that you think a widowed mom with no family support is in a “one of a kind” situation? Again, maybe you’ve led such a comfortable life that you cannot fathom someone who hasn’t. I don’t know. But I cannot understand how you think those scenarios I described are “one of a kind”.

Because if you make rules and laws that apply to one unique situation, you have made bad rules and laws, of course!!

Again, the situations are not unique so much as they just aren’t in the majority. That’s a difference that seems to be missing here. You keep calling these situations “unique” and “one of a kind”. Just because they aren’t the majority doesn’t mean they are unique.

“Taken care of?” What do you mean by that? Do we automatically assume we are the only support of everyone in the country – that no one has a duty to work?

No, we don’t automatically assume. But if people don’t belong to a church that can meet their charitable needs to provide for their family or don’t have family support, then we help them. I guess I’m just having trouble understanding why that concept seems wrong to you.

Without statistics, we cannot know if the problem is large enough to register on the screen.

If people are suffering, it doesn’t matter if the problem is “large enough”. It certainly doesn’t matter to the mother in my scenario who is my friend, who is strugging to raise her 4 children. It shouldn’t matter to us either. We should WANT to help people like her, whether or not there are enough people LIKE HER.

That is exactly the problem with the present system – it is not designed based on actual numbers, but on assumptions – and therefore is actually keeping people in proverty.

No doubt the system needs to b e reformed. I agree with you there. They need to stop cutting people off the system when they get a job, and instead lower their payment to them to make it what they were receiving before (including their new income). That way, it won’t discourage people on the line to not get jobs. (like the situation where if a man gets a job, he will be cut off welfare. However, the job alone isn’t enough to support his family.) Or make it more “doable” for a woman to go back to college to get a better job so she can get off the system.

 

[boppaid]

When you stoop to insults and questioniing other peoples’ motives, you have lost the debate.

Very, c’mon. This is what I said.

You are being evasive on purpose, which confuses me. Or you really think poverty is something people prefer to live in. Maybe you’ve led a comfortable life and just cannot understand that others do not. Naive, at best. Uncaring, at worst. I’m not sure what to make of you. That’s not meant to be mean…that’s simply my honest observation of you on this topic

Saying your evasive is hardly an insult. Wondering if where y ou were coming from (trying to figure out if you are naive or uncaring or evasive) is not an insult either. I’m explaining my confusion to you as to where you are coming from. I don’t understand the world you live in. I can’t figure out if you lived a pampered comfy life with lots of loving family and jsut don’t understand others who do not (naive), or if you simply don’t care about those that would slip through the cracks of your plan because there aren’t enough of them in the world to make them “count” (uncaring). Neither is an insult. I honestly was asking you. I’d love an anser, because it would be easier to debate you if I knew what you were about.

You didn’t find numbers there? How deep did you read?

I read the entire article that you posted on the thread. I’m sorry. Maybe I’m blind and dumb, but I don’t see ANY stats indicating how many girls keep getting pregnant on purpose for the welfare check. I don’t know how I’m missing it. I’m sorry. Can y ou quote a statistic for me out of that article? (I’ll probably feel really stupid when you supply the quote and say, ‘doh!’, but I’ll live. )

My point exactly – “we doan need no steenkin’ statistics!”

Statistics are good and fine and helpful. That’s why I’m asking for the above statistics. They are an excellent indicator of situations. They should NOT be the deciding factor, though, in whether or not we need certain welfare programs. It should NOT matter how many people have unique situations. If they are poor and in need, and don’t have family to help them, the government should. We live in a rich country, and we can afford it. Look at all the money spent in other countries? Look at all the personal wealth in this country? How can we sit back and NOT give?

We have a moral obligation to not insult others nor question their motives – because with that mindset we can never claim to be filled with Christian charity. We have a moral obligation to study the issue rationally, and not attack those who disagree with us.

Please point to any attack I have made. I already explained how wondering if you were naive or uncaring was simply just that, and even gave you examples of where I got such a notion (neither of which was insulting). I never claimed to know for sure if you are naive, or uncaring. I simply said, the fact that you didn’t care about the minority of people in “unique”(?) situations who need governmental help indicated to me that you were “uncaring”. I’m sure you understand that I didn’t mean “uncaring” in all aspects of life. I don’t know you…how would I presume to know that? you are being a tad sensative. (Please don’t get upset that I said that. I don’t mean that in an insulting way~ but to get so upset about that does seem a little sensative.)

