I'm curious...

[Nanci]

No, but should I have to accept a decrease in the quality of my care in order to be fair to all? I'm going to be paying for them, too, no matter what, because of _my_ success.

 

[mike17l]

Some people aren't that lucky, does that make them lazy if they can't get a college degree and afford to pay for private medical care?

Why can't they? Are they physically unable? or are they lazy?

 

[Pruddock]

Laziness has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

Nanci, you may have worked hard to get to where you are now, and more credit to you. But you were lucky in the sense that you were born into a wealthy, well-equipped country and you were born with a good mind. Some people aren't that lucky, does that make them lazy if they can't get a college degree and afford to pay for private medical care?

That's a very lousy argument in this day and age, and especially in this country. I've worked with many people who were born into poverty and are dumb as a stump, but they worked their butt off and learned how to weld or learned how to work as a valve technician (just a personal example) and they're getting healthcare provided by their company and they're making damn good money every year. They don't have any degrees and most of them grew up in a one parent, poverty stricken environment. My father and my grandfather grew up in the back of cars getting paper routes to pay for food. Both of them worked their asses off (and were blessed with great minds) and are execs in extremely large companies.

I will attest to the fact that I have been raised in a very easy environment and I have been blessed in that aspect, but if I was lazy I would end up with nothing no matter where I grew up or how I grew up. The work ethic of a person can not be overlooked in any circumstance as being their greatest tool and quality, or on the contrary, their greatest downfall. THAT'S where Americans are getting pissed. Plus, why should we trust a goverment who's current public healthcare plan is absolutely the largest bureaucratic CF we've seen in a long time?

There's my .02 cents on this topic before I get frustrated...

 

[medusacoils]

Laziness has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

Nanci, you may have worked hard to get to where you are now, and more credit to you. But you were lucky in the sense that you were born into a wealthy, well-equipped country and you were born with a good mind. Some people aren't that lucky, does that make them lazy if they can't get a college degree and afford to pay for private medical care?

Are you saying that she should give up those benefits, because other people in poorer countries, aren't lucky enough enough to be born in the US? Should she give them up, because there are people in this world, that are too lazy to work or go to school? Should she give them up because some people were not born with good mind? Should she give them up, because there are people, who are too poor to pay for their own private medical care?

Is that what you think she should do? If not, then why bring it up?

Wayne

 

[KJUN]

Then I honestly can't figure you out KJUN, because you constantly talk about taxation being thievery, how the people who would be covered by government subsidy are lazy freeloaders, and how any kind of wealth redistribution is bad thing.

And yet you say you don't want to restrict care provided to people who can't pay for it. So which is it? Either the wealthy pay the way for the poor or they don't.

Limited to the BARE minimum is what I support. Determing the bare minimum is the part that is slippery, isn't it?

What makes me hard to figure out is that I believe in helping out those that need it, but I don't think they DESERVE it. Charity should be given - not taken by force. When they take and take and expect MORE, I KNOW they don't deserve it. I believe in helping those that CAN NOT help themselves. Those that CAN help themselves, should only get a helping hand and left to rise or fail on their own. Those that can, but do NOT deserve nothing. They get what they earn. The welfare mentality some people develop needs to be killed. They don't deserve a free check worth more than some people make per week by actually working. I have to take a drug check to work (not really - but some people do), but they can get a free check and be stoned off their butts while doing it? That is not right.

For example, someone is a construction worker and loses a hand. They can't do their job. I believe in support until healed and retrained for a new job they CAN do. I don't believe they should get a free ride for life. In today's America, there are very, very few people that can't be trained for a job they can do to EARN a living. If they ENJOY that job shouldn't matter. They should have a choice: find a job you can do (with support) or starve...but unlimited free checks should not be an option.

Charity for responsible people and those RARE ones that can't get trained for ANY job. Nothing for iresponsible ones. That is all I believe.

 

[KJUN]

Nanci, you may have worked hard to get to where you are now, and more credit to you. But you were lucky in the sense that you were born into a wealthy, well-equipped country and you were born with a good mind. Some people aren't that lucky, does that make them lazy if they can't get a college degree and afford to pay for private medical care?

