I have head this bit of nonsense a bit recently and will do my best to clear it up (it's not complicated).
The maternity care cost in the ACA is not in case you as a 70 year old man get pregnant (obviously) it's there to pay for maternity treatment for anyone who actually does need it which means yes *gasp* this bill will make you pay a little to ensure new born mothers and babies have the healthcare they need, I know Obama is just that evil.
It's a sort of sick joke considering how outraged conservatives are on the issue of abortion and the protection of the baby. But now the baby has left the womb... well it's on it's own and they will not willingly give one cent to hep it.
Will this advocate the professional welfare recipient to increase its earning power as it has done for the UK resident?
So now the NHS is to blame for single parent families! Amazing.
Who mentioned single parent families then John?
The " professional welfare recipient" is hardly likely to be a bloke if you are talking about healthcare covering pregnancy.
I wasn't specific about the welfare recipient but as you have mentioned it did you know that 71% of single parents receive housing benefit? That there are 2 million single parents in the UK, that Lewisham for instance has the largest population of single parents at 58%, that the UK has the highest proportion of single parent families in Europe.
Now not all of these are the lone parents fault but the system has made it easier for families to break up and for mothers to have children without thought of the consequences.
However I was thinking of the family units who have decided that benefits are the answer to their lifestyle choice and then bang out children when ever an increase in benefits are needed.
But what has any of that got to do with the NHS and provision for pregnancy?
Its free to those who don't work John, advocating the growth of the professional welfare recipient and the 11 child family on benefits.
What is free to those who don't work? Not the NHS because as it is funded out of taxes everybody, working or not, pays tax.
But you are saying that the NHS encourages the "professional welfare recipient", I would say that the lack of employment, not the NHS, encourages the "professional welfare recipient".
And whilst getting wound up about a very small percentage of the unemployed, why do you want to demonize the honest majority?
Paying taxes out of what you receive from the taxpayer is not adding to the taxpayer pot John.
John's got his head in the sand again, he thinks these people would work if they were given a job. I suppose they would if they were paid more than the benefits they get although there are still a few who believe its their right to live off the state.
Is that the honest majority that pay taxes John, or the honest majority that bang out kids whilst having no other means of support than taxpayers money.
A study revealed 23 per cent of British children up to the age of 14 live in single-parent families, behind the US on 26 per cent. And 48 per cent of single mothers in Britain are unemployed, the highest rate in the OECD apart from Turkey.
48% John, not really an insignificant number is it?
And John there is always an element of truth in every work of fiction, just take a look at the socialist worker or Das Kapital.
Have a look on the OECD website or the UK's ONS website
Plenty of information there for you.
I looked up the stats you give and had a look on the OECD site, I can see nothing to support your claim. Link?
That there are families who are on welfare when they have their large families or that there are 2 million single parent families in the UK with 71% receiving benefits of one kind or another?
I suppose its all lies then, there are no large benefit claiming families in the UK. It must be Lies about the Miller family who receive £32000 a year in benefits despite him working only 9 months of his adult life at 40.
And I don't suppose Heather Frost exists either, the mother with eleven kids who has just been given a £500000 house and claims £30000 a year in benefits.
If you don't think these things happen that's OK, you can bury your head in the sand next to John.
No the 48% of single parents are unemployed claim... Obviously.
Well why don't you ask the Daily Mail as they published the figures.
In the same vane you have no statistics to refute the claim. Oh I forgot the Gingerbread organisation, a charity with the political view that single parents should get more more more!
Never mind I finally found the official figures
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/work … -2013.html
Confirms what sane people know... The Daily Mail is full of it.
That awful awful charity was right btw.
Of course it is because the change in the benefits system in the UK has meant these people have had to go to work to support their families. I suppose that's something you wouldn't support them?
The rate of improvement has actually slowed since the change.
Wrong X 2
Can you provide the stats Josak as I would love to see them.(I am not being sarcastic either)
These stats show evidence of what I said, changes in benefits has made people go to work. There has been a reduction in most categories except the never worked category which I assume must include school leavers and asylum seekers.
