Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us...
>
>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get a
>> job?
>
> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for
> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for
> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them.

Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams)
foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those
who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child is
born; are you insinuating that the working class should be disallowed
from having children?

If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another
with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have family
who would either help me out financially until I could find a comparable
job, or at least offer me a place to live with my daughter, but if not
fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid. Yes, some people abuse
they system. But saying that there should be no safety net in a country
as well-to-do as ours is, and that people who find themselves in
unfortunate situations, often beyond their control, should have their
children taken from them, is horrific, to say the least. What's next, 'A
Modest Proposal" ?

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
> 5.247:
>
>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>
>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get a
>>> job?
>>
>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for
>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for
>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them.
>
> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams)
> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those
> who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child is
> born; are you insinuating that the working class should be disallowed
> from having children?

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers*
(abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no benefits
at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the children should
be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that the adult recipients
should be limited from having further children.

> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another
> with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have family
> who would either help me out financially until I could find a comparable
> job, or at least offer me a place to live with my daughter, but if not
> fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid. Yes, some people abuse
> they system. But saying that there should be no safety net in a country
> as well-to-do as ours is, and that people who find themselves in
> unfortunate situations, often beyond their control, should have their
> children taken from them, is horrific, to say the least. What's next, 'A
> Modest Proposal" ?

I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many conscienctious
individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls for some period of
time, often through no fault of their own. These are not the people I'm
talking about. They need help, and while they're receiving it, they most
often find other employment and get on with their lives. However, where I
live, welfare abuse in any conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom
welfare is an expected way of life do not deserve the benefits. And,
frankly, I don't give a damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare
families" should most definitely have their kids removed. They might think
twice about having another eight kids, since they wouldn't be receiving
benefits for them. Sometimes horrific measures are necessary.

When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance through
the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason? Because I was
single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!

Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that this
was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their life go
trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and get everything
under the sun, including absolutely free medical care.

I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare system
is seriously ****ed up.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 1dys 4hrs 22mins
*******************************************
A friend in need is someone to avoid.
*******************************************

Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>> 5.247:
>>
>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>>
>>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get
>>>> a job?
>>>
>>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for
>>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for
>>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them.
>>
>> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams)
>> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those
>> who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child
>> is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be
>> disallowed from having children?
>
> I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers*
> (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no
> benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the
> children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that
> the adult recipients should be limited from having further children.
>

You must know very little about the foster care system, if you think
that removing a child from their family of origin *simply because their
parents have had unfortunate circumstances*, and place them in the home
of a stranger, who is gaining material benefit from the government for
their efforts, is better for that child.

>> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another
>> with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have
>> family who would either help me out financially until I could find a
>> comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my
>> daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid.
>> Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be
>> no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that people
>> who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond their
>> control, should have their children taken from them, is horrific, to
>> say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ?
>
> I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many
> conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls
> for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These
> are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while
> they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get on
> with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any
> conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an expected
> way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I don't give a
> damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare families" should
> most definitely have their kids removed. They might think twice about
> having another eight kids, since they wouldn't be receiving benefits
> for them. Sometimes horrific measures are necessary.
>

The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child, and
are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage jobs
available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford childcare
even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing, what the hell
are you supposed to do?

How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?

> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>

All of which put you in a better position to improve your situation than
most. Give yourself a pat on the back there.


> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care.
>

They don't get "everything under the sun". I realize that people *do*
abuse the system, but the example above is hardly the average person on
welfare. As I said earlier, do you own a home? You get welfare.
Differentiating one kind of government assistance from another is rather
unfair.

> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
> system is seriously ****ed up.
>

You already said that you think a solution would be to take children
away from their parents, and put them into the homes of strangers while
their parents starve would be a solution.

And I think that is rather sad, myself.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:18:37p, Saerah Gray told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
> 5.247:
>
>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>>> 5.247:
>>>
>>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>>>
>>>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get
>>>>> a job?
>>>>
>>>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for
>>>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for
>>>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them.
>>>
>>> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams)
>>> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those
>>> who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child
>>> is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be
>>> disallowed from having children?
>>
>> I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers*
>> (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no
>> benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the
>> children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that
>> the adult recipients should be limited from having further children.
>>
>
> You must know very little about the foster care system, if you think
> that removing a child from their family of origin *simply because their
> parents have had unfortunate circumstances*, and place them in the home
> of a stranger, who is gaining material benefit from the government for
> their efforts, is better for that child.

