The argument that preventive care is cheaper than treatment is a fallacy.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full...

the preventive savings made in health care are at the individuals fingertips.

The most common medical problem among the poor (arguably those who "reform" is aimed at) is obesity.

Obesity also makes other medical conditions much more likely such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc.

It costs a person more initially to become obese and also more in the long run.

Obesity is a wholly preventable/reversible condition either by eating correctly or exercising more.

I believe most Americans would voluntarily give to support people who REALLY need help, and would be better able to do so if they didn't have to pay between 40-60% of their income in some form of tax.

The argument that preventive care is cheaper than treatment is a fallacy.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full...

the preventive savings made in health care are at the individuals fingertips.

The most common medical problem among the poor (arguably those who "reform" is aimed at) is obesity.

Obesity also makes other medical conditions much more likely such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc.

It costs a person more initially to become obese and also more in the long run.

Obesity is a wholly preventable/reversible condition either by eating correctly or exercising more.

I believe most Americans would voluntarily give to support people who REALLY need help, and would be better able to do so if they didn't have to pay between 40-60% of their income in some form of tax.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 8:28 PM

--------------------------

Generally it is commonly accepted that preventative care is cheaper than repairing a broken system, and thousands of cases can be used to prove this basic economic law.

If eating less food is a way of preventing obesity (which it is) and eating less food costs an individual less money (which is does), wouldn't that be an example of preventative care costing less than treatment?

You're right a doctor is needed to prevent obesity, but what about all the other illnesses, diseases, or problems that afflicts humans? Are you going to go to a church to test for high cholesterol or prostate cancer? Why do you think doctor's recommend that women get checked for cervical cancer and breast cancer often? These forms of preventative care can save their life, because it enables a trained professional to detect a problem early enough to "prevent" larger problems or death.

I'm saying churches and charities could help pay for those who NEEDED help, and would be better able to do so if the government weren't already bleeding us dry with their taxes.

I'm going to leave it alone for now because I have said what I wanted to say a couple of different ways over the last few days. I am not supporting any one bill or any one party or any one idea. I do support reform of the American health care system. I consider any health care system that can deny a sick person affordable health care a broken system. I believe that if a person gets up everyday and puts in their 40 hours each week or stays home and puts in the challenging hours ensuring that our children grow up strong should not have to worry about basics like affordable housing, food, and health and dental care. I am of the opinion that any system that removes a person's ability to provide these basics for their family is a system that should be changed and is counter to the ideas and principles that make America great. This is just my opinion, and maybe it doesn't mean much, but my brain, my gut, and my heart tell me I am right.

Which church do you go to that could afford all you ask of these churches?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 9:27 PM

Churches could better do all of these if it's members weren't punished with confiscatory progressive taxes.

Churches and it's members could also better discern who needs help and who is just a bum that needs a kick in the pants.

Cutting taxes also spurs the economic growth that creates jobs that allows people to help themselves.

What government program has solved the problem it was created to address?

DEA?

OSHA?

FDA?

UDSA?

ICE?

None! Because they must allow the problem to continue, or worsen, in order to ensure there continued existence.

Not to mention the completely ignored fact that the constitution in no shape, way, or form allows the government to run health care.

Here's just one very recent example of how our government works: The city of Boston used 2 million dollars of federal stimulus money to buy 4 city buses. How many jobs did this 2 million dollar expenditure create? Answer: 4. You have to be completely insane to believe our government is capable of running a heath care system. The medicaid system that our government runs now will, by most estimates, be broke by 2017. The Social Security program is broke now. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan..."Government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem."

Nathan,

450,000 can be wrong. An entire nation can be wrong. Look at Germany in WWII.

I think Mike has hit on something that we can all agree on. Obesity.

An imigrate was interviewed not too long ago and asked why he came to America. He said he wanted to come to where the poor people are fat.

I suspect the poor obese people are a very large segment that drives healthcare costs.

The government should spend our money responsibly. So what are they getting for the billions spent on welfare and other entitlement programs? The answer is simple: VOTES

In order to loose weight and get healthier there are two things that need to be done. EAT LESS and MOVE MORE.

The welfare system needs reform much worse than healthcare because the two are tied together.

Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out.

