Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 23

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   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    I do agree with you that there are some folks out there that are abusing the system, which is incredibly frustrating and sad because there are many who legitimately NEED the assistance who do not get it or have to wait years to be approved.
    I disagree. You can't abuse the system that entitles you to benefits, if you meet their definition. If you meet the definition, then you do. It's that simple.

    It's not abuse to come to the ED for a hangnail because it's free. It meets the definition of the program to do so, or Medicaid wouldn't pay the bill. The abuse is that Medicaid pays the bill, thereby encouraging the perfectly legitimate behavior that results.

    The problem isn't the people taking advantage of a system designed to be taken advantage of.

    The problem is the system.

    Social welfare is immoral. The system itself is the abuser.

    Everyone wants to make this distinction that SOME people use the system appropriately, and SOME don't. The fact is that the social welfare system doesn't care. That is its fundamental weakness. Being an entitled number allows for what you guys insist on referring to as abuse. It's not abuse, if it's allowed. That's the definition of 'entitlement'. I'm entitled. Everywhere you over-structure to prevent what you guys want to call abuse, you shut someone else out.

    More important, this idea that the gov't should micromanage lives in order to prevent 'abuse' is disastrous to a free people. How dare!

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 11, '08
  2. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    I don't believe you are serious.
    Of course I'm serious. (Did you know that having a preemie child ENTITLES you to claim, on their behalf, SSI and Medicaid, whether you need it, or not?)

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    How is it a form of justice to take other peoples tax money if you don't need it?
    Because I'm ENTITLED to it.

    You are confusing charity with entitlement. It would be wrong to accept help you didn't need. I would NEVER accept charity I didn't need.

    Entitlements are not charity. One has a moral basis, and one doesn't.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 11, '08
  4. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    In other words, without Federal coercion, you don't trust everyday people to take care of each other. When you speak of community, you mean at the end of a Federal whip.

    I disagree.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    That is what sticks in my craw . . . so to speak.

    steph
  5. by   twotrees2
    Quote from Jolie
    Interesting that you bring up special education. My younger daughter qualified for special ed services in our school district due to a speech defect. I did not wish to avail ourselves of those services, as we had made other arrangements with a provider I preferred. We paid out-of-pocket for her treatment at a private facility. Long story short, I learned that the district was treating her without our consent and over our known objections because they needed to "justify" the position of speech therapist in our school. Makes me wonder how many other children they were "treating" unnecessarily, and at what cost!) I had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with the principal and speech therapist and ordered them to stop immediately or I would be on the phone to the State Board of Education reporting them for treating my daughter without my consent (a flagrant violation of the No Child Left Behind Act), and reporting fraud of treating an child unnecessarily in order to justify a position.

    I'm not saying that happens every day in every district, but there is just as much room for fraud and abuse in education system as in our healthcare system.
    i am sorry you went through that - i hope you got them good cause what they did was illegal. when i finally got my son on special ed there was a LOT of paperwork to have signed by ME o r they couldnt do it. they should have respected the fact you were hapy with her current program especially if you could affpord to pay for it on your own. shame on them. many blessings
  6. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Of course I'm serious. (Did you know that having a preemie child ENTITLES you to claim, on their behalf, SSI and Medicaid, whether you need it, or not?)

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Did you apply on her behalf?
    (You know you don't have to answer.)
  7. by   twotrees2
    Quote from jolie
    as for "any nefarious reason", i have no doubt that they were attempting to "pad" their roles to justify another staff member. we have a huge number of students who qualify for speech therapy in this building, many more than in either of the other grade schools she has attended. (we move a lot.) i think it is no coincidence that this is by far, the most affluent area and school district we have ever lived in, and the district is using its clout to garner state money to fund these services that i truly believe are being exaggerated. perhaps parents here are more pushy regarding services, perhaps there is a greater percentage of children in need of services, or perhaps there is something else going on. either way, i don't like the idea of being "used" to justify staffing when we neither need or want the services. i gladly gave up my daughter's "spot" to someone who needed it!
    there is another thought - the school could very well want the money- i found out that each school gets 15.000 dollars for each child in special ed. at least hat is what i was told when i wondered why the school was so upset i made them come up with a better iep and he now is sent to a special school at thier expense cause they wont make sure he has what he needs- 10,000 for each kid in school ( hence open enrollments trying to atract more kids) and 15,000 for each special ed kid ( why they are willing to take any kid in need even if they dont have the ability to accomadte for them. ) and that money doesnt necessarily go to get better or more teachers! some schools just like to be greedy -
  8. by   twotrees2
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    In other words, without Federal coercion, you don't trust everyday people to take care of each other. When you speak of community, you mean at the end of a Federal whip.