Name calling is not saying, “by your saying ______ shows to me that you are naive/uncaring/etc.” At least I certainly didn’t intend it to be. It had a part in this debate. The fact that you may be naive because you’ve had good family and a good job (and don’t have people close to you who didn’t) is pertinent to this debate. It colors your perspective (if that’s the case). That’s what I’m trying to find out…if that’s why you feel the way you do. To learn where you are coming from to better understand your perspective.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What are their situations? I don’t find that in this thread. I must have missed it. I only see where you said, “And while we’re on the subject, tell us what we should do for “Bill,” “Tom” and “Sally” and their children. They’re real people, too.” Tell me their situation, and I’ll tell you how we should help them in my opinion.

Tom and Sally have three children. He is an over-the-road truckdriver and makes comfortably more than the median income. Sally is a Certified Nursing Assistant and makes a bit more than minimum wage. Between them, they are comfortably middle class.

Bill is a convicted felon. He has just been paroled to a work-release program from his second term in prison. The terms of his parole require him to complete the program, live in supervised housing, not drink or use drugs, and he cannot drive a motor vehicle or get a drivers license.

Bill left the work-release program and went to live off his mother (who is raising one of his children.) Bill met Sally, she left Tom and came to live with Bill (three adults and four children in one tiny 2-bedroom house.) Sally used up all her vacation and sick leave to spend time with Bill.

Sally and Bill decided to have a party. They drove to a nearby county (Sally’s car, Bill driving) to buy liquor. On the way home, they wrecked the car – and both had blood-alcohol levels well above the legal limit.

Sally is hospitalized, with no pay, having used her vacation and sick leave. Bill never had a job, but he is also hospitalized.

Tell me how we help these people.

 

[boppaid]

GOOD scenario! (very thought provoking)

Bill goes back to prison for breaking his parole. I’m assuming Sally still has health insurance as she is a Certified Nursing Assistant. If she requires help for food and housing, she should get it…under the strict condition that she actively find work. If she loses her house while in the hospital, she should have to rent a icky little apartment on her measly wage. Thank God the kids are with Tom. (If they aren’t, he certainly should petition the courts…I think he’d have no problem.)

Tom and Sally have three children. He is an over-the-road truckdriver and makes comfortably more than the median income. Sally is a Certified Nursing Assistant and makes a bit more than minimum wage. Between them, they are comfortably middle class.

Bill is a convicted felon. He has just been paroled to a work-release program from his second term in prison. The terms of his parole require him to complete the program, live in supervised housing, not drink or use drugs, and he cannot drive a motor vehicle or get a drivers license.

Bill left the work-release program and went to live off his mother (who is raising one of his children.) Bill met Sally, she left Tom and came to live with Bill (three adults and four children in one tiny 2-bedroom house.) Sally used up all her vacation and sick leave to spend time with Bill.

Sally and Bill decided to have a party. They drove to a nearby county (Sally’s car, Bill driving) to buy liquor. On the way home, they wrecked the car – and both had blood-alcohol levels well above the legal limit.

Sally is hospitalized, with no pay, having used her vacation and sick leave. Bill never had a job, but he is also hospitalized.

Tell me how we help these people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

GOOD scenario! (very thought provoking)

Bill goes back to prison for breaking his parole.

As a non-violent offender, he is currently on bail.

I’m assuming Sally still has health insurance as she is a Certified Nursing Assistant. If she requires help for food and housing, she should get it…under the strict condition that she actively find work.

Medical aid is one thing. She has no income – used up all her vacation time and sick leave, remember?

If she loses her house while in the hospital,

What house is that? The one she and Tom own jointly? What did Tom do to get thrown out into the street?

she should have to rent a icky little apartment on her measly wage.

She has no wages.

Thank God the kids are with Tom. (If they aren’t, he certainly should petition the courts…I think he’d have no problem.)

The kids are not with Tom – she accused him of child molesting.

As for petitioning the courts – how much will Tom have to spend to get his own kids back?

 

[vern_humphrey]

GOOD scenario! (very thought provoking)

Bill goes back to prison for breaking his parole.

As a non-violent offender, he is currently on bail.

I’m assuming Sally still has health insurance as she is a Certified Nursing Assistant. If she requires help for food and housing, she should get it…under the strict condition that she actively find work.

Medical aid is one thing. She has no income – used up all her vacation time and sick leave, remember?

If she loses her house while in the hospital,

What house is that? The one she and Tom own jointly? What did Tom do to get thrown out into the street?

she should have to rent a icky little apartment on her measly wage.