But as usual these were not the ones I was indicating in my original post, it was the professional welfare recipient, the ones who never work, never want to work and have families with no regard to how much it costs or who pays.
Why do you get so excited about the very very few who do not want to work?
Perhaps because he doesn't equate "millions" to "very, very few". I would have to go along with that, too - whether millions, hundreds of thousands or merely tens of thousands, it isn't even close to the few hundred that I would think of with "very, very few".
Where is your evidence that it is more than a very very few?
The same place yours is that there are only a few hundred out of 350 million people. In your head, expressed as opinion without real facts to back it.
IMHO, you will find more than that few hundred in every major city in the US, and that takes it out of the "very, very few" category.
I work with a local charity who takes, on government command, the unemployed on work placements. They have no choice. If they (the unemployed) want to continue to receive benefits, they have to accept the placement. In the last year, out of several hundred placements only one preferred to go without money to working.
That, in my book, is a few.
Add to that, why when the economy is sound, do so many people change their mind and take jobs?
That's very nice.
In the US, when Mama doesn't want to work she just pops out another baby. Single women with babies cannot provide any of their own support, or so goes the thinking in the land of the generous.
So don't want to work for a living? Have a kid or two. Want more income, still without working? Have a few more. It works really, really well!
John, this isn't my imagination. My own daughter-in-law, before marrying my son, had 2 young children and was advised by the welfare dept to quit her job in order to get more money. Quit work and Uncle Sam would pick up her food, utilities, rent, education (college), gas and anything else she needed. Keep working and it was dishrag soup for dinner. That's how it works here, whether the politicians admit it or not. Whether England does it or not, and whether the liberals giving out the money claiming it doesn't believe it or not. A single mother has a built in ticket to a life of leisure.
Maybe they change their mind because they don't have a uterus to work with. And because in a good economy, jobs typically pay more than welfare or unemployment for single people. No job a single mother in the slums can handle will compare to what she can for not working.
But given a decent income, one that would support her and her family, would she still rather not work?
Remember, she was advised to quit her job!
In that specific case, she refused to go on welfare. Instead, she left her rental home and moved into Mom's home (two bedroom mobile home) with her 2 kids. That left her enough income to feed her and her kids, along with going to school to better herself. Too proud to take charity, she was.
But she is also one in a million. How many, give the choice she was, would choose to hold a full time job while going to school full time and caring for two kids when she got home? How many would choose to live 4 people in a two bedroom home, under Mom's rule, rather that sit back in their own home in comfort?
I know of just one. Her.
Is it common for people to get excited at the very few who wish to rob them at gun or knife point? How is the number germane? The only difference between the very few who do not wish to work but employ a knife or gun to provide their sustenance, instead and the very few who do not wish to work but employ the mechanisms of the state to provide their sustenance is the tool employed.
How would you calculate very very few John? There are 370000 households where there has never been a employed person, now don't forget this is not some who have fallen on hard times but some who have never worked, what percentage would you say cant be bothered to work? Or are incapable of work? the stats don't really tell us do they?
Just for the sake of argument lets say its only 5% who don't want to work, lets say they receive £100 a week that's £92.6 million a year the taxpayer has to pay, I am sure the old people freezing to death this year would love a slice of that. Mind you it could be more or even less and I am sure those figures will include those who have tried everything to get a job but saying that it doesn't happen is sticking your head in the sand.
First of all, what period are you covering when you say "never been a employed person" and furthermore, how do you know that they have never worked because they don't want to and how many have never worked because there are no jobs for them to do?
Lets for the sake of argument say that it is 0.5% who don't want to work!
By the way, I've never claimed that it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that in the broader picture it is insignificant.
I am just going by the stats that josak posted the link to John so you may be right there may only be 0.5%. That was my point how do you know there are very very few? Could be 50% or more!
So lets get back to my original point, will the fact that someone else pays for these people empower them to have more children?
Well what's your answer?