I'm not Nanci, but we are talking about Americans here. I don't think comparing an American to someone in another country is fair to either person. With that said, I don't think there is a single person who can't obtain an education up to their abilities IF they want it with the programs already in place in America.

 

[Nova_C]

Charity for responsible people and those RARE ones that can't get trained for ANY job. Nothing for iresponsible ones. That is all I believe.

Where do we draw the line?

 

[Snake Dave]

I'm not Nanci, but we are talking about Americans here. I don't think comparing an American to someone in another country is fair to either person.

Do you honestly believe that America is that far ahead of the World?

 

[Snake Dave]

Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying, I apologise if that's the case.

 

[KJUN]

Where do we draw the line?

I'm sure that was rhetorical, but I'll tell you my thoughts, anyway. Any line drawn ANYWHERE will tick off some constituients. Were to draw the line? Heck, who knows the TRUTH. I will say most "disabled" people with physical deformities CAN work. If I had a stubb and a voice, I'd try to be a telemarketer before getting a free check. Mental disabilities can be harder because they may not be able to get trained for a job. This is a harder on to draw.

Two things I will say about this line.
(1) The tax PAYERS should decide where the line is - not the ones getting the money. In other words, contributors should decide - not the users with a vested interested in overly lax laws. (Again, this doesn't apply to unemployment since that system is different, AND I do still support helping until they can get trained for a job. I just don't support a life-long free ride for ANYONE that can be taught to perfom a job.)
(2) The monies received are often too copious. I'm not talking about medical benefits or coverage of medical bills. That's the other part of this that has been discussed to death (and will continue more, I bet). I'm talking about food stamps and such. Think about it: a soup kitchen would be cheaper to run at taxpayer expense. The people could walk to get their meals - after all, they aren't working. Drug checks for them if I have to have a drug check to work. Food not tasty enough for you? Get a job and buy better food. (I do believe it has to be nutritious.) Welfare should NEVER come close to what a person could make working at a low-level job. Otherwise, what incentive is there for them to work? I DO believe life should be made tolerable for these people living on he system, but just barely. If they can afford steaks and TVs, then they are getting too much money from the tax payers. They should be kept alive and healthy. That's the humanitarian thing to do. Any EXTRAS should require them to get a job and become productive mebers of the economy.

I still have to ask - what is WRONG with any of that? What is wrong with saying they should get less money for not working than some get for working? What is wrong with me saying I don't mind paying taxes to feed them enough to help their health thrive, but they don't need enough - at taxpayer expense - to have TVs, steaks, beer, etc. Life, when we are helping them, in terms of monetary acquisitions, should be bearable - not pleasurable. I believe in extra funding to them for training for jobs if necessary. What is wrong with ANY of that?

Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying, I apologise if that's the case.

I'll accept your apology. If I say comparing apples to grapes is unfair, that doesn't mean a grape is better than an apple. It's just saying that we have a different cultural ideal when it comes to government, a different history, different land, different make-up of citizens, ...different just about everything. What works in Europe may not work here. I think "may" is a weak word. We've shown we kinda have to do things differently. I'm not assuming superiority or inferiority of any country. (That doesn't mean I wouldn't defend an American as such against other countries, of course.) What works somewhere else may not be what we want here, what this country was founded on, etc. Ahead or behind in a "value of human being" sense is not even close to what I meant. Look at wildlife management. What y'all do would cause RIOTS here - but it works great for y'all! (Just an example.)

There is no insinuation of superiority of any person over any other person. I can look at laws of various contries, however, and feel that they have a superior or inferior government to ours...but that has nothing to do with the general people.

 

[Nanci]

My next door neighbor's adult son is collecting disability. She got a varience to place a second home on her property (it's a five acre per household minimum) because of that. He gets a disability check, but works out of a woodworking shop in his garage. She asked me if he could mow my lawn for money when my lawnmower was broke. Obviously, he has some sort of ability to do something. My neighbor, on the other side, mentioned that the son definitely has the ability to go downtown to try to sell his Vicodins! He'd asked my neighbor, who is kind of a laid-back hippy type who apparently doesn't have random drug tests at his place of employment, where he is in a supervisory capacity at a boat manufacturing plant, if he would like to buy some! That's kind of scummy. Take MY tax dollars, sit home, but still have fun doing stuff, and take your pain meds that you don't need so much since you are willing to part with them, and try to sell them!