She has no wages.

Thank God the kids are with Tom. (If they aren’t, he certainly should petition the courts…I think he’d have no problem.)

The kids are not with Tom – she accused him of child molesting.

As for petitioning the courts – how much will Tom have to spend to get his own kids back?

 

[vern_humphrey]

GOOD scenario! (very thought provoking)

Bill goes back to prison for breaking his parole.

As a non-violent offender, he is currently on bail.

I’m assuming Sally still has health insurance as she is a Certified Nursing Assistant. If she requires help for food and housing, she should get it…under the strict condition that she actively find work.

Medical aid is one thing. She has no income – used up all her vacation time and sick leave, remember?

If she loses her house while in the hospital,

What house is that? The one she and Tom own jointly? What did Tom do to get thrown out into the street?

she should have to rent a icky little apartment on her measly wage.

She has no wages.

Thank God the kids are with Tom. (If they aren’t, he certainly should petition the courts…I think he’d have no problem.)

The kids are not with Tom – she accused him of child molesting.

As for petitioning the courts – how much will Tom have to spend to get his own kids back?

 

[boppaid]

As a non-violent offender, he is currently on bail.

When people break their parole terms, they go back to prison. Even as a non-violent offender, I believe. This happened to a friend of ours. He broke his parole terms by drinking alcohol (NO ALCOHOL was one of the terms) and was sent to prison.

Medical aid is one thing. She has no income – used up all her vacation time and sick leave, remember?

Yes, I remember. You must have missed it when I said if she requires help for food and housing, she should get it…under the strict condition that she actively find work when she’s well.

What house is that? The one she and Tom own jointly? What did Tom do to get thrown out into the street?

If she owned a house. I’m not sure who got the house in the divorce, as I didn’t see that specified. So, she she get section 8 housing (which is no picnic…I’m sure she won’t be thrilled, but it’s well-deserved to her for her poor choices) until she finds a new job. As you and I both agree, she would need to find active employment as terms of her receiving gov’t assistance.

The kids are not with Tom – she accused him of child molesting.

How do you know these people? It seems like the story keeps changing. You didn’t tell me that before. How did she proove the molestation? The story seems to change w/ my every answer. Regardless, if she had custody of the children while living with the felon, the state needs to step in and re-evaluate the situation. Is that what happened?

As for petitioning the courts – how much will Tom have to spend to get his own kids back?

I have a hard time believing that Tom’s kids were taken away w/out proof of molestation. What was the proof? Maybe he’s guilty. Have you considered that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

When people break their parole terms, they go back to prison. Even as a non-violent offender, I believe. This happened to a friend of ours. He broke his parole terms by drinking alcohol (NO ALCOHOL was one of the terms) and was sent to prison.

Tell that to the judge who set his bail.

Yes, I remember. You must have missed it when I said if she requires help for food and housing, she should get it…under the strict condition that she actively find work when she’s well.

I can show you thousands of healthy people who are drawing welfare right now. How should she be an exception to this?

If she owned a house. I’m not sure who got the house in the divorce, as I didn’t see that specified.

They are not divorced – although she accused her husband of child molesting to keep him from coming and taking the kids.

So, she she get section 8 housing (which is no picnic…I’m sure she won’t be thrilled, but it’s well-deserved to her for her poor choices) until she finds a new job. As you and I both agree, she would need to find active employment as terms of her receiving gov’t assistance.

But no one else is required to do that!

How do you know these people? It seems like the story keeps changing.

Show me how it changed.

You didn’t tell me that before. How did she proove the molestation?

It didn’t come up. And she doesn’t need to prove it – all she needs is the allegation.

The story seems to change w/ my every answer. Regardless, if she had custody of the children while living with the felon, the state needs to step in and re-evaluate the situation. Is that what happened?

The story doesn’t change – you suggest things that can’t happen, and I have to explain why.

As for re-evaluating the situation, what grounds does the state have for stepping in.

I have a hard time believing that Tom’s kids were taken away w/out proof of molestation.

You don’t need proof – all you need is the allegation. Once the allegation is made, the person accused cannot have custody of or contact with the children until the investigation is completed – which might take years.

What was the proof? Maybe he’s guilty. Have you considered that?

Ah, the guy who works for a living, the one guy who did nothing wrong in this case – he’s the one who’s guilty?

 

[Brendan]

replace that with “private insurance companies” and we are in perfect agreement.

Not quite compareable.

