ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

JJ I understand you seem to have a unique perspective of certain aspects here, and I think we all appreciate that. Aside from your support of the health care reform or the mostly good stuff you see in the future, what about your philosophy though. Are you one who is a-okay with redistributing the wealth/further cementing redistributionary programs in our country?

[jj3044]

JJ I understand you seem to have a unique perspective of certain aspects here, and I think we all appreciate that. Aside from your support of the health care reform or the mostly good stuff you see in the future, what about your philosophy though. Are you one who is a-okay with redistributing the wealth/further cementing redistributionary programs in our country?

I'll answer in general, and then answer specifically relating to healthcare.

If you bring social programs like food stamps, medicaid, and welfare into the redistribution umbrella (I would assume these are the primary programs you are talking about), I support them in theory. However, I think there is a LOT wrong with these programs, and I would love to see reform. For example, I would love to see mandatory drug testing for people on food stamps and welfare. If someone is getting a handout from the government and my taxes, they better damn well be not spending those dollars on cocaine.

Now, specific to healthcare, I don't truly see this as a redistribution. I believe everyone has the universal right to basic healthcare. But, I also believe that everyone should pay for the services that they will use at some point in their lives (EVERYONE does use the system, at the very least in birth and death). To make this happen the way I see it, you either need a universal healthcare system, or a system as we are embarking on, where there is a government mandate, but the expenses are primarily being paid through premiums to private insurers (medicare withstanding).

Now again, do I think it is perfect? No. However, I do see it as an improvement to the status quo, so I'm in the camp that wants to support it and hopefully, see it succeed.

[patches70]

Now, specific to healthcare, I don't truly see this as a redistribution. I believe everyone has the universal right to basic healthcare.

What about the rights of the people providing the health care? Such as the payment provided by the doctors is not enough? Should the doctors be forced to provide that care anyway?
If everyone has a universal right to health care then that means you have to force other people to provide that care at the prices deemed fit by those other than the people actually providing the care.


Another reason that health care costs are sky high, and the main reason why said costs are really rising, is monetary policy. Medical care isn't included in such things as the annual inflation rate. If we actually ever did include that (along with the other things purposely left out of the inflation calculations) then you'd see that in reality the massive expansion in costs is directly related to the devaluation of our currency and the flooding of fiat currency into the economic system that's been going on since 1971.
Since we leave out such things and have some really messed up ways of calculating what is included, inflation has been virtually under control for most of this time (save for an instance or two for short periods). Hell, we haven't had any inflation to speak of since the crash, going on six years now. But that's not really true, is it? Health care costs continue to rise.

That's where the real costs are coming from, and there is no way to address that. At least no way that our or any other government is willing to tackle at this time.
You can try to legislate all the preventative care and price caps you want, but it won't work because of our monetary policy which undermines the true costs right from the start. Pass all that other stuff and costs will still increase because we keep devaluing our money. There is no way around that fact except to ignore it and blame other things. Which has been the modus operandi for a very long time.

[jj3044]

Now, specific to healthcare, I don't truly see this as a redistribution. I believe everyone has the universal right to basic healthcare.

What about the rights of the people providing the health care? Such as the payment provided by the doctors is not enough? Should the doctors be forced to provide that care anyway?
If everyone has a universal right to health care then that means you have to force other people to provide that care at the prices deemed fit by those other than the people actually providing the care.


Another reason that health care costs are sky high, and the main reason why said costs are really rising, is monetary policy. Medical care isn't included in such things as the annual inflation rate. If we actually ever did include that (along with the other things purposely left out of the inflation calculations) then you'd see that in reality the massive expansion in costs is directly related to the devaluation of our currency and the flooding of fiat currency into the economic system that's been going on since 1971.
Since we leave out such things and have some really messed up ways of calculating what is included, inflation has been virtually under control for most of this time (save for an instance or two for short periods). Hell, we haven't had any inflation to speak of since the crash, going on six years now. But that's not really true, is it? Health care costs continue to rise.

That's where the real costs are coming from, and there is no way to address that. At least no way that our or any other government is willing to tackle at this time.
You can try to legislate all the preventative care and price caps you want, but it won't work because of our monetary policy which undermines the true costs right from the start. Pass all that other stuff and costs will still increase because we keep devaluing our money. There is no way around that fact except to ignore it and blame other things. Which has been the modus operandi for a very long time.

That is an excellent point. I don't personally have much expertise in economics, but your premise makes sense.

