View Full Version : Bush Quietly Taking Away Our Health Care Too
He wants individuals to pay for their own bare bones health insurance and to take it out of the responsibility of employers. Big surprise.
Published on Monday, January 31, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Healthcare Overhaul Is Quietly Underway
by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
WASHINGTON — Emboldened by their success at the polls, the Bush administration and Republican leaders in Congress believe they have a new opportunity to move the nation away from the system of employer-provided health insurance that has covered most working Americans for the last half-century.
In its place, they want to erect a system in which workers — instead of looking to employers for health insurance — would take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families: They would buy high-deductible "catastrophic" insurance policies to cover major medical needs, then pay routine costs with money set aside in tax-sheltered health savings accounts.
Elements of that approach have been on the conservative agenda for years, but what has suddenly put it on the fast track is GOP confidence that the political balance of power has changed.
With Democratic strength reduced, President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield) are pushing for action.
Supporters of the new approach, who see it as part of Bush's "ownership society," say workers and their families would become more careful users of healthcare if they had to pay the bills. Also, they say, the lower premiums on high-deductible plans would make coverage affordable for the uninsured and for small businesses.
"My view is that this is absolutely the next big thing," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose consulting firm focuses on healthcare. "You are going to see a continued move to trying to get people involved in the process by owning their own health accounts."
Critics say the Republican approach is really an attempt to shift the risks, massive costs and knotty problems of healthcare from employers to individuals. And they say the GOP is moving forward with far less public attention or debate than have surrounded Bush's plans to overhaul Social Security.
Indeed, Bush's health insurance agenda is far more developed than his Social Security plans and is advancing at a rapid clip through a combination of actions by government, insurers, employers and individuals.
Health savings accounts, known as HSAs, have already been approved. They were created as a little-noticed appendage to the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.
HSAs have had a strong start in the marketplace. Although regulations spelling out how they would work were not issued until mid-2004, as of Sept. 30, about 440,000 people had signed up. And more than one-quarter of employers say they are likely to offer them as an option.
The accounts are available only to people who buy high-deductible health insurance, either through an employer or individually. Consumers can set aside tax-free an amount equal to their deductible. Employers can contribute to workers' HSAs but do not have to. Unused balances can be rolled over from year to year, and employees take their HSAs with them when they switch jobs.
The idea that losing one's job would not automatically mean losing protection for medical costs has bipartisan appeal. "Portability" was a key feature of President Clinton's ill-fated healthcare reform plan. But the GOP approach is significantly different: Whereas Clinton would have required all employers to chip in for universal health insurance, Bush wants to leave responsibility primarily to individuals.
"This is certainly getting a lot of attention from employers," said Jack Rodgers, a healthcare analyst for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
One reason is potential cost savings to employers.
A typical catastrophic health insurance plan carries an annual deductible of about $1,600 for an individual when purchased through a large employer. That means the worker pays the first $1,600 of healthcare expenses each year. By contrast, under the more comprehensive, employer-provided health insurance programs common today, the company begins to pay after about $300 in expenses have been incurred. Deductibles for families are considerably higher under both types of plans.
"There's an issue about whether these things will work," Rodgers said. "[But] we could end up coming back 10 years from now and everybody will have high-deductible plans and [health savings accounts]."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who agrees with Bush that individuals should take more responsibility for controlling health costs, is nonetheless skeptical that HSAs, coupled with high-deductible insurance, will prove workable as a substitute for the present system.
"I think the American people are going to want more of a safety net than the administration has been willing to commit to this far," Wyden said.
Still, catastrophic health insurance is gaining credibility as a policy option.
The California Medical Assn. supports a plan that would require all residents of the most populous state to carry at least high-deductible coverage — just as automobile liability insurance is often mandatory. White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush was not contemplating such a requirement at the federal level.
But the existence of health savings accounts may make it easier to enact state mandates such as the California proposal.
Despite the record federal budget deficit, Bush on Wednesday proposed additional tax breaks and subsidies for HSAs, particularly for low-income families. He also called for a tax credit to help small businesses offer the plans to their employees. The low-income aid would be worth a maximum of $3,000 per family.
"Health savings accounts all aim at empowering people to make decisions for themselves, owning their own healthcare plan," the president said. Consumer-driven decision-making is more likely to control costs than having bills paid by a third party, such as an employer, he added.
"If a third party makes that payment, [the consumer] never gets to ask the question [about cost]," Bush said. "He just accepts the decision. And all of a sudden, when you have consumers starting to ask questions about cost, it is a governor on cost, at the very minimum."
During his confirmation hearings, incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt called for renewing the national debate over the future of the healthcare system and spoke of "the transformational need of detaching healthcare and employment."
Critics say that Bush's vision represents wishful thinking at best, and at worst, a perilous new direction in national health policy.
"One danger with this is that people will not get needed care because they want to save a few thousand bucks," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward), a leading lawmaker on healthcare.
"Healthcare isn't like buying a Chevrolet," Stark added, disputing Bush's assertion that individual patients can be empowered to control costs. "You can go to Consumer Reports and read about the new Malibu, but if I asked you to describe a regimen of chemotherapy for someone who has colon cancer, you'd be out of gas.
"We are talking about highly technical services that 99% of the public doesn't even know how to spell the names of," he said. "Secondly, there is no uniformity within the medical community as to what services ought to be used. It's a 'by guess and by gosh' sort of practice."
The combination of HSAs and catastrophic insurance is too new for any definitive data on how consumers are faring.
A study released Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that supports research on healthcare policy, found that people with high-deductible policies were more likely to have trouble paying medical bills than those in traditional insurance plans. They were also more likely to skip care because of cost.
The study did not look at the combination of high-deductible plans with HSAs, but the report cautioned that the savings accounts might not solve all the problems.
Many experts believe HSAs could quickly become one of the main ways to obtain health insurance for people working in small companies or buying coverage on their own.
Workers at large companies with standard health plans may be less likely to experiment with HSAs, although many large employers are already requiring their workers to shoulder a bigger share of health insurance costs. The existence of a government-sanctioned alternative to the traditional system might accelerate that trend.
"We are not trying to do one big change for the whole country, all at once — like what sunk Hillary-care," said Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization that promotes conservative, market-based health reform.
We want to let people choose this if it meets their needs, and not rip out the underpinnings of the current system."
But even the most ardent backers of HSAs concede that the country is not fully ready for them. They say critics such as Stark are correct to point out that there is little information available to consumers for comparing the costs of various medical options.
In a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Frist called for what would amount to a healthcare information revolution. Within the next decade, he said, patients should be able to gain online access to performance rankings and prices for doctors and hospitals.
"Increased access to more accurate information about care and pricing will make possible … the transformation of the healthcare system," Frist wrote. "Whether selecting their physician, hospital or health plan, consumers must be able to choose what best meets their needs."
A comprehensive system of healthcare information would be costly to create, and perhaps challenging for patients to navigate. On Thursday, Bush proposed some initial steps, such as computerized medical records and standardized information technology for medical offices.
His vision of an empowered patient calling the shots may stand little chance without a new information infrastructure.
Gingrich acknowledged: "You can't have an informed marketplace in a setting where you don't have any information."
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Faithless
01-31-2005, 11:16 AM
I can't trust Bush on this issue, since he was supported by the Healthcare industry to a large degree.
But is he saying that his plan would bring down healthcare costs significantly? If it doesn't then who gives a shit what he thinks?
SunWuKong
01-31-2005, 11:54 AM
i would agree with the Republicans on this issue if they lower my damn taxes!
but they'd probably just pass any savings to the government that can possibly arise to the Iraq War.