 

[The_Thunderer]

I agree with most of this, but somewhere along the line it became "menial" for people on the "dole" to have to work at a job not of their choosing. For example... if a big strapping guy is unemployed and the only work he could find is flipping burgers, then it would be too "menial" or "denigrating" for him to work there.

Of course, him sitting in front of his HDTV while sipping on his 40th bottle of beer of the night isn't considered "taking advantage of" the system either...

I used to run into this quite a bit when I worked Social Services... You should have seen some of the "I deserve" speeches I got when I simply ran out of funds or food to give out... Boy...

Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't FDR have people on the "dole" join work forces? I think something like that might need to be considered again. Heck, if I ever lost my job and had to be on the "dole" my inner make up would PREVENT me from being able to sit at home wasting away my day, living on money I didn't earn.

 

[KJUN]

I agree with most of this, but somewhere along the line it became "menial" for people on the "dole" to have to work at a job not of their choosing. For example... if a big strapping guy is unemployed and the only work he could find is flipping burgers, then it would be too "menial" or "denigrating" for him to work there.

Of course, him sitting in front of his HDTV while sipping on his 40th bottle of beer of the night isn't considered "taking advantage of" the system either...

Somewhere people got the idea that they were entitled to a good paying, EASY, job...even if they don't earn it....lol.

......and why isn't gettinga free check no longer considered even more menial? you are right. Things have changed in how we look at things. Still, I always put unemployment in a different category since you pay into it and it is for a limited time frame. That's how the entire welfare system should work IMO.

I used to run into this quite a bit when I worked Social Services... You should have seen some of the "I deserve" speeches I got when I simply ran out of funds or food to give out... Boy...

I have to ask. Ever heard a good enough reason that you just had to agree...."Yes, you DO deserve this." I imagine I'd feel that way about some of our veterans, but they tend to only want what they really DID earn. Man, we do treat our veterans poorly sometimes.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't FDR have people on the "dole" join work forces? I think something like that might need to be considered again. Heck, if I ever lost my job and had to be on the "dole" my inner make up would PREVENT me from being able to sit at home wasting away my day, living on money I didn't earn.

You are thinking of the CCC. Although I'm not completely in favor government "mandated" jobs, we SHOUKLD ask ourselves, "Why do we pay workers to pick up litter and then pay other people money to do nothing?" Think about that. If you are on welfare, why don't we require some type of community service in exchange. Want a welfare check? Clean the park for 20 hours per week and pick up the check on Friday. Have them GIVE BACK to the community. Plus, this might make them less reluctant to look for a real job. Again, what is WRONG with thinking that people on welfare should perform some return service (i.e., work!) to the community of taxpayers paying into the welfare system?

 

[The_Thunderer]

I have to ask. Ever heard a good enough reason that you just had to agree...."Yes, you DO deserve this." I imagine I'd feel that way about some of our veterans, but they tend to only want what they really DID earn. Man, we do treat our veterans poorly sometimes.

Well, actually... LOL. I will be honest and say that I WANTED to agree that they deserved "THIS". But the other part of the job was being a "man of the cloth"... so saying such things would probably not have gone over well. I DID have to call the cops once because the woman who thought that she deseved SOMETHING when I had NOTHING to give refused to get out of my office.

You are thinking of the CCC. Although I'm not completely in favor government "mandated" jobs, we SHOUKLD ask ourselves, "Why do we pay workers to pick up litter and then pay other people money to do nothing?" Think about that. If you are on welfare, why don't we require some type of community service in exchange. Want a welfare check? Clean the park for 20 hours per week and pick up the check on Friday. Have them GIVE BACK to the community. Plus, this might make them less reluctant to look for a real job. Again, what is WRONG with thinking that people on welfare should perform some return service (i.e., work!) to the community of taxpayers paying into the welfare system?

Again the word "menial" comes to mind... that or "punishment" as in "I'm being punished for being homeless/unemployed/disabled/etc."