Where I would be careful however, is stating that those economics factors are the main reason. I can tell you that, although costs for services ARE increasing, as you indicate, so is the number of services. Meaning, there are more sick people also. Which is MORE of a cause? Well, you or I probably can't answer that. But I'd say that they are both SUBSTANTIAL factors. There are a few others in the mix as well, but generally speaking I'd say those are the two main factors.

[patches70]

Where I would be careful however, is stating that those economics factors are the main reason. I can tell you that, although costs for services ARE increasing, as you indicate, so is the number of services. Meaning, there are more sick people also. Which is MORE of a cause? Well, you or I probably can't answer that. But I'd say that they are both SUBSTANTIAL factors. There are a few others in the mix as well, but generally speaking I'd say those are the two main factors.

Sure, one could make the argument that there are more sick people, but how many more?

Annual Health care costs in the US rise 6X-10X more than the annual core inflation rate. Every single year. This has been going on for decades. That's why health care isn't included in the annual inflation rate calculations. Because then we'd see massive inflation which would undermine the Fed's policy of pumping and the government's ability to spend like drunken whores.

Is it possible that amount of massive cost inflation is due to more sick people? Some of it, but it's a drop in the bucket to the monetary inflation.

There are a couple types of inflation. There is the supply demand inflation, where the supply of something drops while demand increases. This causes an increase of the price of such supply. This is a healthy inflation because it forces people to conserve said supply instead of wasting it, as it's cost prohibitive to be wasteful.

Then you've got monetary inflation. Pump tons of fiat currency into a market where the supply and demand remain relatively stable, you get massive cost inflation which does not promote conservation because it's just a fairly static number of institutions chasing more dollars. This is an unhealthy inflation as it severely distorts true prices, encourages waste and fraud.

A very good example of the second type is in the education market. The government pumps tons of money into education because everyone should get a college education. The number of universities being built doesn't rise nearly fast enough to absorb all that new money being dumped exclusively for people to go to college. Thus you get all the universities simply raising their prices. (I should post the list of the 20 dumbest college course offered, then you'd understand where the fraud and waste comes in).

The same thing is being done with healthcare. A lot of money is being pumped into a static number of providers. Prices increase accordingly. This is all in addition to the normal rise in costs one would expect with things such as increased regulation and having a greater population which means more sick people. Just complying with Obamacare has associated costs which are passed on to the consumer. The consumer (who apparently has a right to "free" healthcare) doesn't want to pay for it. The government pumps in money that it takes from everyone else. Except they can't take enough money so they start borrowing (i.e. printing) and dumping.

It's the worst of both worlds. Everyone having insurance is the same as a gigantic pool of money where all the healthcare providers are looking at and want their share of that pool. The greater the pool, the greater the nominal share will be.

That's why you are starting to see doctors who want patients who completely dump using insurance all together and are charging a far cheaper price for the health care provided. It works out better for the doctor even though he's charging a lower price. He gets to keep all of that money paid. When insurance pays, they only pay a percentage of whatever it is that is deemed the cost and the rest has to be foregone by the provider who also has the extra expense with complying with the insurance agreements.

Look at it this way, you have a town with two hospitals. This town is a complete self enclosed economic system. There is a total of $1,000 being circulated within the town for everyone. This means that a doctor can't ever charge $1,000 for an exam because there isn't that much money even in the town. Now you one day double the amount in circulation to $2,000. Everyone is still buying the same stuff and there is still the same amount of stuff. Now everyone who sells or provides services begins charging more for their product/services because there is more money in the town without an actual doubling of the amount of providers and supply.

If the amount of money grows faster than the supply demand, then you begin to get monetary inflation. The number of people living in the town naturally gets larger, through births and people moving in. A sane monetary policy makes sure that the money supply grows with such population increases in tandem so that the prices within the town stay stable. But if the money supply increases faster than the people in the town using said services, the price increases. The more insane the monetary policy the more insanely the growing costs. And nothing better is achieved in the process. Only inflation. People still get the same services.

Monetary policy in the US has never been more insane than it is now. The Fed has increased their balance sheets by trillions of dollars just in the last few years. Ever since 1971 the monetary base itself has grown exponentially. Far exceeding population growth and supply and demand pressures. Leading inexorably to severe monetary inflation.