Actually, I know quite a lot about the foster care system, as I work for a
not-for-profit mental health agency and I see similar situations all the
time. I would rather see foster parents receive the government benefits
than the parents who *refuse* to work. They clearly do not deserve the
beneefits. I have no further comment on that situation.

>>> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another
>>> with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have
>>> family who would either help me out financially until I could find a
>>> comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my
>>> daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid.
>>> Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be
>>> no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that people
>>> who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond their
>>> control, should have their children taken from them, is horrific, to
>>> say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ?
>>
>> I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many
>> conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls
>> for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These
>> are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while
>> they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get on
>> with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any
>> conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an expected
>> way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I don't give a
>> damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare families" should
>> most definitely have their kids removed. They might think twice about
>> having another eight kids, since they wouldn't be receiving benefits
>> for them. Sometimes horrific measures are necessary.
>>
>
> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child, and
> are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage jobs
> available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford childcare
> even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing, what the hell
> are you supposed to do?
>
> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?

The difference is, if the parent(s) are working for wages that are
inadequate, they deserve to receive benefits to supplement what they need.
Those who *won't* work deserve nothing. There's a huge difference between
trying and making absolutely no effort. I have no further comment on that
situation. either.

>> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
>> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
>> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>
> All of which put you in a better position to improve your situation than
> most. Give yourself a pat on the back there.

Bullshit! I desparately needed help and couldn't get it. Just because I
had previously been working was of no benefit to me when I was no longer
working. I have no further comment on that situation. either.

>> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
>> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
>> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
>> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care.
>>
>
> They don't get "everything under the sun".

You'd be very surprised if you lived where I do. Given my place of
employment, I know exactly what many people get.

I realize that people *do*
> abuse the system, but the example above is hardly the average person on
> welfare. As I said earlier, do you own a home? You get welfare.
> Differentiating one kind of government assistance from another is rather
> unfair.

I take that very personally, especially when you make the differentiation
you do. When you're back is against the wall, you have no immediate
propects for employment, and need medical attention but are refused by the
system, it becomes very personal. **** on the system that refuses me and
gives freely to others. No further comment.

>> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
>> system is seriously ****ed up.
>>
>
> You already said that you think a solution would be to take children
> away from their parents, and put them into the homes of strangers while
> their parents starve would be a solution.
>
> And I think that is rather sad, myself.

Just because a situation/solution may be sad does not invalidate it.
Debtors prison was sad, but the children of those people probably faired
better because of it.

You won't win me over. We definitely do not share the same values. I'm
done.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 1dys 3hrs 34mins
*******************************************
Did you know that the word 'gullible'
is not in the dictionary?
*******************************************

Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:18:37p, Saerah Gray told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>> 5.247:
>>
>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>>
>>>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>>>> 5.247:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>>>>
>>>>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't
>>>>>> get a job?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for
>>>>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for
>>>>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams)
>>>> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to
>>>> those who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their
>>>> child is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be
>>>> disallowed from having children?
>>>
>>> I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers*
>>> (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no
>>> benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the
>>> children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that
>>> the adult recipients should be limited from having further children.
>>>
>>
>> You must know very little about the foster care system, if you think
>> that removing a child from their family of origin *simply because
>> their parents have had unfortunate circumstances*, and place them in
>> the home of a stranger, who is gaining material benefit from the
>> government for their efforts, is better for that child.
>
> Actually, I know quite a lot about the foster care system, as I work
> for a not-for-profit mental health agency and I see similar situations
> all the time. I would rather see foster parents receive the
> government benefits than the parents who *refuse* to work. They
> clearly do not deserve the beneefits. I have no further comment on
> that situation.
>

Of course, you won't define "refuse to work". Are you aware of how
expensive childcare is? If you're making a thousand dollars a month, and
half or more goes to childcare, what are you supposed to live on?

>>>> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find
>>>> another with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I
>>>> have family who would either help me out financially until I could
>>>> find a comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my
>>>> daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid.
>>>> Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be
>>>> no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that
>>>> people who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond
>>>> their control, should have their children taken from them, is
>>>> horrific, to say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ?
>>>
>>> I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many
>>> conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls
>>> for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These
>>> are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while
>>> they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get
>>> on with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any
>>> conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an
>>> expected way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I
>>> don't give a damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare
>>> families" should most definitely have their kids removed. They
>>> might think twice about having another eight kids, since they
>>> wouldn't be receiving benefits for them. Sometimes horrific
>>> measures are necessary.
>>>
>>
>> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
>> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
>> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
>> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
>> what the hell are you supposed to do?
>>
>> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?
>
> The difference is, if the parent(s) are working for wages that are
> inadequate, they deserve to receive benefits to supplement what they
> need. Those who *won't* work deserve nothing. There's a huge
> difference between trying and making absolutely no effort. I have no
> further comment on that situation. either.
>

The catch 22 here is that a family can have both parents working, not be
able to pay their bills, but be making "too much" money to qualify for
assistance.

