Welfare is it wrong?

[7starmantis]

None of the things that I have suggested are quick fix measure by any means. However, they seem to work pretty well in other countries that have adapted them. In fact, these other countries are starting to compete with the US and are outstripping our ability to keep up.

Take, for instance, health care. We spend 15% of our gdp trying to pay for it. Countries that have instituted a universal plan pay at most 11%. Most pay much less. How does this affect America? Take GM...they won't invest much in the US, but they'll put billions into Canada...why? Good social policy.

How does this help the poor? By making us competitive in the global market, we draw jobs and investment back to our country, increasing opportunity. So how's that for a back door draft? We institute social programs that are common in every other industrialized nation and suddenly we find ourselves able to compete better then those nations.

Actually, throwing more money at a problem is allways a quick fix. Your not addressing the issues that make the system ineffective, your just offering to "up the dose". I dont view the world as a competition where we must "keep up" but I do see the need to stay "afloat". However, your healthcare plan is flawed because it doesn't take into account quality. Sure quality doesn't matter much, especially in healthcare. :wink: Socialistic healthcare isn' tthe solution, if your so worried about accessable healthcare, go to med school and open a free clinic. Thats actually doing something to help, now your just complaining and saying: "someone else (government) needs to do something". Why must all problems be answered with the same answer...Government? Instituting programs that are common in other countries doesn't really address any issues either, except wanting to stay on top of or better than other countries.

IMO, taking care of our basic needs, our health, our education, and our children is not something the individual should be totally responsible for. When you have kids of your own, you'll see what I mean...a village is damned helpful

We have a personal responsability in a society and we have a social responsability. If we expect people to work in order to live a middle class life style, then we need to expand our sphere of social responsability to encompasse the things that I noted above.

Your making a point that actually hurts your argument here. First, basic needs are not individuals responsibility? Thats a major cop out and is an excuse for not doing a good enough job in these issues. Your taking away any personal responsibility thus taking away benefits of responsibility such as work ethic, personal satisfaction, and biological needs to provide for ones family. Of course basic needs are first and foremost the responsibility of the individual, anything else is simply "passing the buck". Your also trying to correlate between helpful and responsible. The "villiage being helpful" is not the "government being responsible". Your talking personal and social responsibility...I agree, but then your trying to pass the buck on the social responsibility to be mandated by the governemnt. I'll quote [SIZE=-1]Zack de la Rocha on that one..."Freedom...yeah right".

Lets explore this "villiage" scenario a bit. In fact, we could take Native Americans for an example. Their social responsibility was clear in the way they lived, and each person helped out and the villiage survived. They didn't have a government taking buffalo away from one person and giving it to the guy who was a member of PETA and didn't want to hunt. Sure there were elderly that were taken care of by others but not be force....So now skip forward to today, you should look up some statistics on Native American populations on welfare. Why is it so many are jobless, educationless, healthcare-less? You could blame alchohol, laziness, or many other factors right? Well, what changed in their lifestyle? You could say modernization, carless genocide, or a lack of need to do anything for themselves.

I agree with personal and social responsibility, but I do not believe in passing that responsibility off to the government. If its our responsibility, lets take care of it and not feed into the vicious cycle of "passing the buck".
[/SIZE]

Otherwise we will be stuck with the system we have. Give people a pittance. Let them live in squalor. Pile them in neighborhoods that are cloistered and isolated, and let them prey on each other.

Yes because we are completely responsible for the crime committed in poverty areas! Crime pays better than work, allways has, allways will. Its how it is, your not going to change that by making welfare pay as high as crime.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Actually, throwing more money at a problem is allways a quick fix. Your not addressing the issues that make the system ineffective, your just offering to "up the dose".

Creating new institutions to help lift up the poor from the circumstances of their births is nothing like "throwing money at a problem". In fact, doing something like this has absolutely no resemblance to a random, unplanned throwing. This caricature is nothing but a strawman. Anyone who has actually seen a good system in another country can tell you...it is NOT throwing money...and it works.