Privatise healthcare so that not everybody benefits from it, put us all at greater risk from transmittable diseases, have people with expensive but easily treatable handicaps unable to work?
In reference to the American system I believe this was about insurance for pregnancy and I was making a statement that here because maternity treatment is free there is no bar to how many children can have if they don't contribute to the system.
Maybe the way to tackle it would be to limit welfare to the maximum at the time of claiming it. so if a family consisted of 2 adults and 2 children that's what they would receive welfare for until they found employment.
That might work but then you'd have to include contraception in that benefit as well otherwise you would be forcing many into having abortions against their better judgement.
Contraception is free to welfare claimants in the UK John. But I will concede that would be a good idea and may instil into the next generation the need for personal responsibility.
Didn't work there John because there was already a billion of them!
We are not talking about people not having children John we are talking about who pays for them.
YOU WANT THE LITTLE CHILDREN TO DIE!!
That's what you'll hear, you know, if you try any such thing. At least that's the rallying cry in the US whenever any limits on welfare are proposed.
YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN!!
However you like to look at it, it would be the children who suffered.
An American university (I forget which one) has just published research showing that children born into poverty have underdeveloped brains (for life) putting them at a permanent disadvantage.
Didn't take long, did it?
YOU ARE EVIL AND YOU WANT THE LITTLE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!
Because there is no other option than to give unlimited funds to the mother, is there? Nothing in this world except to hurt the kids - the kids that will grow up in the ghetto gangs. Anyone dragging their feet at that might has well be carrying an executioner's axe. No other option but to steal from the rich.
That's right, ensure that the kids will never have the intelligence not to run with gangs
Provide day care, feeding the kids 3 squares a day. Mom either works or starves, her choice.
Put all kids on welfare up for adoption.
Require every other welfare mom to give home daycare for 1 other, every other mom to work or go hungry. No cost to society, one person off welfare.
Set up foster care for all kids on welfare; when mom can support them she gets them back.
There are four options, none of which requires unlimited funding to Mom, all of which remove incentive to have kids, all of which give incentive for Mom to work. And none of which KILL THE LITTLE CHILDREN. Why are they not accepted? Maybe because it takes people off the dole and out from control?
Sounds a bit socialist to me! But I have no problem with that as long as there are jobs for the mums, and not part time menial jobs either.
bit harsh on those who suffer a temporary setback and then get back on their feet.
I obviously don't know the specifics in the US but here in the UK payments to foster parents far exceed any payments made to the natural mother.
What would be the reward for every other mother who had to look after another's child?
I think if you really thought about it you'd realise that the present system is not only the fairest (though that is not saying much) but also the cheapest.
Why shouldn't they be menial jobs? I've cleaned barns for a living, so can they. If nothing else, put a broom in their hand and let them sweep streets for 8 hours per day. I believe that most would be looking for decent work very quickly.
OK - draw welfare for a year, then start the program.
Not here. Payments to foster parents are not intended to support those parents, too. Welfare payments are, though, and support them quite nicely.
Minimum wage. Or perhaps a little less as an incentive to find work.
The current system is certainly not the fairest, not when money is taken at gunpoint to support those too lazy to work. Nor is it the cheapest, not when the incentive is NOT to work, through multiple generations. Short term costs might rise, but long term costs will most definitely fall if the liberals can be held at bay long enough to get the point across that everyone either works or starves. That living off the public dole because you don't want to support yourself is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
What part time job offers eight hours a day?
And menial jobs help neither the worker nor the country.
Menial and part time have nothing to do with each other. No, part time work will not feed anyone and should not be encouraged.
But menial work is far better for someone than charity. One gives pride and self support, one gives subservience and dependence. Something the socialist never seems to understand, but something that is very contrary to the human spirit.
What would you call a menial job then John?
I only work part time and seem to do OK, mind you I suppose its because I worked hard when I was younger.
But that's not a menial job is it? It may be considered as a menial contract but to the shopper the jobs are important.