>>> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
>>> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
>>> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>>
>> All of which put you in a better position to improve your situation
>> than most. Give yourself a pat on the back there.
>
> Bullshit! I desparately needed help and couldn't get it. Just
> because I had previously been working was of no benefit to me when I
> was no longer working. I have no further comment on that situation.
> either.
>
>>> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
>>> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
>>> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
>>> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical
>>> care.
>>>
>>
>> They don't get "everything under the sun".
>
> You'd be very surprised if you lived where I do. Given my place of
> employment, I know exactly what many people get.
>

From what you have said, it would seem that you deal with people who
have an even harder time finding and keeping employment than most. I
find this a bit skewed.

> I realize that people *do*
>> abuse the system, but the example above is hardly the average person
>> on welfare. As I said earlier, do you own a home? You get welfare.
>> Differentiating one kind of government assistance from another is
>> rather unfair.
>
> I take that very personally, especially when you make the
> differentiation you do. When you're back is against the wall, you
> have no immediate propects for employment, and need medical attention
> but are refused by the system, it becomes very personal. **** on the
> system that refuses me and gives freely to others. No further
> comment.
>

If you needed medical attention that badly, you could have gone to the
emergency room; that is the option for many without health insurance.
They cannot refuse you treatment.

<snip>

> You won't win me over. We definitely do not share the same values.
> I'm done.
>

I agree that people abuse the system. But saying someone "won't" work,
when the only option is to take a minimum wage job that won't cover the
costs of living, let alone childcare so that you can work that job, is
somewhat unfair. Some states have programs that help cover the costs of
childcare for low-income families, but the income threshold is such that
one would not be able to live on it.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:56:25p, Saerah Gray told us...

Saerah, I refuse to discuss this further. We are at an impass.

Let's get back to food.

Tonight was burgers grilled with Worcestershire Sauce, granulated garlic, and
cracked black pepper, topped with semi-melted blue cheese, onion slices, and
lettuce. Served with fresh-cut french fries and sliced tomatoes. Coca Cola
cake for dessert.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 1dys 2hrs 51mins
*******************************************
If winning isn't important then why
keep score?
*******************************************

Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:56:25p, Saerah Gray told us...
>
> Saerah, I refuse to discuss this further. We are at an impass.
>
> Let's get back to food.
>
> Tonight was burgers grilled with Worcestershire Sauce, granulated
> garlic, and cracked black pepper, topped with semi-melted blue cheese,
> onion slices, and lettuce. Served with fresh-cut french fries and
> sliced tomatoes. Coca Cola cake for dessert.
>

I made a chicken stir-fry thing with broccoli and mushrooms and an
orange-ginger sauce.

I also made a chicken pot pie for tomorrow.

Coca-cola cake sounds interesting

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:13:53 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:56:25p, Saerah Gray told us...
>
> Saerah, I refuse to discuss this further. We are at an impass.
>
> Let's get back to food.
>
> Tonight was burgers grilled with Worcestershire Sauce, granulated garlic, and
> cracked black pepper, topped with semi-melted blue cheese, onion slices, and
> lettuce. Served with fresh-cut french fries and sliced tomatoes. Coca Cola
> cake for dessert.

just like them welfare chiselers, except they probably had kobe beef.

your pal,
blake

In article > ,
Saerah Gray > wrote:

> If you needed medical attention that badly, you could have gone to the
> emergency room; that is the option for many without health insurance.
> They cannot refuse you treatment.

If you have nothing, what you have just said is true. If you've been
struggling your whole life to build assets, you can go bankrupt in the
blink of an eye without health insurance and even with it if it's not
comprehensive (and it isn't nowadays). If you have nothing, you spend
nothing. If you have assets and a work ethic, you lose everything. Then
you are on equal footing to someone who has never worked. You have
nothing. They never had anything. You're the same by government
standards.

leo

On Sun 14 Sep 2008 10:39:28p, Leonard Blaisdell told us...