Yeahman
01-31-2005, 01:46 PM
i would agree with the Republicans on this issue if they lower my damn taxes!
but they'd probably just pass any savings to the government that can possibly arise to the Iraq War.
It shouldn't affect taxes at all. Currently businesses are required to provide employees with health insurance. Bush just wants people to be able to spend that money whereever they want. I rarely agree with an entire Republican bill proposal, but this I definately agree with. It would easy some of the downward pressure on wages. Companies can still offer health insurance but now the people have a choice.
Just eliminate Medicare/aid and replace it with a tax cut for the poor and universal coverage via vouchers for children, and we would have the perfect health insurance system. Healthcare costs is a whole other topic.
SunWuKong
01-31-2005, 02:16 PM
It shouldn't affect taxes at all. Currently businesses are required to provide employees with health insurance. Bush just wants people to be able to spend that money whereever they want.
to assume that people can just spend that money however they want would require that businesses give people equitable raises if they do not provide health care. firstly, there's no legislation to guarantee that, secondly, good luck trying to get a raise that actually equates what you'd lose in health care!
from my own personal experience, i know that many employees from big companies like IBM, Lockheed, and Unisys haven't even been getting raises for the past year or two. i mean, shit, at least give enough of a raise to cover inflation.
and unless businesses spend the money saved from the cut in health care costs, instead of letting it become profit, they would effectively be taxed more, and the government would get more money.
Faithless
02-18-2005, 12:53 AM
It's interesting that monster.com (http://content.salary.monster.com/articles/consumerhealthcare/) has this article explaining this new healthcare cost fashion.
Given a choice, why would anyone want to take a job with an employer who says you gotta pay more of your healthcare costs than we normally would?
A problem that is being seen with CDHP (HSA's) --
Coping with the high deductibles.
New health plans worsen hospitals' bad debt (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6967029/)
By Brian Bandell
South Florida Business Journal
Updated: 7:00 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2005Because many new health plans carry higher deductibles, Baptist Health South Florida has found it more difficult to collect on its debts from patients.
The south Miami-Dade County nonprofit hospital system piled up $131 million in bad debt in 2004, an increase of 254 percent from 1999. With high-deductible health savings accounts (HSAs) being introduced with President George W. Bush's backing and studies showing employers shifting more health care costs to workers, Baptist and other Florida hospitals worry that the stack of unpaid bills will only grow higher.
"We see over time that, as patients are required to pay more out of pocket, our bad debt goes up," said Eric Shatanof, Baptist's corporate VP for managed care and network development. "There are a large percentage of the patient portions that people just don't pay."
Consumer-driven health plans, such as HSAs, are being touted as a way to ease rising health care costs by prompting patients to make more cost-conscious decisions. If they empty their annual spending account, they're left with a high-deductible plan where they might have to pay thousands of dollars before the insurance provider picks up the majority of the coverage.
Many traditional HMOs have also been increasing co-payments for workers on prescription drugs and emergency room visits.
This means hospitals will increasingly rely on billing large numbers of patients, rather than a handful of HMOs that are more reliable payers, Shatanof said. The situation is forcing Baptist to spend more resources on collecting payments.
"With more transfer of costs to patients, it's more important we collect every time on that patient portion," he said. "If it becomes a significant portion of our revenue, we can't afford to leave any of it on the table anymore."
The amount of bad debt is exacerbated in South Florida by a comparatively high number of uninsured patients who often don't pay for hospital services after not qualifying for charity care.
South Florida hospitals recorded $1.04 billion in bad debt in 2003, according to Agency for Health Care Administration data complied by health care analyst Allan Baumgarten, of Minneapolis. When combined with $1.26 billion written off as charity care, the uncompensated care at the region's hospitals accounted for 11.2 percent of billed revenue.
Hospitals have been warning HMOs about bad debt for nearly a year as the consumer-driven plans have gained steam and now members of both industries are ready to bring the issue to Tallahassee.
HCA Healthcare Corp., which owns 44 Florida hospitals, including 11 in South Florida, is lobbying state legislators to introduce a bill that would sponsor a committee to study the issue for a year.
Solutions can't be proposed until there's comprehensive data on bad debt, HCA government relations specialist Brian Anderson said.
Bad debt at hospitals is a statewide problem because it's a major factor in the rapidly rising cost of health care, said Ralph Glatfelter, senior VP of the Florida Hospital Association, which plans to bring the proposal for a legislative review committee to its board.
"There is no free lunch. Somebody has to pay for the bad debt," he said. "The only way hospitals survive it is by increasing the cost of what they charge to the HMOs, which in turn increases the cost of employer-paid and consumer health insurance. It's a vicious cycle."
Hospitals often estimate a percentage of services they can't collect on and negotiate that amount plus inflation into contracts with HMOs, said Joe Berding, CEO of Hollywood-based Vista Healthplan. He agrees with hospitals that shifting more cost to patients is leading to bad debt for health care providers. Vista is joining the hospitals in asking the state to study the issue.
One payment issue that people on both sides say needs to be addressed is identifying patients' financial obligations upon admission.
Hospitals are struggling to determine whether patients have enough in their health plan accounts to cover a procedure or must pay a costly deductible - and whether they can afford it, said Stephanie Alexander, a health care attorney with Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale. She's telling clients such as HCA, the Memorial Healthcare System and the North Broward Hospital District to adjust their billing systems.
"If hospitals get wrong information, they won't get paid," Alexander said. "They need to verify the type of coverage and make sure that if the patient's responsibility is a large one they track it."
Hospitals should require up-front payments from patients with high-deductible plans like HSAs, she said.
Baptist has a policy of asking for up-front payment in all non-emergency procedures, Shatanof said. But that doesn't apply to emergency care, where hospitals are legally required to treat patients regardless of insurance.
The hospital works with patients who have difficulty paying, but it has never sued a patient over a debt, Shatanof said.
"Fewer people are paying what the cost of health care is."
AliBabaIncorporated
02-18-2005, 08:02 AM
Man, all this negativity. Look on the bright side: the more people who get killed off young by crappy medical care, the less benefits Social Security has to pay out. The system will be solvent for centuries!
hooligan
02-18-2005, 08:28 AM
I spend eight hours a day working with chemicals and samples that contain a lot of carcinogens and if I'm going to sacrifice my day like that, there better be some benefits for me. Taxes don't seem that bad right now, then again, I'm a single, young, working male. Do NOT take away healthcare, do not let Bush do this ish.
Yeahman
02-18-2005, 08:53 AM
to assume that people can just spend that money however they want would require that businesses give people equitable raises if they do not provide health care. firstly, there's no legislation to guarantee that, secondly, good luck trying to get a raise that actually equates what you'd lose in health care!
from my own personal experience, i know that many employees from big companies like IBM, Lockheed, and Unisys haven't even been getting raises for the past year or two. i mean, shit, at least give enough of a raise to cover inflation.
and unless businesses spend the money saved from the cut in health care costs, instead of letting it become profit, they would effectively be taxed more, and the government would get more money.
Eliminating the corporate income tax is a whole other crusade.
But you're right that people will not get raises equal to the loss of healthcare, though that could be negotiated. I suspect that unions would demand raises if mandatory employer healthcare is abolished. Currently healthcare is a business cost just like materials and labor. I don't think I need to explain what increasing costs can do to a business and the economy.
And a lot of people seem to be angry at corporate profits. Our economy grows thanks in large part to the reinvestment of these profits. And if we were allowed to invest Social Security on our own we could even share in the profits through dividends.
Given a choice, why would anyone want to take a job with an employer who says you gotta pay more of your healthcare costs than we normally would?
