Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 31

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   banditrn
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    SCHIP isn't a poverty program. People in poverty ALREADY qualify for Medicaid.

    SCHIP was designed for people ABOVE the poverty line, to a certain limit.

    Have you thanked the Republican (Newt Gingrich's) Congress that came up with and passed SCHIP following the utter disaster of Hillarycare? SCHIP wasn't a 'bi-partisan' idea; it was a REPUBLICAN idea.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Timothy - But now the Dems want to expand it.

    Illinois is one of 12 states to allow adults to be insured on SCHIP. It's the only way I can GET insurance, because I need 'catastrophic' insurance, because I take insulin. BUT I have to pay the full premium of $645 a month - and it's lousy insurance.

    At the same time a lady recently start working in my husband's office. They don't have to insure her, because she is on the SCHIP program. She pays $35 a month, and a $5 co-pay on her prescriptions. All she has to do is keep her income below $50,000.

    I think that's ludicrous. I guess I could see a $35 premium for someone making under $20,000. At her income, she should definately be paying more.
  2. by   banditrn
    Quote from twotrees2
    sorry to burst your bubble of rightiousness - but i am not talking about the fathers leaving - i am talking about people deming the father isnt good enough father- going to the house and picking up the kids and blackmailing him into "giving his kids to a better home" - so he loves his kids -knows he isnt the best dad even though he lkoves em and doesnt have a lot of money and rents doesnt own a home and he is a bit slow so he was gullible - and heartbreakingly gives them to the family members who took em away thinking they would be better off with someone with money and a father and mother and a house etc. then these so called " better parents" talking crap about the dad and bashing him and the bashing was NOT warrented- he wasnt THAT bad a parent ( no worse than i ever was when i wa broke and rented and held minimum wage jobs ) - and that new family not allowing father to even be a part of the kids lives telling them he is worthless, even throwing out the cards and letters and taking any monies he sent to them so they did notknow he was trying to stay in contact ....... much different than the father abandoning them - i am talking about the so called "foster parents being jerks as well and having the baility to ruin a kid when in reality had the kid stayed with dad i bet he'd be a better person for having lived in a bit of hardship. so no it does NOT prove your case. it proves my case that taking the kids away from parents who may be "unworthy in some peoples eyes" is not gonna be the answer either. and just because a parent is "slow" doesnt mean they wont do all they can to do right and do all they can to instill good values. matter of fact i believe my son who is well off at 24 and will be retired by the time he is 40 from the military - is where he is beacuse we had a lot of hardships, needed help - and he saw the mistakes and doesnt want to make the same ones.........

    by the way- these people who took this oy from his dad - they went to the county and got money for him as foster kids- and fought us in court when i tried to get custody cause they didnt want to loose that money from the state - not all "foster folks" have the kids well ebing at heart was my point. and i have seen enough of them to think its a scam there too. they took MORE govt aide for that boy than the father did - THAT is really a good program to have.... my idea- want to adopt or take in foster kids- better have the cash - i shouldnt havbe to pay for that either than - i will help a struggling family not a family who is looking for cash just by taking in kids to get the money.

    maybe next comment will be what is a "slow person having a kid for"?? out of the naysayers mouths - i can hear thier braingears heading that route - it is predictable....- hmm yeah lets spay or neuter all people with iq's less than ?? what???

    before stating condesending remarks and twisting things i say -i know i dont alwasy get my point across- maybe you could ask for clarrification before jumping on me and yelling acting like you know it all.
    Why are you so angry when all Timothy is doing is speaking the truth. I see no reason for the name calling. No one is doing that to you.
    Statistically, children ARE better off in a two parent household - that's not to say that all 1 parent homes are bad. If you look really hard, you can find exceptions to everything.
    My son is a prime example - his kids would be FAR better off with him, but the courts don't look at the type of person she is, they just see that she is a MOTHER - and it seems like she gets whatever she wants.
  3. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from zashagalka
    earlier in this thread, i cited a study that shows a near perfect correlation with the highest areas of crime and the highest areas of fatherlessness in a community.

    you want to talk about the psychological affects of abandonment? fine. you make my point. the government is the largest source of encouraged father abandonment by not just subsidizing it, but by demanding it as a prerequisite for gov't assistance.how would denying assistance to the mother, if the father were not in the household going to force the "family" to be respectable and responsible, this would only increase the chance that the child would be the victim of an angry man( if he would even stay).by forcing cohabitation of the biological mother and father would not make a "family."

    i lay this very charge of yours directly at the feet of your vaunted government programs. how incredible uncompassionate! it would be worse than uncommpassionate to put the child in front of and in reach of an angry ,unwilling father, more child abuse cases, anyone?

    it makes me sick.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    :icon_roll
  4. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from zashagalka
    schip isn't a poverty program. people in poverty already qualify for medicaid.wrong, medicaid has stringent requirements, it is not approved based solely on poverty.
    http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid/

    schip was designed for people above the poverty line, to a certain limit.

    have you thanked the republican (newt gingrich's) congress that came up with and passed schip following the utter disaster of hillarycare? schip wasn't a 'bi-partisan' idea; it was a republican idea.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    ok ,i blame those republicans!!:angryfire
  5. by   banditrn
    Ingelein - I agree that not ALL two parent households are the best for children. My biological father abandoned us when I was an infant - my mother later married the man that I refer to as 'my dad'. It was a very dysfunctional household - the two of them beat on each other, and us. What I took from that experience was that I would never, ever marry a man who was 'physical', or he was out the door immediately.