> In article > ,
> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
>> If you needed medical attention that badly, you could have gone to the
>> emergency room; that is the option for many without health insurance.
>> They cannot refuse you treatment.
>
> If you have nothing, what you have just said is true. If you've been
> struggling your whole life to build assets, you can go bankrupt in the
> blink of an eye without health insurance and even with it if it's not
> comprehensive (and it isn't nowadays). If you have nothing, you spend
> nothing. If you have assets and a work ethic, you lose everything. Then
> you are on equal footing to someone who has never worked. You have
> nothing. They never had anything. You're the same by government
> standards.
>
> leo
>

I had a 10 year old car that was paid for. I was living in a rented house.
When I went for an interview to apply for AHCCCS (Arizona medical coverage)
and, possibly, food stamps, (I didn't apply for any other types of
assistance) I was told I didn't qualify. I was also told that I would have
to sell my car and move to a "low rent" apartment, to *possibly* qualify.

As far as I was concerned, that was an untenable and unacceptable solution.
Giving up my own transportation would have made it virtually impossible to
get to job interviews given the location where I lived. I didn't have
enough money to either put down a security deposit on an apartment nor
enough money to move my belongings.

The end result was bankruptcy to preserve what few things I did have of any
value, which could not be easily disposed of for monetary gain.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 1dys 1hrs 12mins
*******************************************
A mind is a terrible thing to ... er
... hmmmm?
*******************************************

In article > ,
Saerah Gray > wrote:

> Of course, you won't define "refuse to work". Are you aware of how
> expensive childcare is? If you're making a thousand dollars a month, and
> half or more goes to childcare, what are you supposed to live on?

That is why work at home programs would be the practical answer to that.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet > fnord
news
> In article > ,
> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
>> Of course, you won't define "refuse to work". Are you aware of how
>> expensive childcare is? If you're making a thousand dollars a month,
>> and half or more goes to childcare, what are you supposed to live on?
>
> That is why work at home programs would be the practical answer to
> that.

What kind of work do you suggest they do (for the government, right?) at
home?

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

In article > ,
Saerah Gray > wrote:

> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?

I think that's the entire basis of this discussion babe. :-(
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet > fnord newsmpomelet-D5E9A1.02470215092008
@news.giganews.com:

> In article > ,
> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
>> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?
>
> I think that's the entire basis of this discussion babe. :-(

My point is, it is hard to differentiate someone who can't find a job
that will pay the bills *and* childcare, and someone who "won't" get a
job.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:47:02 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article > ,
> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
>> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?
>
> I think that's the entire basis of this discussion babe. :-(

maybe so; you assume most recipients are unworthy and i do not.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:47:02 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article > ,
> > Saerah Gray > wrote:
> >
> >> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?
> >
> > I think that's the entire basis of this discussion babe. :-(
>
> maybe so; you assume most recipients are unworthy and i do not.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Did I ever say that? Even ONCE???
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet wrote:
>
>>>> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?
>>> I think that's the entire basis of this discussion babe. :-(
>> maybe so; you assume most recipients are unworthy and i do not.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Did I ever say that? Even ONCE???

I don't recall you saying that. It is just a cheap attempt to make you
look cheap and uncaring, and unwarranted attack your credibility. The
fact is that there are people who are too lazy to work and who abuse the
system that is meant to help those in need.

Saerah Gray wrote:
>
> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
> what the hell are you supposed to do?

Personally, I think the government should provide free child care in cases
like this. Ultimately, it would probably be a cheaper solution than
welfare. There would be no excuse for parents to stay at home unless they
had a disability preventing them from working. It would have to be a
heavily monitored program, but this would mean employment of child care
workers, pre-school teachers, social workers, psychologists - most of, if
not all, would have to have a college degree. Folks going to school would
help the economy. Providing jobs would stimulate the economy. Facilities
would have to be built, giving jobs back to unemployed construction workers.

I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few years. I
know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on welfare because
they didn't have family around to watch the children and they couldn't
afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they got HUD housing, food
stamps, welfare and free medical and were able to sustain themselves.

Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)

kili

On Mon 15 Sep 2008 05:49:56a, kilikini told us...

> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
>> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
>> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
>> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
>> what the hell are you supposed to do?
>
> Personally, I think the government should provide free child care in
> cases like this. Ultimately, it would probably be a cheaper solution
> than welfare. There would be no excuse for parents to stay at home
> unless they had a disability preventing them from working. It would
> have to be a heavily monitored program, but this would mean employment
> of child care workers, pre-school teachers, social workers,
> psychologists - most of, if not all, would have to have a college
> degree. Folks going to school would help the economy. Providing jobs
> would stimulate the economy. Facilities would have to be built, giving
> jobs back to unemployed construction workers.

