I am appalled at the recent vote taking multi-millions away from the SNAP program. Thanks, GOP, for proving once again that you are the party of the mean-spirited and self-satisfied. What happened to you?
They're all freaked out by that ONE surfer dude that said he was happy to live like this. One guy. One guy.
Any politician who would vote like this truly makes me sick. I know what's coming on this thread, and I know who the posters are who will blame the hungry and not the people who literally take food out of their mouths. Disgusting.
Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier decided to make an unconventional pitch on the House of Representatives floor Thursday to defend food stamps. Speier used a cooked steak, a bottle of vodka, and a can of caviar to point out members of Congress who had large numbers of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients in their districts but opposed the program. The congresswoman pointed out many of the same members of Congress took trips around the world with large stipends for food and lodging.
“In my district, California 14, we have about 4,000 families who are on food stamps, but some of my colleagues have thousands and thousands more,” Rep. Speier said. “Yet, they somehow feel like crusaders, like heroes when they vote to cut food stamps. Some of these same members travel to foreign countries under the guise of official business. They dine at lavish restaurants, eating steak, vodka and even caviar. They receive money to do this. That’s right, they don’t pay out of pocket for these meals.”
Speier went on, using particular examples of members of Congress who went on sponsored trips and spent large amounts of money on food and lodging.
“Let me give you a few examples: One member was given $127.41 a day for food on his trip to Argentina. He probably had a fair amount of steak,” she said.
“Another member was given $3,588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to Russia. He probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. That particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. One of those people who is on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days,” she added.
“Another 20 members made a trip to Dublin, Ireland. They got $166 a day for food. These members didn’t pay a dime. They received almost $200 for a single meal only for themselves. Yet, for them the idea of helping fellow Americans spend less than $5 a day makes their skin crawl. The families of veterans, of farmers, of the disabled, of the working poor are not visible to them, not even when they are their own constituents.”
In a previous article, BuzzFeed pointed out many of the Republican members of Congress leading the charge to limit the food stamp program represented large numbers of food stamp recipients.
A quick BuzzFeed search found that the member of Congress who took the trip to Argentina who spent $127 was Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and the trip was sponsored by the Franklin Center for Global Policy Exchange. The member of Congress who took the trip to Russia was Rep. Steve King of Iowa. The 20 members of Congress who went to Dublin can be found here. The trip, sponsored by the Franklin Center for Global Policy Exchange, had an estimated budget of $450,000 to $750,000 according to Roll Call.
Here is a link that might be useful: link
The facts are food stamps should be eliminated. There is NO WAY a country like the US should have so many dependent upon food stamps to feed their family.
However , underlying issues need to be resolved including minimum wage and how social assistance is administered.
...but the GOP have ZERO ideas on how to fix things . They simply hit the hot button issues their base wants. It's all about getting reelected and not getting "primaried" . To heck with making America a more healthy and prosperous country.
This will come back to bite them. Not just at election time...bye bye WH in 2016.....but there will be a huge social price to pay that won;t be pretty.
I brought that up in the defunding Obamacare thread yesterday, but it went by unnoticed. If enacted, the legislation would slash $40 billion from the federal food stamp program's nearly $80 billion-per-year budget over the next decade, and would permit states to enforce stricter parameters for eligibility.
States will also be permitted to drug-test applicants, and adults without dependents will no longer be able to receive food stamps indefinitely.
Harry Reid says the cuts will never make it through the Senate, and President Obama has vowed to veto the legislation if, by some fluke, it does make it to his desk.
Let's see; the GOP has worked very hard to alienate the poor, the unemployed/underemployed, women, children, Latinos, Asians, Blacks, immigrants of all stripes, students, the elderly, disabled, veterans... I'm sure I've overlooked some.
The GOP world is shrinking to the width of their shoulders.
Our representatives and senators are "entitled" to those perks. Or so they say. I find it disgusting. "Fact finding" my A$$.
Kudos to Rep. Jackie Speier!
These creeps are afraid to vote against defunding this because the t-holes will come after them in the primaries.