I dont view the world as a competition where we must "keep up" but I do see the need to stay "afloat". However, your healthcare plan is flawed because it doesn't take into account quality. Sure quality doesn't matter much, especially in healthcare. :wink:

A universal health care plan doesn't affect quality. This argument is nothing but a bugbear planted by the insurance industry. They say things like "there will be no incentive to be the best" as if saving people's lives came secondary to making money. That's a load of BS. Talk to any health care professional, they are in it for the people. The reason the US has the highest quality health care is because we have the most money in the world plain and simple. Paul Wellstone cited numerous government reports that showed this and his arguments always were drowned out on the senate floor.

Socialistic healthcare isn' tthe solution...

A universal health plan isn't necessarily socialistic. The government bargains with private industries on the behalf of its citizens. The government is not creating a communistic system where private industry is abolished. Labling universal plans as socialistic is just more disinformation.

...if your so worried about accessable healthcare, go to med school and open a free clinic. Thats actually doing something to help, now your just complaining and saying: "someone else (government) needs to do something".

I can only do so much. As it is, I've dedicated my life to public service. The only difference is that I serve in a difference sector then health care. This suggestion is kind of cheap. I'd like to see what you actually do...

Why must all problems be answered with the same answer...Government?

Its just a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe that the government is a tool of the people. I believe that people can use the government and our democracy to make a better society.

Instituting programs that are common in other countries doesn't really address any issues either, except wanting to stay on top of or better than other countries.

You totally missed the point. On top of providing a stable base for people to actually work, by instituting these social programs we make America more competitive. This directly translates into creating more opportunity for people. Not only are we lifting people up, we are creating place for them to go!

Your making a point that actually hurts your argument here.

First, basic needs are not individuals responsibility? Thats a major cop out and is an excuse for not doing a good enough job in these issues. Your taking away any personal responsibility thus taking away benefits of responsibility such as work ethic, personal satisfaction, and biological needs to provide for ones family. Of course basic needs are first and foremost the responsibility of the individual, anything else is simply "passing the buck".

This is not an either or argument. It is not black and white. And the separation between individual responsability and social in these instances is not easily discerned. If you say that providing food for yourself and your family is an individuals responsability, why don't you grow your own food? By depending on the farmer are you "passing the buck"? We are all intrincically linked in a society and when people are starving, sick, and poor, it effects us in thousands of ways. IT IS FAR MORE EXPENSIVE TO "PASS THE BUCK" ON THESE PROBLEMS THEN IT IS TO ADDRESS THEM! American is being nickled and dimed to death because 25% of this country lives in poverty.

Your also trying to correlate between helpful and responsible. The "villiage being helpful" is not the "government being responsible". Your talking personal and social responsibility...I agree, but then your trying to pass the buck on the social responsibility to be mandated by the governemnt. I'll quote [SIZE=-1]Zack de la Rocha on that one..."Freedom...yeah right".[/SIZE]

Um, that is not the intent of that Rage song. And in this instance, this vaunted freedom comes at the expense of millions. [SIZE=-1]

Lets explore this "villiage" scenario a bit. In fact, we could take Native Americans for an example. Their social responsibility was clear in the way they lived, and each person helped out and the villiage survived. They didn't have a government taking buffalo away from one person and giving it to the guy who was a member of PETA and didn't want to hunt. Sure there were elderly that were taken care of by others but not be force....

There was an understanding between people...and there is no reason why this understanding can't be expanded into our greater society.

So now skip forward to today, you should look up some statistics on Native American populations on welfare. Why is it so many are jobless, educationless, healthcare-less? You could blame alchohol, laziness, or many other factors right? Well, what changed in their lifestyle? You could say modernization, carless genocide, or a lack of need to do anything for themselves.

Or it could be a lack of political power and money. How about the marginalization of their culture? Or how about our general ignorance? I wish that I could take every single person in this country through Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. People just don't know or understand...

I agree with personal and social responsibility, but I do not believe in passing that responsibility off to the government. If its our responsibility, lets take care of it and not feed into the vicious cycle of "passing the buck".

Yes, lets stop "passing the buck" on our social responsablity. The social programs of the 60s were wildly successful. We should go back to our roots.