    My husband isn't like that, and our boys never grew up with that sort of thing as an example.

    But what Timothy is speaking of is STILL statistically true - that most of the time children ARE better off in a two parent household. And it's the government and their interference that has caused a lot of the dysfunction we see today.

    Today men are held at least financially responsible for fathering kids - but it hasn't always been that way. When I was young, if you bore a child out of wedlock, you had little hope of getting any help from the father.

    And the mores are different today, too. It's not unusual to see a young woman with 3 children by 3 different men - without being married to any of them. And they don't seem to be ashamed of any of it.
  6. by   Simplepleasures
    quote=banditrn;2674198]ingelein - i agree that not all two parent households are the best for children. my biological father abandoned us when i was an infant - my mother later married the man that i refer to as 'my dad'. it was a very dysfunctional household - the two of them beat on each other, and us. what i took from that experience was that i would never, ever marry a man who was 'physical', or he was out the door immediately.
    your kids are lucky to have you as a mom, but if the kids mother were forced to have the dad in the house in order to get assistance, how would that help anyone? timothy's premise did not take into account a unengaged father who would likely take take out on the kids , if he even would stay with the mother, assistance money or not.he didnt care for the woman to begin with, the poor kids were concieved in what was most likely a "booty' call, sorry if that was crass.
    my husband isn't like that, and our boys never grew up with that sort of thing as an example.
    you are blessed.
    but what timothy is speaking of is still statistically true - that most of the time children are better off in a two parent household. and it's the government and their interference that has caused a lot of the dysfunction we see today.
    the government did not cause what we see in society today.what we are seeing is a moral failure,the government cannot mandate morality.
    today men are held at least financially responsible for fathering kids - but it hasn't always been that way. when i was young, if you bore a child out of wedlock, you had little hope of getting any help from the father.
    i remember that too, it was a terrible system, glad the deadbeat "dads" are hunted down and made to pay.
    and the mores are different today, too. it's not unusual to see a young woman with 3 children by 3 different men - without being married to any of them. and they don't seem to be ashamed of any of it.
    i agree .it is so sad.but the government cant force morality, seems like the churches and societal stigma has not done a thing to change it.

    i think we may agree on much more than we originally thought.good sharing ideas with you bandit.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Feb 21, '08
  7. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    The government did not cause what we see in society today.What we are seeing is a MORAL failure,the government CANNOT mandate morality.
    BINGO.

    Charity is essentially a moral quality. That is PRECISELY why the government is so very bad at it. And, always will be. You cannot design a better government program because the government lacks the essential quality that makes charity work: morality.

    You nailed it. The government is NOT a credible source of fostering morality precisely because it's not a credible source in mandating morality.

    I have made this very point, several times.

    Entitlement isn't charity. You made my case for me.

    Except, you are only half right. The government cannot mandate morality, but it can sure as heck get in the way of it. THAT is all we've accomplished with the welfare state. We have dangled carrots for immoral behaviors (immoral because they LEAD to poverty). OF COURSE PAYING for immoral behaviors will yield ever more immoral behaviors. it's not a question of morality per se. It's a question of WHY certain behaviors have been deemed immoral. WHY is because they are poverty-inducing behaviors! It is no wonder our poorest are growing up without fathers! After all, we are paying for just that outcome. Who needs a father, when you have Uncle Daddy?

    The result is a circular drain from which the poor cannot escape: we enable poverty by discouraging fatherhood and employment and fatherless, unemployed parents have more children born into poverty. We aren't 'breaking the cycle' of poverty. NO. The government is a prime CAUSE because of its requirements that those that receive aid must not, CANNOT avail themselves of the ladders out. We've sealed the exits. Here's your check, now, stay out of OUR economy.

