Who decides what is classified as "lazy and irresponsible"?
Someone spoke earlier of a person who was unemployed with no health insurance who got sick. You asked why she was unemployed. Let's look at some possibilities:

What if the person just graduated from college and although they have been applying for positions they have not found one with benefits yet? This person is working a temp job to pay the bills, but most temp jobs do not provide benefits?

What if the person quit a job to take care of an ailing relative, like say a grandmother because the grandmother did not have the funds to pay for a nursing home (and in your world, there would probably be no medicare or medicaid)?

What if the person is out of work because after 15 - 20 years on their job their company decided that it would be cheaper for her job to be done in India, so they moved them offshore?

What if she dropped out of high school, had a baby. What if she previously worked the morning shift at McDonalds (making $6.00--which is more than minimum wage), but because of unreliable, unaffordable day care (she tries to get relatives to keep the baby for free but they have jobs/things to do and she can't afford the $75 a week for day care) and unreliable transportation (she can't afford a car, so she has to take 2 buses and the subway/train to get to her job), she got fired and is now unemployed.


What if she was an "off the books" baby sitter" for working people in her neighborhood, so she did not get benefits?

What if she watched soaps all day, ate bon-bons (what the heck are bon-bons anyway?) and had not intentions of working or looking for a job?

Which one of these ladies would not be deemed lazy and irresponsible? Which one(s) would be deserving of help if she got sick?

I'm not going to respond to each "what if" you have listed there. Rest assured I can come up with equal "what if's" where lazy people just take advantage of the system.

Did I say that I was against ALL government programs? Nope. I recall expressly stating that I was all for some of them. And the text that you quoted "What I am against is redistribution of the wealth and rewarding laziness and irresponsibility. " Doesn't have a damned thing to do with your what-if's. You're reading between the lines too much and putting words into my mouth/ascribing beliefs to me that I simply did not mention.

Bon-bons = french for candy.

My employer currently doesn't provide healthcare. I pay for my own at around $110/month through Blue Cross Blue Shield. Your all-cash babysitter (who probably doesn't pay taxes) is going to get what she deserves for not paying into the system in my opinion.

And yes, dropping out of HS to work at McDonalds to support a child is idiotic. People are able to make it through college and even get professional degrees in the same circumstances. It's all about personal initiative. And yes, it does have something to do with raw material. Why should I be penalized if someone lacks either of those things?

What if she wasn't the majority?

-Rudey

You brought up the question in your previous posts. You asked:

My bad, I didn't know you did not truly want possible answers to these questions.

My point was, who decides what is lazy and irresponsible? I had 3 job offers with I graduated from college. I might think that the recent college graduate was lazy and irresponsible because she did not have a job before she graduated. I might think it was irresponsible to quit a job, even if it was to take care of a sick relative (I did this by the way, when I was in my mid 20s. Many people told me it was irresponsible.)

Again, who decides what is lazy and irresponsible (and yes, I'd like an answer to that question)? There are already safeguards in the system to keep people from abusing the system by making up kids, having additional kids to get additional money, staying on the system for many many years without a "legitimate" excuse. Is it perfect, no, but name one instituation with humans involved that is.

I've never had a fire at my house that required calling the fire department. Neither have, to my knowledge, have my parents, my sister, my inlaws, my husband's 5 siblings or my grandparents. Regardless of this, my taxes still pay for fire services, whether I want it or not, whether I agree with it or not. It's for our greater good.

Lazy = not trying to get a job. Choosing the easy path without thinking about the future ie. dropping out of HS to take care of your child while working part time at McDonalds and then applying for Food stamps and government assistance.

Actually, the government has a decent method of defining who is "lazy" and who is not. If only the rules were followed...

Irresponsible:
We need to eliminate all programs that compensate people for not taking necessary precautions. For example, a homeowner loses a $300,000 house in a hurricane and is uninsured. Do they deserve federal assistance? Heck no. If you have an investment like that, you need to protect it.

If you are able to have enough money to budget out approximately $110/month, you can afford healthcare. Most people who have educations and even DECENT fulltime jobs can adjust their lifestyles accordingly to have that money. Being uninsured is lazy and irresponsible in my opinion.

Again, where from anything I've written could you even infer that I'm against the fire department?

Ktsnake,

I'm not going to say that there aren't people who are lazy and irresponsible on the welfare rolls, because there are. I can understand how you don't want to support them.