Which is exactly why we don't need mandatory employer provided healthcare. Employers can still offer health insurance if they want. They just wouldn't be required to. The free market is a great thing, isn't it?
A problem that is being seen with CDHP (HSA's) --
Coping with the high deductibles.
It's stupid IMO. I agree with putting an end to requiring employers to provide healthcare but Bush's alternative is pretty crappy.
"I rarely agree with an entire Republican bill proposal, but this I definately agree with."
I take that back.
For a while I was leaning towards universal healthcare for children only but I'm back to leaning towards universal healthcare for all again.
I spend eight hours a day working with chemicals and samples that contain a lot of carcinogens and if I'm going to sacrifice my day like that, there better be some benefits for me. Taxes don't seem that bad right now, then again, I'm a single, young, working male. Do NOT take away healthcare, do not let Bush do this ish.
You mean don't let your employer take away healthcare. Bush is just leaving the option open.
hooligan
02-18-2005, 08:55 AM
Eliminating the corporate income tax is a whole other crusade.
But you're right that people will not get raises equal to the loss of healthcare, though that could be negotiated. I suspect that unions would demand raises if mandatory employer healthcare is abolished. Currently healthcare is a business cost just like materials and labor. I don't think I need to explain what increasing costs can do to a business and the economy.
And a lot of people seem to be angry at corporate profits. Our economy grows thanks in large part to the reinvestment of these profits. And if we were allowed to invest Social Security on our own we could even share in the profits through dividends.
Which is exactly why we don't need mandatory employer provided healthcare. Employers can still offer health insurance if they want. They just wouldn't be required to. The free market is a great thing, isn't it?
It's stupid IMO. I agree with putting an end to requiring employers to provide healthcare but Bush's alternative is pretty crappy.
"I rarely agree with an entire Republican bill proposal, but this I definately agree with."
I take that back.
For a while I was leaning towards universal healthcare for children only but I'm back to leaning towards universal healthcare for all again.
You mean don't let your employer take away healthcare. Bush is just leaving the option open.
See, I think we need mandatory healthcare, that will keep businesses accountable for their employees.
Faithless
02-18-2005, 01:24 PM
...
It's stupid IMO. I agree with putting an end to requiring employers to provide healthcare but Bush's alternative is pretty crappy.
"I rarely agree with an entire Republican bill proposal, but this I definately agree with."
I take that back.
...
I'm a gonna piss my pants! You're taking something back.
You are for-reals. :rolleyes:
SunWuKong
02-18-2005, 01:54 PM
But you're right that people will not get raises equal to the loss of healthcare, though that could be negotiated. I suspect that unions would demand raises if mandatory employer healthcare is abolished. Currently healthcare is a business cost just like materials and labor. I don't think I need to explain what increasing costs can do to a business and the economy.
well, for the fact in and of itself that there's no guarantee that employees will get pay raises equal to the cost of healthcare, i'm still in support of mandatory healthcare.
And a lot of people seem to be angry at corporate profits. Our economy grows thanks in large part to the reinvestment of these profits. And if we were allowed to invest Social Security on our own we could even share in the profits through dividends.
economic growth does not necessarily benefit all aspects of society unless there is legislation to ensure that it also benefits the poor and middle class. the problem i have is the disparity of pay and benefits between the menial workers and physical labourers who wreck their bodies 40+ hours a week and get paid minimum wage or a little above, and the high-end CEOs who sit in chairs all day and make 6 or 7-figure salaries.
but social security is another issue. i'm all for private accounts, but i'm not too excited about the government making investment choices for us. it would be better if somehow we retain investment choice.
the problem i have is the disparity of pay and benefits between the menial workers and physical labourers who wreck their bodies 40+ hours a week and get paid minimum wage or a little above, and the high-end CEOs who sit in chairs all day and make 6 or 7-figure salaries.
menial workers and physical labourers had a happy, care-free childhood, watching tv and running on the streets, while high-end CEO was studying hard.
they get what they deserve.
Once upon a time, there was a country (USSR), where doctors were paid the same salary as a cab drivers. It ended badly.
Napoleon Chynamite
06-07-2005, 06:36 AM
^What you're saying would make sense if the following were true:
1) The laughable notion that everyone has the same amount of opportunity in this country to succeed and become some big-shot CEO as long as they study hard.
2) The laughable notion that all high-end CEO's had tougher childhoods and worked harder than physical laborers and menial workers when they were children.
3) The laughable notion that even given the first 2, workers deserve a lifetime of shitty pay and high-end CEO's deserve a lifetime of extremely high pay (again, only assuming if the first 2 are true, which of course, they aren't).
1) ...everyone has the same amount of opportunity in this country to succeed and become some big-shot CEO as long as they study hard.
Educated people earn more then uneducated, true?
Kids have choice to read and study or to play ball and jump on the streets. I haven't heard of a person who has been good student and ended up physical laborer.
2)... all high-end CEO's had tougher childhoods and worked harder than physical laborers and menial workers when they were children.all high-end CEO's studied more and harder than physical laborers and menial workers when they were children.
3) ...workers deserve a lifetime of shitty pay and high-end CEO's deserve a lifetime of extremely high pay
All workers deserve what is market rate for their skills, if the market rate for educated CEO is $ 100,000,000.00 then it will be difficult to hire him for 80,000,000.00
And if uneducated worker has skills that nobody will buy for more then $ 5.00 then he deserve this $ 5.00
If you feel that he deserves more, give him some of YOUR money, but don't try to force entrpreuners to pay him just because it is fair in your opinion.
"Fair" distribution of wealth has been attempted in many communist countries, it sucks, people run away from it.
I haven't heard of a person who has been good student and ended up physical laborer.
So because you haven't heard of it, it doesn't happen? You're obviously insulated from the world away from TV.
So because you haven't heard of it, it doesn't happen? You're obviously insulated from the world away from TV.
Could you, please, show me somebody after college who works as physical labourer?
SunWuKong
06-07-2005, 11:56 AM
Could you, please, show me somebody after college who works as physical labourer?
there are plenty of graduates who studied something that's not very marketable and ended up waiting tables. fine arts majors, for example. and there are plenty of science degrees that'll basically require you to get a PhD, or at the very least a Master's degree, before you can be hired to do work in the field, like chemistry or psychology. i even have a friend who has a generic BA in "Business" and he's an assistant manager at some clothing store, which just means he's an over-glorified salesperson.
Could you, please, show me somebody after college who works as physical labourer?
We're on an internet forum. Your request is not practical.
I've met plenty who went to college and end up in jobs that don't require college. I used to work with a waiter who had his degree in biology. I know a man right now who has a master's degree in physical education and is working as a security guard.
there are plenty of graduates who studied something that's not very marketable and ended up waiting tables. fine arts majors, for example. and there are plenty of science degrees that'll basically require you to get a PhD, or at the very least a Master's degree, before you can be hired to do work in the field, like chemistry or psychology. i even have a friend who has a generic BA in "Business" and he's an assistant manager at some clothing store, which just means he's an over-glorified salesperson.All this people are having job in air-conditioned area, have you seen any of them working alongside illiterate mexicans on the fields?
And if they have spend time and money getting something that's not very marketable then they can blame themselves.
I would hire a plumber to fix my toilet, but if i need to talk about arts I can do it for free.
And if they have spend time and money getting something that's not very marketable then they can blame themselves.
I would hire a plumber to fix my toilet, but if i need to talk about arts I can do it for free.
So there's not anybody with education doing physical labor, but these people (who don't exist) who are working in physical labor are at fault themselves.. err uhh would be, if they existed. What?