However I do agree with you, I don't like zero hours contracts either.
1. consisting of or occupied with work requiring little skill, esp domestic duties such as cleaning.
So, yes it is a menial job.
It seems you have taken to using the dictionary John, I thought you didn't like dictionary definitions? Or is it just the one about socialism?>
I must concede that stacking shelves is possibly a menial job but some people are only capable of such work, what would you have them do?
There are many jobs that could be seen as menial by the dictionary definition but which require training and intelligence to do properly.
Not everyone can be a scientist or engineer John.
Plenty of people are capable of much more but either still have to do the job or do no job at all.
No, a job that requires anything but the most basic training is not menial.
If no one does the menial jobs, I would have to think the country would deteriorate rather quickly. Just some that require very little to no training or skills:
Simple janitorial. Bathrooms after just a few hours get pretty bad.
Event ticket taker
New home/building clean up
Unskilled construction labor - somebody either wields the shovel or the work doesn't get done.
Dishwasher - dirty dishes don't get scraped and stuck in the machine by robots
Lawn mower. PC term might be Landscape Artist, but lawn mower is accurate.
Parking lot attendant
Gas station attendant, pumping gas.
Fast food cook
Are you really sure you don't want janitors in public bathrooms? Or anyone cutting grass on public lawns? Do you never buy a hamburger? You don't like clean floors or dishes in your favorite restaurant?
The want and require a tremendous amount of menial labor done in our lives whether we like to think about it or not.
I've no problem with any of those jobs being filled. I do have a problem that they are minimum wage and often part time. That's fine when they are filled by people who are students or mums earning pin money but when they are the resort of people trying to raise families and pay their own way then I do have a big problem with them.
My answer would be
That they are advocating the deaths of millions of children by allowing a way for those who cant afford to keep them to keep having children. Its not just about the freedom to have children its about the responsibility to feed, cloth, educate and provide security. Its not everybody else's responsibility its the parents and no one else.
It seems John the research backs up my concerns.
An American university (I forget which one) has just published research showing that children born into poverty have underdeveloped brains (for life) putting them at a permanent disadvantage.
How do you make that out?
"That they are advocating the deaths of millions of children by allowing a way for those who cant afford to keep them to keep having children. Its not just about the freedom to have children its about the responsibility to feed, cloth, educate and provide security. Its not everybody else's responsibility its the parents and no one else."
Nothing at all to do with what I wrote.
Well John if they cant afford to feed, cloth and educate them I think they will fall into the category which the university results highlight.
So what about folks who start families when in employment but then through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed and on the breadline?
Found it, on the Daily Mail... Unfortunately the article is utterly unsourced so all I have is the claim of a far right once fascist Nazi supporting publication... Convincing is not the word that comes to mind.
At least gives sources and methodology and it has it at less than 40% not 48% and steadily falling.
60% of single parents working and rising steadily is pretty good actually. Of course we must also note that may single parents who don't work sustain themselves independently or with the help of family.
Then explain to me, oh wise one, why did so many people give up their jobs to live on the dole when the economy tanked?
Remember in the last 30 or so years we've gone from full employment to almost zero employment (OK I exaggerate a little) what changed the mindset of the worker to become a sciver - benefits are a lot lower in real terms than they were 30 years ago.
Do you have any statistical evidence at all that people actually go through the pain and danger of pregnancy and childbirth for benefits in any significant number or would this just be empty vacuous smearing?
Of course he doesn't, but he does read the Daily Mail and they say so, so it must be true.
What pain and danger?
Pain, for a couple of hours (or, after 4 or 5 kids, for a few minutes) as opposed to 18 years of money and other goodies from Uncle Sam? No comparison.
"Ma Mama had 10, I've had 6, there ain't nothini' gonna happen to me." No danger at all, just a little discomfort for a couple of months and how bad can that be when Ah never gets off the couch?
It's either that or thinking that a slum dweller with 11 kids (and playing the welfare system for all she's worth) is too stupid to connect sex with having kids...
