TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:Why is there no "cut off date" for welfare or food stamps? Is it appropriate that there are millions on welfare claiming fake disabilities?
.

You sure about that? I believe there are significant barriers and check-ins for welfare and food stamp qualification. Disability is a different beast. Once you gain permanently disabled status with the government, there is no re-check... You're on it for life. And there are lots of attorneys and insurance companies that will help you achieve that status.

I don't care who is more charitable. It's not a contest... I'm just happy to see that someone else digs deep for facts and doesn't believe everything on face value. Thank you!

chuck j wrote:cb1000rider you can argue all you want to , it's still kind of a free country . I'd say offhand that you and Tecumseh know little more that what you have read on some athiest channel . It's the Christian's belief's that you are going for here but you are ill informed .

Chuck, I'm not sure what you're referring to... I'm speaking of my own experience. The "atheist channel" insinuation is unappreciated.

If you're saying that your church allows you to direct every dollar as you say fit, I'm not going to challenge you on that. I don't know where you go to church. I've just never had that experience. My experience is that you're expected to give regularly as a church member and if you want to give above and beyond that to specific projects, you may choose to do so. Does that clear it up?

For a little more clarity - many larger organizations (none that I am affiliated with) put a lot of emphasis on a tithe. Do you think that you get to direct where those dollars go?

I believe you think we disagree on having religious organizations take care of the needy instead of the government. I'd be willing to try it. I just have a little less faith in my fellow human beings than you do, that's all. It doesn't make me an avid "atheist channel" reader.. whatever that is.

chuck j wrote:I might ride on Crossfire's post and add that with the church you can dictate where the contribution will go .

Sure, you can pick and choose what trips or direct efforts are supported, but you're still expected to give to the general fund.
Churches are organizations just like any business or government... There are plenty of politics in any large organization.
If you say that churches as a whole are doing a better job at supporting the needy than the federal government, I won't argue with you...

Tecumseh wrote: Interesting. My question is just why don't they shut down the churches or reduce the number of niceties and give to the poor? Just like when I see a welfare recipient with an iPhone and a 60 inch TV, I ask why they don't get rid of it if they need the money? Why don't churches stop their intense desire to have nice stuff if they claim they want to help others? I am sure somebody would be willing to buy some of the relics in Holy See.

Do you know how most church financing works? I mean at the local level, not the Vatican. Local churches are funded by their members as well as the base organization... And members like nice things like gyms, where their kids can play in a "save" environment. Those funds go to mission trips, educational programs, grounds keeping, salaries, as well as things to facilitate the local flock.

Give away every church dollar and leave nothing for the base community.. It'll be a very short lived church financially.

chuck j wrote:cb1000rider I'v read your post twice and although friendly enough put it seems like you would change little or nothing of the present system . Am I wrong ?

That's a fair enough question, so I'll be blunt:
What I'm proposing would be an annual review on disability recipients that is backed by 1-2 medical doctors that are willing to state that the disability recipient continues to be truly disabled.
You could back it off if you wanted and make it every 3 or 5 years, maybe omit people under certain obvious physical conditions.

If you want off of government social welfare completely, I respect your opinion, but that change isn't likely to happen in the current political climate.

Doing this, alone, would shake up the "new welfare" role (disability). It shouldn't be a retirement ticket for those that don't really need it.

Start there...

The Annoyed Man wrote: No, we can't count on it, but then counting on government to do it isn't exactly working out, is it? ....no matter how high our taxes are....

I'd say it's working pretty well for those that receive checks regularly. When is the last time that being cash flow negative as a country actually meant that someone didn't get a welfare or disability check. I'm talking about reliability here, nothing else.

The Annoyed Man wrote: First of all, go ahead and pay more taxes than you owe. I promise to neither protest nor try and stop you. If everybody who wanted or was willing to pay higher taxes simply shut their yaps and went ahead and paid additional taxes (roughly half the voters), is there anybody pollyanna enough to imagine that a grateful government would funnel all that extra money into supporting the poor? Please! Why do you imagine that if all of us had to pay higher taxes that government would funnel all that extra money into supporting the poor. cb1000rider, you're a smart guy. I don't for a minute think that you are that pollyanna. We can't even count on Congress to protect our Social Security investments by keeping it out of the general fund. What would make you, a rational man, think that we could count on Congress to sequester the additional tax money for relief of the poor? Simply not going to happen. It is my observation that LOTS of people say they'd be willing to pay more taxes to accomplish that goal, but NONE of them will do it unless it is compulsory for everybody. So in the end, they're not really interested in charity for charity's sake. What they want is for government to capture more of "everyone else's money." And that goes for everyone from your local mail carrier all the way up to Warren Buffet.....who is certainly in a better position than all but one or two other Americans to pay higher taxes....but won't put his money where his mouth is.