SunWuKong
06-07-2005, 12:53 PM
All this people are having job in air-conditioned area, have you seen any of them working alongside illiterate mexicans on the fields?
that's beside the point. you could need healthcare even if you're sitting on your ass all day typing on a computer, it's called Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. just because someone is in an "air-conditioned area" or is not working "on the fields" doesn't mean they don't deserve healthcare.
i'll give you an even better example. i have an uncle that studied a lot of covert military technology because he went to college during the Reagan era and the Cold War was raging. he thought he would make good money. when he got out of college, the Cold War was over and he couldn't get a job.
And if they have spend time and money getting something that's not very marketable then they can blame themselves.
I would hire a plumber to fix my toilet, but if i need to talk about arts I can do it for free.
well, some of us would like to build a society that takes care to make sure its people have the basic necessities even if they're poor.
you could need healthcare even if you're sitting on your ass all day typing on a computer, it's called Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. just because someone is in an "air-conditioned area" or is not working "on the fields" doesn't mean they don't deserve healthcare. We started talking about menial workers and physical labourers who wreck their bodies 40+ hours a week and get paid minimum wage or a little above, and the high-end CEOs who sit in chairs all day, well
now you admit that "sitting on your ass all day" is also a work with health hazards, good!
i have an uncle that studied a lot of covert military technology because he went to college during the Reagan era and the Cold War was raging. he thought he would make good money. when he got out of college, the Cold War was over and he couldn't get a job. So what happen? Was he forced to work as physical labourer and couldn't afford health care? He probably didn't make "good money" but i bet he is not working as waiter since then.
some of us would like to build a society that takes care to make sure its people have the basic necessities even if they're poor. "a society that takes care to make sure its people have the basic necessities even if they're poor" has been built already.
It comes in two flavors:
1)"North Korea" (it is Hell for everybody except Dear Leader Kim and because of that it will end soon)
2)"Sweaden" (it is Paradise for everybody except for the Entrepreuners and because of that it will end soon)
So there's not anybody with education doing physical labor, but these people (who don't exist) who are working in physical labor are at fault themselves.. err uhh would be, if they existed. What?
Some educated people enjoy physical labor, but i don't believe that educated person has no other option but to work for all life as menial worker or physical labourer.
Short periods - yes, but if she/he sticks to physical labor then she/he likes it.
SunWuKong
06-07-2005, 02:02 PM
So what happen? Was he forced to work as physical labourer and couldn't afford health care? He probably didn't make "good money" but i bet he is not working as waiter since then.
he is working as a postman in NYC, which means he gets to walk the neighborhood he's responsible for carrying however many pounds of mail everyday. the only reason he's doing what he does now is because i have another uncle that's been a postman for years and got him the job. and before that, in fact, he was a waiter. the point is - he has a college education, and he's a physical labourer.
"a society that takes care to make sure its people have the basic necessities even if they're poor" has been built already.
It comes in two flavors:
1)"North Korea" (it is Hell for everybody except Dear Leader Kim and because of that it will end soon)
2)"Sweaden" (it is Paradise for everybody except for the Entrepreuners and because of that it will end soon)
this is the first time i've heard of the coming collapse of Sweden.
anyway, it's a little unimaginative to think that we must either follow the Swedish model or the North Korean model. i have no problem with taxing the rich or big business enough to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it.
and by the way, Kim Jong Il is hardly making sure that poor North Koreans have all the necessities that they need.
menial workers and physical labourers had a happy, care-free childhood, watching tv and running on the streets, while high-end CEO was studying hard.
they get what they deserve.
that's a possibility. another possibility is that they grew up in a poor family that can't afford to send them to higher education, and they're making minimum wage, paycheck to paycheck. maybe their parents screwed up, or maybe their grandparents screwed up, who knows. or hey, maybe their parents weren't allowed to have certain opportunities because they lived in the pre-Civil Rights era.
besides, thinking that working hard will naturally give you a great life rests as much on the assumption of unlimitted resources as Marxism does.
this is the first time i've heard of the coming collapse of Sweden.
anyway, it's a little unimaginative to think that we must either follow the Swedish model or the North Korean model. i have no problem with taxing the rich or big business enough to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it.
and by the way, Kim Jong Il is hardly making sure that poor North Koreans have all the necessities that they need.
I never said about coming collapse of Sweden, I'm saying that welfare state is unsustainable. You can find plenty info on present and future welfare cuts in Sweden.
Those who can not work should depend on charities, if social activists try to force the rich to pay for the poor, the rich will leave the country, like they left Cuba, North Korea etc.
Kim Jong Il would gladly make sure that poor North Koreans have all the necessities that they need, but he can not.
YOu have pefect example of country full of HARD WORKING koreans who are not being robbed by greedy CEOs, but they are starving. In South Korea people are exploited by greedy MNCs but somehow they are better off.
another possibility is that they grew up in a poor family that can't afford to send them to higher education, and they're making minimum wage, paycheck to paycheck. maybe their parents screwed up, or maybe their grandparents screwed up, who knows. or hey, maybe their parents weren't allowed to have certain opportunities because they lived in the pre-Civil Rights era.
besides, thinking that working hard will naturally give you a great life rests as much on the assumption of unlimitted resources as Marxism does.
Working hard might give you nothing, studying hard will more likely give you comfortable life.
I don't mind to pay some money for vaccinations and sterilizations of poor people (voluntary of course, hey that good idea - offer money to getto girls if they agree to be sterilized) but why should i pay for cancer treatment of some smoker?
SunWuKong
06-07-2005, 03:10 PM
Those who can not work should depend on charities,
charities? tell me you're kidding. that's not going to be enough for anybody.
if social activists try to force the rich to pay for the poor, the rich will leave the country, like they left Cuba, North Korea etc.
the rich and the middle class are already paying for government-backed welfare for the poor. we can agree to disagree, but i don't see it as a black and white issue. i can agree there's a threshold of taxes that will cause rich people to leave the country, but it doesn't mean we have to reach that threshold. there's plenty of room between taxing the rich enough to help the poor, and not so much that they would do better in another country.
Kim Jong Il would gladly make sure that poor North Koreans have all the necessities that they need, but he can not.
YOu have pefect example of country full of HARD WORKING koreans who are not being robbed by greedy CEOs, but they are starving.
let me ask you this: are you suggesting that a welfare state is the reason that North Koreans are poor?
charities? tell me you're kidding. that's not going to be enough for anybody. There is NEVER going to be enough for anybody. Free
the rich and the middle class are already paying for government-backed welfare for the poor. we can agree to disagree, but i don't see it as a black and white issue. i can agree there's a threshold of taxes that will cause rich people to leave the country, but it doesn't mean we have to reach that threshold. there's plenty of room between taxing the rich enough to help the poor, and not so much that they would do better in another country. True, but when goverment provide substantial help to the poor, the number of poor people grow. Uneducated women choose to get pregnant to live on benefits and number of poor uneducated people grow.
Then goverment have to choose either cut benefits or raise taxes.
The system where people are revarded with money for being poor is unsastainable and creates more poverty.
let me ask you this: are you suggesting that a welfare state is the reason that North Koreans are poor? Nope, they are poor because communists killed entreprenuer spirit of north koreans. Country can destroy itself fast like N.Korea - by killing all business overnight, or slowly like in Sweden by taxing business into exile.
Napoleon Chynamite
06-07-2005, 05:24 PM
All workers deserve what is market rate for their skills, if the market rate for educated CEO is $ 100,000,000.00 then it will be difficult to hire him for 80,000,000.00
And if uneducated worker has skills that nobody will buy for more then $ 5.00 then he deserve this $ 5.00
If you feel that he deserves more, give him some of YOUR money, but don't try to force entrpreuners to pay him just because it is fair in your opinion.