Certainly, there are more people and that means more people using the relative same number of services. In fact, the US is dangerously not producing enough doctors as it stands now, leading to supply demand cost increases. But the monetary increases far outpace any of that.
If we had a sound money system prices would be much smaller and you'd only have to deal with the subtle changes in the supply and demand side. Which happen much slower than some central banker hitting ctrlP to create a ton of fiat currency out of thin air and a government willing to just throw all the newly created money at a problem. All that newly created money gets spent and we don't increase the amount of suppliers at nearly a great enough rate to keep prices stable.

The healthcare field feels this worse than most other markets because it takes a long time to train a doctor, does it not? It takes a long time to build a hospital. A long time to develop and test drugs and new procedures.
But we can pump out Ipads by the tens of thousands on the assembly line.

The Ipad is counted in the core inflation rate. Healthcare is not. Massive monetary expansion compared to something that is mass produced (the ipad) and you can keep a relatively stable price. But massive monetary expansion compared to building new hospitals, training new doctors, new doctor offices, new drugs, medical research, you get massive distortions in prices.
Even if you get everyone healthy the costs of healthcare will still rise faster than most other market sectors so long as we keep pumping in more and more newly created money that just devalues what money is already in circulation.

And Obamacare addresses absolutely nothing about monetary inflation contribution to health care (among plenty of other things it doesn't address).

[Woodruff]

If you bring social programs like food stamps, medicaid, and welfare into the redistribution umbrella (I would assume these are the primary programs you are talking about), I support them in theory. However, I think there is a LOT wrong with these programs, and I would love to see reform.

A lot of reform IS needed, I agree. That said, not this:

For example, I would love to see mandatory drug testing for people on food stamps and welfare. If someone is getting a handout from the government and my taxes, they better damn well be not spending those dollars on cocaine.

Recent studies show that the number of people receiving welfare that use illegal drugs at all is miniscule, and we end up spending more money trying to stop them than we save in stopping them.

The reform I believe needs to happen has more to do with end-level limitations. Welfare should not be an endgame, rather a bridge.

[ooge]

JJ I understand you seem to have a unique perspective of certain aspects here, and I think we all appreciate that. Aside from your support of the health care reform or the mostly good stuff you see in the future, what about your philosophy though. Are you one who is a-okay with redistributing the wealth/further cementing redistributionary programs in our country?

I'll answer in general, and then answer specifically relating to healthcare.

If you bring social programs like food stamps, medicaid, and welfare into the redistribution umbrella (I would assume these are the primary programs you are talking about), I support them in theory. However, I think there is a LOT wrong with these programs, and I would love to see reform. For example, I would love to see mandatory drug testing for people on food stamps and welfare. If someone is getting a handout from the government and my taxes, they better damn well be not spending those dollars on cocaine.

Now, specific to healthcare, I don't truly see this as a redistribution. I believe everyone has the universal right to basic healthcare. But, I also believe that everyone should pay for the services that they will use at some point in their lives (EVERYONE does use the system, at the very least in birth and death). To make this happen the way I see it, you either need a universal healthcare system, or a system as we are embarking on, where there is a government mandate, but the expenses are primarily being paid through premiums to private insurers (medicare withstanding).

Now again, do I think it is perfect? No. However, I do see it as an improvement to the status quo, so I'm in the camp that wants to support it and hopefully, see it succeed.

drug testing of welfare recipients was done in Florida here is the article.http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2 ... -cost.html

[Phatscotty]

One more type of inflation, and I think it's just as responsible if not more as the types you named, regulatory inflation. When a health care provider needs to hire 3 more people to deal with a new set of paperwork for each patient, the cost of the healthcare rises.

Like you correctly pointed out with education and the reasons why tuition soars year over year. Here is another

[Phatscotty]

JJ I understand you seem to have a unique perspective of certain aspects here, and I think we all appreciate that. Aside from your support of the health care reform or the mostly good stuff you see in the future, what about your philosophy though. Are you one who is a-okay with redistributing the wealth/further cementing redistributionary programs in our country?

I'll answer in general, and then answer specifically relating to healthcare.

If you bring social programs like food stamps, medicaid, and welfare into the redistribution umbrella (I would assume these are the primary programs you are talking about), I support them in theory. However, I think there is a LOT wrong with these programs, and I would love to see reform. For example, I would love to see mandatory drug testing for people on food stamps and welfare. If someone is getting a handout from the government and my taxes, they better damn well be not spending those dollars on cocaine.

Now, specific to healthcare, I don't truly see this as a redistribution. I believe everyone has the universal right to basic healthcare. But, I also believe that everyone should pay for the services that they will use at some point in their lives (EVERYONE does use the system, at the very least in birth and death). To make this happen the way I see it, you either need a universal healthcare system, or a system as we are embarking on, where there is a government mandate, but the expenses are primarily being paid through premiums to private insurers (medicare withstanding).