[/SIZE]

Yes because we are completely responsible for the crime committed in poverty areas! Crime pays better than work, allways has, allways will. Its how it is, your not going to change that by making welfare pay as high as crime.

Not completely. Partially. This, too, is not black and white. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Get it straight...

upnorthkyosa

 

[michaeledward]

I wonder how much the country could insure the welfare of the citizenry if we reallocated a hundred billion dollars from the military? And then, while we were at it, we could probably save another hundred billion from the military and us that to reduce our deficit. And we would still be spending more on the military than the next 4 or 5 countries combined.

But, throwing money at something is always a quick fix, eh?

 

[shesulsa]

Jeopardized just automatically means devoid? My parents quit their jobs and moved all 5 of us into a 700 square foot shack (from a 4200 sq ft house) to be missionaries with no salary, just "faith income". Trust me, I understand poverty from both sides. If your child is going hungry, you must focus on a job or on hunting or something, why should it be focusing on the government? I'm not saying the government shoudln't help, but it shouldnt be the expected responsibility it is now.

Agreed, however, how is someone who doesn' t have an address going to get a job? Someone without decent clothing?

The temporary welfare solution works if people will make it temporary, but here's the problem: if you're on welfare and in gov't housing and you manage to find work, they kick you off the program before you can amass enough liquid assets to obtain new housing (even an apartment), establish an emergency cash fund so it doesn't happen again, or get insured through your new job. So a person would be left with a job, a few dollars in his/her pocket, no insurance (probationary period), and no home. How does one work with no address, no place to wash clothing and get clean? You can't stay in a shelter for too long. So many people get sick and can't go to work because they have no place to stay, no insurance to get well, lose their job and they're back at square one.

Your solution offers quick fixes of surface issues, not lifelong (or longer) fixes of deep rooted issues. In your perfect world everyone would help each other out anyway, so no welfare would be needed.

You know, nothing can be perfect, but I think most people really don't understand how powerful even the smallest act of volunteerism is. Volunteerism is the answer to many of our national and social woes. I wish I could find the pamphlet I used to have that said if every person who were able (by time, money and ability allotment) to volunteer did volunteer the equivalent of 15 minutes of their time twice per month (given the value of that person's time), need in this country would vanish. I wish I knew where those stats came from.

We have a personal responsability in a society and we have a social responsability. If we expect people to work in order to live a middle class life style, then we need to expand our sphere of social responsability to encompasse the things that I noted above.

More wise words from Dad: People are like a corn crop. If you plant enough corn for one plant, if it grows you will get small ears of poor quality if it produces at all. When you plant corn as a patch with enough room between and not too much, the corn crop grows as a single organism - the plants foster each other and more corn of better quality is produced.

According to census records we were in the poverty level, yet no one could get us any assistance. In fact, we were told straight up that if we were a minority race we could qualify right away....oh also if my wife was a minority and pregnant, we had it in the bag.

In an America where many of our large cities are mostly populated by non-minorities, this is indicative of incentive and reward programs that need to be revamped, certainly.

 

[arnisador]

I heard of a charitable program once that provided mailing addresses, voice mail, and e-mail to the homeless. Not shelter--they were trying to help people get jobs and knew how hard it was for them to do so without contact info. and means like this.

 

[shesulsa]

I heard of a charitable program once that provided mailing addresses, voice mail, and e-mail to the homeless. Not shelter--they were trying to help people get jobs and knew how hard it was for them to do so without contact info. and means like this.

Indeed! (Oh, I wish aging didn't involve memory loss ...) This kind of program is an EXCELLENT help to those in shelters, those in transition, homeless - anyone who is trying to climb out of the hole. I think it is also, unfortunately, difficult to keep funded. Immediate needs such as food, clothing, water and shelter are easy to see, tangible to fix. This kind of service takes secure locations to deliver mail (similar to a P.O. Box), someone to sort voicemail, a server, someone to maintain it, backup, round-the-clock security. Important and Expensive.

 

[Andrew Green]

There are a few organizations here that provide the phone number service.