Same question to you then. Anything you can prove or it going to be the usual "my sisters cousin". Or just ignorant smears?
Just for starters in the maternal mortality is 15 out of 100 000 per birth and it actually rises with every childbirth as damage can be done and because pregnancy is more dangerous the older someone is (beyond a minimum age obviously) maternal complication rate in the US is 4% rising with every childbirth that means someone having 11 babies has a much better than 50% chance of having serious medical issues as a result.
Not to mention that seriously I love my kids but I would rather work two jobs than raise just two again, let alone 11, it's a TON of work and with 11 I can't even imagine the amount of work.
These would be the imaginary don't work households. Have I not already covered the US stats for how those are pretty much non existent? I can do it again if you forgot.
So let me be clear, you made the accusation so #1 burden of proof is on you #2 logic would dictate it unlikely and dangerous (as for painful ask a woman who has been through childbirth) scientifically speaking it;s one of the most painful experiences we have recorded under experimental conditions. Finally #3 statistically these people you are insulting don't exist.
Intentionally obtuse or just have never been around the slums and "professional" welfare mothers there?
Those kids (can't call them women as adults support themselves) that live for generations off the system don't know or care about mortality rates. They don't care about raising their kids - after the first 4 or so they've got little slaves to do the work for them. They've found a "job" that pays pretty well, and pays for years for very little work (childbirth).
And yes, they exist. I understand that a true liberal socialist would never accept that someone actually refuses to earn their way, preferring to live off the system, but they are out there, and they are out there in considerable numbers sucking up the resources that honest people needing help need.
So that would be no on any proof at all for these accusations... How incredibly surprising.
Let's do some quick math.
Almost 50% of Americans receive benefits of some sort.
First off 92% of welfare recipients last year went to working households, and the disabled and the elderly. Then 5% went to people on Veterans benefits. That makes 97% who are obviously not doing this.
Then we can subtract people who have no children the proportion of which among the below poverty line demographic is around 45%.
Then we need to subtract people who genuinely lost their job.
Do we only count women? that's another 50% reduction.
Then even if we assume (horribly incorrectly) that all of the remainder are in fact doing this we are still talking about around 0.3% of the population.
In reality it's probably not even a tenth of that.
It's just bull, doesn't work mathematically in sufficient numbers for it to be at all significant.
P.S. I forgot for this "slave" system we also have to discount people who have fewer than four children, well we just probably halved the number again.
You really need to take a little more time with your math instead of making it so quick.
"First off 92% of welfare recipients last year went to working households, and the disabled and the elderly." Why include figures that twist welfare payments out of reason? Including SS payments to elderly has nothing to do with anything. Nor those same payments to the disabled or veterans receiving disability. Makes good emotional spin, but that's about it.
To claim that people with no children make up 45% of the people in poverty is obviously incorrect - more than that are children. Why spout lies?
Why exclude people that "lost their job" from not showing up to work?
Few single men have 11 children, so yes, it would be almost all women.
Your 0.3% thus has no connection to real life, but if it did, that's over 1 million women, with 11 million children. Feeding, housing and caring for them is quite a burden - far more than the illegal population of around the same number that at least do some work, even if not nearly enough to support themselves. I don't believe we would find that many if we located every last one, but it's more than a handful.
And that's very key, Josak - even a very small percentage is creating an enormous drag on the welfare system and a very large reason to put a stop to it.
No my figure was 0.03 (as I said one tenth) and most of those will be between 4 and 6 children not 11.
That is still a no on proof for your claim?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … proof.html
No, the figure from your bogus "quick math" was 0.3%. You claim it is "probably" a tenth of that (while berating everyone else for using opinion) but I won't let you go there. Your "proof" was over 1 million families; stick with it and don't arbitrarily cut it by 90% to make your stance look better.
Now. You want to talk about facts and math? That one million families, with 6 people each (see? I use your own 4-6 kids, with which I agree), needs at least $60,000 in welfare each year to survive. 1,000,000 X 60,000 = 60 Billion dollars. That's over $1,000 per year for the 50 million people too poverty stricken to afford health insurance; as most of them are children it's probably enough to buy insurance for all 50 million.