Now again, do I think it is perfect? No. However, I do see it as an improvement to the status quo, so I'm in the camp that wants to support it and hopefully, see it succeed.

drug testing of welfare recipients was done in Florida here is the article.http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2 ... -cost.html

many other states as well. Here is the thread
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779

[ooge]

JJ I understand you seem to have a unique perspective of certain aspects here, and I think we all appreciate that. Aside from your support of the health care reform or the mostly good stuff you see in the future, what about your philosophy though. Are you one who is a-okay with redistributing the wealth/further cementing redistributionary programs in our country?

I'll answer in general, and then answer specifically relating to healthcare.

If you bring social programs like food stamps, medicaid, and welfare into the redistribution umbrella (I would assume these are the primary programs you are talking about), I support them in theory. However, I think there is a LOT wrong with these programs, and I would love to see reform. For example, I would love to see mandatory drug testing for people on food stamps and welfare. If someone is getting a handout from the government and my taxes, they better damn well be not spending those dollars on cocaine.

Now, specific to healthcare, I don't truly see this as a redistribution. I believe everyone has the universal right to basic healthcare. But, I also believe that everyone should pay for the services that they will use at some point in their lives (EVERYONE does use the system, at the very least in birth and death). To make this happen the way I see it, you either need a universal healthcare system, or a system as we are embarking on, where there is a government mandate, but the expenses are primarily being paid through premiums to private insurers (medicare withstanding).

Now again, do I think it is perfect? No. However, I do see it as an improvement to the status quo, so I'm in the camp that wants to support it and hopefully, see it succeed.

drug testing of welfare recipients was done in Florida here is the article.http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2 ... -cost.html

many other states as well. Here is the thread
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

[Phatscotty]

JJ I understand you seem to have a unique perspective of certain aspects here, and I think we all appreciate that. Aside from your support of the health care reform or the mostly good stuff you see in the future, what about your philosophy though. Are you one who is a-okay with redistributing the wealth/further cementing redistributionary programs in our country?

I'll answer in general, and then answer specifically relating to healthcare.

If you bring social programs like food stamps, medicaid, and welfare into the redistribution umbrella (I would assume these are the primary programs you are talking about), I support them in theory. However, I think there is a LOT wrong with these programs, and I would love to see reform. For example, I would love to see mandatory drug testing for people on food stamps and welfare. If someone is getting a handout from the government and my taxes, they better damn well be not spending those dollars on cocaine.

Now, specific to healthcare, I don't truly see this as a redistribution. I believe everyone has the universal right to basic healthcare. But, I also believe that everyone should pay for the services that they will use at some point in their lives (EVERYONE does use the system, at the very least in birth and death). To make this happen the way I see it, you either need a universal healthcare system, or a system as we are embarking on, where there is a government mandate, but the expenses are primarily being paid through premiums to private insurers (medicare withstanding).

Now again, do I think it is perfect? No. However, I do see it as an improvement to the status quo, so I'm in the camp that wants to support it and hopefully, see it succeed.

drug testing of welfare recipients was done in Florida here is the article.http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2 ... -cost.html

many other states as well. Here is the thread
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Waht do ya know, another "republicans are to blame for everything" post

yeah, it's all because of a sentence Reagan uttered 30 years ago. You don't think there are welfare queens driving Caddilacs? Why would Reagan saying that be the cause of our problems? I would love to hear more details about this.

Don't you think you are assuming way too much, saying that we blame all our problems on the weakest among us? Is that really what abusing the welfare system to support an illegal drug habit translates into for you? Again, mind providing some details?

I'm beginning to think you are one of the internet robots. If you want to continue the discussion, put it in the drug test welfare applicants thread. This one was just getting good...

[Woodruff]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Waht do ya know, another "republicans are to blame for everything" post

yeah, it's all because of a sentence Reagan uttered 30 years ago. You don't think there are welfare queens driving Caddilacs? Why would Reagan saying that be the cause of our problems? I would love to hear more details about this.

Don't you think you are assuming way too much, saying that we blame all our problems on the weakest among us? Is that really what abusing the welfare system to support an illegal drug habit translates into for you? Again, mind providing some details?

I'm beginning to think you are one of the internet robots. Can you at least try to be a talented troll.

thanks

The irony must be painful.

