Scrapping Welfare

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DarkLight said:
Here’s the thing when it comes to healthcare for someone like me:

I have had points in my life where the full, unsubsidized cost of the healthcare that would allow me to maintain employment was probably more than the amount of money I could expect to make as an entry level employee. It was certainly more than the amount I would have left after paying basic expenses at pretty much the minimum possible level.

If you are healthy, yes, those services will advertise for you and seek you out. But the reason these services could offer such money-saving alternatives to you was by screening people like me (that they would lose money on) out. They don’t beg for people like me to join; they check our history and turn us away at the door for being too expensive.

That’s the problem we’re saying. In so many of these cases, YOUR cost savings depend on OTHER people being shut out. Capitalism and shopping around isn’t going to materialize someone who’s suddenly willing to take on a customer who’s guaranteed to cost more money than they pay in.

That’s the fundamental problem I’m complaining about with conservatives. That I see too much of the attitude that X worked for me, therefore it should work for someone else who’s in a completely different situation and doesn’t have the advantages that allowed me to take advantage of X, so there’s no problem.
Click to expand...
You put your own group together.
 
Theo520 said:
I have a higher standard that you.
I want the person to gain skills and the job to serve a needed purpose.
Govt make work jobs tend to be horribly expensive to the taxpayer, and not teach transferable skills
Click to expand...
I have a least the same high standard as you. But I don’t expect the not employed person to transition so quickly from that position to the high skilled, high wage job. Also, some people need more support than most and would do well staying, or remaining longer in the “lower level” job.

“Horribly” expensive is relative when considering the conditions described up thread, generational unemployment.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
You put your own group together
Click to expand...
With who, exactly? If I form a group with other sick, poor people, it has the same issues. And those who aren’t sick poor people would only have their group made worse by including me in it.
 
Crocus said:
But I don’t expect the not employed person to transition so quickly from that position to the high skilled, high wage job.
Click to expand...
Neither do I, their first job may be stocking shelves, or sorting packages. Such work still teaches skills and motivates one to find a higher skilled job. And nothing is wrong with sorting packages, I did such temp work when I was working on my teaching degree.

Most govt make work jobs don’t really care if it gets done today, or or in a couple days. Temp work for a real business is much more instructive.
 
DarkLight said:
With who, exactly? If I form a group with other sick, poor people, it has the same issues. And those who aren’t sick poor people would only have their group made worse by including me in it.
Click to expand...
Work with a charity … such as Shriners … they take care of the fund raising. And the charitable donations are tax deductible for certain high income people … Ever hear of the Pat Sajak Pavillion?


There is a group that focuses on rare diseases. NORD. https://rarediseases.org

There is a relatively new concept: Concierge medicine - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Most govt make work jobs don’t really care if it gets done today, or or in a couple days. Temp work for a real business is much more instructive.
Click to expand...
Totally ok with that, first priority is getting them up in the morning and showing up for a full days work, for a full days (living wage) pay. Call that life skills training if you want, very valuable. Puts them in a place from which they can actually contemplate further improving life position. Further, if they are not motivated beyond that, it’s still better than where they came from and may be the break in the cycle.

These are the kids I am thinking about …
ProdglArchitect said:
My wife worked in an inner-city high school where most of the students lived off welfare. She had multiple students each year say that they didn’t need to learn anything since they were just going to live off welfare when they got out of school. It was all they knew, and they thought it was how things should be.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I hardly have anything remotely rare - just expensive.
I’ve talked to private charities and they have extremely limited funds. Nowhere near enough to meet all the need as it is, let alone if welfare was removed.

Concierge medicine, I’ve seen the costs. Not really affordable, especially if specialists are routinely required. Most only cover primary care.
 
Crocus said:
Totally ok with that, first priority is getting them up in the morning and showing up for a full days work, for a full days (living wage) pay. Call that life skills training if you want, very valuable. Puts them in a place from which they can actually contemplate further improving life position.
Click to expand...
Aggravating to me when people turn down jobs that paid more than I was getting. Or someone said that welfare was easier than showing up for work. Or when I personally paid for their BC/BS or job training.

Helloooo???
 
DarkLight said:
I hardly have anything remotely rare - just expensive.
I’ve talked to private charities and they have extremely limited funds. Nowhere near enough to meet all the need as it is, let alone if welfare was removed.

Concierge medicine, I’ve seen the costs. Not really affordable, especially if specialists are routinely required. Most only cover primary care.
Click to expand...
How does this work for you?


https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=healthshare+plans&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Aggravating to me when people turn down jobs that paid more than I was getting. Or someone said that welfare was easier than showing up for work. Or when I personally paid for their BC/BS or job training.
Click to expand...
I know right?

Hurts when it hits personally. The prodigal son. The master of the vineyard. Both hard lessons.

The goal is to increase participation in the economy. How to get there is a HUGE challenge.
 
Last edited:
You’ll notice a few things there:

(1) the tagline for my state says “as low as $107 a month”. The time my health was worst, $107 a month would have been completely out of the budget. It would be a stretch now.

(2) It doesn’t cover mental health at all - that was a big chunk of my expenses. Maintenance medications (also expensive) are also not covered.

(3) If you’re approved with preexisting conditions, they’re not covered at all for a year and limited for 2 more.

(4) It explicitly says due to limited funds they can drop or refuse to cover people who are too expensive.

From what I’ve seen that’s pretty standard for healthshare plans (maybe not the mental health bit, that one’s odd).
 
People can work burger flipping jobs cause nothing else is available. Doesn’t mean they should.
 