The organization I work for provides technical training, mostly to those on assistance. We train people and help them find jobs.

Given what some of them have to go through in there lives to get to the place of what is still considered a entry level job it is amazing to see them do it.

It also seems to be that those that say people on assistance are lazy and should get jobs have never heard the stories of what goes on in poor communities, they don't understand how hard putting food on the table and keeping your kids out of gangs can be.

There are good, smart, hard working, people on assistance, not by there choice, and many are trying very hard to get out of that situation. But everytime money gets cut and they loose their home, loose their phone, can't afford a winter coat for their kids, have to send a kid to school without a lunch, have a gang trying to recruit their kid, or any other number of problems that the people complaining the system should be cut have never had to deal with on a day to day basis.

The system needs more money, not just to be thrown at it as was claimed above, but to fund training programs in addition to providing basic costs of living to help those that want out, to get out.

The village system has been mentioned, and well, things have changed. We have much larger communities, the people that need help are no longer visible, related, or related to friends. We bring home paychecks instead of hunting animals, which we are much more possesive about and less likely to share amongst the village.

So yes, we need to enforce the sharring, and I'd bet it was enforced then too. If someone who was capable of sharring horded everything, I'd imagine they'd become pretty disliked in the community, and not have much shared back.

No sharing means no community, just a bunch of greedy hermits chasing kids off their yard...

 

[Andrew Green]

I think it is also, unfortunately, difficult to keep funded. Immediate needs such as food, clothing, water and shelter are easy to see, tangible to fix.

Funders like numbers. They want to know exactly how many people got coats directly from their contribution. They want to know exactly how many people thier money got a job for.

They don't like to fund things that aren't as apparent in their results, like a organizations admin, or director. Their is no direct and trackable result. They can't go back and say "Our $40,000 contribution provided a admin assistant" doesn't sound as good as "Our $40,000 contribution provided 10 people who where living off assistance with a college certificate and jobs"

 

[7starmantis]

Creating new institutions to help lift up the poor from the circumstances of their births is nothing like "throwing money at a problem". In fact, doing something like this has absolutely no resemblance to a random, unplanned throwing. This caricature is nothing but a strawman. Anyone who has actually seen a good system in another country can tell you...it is NOT throwing money...and it works.

I was responding to your statmenent here:

If the wellfare system is flawed, the only reason it is, IMO, is because its not enough.

I am simply trying to show that (1) Yes the welfare system is flawed, and (2) The only reason it is flawed is not because its not enough.
Try not to put words in others mouths and we will all understand each other much better. I said nothing about "random, unplanned throwing". You perceived that as my feeligns towards your statement. I'm simply saying that to increase effectiveness of anything (welfare program or not) you need to do much more than simply increase it. Also, we disagree on wether or not the government should be responisble for feeding you, clothing you, housing you, and taking care of your children.

A universal health care plan doesn't affect quality. This argument is nothing but a bugbear planted by the insurance industry. They say things like "there will be no incentive to be the best" as if saving people's lives came secondary to making money. That's a load of BS. Talk to any health care professional, they are in it for the people. The reason the US has the highest quality health care is because we have the most money in the world plain and simple. Paul Wellstone cited numerous government reports that showed this and his arguments always were drowned out on the senate floor.

Seems you need to spend some time in big healthcare providers, I have and trust me, people aren't as saintly as you imagine. Quality of healthcare is affected by much more than the person supplying the care. Funding, resources, etc are all counting against quality. You just need to see the treatment of uninsured people as compaired to wealthy, insured individuals....yeha, money is deffinitley not the determining factor

Your saying we have the best healthcare and yet we need to follow the lead of other countries? That doesn't make sense. We have the best healthcare because we have money, yes, but why would that quality of healthcare stay the same or (as you claim) increase after taking the money out of the situation?

A universal health plan isn't necessarily socialistic. The government bargains with private industries on the behalf of its citizens. The government is not creating a communistic system where private industry is abolished. Labling universal plans as socialistic is just more disinformation.