[Night Strike]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Actually, we blame the government for turning a safety net into a way of life.

[ooge]

JJ I understand you seem to have a unique perspective of certain aspects here, and I think we all appreciate that. Aside from your support of the health care reform or the mostly good stuff you see in the future, what about your philosophy though. Are you one who is a-okay with redistributing the wealth/further cementing redistributionary programs in our country?

I'll answer in general, and then answer specifically relating to healthcare.

If you bring social programs like food stamps, medicaid, and welfare into the redistribution umbrella (I would assume these are the primary programs you are talking about), I support them in theory. However, I think there is a LOT wrong with these programs, and I would love to see reform. For example, I would love to see mandatory drug testing for people on food stamps and welfare. If someone is getting a handout from the government and my taxes, they better damn well be not spending those dollars on cocaine.

Now, specific to healthcare, I don't truly see this as a redistribution. I believe everyone has the universal right to basic healthcare. But, I also believe that everyone should pay for the services that they will use at some point in their lives (EVERYONE does use the system, at the very least in birth and death). To make this happen the way I see it, you either need a universal healthcare system, or a system as we are embarking on, where there is a government mandate, but the expenses are primarily being paid through premiums to private insurers (medicare withstanding).

Now again, do I think it is perfect? No. However, I do see it as an improvement to the status quo, so I'm in the camp that wants to support it and hopefully, see it succeed.

drug testing of welfare recipients was done in Florida here is the article.http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2 ... -cost.html

many other states as well. Here is the thread
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Waht do ya know, another "republicans are to blame for everything" post

yeah, it's all because of a sentence Reagan uttered 30 years ago. You don't think there are welfare queens driving Caddilacs? Why would Reagan saying that be the cause of our problems? I would love to hear more details about this.

Don't you think you are assuming way too much, saying that we blame all our problems on the weakest among us? Is that really what abusing the welfare system to support an illegal drug habit translates into for you? Again, mind providing some details?

I'm beginning to think you are one of the internet robots. If you want to continue the discussion, put it in the drug test welfare applicants thread. This one was just getting good...

read the link I posted you may actually learn something,your questions are answered there.Thanks for calling me a robot.I will add it to the list of names you have called me including Racist. My guess is you will not read it because you know what you know and would not want to be confused by facts.

[Phatscotty]

Dodgy much?

all your posts are the same, and all your responses asking you to explain your posts are the same too.

I'm asking you to elaborate on your own words, not the person who wrote the article. Could you at least tell us what the hell that post has to do with anything here?

[ooge]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Actually, we blame the government for turning a safety net into a way of life.

Do you really think people want to be poor or would rather have a job that pays a living wage?So the can pay taxes and be meaningful contributors of society.or do you think that those who are powerful with influence and money would do everything they can to get the middle class to blame their problems on the poor to keep them from seeing the real problem. "their is class warfare and my class is winning" Warren Buffett.

[Woodruff]

Dodgy much?

all your posts are the same, and all your responses asking you to explain your posts are the same too.

I'm asking you to elaborate on your own words, not the person who wrote the article. Could you at least tell us what the hell that post has to do with anything here?

Jesus Phatscotty, have you no ability at introspection? No capability to look at yourself in the mirror?

[patches70]

Do you really think people want to be poor or would rather have a job that pays a living wage?So the can pay taxes and be meaningful contributors of society.or do you think that those who are powerful with influence and money would do everything they can to get the middle class to blame their problems on the poor to keep them from seeing the real problem. "their is class warfare and my class is winning" Warren Buffett.

It appears you aren't aware of what a welfare trap is. You should probably learn about that and then you'd understand what NS is talking about.

[Phatscotty]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Actually, we blame the government for turning a safety net into a way of life.

Do you really think people want to be poor or would rather have a job that pays a living wage?So the can pay taxes and be meaningful contributors of society.or do you think that those who are powerful with influence and money would do everything they can to get the middle class to blame their problems on the poor to keep them from seeing the real problem. "their is class warfare and my class is winning" Warren Buffett.

First, answer mine (I asked first), then I will answer yours.

#1) Do you think there are people who abuse welfare and drive nice cars?
#2) Is it okay to talk about welfare abuse, or isn't it?
#3) How has a sentence Reagan said 30 years ago concerning welfare abuse to blame for everything?
#4) How is it that we are blaming all our problems on the weakest among us? You seem pretty certain that there is no such thing as welfare abuse, and that anyone who addresses it is to blame for everything.