So why don't we get rid of the welfare mamas and put it into health care? Because it takes away from the welfare state desired by both politicians and the very poor, demanding something for nothing.
So your current claim is that everyone who could possibly fit in this category by not being excluded definitely does this. Interesting take.
The average between 4 and 6 is 5
And sorry WHAT you think every person requires 60 000 yearly in welfare. Assuming they are taking advantage of every single benefit and tax break the average is 22 000 nationally, much less in some states.
After clearing that up.
You wouldn't happen to have any proof for your claim yet right?
Yes, the average of 4-6 children is 5. Now add the Mom and the family size is 6. Which is the figure I used.
1 million women means 1 million families, not 1 million people. And $60,000 is on the low side of total benefits for a family of 6, even if your don't count schooling for which they contribute zero.
The average (even if for a family of 6) may be $22,000 - what does that have to do with the poorest of the poor, the families without even one person willing to work but with several children to feed? Are you insinuating that because an average income for a single person is $22,000 a family of 6 needs no more?
Hope that's cleared up now.
As for slums I know plenty about them, grew up in one, my guess on the other hand is you know nothing about them, my guess is you come from a middle class white family, went to a middle class college and became a middle class white man who moved because crime was coming to his area... you wouldn't last a week in a slum let alone understand the people who live in it.
Which won't stop you from making the worst accusations about them as if you do understand... obviously.
Just looking at your profile I couldn't imagine a more qualified expert about people in slums, you should write a book based on your extensive, in depth knowledge.
Yep, a middle class family, whose Dad worked 10+ hours a day to maintain while Mom raised most of our food. It allowed us to be clothed with yard sale stuff.
Yep, a while male who started work at 15 with a paper route and has never gone more than a month or two since then without a job. Including 4 years of a small town college, where full time work provided tuition, instead of a loan or handout from Uncle Sam.
Yep - a middle class youngster, poor as a church mouse, who loaded up a tiny car with everything I owned and drove across country to accept a job. And worked it for 22 years until (you're right) the crack houses moved into the neighborhood and the people explosion was on in the rural county I lived. Whereupon loaded the car and, without job prospects, moved back west, near home.
But you're right - probably wouldn't last a month in a real slum. I learned to support myself with honest work at a young age and don't quite get feeding at the public trough. In 63 years the closest I've come to that was to collect insurance payments and, while in college, accept some poached meat (or roadkill? Things were different then...) the cops gave to the welfare dept to hand out. Without refrigeration it was given to anyone that stepped through their door and word went through the college pretty rapidly each time it happened.
So you're probably right - I wouldn't last long in the slums without knowing how to play the system.
So thank you for clarifying by your own admission that you don't have the first idea what people in slums are like which was exactly my point.
You are great at making (incorrect) assumptions from your own admitted ignorance though
I know you think that tale of middle class "hardship" was supposed to show how meritocratic your life was but it really demonstrated the exact opposite, you have no idea how privileged an upbringing you had or the advantages it gave you.
Those "privileges" and "advantages" did not happen by chance except for perhaps basic good health. They were made, by hard work - hard work by both parents and I. Something that has become increasingly hard to find today as it has gone out of style in favor of playing the system.
Are you seriously that oblivious? Do you seriously think your parents would have been as well off as black people during segregation? Or as immigrants who did not speak the language? Or if either of them was widowed? Not to mention simple health is by no means a small privilege. etc. etc.
Not that it is relevant, it wasn't your work that gave you that privilege, you were born into it.
And because you don't have a scale of reference you can't even begin to understand the privilege you had and have. You can't begin begin to understand what it's like to try and study when you haven't eaten since the day before (if you got lucky), you can't understand what it's like to be born to a single and poor parent (let alone orphaned), you can't understand what it's like to grow amongst constant violence, to not be able to study because your parents couldn't afford the power bill to turn on the light, to regularly not be able to see a doctor when you are sick, you can't understand what a single parents goes through when they have to decide between working and leaving their child unparented in neighborhoods full of gangs more than happy to be surrogate parents.