I dunno how we got off base here.
I'm not talking about additional funding to welfare or disability, I'm talking about less of it. It's less because I believe, strongly in the case of disability, that a simple status review every few years would likely shake off a lot of deadbeats. We were talking about what we do with the truly disabled and how those people continue to live their lives facing a potential cut-off of government support.

Second, I *would* vote to raise our taxes. I *would* voluntarily pay more. I'm making very unpopular statements, so I need to qualify them: I would do either or both under the condition that those funds went directly toward our deficit and we have a balanced budget resolution that makes it darn near impossible to run a deficit again, unless we have almost unilateral executive and congressional agreement in association with an event like a war. We've got a credit card bill. We need to pay it off. And yes, I realize that technically, we're "at war" right now. I would not pay more nor would I want to increase our taxes as the government is being run today. Those dollars would simply be swallowed up by another political faction sponsored by a special interest. And if there is one things we've proven over and over. Once we have big government, it's very difficult to reduce that footprint.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Secondly, I am old enough that pre-1940s was still fresh memory for my parents before I was born. Do you want to know what saved the economy? It wasn't FDR's New Deal, it was a little thing called WW2. Until the outbreak of WW2, FDR simply squandered the treasury in giving people "make-work" to keep them busy and collecting check, and staying out of trouble. But, THEY WORKED FOR THE MONEY! They built the great dams. They built highways. They built the Mount Rushmore Monument......etc., etc., etc. In other words, America received some benefit in exchange for the charity. Furthermore, some of FDR's economic consultants said in later years that the New Deal probably delayed economic recovery instead of helping it. It exceeds the mandate of the Constitution to provide charity of any kind whatsoever, but if you want government to provide it, then I as a taxpayer have a right to expect something in exchange for it. Put the poor to work, at a less than minimum wage salary (as an incentive for them to seek a minimum wage job instead of staying on the dole), and then stand back and watch them get themselves out of their financial holes.

I don't have the wisdom of your years, but historically I understand that two things happened economically that align with what you're saying:
1) WW2 jump started the economy.
2) The new deal also put massive amounts of money into the economy. Essentially this provided a basis for some modern economic theories that suggest you get money liberal in economic depressions.

And I'm with you... I'm not for free lifetime benefits for those that can't work. Those that can work should. If they can work a little bit, they should. The reality is that the current system discourages them from earning on their own. And we've got a bunch of people that aren't really disabled getting moderate-level retirement checks.

The Annoyed Man wrote: For the small percentage of unfortunates who are genuinely disabled due to quantifiable physical injury or severe psychiatric disorder, the nation can make some kind of accommodation, and I would have no objection to putting money into that........if we cut money from somewhere else.....because government simply can't be all things to all people. But no more people on disability simply because they are too stressed out to work. We are ALL stressed out......particularly the self-employed such as myself.....and no more money to babymamas who keep adding ashcats to their family tree without a responsible and supportive father under the same roof.

Once again, you and I see eye to eye here. I don't have enough faith in my fellow brothers and sisters to believe that they'd spring for a reliable means of living for those that are truly disabled. That's an opinion, not a fact. The disconnect you and I seem to have is that I believe we're paying for this already. And I think the price can and should go down by shaking off the dead beats.

The babby-mama issue is harder. Technically the additional funds are for the additional kids. You can't take money away from the mom without taking it away from the kid. The kid had nothing to do with that bad situation and often that situation leads to a greater social burden down the road. It's the same problem with child support. Dads (and some moms) provide funding to another adult for the kid, but the reality is that those funds can be spent on anything...

The Annoyed Man wrote: Many years ago when I was young and single, I dated a young lady briefly. She was on welfare, and as a condition of her receiving it, she had to be involved in a job training program which she had to successfully complete in order to continue receiving welfare payments. Upon successful completion of the program, her welfare would be stopped. It was not open ended. She had to complete the program successfully by a certain date, or her welfare would be stopped. End result? She got a job.

I love that idea.. And I don't know how long it's been since you were young and single, but I know that since the 1980s it's been progressively harder to get and stay on welfare. That's why people have shifted to disability, which right now is a lifetime grant backed by a large set of lawyers that make a living having it granted. To be honest, I know it's an out used by insurance companies. If they have to pay out on disability insurance, they can provide attorneys to payees that will work to get the customer on the federal roles. Most disability insurance has an "alternate income" clause.

