Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 28

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
    Their punishment is loss of freedom.
    It is against the practice act of every State Board of Nursing to deny comfort care to a human being.
    I don't want to work in a prison but if I had to would the gusrds protect me if I insisted on advocating for my inmate patients? If I wanted to assess the person instead of assuming he is faking?
    Would they walk away and leave me with a violent inmate to punish me for treating him with dignity?
    A nurse told me this happened to him. And he is tall enough to be a basketball pro. he quit after three days because he was afraid of "custody".
  2. by   twotrees2
    Quote from ingelein
    WOW, I guess that even though they are bad guys and may have done some bad things, they are still human, I don't want to think "it's their just punishment", the thought did cross my mind, but as a human who cares for other humans, I do feel sorry for them and its not right to torture them in such a way.
    yeah- i am human and i cant say i dont sometimes "think" why do they desereve to be treated kindly - on the rare occassion that i hear what they have done. i do my best to not learn what they have done and try even harder to forget what they are in for when someone does say it. thankfully i am not full time there so i can usually forget who they said did what lol- i am quite proud of the way i have been able to champion for thier benefit - something i wasnt sure id be abl eto do. sorry to have gotten this thread off topic lol
  3. by   twotrees2
    Quote from spacenurse
    Their punishment is loss of freedom.
    It is against the practice act of every State Board of Nursing to deny comfort care to a human being.
    I don't want to work in a prison but if I had to would the gusrds protect me if I insisted on advocating for my inmate patients? If I wanted to assess the person instead of assuming he is faking?
    Would they walk away and leave me with a violent inmate to punish me for treating him with dignity?
    A nurse told me this happened to him. And he is tall enough to be a basketball pro. he quit after three days because he was afraid of "custody".
    i have been blessed to work with mostly good guards - we do have a few that are freaking annoying - when we need to get in the cell we have to push the button for the guard to open the door - and sometiems we do think man good thing the guy isnt dying or hed be dead by the time they got the door open.
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    The trustees are getting it wrong
    So, you are saying, the government managers are wrong? Really? The management put in charge of our government "benefits" have no real idea how or what they are managing?

    Do you know how this one statement of yours sums up my arguments so well?

    Yes, I agree. The government has no idea how to manage what you would give them to manage. Yes, I agree. I don't TRUST the trustees you would place over my life.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 12, '08
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Abuse of the system needs to be investigated and stopped.
    How do you propose to do that? If you don't qualify, you don't get aid. If you do qualify, by definition, it's not abuse.

    "Abusing the system" is a moral judgment on your part. There is no morality in entitlements. If you follow the rules to the satisfaction of the administrators, then you qualify. Even if you mislead them in order to qualify, the rules STILL allow for the determination in your favor: it can hardly be classified as abuse.

    The only way to end what you mis-like about the system is to change the rules. How do you propose to do so in ways that keep out those you deem 'abusers' without also keeping out those you deem 'worthy'?

    You are making moral judgments based on a program that is designed to remove morality from the process. You can't have it both ways, and so, here's your disconnect: it's so wrong for somebody to do what they are entitled to do.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    WOW, I guess that even though they are bad guys and may have done some bad things, they are still human, I don't want to think "it's their just punishment", the thought did cross my mind, but as a human who cares for other humans, I do feel sorry for them and its not right to torture them in such a way.
    This is a wealthy nation. Nobody deserves nor needs to lack basic necessities. I have never said that.

    What I say is that people make choices, ALL THE TIME, the lead to poverty. Just giving aid without support serves no purpose but to subsidize and so, encourage more such behavior. You guys see this all the time; you refer to it as 'abusing the system'. I refer to it as the essential downfall of a system that isn't helpful to most of those that use it.

    It's not a matter of 'punishing' them. At issue is how to ENCOURAGE better future behaviors. Entitlements can't do that because entitlements are backward looking: because of your past behavior (or this past event), you qualify. Charity is forward looking: Help is given, not to tide over, but to pull up.