How do these people get reelected? Is it that their constituents don't pay attention to how the people they are voting for actually vote in Congress? Or are their constituents mostly like the "Independents" here on HT, and don't give a crap if someone starves or not, as long as they don't have to pay for a tiny portion of their food?
But you're missing a point here.... this may be a really big nail in the coffin. This is much about party split as anything else. We may finally end up having a party who moves into current times and poises for the future while ditching the fringes.
I hope they figure out a way to get SNAP back up and going. They better and do it soon.
Here is a link that might be useful: or they could have the $ used to dine out like IA and OK reps
The GOP is gambling that this type of garbage -- cutting food stamps, stop funding for ACA -- can motivate the Tea Party faithful to vote in the 2014 mid-term elections, and that the above groups will have a low voter turn out.
No matter how cynical one is, you can never keep up.
The party can't ditch the fringes because the fringes now ARE the party. I'd rather have a poker in my eye than pay allegiance to what now passes for the Republican Party.
It's good for people to go hungry.
That is why Democrats have been proudly starving public school children for years. For their own good, of course. It's called the "Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act."
Lots of support for it here. As liberals tell it, the law itself, which inexplicably makes no distinction between feeding the foot ball team and the library club, isn't at fault. The only real flaw is the people! The kids, their parents, the school food service administrators and the lunch ladies. The law isn't defective, but the American people sure are.
I do hope if they get hungry enough they have the arms with which to feed themselves. Not that I'm advocating violence but venison is hard to come by in my neighborhood!
Why don't you democrats explain it. Supposedly the unemployment rate has gone down right? Supposedly the economy is getting better right? So explain why we have gone from 17 million receiving food stamps to 47.8 million receiving food stamps?
I don't understand why people don't pay attention to who supports safety nets and who doesn't. Do they think it will never happen to them ... that they might need the safety net one day?
Better control ideas are always welcome, but this seems more like a slashing approach.
Nik and mrsk, surprised you hung back so long to provide some meaningless chatter to this very serious issue..
When you have a minimum wage that is DELIBERATELY subsidized by government through food stamps...you get , what you get...
Huge corporate profits and millions on Food stamps.......the real welfare recipients are the corporations...
MrsK - in your deflection, you failed to say whether you thought taking money away from SNAP was a good or bad idea. Nice try at deflection though. One would think you'd have learned by now that doesn't work around here.
Isn't Wall Street within hunting distance of you, Labrea?
Why is it meaningless pidge. Food stamps are a safety net, they are not a stimulus program. When the government runs ads and lowers the criteria for receiving food stamps, it has nothing to do with feeding the hungry and everything to do with playing politics. Everyone deserving of food stamps should receive them. Not a single person should go to bed hungry. But there is a reason that people should meet a certain criteria to receive them.
But there is a reason that people should meet a certain criteria to receive them.
So you agree with the changes they are making that is allowing them to cut so much out of the program?
God forbid that raising the minimum wage would be a viable way of significantly reducing food stamps.
Wouldn't want solutions that are good for people and the taxpayer if it ticks off those big corporate donors.....
Here's mrskjun's source for those figures (I guess):
USA Today's Paul Singer presented the issue:
The cost of the federal food stamp program has exploded over the past decade, according to the Department of Agriculture. In 2001, the program served 17 million people at a cost of just over $15 billion. By 2012, there were 46 million people enrolled at a cost of a little under $75 billion.
Democrats say the program has grown because the economy tanked; Republicans argue much of the expansion is attributed to states giving benefits to people who do not qualify.
And this blog takes up the job of determining who's right:
Well OK then - either there was a massive economic collapse, or people are cheating the government. Who's to say which side is right?
The paper gets quotes from lawmakers - Republican Eric Cantor's office explains they aim to "restore the integrity of this safety-net program," while Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern says the idea that people are cheating in order to get food stamps instead of working is "a lie."