    You don't belong.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 21, '08
  8. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from zashagalka
    bingo.

    charity is essentially a moral quality. that is precisely why the government is so very bad at it. and, always will be. you cannot design a better government program because the government lacks the essential quality that makes charity work: morality.

    you nailed it. the government is not a credible source of fostering morality precisely because it's not a credible source in mandating morality.

    i have made this very point, several times.

    entitlement isn't charity. you made my case for me.call it what you may, charity, entitlement. to not give out these monies is the same as sitting back and watch the child being punished for the parents sins.

    except, you are only half right. the government cannot mandate morality, but it can sure as heck get in the way of it. that is all we've accomplished with the welfare state. we have dangled carrots for immoral behaviors (immoral because they lead to poverty). of course paying for immoral behaviors will yield ever more immoral behaviors. it's not a question of morality per se. it's a question of why certain behaviors have been deemed immoral. why is because they are poverty-inducing behaviors! it is no wonder our poorest are growing up without fathers! after all, we are paying for just that outcome. who needs a father, when you have uncle daddy?there is plenty of immorality in the richest of circles, ala brittney spears and her cohorts. the only difference is her kids are not going hungry.

    the result is a circular drain from which the poor cannot escape: we enable poverty by discouraging fatherhood and employment and fatherless, unemployed parents have more children born into poverty. we aren't 'breaking the cycle' of poverty. no. the government is a prime cause because of its requirements that those that receive aid must not, cannot avail themselves of the ladders out. we've sealed the exits. here's your check, now, stay out of our economy.no, your argument still holds no water, sorry.

    you don't belong.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    if we make the ladder out of poverty, rickety and crumbling, who will avail themselves of it? it is our duty and privilege as a advanced society to give a helping hand up that ladder to stand at the bottom of it and hold it upright, so it wont tip . you think the government has no business in the "charity" field, i disagree. so ,my friend our argument will continue to circulate round and round.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Feb 21, '08 : Reason: sp.
  9. by   twotrees2
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    BINGO.

    Charity is essentially a moral quality. That is PRECISELY why the government is so very bad at it. And, always will be. You cannot design a better government program because the government lacks the essential quality that makes charity work: morality.

    You nailed it. The government is NOT a credible source of fostering morality precisely because it's not a credible source in mandating morality.

    I have made this very point, several times.

    Entitlement isn't charity. You made my case for me.

    Except, you are only half right. The government cannot mandate morality, but it can sure as heck get in the way of it. THAT is all we've accomplished with the welfare state. We have dangled carrots for immoral behaviors (immoral because they LEAD to poverty). OF COURSE PAYING for immoral behaviors will yield ever more immoral behaviors. it's not a question of morality per se. It's a question of WHY certain behaviors have been deemed immoral. WHY is because they are poverty-inducing behaviors! It is no wonder our poorest are growing up without fathers! After all, we are paying for just that outcome. Who needs a father, when you have Uncle Daddy?

    The result is a circular drain from which the poor cannot escape: we enable poverty by discouraging fatherhood and employment and fatherless, unemployed parents have more children born into poverty. We aren't 'breaking the cycle' of poverty. NO. The government is a prime CAUSE because of its requirements that those that receive aid must not, CANNOT avail themselves of the ladders out. We've sealed the exits. Here's your check, now, stay out of OUR economy.

    You don't belong.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    id really like to know what states give out cash monies- i know a few who are sinking quick cause there isnt "monies" out there so they arent able to pay thier house payment and thier car was repossed cause they couldnt pay the payemnt - then i could tell em what state to go to to survive well.
  10. by   HM2VikingRN
    TANF does not encourage families to break up. It is a stated goal of the legislation to encourage intact families. Intact families are a part of raising healthy children and adults but it is not the sole solution.

    Fulltime unskilled work is not a ladder out of poverty. Full time skilled work is. If you are truly interested in improving the economic and health status of the poor than there needs to be substantial investments in job skill training, haxardous housing abatement and child care subsidies.

    I find it strange to take credit for SCHIP when the Republican party fought its maintenance so vociferously and in fact the numbers of uninsured will increase under the Bush budget.
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    It is our duty and privilege as a advanced society to give a helping hand up that ladder.
    I agree.

    So tell me again, HOW is kicking that ladder out from underneath our poor help?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from twotrees2
    id really like to know what states give out cash monies- i know a few who are sinking quick cause there isnt "monies" out there so they arent able to pay thier house payment and thier car was repossed cause they couldnt pay the payemnt - then i could tell em what state to go to to survive well.
    If the government is paying for a service, it serves the same purpose as money. If the government is buying food, then the recipient doesn't have to spend money on that item. If the government is spending X amount of dollars on housing; the recipient isn't. Etc.

    There is a basic 'fungibility' of commodities. What that means is that things interchangeable in value are essentially interchangeable as a function of trade. The reason why money works is because it is the ultimate 'fungible' asset - it is ultimately interchangeable. Nevertheless, spending money on somebody that receives a benefit from that money is the same as giving money.

    It certainly is the same as spending money.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  13. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I agree.

    So tell me again, HOW is kicking that ladder out from underneath our poor help?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Well, herein lies our fundamental difference, you believe it would be kicking the ladder out, I believe it would be holding the ladder up. We have polar opposite opinions of what constitutes HELP. We will have to agree to disagree. Back to square one.

close