"Fair" distribution of wealth has been attempted in many communist countries, it sucks, people run away from it.
Sorry, I don't believe professional basketball players or CEO's sitting in their desks all day bullshitting by the coffee machines deserve millions of dollars in paychecks each year just because the demand allows for it, and I don't believe teachers (good teachers) are getting nearly enough for what they do, and "deserve" much more.
Educated people earn more then uneducated, true?
Kids have choice to read and study or to play ball and jump on the streets. I haven't heard of a person who has been good student and ended up physical laborer.
all high-end CEO's studied more and harder than physical laborers and menial workers when they were children.
And how exactly did you arrive at these conclusions?
Yeahman
06-07-2005, 05:27 PM
There is NEVER going to be enough for anybody. Free
So we shouldn't bother trying?
True, but when goverment provide substantial help to the poor, the number of poor people grow. Uneducated women choose to get pregnant to live on benefits and number of poor uneducated people grow.
Then goverment have to choose either cut benefits or raise taxes.
The system where people are revarded with money for being poor is unsastainable and creates more poverty.
You're arguing against charities too.
So basically youre saying that the poor should not be helped at all.
hooligan
06-07-2005, 05:59 PM
If anyone's interested, my friend who works for a CA representative at DC tells me that they're also slowly taking away funding for education. Included is the "No Child Left Behind" campaign which is, for all intensive purposes, not funded. They're also cutting funding for education in lieu of state funding, but states are cashed strapped as it is due to the war. So, guess who loses? Students.
Yeahman
06-07-2005, 06:53 PM
If anyone's interested, my friend who works for a CA representative at DC tells me that they're also slowly taking away funding for education. Included is the "No Child Left Behind" campaign which is, for all intensive purposes, not funded. They're also cutting funding for education in lieu of state funding, but states are cashed strapped as it is due to the war. So, guess who loses? Students.
It's not because of the war. It's just those socialist Californians. We have a budget surplus in New York.
haplesshobo
06-07-2005, 07:27 PM
It's not because of the war. It's just those socialist Californians. We have a budget surplus in New York.
I thought NYC had a big defecit, and that was one of the reasons for Bloomerg's crackdown on little crimes- to use those fines to help pay for the city budget.
hooligan
06-07-2005, 07:54 PM
It's not because of the war. It's just those socialist Californians. We have a budget surplus in New York.
I'm going to take it that you probably don't know as much as him.
SunWuKong
06-07-2005, 09:24 PM
True, but when goverment provide substantial help to the poor, the number of poor people grow. Uneducated women choose to get pregnant to live on benefits and number of poor uneducated people grow.
any facts to back this claim up?
i agree there are people that take unfair advantage of the welfare system, and i think we need a better system to determine who deserves welfare, but there are also plenty of people that do not take unfair advantage of welfare.
on the other hand, without any social help for the poor, you'd basically get a huge gap between the rich and the poor. you can see this in countries with less of a social safety net, and you can see this in early 20th century U.S.
but anyway, the point is that many of us believe in building a society where you wouldn't be basically fucked for the rest of your life if you were born poor or if you made some stupid financial mistakes when you were young.
Yeahman
06-07-2005, 09:59 PM
I thought NYC had a big defecit, and that was one of the reasons for Bloomerg's crackdown on little crimes- to use those fines to help pay for the city budget.
The only budget deficits we've had in the past 9 years were in 2002 and 2003 (the 2 years following 9/11). Bloomberg fixed that up pretty quickly and we've had a surplus ever since.
I'm going to take it that you probably don't know as much as him.
As much as who?
any facts to back this claim up?
on the other hand, without any social help for the poor, you'd basically get a huge gap between the rich and the poor. you can see this in countries with less of a social safety net, and you can see this in early 20th century U.S.
If you check the chart of poverty rate for children here
http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm
you can see that welfare reform of 1996 (end of lifetime welfare)
was followed by drop in poverty rate.
It seems once goverment stop rewarding poverty with cash, people start work and are no longer poor.
As for the huge gap between the rich and the poor:
One person choses not to work and live on the welfare, other person works more then 49 hours per week.
Lets blame workaholic for the gap.
He should be sensitive and not hurt feelings of poor lazy people buy working and earning too much.
hooligan
06-08-2005, 01:02 AM
The drop in poverty is actually also dictated by a change in the definition of poverty from what I understand. The reform actually put more people into the working poor and as a lot of people know, working poor isn't any better than being in poverty.
SunWuKong
06-08-2005, 08:18 AM
If you check the chart of poverty rate for children here
http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm
you can see that welfare reform of 1996 (end of lifetime welfare)
was followed by drop in poverty rate.
It seems once goverment stop rewarding poverty with cash, people start work and are no longer poor.
sorry, but that's no backing for what you said earlier:
True, but when goverment provide substantial help to the poor, the number of poor people grow. Uneducated women choose to get pregnant to live on benefits and number of poor uneducated people grow.
let me reiterate:
when government provide substantial help to the poor, the number of poor people grow.
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 did not stop substantial help to the poor. it basically took the money that the government was handing out in welfare checks to prepare and promote people from relying on welfare into self-reliant people. it used money previously used for welfare checks and put it into job training, income subsidies, financial incentives for employers to hire unemployed people, etc etc. it actually increased the amount of money for childcare.
so it's not that the government stopped providing as much help to the poor. the government still provided substantial help to the poor with the welfare reforms in 1996. what you're suggesting, however, is simply that we shouldn't help poor people at all.
As for the huge gap between the rich and the poor:
One person choses not to work and live on the welfare, other person works more then 49 hours per week.
Lets blame workaholic for the gap.
He should be sensitive and not hurt feelings of poor lazy people buy working and earning too much.
i said the rich and the poor. not the poor and the not-as-poor. the difference between the out-of-work person and the workaholic does not create the income gap between the rich and the poor. what creates the gap is the fact that CEOs are paid 6 or 7 figures while the menial worker who works 49 hours a week for minimum wage.
Can you post my quote where I said "we shouldn't help poor people at all."
I think that taking money from rich and giving to poor will not help to change poor person mentality.
If somebody thinks he should give his own money to poor, I have nothing against it.
I don't like when goverment decides for me how to spend my money.
Thats why i would rather give to the charity then to the goverment.
Yeahman
06-09-2005, 02:32 AM
Can you post my quote where I said "we shouldn't help poor people at all."
I think that taking money from rich and giving to poor will not help to change poor person mentality.
If somebody thinks he should give his own money to poor, I have nothing against it.
I don't like when goverment decides for me how to spend my money.
Thats why i would rather give to the charity then to the goverment.
You said that giving money to the poor only encourages poverty. So why should you give money to charities?
SunWuKong
06-09-2005, 09:36 AM
Can you post my quote where I said "we shouldn't help poor people at all."
ok, let me rephrase that. what you're implying is that the government shouldn't help the poor at all.
I think that taking money from rich and giving to poor will not help to change poor person mentality.
no, what you said before was "provide substantial help". you think that providing substantial help to the poor is detrimental to the poor.
True, but when goverment provide substantial help to the poor, the number of poor people grow.
and i've shown you that the welfare reforms in 1996 basically costs the government the same amount of money, but that the money was being used differently, and poverty rates were lowered. in essence, the government got smarter about how to help the poor, and that lowered poverty rates.
so again, i don't know where you got the idea that helping the poor will make the number of poor people grow.
If somebody thinks he should give his own money to poor, I have nothing against it.
I don't like when goverment decides for me how to spend my money.