What I've never understood about most conservatives I've argued with is that they never want to actually give any help to the people who are working hard, but still can't get by; the people who are working 50-60 hours a week but still live below the poverty line. If you are against redistribution of wealth, or more specifically government handouts that redistribute wealth, why not be in favor of initiatives that get people out below the poverty line, or at least high enough so that they can survive working only 40 hours a week? If you are so opposed to welfare, then look at finding ways to make welfare obsolete. Make getting a job so attractive that people dont' want to remain on welfare because they can do so much better if they get off of it! The fact is that there are millions of people out there who look at the jobs around them and decide that they are better off if they are on welfare. They get some sort of guarenteed income with out having to do anything, they can look after their kids, and they can get to a doctor. If you made it so that every job meant you were getting considerably more money, your kids were cared for and you got some sort of health care coverage - all without having to work hours away, or 70 hours a week - no one but the truly desolate would remain on the welfare rolls. That's what it comes down to in my mind - make getting a job an attractive quality, make sure the basic concerns of people are being met and they will get the hell out of a situation that is worse for them. Make the term "working poor" an oxymoron and the United States will be a better place.

Maybe in a perfect world your post would make sense....but the world we live in is far from perfect. Fact is, there will always be poor people, there will always be sickness and diesease, there will always be people who struggle and there will always be people who feel like more can be done to help the less fortunate.

Please don't missunderstand me. I'm not saying we should turn our backs on the less fortunate. Every year I clean out my wardrobe and donate clothes to the salvation army/goodwill. I give food during christmas drives to the charities. Believe me, there are plenty of ways to help the poor other than taxing the wealthy the way Kerry wants to. The business of the less fortunate should be left up to the state and local governments. Its not the federal government's problem. Some states have more poor people than others. Does that mean that Nebraska farmers should help support crack addicted junkies living in New York City? Or should the mill worker living in north carolina, who puts in 12 hour days, have to help support the single mother living in Los Angeles because she left her husband all because she thought he was cheating on her? Or should the family in surburban Chicago have to help keep alive the man who had no health insurance and yet kept having unprotected sex with gay men while living in San Fransisco? Well, what do you think?

As for your tax paragraph: Most of what you spoke on comes from state funding, not federal funding. When we speak of taxes and Bush...we're talking about federal income taxes.

Dude, you live in Oklahoma. Try living in a state that charges more for their insurance. It's not as easy as you might think.

I got the sweetest letter on my 23rd birthday stating that I would be dropped from my father's excellent insurance, despite the fact that I'm still a student and petitioned to have my coverage extended, and because the new provider doesn't cover people past their 23rd b-day (our old one covered me until I was 25). Even though my state of permanent residence is Florida, I wasn't able to get BCBS (for $87/month, Florida is really cheap too) until my student insurance kicks in next month because I don't live there 9 months out of the year. If I gone through New York, a lesser BCBS policy would have been $400/month--basically the same as COBRA payments. Despite my piddly intern-architect pay, I don't even qualify for some temporary insurance because my salary is too high, and others were just as much as, if not more than, COBRA. Fortunately, my parents were willing and able to help me pay COBRA until the student insurance kicks in.

What if we hadn't been able to afford COBRA? What if I hadn't been able to pay for a shitty NY State PPO, or worse, HMO? If something had happened in those 4 months, I would have been in a world of shit. Would that make me irresponsible? Would it make me lazy? No, it would just have made me the victim of lousy timing. Think about the millions of other people this happens to every year. Not everyone else has the same, relatively happy, ending.

So, not every person who finds themselves uninsured is lazy and irresponsible. There are a million different shades of gray in the world. Please realize that it's not just black and white.

A couple of things....

First off, the temp worker should start looking for a job elsewhere. It might not be in the field they want but wouldnt it be smart to look for something else if one thing isnt working or giving them what they want?

The person that quit the job because of an ailing relative.....I think the ailing relative would understand if you told them you wont be able to pay the bills if you quit the job. Everyone has sick people in their family...this is why you dont depend on the government for funds. You set money off to the side in case something like that happens. Social Security is a crock of shit. It is completely stupid to work your whole life, not save money up for your retirement and then depend on social security/medicare/medicade to help you through your times of ailment. And despite all that.....I know its hard to see a loved one go through sickness. But shit, there is a thing called natural selection. Its nature's way of doing things.

The worker....you do have a point. I think jobs should stay here in America. I think we should be doing more exporting than importing. But, the worker doesnt run the company. If he doesnt want to move to India, then go somewhere else. You think the people in Germany like the fact that there are Americans working for VolksWagen? Or they like the fact that Deutsche Bank employs a lot of Americans while their economy sucks ass right now? No, they dont. Fact is, thats just how things work in a global economy. Most americans have a couple career changes in their life time anyway.

The mother who worked at Mcdonalds....she should have had an abortion if she couldn't afford to support her baby or had relatives that could help her. Its plain stupid to have a child when you've dropped out of highschool and work at Mcdonalds. Its not fair to the child to bring it in to such a world. Or, she should have given it up for adoption if she couldnt afford the abortion.