By defintion, a single payer is just that, single. There is no alternative.

With private insurers, there are multiple placeses to go. If one insurer doesn’t value you one is free to choose another payer.

That is not possible in a single payer system, by definition

 

[boppaid]

Tell that to the judge who set his bail.

I can show you thousands of healthy people who are drawing welfare right now. How should she be an exception to this?

They are not divorced – although she accused her husband of child molesting to keep him from coming and taking the kids.

But no one else is required to do that!
vern humphrey;2498159:

Show me how it changed.

Agreed. It didn’t really change. My mistake.

As for re-evaluating the situation, what grounds does the state have for stepping in.

The grounds that the mother has taken up with a convicted felon who broke his parole, and both partake in illegal activity.

You don’t need proof – all you need is the allegation. Once the allegation is made, the person accused cannot have custody of or contact with the children until the investigation is completed – which might take years.

Again, this is not a welfare issue. The thing that needs reform in this problem of false allegations (if they are false) is the child protective services agengy. Different problem, different discussion.

Ah, the guy who works for a living, the one guy who did nothing wrong in this case – he’s

the one who’s guilty?

Maybe he is guilty. His wife doesn’t seem all too tightly wrapped, so maybe birds of a feather and all that… We don’t know.

 

[boppaid]

Tell that to the judge who set his bail.

This is not a welfare issue, but a criminal case issue. Different thread, different discussion. Regardless, if he is out on bail, it doesn’t change my response. Eventually his case will be reviewed when it goes to court.

I can show you thousands of healthy people who are drawing welfare right now. How should she be an exception to this?

You and I agree the current welfare system needs reform.

They are not divorced – although she accused her husband of child molesting to keep him from coming and taking the kids.

Okay. This does not change my assertion that she should receive gov’t assistance, while actively prooving she’s looking for employment, until she is back on her feet.

But no one else is required to do that!

You and I agree the current welfare system needs reform

It didn’t come up. And she doesn’t need to prove it – all she needs is the allegation.

Again this is not a welfare assistance issue but a child protective service one. Different issue, altogether.

The story doesn’t change – you suggest things that can’t happen, and I have to explain why.

You’re right. It didn’t change. My mistake.

As for re-evaluating the situation, what grounds does the state have for stepping in.

On the grounds that she has taken up with a convicted felon, who broke his parole, now out on bail, and partaking in illegal activity with him.

You don’t need proof – all you need is the allegation. Once the allegation is made, the person accused cannot have custody of or contact with the children until the investigation is completed – which might take years.

Again, a CPS issue, not a welfare one. Regardless, my solution of her going on assistance, while proving she is actively looking for work, until she is on her feet still stands.

Ah, the guy who works for a living, the one guy who did nothing wrong in this case – he’s the one who’s guilty?

Well, his wife doesnt’ seem too tightly wrapped, and birds of a feather and all that…

 

[boppaid]

Vern, just out of curiosity, how did we get from health care plans to welfare? I’m enjoying your real life scenario here, but I’m wondering if we should either get to the topic at hand, or move it to a ‘welfare reform’ thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is not a welfare issue, but a criminal case issue. Different thread, different discussion. Regardless, if he is out on bail, it doesn’t change my response. Eventually his case will be reviewed when it goes to court.

And in the meantime, he and Sally and Tom and Sally’s kids are living together – And the children are not the better for it.

You and I agree the current welfare system needs reform.

And how do we do that?

Okay. This does not change my assertion that she should receive gov’t assistance, while actively prooving she’s looking for employment, until she is back on her feet.

We can’t do that – the system doesn’t provide for it.

You and I agree the current welfare system needs reform

But in the meantime, the system actively promotes the poverty cycle and makes those who work responsible for the reckless behavior of those who don’t – which feeds the poverty cycle.

Again this is not a welfare assistance issue but a child protective service one. Different issue, altogether.

And how does that help these people? They live in the real world. When the kids go hungry, they don’t know it’s a child protective system failure, a judicial system failure, or a welfare system failure. They only know they’re hungry.

On the grounds that she has taken up with a convicted felon, who broke his parole, now out on bail, and partaking in illegal activity with him.

But how does that constitute **legal **grounds for taking the children? And when they are taken, where are they taken?

Again, a CPS issue, not a welfare one. Regardless, my solution of her going on assistance, while proving she is actively looking for work, until she is on her feet still stands.

What good does it do to provide money to feed a child that is being beaten or neglected?