I can't even explain all the things you can't understand about what you are talking about.
Touche' - much advantage was to be had by birth, especially when considering a small minority of people that didn't have it.
But much was not, as well. A work ethic was made, not born into. An attitude of "can do" and "take care of self" is the same. And I did say both parents and self made those advantages.
But being born into a slum without easy to find jobs isn't the end of the world, either, and that IS what we're talking about. Not the illegal alien that refuses to learn English (a real immigrant has to know it to become a citizen). Not the black man, watching the KKK walk the streets.
50 years ago people left the slums in swarms to make a life somewhere, but that is rare now. Why? Because they don't need to - because they can live just fine on charity?
It seems so. People CAN get out of the slums, at least if they haven't already made the decisions that lock them down there. They CAN leave, if only by walking and thumb. They just don't. They don't have to, they don't have any idea what it means to be self supporting, and they find no value in it. Thus we have a million or more multi-generational welfare moms, content to pop out a stream of babies for society to care for in return for more welfare.
Now you can pretend there aren't any such women, you can pretend that it is caused by being too stupid to work, but it isn't so. They are there because the welfare society we have created encourages such a thing and some people are all too happy to take advantage of it.
Um, not painful? Spoken very much like a man.
Figured that would get a response, although I AM surprised at how long it took.
I was too busy trying to figure out why the labors with my fourth and fifth kids felt like 22 and 16 hours respectfully when they only lasted a few minutes, I would have eventually gotten around to the not painful part...
I'm also kinda confused... since with the last, I lived an hour and a half away from the hospital. By your calculations, I would have been about 4 miles out of town... near the cattle farm... when I popped him out... apparently, much like one pops a piece of candy out of a pez dispenser.
I have never signed up for it but been through the process with friends. So I got to watch the interesting phenomenon by which chemicals in the brain make the mother forget most of the pain (presumably because otherwise nobody would every do it twice).
Day 1: That was so horrible I can't describe it. I hate my husband and will never have another child. Or sex. Ever again.
Day three: It was bad. I may have sex again, but never another baby.
Day 5: It wasn't that bad.
Day 30: Maybe little Bobby need a brother or sister.
ehhhhm it means if you have a baby both mother and child will receive proper medical care... That's all.
I don't see how getting medical care can ever increase your earnings...
You don't seem to have the slightest clue what medical insurance is all about. Let me educate you just a bit.
In it's simplest form, health insurance is a method of calculating your statistical average cost of using the health care system and paying just that amount (plus a small profit to the insurance company). Should you unexpectedly need more care it will cost no more. Should you unexpectedly need less care it will cost you no less. It's primary function is to eliminate the unexpected, bank busting needs that a few people come across against all the odds. It is not, and never was, intended to pay for day to day costs for ordinary and expected health care bills even though some people buy a policy that pays for that because they are constitutionally unable to save money. This is not brain surgery to figure out.
The ACA, on the other hand, doesn't care what your expected, statistically average, cost will be; it is designed to provide a minimum level of care to everyone, plus that same profit to the insurance companies. So the elderly man will pay for maternity care, not because he is statistically going to need it, but because it that money can be used to reduce the price to someone else. And the cost of birth control will be added to the policy of the same elderly person that will never use it, just to reduce the price the younger person would otherwise pay. The ACA is nothing more than a limited form of "share the wealth" and has nothing to do with insurance even though it is being promoted and sold as health care insurance.
But that is the nature of all insurance!
Your vehicle insurance covers a cost of x million dollars or pounds for personal injury or death to a third party although only a tiny percentage of those insured will ever have to claim that.
No John, it isn't.
You (at least in the US) pay car insurance based on a great deal of statistical data, data that gives a very good indication of what the average person just like you will pay for from accidents. They type of car, your past record, the accident record of others your sex or age, the cost to repair your car and even your credit score because people with low scores have more accidents.