The Annoyed Man wrote: First of all, the law requires an ER to provide any and all life-saving care necessary, regardless of the patient's ability to pay for it. You are not allowed to transfer a patient from a private hospital ER to a county hospital ER if transferring the patient will put his/her health at risk. The patient must be stable and safe for transfer before they can be transferred, no matter how inconvenient that might be to the ER or the hospital in which it is located. I worked in an ER for years, and that's just a fact Jack. No hospital is going to withhold care and let a patient die simply because he or she is poor. That's not only a red herring, it's pretty insulting to the people who are actually going to provide that healthcare at the point where the rubber meets the road—many of whom...orderlies and lower order nurses and technicians....are living barely above the poverty level themselves because they are not at the top of the healthcare provision food chain.

I see it the same way you do. But we've got members of this forum that advocate no care of any kind for the non-citizens which is why I bring it up. I think that's a real problem. And advocating that is an ethical decision in my mind. No doctor that I know would refuse care in an emergency.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Secondly, the problem with poor people in the system isn't the dying poor. It's the poor who use the ER as their personal physician, clogging up the system and needlessly burning up massive amounts of resources, each of whom HAS to be seen just for the ER staff to CYA and document that the patient is not dying but only has a common cold. For every dying gunshot poor patient an ER sees, that same ER will see hundreds of poor people with nothing more than the common cold. I don't know about you, but when I have a cold, I don't go to the doctor. A cold is a cold is a cold. It will go away in 7-8 days, pretty much no matter what you do, and you have to just deal with it. I don't go to the doctor for a cold because if I do, it takes about $140 out of my pocket for the visit. Poor people don't have to pay for those visits to the ER for their common cold, and so they go, even though it isn't medically necessary, and even though it is a boat anchor on the public healthcare system. It's free (to them), so why not go? "Spend more" is nothing more than a recipe for more of the same.

Yep. 100% agree.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Now, I don't have it in for the poor, but the poor are a fact of life and even Jesus said they will always be with us. That which we do for the least of them, we do for Him, but that is a religious choice. If you make it anything more than the barest shoestring minimum of a government requirement, it is no longer charity, because real charity comes from the heart. The Widow's Mite was greater in the Lord's eyes than the largest charitable gift ever given, and the largest donation ever has no value in God's eyes if it comes from the heart of anyone but a cheerful giver. If it is paid in taxes under a threat of punishment for failure to pay, it is no longer given, it is taken, and now it is no longer a matter of the heart.

Yet you advocate some level of government care for those that are truely poor and disabled, just as I do... If I read you correctly above. You just don't want it to cost more than it does already.

And I can agree with your constitutional assessments also, but the difference is that I don't expect a sudden constitutional reset. I tend to work from where we are today rather than where we "should" be constitutionally.... I see a huge constitutional erosion in terms of our freedoms being taken away in the name of security already...

VMI77 wrote: You seem to be confused about what the Constitution says and what it means. The Constitution is a charter for limited government. It defines what the Federal government is ALLOWED to do, and all those functions not specifically enumerated come under the sole power of the individual States. The Constitution DOES NOT ALLOW the Federal Government to provide welfare. Now granted, a liberal activist president (FDR) in collusion with a corrupt and dishonest Congress and a activist Supreme Court have deliberately re-interpreted the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, but its clear meaning is quite obvious and simple. That said, if the government actually followed the Constitution, there is nothing prohibiting individual states from doling out all the welfare their residents are willing to cough up in taxes. And there are all kinds of reasons why the Founders wrote the Constitution the way they did --one of them being that the States were intended to be individual experiments for self-governance, both by individual demonstrations of what works and what doesn't, and as refuges for those citizens living in states that strayed too far in the wrong direction --another system of checks and balances.

So reading between the constitutional lecture lines, you seem to be saying that you think welfare is a job for the state.. And again, I'm looking for solutions, so I completely accept that as a reasonable solution. I can't say that it will solve the problem, as it only passes the burden of spending from federal taxes to state taxes (or property tax here in TX)... That assumes everything stays the same.

I do agree that states seem to have a better handle on the regional problems, certainly better than the federal government... So I certainly like that aspect.

In regard to the constitutional lecture. You guys can do that all day long, but the reality is that we pay taxes (too many) and currently pay into a system that takes from those who make money and at some level redistributes it. I see nothing in the constitution that "allows" for that, but we're not going to get the "reset" that you guys keep talking about any time soon, so why not work within the bounds of what we can change?