Most anyone seeking a job today and those who have jobs, have to submit to drug testing. Obviously if a welfare receipient has the resources to get drugs, they have the resources to get food. They should all be required to be drug tested and denied benefits, or greatly reduced benefits, if they fail. This would help to prepare them to enter the work force.

There should also be some type of work for them to perform (move more)in exchange for recieving benefits. This will also help to prepare them to enter the work force.

There are numerous opportunities for improvement to entitlement programs that would reduce obesity, educate, and improve overall health.

Free market operates on supply and demand. By reducing the demand for healthcare, we should see costs go down as well.

The Church is another vast opportunity to help the poor. The Church is the people, not the entity. If people will use their tithes and offerings to help other people directly, without expecting anything back, and avoid the treasury trap at the local church, I believe you will see the love of God spread in a way that has not been seen since the days that Jesus walked the earth.

Those are my views. I would like to hear others.

What about "treatment facilities"? Would my family have to help pay for that too? Addicts....who would pay? First time and second time etc.?

I agree stardust, alcholism and drug abuse probaly are more costly than obesity.

The point is these are all the result of personal choices for which there is no accountability in the government entitlemnt programs, and without accountability, there will not be any change for the better.

I was in Wal Mart last week and saw a woman and man in their mid to late 20's getting their groceries, the woman was in an electric wheel chair and the man was pushing the cart. He was a little smaller then her but they were two very large people. She had 2 McDonalds bags and 2 large drinks in the basket and he had 1 bag and 2 large drinks in the cart. And there wasn't enough good food in that cart to make 2 decent meals and they paid with a food stamp card. I don't think junk food should be aloud to be bought with food stamps. If they had to pay cash for their junk food maybe they wouldn't eat so much of it.

Actually most of the alcoholism and drug abuse cases are already on government programs and your taxes are already paying for these services.So are the lazy bums you refer to.. they have zero income so Medicaid and TnCare cover all their insurance needs. The ones who are left without coverage are those who make to much money to qualify for coverage yet don't make enough money to pay premiums and live, these are the people who have no insurance. People who are working and trying to support their families they are the people who deserve a break.

There is something wrong with a system that holds people back from obtaining a job for fear they can not support their family. When these "lazy bums" get a job if they make little more than minimum wage their benefits are cut.

I have seen time and time again single mothers get a job and be happy about the job only to have to quit because their benefits were cut so drastically that they could not pay rent, utilities, child care, food, car payments clothing much less insurance because they lose every benefit that they had. It almost seems the system is set up to watch these people fail.

It is a shame these people can make more sitting home in the form of free rent and utilities, food stamps, insurance cost, child care than they can when they get a job.

Bellbuckletn

I am not downing you at all but it is easy to sit back and say government programs won't work when you have government insurance. I understand you not wanting to change and I am sure if everyone who needed insurance had TnCare or Medicaid Nobody would want change either.

The programs the elderly are on may not be perfect by any means but who is screaming the loudest about not wanting Government Insurance program for all? It is the elderly and they already have government insurance and if it is so bad then why would they not want some other form of insurance, something that could possibly be better? Is it because it isn't nearly as bad as most think?

If people will use their tithes and offerings to help other people directly, without expecting anything back, and avoid the treasury trap at the local church, I believe you will see the love of God spread in a way that has not been seen since the days that Jesus walked the earth.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 7:22 AM

Liveforlight -

I would love to see that happen. It would be love unbridled like never before.

Problem is Mike how does a person solve their problem of being dependant on government programs when they can not make enough money to meet the needs of their family?

Everybody can not work in exec offices somebody has to work at Wal-Mart and McDonalds. So what about those people?

I am sure everybody that has a low income would much rather make enough money to fulfill their family's needs.

Going to college certainly does not guarantee you a job making enough money to support a family.

In fact I know people who are attending College just to get the money from pell grants living expenses. They have no intention of getting a job "can you say professional students" (now that tics me off much worse than giving the needy insurance!)

I am all for grants to help those get a better education if they need the funds and most students do need some funding because college has gotten to be an outrageous expense. But com'on at least plan on getting a job with that degree!!

No Nathan I do not support criminal charges for parents of obese children. I don't think anyone should be punished for the actions of another.

