Hypothetical: How would you improve the welfare system for families?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People who work at Walmart are helping to pay for the gold plated health and other benefits enjoyed by members of congress who want to cut off the medical and retirement benefits, or are blocking any reforms of the system. that is really galling to me.
 
Oh, yeah. there is enormous waste in the budgets. Simply consolidating different plans like medicare, medicaid, the VA, tri-care, S-chip, and federal employee benefit plans is already like 50% of the money spent on medical care in the US. No joke. Add in state and local funded healthcare, like my wife’s medical plan my family is on because she is a teacher, and you get around 60% of the healthcare bill in the US. Now, if you simply regulate the prices like they do in the rest of the world and ban advertising of prescription drugs, you could easily cover the cost of a universal medical care plan with just the money we spend already through taxation on medical care alone! remember, we pay about twice as much for almost everything than Europeans and Canadians do.
 
Last edited:
Couple of ideas:

(1) Increase recognition and support for medical care. One of the problems right now is that there really isn’t a legal category between “permanently and totally disabled” and “able to work.” There are people who may be able to work if provided with regular medical care, but can’t access that care.

(2) In a similar vein, have additional assistance for those who are working but have expensive medical conditions. A lot of low-level jobs either don’t provide insurance at all or only provide a high deductible plan. This is going to cause a major problem for anyone in need of regular treatment.

(3) Encourage the provision of job training specific childcare. I know one major barrier for many parents now is that you have to find childcare in order to go to classes. They don’t necessarily want to put the kid into daycare full time, but just for long enough so the parent can attend classes or other training.

(4) Put money into public transit. Job training doesn’t help if you can’t get to the job. A lot of starter jobs, only being available on public transit hours is a job killer. But buying a cheap car is a money pit.
 
What’s wrong with Warren Buffett just paying his own way?
 
Warren Buffett has more money than he could ever spend. And he can’t take it with him.

I think he would agree that he actually has too low of a tax rate because most of it is in capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. He is famous for talking about how silly it is that he has a lower tax rate than his secretary.

He can afford to pay into a fund for everyone, including himself if he wishes, or he could pay out of pocket for pretty much anything.
 
Oh, it is crazy. The fact is our taxes subsidize Walmart’s low prices and low wages, Wal-Mart has more employees on public assistance than any other large company in the US. Plus, they want local governments to pay for extra infrastructure to accommodate them.

In fairness, they are raising their wages (as of what i read), but it still isn’t great pay.
 
Canvas said:
Wal-Mart has more employees on public assistance than any other large company in the US.
Click to expand...
Wal-Mart is America’s largest employer, so that would be expected.

Retail stores have always paid low wages- Wal-Mart’s wages are comparable to Target, Sears, Kmart , Macy’s, Kohls.- and those wages are comparable to their predecessors in the 5&10 stores and mom and pops. Mom and Pop were pretty cheap too.
 
blackforest said:
Are you OK subsidizing this as a taxpayer?
Click to expand...
I don’t see how the government paying welfare benefits to retail workers is subsidizing the retailer.

Employers pay workers based on the task they are contracted to do- not based upon the needs of the employee and his family
 
I’m not American. In Canada, welfare recipients are not required to work. As for mandatory drug testing, I didn’t say to revoke their welfare if they tested positive, but conditions should be put on it then. Meaning entering drug treatment or seeing a drug counsellor. I agree with nicotine and alcohol treatments as well. People, who have an addiction, are much less likely to be able to get off of welfare than ones who have overcome their addiction.

Is it right for a family with children to use the money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco instead of food? Not really. My issue is more with people who have children but use welfare for these things because it’s an injustice, child abuse etc. The welfare of children take precedence.

I personally know dozens of welfare recipients and in Canada, they have workers/counsellors to help them find work, but it is far from mandatory.

