Do you think someone receiving assistance should continue to have children?

[mom2my3kids]

No.

 

[tw1nsmom]

Don't you think that some of those people have their priorities out of whack? If they can afford a nice home, a nice car and take (I consider WDW moderately expensive) WDW vacations, don't you think they should reduce expenditures in other areas to provide all they can before tapping the system? If they can do all that and can then save up for a WDW vacation, more power to them. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting people move into cardboard boxes under the overpass but if I couldn't afford insurance, I'd sell my house and move to a cheaper one before I'd tap the system. At stuff like that.

Even though you pay a premium, I believe it's subsidized by tax dollars.

Child Health Plus is no closer to welfare than public education is. It's a subsidized program that you pay into, not a handout.

This is a program for people who are working hard to support their families. In NY, private health insurance is through the roof. It isn't a matter, for many people, of tightening your belt and you'd be able to afford private insurance over the subsidized plan for children. It's being able to afford insurance for your children or having no insurance for them at all. We're not talking about $50 extra a month. We're talking about $500 or more extra a month. A person wo gets this insurance could be saving up for a trip a little at a time ($20-$50 a month) and afford trip somewhere and that money would never be enough to buy private insurance for their kids.

 

[Mary2e]

Public education is available to everyone and is part of the taxes we all pay for the greater good.

Welfare and handouts, even medical, are not available to everyone, and therefore, are not the same as public education.

When/if we get universal health coverage, then it is the same as public education. Until then, it's a handout.

People accepting money/items that were paid for with my tax dollars and do not benefit the greater good should not be going to Disneyworld or buying non-necessities.

 

[Charade]

Child Health Plus is no closer to welfare than public education is. It's a subsidized program that you pay into, not a handout.

I didn't say it was a handout but it is subsidized by tax dollars. It's an entitlement. A family with a couple of kids living in an apartment doesn't pay anywhere near the school taxes (the property owner does and a portion of the rent helps with that) we do and we don't have any in the system. Is that fair?

This is a program for people who are working hard to support their families. In NY, private health insurance is through the roof. It isn't a matter, for many people, of tightening your belt and you'd be able to afford private insurance over the subsidized plan for children. It's being able to afford insurance for your children or having no insurance for them at all. We're not talking about $50 extra a month. We're talking about $500 or more extra a month. A person wo gets this insurance could be saving up for a trip a little at a time ($20-$50 a month) and afford trip somewhere and that money would never be enough to buy private insurance for their kids.

I understand all, and agree that some people just can't get the belt any tighter. But my point was, do you think that people should not attempt to reduce their expenditures to the bare minimum before using such programs?

Do you think that someone who has a car payment (or two) and a mortgage should sell their car(s) and buy used (or take public transportation) and by a cheaper home (or move into an apartment) before using any public assistance or using subsidized resources like this?

 

[Toby'sFriend]

AMEN!

Whatever you do to the least of your brothers,
you do unto me.

exactly.

When I was a child my Dad was a Union worker who would go on strike every 3 years or so. There was always some type of aid out there -- churches or other programs. Whenever anybody asked if we needed it she would turn it down because even with my Dad on strike, we still had her income as a Nurse available.

We could have taken the money, but we didn't need it to eat and have a roof over are heads and pay the Doctor if somebody got sick -- so we left it for the "least" of our brothers who weren't quite as well off at the time.

Lots of people are turned down for housing assistance, food stamps, WIC and other programs every year because there is never enough funding for everybody that applies.

My thoughts, if you have money to send to the Disney Corp for a vacation, get your butt out of the charity line and leave the money there for the people who DO need it.

 

[tw1nsmom]

I really don't think you understand this program. It's promoted extensively and the sliding scale is a very important factor. Recently, they've extended the program to those at 400% of the poverty level. The more income you have the higher your premium (still incredibly cheaper than private). Those with a higher income/premium are the ones subsidizing those with lower income/premiums.

I'm not saying that the state doesn't provide some funding, but it isn't as much as you'd think. The state is currently on a campaign to get all uninsured children in this program. The more enrolled in the program, the more it will be able to fund itself.

