Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 18

The patient, mother of a month-old baby, was crying on the phone because for the past two days she had been tormented by head lice (Pediculosis capitis, if you really want to know). A simple problem,... Read More

  1. by   pickledpepperRN
    We have a new grad RN on our day sheft. She isn't quite 21 years old yet.
    She was being raised by a loving single mother who died when she was a child. Went from one foster home to another. Her last years of highschool she did really well, took her prerequisites.

    Her foster mother couldn't afford to keep her there when she turned 18 in her first semester of nursing school so the school contacted a social worker who arranged for her to get food stamps and MediCal.and She worked part time at In & Out burger. She paid a small rent to her Foster mother and bought most of the food for the household with the food stamps (it's a card not stamps now)

    She does owe on a student loan and is praying she doesn't get sick before her insurance kicks in because her MediCal benefits were cut when she started work.
    She is a wondeful nurse and NOT a loser at all.
    Without the help and encouragement of a foster Mom and social worker who believed in her she could be homeless instead.
  2. by   Jolie
    Spacenurse,

    That's an excellent example of a motivated individual who accepted benefits for a limited period of time, consistently made satisfactory progress toward an entry-level position, and demonstrated financial responsibility by contributing a portion of her own living expenses.

    Good for her!
  3. by   banditrn
    Quote from Jolie
    That sounds remarkably similar to the means by which my siblings and I put ourselves thru college - by piecing together multiple part-time jobs, and changing jobs when employers were unable to accomodate our schedules. It is difficult, but it was no easier for those of us who accomplished the task without the benefit of government assistance.
    Jolie - that's how I got thru nursing school, working 'part-time' and one small student loan. It WAS hard, but we got thru it, and survived. Couldn't have done it without family helping, ie: my mother watched the boys during summer clinicals, and during the school year, the older boys were responsible for the younger ones until I got home.

    If you want to do something enough, there always seems to be a way.
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Some people have the resources already in place from a good upbringing and living in a good neighborhood to make it through a program or school with minimal assistance.

    Even those people with those resources; have received substantial assistance from the public through aid to public schools, as well as public TAX support for post secondary education from the taxpayers.

    Nobody makes it on their own in our society without some help from others....
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Feb 11, '08
  5. by   twotrees2
    Quote from Jolie
    That sounds remarkably similar to the means by which my siblings and I put ourselves thru college - by piecing together multiple part-time jobs, and changing jobs when employers were unable to accomodate our schedules. It is difficult, but it was no easier for those of us who accomplished the task without the benefit of government assistance.
    if you were able to do that with several kids or even one you are to be commended- i wouldnt have been such a good person b able to do that with the 4 kids i was raising - i wouldnt have been strong enough to let my kids suffer without me when they already had other problems they were dealing with ( divorce, single mom and lack of friends and family near, me having to be away or aloof at the very least to get through the studies i had to do to graduate - if i had added even a part time job let a,one several they would never have seen me - oh but that sright - i SHOULD have given em up for adoption! as some here have so readily said - all because my husband decided he wanted to divirce me cause he wante dto screw around with other women - hmm yeah that woulda been the thing to do ) - i pat you on the back. it is good you didnt have to join the ranks of us "loosers" - how many kids did you say you had? and how did they deal with being at a sitters or neglected because you had to do so much at once? and if they werent neglected and you were able to do all that work and attending in the 24 hour day - how did you survive without sleeping? i ask cause any parent who want to go to school withoyt help will need to know any available tricks so as to adjust thier lives and get everything done and everyone atteneded to. further more- with the lack of jobs out there because there are so many looking for low wage jobs - what do you suggest when they cant find a job that can accomadate thier family and school. not to mention "job hopping" doesnt look good on any resume especially today cause no place i know wants someone who cant commit. just lookingf or suggestions for future reference so i can tell people iknow how they sould be able to do it cause others do,
  6. by   banditrn
    Do you know how to catch wild pigs?

    "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to It that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

    This is an old tale, but an interesting allegory of how some see the push for greater socialism/communism by some in government.
  7. by   HM2VikingRN
    "Necessitous men are not free men" FDR 1944 State of the Union Address
  8. by   carolinapooh
    Quote from banditrn
    Do you know how to catch wild pigs?

    "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to It that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

    This is an old tale, but an interesting allegory of how some see the push for greater socialism/communism by some in government.
    ANIMAL FARM, anyone?
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from twotrees2
    welll, thank you then i myself am a LOSER because i myself have been on the welfare system in the past.
    That is indeed the gist of our social welfare program. Don't worry, it's not your fault that you're poor. You don't need to try harder. Here. Here's a check.

    That you overcame that is a powerful boon to you. Thankfully, YOU ignored the explicit message that came with such aid. Most, unfortunately, buy into the gov't's take on their lives. The psychological damage with do in the name of aid is a moral felony.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from twotrees2
    It is obvious you have never yourself nor anyone close to you has needed these programs.
    It's not just obvious, I said as much. I said that I work full time, and I married to have children.

    Those are the tickets to ensure not being poor.

    Nobody "NEEDS" a subsidy for not working and/or creating single parenthood. What they need, instead of gov't aid, is going to work and staying/getting married to have kids.

    Period.

    Gov't programs that discourage both ladders out of poverty aren't a hand up. They are an anchor around the neck.