[Woodruff]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Actually, we blame the government for turning a safety net into a way of life.

Do you really think people want to be poor or would rather have a job that pays a living wage?So the can pay taxes and be meaningful contributors of society.

While I tend to agree with you that there aren't many who prefer that life, the problem is that the laws are written in such a way as to make getting out of that life much more unlikely. When the job you're going to be hired for makes barely more than taking welfare, a simple cost-benefit analysis says you'll stay on welfare. It's not worth the job for the little income growth, even taking into account personal pride.

[ooge]

Dodgy much?

all your posts are the same, and all your responses asking you to explain your posts are the same too.

I'm asking you to elaborate on your own words, not the person who wrote the article. Could you at least tell us what the hell that post has to do with anything here?

Idiotic Much?

you who posts a graph on public schools has the gall to ask why my post is here? I post an article over my own words to give the idea more legitimacy.if I explained it,it would give you the excuse to simply dismiss it.

[ooge]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Actually, we blame the government for turning a safety net into a way of life.

Do you really think people want to be poor or would rather have a job that pays a living wage?So the can pay taxes and be meaningful contributors of society.or do you think that those who are powerful with influence and money would do everything they can to get the middle class to blame their problems on the poor to keep them from seeing the real problem. "their is class warfare and my class is winning" Warren Buffett.

First, answer mine (I asked first), then I will answer yours.

#1) Do you think there are people who abuse welfare and drive nice cars?
#2) Is it okay to talk about welfare abuse, or isn't it?
#3) How has a sentence Reagan said 30 years ago concerning welfare abuse to blame for everything?
#4) How is it that we are blaming all our problems on the weakest among us? You seem pretty certain that there is no such thing as welfare abuse, and that anyone who addresses it is to blame for everything.

my response was to night strike,not you.

[Phatscotty]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Actually, we blame the government for turning a safety net into a way of life.

Do you really think people want to be poor or would rather have a job that pays a living wage?So the can pay taxes and be meaningful contributors of society.or do you think that those who are powerful with influence and money would do everything they can to get the middle class to blame their problems on the poor to keep them from seeing the real problem. "their is class warfare and my class is winning" Warren Buffett.

First, answer mine (I asked first), then I will answer yours.

#1) Do you think there are people who abuse welfare and drive nice cars?
#2) Is it okay to talk about welfare abuse, or isn't it?
#3) How has a sentence Reagan said 30 years ago concerning welfare abuse to blame for everything?
#4) How is it that we are blaming all our problems on the weakest among us? You seem pretty certain that there is no such thing as welfare abuse, and that anyone who addresses it is to blame for everything.

my response was to night strike,not you.

Okay. Not sure why you are scared to think for yourself or elaborate on a non-point you were making, but okay. The post I am asking you about was a response to mine, so I'm not even sure your excuse makes sense. Fine, so strike the "First, answer mine (I asked first), then I will answer yours." okay, now that that's over with.....

Can you address #1-4 please?

[Phatscotty]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Actually, we blame the government for turning a safety net into a way of life.

Not to mention, it's the welfare abusers who are responsible for abusing welfare, not a president who addressed the abuse.

[ooge]

Sad very sad that we have reached this point in society that we blame our problems on the weakest among us.But we have Ronald Reagan to thank for it."There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs." link to this B.S. line that he used.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Actually, we blame the government for turning a safety net into a way of life.

Do you really think people want to be poor or would rather have a job that pays a living wage?So the can pay taxes and be meaningful contributors of society.

While I tend to agree with you that there aren't many who prefer that life, the problem is that the laws are written in such a way as to make getting out of that life much more unlikely. When the job you're going to be hired for makes barely more than taking welfare, a simple cost-benefit analysis says you'll stay on welfare. It's not worth the job for the little income growth, even taking into account personal pride.

Welfare incorporates all of the government services... food stamps, state health insurance, TANF, housing assistance, daycare assistance, etc. For TANF (or FANF in NH), the maximum household income you can have for a family of 3 is $675/month (gross income). The maximum you can receive monthly is $600 for a family of 3 each month... but the amount you will receive will depend on how much income you have coming in each month. Example, if there is no income coming in each month, then you should receive the full amount. If you have $650/month in income, then you will qualify, but may only receive $100/month. There is no "average" amount because it depends on your family's particular situation and monthly income. You are allowed to have up to $1,000 in resources (cash, savings bonds, savings, checking, investments, etc) and still qualify for this program.

this is what search came up with.