They are enabling the child to be obese by providing their food perhaps. But if you follow this logic then our entire welfare and food stamp system should be in jail. They are enabling the poor to be obese.

I am merely saying that their needs to be accountability involved with all recepients of our tax dollars. The military is effective because there is accountability at all levels.

Don't just cut out their benefits, but don't just give it away for nothing either.

Welfare payments should never exceed the minimum wage. If people can receive more money by doing nothing, that is what they will do.

We all tend to take the path of least resistance. But in the real world, the path of least resistance may be off the side of a cliff. You will get there, but the shape you are in when you arrive will be much worse than what you were to begin with.

Again, it is a HAND UP not a HAND OUT they need.

Enabling and encouraging bad behavior increases bad behavior.

A child is likely to continue in obeseity, drugs, or alcoholism, as long as someone continues to enable them to do so without any accoutablity or true cost to themselves.

All working people are going to pay through the nose in higher taxes for this health care plan.

Does anyone else think it's odd that a person that posts regularly on a local newspaper's website has the audacity to question everyone else's motives, research, religious convictions, etc...but REFUSES to reply to any questions of any substance that oppose his liberal (socialist) views?

Not to mention that this person isn't even a resident of this state.

America, the only country in the world where the Govt dependents on welfare are obese.

And yet, we want more Govt control??

BRILLIANT.

America, the only country in the world where the Govt dependents on welfare are obese.

And yet, we want more Govt control??

* I hope you don't think only people on government programs are obese!

"Now why in the world should the taxpayers be forced to provide the heatlh care that I may need one day as the result of MY decision to smoke."

you wont find the "cost" argument used in the official war on personal choice for one reason, and one reason only. no matter how they collected the data, the results were the same. smokers cost our health care system, not to mention social security, etc, less than non smokers. why? they simply dont live as long.

i agree 100%. people who work should make enough to live (period).

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 1:05 PM

They always do....if they work enough! ;-)

Here is a little info about Obama in his own worders.

450,000 doctors can be wrong and so can a majority of American voters, unless of course, these are the values you voted for. Remember these are Obama's own words from his books.

From Dreams of My Father:

'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father :

'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father:

'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father:

'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father:

'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

And FINALLY,

From Audacity of Hope:

'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Looks to me like Obama is a racist muslim. I WONDER WHAT HIS TRUE AGENDA MIGHT BE?

I also included info from the American League of voters.

Reagan said: "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it."

Boy does that resonate!

It sounds like President Reagan had the foresight to see the dangers of Obamacare.

Even more amazing is that Ronald Reagan spoke those words in 1961, before he ever ran for office.

But Reagan's comments are not surprising if you understand liberalism.

Creating a national health care system has been a major priority for the left wing for over 50 years!

Time and again the Congress and the American people have rejected socialized medicine.

Now Obama is pushing for a radical takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

But Obama is perhaps the most clever liberal ever.

He knows the American people would never go for a national system like they have in Britain or Canada.

So his plan calls for several steps for Obamacare to become a reality.

First, he lies and tells people "you keep your doctor, you keep your insurer."

At the same time he creates a "public option" -- allowing any business to move its employees into the public system.

He knows what you know, this will create a mass exodus from private insurers to the cheaper, taxpayer subsidized public system.

Meanwhile, he plans to add 50 million new patients - including illegal aliens to the system.

Reagan understood that schemes like Obama's are not about providing quality health care.

It is about statism. It is about government control and dependence. It is a threat to your freedom.

As I write this, millions of Americans are going on vacation.

But Obama and his allies are preparing for a major assault on Congress next week.

He has also called for a dramatic full session of Congress next week.

He is not calling this session to offer compromise.

He plans on using his national address to Congress as a giant pep rally to ram his radical program through Congress.

He wants the hoopla of a Congressional speech to overshadow his plummeting poll numbers, the mass protests we saw this summer at town halls across the nation and the growing anger toward his plan by Seniors.

We can't compromise with Obama and the radical Democrats.

We need to fight back.

As Reagan said: "If not us, who? If not now, when?"

