December 21, 20169 yr Author 100% lifetime welfare is an example . Agreed but how do you take care of the child without it?
December 21, 20169 yr Author Is this thread not about health insurance? Actually this thread is about political decisions and ramifications and not specifically health insurance. But...as is often the case we get off on tangents. The comment was made that "survival of the fittest" is the way to go BUT you still take care of children. I'm saying it can't be both.
December 21, 20169 yr I lean toward his train of thought . But I compromise on my principles to protect those who can't help themselves. The elderly and the very young. But even then within many limitations. I don't think the mother should benefit from having a child with other peoples money regardless. Correct, although I lean towards only the young. :thumb: The mother benefits none from the child being cared for. Once they hit 18, the gravy train runs out.
December 21, 20169 yr Author Correct, although I lean towards only the young. :thumb: The mother benefits none from the child being cared for. Once they hit 18, the gravy train runs out. How does the mother not benefit ?
December 21, 20169 yr How does the mother not benefit ? How does she benefit? She's not given anything.
December 21, 20169 yr Author How does she benefit? She's not given anything. Does she get a check to take care of her kids?
December 21, 20169 yr Does she get a check to take care of her kids? Hell no. The child has insurance coverage and that's the extent of it. She gets nothing.
December 21, 20169 yr Author Hell no. The child has insurance coverage and that's the extent of it. She gets nothing. You going to let the child eat? You going to let the child have a place to live?
December 21, 20169 yr You going to let the child eat? You going to let the child have a place to live? That's on the mother. She can get a job.
December 21, 20169 yr Author That's on the mother. She can get a job. ..and there's the downfall to your stance. You can't let the child starve nor live on the street because Mom doesn't have a job.
December 21, 20169 yr ..and there's the downfall to your stance. You can't let the child starve nor live on the street because Mom doesn't have a job. Life's not fair. You can't hold a job, don't have kids. How about a little personal responsibility? I'd argue that you and I aren't letting the child starve, the Mom is. It's not a downfall to anything. You don't agree with it, cool. Doesn't change my opinion or make me believe what I do any less. If anything, it reinforces my beliefs.
December 21, 20169 yr Want me to tell you how to keep the pre-existing? Put some controls on the cost of prescription meds. That, in turn, will make for an affordable rider (or inclusion) in most policies. Reduce limits on how long a drug can remain on the market without a generic alternative. Oh, there are a hundred more ways, but let some of the drug companies start to feel some regulation and we can have some relief on the insurance side. No give with the drug companies, only take. They've gone without much oversight for decades because of their enormous lobby. I'd start there. That sounds like something I'd have said... scary, spindoc, very scary.
December 21, 20169 yr Agreed but how do you take care of the child without it? Set time limits and incentives to get a job or skill set. There is no reason and it's dumb business on the governments part to just hand out money to someone for a lifetime and that person not to advance at all.
December 21, 20169 yr People should have to prove that they can't (due to physical limitations) work while on any government assistance, otherwise they should have to work for the government.
December 21, 20169 yr Author Life's not fair. You can't hold a job, don't have kids. How about a little personal responsibility? I'd argue that you and I aren't letting the child starve, the Mom is. It's not a downfall to anything. You don't agree with it, cool. Doesn't change my opinion or make me believe what I do any less. If anything, it reinforces my beliefs. Let me just make sure I'm following your line of thinking. A mom has a child. Mom is poor. Mom can't afford a place to live for her child and/or food for her child. You're saying you're not giving the mother welfare/food stamps in order to feed and house her child? Before you say "let her live with family" let's just assume that's not an option. She has no other source of support. Let's say she has a job but it's not enough to support her child. You're going to let the child die just so you can hang on to your belief that the govt should not give money to parents?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.