Again, who's right? That would seem to be a rather important matter. Luckily there's plenty of evidence available. Alan Pyke of ThinkProgress recently noted (9/6/13) that the latest report from the Department of Agriculture's inspector general found no problems with "high-dollar overpayments" in the SNAP program. And according to the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (3/28/13), SNAP "has one of the most rigorous payment error measurement systems of any public benefit program," with a very small amount of funds going to overpayment (about 2 percent of the total cost of the program). And the group's research also shows that increased enrollment in SNAP is historically correlated with economic downturns. This is what caused the size of the program to spike in 2008 and 2009; the rate of growth has slowed considerably since then.
So if it appears there is NOT a lot waste, then the ranks have swelled simply because wages aren't growing, jobs are harder to find since 2001, etc. then the cuts being proposed (cuts of up to 50%?) really are just taking food away from people that need it.
Here is a link that might be useful: source
Food stamps are a safety net, they are not a stimulus program.
Food stamps act as both.
In an area with high unemployment, the food stamps help to keep grocery stores in the neighborhood, if they are part of a chain, or help to keep them open if they are small operations.
So, the GOP is trying to make the people believe that in the past 11 years the 29% increase in the food stamp program is because,
1. 29% of those receiving food stamps across the country are not deserving of them, are "milking the system" for the food stamps, are lying and whatever else they can come up with to justfy these cuts?
2. The economy for the past 11 years has nothing to do with the increase in the need for food stamps?
3. But it is OK for the GOP members in the house and/or senate to take taxpayer money and travel around the world on the taxpayer's expense and eat luxury foods, have luxury accomidations in hotels?
OK, got it, and they think they can get elected/re-elected and win the White House on this kind of thought process and lack of understanding of reality?
No esh, that was not my source.
The cuts equal 5% over a ten year period.
And nancy, food stamps are not supposed to be a stimulus, jobs would be a better alternative. I'm sure many of you are happy about the new regulations just passed regarding coal powered plants. They will put these companies out of business, but it will decrease the co2 output by 2/5ths of one percent worldwide, and put more people on the unemployment line, plus raise the price of electricity. I guess that's a good reason to be upset that the food stamp program is going to see some cuts.
What used to pass for the Republican party can start a new one away from the party that is about to implode? How about that? Sound better? From an old school republican who hate the current ways that some in the party are behaving. And those on Capitol Hill are finally getting fed up with them too! Keep your fingers crossed. Party split!
food stamps are not supposed to be a stimulus
Distinction without a difference.
Giving cash-strapped people money for living expenses - i.e.; money that will spent, not saved - will always provide a small stimulus to the local economy. While you claim this assistance is 'not supposed to be a stimulus' those who created these programs were aware of the benefits to the larger communities in which the recipients live.
mrsk, I am deeply disappointed by and not a little angry at the Republican party at this juncture, and I do think that what you are saying is meaningless. People have been laid-off, downsized, have had their hours reduced, are stuck with a pathetic minimum wage that cannot enable them to get out of poverty, and you think the food stamp program is merely political. People are going hungry, do you get that? Will you have to figure out how to feed your family on little money and a pittance in food stamps or will you sit down to a well-rounded dinner tonight? Or will you be out in the supermarket chaecking out people's shopping carts to make sure that what they buy meets your critical evaluation if they use SNAP funds? It is so easy for the comfortably situated to see this issue as a mere abstraction, just a political ploy. Disgusting.
You're right, it is a 5% cut. My mistake.
I agree people would rather have a job than food stamps, so how do you propose to swap those out?
No, of course it wasn't. esh's source gave the whole picture. We all know you don't use sources that give the whole picture.
Well said, pidge. It is disgusting. But, sadly, expected from the same crew.
I'm not sure esh, but 1.7 trillion for Obamacare might come in handy. The reason people are moving to part time. The reason companies like UPS will no longer cover spouses, the reason many companies are telling employees they will no longer provide insurance. Never mind. You will never hear that even republicans believe that something should be done about healthcare in this country. But the more we learn about Obamacare, the more those that employ people learn about Obamacare, the more the majority of people in this country do not want it.
(Reuters) - The world-renowned Cleveland Clinic said on Wednesday it would cut jobs and slash five to six percent of its $6 billion annual budget to prepare for President Barack Obama's health reforms.
