Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 25

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   Simplepleasures
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I understand your perspective, but, I am not being hypocritical. I WOULD BE HYPOCRITICAL if I had any respect for the system, as you do. I do not.

    I'm not trying to deny others anything BUT the opportunity to avoid Federal anchors around their neck.

    Me? IF I were to receive my ENTITLEMENT, it would NOT BE an anchor to poverty, as I'm not poor to be kept stuck there by government to begin with.

    For me? It would amount to little more than a larger than average tax refund.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    So why is it an anchor of poverty for them, why is it not a helping hand out of poverty, why is it a good thing for you and not for them? I respect this government that may be giving you a helping hand, it would be hypocritical to accept help and disparage the government as you do daily on these forums.
  2. by   ZASHAGALKA
    ACCORDING TO THE RULES, any SSI and/or Medicaid would start to become subject to my income THE MONTH AFTER she comes home from the hospital. In the meantime, being on such aid would amount to 4 monthly SSI checks and Medicaid coverage for all my insurance co-pays and equipment necessary to come home.

    All in all, about $10,000 worth of aid. (Throw in my coming 'rebate check' and that comes close to equaling this year's income tax - but the gov't would still be up 8 grand on payroll taxes for the year.)

    Do I 'need' the money? That's not the point: I qualify for it.

    Let me turn the tables: can you give me a coherent argument for why I SHOULDN'T fill out a simple form that will net me 10 grand? After all, the rules clearly say I'm ENTITLED to it.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  3. by   Simplepleasures
    Oh dear Lord, we are arguing in circles, Im out, you are giving me more gray hair and I dont even know you!
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Feb 12, '08 : Reason: sp
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    So why is it an anchor of poverty for them, why is it not a helping hand out of poverty, why is it a good thing for you and not for them? I respect this government that may be giving you a helping hand, it would be hypocritical to accept help and disparage the government as you do daily on these forums.
    See, I wouldn't be accepting 'help'. I don't need help. I would be raiding back a portion of what is mine. Legally. Again, you are overlaying YOUR belief in the system upon my contempt for the system and, as a result, you find a logical impasse.

    It is consistent. SINCE I do not believe that government works FOR me (taking from me to give to others that do not deserve it), why should I have any qualms about working against it?

    You might believe that, IF I were to legally raid the system, as I am allowed, that I would be undeserving of it. The government clearly disagrees, or else, it wouldn't offer it. Now, here's MY POINT: NOBODY ELSE IS DESERVING of the fruits of my labor, but me.

    See, I suffer from NOT having to determine which 'abusers' don't deserve aid that comes directly from my paycheck without my permission. I already know that answer. NOBODY DESERVES my earnings but me.

    That's not to say I don't believe in charity. Charity, however, is a choice. Remove the choice and it's not charity. It's something broken. Broken like a system that will give ME 10 grand, for the asking. Wouldnt' you agree?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 11, '08
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    Oh dear Lord, we are arguing in circles, Im out, you are giving me more gray hair and I dont eevn know you!
    I like to think of it as challenging your preconceptions. I enjoyed tussling with you, as always!

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Social welfare is hazardous to your health. It's hazardous to the health of the nation. That is my point:

    http://allnurses.com/forums/f112/mat...ce-254961.html

    A Matter of Choice
    Copyright 11 October 2007 Zashagalka (Used by permission, Of Course!)

    Here are a few hard truths. First, poverty is a choice. Second, the government’s attempt to address poverty has only made it worse; it would be better, more compassionate, if the government curbed its domestic aid then it would be to continue or expand upon our fifty year legacy of entitlement failure.

    There is a concerted notion afoot to declare poverty as a value neutral station. It is a simple matter of fortune, of being ‘more fortunate’ or ‘less fortunate’. There but by the grace of God go I. Except. It’s not true. Poverty is a state of mind, and a choice. Hard work and just a smattering of ethics do lead the way out of poverty.

    The two most reliable indicators of rising above poverty are full-time employment, and marriage. In the poorest twenty percent of households, the average number of wage earners is one and the average number of hours worked per week is part-time. Even one full-time wage earner is enough, in most cases, to raise a household out of poverty. When two parents work, hard, and together to provide for their children, poverty is defeated. According to the Proverbs, “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.”