    You talk about abusive relationships, and I feel sorry for your situation, and, I'm glad you escaped it. But. Understand me. THIS is the price of social welfare. In an attempt to escape values by making the consequences of choices value neutral, we have encouraged JUST your type of relationship. In the old days, when morality mattered, and divorce was all but not allowed, then it also VERY MUCH MATTERED the type of person you married. You only get one shot. SO. Parents ensured long, closely supervised courtships. The POINT was to avoid marrying somebody abusive. How did you not see that this man was abusive BEFORE you married him? Simple, because there is now no penalty in our social welfare society for such mistakes, you probably married, like most people, simply 'for love', and the red flags waved in vain. Had social welfare not made the consequences of such choices less real, then your community (now destroyed by social welfare) would have taken better strides to both ensure better choosing on your part, AND to ensure better behavior on your former spouse's part. If some guy broke my sister's nose, I assure you, my three brothers and I would have instilled in him a fear fit for prevention. To the extent I err in my evaluation of your post, my apologies. All situations are individual. GENERALLY speaking, the point remains: social welfare, in an attempt to make consequences value-free, has served to make relationships value-free. The results are all too clear.

    You didn't 'need' social welfare. What you needed was better decision making from the start. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you could not have avoided 'needing' social welfare if you had simply made, or been encouraged to make, better decisions.

    And then, tell me how subsidizing, and therefore encouraging, bad decisions is a good thing.

    In the best of situations, bad decisions are still made. THIS is why we have community: to protect and to help. All of that aid is, or used to be, in an envelope of morality. Morals aren't bad things: they are time-tested codes of conduct that lead to better living. Now? Now, in our poorests communities, we have made fatherhood optional, and so, have destroyed communities. We have robbed them of cohesion. We have robbed them of role models. We have robbed them of the ladders out of poverty. Then, we pat ourselves on the back on how good and noble we are to use the public dole for such purposes of widespread destruction.

    See, the ultimate point of social welfare is to remove morality from decision making. It does so by pointedly trying to subsidize poor choices, to declare them value free.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 11, '08
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Without a doubt people need to have encouragement to better themselves. I have been reading Malcolm Galdwell's "The Tipping Point."
    I read the Tipping Point. There HAS been a tipping point.

    Social Welfare was the 'tipping point' that destroyed our communities and entrenched poverty in large segments of our population. Twotrees, driving values out of our education of our children is PART of the social welfare idea: and that idea is to remove morality from our society. Social welfare's only goal is to subsidize, and thus encourage, poor choices. It has nothing to do with a hand up.

    Social welfare isn't help. It's a moral evil. It's economic slavery and little more. It's the epitome of a 'fair share in a dismal outcome'.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 11, '08
  12. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    What they need, instead of gov't aid, is going to work and staying/getting married to have kids.

    .

    In the old days, when morality mattered, and divorce was all but not allowed, then it also VERY MUCH MATTERED the type of person you married. You only get one shot. SO. Parents ensured long, closely supervised courtships. The POINT was to avoid marrying somebody abusive. How did you not see that this man was abusive BEFORE you married him?

    You didn't 'need' social welfare. What you needed was better decision making from the start. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you could not have avoided 'needing' social welfare if you had simply made, or been encouraged to make, better decisions.

    And then, tell me how subsidizing, and therefore encouraging, bad decisions is a good thing.


    See, the ultimate point of social welfare is to remove morality from decision making. It does so by pointedly trying to subsidize poor choices, to declare them value free. The stunning crown of such attitudes: this view that poverty itself is somehow value-neutral. It isn't. Poverty is shameful. It should be.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    What moralistic gobbledigook! I cannot believe what you just posted to twotrees.Were you not also divorced? If so I gather you also made a poor choice, what is shameful is what I have just read here, I can hardly believe my own eyes.
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    This is a primary example of a Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) as discussd in The Tipping Point.(pages 160-162) The explanation for behavior is attributed to internal character factors without considering the impact of situation and context on behavior.
    I disagree. I have not under-emphasized situational explanations. Since ONLY those people that engage in 'bad' behaviors can receive social welfare, it stands to reason that the vast majority are 'bad apples'.

    The whole and entire purpose of social welfare is to subsidize bad decision making. It is not a FAE to describe a condition (receiving welfare) that is strictly based upon meeting situational requirements that satisfy my conclusion.

    However, let me suggest that 'bad apples' is the wrong term. What it comes down to it, the vast majority of recipients have no idea how to improve their lives. They come to the gov't for asst as a result of making poor decisions and are given no way to improve upon those decisions, just aid strictly given AS A RESULT of previous bad decision. We subsidize the bad decisions, and little more. Some do find a way to rise above, but not because of the social welfare system; in spite of it. The chief problem with those that come to the gov't with a handout is that they lack the ability to manage their own resources, or they wouldn't have their hand out. The solution then, cannot be to simply hand over more resources to be mismanaged. All that does is entrench bad decisions with the capital to make more bad decision and the result: entrenched poverty. That is not help.

    In a real way, and I've said this before, I don't see the system as having some that 'abuse it'. I have directly said that I think social welfare itself is the abuser. The fact that most will misuse social welfare is no surprise to me, neither do I blame them for it. What else could they do but 'abuse' the system. No. I am not blaming those on welfare for the inherit problems of welfare. I place the blame on the system itself.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 11, '08

close