Well thought out, Kili!

> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few years.
> I know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on welfare
> because they didn't have family around to watch the children and they
> couldn't afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they got HUD
> housing, food stamps, welfare and free medical and were able to sustain
> themselves.
>
> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
>
> kili
>
>
>



--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 09(IX)/15(XV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 18hrs 9mins
*******************************************
Cats must knock over the stacks of CDs.
*******************************************

"kilikini" > wrote

> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few years. I
> know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on welfare because
> they didn't have family around to watch the children and they couldn't
> afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they got HUD housing, food
> stamps, welfare and free medical and were able to sustain themselves.

That's what I was thinking of, and it's another thing addressed
in my state's reforms, they will have no trouble finding day care
help ... all those welfare recipients looking for work, how about
a job at a state run day care facility as a day care worker?

Talk about a built in work force, that would employ a few people.

One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.

nancy

On Mon 15 Sep 2008 06:00:07a, Nancy Young told us...

> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.

That's very true in Arizona. BTDT.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 09(IX)/15(XV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 17hrs 51mins
*******************************************
'It's a running gag.' - Dot
*******************************************

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> "kilikini" > wrote
>
> > I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few years. I
> > know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on welfare because
> > they didn't have family around to watch the children and they couldn't
> > afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they got HUD housing, food
> > stamps, welfare and free medical and were able to sustain themselves.
>
> That's what I was thinking of, and it's another thing addressed
> in my state's reforms, they will have no trouble finding day care
> help ... all those welfare recipients looking for work, how about
> a job at a state run day care facility as a day care worker?
>
> Talk about a built in work force, that would employ a few people.

Indeed. :-)

>
> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
>
> nancy
>
>
That's why we have homeless people. :-(
Not everybody that really NEEDS welfare can get it!
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
>
> nancy

That's one of the reasons I had so many problems getting Medicaid. I'm
married, no children, and I'm white. Without dependents, it's a much harder
struggle to receive anything; you get scrutinized so much more.

kili

"kilikini" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
>> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
>> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
>>
>> nancy
>
> That's one of the reasons I had so many problems getting Medicaid. I'm
> married, no children, and I'm white. Without dependents, it's a much
> harder struggle to receive anything; you get scrutinized so much more.
>

So you are saying that they descriminate against WHITE people, kili??

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:15:54 -0400, kilikini wrote:

> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
>> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
>> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
>>
>> nancy
>
> That's one of the reasons I had so many problems getting Medicaid. I'm
> married, no children, and I'm white. Without dependents, it's a much harder
> struggle to receive anything; you get scrutinized so much more.
>
> kili

with all due respect, kili, i doubt your race had anything to do with it.
they may ask, for statistical purposes, but it has nothing to do with
eligibility.

your pal,
blake

"kilikini" > fnord
:

> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
>> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
>> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
>> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
>> what the hell are you supposed to do?
>
> Personally, I think the government should provide free child care in
> cases like this. Ultimately, it would probably be a cheaper solution
> than welfare. There would be no excuse for parents to stay at home
> unless they had a disability preventing them from working. It would
> have to be a heavily monitored program, but this would mean employment
> of child care workers, pre-school teachers, social workers,
> psychologists - most of, if not all, would have to have a college
> degree. Folks going to school would help the economy. Providing jobs
> would stimulate the economy. Facilities would have to be built,
> giving jobs back to unemployed construction workers.
>
> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few
> years. I know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on
> welfare because they didn't have family around to watch the children
> and they couldn't afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they got
> HUD housing, food stamps, welfare and free medical and were able to
> sustain themselves.
>
> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
>

Many states do offer subsidized childcare. The problem is, once you are
making a certain amount above the poverty level, you no longer qualify.
When my ex-husband and I were married, we had to work opposite shifts
because we could not afford childcare, and made too much money to
qualify for the subsidized programs. I don't qualify now. When Ellie is
out of school, I spend about 500 a month on childcare. That's a third of
my take-home pay. If she were not school aged, I wouldn't be able to
make ends meet at all, and would still be living with my mother.