NOW, to clarify... the vast majority of the people I provided assistance to were legit. BUT, because of the attitude displayed and the "self-righteousness" of some, I could probably point them out to you in a crowded room while the "legit" ones, I would have no idea about.

 

[KJUN]

It sounds like you were doing it as a private charity, right? I just caught on to that.

For the record, I have the utmost respect for what y'all do, and I know that you guys are better (than "big brother") about making sure those that need it are the ones that get it first. Thank you.

 

[The_Thunderer]

It sounds like you were doing it as a private charity, right? I just caught on to that.

For the record, I have the utmost respect for what y'all do, and I know that you guys are better (than "big brother") about making sure those that need it are the ones that get it first. Thank you.

Spot on and thank you, kind sir! My wife and I quit that job 6 years ago... but we're still in the same kinda business. Just taking care of kids (9 girls) at a children's home.

So having seen the "good" and the "bad" of this coin, I probably have some different/unusual insights to things... but I'm no judge. :grin01:

 

[TxMomto4]

Spot on and thank you, kind sir! My wife and I quit that job 6 years ago... but we're still in the same kinda business. Just taking care of kids (9 girls) at a children's home.

So having seen the "good" and the "bad" of this coin, I probably have some different/unusual insights to things... but I'm no judge. :grin01:

I applaud you! More people need to take initiative to help others! That is the way it use to be. Big brother didn't always have to step in to "save" the underdog.

On the other posts I read::

First off, I think anyone who gets government help should have to take random drug test REGULARLY. Not the ones where they can sneak some other person's pee in, but where they have to pee in a cup in front of someone to PROVE it is theirs. If they don't like it, then they can go for help elsewhere because they obviously have something to hide.

Secondly, if you do not have a valid SS card and birth certificate in Texas now, you do not get assistance. I think this is GOOD with the amount of illegals that were getting welfare when those who needed it could not. I am not against immigration, but just as my forefathers and mothers on Ellis Island, do it LEGALLY, and yes, there are was even for the poor.

As for "menial" jobs, it's sad that MANY of these "menial" jobs will not hire someone who got laid off from a HIGH paying job such as my Dad. He worked at TI for 25 years in a very specialized field. Now, he can not even get a job flipping burgers at McDonalds to support my three of my younger siblings (there are 6 of us, and I am the eldest) and my step-mom because he is "over qualified". Bunch of baloney IMHO. But such is the world.

As for the mention of Obama's health plan at the beginning of the thread. How many people here have actually READ this plan. Seriously. There is so much in there that will HURT us in the end.

Your disease only gives you a 50/50 or 40/60 % chance at living (or less) with treatment, then you are deemed hopeless and will not receive treatments. A dr that does treat you even for cash $$$ and is found out will be heavily fined. If you smoke, you will not be covered (so much for freedom of choice.). There is more in there on what you CAN NOT do.

The elderly will not be allowed any form of life support or pain meds. That seems a nice way to honor our elderly. Experimental treatments will NOT be allowed, and drs who try to use them will be banned from practicing. People such as my SIX year old son with mental disabilities will not be allowed treatments such as mercury detox (no I have not tried that BUT I know people with kids who this HAS worked for!!) to try and help their children. Experimental to the government even if it is performed by a DANS dr.

The more freedom you give the government to be in your life, the less freedom you have as a citizen. Period. And yes, if anyone is curious, my disabled son IS on medicaid as we could not afford his meds and all his dr visits (he also has migraines and a heart condition see a cardiologist 3 times a year and a neurologist at least once not to mention his psychiatrist appointments for his other meds monthly) on conventional insurance.

 

[TxMomto4]

Although I'm not completely in favor government "mandated" jobs, we SHOUKLD ask ourselves, "Why do we pay workers to pick up litter and then pay other people money to do nothing?" Think about that. If you are on welfare, why don't we require some type of community service in exchange. Want a welfare check? Clean the park for 20 hours per week and pick up the check on Friday. Have them GIVE BACK to the community. Plus, this might make them less reluctant to look for a real job. Again, what is WRONG with thinking that people on welfare should perform some return service (i.e., work!) to the community of taxpayers paying into the welfare system?