Well, his wife doesnt’ seem too tightly wrapped, and birds of a feather and all that…

So if your next door neighbor sells drugs, that makes you guilty, too?

 

[boppaid]

And in the meantime, he and Sally and Tom and Sally’s kids are living together – And the children are not the better for it.

How did I become responsible for dingbat Sally leaving her husband and taking off with their kids? How did the welfare system become responsible for that??

We can’t do that – the system doesn’t provide for it.

Show me a quote where I said that I love the current system as is? All I’ve ever said is that I believe that government should provide for those who cannot doso for themselves?

But in the meantime, the system actively promotes the poverty cycle and makes those who work responsible for the reckless behavior of those who don’t – which feeds the poverty cycle.

Sally was not on welfare when she had the hairbrained idea to shack up with a felon. How can you blame that on welfare?

They live in the real world. When the kids go hungry, they don’t know it’s a child protective system failure, a judicial system failure, or a welfare system failure. They only know they’re hungry.

Thank you. That’s been my point all along. The children don’t care why they are hungry, or in need of health care, or in need of housing. They just know they are in pain. So, regardless of their idiotic parents, they need to be clothed, fed, and given proper medical care. If their parents are abusing them, or taking part in illegal activities that can put them in harm’s way, they need to be turned to social services.

But how does that constitute **legal **grounds for taking the children? And when they are taken, where are they taken?

What do you mean? What she has done is certainly legal grounds for an investigation, and it sounds like neglect to me. That’s a ‘legal ground’ right there.

What good does it do to provide money to feed a child that is being beaten or neglected?

Now, are they also beating the children? You failed to mention that. Regardless, if the children are being physically or emotionall abused or neglected,that is legal grounds for social services to step in and possibly remove those children from the home.

So if your next door neighbor sells drugs, that makes you guilty, too?

Well, if I was so attracted to my nutty neighbor and then married him, it wouldn’t make me guilty, but perhaps nutty myself. We cannot know if Tom is innocent or guilty. This needs to go before a court and properly investigated. You (his friend, or whatever your relationship to him is) and I (someone getting bits and pieces of info thrown at her sporadically) cannot determine whether he is guilty or not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How did I become responsible for dingbat Sally leaving her husband and taking off with their kids? How did the welfare system become responsible for that??

How did I – or anyone else – become responsible for someone who failed to graduate from high school, chose to take drugs, had a child out of wedlock, failed to have enough life insurance for his family, and so on?

Show me a quote where I said that I love the current system as is? All I’ve ever said is that I believe that government should provide for those who cannot doso for themselves?

And that is how we got into the mess we’re in now – deciding the rest of us are responsible for people who failed to graduate from high school, chose to take drugs, had a child out of wedlock, failed to have enough life insurance for his family, and so on.

Sally was not on welfare when she had the hairbrained idea to shack up with a felon. How can you blame that on welfare? a

When did I blame it on welfare? My question was, “How do we help these people?”

Thank you. That’s been my point all along. The children don’t care why they are hungry, or in need of health care, or in need of housing. They just know they are in pain. So, regardless of their idiotic parents, they need to be clothed, fed, and given proper medical care. If their parents are abusing them, or taking part in illegal activities that can put them in harm’s way, they need to be turned to social services.

And yet the law doesn’t provide for that.

What do you mean? What she has done is certainly legal grounds for an investigation, and it sounds like neglect to me. That’s a ‘legal ground’ right there.

What grounds?

That she left her husband? She accused him of abusing the children.

That she was in a wreck while someone else was driving?

What grounds?

Now, are they also beating the children? You failed to mention that. Regardless, if the children are being physically or emotionall abused or neglected,that is legal grounds for social services to step in and possibly remove those children from the home.

How do we prove it?

We know Bill’s son has behavioral problems – but that may be due to how his grandmother raised him. Or it may be due to something else. But no one has tried to take Bill’s son away from his grandmother.

Well, if I was so attracted to my nutty neighbor and then married him, it wouldn’t make me guilty, but perhaps nutty myself.

Or perhaps a perfectly normal person.

We cannot know if Tom is innocent or guilty.

The principle in this country used to be “innocent until proven guilty.”

This needs to go before a court and properly investigated.

Which may take years.

You (his friend, or whatever your relationship to him is) and I (someone getting bits and pieces of info thrown at her sporadically) cannot determine whether he is guilty or not.

Why I think it is wrong for you to suddenly assume his supposed “guilt.” There is no proof against him, only an allegation by a person whose own interests are served by that allegation.