Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 26

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
    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.
    No, you should accept them and be greatfull to a government who would care for you in a time of need or even in your case, no need.How about a thankyou, not too much to ask.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Feb 12, '08
  2. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    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.
    What would be wrong with helping a family with no insurance with the 700 thousand dollars to keep their baby alive. Or the baby of nurses who must choose their employer paid insurance with a 500 thousand dollar lifetime cap. I know many many RNs working in NICU whose insurance sould not pay for this.
    The babies of people with no insurance or inadequate health insurance are entitled to a chance at life too.
  3. by   HM2VikingRN
    I was reading Freakonomics last night.

    There is an interesting discussion about the bagel man. (see pages 47-51)He kept statistics about the percentage of nonpayers into his honor bagel stores that he put into various businesses. I think the data that the bagel man collected was interesting and reflected some of the underlying assumptions in some of the postings for this thread.

    1. Nonpaying behavior increased around certain holidays and weeks of the year. The Bagel man attributed this to the stress and anxiety of the holidays and family expectations.

    2. Mood also impacts payment rates. Warm weather increases payment rates. Cold, wind and rain decrease payment rates.

    3. Organizational morale affects cheating. Low morale offices tend to cheat more than high morale offices.

    4. Non-payment varies between the levels of an organization. Cheating increased as the level of the organization was increased. In other words executives were less likely to pay for their bagels than administrative employees. (The bagel man wondered if this behavior was driven by an "overdeveloped sense of entitlement." The authors posited that cheating led to advancement in the organization.)

    4. Average compliance (payment) rate was from 87-90%+. The bagel man does experience a lot of theft but the vast majority of people are honest even when nobody is watching their behaviors.

    Applications:
    1. Improving morale and reducing economic and emotional stress increases prosocial behavior. On a small scale this is why we need to help people rise from adverse circumstances. Can you think of a more profound adverse influence on behavior than poor health?

    2. Individuals at higher levels tend to cheat more than those at lower levels. Are some of our assumptions about people in poverty actually driven by behaviors exhibited at greater frequency by people with higher socioeconomic levels?

    One last observation from Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments about the innate honesty of mankind as quoted in Freakonomics (p. 50).

    "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."

    The vast majority of people do the right thing.
  4. by   pickledpepperRN
    I am assisting two young women who grew up in welfare families.

    Their mothers are, in my opinion disabled.
    Sorry but when a new design printed on paper towels is the most exciting thing in your life you have a disability. I can truly say they don't know any better.These poor women are afraid of white people. Vocabulary consists of saying the same things repeatedly. They do glue on nails from the 99 cent store. And ask their nursing student daughters, "When are you going to have a baby?"

    BUT their daughters are on their own, working to support themselves, and one will graduate from RN school in May. She was one of the small percent of her LVN school class who passed the boards. (that community college has a terrible pass rate). I guided her to a better school.
    I am very glad that these fine women had sufficient food growing up to develop their bodies and brains. Public school teachers taught the basics.
    So what is the alternative?

    These determined future nurses were helped by a government program created by PEOPLE. NOT just rules.
  5. by   BlueRidgeHomeRN
    Quote from spacenurse
    what would be wrong with helping a family with no insurance with the 700 thousand dollars to keep their baby alive. .

    because it is money not being spent on a "warm place to sleep, clean water, etc." per your earlier post.

    so......everyone should have all the basics at all time and we need to spend millions on futile, expensive care...

    what fairy godmother is going to pay for this? on this planet, resources are finite while needs and wants are not. should we be looking to cuba as an example??
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    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?
    Social Security is unsustainable. I didn't say that. The Social Security Administration's Board said that. They say that, repeatedly. They just want you to know, so you can't feign ignorance later. Social Security runs out of money in less than 10 yrs. Oh, yes, they have a 'trust fund' that they can use until 2042. That trust fund, almost 3 trillions dollars, has already been spent. In order to 'use it' during the next 25 yrs, we would have to add that amount into the budget, ON TOP of the money already being spent on SS, an extra 120 Billion a year. Except, it won't be evenly divided: it'll start small and grow huge. By the back years of 'using' a trust fund that doesn't exist, the amount would blow away any attempt at budgeting, even our current notion of 'deficit' budgeting.

    Exactly how Christian is it to make promises, and to demand payment in lieu of those promises, that we have no intention of keeping?

    You keep talking about being able to make and change the laws. The Constitution was written with this in mind. THAT is why the Federal gov't wasn't allowed to do this type of work: local gov't is both more responsive to those in need and to those that pay the bill. It's really that simple.

