Circumstances change, no-one is ever in the same position today that they were yesterday.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Here you go: https://www.nhchc.org/donate.html
You can now donate as much as you want and leave my income the hell alone.
Why is basic health care more important than food, cloths and housing? [/quote]
Because there’s a difference between someone who’s sick and is spreading a contagious disease and someone who has holes in their shoes.
You can save your “zomg leave my money alone” rhetoric for some liberal tool who wants to tax everything, I’m not saying let’s increase taxes to get this funded.
Mandatory job placement for welfare recipients could free up some funds, not allowing kids who’s parents are here illegally into public school system could sure as fuck free up some funds, etc.
Cut their foodstamps and provide them with basic healthcare instead.
Just a matter of prioritizing.
[/quote]
So basic health care trumps food?
I’m just trying to understand your position.
[/quote]
It’s a balancing act. Yes, I think funds that go into the welfare system can and should be redistributed to carve out enough to cover basic healthcare needs.
[/quote]
I still stand by my premise that the Fed Govt should have no welfare system at all. Everyone either earns their own way or throws themselves on the mercy of private charity. [/quote]
Welfare is necessary evil.
US is one of the unsafest developed countries as it stands right now.
Take welfare away and you’re talking more cops, more inmates (50K/year per inmate out of tax payer’s pockets), more crime.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Here you go: https://www.nhchc.org/donate.html
You can now donate as much as you want and leave my income the hell alone.
Why is basic health care more important than food, cloths and housing? [/quote]
Because there’s a difference between someone who’s sick and is spreading a contagious disease and someone who has holes in their shoes.
You can save your “zomg leave my money alone” rhetoric for some liberal tool who wants to tax everything, I’m not saying let’s increase taxes to get this funded.
Mandatory job placement for welfare recipients could free up some funds, not allowing kids who’s parents are here illegally into public school system could sure as fuck free up some funds, etc.
Cut their foodstamps and provide them with basic healthcare instead.
Just a matter of prioritizing.
[/quote]
So basic health care trumps food?
I’m just trying to understand your position.
[/quote]
It’s a balancing act. Yes, I think funds that go into the welfare system can and should be redistributed to carve out enough to cover basic healthcare needs.
[/quote]
I still stand by my premise that the Fed Govt should have no welfare system at all. Everyone either earns their own way or throws themselves on the mercy of private charity. [/quote]
Welfare is necessary evil.
US is one of the unsafest developed countries as it stands right now.
Take welfare away and you’re talking more cops, more inmates (50K/year per inmate out of tax payer’s pockets), more crime.
[/quote]
So less welfare = more crime and more welfare = less crime? Compare crime rates in areas with high #s of welfare recepients and let me know if you want to rethink that argument…
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
So less welfare = more crime and more welfare = less crime? Compare crime rates in areas with high #s of welfare recepients and let me know if you want to rethink that argument…[/quote]
welfare recipients being poor themselves tend to reside in shitty poor areas where crime is higher.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
So less welfare = more crime and more welfare = less crime? Compare crime rates in areas with high #s of welfare recepients and let me know if you want to rethink that argument…[/quote]
welfare recipients being poor themselves tend to reside in shitty poor areas where crime is higher.
[/quote]
You’ve got causal relationship between welfare and crime. There’s no evidence changing the level of welfare will have an effect on crime.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
So less welfare = more crime and more welfare = less crime? Compare crime rates in areas with high #s of welfare recepients and let me know if you want to rethink that argument…[/quote]
welfare recipients being poor themselves tend to reside in shitty poor areas where crime is higher.
[/quote]
You’ve got causal relationship between welfare and crime. There’s no evidence changing the level of welfare will have an effect on crime. [/quote]
actually it’s a factual relationship.
there are multiple studies that tie crime cycles to welfare payout days - where crime rates go up after welfare recipients run out of money and attempt to “supplement their income” with criminal “income”.
take welfare away and they’ll be “supplementing their income” non stop.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I still stand by my premise that the Fed Govt should have no welfare system at all. Everyone either earns their own way or throws themselves on the mercy of private charity. [/quote]
So let me ask what your opinion is for a person who becomes disabled through no fault of their own?
Fuck em, it’s their problem?
Not trying to be an antaganist just trying to understand your position here better. kthanx
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
So less welfare = more crime and more welfare = less crime? Compare crime rates in areas with high #s of welfare recepients and let me know if you want to rethink that argument…[/quote]
welfare recipients being poor themselves tend to reside in shitty poor areas where crime is higher.
[/quote]
You’ve got causal relationship between welfare and crime. There’s no evidence changing the level of welfare will have an effect on crime. [/quote]
actually it’s a factual relationship.
there are multiple studies that tie crime cycles to welfare payout days - where crime rates go up after welfare recipients run out of money and attempt to “supplement their income” with criminal “income”.
take welfare away and they’ll be “supplementing their income” non stop.
[/quote]
Perhaps short term, but long term welfare increases circumstances that in turn increase crime.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html
“Given all of the above, I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today.”
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I still stand by my premise that the Fed Govt should have no welfare system at all. Everyone either earns their own way or throws themselves on the mercy of private charity. [/quote]
So let me ask what your opinion is for a person who becomes disabled through no fault of their own?