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bob Adams

Executive Director

P.S. Just this week Nancy Pelosi stated unequivocally Congress will pass the Obamacare plan with the "public option." I warned you that these reports of a compromise was just a stall maneuver by the Democrats. We must hit the ground running after Labor Day

"Just this week Nancy Pelosi stated unequivocally Congress will pass the Obamacare plan with the "public option."

i still dont understand why everyone gets so upset about nancy pelosi. i like her just fine right where she is. pelosi is a cipher. she is weak and ineffectual. she is constantly making boneheaded statements. she always seems to be out of step. and i cant see where she leads anybody, anywhere. why in the world would we want to see pelosi gone? so someone stronger could take her place? i would like to see her stay where she is for the same reason i wish gerry faust was still coaching notre dame.

"So you prefer socialism? If so, that is fine, that is your opinion."

i will make you a deal. you dont tell me what i think, and i wont tell you what you think. that is a non-productive form of discourse. i dont "prefer" socialism, i accept it as reality. socialism is where government controls the means of production of a good or service. it is my opinion that it is disingenuous to attempt to restrict that definition to only certain goods and services. disingenuous or not, it is certainly non-productive since it allows for as many definitions of socialism as there are goods and services. even as we rage against socialism, i doubt there are very many who do not believe that some goods and services should be controlled by the government. a totally privatized transportation system would be unlikely to create interstates. my paved road would probably be a two tire-rut dirt track, since so few people live on it. without socialized power distribution, there would certainly be no electrical power. so if you want to know if i do not believe any good or service should be socialized, the answer is no. some industries, if privatized and only provided where it is profitable, would have such limited availability that the whole country would suffer. now if you are asking if i believe health care should be socialized my answer is not so simple. i do not think it is necessary, nor do i think it is the end of the world. to begin with, i do not accept that we have (any longer) the best health care system in the world. we did, but remaining at the top in anything requires that we never rest on our past accomplishments. staying at the top in any endeavor requires a constant effort to improve. when i see us ranked 37th in the world, i cant attribute that to unfair measurements. it is sort of like the bcs. if you miss the title game, and you are ranked 3rd, you can put all kinds of spin on it & make sense. but if the fans of the 37th ranked team were to complain, everyone would just laugh. if we want to reclaim our place at the top, we need to work hard to get better. however, when i look at how the countries ranked above us approach the problem, i find a wide variety ranging from completely socialized to completely privatized. there is no reason we cannot achieve our goals without socializing medicine. but the only way for this to happen is for those who believe in privatized health care to participate in the process. the best possible outcome of a strategy of screaming down those with different opinions is that we continue on a course that is losing ground. the other possibility is a system designed entirely without our input. i look at those as two different ways to lose. i cannot accept a strategy from which a winning outcome is not possible.

"My definition of socailism is the belief that the government knows what is good for the people more than the people know whats good for themselves."

unfortunately that is not the definition of socialism. and communication is so much easier if we stick to the established definition of words. but those who are seeking to inject fear into the discussion arent using socialism for its actual meaning, they are just invoking it as an emotionally charged buzzword.

regardless of that, if you are opposed to the government telling us how to live our personal lives, you have an ally in me. i am totally opposed to victimless crimes. the government ought to butt out of the smoking issue entirely. i am opposed to the drug laws, laws telling me what i can or cannot eat, laws against gambling, prostitution, laws telling churches who they can or cannot marry, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, all those intrusive big-brother government knows best laws, i am right there with you. the government should tend to government business (socialism-wink & grin), and leave living our lives to us. if we are not free to make bad decisions as well as good, then we are not free. not that i necessarily want to do any of those things, but it is not the government's place to tell me that i cant.

I agree 100%. The problem is, we also have to be free to accept the consequences of those decisions, good or bad, without having a government mandated "do-over" for some that didn't make good choices.

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Sep 5, 2009, at 2:42 PM

In full support of your statement!

Let's look at the history of some government run programs.

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - the government had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - the government had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - the government had 71 years to get it right; it is broke...Not to mention Barney Frank's boyfriend, the same one that ran a male prostitution ring from Frank's office, got a nice payoff from the bailout.

War on Poverty started in 1964 - the government had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" third and fourth generation welfare recipients prove it hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - the government had 44 years to get it right; they're broke

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - the government had 39 years to get it right; it is broke

Trillions of dollars in the massive political payoff called the TARP bill of 2009 shows NO sign of working.