Another problem is that many men do not pay child support for their
children, leaving the burden on the mother, and all too often, the
state.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> Saerah Gray wrote:
> >
> > The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
> > and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
> > jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
> > childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
> > what the hell are you supposed to do?
>
> Personally, I think the government should provide free child care in cases
> like this. Ultimately, it would probably be a cheaper solution than
> welfare. There would be no excuse for parents to stay at home unless they
> had a disability preventing them from working. It would have to be a
> heavily monitored program, but this would mean employment of child care
> workers, pre-school teachers, social workers, psychologists - most of, if
> not all, would have to have a college degree. Folks going to school would
> help the economy. Providing jobs would stimulate the economy. Facilities
> would have to be built, giving jobs back to unemployed construction workers.
>
> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few years. I
> know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on welfare because
> they didn't have family around to watch the children and they couldn't
> afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they got HUD housing, food
> stamps, welfare and free medical and were able to sustain themselves.
>
> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
>
> kili

All good thoughts kili. ;-) We already pay taxes for a school system
that babysits kids over 5. <g>
Why not younger?
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "kilikini" > wrote:
>
>> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>>
>>> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
>>> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
>>> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
>>> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
>>> what the hell are you supposed to do?
>>
>> Personally, I think the government should provide free child care in
>> cases like this. Ultimately, it would probably be a cheaper
>> solution than welfare. There would be no excuse for parents to stay
>> at home unless they had a disability preventing them from working.
>> It would have to be a heavily monitored program, but this would mean
>> employment of child care workers, pre-school teachers, social
>> workers, psychologists - most of, if not all, would have to have a
>> college degree. Folks going to school would help the economy.
>> Providing jobs would stimulate the economy. Facilities would have
>> to be built, giving jobs back to unemployed construction workers.
>>
>> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few
>> years. I know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on
>> welfare because they didn't have family around to watch the children
>> and they couldn't afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they
>> got HUD housing, food stamps, welfare and free medical and were able
>> to sustain themselves.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
>>
>> kili
>
> All good thoughts kili. ;-) We already pay taxes for a school system
> that babysits kids over 5. <g>
> Why not younger?

That was kind of my thinking, Om. Why not?

kili

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> >> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few
> >> years. I know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on
> >> welfare because they didn't have family around to watch the children
> >> and they couldn't afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they
> >> got HUD housing, food stamps, welfare and free medical and were able
> >> to sustain themselves.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
> >>
> >> kili
> >
> > All good thoughts kili. ;-) We already pay taxes for a school system
> > that babysits kids over 5. <g>
> > Why not younger?
>
> That was kind of my thinking, Om. Why not?
>
> kili

It would do a world of good.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:49:56 -0400, kilikini wrote:

> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
>> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
>> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
>> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
>> what the hell are you supposed to do?
>
> Personally, I think the government should provide free child care in cases
> like this. Ultimately, it would probably be a cheaper solution than
> welfare. There would be no excuse for parents to stay at home unless they
> had a disability preventing them from working. It would have to be a
> heavily monitored program, but this would mean employment of child care
> workers, pre-school teachers, social workers, psychologists - most of, if
> not all, would have to have a college degree. Folks going to school would
> help the economy. Providing jobs would stimulate the economy. Facilities
> would have to be built, giving jobs back to unemployed construction workers.
>
> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few years. I
> know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on welfare because
> they didn't have family around to watch the children and they couldn't
> afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they got HUD housing, food
> stamps, welfare and free medical and were able to sustain themselves.
>
> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
>
> kili

the problem is, that would cost money, at least upfront, and as you can see
here people are ****ing and moaning about the measly one percent of their
taxes that go toward it now. there would be mass strokes if it was
suggested that maybe we should spend *more* for these shiftless ****ers.

your pal,
blake

Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247:

> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>
> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care.
>
> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
> system is seriously ****ed up.
>

I want to add here that I think *everyone* is deserving of basic
healthcare, if they need it, employed or not. I think it is a disgrace
that every citizen does not have access to a doctor for preventative
care, causing people to get sicker, as well as costing taxpayers more
money in the long run.

It's certainly no less reasonable then the government giving me a break
on my taxes because I decided to reproduce or finance a home.

I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance provided
to me by my employer.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:46:27p, Saerah Gray told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
> 5.247:
>
>> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
>> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
>> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>>
>> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
>> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
>> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
>> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care.
>>
>> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
>> system is seriously ****ed up.
>>
>
> I want to add here that I think *everyone* is deserving of basic
> healthcare, if they need it, employed or not. I think it is a disgrace
> that every citizen does not have access to a doctor for preventative
> care, causing people to get sicker, as well as costing taxpayers more
> money in the long run.

You're absolutely right.

> It's certainly no less reasonable then the government giving me a break
> on my taxes because I decided to reproduce or finance a home.

On that I totally agree, Saerah.

> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance provided
> to me by my employer.

