- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 16,763
- Reaction score
- 4,344
- Location
- Melbourne Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Ah, deflection and a rant. You know exactly what I am talking about. Anyone that does not or says that they cannont work based on a medical condition.Uhmmmmm....let's see now. Medical professionals per visit can cost anywhere from about 150.00 to 550.00 depending on what kind of medical provider. So how will this work? Who's paying for these medical screening requirements? What are they to look for? Can they assess a person without doing any diagnostic tests?
And given the number of medical professionals per the number of those who would be seen by medical professionals...how many years will pass before all of those folks will be screened?
But given that those who receive any money because of medical reasons - well, eligibility is already based on medical professional diagnosis and treatment plans.
I'm still wondering about what population your talking about. Any random person is receives anything from the government? Or for specific medical reasons via SSI? Who are you talking about?
If it means keeping people and businesses honest and unable to receive free handouts at the expense of everyone then sure.
It'd be scary if GM went under but the market does indeed (and I know this will sound cliche) have built in mechanisms in order to ensure that what goes down must come up. No one should be entitled to economic handouts. Ever.
We have a cultural problem in America, particularly inner city, with people living on public money and not being productive members of society.
Part of the problem is that underclass inner city women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work.
The inner city men who are part of the problem also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support.
I once asked a 19 year old with no job and no schooling from the inner city, "What do you do all day?”
“You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.
Should we change that? Should we get rid of the handouts and end welfare?
Nothing wrong with the old soup kitchen. I don't believe in letting people starve, but let's get rid of food stamps, welfare payments, and other bs government giveaways.
Let's make these people learn personal responsibility
you make valid points
but....when "we" suggest those kids be allowed to go to charter schools to get out from under that issue....that idea is shot down faster than the ending of welfare
so we have a never ending cycle.....and it is NOT betting better, no matter how much money is thrown at it
so....give me solutions.....real, valid solutions
i am listening
If lots of net taxpayers were to move, NY would have to be less generous to the public teat suckers
The single most important thing to do continuously is to strive for the re-building of human dignity .. Most poor have this not , IMO ..
I note that we have misanthropes here (haters of their fellow man) .. at least , that is the impression I receive from the Turtle and others ..
These people can emote a lot but contribute nothing of value .
Love is necessary .
There are ways to structure social safety nets that mitigate or minimize the damage that you are describing. Get rid of welfare? No, but reform it, sharply, to at least stop punishing good decisions and rewarding bad ones.
YES, it is ... I think this exposes the hate, the misanthropes ..
The liberals, the progressives must take charge here and come up with solutions ...
Sounds wonderful. And I completely agree. How do we do that?There are ways to structure social safety nets that mitigate or minimize the damage that you are describing. Get rid of welfare? No, but reform it, sharply, to at least stop punishing good decisions and rewarding bad ones.
Only because they're not throwing money at me.Throwing money at things is not always...usually not IMO...a solution.
Ah, deflection and a rant. You know exactly what I am talking about. Anyone that does not or says that they cannont work based on a medical condition.
And there are millions of them. I know a few.
Well enough to go boating, riding ATVs, hunting, jeeping etc etc etc. Yet, backs and such are too screwed up to hold any meaningful job.
I see this idea touted-around a lot lately, and it is interesting with a fair amount of merit, but it still becomes a form of means-tested benefit IMO, and I have problems with any form of means testing as a way to segregate sub-groups of fellow Americans.It is a cheaper way of constructing a net to catch people before they drop out of society. It needs no bureaucracy and is too small to let people stay on dole.
Sounds wonderful. And I completely agree. How do we do that?
Throwing money at things is not always...usually not IMO...a solution.
Exactly!Only because they're not throwing money at me.
Treat those on welfare like students. Give them money to better themselves but tack it to a high interest rate and make them pay it back when they are done with welfare/time allowed on it.
If it's good enough for broke students trying to advance themselves it should be good enough for those not in school and would ensure when they get out or run out of welfare time that they'll seek jobs to pay back their non-bankruptcy erasable debt that can dip into their tax returns and have severe legal consequences for being delinquent on.
I see this idea touted-around a lot lately, and it is interesting with a fair amount of merit, but it still becomes a form of means-tested benefit IMO, and I have problems with any form of means testing as a way to segregate sub-groups of fellow Americans.
I agree with all your saying, except my vote would be a pure GMI (Guaranteed Minimum Income). Just like a single-payer health system, everyone receives equal benefit.
(I would keep the benefit very low)
I wasn't deflecting or ranting. A million of them...you want medically diagnosed so government can decide to pay or not. How do you think claims are made...without any medical diagnosis?
I see this idea touted-around a lot lately, and it is interesting with a fair amount of merit, but it still becomes a form of means-tested benefit IMO, and I have problems with any form of means testing as a way to segregate sub-groups of fellow Americans.
I agree with all your saying, except my vote would be a pure GMI (Guaranteed Minimum Income). Just like a single-payer health system, everyone receives equal benefit.
(I would keep the benefit very low)
Lots of doctors sign off on all kinds of crap that people take to the SSI office.
To fix things, sometimes you have spend a great deal of cash to eventually get a savings. That's just how many things are.So then how does your 'solution' fix that if that's what you suggested? Do they need multiple opinions/doctor sign off then?
That sounds even more expensive. And I'm not aware that the majority of welfare recipients use medical excuses....is that true? Is it a highly significant number, even if not a majority? What can you offer as substantiation?
Well, your tax system is not 'true' means testing, but it is 'income' testing, and will still have many of the same detrimental effects.No. No means testing.
To fix things, sometimes you have spend a great deal of cash to eventually get a savings. That's just how many things are.
But doing nothing is just making us broke.
Well, your tax system is not 'true' means testing, but it is 'income' testing, and will still have many of the same detrimental effects.
Tying benefits to income has all kinds of negative effects - scamming, disincentive, underground economies, etc. If a benefit is universal (like a single-payer healthcare system or guaranteed basic income), everyone has incentive to work harder to add above & beyond their base benefit, since work & higher income will not decrease the benefit.
With the systems I'm describing, there's no incentive to lay-back or work for cash.
The current social systems are rife with individuals who will stop their traceable income at specific amounts due to income testing - those are negative-enforcement systems, and I believe they should be avoided. Obamacare included.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?