G26ster wrote: How about a free market instead of gov't controlled health care? Simply removing restrictions for insurance allowing it to be sold across state lines, and reigning in state's mandated coverages, will reduce medical insurance costs. Simple competition. You don't see the problem with vehicle insurance companies who are beating each other bloody fighting for your business in every media outlet possible. MHO

I'd take that as a reasonable possible solution, but wasn't that what we had pre-Obama? And the track of healthcare costs was very up and to the right. Of course, we did have the state-restrictions that you mentioned, but I believe you can thank political special interests for that... I'm just not sure that free market is a solution in this case. The costs were not headed in the right direction... Correct me if I'm wrong.

hillfighter wrote: Now I have a question of my own. Why do some people embrace socialism when it's such a failure? Just a little realism, no judgment.

I don't like (embrace) socialism (Obamacare), assuming you're talking to me.
However, we seem to be stuck between two realities right now:
1) At the current rate of cost increases, only the rich will be able to afford medical care. Going to a family practice doctor and paying cash, I'm looking at $200-$300 just walking in the door for 15 minutes of his time currently. My insurance rates, being healthy and a good 20 years out of retirement age is ridiculous.... True "average wage" homes, I'm sure it hurts.
2) We are stuck with some form of socialism (Obamacare) or having the government put caps on medical costs (another socialist concept).

If you've got a 3rd reality, I'm all ears... The only thing I can think of is to take away the liability from being a health care professional, which will help with costs.

Yes, long term Socialist medical care does reduce the overall standard of care.

VoiceofReason wrote: Be careful with arrogant criticism of people because it could happen to you. Denying the fact it could happen to you might make you feel a little better and more secure, but it will not change the fact you could have a stroke, auto accident or any number of other misfortunes that prevent you from working and left you paying huge medical bills out of your pocket. Even some very rich people were suddenly poor with the last depression. There is more truth in “There but for the grace of God go I” than people realize.

I insure against it, but realize that it could happen to me. It might happen in a time where I'm not insured. Even insured against it, it would be a big lifestyle hit.

Someone pointed out that we all receive some form of assistance. It could be as simply as federal funds for our roads here in Texas, but we all receive something. I think many are proponents of ending all forms of Federal assistance, but the reality of that, can you imagine: How many could pay for their retirement out of pocket on savings alone? No social security. No medicaid. No medicare. How many could afford to self pay for private insurance at retirement age? I know many will blame Obama for current costs, so take the cost of healthcare under Bush and it's projected growth rate. For me, I can comfortably self-retire on something like $3M at 65. That takes care of stock market crashes, the off chance that I live until 90, and insolvent social security. That amount of money keeps me in a middle class lifestyle. I probably won't hit $3M... Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Retire on $500k without any form of assistance in our current economy and I hope you're really healthy, don't live that long, or make great investment choices... If you think you don't have to worry about it, you're not looking around.

Hate Obamacare, but without some change no one but the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare without assistance. I recognize Obamacare for what it is: Socialism. We're not a Socialist country... I should say we weren't a Socialist country.

chuck j wrote:I'v seen you make many good posts , My opinion you need to actually think about this one . You are my brother .

I'm happy to do to that. And I apologize if any judgement was implied, that thought didn't enter my mind... Regardless of point of view, I generally read the references provided, think about what (most) people have to say, and consider alternate opinions. I'm up for reasonable and rational discussion and I do get wound up with sensationalism and half-truth.

If I believed, like I think you do, that people who are legitimately disabled could get a fair shake without any government assistance through the kindness of others, I'd stand in line beside you... I'm just not sure that's the case. Note, I don't disagree with you, I'm simply unsure. I'm probably a little less trusting of human beings than you are, unfortunately.

Sorry, Chuck, I'm not following you.. we're discussing an overall change to the welfare / disability system. I'm not making any decisions for you or anyone else. I'm not judging you or your suggestions.. I may question, but it's for the sake of discussion. No offense or moral judgment intended..

Actually, I was legitimately wondering how well that would work in reality. I know that you think it will work, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it. Why so defensive?

You know that we're having a discussion here, right? And everyone has an opinion.
We're talking about a solution to a nation wide problem. Why should a citizen not be concerned? When and if no one is concerned, we've got a bigger problem.

chuck j wrote: She paused and thought , finaly she said ; I don't work , I have a child.

Whenever I mention that my wife doesn't work, I usually get smacked and reminded that she works a lot harder than I do.. and doesn't get vacation days.. :-)