I completely agree unless they are disabled! I also think that inmates once found guilty who are in population - where they are placed in tanks with others not by themselves- (not AD, feds, "very bad ones"), should ALL have to do manual labor of some sort. Did the crime, PAY BACK SOCIETY instead of getting free meals, cable, educations, etc! Why do inmates get more rights than civilians? We work for a living AND have to pay for inmates to be able to eat. Make 'em work for it! LOL

 

[Michael823]

First off, I think anyone who gets government help should have to take random drug test REGULARLY. Not the ones where they can sneak some other person's pee in, but where they have to pee in a cup in front of someone to PROVE it is theirs. If they don't like it, then they can go for help elsewhere because they obviously have something to hide.

I agree to a point. I receive disability, do absolutely no drugs, don't drink, smoke, etc... And from the basis of spending SSI on drugs/alcohol, yes I think drug tests should be taken. However, I think being subjected to drug tests is kind of humiliating, and I don't feel like I should have to go to the bathroom in front of a stranger simply because I am disabled. I wold love a cleaner system, but I don't think it's entirely fair to say that. I pride myself on living a clean life, and simply because I'm disabled doesn't mean the pressure isn't there. I just choose to live above a drug and alcohol dependent life, and it really suits me well. But to say that I should have to have someone watch me urinate, well that is just plain insensitive. Not to mention the money it will cost to perform these tests. Why should I be treated like I'm on parole due to a disability, especially when I know in my heart that I don't use drugs or alcohol. I know some of you will say "then you have nothing to hide", but you wouldn't want my disability, nor would you want to have monitored bathroom tests because of it.

 

[KJUN]

However, I think being subjected to drug tests is kind of humiliating, and I don't feel like I should have to go to the bathroom in front of a stranger simply because I am disabled.

Welcome to the job world! Why should people getting a check deserve less humility than people earning a check? Yes, you do NOT have to apply for a job if you don't want to pee in front of someone, but you don't HAVE to take disability, either. Yes, I HAVE had to pee in front of a doctor (and I have a shy bladder....lol) to get a job before. That job paid taxes. I wasn't too proud to pee because not everything we have to do as adults is fun. Welcome to the real world....lol.

Oh, and you wouldn't be peeing in front of a person BECAUSE you are disabled. You'd be peeing to keep getting the disability check that you are qualified to receive. Nothing more.

that is just plain insensitive.

And saying such a thing is just plain obnoxious!

Not to mention the money it will cost to perform these tests.

HAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! Stop and think before you post stuff like this. Don't you realize how much would be SAVED by rejecting drug users? I don't think there is any doubt in mind of ANYONE of any measurable degree of intelligence that welfare receipients have a higher than average rate of drug use. I don't mean just disability, but I'm referring to the whole group of welfare users combined. All of them should be drug checked. I bet this system would pay for itself if even 1 out of 20 current users were rejected. I don't think there is any doubt that it'll realistically be a MUCH higher rejection rate. PLUS, shouldn't the tax payers decide if they want to pay for this system and NOT the people that are receiving it? Doesn't that sound at least a little fair?

But to say that I should have to have someone watch me urinate, well that is just plain insensitive. Not to mention the money it will cost to perform these tests. Why should I be treated like I'm on parole due to a disability, especially when I know in my heart that I don't use drugs or alcohol. I know some of you will say "then you have nothing to hide", but you wouldn't want my disability, nor would you want to have monitored bathroom tests because of it.

Your disability is irrelevant in this discussion (and I don't mean that in a condescending way) - people aren't saying YOU personally are the reason for such a law. Don't take it personally since it is a discussion about a group. I had to pee in a cup before I could get some jobs in the past - and I KNOW I am not on drugs, either. I have to pee to be able to pay taxes. Why shouldn't others have to pee to receive them? I'm not singling you out - or anyone in particular - but the idea that you shouldn't have too pee because it is humiliating is ludicrous. Am I a lesser person because I HAD to do it to get a job?

Are or you saying a disabled person should receive special privileges that healthy workers DON'T get to receive just because we were born - and remained - "abled?" That isn't right.