Thats why i would rather give to the charity then to the goverment.
so what's the real issue here then? on an earlier post, you said that menial, low-paid workers "get what they deserve".
menial workers and physical labourers had a happy, care-free childhood, watching tv and running on the streets, while high-end CEO was studying hard.
they get what they deserve.
it doesn't seem to me what you said here earlier had a lot to do with how the government spends your tax dollars.
i've shown you that the welfare reforms in 1996 basically costs the government the same amount of money...
Dear SunWuKong, where did you show this?
I can show you
Since the overhaul of the nation's welfare system, states have dramatically cut the amount they spend on programs for the poor, a new report from the Rockefeller Institute of Government finds.
In addition to spending fewer federal dollars on welfare -- more than $7 billion sits unspent in the U.S. Treasury, states are doling out less of their own money to support poor families, the report says.
Nationwide, caseloads have fallen 44 percent since 1996.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=13930
You can see very clear that all this poor people were just enjoying free lunch at taxpayer expence untill 1996.
You said that giving money to the poor only encourages poverty. So why should you give money to charities?
There is a big difference between charity and poor.
If you give money to charity you can pick the charity that does something that really helps - like giving free education to kids, and pay for the work program. (My favorite charity is the one that gives free sterilization to drug addicted girls in the getto)
If goverment or cherity just gives cash to poor, this cash go directky to local drug dealer or liquor store.
pikachupacabra
06-09-2005, 11:14 AM
If you give money to charity you can pick the charity that does something that really helps - like giving free education to kids, and pay for the work program. (My favorite charity is the one that gives free sterilization to drug addicted girls in the getto)
If goverment or cherity just gives cash to poor, this cash go directky to local drug dealer or liquor store.
hoooly crap...is anyone sure this isn't just a troll?
CEBA, if you are for real, how many poor people do you actually KNOW who are on some sort of government assistance? I used to tutor at low-income high schools in Pomona and I knew a lot of people on welfare, food stamps, or some other goverment loan/income program and while there are definitely bad eggs in each basket, the greater majority I knew were trying hard to make ends meet and provide a living for themselves and their family, and none of them wanted to stay poor and on government assistence. they found it quite demeaning actually. Quite a lot of the high schoolers, btw, were working a job while in school, and I doubt they were all doing it because they needed the money to buy drugs and alcohol.
Secondly, the level of educational training available and the level of the school facilities in these areas were just terrible. I can see how one could easily get locked into a cycle of "poverty", so to speak, if you're too poor to move elsewhere.
SunWuKong
06-09-2005, 11:23 AM
i've shown you that the welfare reforms in 1996 basically costs the government the same amount of money...
Dear SunWuKong, where did you show this?
I can show you
Since the overhaul of the nation's welfare system, states have dramatically cut the amount they spend on programs for the poor, a new report from the Rockefeller Institute of Government finds.
In addition to spending fewer federal dollars on welfare -- more than $7 billion sits unspent in the U.S. Treasury, states are doling out less of their own money to support poor families, the report says.
Nationwide, caseloads have fallen 44 percent since 1996.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=13930
You can see very clear that all this poor people were just enjoying free lunch at taxpayer expence untill 1996.
nice try. how about quoting the next paragraph right after what you quoted?
Since the overhaul of the nation's welfare system, states have dramatically cut the amount they spend on programs for the poor, a new report from the Rockefeller Institute of Government finds.
In addition to spending fewer federal dollars on welfare -- more than $7 billion sits unspent in the U.S. Treasury, states are doling out less of their own money to support poor families, the report says.
While total spending is down, states are relying more heavily on federal money to fund new programs. As a result, the federal government is shouldering a larger proportion of the costs of programs for the poor -- the opposite of what Congress intended when it rewrote the welfare law in 1996.
instead of the state spending money helping the poor, that money is now coming from the federal government.
You just keep repeating MY points, education is good, work program is good.
If you think that drugg addicted girls should get pregnant, then please provide the rationale for such opinion.
nice try. how about quoting the next paragraph right after what you quoted?
While total spending is down
SunWuKong
06-09-2005, 11:41 AM
you're not getting frustrated are you?
You just keep repeating MY points, education is good, work program is good.
those were not your points at all - the poor has relied on government money to get the work programs and the education - something you are opposed to.
you also said that helping the poor increases the number of poor. something you have not proven.
spending less on the poor decreases the number of the poor does not mean spending more on the poor increases the number of the poor.
it's simple logic. you cannot assert A->B from X->Y.
once again, the welfare reforms in 1996 has nothing to do with not spending money on the poor. it simply diverted money into social programs to help the poor become self-dependent.
those were not your points at all - the poor has relied on government money to get the work programs and the education - something you are opposed to.
you also said that helping the poor increases the number of poor. something you have not proven.
spending less on the poor decreases the number of the poor does not mean spending more on the poor increases the number of the poor. it's simple logic.
you cannot assert A->B from X->Y.
once again, the welfare reforms in 1996 has nothing to do with not spending money on the poor. it simply diverted money into social programs to help the poor become self-dependent.
Dear SunWuKong, let ME decide what are MY points in this discussion.
Education for poor is good, Cash for poor is bad.
You agree with me on first point.
Now show me what is the point of giving cash rewards for people who can prove that they are poor?
The government's cruel welfare spending cuts in 1996 simply cut alot of people off so women and their children are now the fastest growing population of homeless in America to the point that 39% of the homeless currently in America are children. Alot of women and children did not find it worth it to rely on the government. This will cost alot more to taxpayers in the long run.
SunWuKong
06-09-2005, 11:56 AM
Dear SunWuKong, let ME decide what are MY points in this discussion.
Education for poor is good, Cash for poor is bad.
You agree with me on first point.
Now show me what is the point of giving cash rewards for people who can prove that they are poor?
no, i think i'll decide for you what your points are, and here is one of them:
If somebody thinks he should give his own money to poor, I have nothing against it.
I don't like when goverment decides for me how to spend my money.
Thats why i would rather give to the charity then to the goverment.
well, the government is deciding to spend your tax dollars on social programs to help the poor. and you have said that you don't like this.
furthermore, there is no telling how much faster poverty rates will decrease if the government actually spends even more money helping the poor. what we know is that stopping cash handouts after 2 years and increasing spending on social programs has decreased the poverty rates. and besides, it is perfectly natural that money being spent on the poor has decreased because poverty levels have lowered!
furthermore, the article you posted pointed out that "welfare caseloads have declined much faster than the poverty rate", which simply means that less poor people are claiming welfare. it could very well mean that there are poor people out there that, for whatever reason, and maybe it's their own damn fault, still couldn't hold on to a job after two years on welfare and their welfare payments stopped.
deez nuts
06-09-2005, 12:07 PM
no, i think i'll decide for you what your points are, and here is one of them:
wow. you just kicked him in the nuts. HARD.
haha, so you will put some words in my mouth and then debate against your imaginary opponent?
it's more like kicking your own nuts
hooligan
06-09-2005, 12:34 PM
haha, so you will put some words in my mouth and then debate against your imaginary opponent?
it's more like kicking your own nuts
Well, at least he's got a pair.
SunWuKong
06-09-2005, 12:53 PM
alright settle down.
CEBA - i've included your own quotes from previous posts. you said you don't like the government deciding how your money is spent, well the welfare reforms in 1996 says that the government will decide to spend your tax dollars in social programs for the poor, which include, amongst others, work training, childcare, employer incentives, etc etc. this is help that the government is providing to the poor, and you said, as i've quoted also, that providing help to the poor increases the number of the poor.
I don't like the government deciding how your money is spent, but it's inevitable.
I DO like welfare reforms in 1996 when government started to spend tax dollars work training, childcare, employer incentives, etc etc.