    Charity is morality. Entitlements are not. You guys are falling all over yourselves to place your own morality on the social welfare system: THAT'S ABUSE. There is no way to morally abuse an immoral system.

    My beef isn't that America shouldn't be helping our poor. No. I believe in the bindings and obligations of community (Washington is NOT your community). My beef is that you cannot do this moral thing you want to do by first divorcing morality from the equation. You have set yourselves up to failure, from the start. More important, you have set up those you wish to help for failure, as well. The result is the current system.

    It's not that I disagree with your motives. I disagree with your METHODS because they cannot work. They have not worked, despite decades and trillions of dollars of effort. Welfare is a stunning failure. It's time to find a better way.

    Our current system does little more than subsidize poverty because it is nothing more than a hand out and not a hand up. It can't be a hand up, because the gov't, by definition, lacks the morality TO BE that kind of help.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 12, '08
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    For goodness sake. People cheat.
    They work under the table and don't pay taxes. They get food stamps, SCHIP for their kids, subsidized housing, free lunches and such. They collect welfare or unemployment purposly blowing the interview because the work illegally, have yard sales every weekend, clean houses or work as gardeners. They work nights as janitors under the table. they deal drugs, turn tricks, pimp, sell bootleg DVDs of current movies, sell phoney Rolex watches, steal and resell.

    We read on these boards about parents who are suspected of faking a childs disability to increase income.

    in other words they hustle.
  8. by   banditrn
    Something I read today:

    To Be a Liberal You Must:

    Believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

    Believe that businesses create oppression, while governments create prosperity.

    Believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried - is because the right people haven't been in charge.


    There was more, but these were the one's I felt especially applied.
    Last edit by banditrn on Feb 13, '08
  9. by   twotrees2
    "WOW, I guess that even though they are bad guys and may have done some bad things, they are still human, I don't want to think "it's their just punishment", the thought did cross my mind, but as a human who cares for other humans, I do feel sorry for them and its not right to torture them in such a way."



    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    This is a wealthy nation. Nobody deserves nor needs to lack basic necessities. I have never said that.

    What I say is that people make choices, ALL THE TIME, the lead to poverty. Just giving aid without support serves no purpose but to subsidize and so, encourage more such behavior. You guys see this all the time; you refer to it as 'abusing the system'. I refer to it as the essential downfall of a system that isn't helpful to most of those that use it.

    It's not a matter of 'punishing' them. At issue is how to ENCOURAGE better future behaviors. Entitlements can't do that because entitlements are backward looking: because of your past behavior (or this past event), you qualify. Charity is forward looking: Help is given, not to tide over, but to pull up.

    Charity is morality. Entitlements are not. You guys are falling all over yourselves to place your own morality on the social welfare system: THAT'S ABUSE. There is no way to morally abuse an immoral system.

    My beef isn't that America shouldn't be helping our poor. No. I believe in the bindings and obligations of community (Washington is NOT your community). My beef is that you cannot do this moral thing you want to do by first divorcing morality from the equation. You have set yourselves up to failure, from the start. More important, you have set up those you wish to help for failure, as well. The result is the current system.

    It's not that I disagree with your motives. I disagree with your METHODS because they cannot work. They have not worked, despite decades and trillions of dollars of effort. Welfare is a stunning failure. It's time to find a better way.

    Our current system does little more than subsidize poverty because it is nothing more than a hand out and not a hand up. It can't be a hand up, because the gov't, by definition, lacks the morality TO BE that kind of help.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    this post was inapprorite in response as the previous post you were responding to had nothing to do with our discussion ( this i admit was my fault as i had gotten off on a tangent of how inmates were treated and they responded to THAT and it wsnt about the social sytem-) that goes the same as for your response to her post in regards to needing an investigation into the things i had said- it was off topic - for that i apologize for causing any confusion.
  10. by   Simplepleasures
    originally posted by ingelein
    wow, i guess that even though they are bad guys and may have done some bad things, they are still human, i don't want to think "it's their just punishment", the thought did cross my mind, but as a human who cares for other humans, i do feel sorry for them and its not right to torture them in such a way.