Fuck em, it’s their problem?
Not trying to be an antaganist just trying to understand your position here better. kthanx[/quote]
The solution has to be High Deductible Health Plans (catastrophic coverage) with a tax free Health care Savings Account. The HDHP needs to be purchased by the individual, not their employer so that it moves with the person and not tied to a job. Allow insurance companies to operate across state lines to make it a more competitive market which will drive down insurance costs.
Then they use their HSA to cover costs below their deductable. As the HSA will be their own money so people will be better stewards of it. The HSA needs to be able to roll over year after year so that it can accumulate while a person is young and healthy. It also needs to be will-able (into an heirâ??s HSA) so that it can accumulate from one generation to the next.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I still stand by my premise that the Fed Govt should have no welfare system at all. Everyone either earns their own way or throws themselves on the mercy of private charity. [/quote]
So let me ask what your opinion is for a person who becomes disabled through no fault of their own?
Fuck em, it’s their problem?
Not trying to be an antaganist just trying to understand your position here better. kthanx[/quote]
The solution has to be High Deductible Health Plans (catastrophic coverage) with a tax free Health care Savings Account. The HDHP needs to be purchased by the individual, not their employer so that it moves with the person and not tied to a job. Allow insurance companies to operate across state lines to make it a more competitive market which will drive down insurance costs.
Then they use their HSA to cover costs below their deductable. As the HSA will be their own money so people will be better stewards of it. The HSA needs to be able to roll over year after year so that it can accumulate while a person is young and healthy. It also needs to be will-able (into an heirâ??s HSA) so that it can accumulate from one generation to the next.
[/quote]
Sounds like a good idea but unless health care costs are brought into line nothing like this would ever work. You would exhaust your funds in no time flat.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
So less welfare = more crime and more welfare = less crime? Compare crime rates in areas with high #s of welfare recepients and let me know if you want to rethink that argument…[/quote]
welfare recipients being poor themselves tend to reside in shitty poor areas where crime is higher.
[/quote]
You’ve got causal relationship between welfare and crime. There’s no evidence changing the level of welfare will have an effect on crime. [/quote]
actually it’s a factual relationship.
there are multiple studies that tie crime cycles to welfare payout days - where crime rates go up after welfare recipients run out of money and attempt to “supplement their income” with criminal “income”.
take welfare away and they’ll be “supplementing their income” non stop.
[/quote]
Perhaps short term, but long term welfare increases circumstances that in turn increase crime.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html
“Given all of the above, I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today.”
[/quote]
lol, what do you mean “short term” ? until they all get arrested and sent to prison on yer dime?
As for the report you’re referencing - talk about “casual relationship”,just an attempt to blame “the system” for everything. But that’s just talk, take the welfare away, or postpone the check by a couple of weeks - shit hits the fan immediately.
I do agree with one observation in that report though - availability of welfare is promoting a single mom family situation, since they can afford it, which they are tying to higher crime rates.
But guess what, women being equal to men in the worskpace and making more than they used to leads to the same outcome…
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
So less welfare = more crime and more welfare = less crime? Compare crime rates in areas with high #s of welfare recepients and let me know if you want to rethink that argument…[/quote]
welfare recipients being poor themselves tend to reside in shitty poor areas where crime is higher.
[/quote]
You’ve got causal relationship between welfare and crime. There’s no evidence changing the level of welfare will have an effect on crime. [/quote]
actually it’s a factual relationship.
there are multiple studies that tie crime cycles to welfare payout days - where crime rates go up after welfare recipients run out of money and attempt to “supplement their income” with criminal “income”.
take welfare away and they’ll be “supplementing their income” non stop.
[/quote]
Perhaps short term, but long term welfare increases circumstances that in turn increase crime.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html
“Given all of the above, I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today.”
[/quote]
lol, what do you mean “short term” ? until they all get arrested and sent to prison on yer dime?
As for the report you’re referencing - talk about “casual relationship”,just an attempt to blame “the system” for everything. But that’s just talk, take the welfare away, or postpone the check by a couple of weeks - shit hits the fan immediately.
I do agree with one observation in that report though - availability of welfare is promoting a single mom family situation, since they can afford it, which they are tying to higher crime rates.
But guess what, women being equal to men in the worskpace and making more than they used to leads to the same outcome…
[/quote]
Yes, undoubtedly if you stopped welfare tomorrow the shit would hit the fan. It’s taken us several generation to get into this mess, it’ll take at least one to get out. The first step is take the entire HHS budget and grant it to the states, decreasing it every year, until the Fed Gov’t is completely out of the loop. The gradual reduction (4-6 years) will allow states to figure out their individual solutions.
I’d guess that children of single working mothers have very different crime statistics than children of single welfare mothers.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Yes, undoubtedly if you stopped welfare tomorrow the shit would hit the fan. It’s taken us several generation to get into this mess, it’ll take at least one to get out. The first step is take the entire HHS budget and grant it to the states, decreasing it every year, until the Fed Gov’t is completely out of the loop. The gradual reduction (4-6 years) will allow states to figure out their individual solutions.