Cyril said:
People can work burger flipping jobs cause nothing else is available. Doesn’t mean they should.
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate why they should or shouldn’t? Or what you suggest they might do instead? Or other ideas about the thread topic.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
First of all, do you think that these absentee fathers are going to suddenly come back and support their families if there were no welfare? And is it the fault of the children that their fathers are absent and that their mothers are not able to provide for them? Should they also be punished by being denied health care and food? And what makes you think that only Protestants are on welfare?
Click to expand...
Of course most single fathers are not going to be responsible post conception/birth as they were being irresponsible when fornicating in the first place instead of accepting the responsibilities of marriage. But if the woman knew there would be no gov’t backstop (now the TANF program), i.e., no gov’t subsidy for committing fornication, there would undoubtedly less illegitimacy.
Children often suffer for the sins of their parents so if we as a society want to help them whether individually, thru a church, food bank, etc., then we are always free to engage in such voluntary charity. What the TANF and other federal programs engage in is not charity as it is not voluntary, as mentioned before it is based on slavery for its funding. Its origins are politicians looking to buy votes; FDR in the 30s initiated the federal welfare programs which resulted in the blacks switching from voting republican to democrat and creating a situation which shows “…conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber” - President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his 1935 State of the Union message. So he knew it would be destructive but he instituted it anyway since he was a collectivist. Collectivist/socialist gov’ts are opposed to Catholic teachings, e.g., subsidiarity among others, which is why socialism always fails in the end. For the latest example see Venezuela.
Catholic teaching is that all should have “access” to health care. I am for that, not for mandatory programs funded by involuntary servitude of taxation or of medical workers as these means are opposed by Catholic teachings as they are not based on charity. Plus direct taxation by the federal gov’t is constitutionally prohibited though no need to go there in detail here.
I didn’t realize I had used “only” when mentioning the linkage between Protestantism and welfare recipients.
 
MonteRCMS said:
You have said this “thousands of times”.

BUT FIRST … you privatizers MUST give up your money AND then you MAY NOT pick and choose your own mechanism.

That is what has happened.

Based on experience, we don’t trust lefty economics alternatives as presented … yeah, go ahead swim on your own with your arms and legs shackled and your head held two feet underwater.
Click to expand...
You claim you don’t trust lefty economics and then you go on and support a lefty government program. We are putting our grandchildren into debt to the tune of $300 billion per year just for subsidies for parts B and D alone. That is the part of medicare that the payroll tax does not pay for. You so called “conservatives” cannot explain why our grandchildren ought to be paying those subsidies. The entitlement mentality is a big problem in our country and so called “conservatives” are a major part of the problem.
 
No. There should always be a safety net for the poor to fall back on. Personal charity is good, but it’s nearly impossible to help everyone. I think welfare needs reform to get rid of the corruption and discrimination (that I have experienced firsthand in the past).
 
Cyril said:
They could go to school, work towards a higher end job.
Click to expand...
Aside from the financial incentives, I think people severely underestimate how incredibly tiring being poor is. Here’s about what I recall a week looking like:

Get up around 6am, get ready to leave by 6:30. Transit includes a bus ride and about 2.5 miles walking - work starts at 8. 4h to lunch, most of this is spent getting boxes from the stockroom and shelving goods. 1h for lunch. Another 4h of work, again probably mostly stocking. Leave at 5; any grocery shopping gets done in the 20min before the bus leaves. Ride home is pretty much a mirror of the trip to get there. Fix and eat dinner and fix the next day’s lunch. Shower and go to bed. That’s monday-friday.

Saturday, you can sleep in a bit; need to leave the house by 11 to get laundry done. Less walking, only maybe a mile. Once laundry is done head to Mass. Catch the last bus home - about a 45min wait after Mass.

Sundays are when you get any cooking, cleaning, and so forth done. There’s no bus on Sundays, so you can’t go anywhere (there’s nothing useful within walking distance).

Going to school on that schedule? I can’t see it actually working, unless I could somehow have reduced working hours.
 
JOE_OBERR said:
Children often suffer for the sins of their parents so if we as a society want to help them whether individually, thru a church, food bank, etc., then we are always free to engage in such voluntary charity. What the TANF and other federal programs engage in is not charity as it is not voluntary, as mentioned before it is based on slavery for its funding. Its origins are politicians looking to buy votes; FDR in the 30s initiated the federal welfare programs which resulted in the blacks switching from voting republican to democrat and creating a situation which shows “…conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber” - President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his 1935 State of the Union message. So he knew it would be destructive but he instituted it anyway since he was a collectivist. Collectivist/socialist gov’ts are opposed to Catholic teachings, e.g., subsidiarity among others, which is why socialism always fails in the end. For the latest example see Venezuela.
Catholic teaching is that all should have “access” to health care. I am for that, not for mandatory programs funded by involuntary servitude of taxation or of medical workers as these means are opposed by Catholic teachings as they are not based on charity. Plus direct taxation by the federal gov’t is constitutionally prohibited though no need to go there in detail here.
I didn’t realize I had used “only” when mentioning the linkage between Protestantism and welfare recipients.
Click to expand...
So what happens if not enough churches, food banks and charities voluntarily step up to help all of these unfortunate children? Then what?

And for people who are opposed to war, should they be able to refuse to allow any of their taxes to go to our military and any war efforts of any kind? Are taxes being used for that purpose also a form of “slavery”?

And you say that “Catholic teaching is that all should have ‘access’ to health care”. What do you mean by “access”? Does that mean that if someone doesn’t have any insurance but still needs medical care that will cost $100,000, they can certainly have “access” to such care if they have $100,000 but if they don’t have $100,000, well tough luck?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top