I said nothing of communistic systems, lets not take what I said too far. Universal healthcare is exactly socialistic, your simply choosing to hear the negative implications of socialistic programs when I use the word. My point here though is "Why should the government have to bargain with private industries on behalf of its citizens"? I can bargain myself and get a much better deal for myself. And still be in control of my own life.

I can only do so much. As it is, I've dedicated my life to public service. The only difference is that I serve in a difference sector then health care. This suggestion is kind of cheap. I'd like to see what you actually do...

Whoa now, lets not start challenging each other. I spend many, many hours a week volunteering my medical expertise (physical therapy, emergency medicine, lab work, phlebotomy even) for many clinics and healthcare providers. I'm even in school to get my masters in Physical Therapy to allow even more ability to help people. Would you keep doing exactly what your doing everyday if they stopped paying you? I would hope not, I would hope you would get a job to support your family first, then volunteer your time after that. But this discussion isn't about you or I, my point is that we should spend more time doing ourselves rather than expecting others to do. What someone else does doesn't affect my own deeds. I'm simply sayin we shouldnt expect the government to do something we ourselves aren't doing.

Its just a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe that the government is a tool of the people. I believe that people can use the government and our democracy to make a better society.

Same as I. I just dont think the responsibility lies on the government as you do.

This is not an either or argument. It is not black and white. And the separation between individual responsability and social in these instances is not easily discerned. If you say that providing food for yourself and your family is an individuals responsability, why don't you grow your own food? By depending on the farmer are you "passing the buck"? We are all intrincically linked in a society and when people are starving, sick, and poor, it effects us in thousands of ways. IT IS FAR MORE EXPENSIVE TO "PASS THE BUCK" ON THESE PROBLEMS THEN IT IS TO ADDRESS THEM! American is being nickled and dimed to death because 25% of this country lives in poverty.

The seperation between individual and social responsibility doesn't need to be discerned in this case. What I'm saying is that the social responsibility should fall on individuals in a society, not the government. Providing is a word that your defining incorrectly. Providing food for my family doesn't mean growing it myself. I'm still providing it if I work for the money to buy it. Now, as a child, I did grow my own food, my whole family did...all of it. Eggs, milk, vegitables, meat....everything. So that arguement rings hollow to me. I'm in no way "passing the buck" of responsibility, that doesn't even make sense. How is purchasing a product from someone for my family passign the buck exactly? If I didn't have a job and no money you can bet your *** I would be growing my own food again, thats my point. We should go out and grow our own food before asking the government to give it to us. Thats my only point. Welfare is great and needed, but increasing welfare isn't going to make it more effective, period.

Um, that is not the intent of that Rage song. And in this instance, this vaunted freedom comes at the expense of millions.

Actually it fits pretty close in line with that particular Rage song, but we can discuss the philosophy of Rage Againts the Machine lyrics elswhere. Freedom has allways come at the expense of many. To practice freedom isn't to ignore the sacrifice of others, niether is resitricting freedom lessenign the sacrifices of others. I agree with you that society as a whole should take care of its members who need help, I just dont agree that the government should step in and mandate that. Seems our disagreement is pretty small here.[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]There was an understanding between people...and there is no reason why this understanding can't be expanded into our greater society.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
And no reason this understanding can't handle these issue you so quickly pass off to the government. Society does not = government as your implicating. Society can handle its collective responsibilty without governemnt interference.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1] Or it could be a lack of political power and money. How about the marginalization of their culture? Or how about our general ignorance? I wish that I could take every single person in this country through Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. People just don't know or understand...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
Thats exactly my point, the marginalization of theri culture which was to take care of their personal responsibilities and help those who needed help. I completely understand having spent lots of time at Pine Ridge reservation. I dont think having the government take up their personal responsibilities is going to help them start being responsible. You should understand what I mean, sometis still called "The White Man's Curse" by elders.

[/SIZE]

Not completely. Partially. This, too, is not black and white. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Get it straight...