Since many companies are eliminating health care benefits altogether, I
also feel fortunate to have low-cost health insurance through my employer.
My parter has better coverage through his employer, but mine is certainly
adequate.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 1dys 2hrs 55mins
*******************************************
An attacker must vanquish, a defender
need only survive.
*******************************************

In article > ,
Saerah Gray > wrote:

> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance provided
> to me by my employer.

So do I, and I still can't afford it. ;-)

The health care issue is a whole 'nuther topic. Regulation adds a
considerable expense to it. Since I work in health care, I see it first
hand.

And by the way, no federally subsidized ER (like ours) can refuse basic
and emergency health care to anyone. We care for plenty of homeless in
our ER...
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet wrote:
> In article > ,
> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
>> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance
>> provided to me by my employer.
>
> So do I, and I still can't afford it. ;-)
>
> The health care issue is a whole 'nuther topic. Regulation adds a
> considerable expense to it. Since I work in health care, I see it
> first hand.
>
> And by the way, no federally subsidized ER (like ours) can refuse
> basic and emergency health care to anyone. We care for plenty of
> homeless in our ER...

What happens in regards to recurring medical treatment? Someone may become
sick and initially go to the ER, but what if the situation is serious and
the individual needs lots of follow-up appointments? How does a person with
no insurance receive that? That was the situation I found myself in. I
initially got help for a private cancer agency, but when it came to multiple
surgeries and the myriad of doctor's appointments, I was stuck. Luckily, I
qualified for Medicaid. I wish it was available to everyone; it certainly
should be. All my tests are covered, all my follow-ups and all my
surgeries. If I had private insurance, most of the tests (partly due to the
frequency of the tests) would probably not be covered.

kili

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article > ,
> > Saerah Gray > wrote:
> >
> >> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance
> >> provided to me by my employer.
> >
> > So do I, and I still can't afford it. ;-)
> >
> > The health care issue is a whole 'nuther topic. Regulation adds a
> > considerable expense to it. Since I work in health care, I see it
> > first hand.
> >
> > And by the way, no federally subsidized ER (like ours) can refuse
> > basic and emergency health care to anyone. We care for plenty of
> > homeless in our ER...
>
> What happens in regards to recurring medical treatment? Someone may become
> sick and initially go to the ER, but what if the situation is serious and
> the individual needs lots of follow-up appointments?

They keep coming back to the ER usually. We have a lot of "frequent
flyers". I know some of the more compassionate MD's that even do
volunteer work not only here, but third world countries too.

> How does a person with
> no insurance receive that? That was the situation I found myself in. I
> initially got help for a private cancer agency, but when it came to multiple
> surgeries and the myriad of doctor's appointments, I was stuck. Luckily, I
> qualified for Medicaid. I wish it was available to everyone; it certainly
> should be. All my tests are covered, all my follow-ups and all my
> surgeries. If I had private insurance, most of the tests (partly due to the
> frequency of the tests) would probably not be covered.
>
> kili

Heh! Tell me about it! That's what I'm running into right now. Insurance
is not always a good thing. I'm supposed to see a cardiologist and get
regular physical therapy, but cannot afford it even with insurance!
Fortunately, I can do my own therapy routines and our local city
activity center has a swimming pool and a weight room with machines...

and for city residents it's only $80.00 per YEAR! :-)
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet wrote:
>
> Heh! Tell me about it! That's what I'm running into right now.
> Insurance is not always a good thing. I'm supposed to see a
> cardiologist and get regular physical therapy, but cannot afford it
> even with insurance! Fortunately, I can do my own therapy routines
> and our local city activity center has a swimming pool and a weight
> room with machines...
>
> and for city residents it's only $80.00 per YEAR! :-)

Yeah, not being able to get the care that you need to prevent a surgery or
loss of life is completely irresponsible on the government's part. Heck,
you'd think the "powers that be" would want to extend folks' lives so they
can continue to pay taxes! :-/