    posted by zashagalka in response to my post above:
    this is a wealthy nation. nobody deserves nor needs to lack basic necessities. i have never said that.

    what i say is that people make choices, all the time, the lead to poverty. just giving aid without support serves no purpose but to subsidize and so, encourage more such behavior. you guys see this all the time; you refer to it as 'abusing the system'. i refer to it as the essential downfall of a system that isn't helpful to most of those that use it.

    it's not a matter of 'punishing' them. at issue is how to encourage better future behaviors. entitlements can't do that because entitlements are backward looking: because of your past behavior (or this past event), you qualify. charity is forward looking: help is given, not to tide over, but to pull up.

    charity is morality. entitlements are not. you guys are falling all over yourselves to place your own morality on the social welfare system: that's abuse. there is no way to morally abuse an immoral system.

    my beef isn't that america shouldn't be helping our poor. no. i believe in the bindings and obligations of community (washington is not your community). my beef is that you cannot do this moral thing you want to do by first divorcing morality from the equation. you have set yourselves up to failure, from the start. more important, you have set up those you wish to help for failure, as well. the result is the current system.

    it's not that i disagree with your motives. i disagree with your methods because they cannot work. they have not worked, despite decades and trillions of dollars of effort. welfare is a stunning failure. it's time to find a better way.

    our current system does little more than subsidize poverty because it is nothing more than a hand out and not a hand up. it can't be a hand up, because the gov't, by definition, lacks the morality to be that kind of help.

    ~faith,
    timothy.

    Quote from twotrees2

    this post was inapprorite in response as the previous post you were responding to had nothing to do with our discussion ( this i admit was my fault as i had gotten off on a tangent of how inmates were treated and they responded to that and it wsnt about the social sytem-) that goes the same as for your response to her post in regards to needing an investigation into the things i had said- it was off topic - for that i apologize for causing any confusion.

    yes, twotrees2, you are correct, timothy must have been mistaken and thought i directed my post about inmates being mistreated to him, my post was directed to twotrees2.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Feb 12, '08
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from blueridgehomern
    too late for the eldest-she's fourteen and pregnant, very excited about getting her own check and her own apartment...
    someone needs to talk to her about adoption . . . i'm sending dr. laura right over.

    steph
  12. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from zashagalka
    so, you are saying, the government managers are wrong? really? the management put in charge of our government "benefits" have no real idea how or what they are managing?

    do you know how this one statement of yours sums up my arguments so well?

    yes, i agree. the government has no idea how to manage what you would give them to manage. yes, i agree. i don't trust the trustees you would place over my life.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    the quote was quoted out of context. in effect your criticism is directed at the trustees for being overly cautious. the article was actually saying that the trustees are using overly pessimistic projections for "solvency" issues. by using overly pessimistic projections this makes the situation facing ss look worse than the reality.

    ss is an extremely important part of the antipoverty puzzle especially for the young children of disabled or deceased workers.



    http://www.cbpp.org/5-2-05socsec.htm



    social security benefits have a powerful poverty-preventing effect among the elderly. an analysis of census data shows that nationwide, social security benefits lift nearly 13 million seniors age 65 and older above the poverty line.
    http://www.cbpp.org/2-24-05socsec.htm

    ss when combined with medicare and schip results in dramatic improvements to childrens and seniors health.

    any "shortfall" in ss can be closed by repealing the presidents tax cuts on earners who earn over 400,000/year.



    http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec-f1.jpg



  13. by   BlueRidgeHomeRN
    Quote from stevielynn
    someone needs to talk to her about adoption . . . i'm sending dr. laura right over.

    steph
    steph-

    i'd fly dr.laura our here on my own mastercard if i thought it would help. unfortunately, she is already getting parties from her little friends (in middle school) and is oh-so-excited about being an adult with her own life and apartment and income. we've been told its a "cultural choice" [???] and we are being insensitive to family dynamics ...... (the baby-daddy is 19 and alreaady in prison-again)

    actually, i'd love to let bill cosby have a go at them, but that won't happen either.

    so--another generation caught in the cycle

close