ACtually if you want to take responsibility for crime in poverty areas, thats fine. I on the other hand will not. A good friend of mine is a local LEO here and had some trouble with some "guests" from New Orleans. These particular guests were outspoken about their intent to stay here because its "fertile ground". They became violent when they were facing being removed from housing because they wouldn't take the proper steps to keep said housing. One packed up and headed to Houston for Rita so they could re-aply for FEMA aid. They were given housing, clothing, necessities, and all they had to do was take on the payments (extremely low with help from many programs. In fact quite lower than any payment I could get on a house or apartment for that matter) for the housing after a certain period of time. They didn't want to, in fact they slept in their Mercadees and Escalades outside the houses. My point is that not everyone is honest and hard working. To increase welfare isn't going to change that, we need revamping. I just dont think the answer is relying on the government.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

Agreed, however, how is someone who doesn' t have an address going to get a job? Someone without decent clothing?

Thats a great point, and an important issue. However, its not an issue that will be solved by increasing welfare as a whole. I'm not sayin it will be solved by cutting welfare either, but simply increasing it is not helping these types of situations. There are organizations which have allready been discussed that deal with these things, those are tremendous helps. We just can't keep increasing welfare to solve problems with it.

The temporary welfare solution works if people will make it temporary, but here's the problem: if you're on welfare and in gov't housing and you manage to find work, they kick you off the program before you can amass enough liquid assets to obtain new housing (even an apartment), establish an emergency cash fund so it doesn't happen again, or get insured through your new job. So a person would be left with a job, a few dollars in his/her pocket, no insurance (probationary period), and no home. How does one work with no address, no place to wash clothing and get clean? You can't stay in a shelter for too long. So many people get sick and can't go to work because they have no place to stay, no insurance to get well, lose their job and they're back at square one.

Thats not completely accurate, but again not something fixed by increasing. Addressing these internal issues is vital. We need to address these issues and determine ways to solve them, why just take the easy road and "hope" they resolve themselves by increasing welfare?

You know, nothing can be perfect, but I think most people really don't understand how powerful even the smallest act of volunteerism is. Volunteerism is the answer to many of our national and social woes. I wish I could find the pamphlet I used to have that said if every person who were able (by time, money and ability allotment) to volunteer did volunteer the equivalent of 15 minutes of their time twice per month (given the value of that person's time), need in this country would vanish. I wish I knew where those stats came from.

Thats another great point. Volunteerism is not heavier or "more" government or welfare. If we as a society could find a way to do these kinds of things, need could truly vanish. Is ineffective government welfare going to do this, even if increased? I dont believe so.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

I just dont think the responsibility lies on the government as you do.

I'm not going to mince words. I've said enough, at length, at what I think needs to be done. I am curious as to why you believe the government should stay out of the business of helping the poor?

 

[7starmantis]

I'm not going to mince words. I've said enough, at length, at what I think needs to be done. I am curious as to why you believe the government should stay out of the business of helping the poor?

I dont think the government should stay out of helping the poor, thats truley not what I'm trying to say. I've said welfare is great and heavily needed. I just dont think it should be a responsibility. The problems with welfare aren't going to be solved by increasing it. If more of us took personal responsibility for basic needs, things might be different. I just dont think the responsibility for basic needs and raising our children should fall on the governemnt.

7sm

 

[BlueDragon1981]

lol...sorry terry didn't know it would offend you so much

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27859&page=2

 

[Makalakumu]

If more of us took personal responsibility for basic needs, things might be different. I just dont think the responsibility for basic needs and raising our children should fall on the governemnt.

How is a child suppose to be personally responsible for their basic needs? This question is the root of the cycle of poverty. The answer is obvious. They can't be. And if their parents fail, what then? Would it surprise you to know that the parents who failed their children were children of parents who failed? It shouldn't. And in many cases, the parents didn't fail at all. They were victims of circumstance.

Once one actually understands how poverty works in our society, the idea above perpetuates that cycle, IMO. We don't need more wellfare. We need better social programs that build a base that breaks this cycle. Food and shelter subsidies. Universal health plans. Fully subsidized education. Subsidized childcare. Living wages. These programs will break that cycle for a great many people. Not everyone, but many, many, more then we have now.