And finally to set a new record: "Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that

were the best some people could afford) replaced them with high priced (people who couldn't afford to are now making payments) mostly Japanese models so a good percentage of the profits from the sales went out of the country.

And lastly, the American taxpayers are now going to be dinged with paying for yet 3 billion more dollars of our governments experiments to make our wallets even thinner.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?

Got any more Kool-Aid?

Your free to post the successful ones....if you can find any.

My point is, I was willing to work to support my family. One has to be willing before they can achieve anything. And no, I do not have a college degree. Struggle is a basic part of life. Not too many people are willing to accept this because our country has become lazy based on the fact that the government has enabled them to be this way.

Posted by bcpwoman on Mon, Sep 7, 2009, at 1:02 AM

bcpwoman -

So right you are. The government has become "the enabler" in such a bad way. Years of failed programs upon programs have destroyed many would-be talented people. There is no telling how many Einstiens' there were who never were challenged (struggled) enough to bring out their talents.

Yea just like George Bush said single Mom working 3 jobs...that's Uniquely American.

My problem with it isn't that it can't be done My problem is she shouldn't have to work 2.5 or 3 jobs just to support her family and just make ends meet!

Really? I work 40 hours a week and my life is far from Mediocre.. I am not Union either.

The problem I have is the time a single mother has to spend with her children when she works 3 jobs. I mean there is only so many hours in a day and only so many days in a week. Unless of course there is more hours in her day than there is mine.

It all goes back to what I said before .. there is nothing wrong with the government providing help to these single mothers or fathers. Problem is that they have the potential earning set so low that you have to be completely broke before you can get any help. What would be wrong with the government providing say insurance for her children so she could provide a home..or even the government providing food..so she could provide day care. This way the single parent could have some quality time with their children without having to work 3 jobs just to make ends meet. Somehow I just believe 1 job and 3 kids is enough for any one person.

The way it stands now it is a all or nothing program.

Also bcpwoman said she has a child entering College next year How much have you saved for his/her college working 2.5 jobs? Or are you planning on using government grants? (which don't get me wrong I am all for Grants for college) But they are government programs.

Have you been able to save that $100 per month per child for college that Mike thinks is necessary?

What do you do when the children start bonding with and to the provider?

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 7:17 AM

Children are not going to bond with the provider (as in the government) as long as they see their parents working and struggling to provide for them. The ones who bond with government programs are the ones who see Mommy and Daddy playing Xbox all day and still live just as well as those who work.

When I finally did start getting child support, things went a lot more smoothly until the support ended for about 7 months and I found myself in a complete bind. After 2 years in the courtroom, I started getting half of what I previously received and times were tough once again. If it is necessary, I will get a part time job to help, but that only helps my ex in lowering his support payment.

Posted by bcpwoman on Mon, Sep 7, 2009, at 1:02 AM

The root of the problem is she is not being supported by the father.

No child should have to go through life in a split family. We have become so selfish and unyeilding to the point that we won't even keep the commitments made to God during holy matrimony. You reap what you sow.

If we lived according to God's word this problem would also be solved. However, the situation is what it is. The government is not the answer, other than bringin the father to justice and passing laws to strengthen our marriages.

The divorce rate is over half of the total marraiges. There is the problem.

The welfare program is doing exactly what it was sit up to do...

-- Posted by Dianatn

Your absolutely right. It was designed to make folks dependent on the government and subconsciously train them to obey or suffer the consequences. One party always balks at any type of sensible welfare reform, because that is where they get the majority of their voting block.

Why not mandatory drug and alcohol screening for assistance? Mandatory birth control for women on the plans? Mandatory job training or schooling with a set time limit to be off assistance?

There is already Mandatory job training for people on Families first which is aid for dependant children and food stamps.

I like the idea of anyone who is receiving benefits who is able to work (ie: classified by the Social Security Office as disable) or elderly to have to do "so many" hours of community service in order for them to receive benefits. Why can't person who gets assistance be assigned monthly jobs, like working in the park picking up trash or even fixing the playground equipment or work at the court house or the Public Library or even the county Nursing Home. None of these jobs have to be something major just something to contribute into the county that is paying them.

These are all things our taxes are paying somebody to do.. it would give these people the incentive to either find a job that pays better than free benefits or it would save the tax payer some of the money they receive in benefits.