As for getting rid of the homes and cars, it really depends. If someone is temporarily unemployed through illness or other, with young children or while they're pregnant, then no. If they only need WIC for a couple months, it could potentially cost them more to get rid of those things than it would to keep them. For instance, while I've never received any public assistance (other than public school), I live in a home that I bought almost 9 years ago. My mortgage/taxes are less than what I'd pay to rent a three bedroom apartment. If my DH was temporarily disabled and we had to get foodstamps to get by for a little while, I would be foolish to sell my home.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Ahh, I knew that was coming. The YC trip was won, the second was when I was married and DS had health insurance through his company. After that it was budget trips all the way. And actually after someone posted the WIC guidelines, I realized I wouldn't qualify anyway. I assumed they were pretty moderate since I have worked with people that have qualified for it.

I know quite a few folks that get Child Health Plus. People that live in nice houses and drive nice cars and people that actually take vacations. Like I said, I pay a premium for it, as do the other folks that I know. It's geared toward working families that have children without health insurance. If you don't want to take advantage of a program like that so be it.It's not like I'm sitting home and collecting welfare. I work. The alternative is no health insurance and I'm not about to go that route for my children.

Why is your DS not covered by his father's insurance like he was before your divorce? Doesn't you DD's father carry her insurance.

Every divorce that I know of the father had to carry the insurance on the kid(s), since he carried it on them before the divorce.

 

[mickeyfan2]

exactly.

When I was a child my Dad was a Union worker who would go on strike every 3 years or so. There was always some type of aid out there -- churches or other programs. Whenever anybody asked if we needed it she would turn it down because even with my Dad on strike, we still had her income as a Nurse available.

We could have taken the money, but we didn't need it to eat and have a roof over are heads and pay the Doctor if somebody got sick -- so we left it for the "least" of our brothers who weren't quite as well off at the time.

Lots of people are turned down for housing assistance, food stamps, WIC and other programs every year because there is never enough funding for everybody that applies.

My thoughts, if you have money to send to the Disney Corp for a vacation, get your butt out of the charity line and leave the money there for the people who DO need it.

 

[summerrluvv]

Why is your DS not covered by his father's insurance like he was before your divorce? Doesn't you DD's father carry her insurance.

Every divorce that I know of the father had to carry the insurance on the kid(s), since he carried it on them before the divorce.

My ex changed jobs and it's not offered at the new one. DD's father's company doesn't offer it either (well they offer it, just not to him he says ). DD is actually uninsured at the moment until her application is processed that was lost in the mail that I had to resend. For whatever reason her insurance has been nothing but problems, but I won't get into that. I currently have about $6k in medical bills for her nursery stay and delivery that I'm having to pay out of pocket since she didn't have insurance when she was born. Although her dad will be paying a portion of them as well.

I'm not sitting on my butt waiting for a handout. I work full time, I pay New York State taxes, and if I need health insurance through a program that I qualify for, then so be it and who is anyone else to judge me because of that? These threads always end up nasty and this is my last reply to it.

 

[Mary2e]

I For instance, while I've never received any public assistance (other than public school)

I don't think YOU understand.

Public school is no more public assistance than going into your local park or library.

It is paid for by everyone and it is available to everyone.

State provided health benefits, even if you pay for them, are not available to everyone.

 

[barkley]

have to ask-

those who have chosen not to receive ssi for their disabled children (not those who know they are not income eligible and have either been denied or opted not to apply), given that with ssi after a period of 6 months comes medical coverage, which contractualy caps the provider to a predetermined amount for billing services, an amount markedly lower than convential private insurance pays-have you considered that by carrying your child on assumably yourself/spouse's employer subsidized healthcare-if that child has very costly medical expenses, that child's expenses may be contributing to higher costs for other members/employees such that they may be unable to afford premiums and seek gov. asst. medical care?

i understand the concepts of personal choice and self reliance, but if the argument is the cost to taxpayers due to persons receiving gov. sponsored med assistance-it seems the same argument could be made by an employee whose co-worker utilizes a medical plan such that premiums raise for all-when lower cost alternatives are available (and i can say that with some gov. med programs the more participants the lower the cost to the taxpayer-i did outreach efforts to solicit participants in order to increase particpant numbers but overall reduce taxpayer costs).