The baby sitter...how the hell are you going to ask a couple to give you benefits from watching their kids for an evening????? The dumb brod should go look for a real job.

:eek:

RE: Health Insurance.

Would someone like to search to see who the vast majority of people without health insurance are?

-Rudey

Why is she unemployed? Um the economy sucks, lots of jobs have moved overseas...etc. I know plenty of very educated people who have lost their jobs in the past 4 years.

Why is there no one who wants to help her? We are not all as lucky as you and I are. Not everyone has family.

I was unemployed and without insurance for awhile and cut off my finger. Should i have lived with no finger because I was broke and between jobs?

Your statement generalizes. IMO, generalizing is something conservatives are good at.

But that's the point, isn't it? The world revolves around Oklahoma, didn't you know? ;)

How many are like that? I mean we keep coming up with these nice little specific cases, but how many are like this?

-Rudey

you took the words right out of my mouth.

But that's the point. We CANNOT generalize. Posts are made generalizing those unemployed w/o ins as being lazy.

Everyone I know in this predicament follows the example I stated.

The system is not perfect, but we can't just make a blanket statement that applies to everyone in every economic and educational background.

But what you don't see is that your invalidating a point based on one or two experiences. Heck you can make a thousand experiences up to try and garner sympathy but what happens when you have such a large population that doesn't want health insurance to save costs and it's their choice. So instead you leave it at "the system is not perfect" and people on each end still get screwed.

-Rudey

Oklahomans are also paid far less on average than in other states. The median income here for a household is only 38K.

In Florida, it's much higher. I certainly support tax incentives to keep jobs in the US, I support a higher minimum wage, etc. I'm more liberal than y'all probably think :D

True there are millions of shades of grey in the system. It's just that working where I do, usually on the side of divorces that has the money, I see the other side abusing social programs like hell. They lie to social workers who don't have time to see research what they're being told, they claim abuse just to get free stuff, they know all the ins and outs of the system (if many of these people weren't such wastes of space, I'd say they'd make good social workers). I grant you that what I see is mainly the abuse, when the system doesn't work, how it protects the abusers, etc. It ticks me off to no end. I'm sure they don't have that in Florida.

I'm not saying that society should turn its back on people in dire straights who are not there because of their own laziness/stupidty/ignorance, whatever. We should just know when to cut them loose.

and as for this by amycat:

Are you trying to be funny? Or do you think you're better than me because you're in California and not in someplace that you look down upon as some kind of provincial wasteland?

Have you even been to Oklahoma?

There is nothing wrong with Oklahoma.

Amycat, I hope that your finger is okay.

I agree with Munchkin's post. When I read that ktsnake paid $110/ month, I thought that he meant per week. When people I know have been unemployed, they paid at least $375/month for their insurance through COBRA. These are healthy people with no pre-existing conditions. Unemployment benefits are about $400/week. How can someone make due on that? I know so many people who have lost their jobs in the last 3 years. Some of them have had to rely on some of these programs to help them through the rough times. I see nothing wrong with that.

Rudey, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The vast majority of people without health insurance are unemployed. I cannot comment on the circumstances of their unemployment.

What percentage Cream?

-Rudey

According to the 2000 Census Income Information, Florida's median income for a family of 4 is around $52,000--only 1K more than Oklahoma's. I don't think one thousand is "much" higher.

I said that Florida's insurance is cheap, it's probably about the same as Oklahoma's. But not every state offers such low-cost health insurance. It was about 6 times less than what I could have paid for a less comprehensive policy from the same company here in New York. I couldn't get it because, as far as they're concerned, I'm not a Florida resident. Luckily, I'm affiliated with a very good university that offers excellent health insurance. In fact, I will be able to keep the same doctors I had under my father's health plan.

People abuse the system everywhere. ;) I was just talking with my sister who works (but not as a social worker! She does financial stuff) for the Florida Department of Children and Families. She said that if the majority of people used public assistance as a helping hand, she would be "out of a job." Yet, she believes that public assistance should remain for those people who do use it as a temporary fix to get out of a bad situation, and she probably has seen more cases of abuse than you have. :) I think the system needs to be fixed--not eliminated--so more people can be genuinely helped than enabled.

I'm not sure. I don't know where I would find that information.

I am still wondering what you meant.

Well since you're telling me that the majority of people without health insurance are unemployed I figured you would know what percentage that is right?

OK now that I'm done with the cat and mouse game, for those under 65, 30% lack health coverage due to change in employment and 53% lack coverage due to cost (CDC, 2002).

-Rudey
--Majority shmajority

I wouldnt be so sure about that. I know many wealthy people who dont have health insurance. Many people, such as my family, choose not to have health insurance and instead pay for it out of our pocket when/if we get sick. It works if you can afford to foot any sort of a spontaneous medical bill if you get sick, but for those that can't afford it...I do see a reason for health insurance. Of course, though, the situation is different the older older you get and the more dependant you are on prescription drugs.