People that recieve unemployment benefits in Canada are suppose to be looking for work as one of the requirements to continue receiving unemployment benefits. There is nothing wrong with putting rules and regulations on these types of programs.
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
Retail stores have always paid low wages- Wal-Mart’s wages are comparable to Target, Sears, Kmart , Macy’s, Kohls.- and those wages are comparable to their predecessors in the 5&10 stores and mom and pops. Mom and Pop were pretty cheap too.
Click to expand...
The worry right now is that not only do they pay low wages, they tend to keep people there.

(1) There’s not a lot of advancement from retail jobs. There’s management positions, but sheer numbers dictate that most people won’t make those. It’s not like, say, a technical field where you need senior technicians - a 20 year retail worker and a worker who’s just started can expect to receive pretty much the same pay.

(2) Retail jobs don’t generally give consistent schedules, and reserving time off often means losing hours or even getting fired. That makes it a lot harder for people to try to get other skills, because it’s difficult to commit time to classes or other things. This is beginning to change with the increased availability of online classes, however.
 
There’s two worries here. One is that the statistics often don’t bear out that there’s lots and lots of people on drugs who are receiving welfare. Two, most modern drug treatments really don’t work all that well. It’s just that people overlook this because they blame lack of willpower or not wanting to get better, and chemical support is seen as disfavored.
 
Like I said, my main concern is mostly for families with children where tobacco, alcohol and drugs can take priority over food. And I’m not saying to take away peoples welfare away but I’m saying that some safeguards need to be in place for children.

I’m not saying the chemical support for people is a bad thing. Most people need medications to survive. And I don’t believe that people can’t get off of drugs because of lack of willpower. As a former addict myself, my broken situation was almost completely to blame, along with brokenness, sinfulness, weakness and some lack of willpower. Mostly it was an incredibly broken situation that I was in.
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
I take issue with Theo’s apparent stance that most single mothers in welfare are incapable of more than just unskilled, uncertified child care.
Click to expand...
You are projecting,
I think they are capable of whatever they are capable of.

For the unemployed, I think unskilled or skilled work that requires minimal training is a safe first step, and the Govt should help them with training.

I don’t think the Govt owes everyone on welfare an all expense paid 2-4 yr degree. They can join the Army if they want it Govt paid.
 
That’s fair. I know a lot of places are doing breakfast and lunches at school, and often a similar program in the summer where the children show up and are given food. That at least gets around some of the problem, because those benefits can’t be turned into alcohol or drugs. I think the best solution for children would be similar, providing needed benefits directly rather than in financial form.

I just would rather see more support-first approaches for addicts themselves. In the U.S. there tends to be a strong attitude that addicts don’t deserve help until they get clean. I tend to think that we need to help them clean up their lives first and get in a stable situation.
 
Theo520 said:
I don’t think the Govt owes everyone on welfare an all expense paid 2-4 yr degree. They can join the Army if they want it Govt paid.
Click to expand...
Having been on welfare, I guarantee any recruiter would have taken one look at my medical records and burst out laughing if I tried to join the army. Remember that those with health problems are much more likely to end up on welfare. Those with GED’s are also disfavored for joining the army, and it’s very hard if you have even a minor criminal record.
 
The government is paying retail workers what the retailer should be paying. If the retailer’s meager wages send employees to the welfare office, that’s you and I picking up the taxpayer tab.
Augustinian said:
Employers pay workers based on the task they are contracted to do- not based upon the needs of the employee and his family
Click to expand...
Cost of living is never a factor? Why have minimum wage at all?

Again, people’s money to meet monthly living expenses has to come from somewhere. Where should that somewhere be?
 
Mtdobbs said:
As for mandatory drug testing, I didn’t say to revoke their welfare if they tested positive, but conditions should be put on it then.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I’d have no problem with mandatory, subsidized addiction treatment as a condition of receiving benefits.
Mtdobbs said:
There is nothing wrong with putting rules and regulations on these types of programs.
Click to expand...
I would agree, so long as they are not overly paternalistic. Women on public assistance, in particular, live under a microscope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top