 

[momof2inPA]

Child Health Plus is no closer to welfare than public education is. It's a subsidized program that you pay into, not a handout.

This is a program for people who are working hard to support their families. In NY, private health insurance is through the roof. It isn't a matter, for many people, of tightening your belt and you'd be able to afford private insurance over the subsidized plan for children. It's being able to afford insurance for your children or having no insurance for them at all. We're not talking about $50 extra a month. We're talking about $500 or more extra a month. A person wo gets this insurance could be saving up for a trip a little at a time ($20-$50 a month) and afford trip somewhere and that money would never be enough to buy private insurance for their kids.

If someone can afford trips to Disney, the taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing their health insurance. If these people can't afford insurance, they should be saving that extra $50 per month to further their education or that of their kids-- not to take trips to Disney. Hell, if they have an extra $50 per month, the income qualifications for attaining subsidized health insurance should be increased by $50 per month, so that I can keep an extra $50 per month of my tax money.

 

[poohandwendy]

Prefacing this by saying that I have no family members on welfare, no SILs who hock WIC formula on Ebay, no friends who know how to game the system, no firsthand knowledge of the dregs of society ... I do, however, pay 39% of my income (46% of bonuses) to taxes, and I have no kids, so I'm showing some mastery of birth control options here at age 27.

I have been lucky as hell. I was raised by a strong mother and taught that I have value and I can achieve whatever I want. Many, if not most, did not have that advantage. I do not expect every woman in the world to act intelligently, rationally or logically. Ironically, the fact that there are so many idiots in the world is the reason why we non-idiots make most of the money.

That being said, I have no desire to punish the son for the sins of the father, and I have a hard time envisioning Jesus cutting off welfare that benefits the six-year-old with zero advantages because his worthless mother, in the next of a long series of stupid decisions, stupidly got knocked up by some guy who plans on contributing exactly $0.

Even though it has ugly social policy implications ... I mean, honestly, who is going to reply to this thread and say "yes, we should be rewarding the clueless American women who gained no job skills and apparently couldn't figure out how to cross their legs or unroll condoms" ... I still sleep better knowing that we are an advanced enough civilization that we have cast a wide safety net, and we are going to try like hell to feed and shelter the kids who are born into situations that make most of us cringe. We will do this EVEN IF IT MEANS giving the cash to the worthless mother and crossing our fingers that most of it trickles down to the kids. We will stomach that because there's really no other way to do it without breaking up families, which violates the American grain and presents a whole host of more complex problems.

All those years of Catholic school, and the verse from Luke has stuck with me. "And Jesus said, 'Therefore be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful."

I absolutely agree with this, EXCEPT that I do not believe the current system is beneficial to children in the bigger picture.

To me, it is not about punishing the mother for her 'sins'. I was pregnant at 19 and not married (yet). It's not about punishment. It's about improving a system so that the result is a hand-up instead of a hand-out, because that is what really benefits the entire family.

There is nothing wrong with having strings attached to govt assistance. there is nothing wrong with expecting people to contribute to the community that is providing the food, clothing and shelter.

The beneficial concept of government assistance is exactly what you describe. The current way it is being handled, IMHO, does not result in the positive impact that is intended and for that reason I think changes need to be made.

I would like to see changes in the Food Stamp program so that HEALTHY food is reaching the children. (it could be revamped like the WIC program and would be much more beneficial- isn't that the point? Nutrition?)

I would like to see the entire welfare system changed so that people are required to work for the assistance, multiple benefits in people actually giving back to the community that is providing for them. Benefits for the children.

It's not a matter of having no heart for those in need, it's about wanting an improved system.

And as far as What would Jesus do? IMO, he wouldn't hand a blind man a gun and say 'you have been provided for, go hunt and feed yourself'. He would teach and he would guide. He would know that just throwing cash at someone does not improve their life.

I am not comfortable with crossing my fingers and hoping the benefits trickle down to the kids in need. IMO, we have a responsibility to ensure they have better opportunities than that. We have some great social programs, I would like to see some of them improved.