I'm glad you have a local activity center. I was wanting to attempt
swimming to see if I could build a little muscle back up, but we have no
facility, AFAIK - at least I've never seen or heard of one in the 4 years
I've lived here. We have a kid's water park; it's just like a shower area
outside with water jets that randomly spew up from the floor. Whoo hooo!
:~)

kili

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:29:54 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "kilikini" > wrote:
>
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article > ,
>>> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance
>>>> provided to me by my employer.
>>>
>>> So do I, and I still can't afford it. ;-)
>>>
>>> The health care issue is a whole 'nuther topic. Regulation adds a
>>> considerable expense to it. Since I work in health care, I see it
>>> first hand.
>>>
>>> And by the way, no federally subsidized ER (like ours) can refuse
>>> basic and emergency health care to anyone. We care for plenty of
>>> homeless in our ER...
>>
>> What happens in regards to recurring medical treatment? Someone may become
>> sick and initially go to the ER, but what if the situation is serious and
>> the individual needs lots of follow-up appointments?
>
> They keep coming back to the ER usually. We have a lot of "frequent
> flyers". I know some of the more compassionate MD's that even do
> volunteer work not only here, but third world countries too.
>
>> How does a person with
>> no insurance receive that? That was the situation I found myself in. I
>> initially got help for a private cancer agency, but when it came to multiple
>> surgeries and the myriad of doctor's appointments, I was stuck. Luckily, I
>> qualified for Medicaid. I wish it was available to everyone; it certainly
>> should be. All my tests are covered, all my follow-ups and all my
>> surgeries. If I had private insurance, most of the tests (partly due to the
>> frequency of the tests) would probably not be covered.
>>
>> kili
>
> Heh! Tell me about it! That's what I'm running into right now. Insurance
> is not always a good thing. I'm supposed to see a cardiologist and get
> regular physical therapy, but cannot afford it even with insurance!

why not go to the emergency room, since treatment there is so peachy?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:46:27 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
> 5.247:
>
>> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
>> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
>> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>>
>> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
>> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
>> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
>> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care.
>>
>> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
>> system is seriously ****ed up.
>>
>
> I want to add here that I think *everyone* is deserving of basic
> healthcare, if they need it, employed or not. I think it is a disgrace
> that every citizen does not have access to a doctor for preventative
> care, causing people to get sicker, as well as costing taxpayers more
> money in the long run.
>
> It's certainly no less reasonable then the government giving me a break
> on my taxes because I decided to reproduce or finance a home.
>
> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance provided
> to me by my employer.

still, it would be nice not to have to continue in a job you hate, as not a
few people do, for fear of losing your insurance.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy > fnord
:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:46:27 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>> 5.247:
>>
>>> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
>>> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
>>> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>>>
>>> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
>>> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
>>> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
>>> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical
>>> care.
>>>
>>> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
>>> system is seriously ****ed up.
>>>
>>
>> I want to add here that I think *everyone* is deserving of basic
>> healthcare, if they need it, employed or not. I think it is a
>> disgrace that every citizen does not have access to a doctor for
>> preventative care, causing people to get sicker, as well as costing
>> taxpayers more money in the long run.
>>
>> It's certainly no less reasonable then the government giving me a
>> break on my taxes because I decided to reproduce or finance a home.
>>
>> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance
>> provided to me by my employer.
>
> still, it would be nice not to have to continue in a job you hate, as
> not a few people do, for fear of losing your insurance.
>

True, but I'm glad for the paycheck too. I am grateful that I am able to
support my family. I've had much shittier jobs than the one I have now.

--
Saerah (If I ever have to drive fast food delivery again, I think I'll
have to be put on serious tranquilizers.)

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Mon 15 Sep 2008 06:55:05p, Saerah Gray told us...

> blake murphy > fnord
> :
>
>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:46:27 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>>> 5.247:
>>>
>>>> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
>>>> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
>>>> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>>>>
>>>> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
>>>> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
>>>> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
>>>> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical
>>>> care.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
>>>> system is seriously ****ed up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I want to add here that I think *everyone* is deserving of basic
>>> healthcare, if they need it, employed or not. I think it is a
>>> disgrace that every citizen does not have access to a doctor for
>>> preventative care, causing people to get sicker, as well as costing
>>> taxpayers more money in the long run.
>>>
>>> It's certainly no less reasonable then the government giving me a
>>> break on my taxes because I decided to reproduce or finance a home.
>>>
>>> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance
>>> provided to me by my employer.
>>
>> still, it would be nice not to have to continue in a job you hate, as
>> not a few people do, for fear of losing your insurance.
>>
>
> True, but I'm glad for the paycheck too. I am grateful that I am able to
> support my family. I've had much shittier jobs than the one I have now.

There are some people who work where I work that are there only because of
the benfits. I know they'd rather be somewhere else doing something else.
I am fortunately that I really like my job. I am thankful for the
paycheck, and grateful for the medical insurance, and that I can pay my
bills. Anything beyond that is gravy, but I don't get much gravy. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 09(IX)/15(XV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 5hrs 1mins
*******************************************
A mainframe: The biggest PC peripheral
available.
*******************************************