;)

I hate to rain on your parade, but it's human nature to look out for ourselves. When it comes down to it, most people would agree, you're going to look out for the well being of your family before that of others. The degree of well being depends on the person. When you hit a point in your life where you think you've done the best you can and you're satisfied with that...then you begin to look out for other people.

Where did I say the system should be eliminated? If someone is concerned about their health insurance in their state, they should move. Free enterprise -- if the state doesn't want to provide, the taxpayers should relocate -- especially with places like median incomes like Florida and Oklahoma :D

I'm glad that your sister and you agree with me that many people abuse the system. Elimination of the services? No. Elimination of the abuse? Yes.

Hey we can all agree on the elimination of abuse :rolleyes: seen to much of it up here... welfare fraud being the favourite it seems.

I also have to believe that the services provided reduces the burden on society, more than it taxes them (pun intended). I mean if a person has now hope or chance to escape from dire straits it stands to reason they turn to crime, thereby creating a direct impact on others in society; or that a person without reasonable medical recourse becomes a bigger burden latter on... I wonder if anyone has done a study seeing if states (or countries) that have a social support network have less crime or health issues on a long-term basis?

Show me where I said that you said that the system should be eliminated. I was not referring to ANYTHING that you said--I was making a completely different point.

Of course, I'm going to put more creedence into what my sister says--actually having been employed in the field for a few years now--than your anecdotal evidence. Like I said, she's probably seen more, and more severe, cases of assistance fraud than you'll ever witness.

Off the top of my head, I know this is true in countries such as Sweden and Denmark. Yet, there are other factors. Both of those countries are in Europe and neither countries legally allows its citizens to have firearms unlike the U.S.

You can't realistically compare the U.S. to much smaller countries such as individual European countries....you'd have to compare the U.S. with Europe as a whole....western europe as well as eastern europe. And if you did that, then the answer to your question would defintiely be no.

I would agree that the wealthiest people might not have insurance. The poorest people qualify for Medicare and Medicaid and are insured through governmental means. It's probably the working poor who don't.

But, dude--you never played a sport in Florida? We always had to show proof of insurance during my medical physicals for tennis. What about studying abroad? You did that, right? There was a certain amount of evacuation and repatriation of remains insurance everyone who studied abroad when I did had to carry. True, you can get short-term insurance for both cases---but it seems to be a pain to do that every so often.

By definition, what your sister said is anecdotal evidence. If I am mistaken, please explain how.

If I misunderstood your "completely different" point, it was only due to the fact that you said this:

in a paragraph that was directly replying to something I said. So either I am having a difficult time understanding your yankee paragraph structure, or your paragraph structure just has issues ;)

Please pardon this Okie from the sticks. He knows not what he reads.

Played sports since I was 6 yrs old....never had to show proof of insurance during medical physicals for Football, Basketball, Baseball or La Crosse. The doctor never required it. And when I say I dont have health insurance...thats not entirely accurate. I do, but the policy only covers when the bill is $5,000 or more. So basically thats like not having health insurace unless something really serious happens.

I think that's called catastrophic insurance or major medical. The premiums are much lower than your standard health insurance, but the out of pocket expenses can be high. If you have a terrible illness or accident, you are covered. If you have a minor illness or injury, you pay for doctor visits, treatments, and medicine. $5,000 can add up quickly if you have an injury, accident, or illness and need to stay at the hospital and have surgery and expensive tests like a cat scan or MRI.

Some people choose not to have insurance. I actually didn't when I started my job but the nagging from my mother, friends, girls, people at work finally got to me and I went and got it. And for what? I'm still not sick. Girls always worry about that crap for no reason.

-Rudey

Last thing on this thread, completely off topic:

NOT a Yankee. I grew up in the part of Florida that's closer to New Orleans, Montgomery, and Atlanta than any of the major metro areas in Florida. Being from the North of Florida does not a Yankee make. :rolleyes:

I would call "anecdotal evidence" something from someone NOT in the direct field. For example, an architectural conservator's story of a failing structural system is anecdotal, while a structural engineer's discussion of it is completely different, based on experience and training. That is the difference, Okie.

Sounds like Yankee applies to you about as much as Okie applies to me... Since Okies live in California and all...

I wouldn't call a social worker -- someone who sees certain cases in his or her city someone who can diagnose an entire system or even make accurate judgements on the whole system. If she or he were somewhere higher up, or in an academic position where they could make judgements on that sort of thing, I grant you, it might be different.

You and I are saying essentially the same thing. We both say there are abuses. It seems you are more likely to favor giving folks the benefit of the doubt when it comes to awarding benefits, whereas I, on the other hand would be doing it like it were my money being doled out.