The answer to your question is no. I have not been able to save hardly anything. However, my child is on track to receive scholarships and from what I have been told, should pay for her tuition. Whew!!! I have tried to stay on them to study and make good grades. Maybe it will be a blessing that I did!Posted by bcpwoman on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 3:19 PM

That would be wonderful bcpwoman I hope your child gets what he/she needs to go to college.

Just be aware all scholarships are not created equally.. some hardly pay enough for books.

But if his/her GPA is good enough they should be eligible for the Hope scholarship thru the TnLottery. Of course even that does not pay even half the cost per year but it will help.

But please remember one thing... if your child does not get enough scholarships for his/her college there is no shame in them using a Pell Grant. That's what they are there for, your taxes have paid for them. You have worked long and hard enough your child deserves this benefit!

Good Luck to you and yours.

Mandatory birth control may be stepping over our boundaries a bit.

Why not smoke free government housing ...Eh there are worse things

Banning junk food like potato chips, soft drinks, candy and cookies from being purchased with EBT cards.... to this I say NO these children should not be punished for their parents being on government assistance. A child whose parents do not work should be able to eat junk food just like anybody else's child

-- Posted by Dianatn

Strange that we take away someones rights for criminal acts, dishonorable discharge or other means of not living up to their responsibilities.

But you say someone who isn't responsible enough to work should still enjoy all life's goodies as much as the person who works for them????

And you wonder why conservatives are fed up.

A child whose parents do not work should be able to eat junk food just like anybody else's child

-- Posted by Dianatn

A child in this situation should be removed from the parent(s) and put up for adoption. At least the child would have a chance at learning a work ethic, and just maybe the parent would be motivated enough to get off the couch.

Mike if you could just limit the adults from getting the "goodies" on the EBT cards then I would agree but there is no possible way to limit the adults without punishing the children.

-- Posted by Dianatn

Maybe the children could learn early the penalties for being lazy. A child knowing they couldn't have treats cause mom and dad are lazy would go a long way towards breaking the cycle.

Do you believe in Karma, Mike? Be careful, sometimes the way you feel about certain things and people come back to haunt you.

And I am done with this argument You know my feelings on this subject and I know yours. Neither one of us will ever change the others mind about it nor will we agree.

.. it is not a crime to be poor as far as I know.

-- Posted by Dianatn

But it should be if you stay there without making efforts to get yourself and more importantly your children out of it.

Ok I said I was finished with this but Blessed Assurance's comment made me feel compelled to answer.

I do not know one person who is poor by choice. Even some people who work a full work week and a part time job are still below the line of poverty.

Yes I do agree bcpwoman should be commended for working 2.5 jobs but remember she did get child support also.. not every woman who has children is that lucky.

What I fail to understand is why you seem to think it is perfectly ok for a single mother to HAVE to work 2.5 or 3 jobs to support her children.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here:

There is 24 hours in a day = 168 in a week

2.5 jobs

1 job is 40 hours 2 jobs is 80 hours and the .5 is a part time job, half of 40 is 20 that is 100 hours a week working being away from the home.

She has to sleep sometimes and even 6 hours a night is 42 hours a week.

That leaves 26 hours a week a mear 3.5 hours a day left over.

This woman still needs to cook, clean, wash clothes, help with homework, grocery shop and everything else you and I do.

When does she have time for baseball, football, basketball, soccer or even any time with her children?

How can that possibly be a good thing?

bcpwoman is lucky she didn't have to to this for very long but according to your standards a woman who receives no child support would have to do this for 18+ plus years. And dont even think that she would have time to go back to school to get a better job..there is no hours left in the day for that!

I know for a fact I could not do it I worked 12 hours a day 6 days a week for 5 years when my kids were little and had a husband at home to help me and it almost killed me.

i like you dianatn. you have a good heart. but you are destined to frustration in this conversation, because you are not receiving the right message. this is not about how bad bcpwoman is, it is about how good quitemike is. as far as i can tell, this is his only message when he posts. if those less fortunate deserve their fate, then those of us with more must be superior.

it's a much more self gratifying view than mine. i only have plenty by the grace of god, and am not inherently better than those who have less. more importantly god's gifts carry an obligation to try to help others. whose view is right? i neither know, nor care. i only must answer for my own actions.