I’d guess that children of single working mothers have very different crime statistics than children of single welfare mothers. [/quote]
I’d rather see tougher measures in place to ensure the welfare system is not abused (or at least not as much as it is now) than to see it go away - I mean shit if it’s to the point where we’re paying for the poor to breed then gov-t must be giving them too much.
I am all for empowering the States vs. the Feds, so no argument there.
As for the single mom family - my point exactly, just shows the asinine nature of conclusions in that report.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I still stand by my premise that the Fed Govt should have no welfare system at all. Everyone either earns their own way or throws themselves on the mercy of private charity. [/quote]
So let me ask what your opinion is for a person who becomes disabled through no fault of their own?
Fuck em, it’s their problem?
Not trying to be an antaganist just trying to understand your position here better. kthanx[/quote]
The solution has to be High Deductible Health Plans (catastrophic coverage) with a tax free Health care Savings Account. The HDHP needs to be purchased by the individual, not their employer so that it moves with the person and not tied to a job. Allow insurance companies to operate across state lines to make it a more competitive market which will drive down insurance costs.
Then they use their HSA to cover costs below their deductable. As the HSA will be their own money so people will be better stewards of it. The HSA needs to be able to roll over year after year so that it can accumulate while a person is young and healthy. It also needs to be will-able (into an heir�¢??s HSA) so that it can accumulate from one generation to the next.
[/quote]
Sounds like a good idea but unless health care costs are brought into line nothing like this would ever work. You would exhaust your funds in no time flat.[/quote]
The biggest flaw in the insurance model, is people lose interest in what health care cost, because they are not spending their own money (in actuality they are, but few actually recognize it). If most health care costs were paid for by an individual’s HSA it would be obvious that their best interest lies in getting the best value for their money. This would force competition into the maket and drive down health care costs. Look at what has happened to the cost/value of Lasik surgery. Very few insurance plans cover Lasik, so the payment comes directly fom the consumer.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Yes, undoubtedly if you stopped welfare tomorrow the shit would hit the fan. It’s taken us several generation to get into this mess, it’ll take at least one to get out. The first step is take the entire HHS budget and grant it to the states, decreasing it every year, until the Fed Gov’t is completely out of the loop. The gradual reduction (4-6 years) will allow states to figure out their individual solutions.
I’d guess that children of single working mothers have very different crime statistics than children of single welfare mothers. [/quote]
I’d rather see tougher measures in place to ensure the welfare system is not abused (or at least not as much as it is now) than to see it go away - I mean shit if it’s to the point where we’re paying for the poor to breed then gov-t must be giving them too much.
I am all for empowering the States vs. the Feds, so no argument there.
As for the single mom family - my point exactly, just shows the asinine nature of conclusions in that report.
[/quote]
So it’s just a coinsidence that nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates? And yes, there is a significant difference in single mothers who earn their living and those who get it via gov’t handout. As the Maryland NAACP puts it, “A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job.”
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Do you people believe that if a child comes into an emergency room with a bullet in his chest, and he does not have health coverage, and his parents will never be able to pay for medical procedures, he should be turned away?[/quote]
If you are believe he should be treated so strongly, what have you actually done to accomplish that?
Besides, I’m not aware of a non-3rd world country that would turn away someone like that.[/quote]
My question was simple: do you think he should be treated, or not?[/quote]
Unless I partake in the process, I don’t think it my right to say anything.
If you didn’t become a doctor and therefore cannot help him it is the same result if a person in a position to offer aid refuses it.[/quote]
There is so much logically wrong with this that I don’t even know where to begin. “Unless I partake in the process, I don’t have a right to say anything?” Then please never volunteer an opinion on any matter in which you are not directly affecting someone or being affected by someone…ever again. [As a side note, you DO partake in the process by helping to pay for it]
But you can avoid answering if you want bro, because if you say yes…which is what any good person would do… it will mean that you believe that people have a right to health care.
Any answer other than an unequivocal yes to the question makes you a real scumbag. And not a Christian, by the way.[/quote]
You are confusing terms health care and emergency services. And there is a difference between extorting money from people by use of a violent government and voluntary interactions of a free people.
Govt should protect and provide welfare for its citizenry. I live here, pay taxes, and vote. You should provide me some options.
If the argument is, “Well, it increases costs for others!” then I say give those people tax breaks as a reward. It’s not necessarily about entirely privatized or entirely socialized healthcare. There are other ways to structure this.
I’ll try to flesh this out more later on.
re: food stamps
How about…the longer you work, the more “welfare credit” you build up? i.e., you work for X straight years at ONE job, you are guaranteed Y months of welfare in the form of food stamps…if it runs out, you’re back to square one.
I like that some states have started drug testing people on welfare.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Govt should protect and provide welfare for its citizenry. I live here, pay taxes, and vote. You should provide me some options.[/quote]
Based on what? Your “I wanna’s”?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I agree that it is our responsible to look after our brothers and sisters. I also believe it is unconstitutional for our Fed Gov’t to do this for us. [/quote]
Why? Do you equate that with paternalism/forcing something upon people? If so, why not be ok with it as an OPTION?