    Hard work and marriage, as a vehicle for raising children, are both strong Christian values. Why would that be? Perhaps because both are actions, separately and in tandem, that go far to abate poverty. They are choices. More to the point, they are ethical choices. We used to teach these values. We used to treat, not poverty itself, but acts that LEAD to poverty, as shameful. Now, being a single parent is a valid, alternative life choice. Now, we dismiss the choice of laziness as a state of being ‘less fortunate’. In truth, these SHOULD BE shameful choices. Why? Because they are actions that lead to poverty. Because shame is a powerful motivator to discourage unhealthy choices.

    Instead of stigmatizing poverty-inducing behaviors, we have created an entire government bureaucracy to validate such choices. The problem with government-sponsored charity is that values have been declared persona non grata by government; if the government is given the responsibility to care for everyone, then values can have no place in responsibility.

    The results of attempting government branded ‘value-free charity’ are and should be all too foreseeable. In the name of defeating poverty, we have validated the pathways TO poverty. Knowing that having or raising a child out of wedlock is a consistent shackle to poverty, how is removing the penalties for such behavior corrective to address poverty? Knowing that hard work leads the way out of poverty, how does penalizing work aid in reducing poverty? In the name of helping the children, we have fostered environments that allow ever more children to be born into poverty. This is what we call progress?

    For the entirety of human history, families and communities have bent to the task of raising healthy children. As should be. Poverty is unhealthy. In tandem with admonitions against poverty-inducing behaviors, the Bible is a strong advocate of charity to aid in defeating poverty. It is a symmetrical relationship in which poverty is simultaneously discouraged and its victims are aided with both community sufferance and moral correction in order to rise above. Reducing poverty is not just about giving; it’s about encouraging pathways proven to lead OUT of poverty. Unfortunately, that involves a morality our government cannot or will not endorse.

    While poverty is a choice, so is giving. The essential element of giving is the nature of a gift as a non-compulsory act.

    2 Corinthians Chapter 9: “Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he had decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. . . men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else.”

    To believe that it is possible to satisfy a creed of Christian giving within the structure of compulsory taxation completely misses the point of giving. More important, to create an expectation of entitlement completely misses the point of incurring the gratitude – and goodwill, that results in giving. The benefit, on both ends of the equation, is utterly lost. As a result, government induced giving simply cannot be focused in poverty-reducing ways. It cannot be thusly focused because it lacks the moral clarity, wisdom, and forbearance that come with such an act. “Of what use is money in the hand of a fool, since he has no desire to get wisdom?” THAT is why government aid is a failure. It misses the fundamental morality of charity, and does so entirely.

    At issue are the real ideals of charity and community. Government simply cannot be a proxy for such things. The result of a prolonged effort to do so is that we have lost our sense of community, and of family. Our nation is not a better place for the effort. The poor are not better off by systematically devastating the values that accompany family and community supports that can weather difficult times. “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Government money, absent morality, is just such an evil in our poor communities.

    Make no mistake. Government ‘aid’ is neither charity nor compassion. Poverty is a matter of choice. Lost to a deaf crowd that advocates defining community and charity through government is the fundamental observation that community and charity are choices that cannot be compelled, as well. The government has never been moral enough or charitable enough to make up the difference for what it has traded in the name of so-called compassion. And never will be.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 12, '08
  7. by   twotrees2
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Maybe. But.

    This is exactly why our framers developed a federalist system: to bring governance as close to home as possible in order to facilitate just that kind of change.

    If all politics were truly local, then people would have a direct decision. The further you remove choice from locale, the less people can direct their lives through gov't.

    So.

    Those that advocate using the government as a tool to coerce behavior from others prefer to have that control exercised AS FAR AWAY from the controlling hand of the Citizenry as possible.

    Hence, a penchant for Federal intervention. And. You heard why: those that desire the gov't as a vehicle of power over your life simply don't trust you. They prefer the Federal gov't because Washington is a culture not easily changed from the heartland.

    Just so we call a spade a spade. The laws can be changed, but making those laws in the venue MOST DIFFICULT to make those changes is designed on purpose to decrease the nefarious influence of the average person's say in how things are done.

    If the average person were allowed a free say, then, you wouldn't need a gov't making demands from them from on high. You cannot deny that the goal of moving this agenda to the Federal gov't is to make just your assertion here more difficult. That fact has been directly supported by those in favor of it, here. Why is that? Simple. YOU are not to be trusted.