JMHO

 

[barkley]

i wholly agree that the welfare programs need to be re-tooled. but i think consideration must be given to the cost effectiveness of such re-tooling.

on average, the cost of providing education or training and supportive services to a welfare client is as much as quadruple the amount of what has been previously expended to them via cash/fs and other benefits. most clients are not qualified or do not have recent enough work skills such to qualify for more than very basic entry level jobs-anyone working these types of jobs knows that they rarely pay enough to begin to cover the expenses of child care let alone living expenses. while wtw proponants will point to decreasing numbers on welfare rolls since the implemenation of wtw programs-what they don't point out is that these numbers have simply been shifted from welfare status to 'subsidy' and 'supportive services' rolls which expend a much higher per person amount. while a percentage of clients do move off all rolls-the recitivism rate for reapplication is much higher than in previous decades because current programs are structured to get people off and pay almost all child care costs, while previous programs retained people at very minimal grants but capped child care such that there was no assistance, simply a capped credit towards their countable income.

i personaly would prefer to see resources go to create programs that keep people off to begin with. 'stop gap' programs have been highly successfull in some states-if a person's only obstacle to getting/retaining a job is a car repair-the agency pays for it. person/family never get on the system. if a person's obstacle to accepting a job is moving from one place to another-assist with moving expenses and the person does not draw beyond that amount. i think some of the best works could be done with teens-to focus resources on generational welfare kids whose only example of getting ahead is to achieve securing your own (vs. being under mom's) welfare grant. show these kids another way. attrition will naturaly discontinue the older crowd, make it less appealing or less desirable for the younger crowd, make being self sufficient more appealing, more attainable and perhaps in time the rolls will be considerably reduced.

 

["Got Disney"]

NO....If you cant afford the ones you have than you should not have more.
If you have 3 kids and all of a sudden need assistance that is fine, and you should get assistance. But dont get on assistance than get pregnant again.

My niece went to a baby shower today for her best friends sister and she has been on welfare for 6 years. She is having her 4th boy and said she will not stop till they have a girl...she is 26 sorry but that does bug me.

 

[fabshelly]

What bugs me is that some people get upset about being taxed to help impoverished children, but don't seem to make much of a peep to the corporate welfare handed out to, for example, oil companies that make billions in profits.

 

[Charade]

What bugs me is that some people get upset about being taxed to help impoverished children, but don't seem to make much of a peep to the corporate welfare handed out to, for example, oil companies that make billions in profits.

I don't think anyone is talking about corporate "welfare" on this thread.

and we're not talking about not giving support to those that *truly* need it. Just those that clearly abuse the system.

 

[ForTheLoveofDisney]

What bugs me is that some people get upset about being taxed to help impoverished children, but don't seem to make much of a peep to the corporate welfare handed out to, for example, oil companies that make billions in profits.

Oh No, that bugs the h-e-double hockey sticks out of me too!! But, this particular thread specifically asked "Do you think someone receiving assistance should continue to have children?" And the majority of answers have been a resounding NO!!

Some people have gotten upset stating that we can't put stipulations on a persons right to "choose" to have children (i.e. birth control), that it may infringe on their religious beliefs which I'm not sure which religion that might be because even the Catholic Church allows for Natural Family Planning in order that you might be more responsible. And some people have said that those who don't agree are heartless and taking food out of the mouths of children. But these comments are kind of off topic because the bottom line question was should they continue to have children while on assistance and most feel they should NOT!

As do I. No, you shouldn't continue to have children while on assistance (any form of assistance!) how irresponsible is that?

 

[diznygirl]

I don't suppose I should pop in here and say it's nobody's business?

We pay taxes for the privilege of a civilized society - and we get to elect our representatives - but we don't get to say how every penny is spent, and we can't tell people how to live their lives.

In a perfect world everyone would be responsible and there would be no problems. But then we wouldn't have anything to talk about on the DIS!!

 

[Charade]

I don't suppose I should pop in here and say it's nobody's business?

It's not my business what you do with your money. But it sure is my business when someone else misuses tax money that came from my paycheck. Especially if it's through our elected officials.