Well said quietmike. I am glad you are not quiet on these important issues.

If only all Christians would step up and say what you said.

With that being said I would like to emphasize again how much better it would be for the Church to administer charity in the proper instructed format versus the government using its' hopeless approach.

The Church using its guidelines will not allow someone to not help themselves. They recognize the need to get the person up and going so they can become a contributor themselves and help give temporary help to the next in need.

I think Ronald Reagan said it best when he made the statement "welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence."

Over the years welfare has become a "crutch" for those who find themselves in need of it. The idea of helping your neighbor in a time of need has been around since biblical times. Modern welfare, however, has only been around since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies and churches that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function. Why have we [as a nation] lost sight of the "neighbor helping neighbor" philosophy?

Because the policy of high taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American people in order to finance welfare programs have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that "I gave at the [tax] office."

There are many reasons why a person chooses to work--ambition, money, social acceptance, or just an old-fashion work ethic. Many people who live off of the government dime lack the incentive to find a job if they are receiving a monthly stipend for doing little to better themselves, or society. There is too much money going to too many people in our country who are just too lazy to find a job. We need to reform the program and induce a motivator to prevent long-term welfare abuse, and to limit the ease in which one can continue to receive welfare.

It is my experiences in life that have shaped my political views. I will cite another example here:

My former daughter-in-law became pregnant at age 14, and my step-son was just 17 (at that time, 1993). They married, had a child, and went on public assistance (this was in the state of California). By age 20, she had birthed two more children. My step-son, who was bright, educated, and 23 chose to remain on AFDC, (aid for families with dependant children) MediCal, and foodstamps rather than work the daily grind. Why would someone purposely choose to remain in "poverty" rather than aspire to something better?

Because the government makes it so easy. Here's how:

My daughter-in-law/step-son/grandkids were receiving $764 in AFDC (keep in mind this was in the 1990s); $371 in FOODSTAMPS; MEDICAL which paid all necessary medical and dental care--without a deductible or co-pays; WIC (a food supplement program that provides milk, cheese, juice, cereal, and/or infant formula for Women, Infant, Children who fall within the income guidelines--the women must be pregnant or nursing, and children up to age 5); COMMODITIES(a government-funded monthly food dispursement program for low low-income families and Native Americans); low-income PHONE SERVICE (a reduced phone bill for low income families); low-income ELECTRIC (a reduced electric bill for low-income families); and even SUBSIDIZED HOUSING (their rent was $117 monthly). THEY LIVED QUITE COMFORTABLY WITHOUT HAVING TO WORK...AND THE "WORKING FOLKS" PAID FOR IT!

This is a true example of why so many welfare recipients become dependent upon "free government money." And there many "single moms" receiving assistance who have live-in boyfriends who work...so those cases are "double-dipping." And let's not forget those individuals who sell drugs "under the radar" and bring unreported income into these government funded homes. Don't even bother saying it doesn't happen, because I KNOW it does. My ex-husband was a "die-hard" junkie.

My husband and I work have to work long, hard days to live not much better than my step-son/daughter-in-law did on welfare. Sometimes I wonder "why bother, why not just go on welfare and have the peace of mind that you will always have money, food, and medical care each month, instead of worrying about lay-offs and sales quotas, and can I pay the house payment?"

IT IS A FLAWED SYSTEM. OUR ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON FIXING-or REFORMING, as it were-THE CURRENT FAILURES THAT ARE IN PLACE, RATHER THAN IMPOSE NEW FAILURES--THEREBY CREATING MORE DEBT...AND MORE TAX!

AFDC in Bedford County is $142 per month if you can raise a child on that you should run for office!!

AFDC in Bedford County is $142 per month if you can raise a child on that you should run for office!!

-- Posted by Dianatn

If you are dependant on the government to raise a child for you without working you should not be allowed to run for office.

More thoughts going in before the pants come down would go a long way in solving this problem.

So, in your opinion the majority is always right?

At one time the majority, supported slavery, thought women shouldn't vote, and thought the world was flat.

Oh and BTW Mike, I don't know what sources you use for your information, but you really should seek out some new ones.