    What is a better system? Well, for starters, I surely wouldn't have designed a direct transfer retirement system that ignores compound interest. I can understand why it was done, when the worker to retiree ratio was 18:1. I don't understand why it wasn't changed LONG BEFORE that became an unsustainable 3:1. You wan't a better system? One that covers retirement, disability, AND life insurance? I've pointed it out several times: try the Galveston County Plan that opted the municipal workers out of Social Security, back when that was still an option. I'll link it again, if you don't want to look it up in a browser.

    I don't see the Christianity of demanding that entitlements must crowd out charity. Sorry. Again, YOU are confusing charity with entitlement. In this case, however, you are also confusing insurance with charity. SSI is an insurance program; it's just a very bad and inefficient and ultimately, unsustainable one.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  7. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from blueridgehomern
    because it is money not being spent on a "warm place to sleep, clean water, etc." per your earlier post.

    so......everyone should have all the basics at all time and we need to spend millions on futile, expensive care...

    what fairy godmother is going to pay for this? on this planet, resources are finite while needs and wants are not. should we be looking to cuba as an example??
    give an example of futile expensive care, are you referring to the preemie benefit, or benefits for kids in poverty, just a clarification please, i am not trying to infer anything, truly.
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    No, you should accept them and be greatfull to a government who would care for you in a time of need or even in your case, no need.How about a thankyou, not too much to ask.
    Why should I be thankful when I would only be getting back a portion of what was TAKEN from me, first?

    Sorry, I'm completely and unapologetically unthankful. I would rather the gov't just left me alone.

    I don't see the need for gratitude in taking back part of what was rightfully mine. Instead, I'm annoyed that it was taken in the first place. So now, I have to be 'thankful' that the politician's rules allow me to keep more of what is mine? Should I be 'thankful' to the thief that lets me keep the change in my pocket, after he took my wallet? However, again, you are confusing charity with entitlements. If you are ENTITLED to something, no thanks are necessary.

    You can't have it both ways: you can't remove the charity from aid and continue to expect charitable results. Being 'thankful' is an issue of morality. Entitlements aren't.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 12, '08
  9. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Why should I be thankful when I would only be getting back a portion of what was TAKEN from me, first?

    Sorry, I'm completely and unapologetically unthankful. I would rather the gov't just left me alone.

    I don't see the need for gratitude in taking back part of what was rightfully mine. However, again, you are confusing charity with entitlements. If you are ENTITLED to something, no thanks are necessary.

    You can't have it both ways: you can't remove the charity from aid and continue to expect charitable results.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Why would you begrudge others who also have paid into the system their fair share as you say, what makes it your money, why isn't it their money also, when they have paid into the system the same as you have?
  10. by   HM2VikingRN
    Dean Baker makes an interesting point:


    The Social Security
    system might be 70-years-old and simple in design, but it is also cheap to
    operate. The administrative costs of the Social Security system are less than 0.5
    percent of the tax revenue that it takes in each year.
    1 By comparison, the
    administrative costs of the privatized Social Security systems that were held up
    as models for the United States, like the ones in Chile and Britain, are between

    15 - 20 percent of annual payments into the system.
    2
    ......
    Private insurers
    charge fees that range between 10-20 percent of the accumulated funds for
    issuing annuities.
    3 This means that the share of workers’ payments into private
    accounts that get eaten up by fees from the financial industry can run as high as
    30-40 percent. Fees of this size will substantially reduce the amount of money
    that workers have left for retirement. By comparison, the administrative costs of

    Social Security, at less than 0.5 percent, is a bargain.

    http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf

    To bring this on thread SS is the most efficient anti-poverty program we have.

  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    What would be wrong with helping a family with no insurance with the 700 thousand dollars to keep their baby alive. Or the baby of nurses who must choose their employer paid insurance with a 500 thousand dollar lifetime cap. I know many many RNs working in NICU whose insurance sould not pay for this.
    The babies of people with no insurance or inadequate health insurance are entitled to a chance at life too.
    You miss the point entirely. THE REASON IT IS SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS is because of all this government interference in the first place. The free market can only bear what can and will be paid. This kind of care would be expensive in any case, but not NEARLY SO MUCH if the Federal Gov't would stay in its cage.

    A less expensive free market would allow the States more latittude to aid. Especially in an environment where the Federal gov't wasn't crowding out so many dollars.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Dean Baker makes an interesting point:


    http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf

    To bring this on thread SS is the most efficient anti-poverty program we have.

    Our future generations won't consider being stiffed nearly so compassionate

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 15, '09
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    Why would you begrudge others who also have paid into the system their fair share as you say, what makes it your money, why isn't it their money also, when they have paid into the system the same as you have?
    Because I think that all of us deserve better than a 'fair share' in a dismal outcome. THAT is my entire point.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

close