    You don't trust more local control because it might accidentally be more accountable to the people.

    I disagree.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    it is hard to trust everyday people when so many have the attitude of lets see - how was it put? "why should i give.... because..." or some such thing. i dont trust them either when they have that attitude. i dont see them being "accidentally more accountable" when they state right out they refuse to do so.
  9. by   Simplepleasures
    Wow, I guess I will say that even if one spurns the government as a looter , a thief, a cabala, etc, etc, etc. one is not too proud to accept help when needed, or even when NOT needed.All these months being made to feel like a second class citizen for not planning good enough, for not forseeing any eventuality, for needing a government entitlement, I guess I could say , fate was tempted and fate responded. I guess I am ENTITLED to my SSDI also, I paid in to the system for over 35 years. I guess the poor children in the ghetto are ENTITELD to free lunch and medical care. No ones child is better than any others child, we all love our children and want the best for them and those kids who don't have anyone to love them , need help even MORE, than some who's parents do have good sense and work ethic.I think debating this issue with some folks has been a total waste of my time, I'm blown away.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Feb 11, '08
  10. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    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.
    Sorry but I do NOT think babies and children made bad decisions.
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from twotrees2
    it is hard to trust everyday people when so many have the attitude of lets see - how was it put? "why should i give.... because..." or some such thing. i dont trust them either when they have that attitude. i dont see them being "accidentally more accountable" when they state right out they refuse to do so.
    Fine. But, understand.

    You have explicitly stated that you advocate authoritarian rule as a better devised government than one in which people are free to make their own decisions. This is in direct opposition to our social contract, the Constitution.

    Why? Because, as you say, you don't TRUST people to act in YOUR own best interests. I don't trust government to act in MINE. There you have it.

    I prefer freedom to choose.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Sorry but I do NOT think babies and children made bad decisions.
    NO.

    But, by subsidizing their parents' bad decision, you have encouraged those very parents to create ever more children in poverty. Specifically, you have removed the economic penalty for doing so.

    You have, in effect, subsidized the poverty of children.

    It strikes me as cynically ironic that, 'FOR THE CHILDREN', we have created programs designed and destined to create more such unfortunate children. And, even more ironic, that we call that compassion.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 11, '08
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Fine. But, understand.

    You have explicitly stated that you advocate authoritarian rule as a better devised government than one in which people are free to make their own decisions. This is in direct opposition to our social contract, the Constitution.

    Why? Because, as you say, you don't TRUST people to act in YOUR own best interests. I don't trust government to act in MINE. There you have it.

    I prefer freedom to choose.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    I trust the laws because WE can change them. And those who make, interpret, and enforce them work for US.

    I am glad that WE choose to help families whose babies are born too soon.
    It is a difficult time at best. if the choice were to take a second mortgage, sell everything, and still owe the worry would distract from being a good parent.

    I am glad WE worked to get FEMLA so it is illegal to terminate a worker becayuse they need to be with a sick family member.
    But some people cannot go without a paycheck for long.

    I know a young nurse who is praying she can stay healthy until her insurance kicks in. I cannot think of any bad decisions she made in her short life.
    And I am glad the government and wonderful social workers helped her when her mother died years ago.
    I am glad my tax money helped the young woman whi will, I hope, be workinh at my hospital after I retire.

close