The "insurance" in the ACA does none of that (except age and smoking) - none of the history or expected needs are factored into the cost for anyone. Instead the needs of the average person that lives in the US is used without regard to individual expectations. It is not "insurance" in any sense of the word even thought it word is used and it is promoted as such.
Did you write all that to say that this is a version of socialized medicine...?
Does anyone on the whole planet not know that by now?
I agree that there are those who do enjoy leeching off of welfare. I've come across a few. But there are those who need it and genuinely don't want to use it. The fact is that welfare (at least in Canada) barely pays the bills. My parents were immigrants, for example, and had to be on welfare when I was born. My mother, having a Master's degree, found a job as a scientist about three years later and just recently retired after reaching a salary of $75,000 a year.
My point is that, yes, people leech, but you can't say that we've created a "welfare society". Welfare wasn't created to help lazy people flourish. It was meant to give people a break while they pick themselves up. Frankly, if you're upset about taxpayers footing the bill for lazy people, take a look at the stellar benefits and retirement packages given to corrupt and apathetic politicians...on our dime.
If you're going to criticize welfare as being bad because people abuse it, then the same can be said for capitalism. There are CEOs and other executives who cheat on their taxes, embezzle, engage in insider trading, deceive shareholders, etc. Employees engage in dishonest practices to sell products or get ahead. Are we to say that a free market economy is bad because a few unscrupulous people abuse it?
You are 100% correct in that there are some people that need the welfare system for a while. And that that is why it was built.
It has changed, though. While Canada may pay only minimum amounts, it isn't that way in the US. Here, it isn't hard to get double or more of what workers supporting themselves can earn, all for doing nothing. One of the results is that more and more people used only welfare to live on - a productive job just isn't necessary.
So yes, welfare needs criticized just as politicians and parts of capitalism does. It can be improved and should be.
Though only a man I do know the experience is different for every woman. For example, my first born (or rather my partners) took about two hours from the waters breaking to independence with nothing more than discomfort whereas my current partners daughter was in (painful) labour for about 48 hours until they gave her a C-section.
Each labor is different, even with the same woman. Shorter, btw, doesn't necessarily mean less painful either. My shortest (my third) was only three hours long, but the pain was literally beyond description.
I also don't know what process that psycheskinner is talking about where we forget the pain. I remember every second of it... in detail... very clear detail.
by karl 5 years ago
I must admit I have heard this said for sometime but those with their allegiance towards the left leaning politics of the UK have always resisted such suggestions.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … truth.htmlShould we face up to the facts or sweep them under the carpet in the name of...
by CsguyinOR 9 years ago
How long does an Employer have to appeal an Unemployment Insurance claim?I was recently approved for Unemployment Benefits becasue my employer failed to respond to the given letter. Are they allowed to appeal without responding in the first place? If so, how long do they have to appeal...
by My Esoteric 23 months ago
One of the first things conservatives want to do is repeal the ACA individual mandate designed to get healthy people into the insurance exchanges. Without them, premium costs WILL skyrocket ... meaning "if you think the 2017 rate hike was bad, you have seen nothing yet". As...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
(6 or more children per household) in the postmodern, 21st century United States, being fully cognizant of the fact that they will be subjecting their children to an extremely rudimentary and primitive socioeconomic living standard, even socioeconomic penury and poverty? Countless studies...
by Stacie L 6 years ago
Fla. bill would ban buying sweets with food stampsBy KELLI KENNEDYupdated 2/5/2012 8:51:18 AM ETFORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. Florida's poor can use food stamps to buy staples like milk, vegetables, fruits and meat. But they can also use them to buy sweets like cakes, cookies and Jell-O and snack foods...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
Disclaimer: Not addressing the hard working poor who are trying to better lives for their families; the underemployed; the unemployed; the needy elderly; the physically, mentally, emotionally, and psychologically handicapped who CAN'T help themselves; and, those who fell temporarily upon hard...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|