I only oppose giving cash to the poor.
As for the health care, some of it inevitably has to be covered by goverment for the poor people, if only to stop infections.
Giving cash to poor increases the number of the poor.
It is very well illustrated by huge number of poor people in states with most generous welfare.
SunWuKong
06-09-2005, 01:17 PM
I don't like the government deciding how your money is spent, but it's inevitable.
I DO like welfare reforms in 1996 when government started to spend tax dollars work training, childcare, employer incentives, etc etc.
so does this mean you don't like the government deciding how your money is spent except when the government decides to spend it on work training and such?
I only oppose giving cash to the poor.
i like how the 1996 welfare reforms handle this. give them two years, provide them with work training, and if they still can't find a job, then cut off cash hand-outs.
Giving cash to poor increases the number of the poor.
It is very well illustrated by huge number of poor people in states with most generous welfare.
thanks for the clarification. previously you only said that giving "substantial help" to the poor increases the number of the poor.
in my opinion we should probably spend more money helping the poor in the form of work training and such.
so does this mean you don't like the government deciding how your money is spent except when the government decides to spend it on work training and such? I don't like the government deciding how my money is spent without exception.
But it's inevitable. So I deal with it.
i like how the 1996 welfare reforms handle this. give them two years, provide them with work training, and if they still can't find a job, then cut off cash hand-outs. Agreed, this is sound way to solve problem.
thanks for the clarification. previously you only said that giving "substantial help" to the poor increases the number of the poor.
Sorry, my fault. By "substantial help" i was meaning when poor person is getting cash from the goverment without any obligations.
it seems after all our positions are not so different, and we might have been arguing over "interprentations" of what we said. :smile:
From what I hear welfare reform hit women with children hard. In order to qualify for welfare single moms can't work. They work the lowest wage jobs and don't get welfare. It cost them more to be on welfare. So you have single moms who work minimum wage jobs which barely pay for child care while they're working. So many of them end up on the streets with their children. Welfare reform is usually a conservative idea as it was in 1996. Can we really trust the originators of welfare reform in 1996, Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America, with single mothers and children?
From wikipedia:
Before 1996, welfare payments were given out through a program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In the 1980s, the program began to draw heavy criticism. There were numerous stories of "welfare queens", women who cheated the welfare system, receiving multiple checks each month and growing wealthy while not working. Other critics claimed that welfare bred a poor work ethic in the poor.
The AFDC system was under constant attack in the 1980s; these continued in the 1990s, when the system became a favorite target of Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders. Toughening the criteria for receiving welfare was the third point (out of ten) in the Republicans' Contract with America. The tide of public opinion in favor of some change to the welfare system was considerable.
Reforming welfare
The stage was already set by 1996. Even Bill Clinton, a Democratic President, had promised to "end welfare as we know it" in his State of the Union Address. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.
One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive.
Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).
Outcome
Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. For instance, they claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit through no fault of their own might turn to mendicancy or crime. They also felt that too little money was devoted to vocational training. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that although the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession.
Supporters held that the five-year limit was a necessity, that allowing states to experiment would result in improving welfare, and that the number of people affected by the five-year limit would be small. These controversies have not been fully resolved.
The consequences of welfare reform are still being debated today. Welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly in the years immediately after the passage of the bill. The original bill was set to expire in September of 2002; as of July, 2004, Congress had passed 7 temporary reauthorizations, generally of 3 months. Debate continued over Republican attempts to increase the amount of hours that recipients would need to work.
Welfare Reform 1996 put women and children on the streets when the real "welfare queens" are corporations:
HOOVER INSTITUTION
HOOVER DIGEST
1999 No. 3
Stephen Moore
Getting Business off the Dole
Who are America’s costliest welfare recipients? Not unemployed men or single mothers, but the companies of the Fortune 500. Stephen Moore analyzes an outrage.
For most Americans the term welfare is associated with any number of negative images: laziness, illegitimacy, family breakup, irresponsibility, and wasted tax dollars. We hear “welfare,” and our minds conjure up a young unwed mother of two or three infants, huddled in front of a TV set in a public housing tenement and living at taxpayer expense on monthly Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) checks and food stamps. We react negatively because too often these checks subsidize bad behavior and encourage dependency rather than self-responsibility.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines welfare as “receiving regular assistance from the government or a private agency because of need.” What is surprising about our modern-day welfare state is just who it is that Congress really believes to be “in need.” Some of the most subsidized recipients of public assistance are not welfare queens housed in public tenement apartments. They are not even poor or ailing at all. Far from it.
America’s most costly welfare recipients today are Fortune 500 companies. In 1997 the Fortune 500 corporations recorded best-ever earnings of $325 billion, yet incredibly Uncle Sam doled out nearly $100 billion in taxpayer subsidies. These welfare payments come in every conceivable shape and size: government grants, sweetheart business deals arranged by the Commerce Department, cut-rate insurance, low-interest loans, a protective wall against foreign competition, exclusive government contracts, and a mind-boggling maze of special interest loopholes in the tax code.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By erecting trade barriers, the government rewards one domestic industry at the direct expense of another. The cost to the American economy of steel quotas, for example, is estimated at $7 billion a year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All but a small handful of America’s wealthiest corporations have participated in the hunt for federal or state government subsidies. Most of these companies are double-, triple-, and quadruple-dipping. In 1996 General Electric won fifteen grants for $20.1 million. Rockwell International received thirty-nine grants for $25.4 million. Westinghouse Electric received fourteen grants for $26.1 million. Yet each of these companies had profits of at least half a billion dollars in 1996.
Corporate welfare has all the systemic debilitating effects, including dependency and self-destructive behavior, that characterized the troubled legacy of the Great Society social welfare agencies. Just as the social welfare state became a pernicious, self-perpetuating industry inside Washington, so it is today with the corporate welfare state.
SunWuKong
06-09-2005, 02:43 PM
I don't like the government deciding how my money is spent without exception.
But it's inevitable. So I deal with it.
so i guess you don't like the government deciding on its own to spend tax dollars on work training, childcare, employer incentives, etc etc?
i mean, you said earlier:
I DO like welfare reforms in 1996 when government started to spend tax dollars work training, childcare, employer incentives, etc etc.
Yeahman
06-09-2005, 03:13 PM
From what I hear welfare reform hit women with children hard. In order to qualify for welfare single moms can't work. They work the lowest wage jobs and don't get welfare. It cost them more to be on welfare. So you have single moms who work minimum wage jobs which barely pay for child care while they're working. So many of them end up on the streets with their children.
The working poor have the earned income tax credit instead.
Welfare reform is usually a conservative idea as it was in 1996. Can we really trust the originators of welfare reform in 1996, Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America, with single mothers and children?
Most of us are for whatever makes more sense regardless of which party is responsible. You should try it some time.
I got EIC on my tax return this year! because I only made $12,000 as a canvasser. I read a bit about EIC and it doesn't compensate for much at all.
No need for condescension.
I happen to strongly disagree with the Welfare Reform bill in 1996 condescendingly called "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" and 95% of what Republicans are doing.
Yeahman
06-09-2005, 07:44 PM
I got EIC on my tax return this year! because I only made $12,000 as a canvasser. I read a bit about EIC and it doesn't compensate for much at all.
Neither does welfare. It isn't supposed to make you a millionaire.
I happen to strongly disagree with the Welfare Reform bill in 1996 condescendingly called "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" and 95% of what Republicans are doing.
Signed by Clinton BTW.
I'd like to know what's included in that remaining 5%.
hooligan
06-09-2005, 08:08 PM
Neither does welfare. It isn't supposed to make you a millionaire.