    How dare you presume to live your own life when the gov't can live it for you, much better than you?

    ~faith,
    Timothy
    you are misquoting what has bene said - the people who are not trusted are the ones who have values of "why hsould i ... because", and other similiar statemnts - not everyone -
  8. by   twotrees2
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I understand your perspective, but, I am not being hypocritical. I WOULD BE HYPOCRITICAL if I had any respect for the system, as you do. I do not.

    I'm not trying to deny others anything BUT the opportunity to avoid Federal anchors around their neck.

    Me? IF I were to receive my ENTITLEMENT, it would NOT BE an anchor to poverty, as I'm not poor to be kept stuck there by government to begin with.

    For me? It would amount to little more than a larger than average tax refund.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    if you are not poor youy wuld not get your "entitlement" - even SSI for children is based upon the parents income- ( at least in WI - i assume as its a federal program its the same everywhere ) you would NOT get that money if you made to much money - which you state you arent poor so you wouldnt get it. so you are right - it cuoldnt be an anchor to you into poverty cause you wouldnt get it.
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from twotrees2
    if you are not poor youy wuld not get your "entitlement" - even SSI for children is based upon the parents income- ( at least in WI - i assume as its a federal program its the same everywhere ) you would NOT get that money if you made to much money - which you state you arent poor so you wouldnt get it. so you are right - it cuoldnt be an anchor to you into poverty cause you wouldnt get it.
    You're not exactly correct. SSI and Medicaid are AUTOMATICALLY approved for low birth weight preemies. No income test is needed. That continues until the month AFTER they go home from the hospital. Only then (in the case of Kylie, she will be in the hospital for 3 months, plus one month out) does income factor in. (If I didn't already have insurance, that would be about 700 thousand worth of entitlement.)

    So, 4 months of SSI plus Medicaid to cover all insurance co-pays plus to cover any durable medical equipment for discharge: or, about 10 grand worth of entitlement BEFORE income is figured in.

    (Not to mention, another 'child tax credit', an extra household deduction, and more economic stimulating rebate dollars later this year because of the extra child. Should I return/refuse THOSE entitlements as well, because I don't 'need' them?)

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 12, '08
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from twotrees2
    you are misquoting what has bene said - the people who are not trusted are the ones who have values of "why hsould i ... because", and other similiar statemnts - not everyone -
    Again, which came first, the indifference, or, the gov't's creation of indifference by crowding out other aid?

    From the thread linked above:

    "More than that, government ‘aid’ crowds out real charity. Americans are so put upon to pay for failed entitlement programs that both the physical means and the spiritual goodwill to give in a truly charitable manner have been literally taxed to the breaking point. It’s hard to give when the monster of government consumes a third of your salary. It’s harder still to give when that monster has created an attitude of unthankful entitlement in those that should otherwise be grateful recipients."

    I strongly disagree with your assertion that Americans aren't generous. We are the most generous peoples in the entire World. We just aren't generous to a fault.

    So, only those Americans that disagree with your notion that enforced labor from some for the unearned benefit of others are 'not to be trusted'? Coerced labor is 'a necessary good'?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 12, '08
  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    Sorry, a religious type belief that the United States SSI system is bad does NOT make sense.
    Many many people have used the system to keep their family intact.
    70% of families that use welfare do so for less than 2 years.
    90% for less than 5 years.
    http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html


    What IS a better solution?
    I am vary willing to listen so long as it does NOT cause more homeless families.

    Do you agree with me that it needs to include mental health care?
  12. by   BlueRidgeHomeRN
    [quote=spacenurse;2657458]many many people have used the system to keep their family intact.
    70% of families that use welfare do so for less than 2 years.
    90% for less than 5 years.
    http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html

    quote]


    #1--this study is 12 years old

    #2--the author's only sources are her own publications.

    find us something better researched and documented that corroborates this information, please....:typing
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Sorry.
    I want someone to find a way to ensure that all Americans have their basic needs met. With or without government assistance I think it is immoral for people, babies, children, and adults to do without.
    Why should be denied a warm place to sleep?
    Food to eat?
    Safe water to drink?
    Healthcare?
    Opportunity for education?

    What IS a practical alternative plan?

    Here is a place to start.
    http://guides.library.fullerton.edu/...ty&welfare.htm
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Feb 12, '08

close