 

[7starmantis]

How is a child suppose to be personally responsible for their basic needs? This question is the root of the cycle of poverty. The answer is obvious. They can't be. And if their parents fail, what then? Would it surprise you to know that the parents who failed their children were children of parents who failed? It shouldn't. And in many cases, the parents didn't fail at all. They were victims of circumstance.

Once one actually understands how poverty works in our society, the idea above perpetuates that cycle, IMO. We don't need more wellfare. We need better social programs that build a base that breaks this cycle. Food and shelter subsidies. Universal health plans. Fully subsidized education. Subsidized childcare. Living wages. These programs will break that cycle for a great many people. Not everyone, but many, many, more then we have now.

Yes, but your now changing your story. I have said I agree that welfare is needed and I agree that we need better social programs. You have been saying (1) Welfare needs to be increased and (2) social programs = government envolvement. Now you seem to be changing that story. I dont agree with your solution of universal healthcare and such, but since you are now no longer holding to this:

If the wellfare system is flawed, the only reason it is, IMO, is because its not enough.

Then I guess we actually agree with the main issue here. The differences in solution are minute really. I dont think the government should play a major role in it, but thats details.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

The government needs to play some role. I do think the apparatus behind the welfare etc. system has gotten quite large and we should look at that, but there's a need for a basic safety net for the truly disabled or those in temporary financial distress.

Looking at how many bankruptcies are caused by medical costs, I think we shoyld look at spending more of our money on universal health care.

 

[7starmantis]

but there's a need for a basic safety net for the truly disabled or those in temporary financial distress.

That I think is agreed upon by all here. How to do that is the issue.

Looking at how many bankruptcies are caused by medical costs, I think we shoyld look at spending more of our money on universal health care.

Universal healthcare is not the only solution. Someone earlier in the thread made a mention of people who only look at one solution. Lets explore other more effective strategies before just throwing all our eggs in the universal basket.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Universal health care has a lot of problems to be ironed out, as we can see when we look at Canada or the U.K.; they each have certain advantages over our system in the U.S., but also certain disadvantages. But while universal health care may not be the fix, I think it's hard to separate welfare from the fact that the cost of health care helps drive poverty, and is a major factor in keeping people poor. I believe that more than half of all personal bankruptcies have a significant health care costs component...health care and child care costs are a big part of why we need this. I see it as a large part of the root of the problem.

 

[shesulsa]

but there's a need for a basic safety net for the truly disabled or those in temporary financial distress.

That I think is agreed upon by all here. How to do that is the issue.

We already do. It's called SSI. People who are disabled permanently can apply for this - but this is another imperfect system where people who can't walk because of permanent hip injury can't get on it but drug addicts can. Another can of worms.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yes, but your now changing your story. I have said I agree that welfare is needed and I agree that we need better social programs. You have been saying (1) Welfare needs to be increased and (2) social programs = government envolvement. Now you seem to be changing that story. I dont agree with your solution of universal healthcare and such, but since you are now no longer holding to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by upnorthkyosa
If the wellfare system is flawed, the only reason it is, IMO, is because its not enough.

This quote does not mean that we need to increase wellfare. It means that wellfare alone isn't enough. We need other programs. I've never said we needed to increase wellfare.

Then I guess we actually agree with the main issue here. The differences in solution are minute really. I dont think the government should play a major role in it, but thats details.

Why shouldn't the government play a role?

In regards to the universal health plan, here is the one that was suggested by Senator Wellstone back when the Clintons made this a hot button issue.

The plan was simple. The universal plan would have the government negotiating with private industries in order to provide health care coverage every single American. If one wanted to opt out of the plan in order to bargain on their own, they could, and the government would then issue a voucher that could be used to bargain. The consumer would keep the difference in the voucher.

Here are the advantages. Competitive bidding would keep the prices down. People still have the option to bargain for their own needs. Hundreds of billions of dollars would be added back to the economy each year. We would be competitive with other industrialized nations. We would create more jobs. And every American would have medical insurance if they chose to have it.

Gingrich and his Republican cronies called President Clinton a communist and killed this program for their buddies in the insurance lobbies. Now, look at what health care costs are doing to us. Good move...

upnorthkyosa