Signed by Clinton BTW.
I'd like to know what's included in that remaining 5%.
Let's be fair, many of us aren't particularly fond of Clinton, but we're equally if not more so disappointed with Bush.
kimpossible
06-09-2005, 08:10 PM
I love Bill. Bring Bill back. I'll gladly pay for his sexterns with tax dollars.
hooligan
06-09-2005, 08:11 PM
I love Bill. Bring Bill back. I'll gladly pay for his sexterns with tax dollars.
W T F.
so i guess you don't like the government deciding on its own to spend tax dollars on work training, childcare, employer incentives, etc etc?
I don't like goverment to tax me. But since the is no other option, i send them my money every year.
Then I look how they spend it.
If they send MY money to lazy neighbor just because he is poor, i disagree, if they spend it in bombing of some country i also disagree, if they spend it on work training, childcare, employer incentives - i feel much better.
Of course i still would prefer if they don't tax me at all.
It's plenty of volunteers getting pleasure from helping poor.
I might even join them one day, but i don't want to be forced into helping poor.
hooligan
06-10-2005, 12:12 PM
I don't like goverment to tax me. But since the is no other option, i send them my money every year.
Then I look how they spend it.
If they send MY money to lazy neighbor just because he is poor, i disagree, if they spend it in bombing of some country i also disagree, if they spend it on work training, childcare, employer incentives - i feel much better.
Of course i still would prefer if they don't tax me at all.
It's plenty of volunteers getting pleasure from helping poor.
I might even join them one day, but i don't want to be forced into helping poor.
You know that most of those volunteers that help the poor, volunteer with many non-profits and organizations. Many of them receive substantial funding from the government. Your tax dollars.
You know that most of those volunteers that help the poor, volunteer with many non-profits and organizations. Many of them receive substantial funding from the government. Your tax dollars.
Ok,i got the idea, i'll will go and start my own non-profit and will enjoy some goverment subsidy from YOUR tax dollars.
Only about 2 million families are on welfare now. Before 1996 welfare reform bill there were only about 4.5 million families. Most of them received $400 a month which wasn't even enough to pay for rent. Most of the burdens of poverty fall on single mothers and their children. Before the reform in 1996, only 8% of those receiving welfare were unmarried teenaged mothers and their kids. Also almost half of the mothers receiving welfare were working outside the home. Welfare is mostly given to unemployed men and single mothers. Mothers that receive welfare are caught in a cycle where they can't make ends meet. They are often fleeing an abusive partner, are protecting their children from an abusive partner, or she is disabled or has disabled children.
To finally answer your question, ye110, it takes $12 a hour to care for a single mother and her two kids which is exactly what I thought a few months ago! Listen to your elders! JK. In most parts of the country the current minimum wage is 34% of what parents need to raise their families. Child care easily costs $4,000-10,000 a year per family so these parents have to make difficult choices. I'll have to go back to the library where I've been for the last couple days to give you the sources and websites.
Yeahman
06-13-2005, 02:43 AM
To finally answer your question, ye110, it takes $12 a hour to care for a single mother and her two kids which is exactly what I thought a few months ago! Listen to your elders! JK. In most parts of the country the current minimum wage is 34% of what parents need to raise their families. Child care easily costs $4,000-10,000 a year per family so these parents have to make difficult choices. I'll have to go back to the library where I've been for the last couple days to give you the sources and websites.
According to the government a single mother of 2 requires $8.38/hour. The median annual income of a high school graduate exceeds that. The median annual income of a college graduate is enough to support any family.
A married couple earning minimum wage can almost support 2 kids and definately 1.
Moral of the stats:
Go to school and get married before you have kids. If you're a healthy adult living in poverty, chances are that you screwed up. I'm still willing to make sure that you and your kids have food, clothing, shelter, basic healthcare, and access to education, but they don't have a "right" to the money of those who didn't screw up. You screwed up, deal with it, and make sure your kids don't make the same mistakes.
Napoleon Chynamite
06-13-2005, 02:45 AM
^Man I dunno about anyone else, but despite those statistics if I was making minimum wage or even if I was living with a girlfriend or wife also making minimum wage, I sure as hell would think twice before having any kids. Minimum wage sucks even if you're living by yourself..
SunWuKong
06-13-2005, 08:32 AM
According to the government a single mother of 2 requires $8.38/hour. The median annual income of a high school graduate exceeds that. The median annual income of a college graduate is enough to support any family.
A married couple earning minimum wage can almost support 2 kids and definately 1.
$8.38/hour? at your standard 2000 work hours per year, that's only $16,760 a year. i'd like to know what the government is smoking, and i'd like to get me some of that good stuff.
Of course, yello, half the problem is teenaged boys or adult men getting teenage girls pregnant too. Men are encouraged by the culture to have as much as sx as possible and women are shamed. I'd add that being shamed for having sex decreases the chances that women have sex in a healthy way, use contraceptives, avoid assault, rape, etc.
NB: The $4000-10000 a year for child care costs more than the average cost of a year of public college tuition. People think welfare provides poor women with too much help when it only offers emergency assistance and does so badly. It falls short of helpin gpoor mothers get back on their feet. Real welfare reform attacks root causes of poverty. The burden of poverty falls most heavily on single moms with children who can't get out the cycle or system because the odds are heavily against them.
For your reading pleasure (these all say the same things I've said):
www.welfarelaw.org/links.html
http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/default.asp
www.legalmomentum.org/issues/wel/tanf_overview.shtml
www.iwpr.org/Poverty/Research_poverty.htm#workwelf
Napoleon Chynamite
06-14-2005, 10:19 PM
Erm...yeah that $8.38 per hour thing sounds kinda just a little bit low, or perhaps way too low.
http://www.sixstrategies.org/sixstrategies/sixstrategies.cfm
http://www.sixstrategies.org/includes/productlistinclude.cfm?strProductType=resource&searchType=type&strType=self-sufficiency%20standard
http://www.sixstrategies.org/files/Florida%20Standard.pdf
Here it says that a single mom with 2 kids living in Miami, Florida needs to make $17.98 to get by.
Yeahman
06-15-2005, 02:06 AM
That's Miami. Certainly it wouldn't cost that much in Bumsville, Montana.
Of course, yello, half the problem is teenaged boys or adult men getting teenage girls pregnant too. Men are encouraged by the culture to have as much as sx as possible and women are shamed. I'd add that being shamed for having sex decreases the chances that women have sex in a healthy way, use contraceptives, avoid assault, rape, etc.
I'm willing to bet that most single moms had sex voluntarily.
hooligan
08-05-2005, 06:08 PM
Dr. Christopher Murray (World Health Organziation)
Life expectancy 29th (3 years less than Canada, 6 years less than Japan)
Child mortality 37th
Spending 1st 15% of GDP (average is 8.6% in OECD countries most of which have universal healthcare systems)
Fewer doctors, nurses, hospital beds per capita than average.
Fewer MRI and CT scanners per capita than average.
US citizens were more likely to delay for forgo treatment than virtually all OECD countries. (Health Affairs)
US citizens had more difficulty making appointments with physicians quickly than people in Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. (Health Affairs)
Uninsured Americans get half the care of those with insurance. (Institute of Medicine)
Uninsured receive less care, late care, while getting sicker and dying sooner.
Uninsured MVC (motor vehicle crash) victims receive less care in the hospital and have 37% higher mortality rate than insured patients.
1 of 3 Americans under 65 (85 million) lacked private or public health insurance for all or part of 2003-2004. Millions more are underinsured.
Average family premium 2006 ($14,545 projected) . . . over double the 2001 average.
Check these statistics out.
It is time to publicize healthcare.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.