Another provision of this food stamp legislation would trim assistance for home heating and cooling, cutting benefits for about 850,000 people by roughly $90 a month, according to the CBO.
I'm not sure esh, but 1.7 trillion for Obamacare might come in handy.
Oh, so take the money being spent on healthcare and pay those people to work with government money? So that means the government will be giving them jobs.
But the more we learn about Obamacare, the more those that employ people learn about Obamacare, the more the majority of people in this country do not want it.
(Reuters) - The world-renowned Cleveland Clinic said on Wednesday it would cut jobs and slash five to six percent of its $6 billion annual budget to prepare for President Barack Obama's health reforms.,
Some seem to be trying to deflect from the vile actions of the GOP in the op but in case anyone wanted to know all the information regarding the Reuters report about the Cleveland Clinic posted on health care and not just the usual selective outrage here is more info.
Just another day on HT.
Obamacare Isn't Really Taking Away Jobs: Cleveland Clinic Edition
The prestigious system says budget cuts have more to do with the need to find efficiencies. "We felt health-care reform was absolutely necessary," a spokeswoman said
As the clock ticks down to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, a trickle of stories about job losses related to the law has turned into a steady flow. Over the weekend, the story was that Emory Healthcare was axing 100 jobs in response ��" an explanation that turned out not to be true.
It didn't take a long time for another example of hospitals cutting back in the face of Obamacare to pop up, though. On Wednesday, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would cut its budget and staff. Here's how Reuters reported the news:
The world-renowned Cleveland Clinic said on Wednesday it would cut jobs and slash five to six percent of its $6 billion annual budget to prepare for President Barack Obama's health reforms.
The clinic, which has treated celebrities and world leaders ... did not say how many of its 44,000 employees would be laid off. But a spokeswoman said that $330 million would be cut from its annual budget.
Later on, the story quoted Eileen Sheil, the clinic's Executive Director of Corporate Communications, saying, "We know we are going to be reimbursed less" under Medicaid.
That explanation seemed questionable, because the cost reductions to Medicaid in the ACA are much smaller than reductions to Medicare ��" the government will reimburse providers less for giving care to Medicare patients than before. While the mechanisms aimed at providing universal insurance have gotten more attention, this is part of the law's other goal: an attempt to "bend the cost curve" (administration-speak for slowing the growth of health-care spending) in the law. During the 2012 presidential campaign, the Romney campaign attacked Obama for cutting Medicare, though the administration says patients should receive the same care; will just be paid less for it.
In fact, the "Obamacare is killing jobs" story isn't really accurate. It's not totally false ��" the Cleveland Clinic will in fact take in less money because of the law ��" but it's a more complicated story about changes in medicine. When I reached Sheil on Thursday, she seemed a bit confused by the emphasis on Obamacare in reports. "We've been working on reducing costs for years," she said.
"We felt health-care reform was absolutely necessary," Sheil said. "This is the new normal. This is where hospitals have to focus to be viable in the long run. This is not doomsday for the clinic. We're still growing ��" we're still hiring. The hardest thing is when it affects people."
Actually, much of what the Cleveland Clinic system is doing follows the recommendations of health-care analysts closely. For example, it has consolidated closely located neonatal intensive care units, because high volumes tend to lead to better results. It's working to reduce the number of procedures its staff performs, since in the current system "physicians are rewarded to do more, not to do the right thing for the patient," as Sheil put it. And there's a new focus on chronic diseases, which are an increasingly important and costly area for treatment.
Think of it this way: These are all steps that the Cleveland Clinic was likely to take, but Obamacare implementation is acting as a catalyst, spurring the clinic to adopt them now rather than on a slower timeline.
This isn't to absolve the ACA of any role in the cuts at all. The revenue reduction because of the law is real. Pretty much everyone agrees that the spiraling costs of health care in the U.S. threaten ��" through Medicaid and Medicare ��" the nation's long-term fiscal health.
Changes like what the clinic is doing, and the reduced reimbursements, do reduce costs. But of course the flip side of "costs" is "revenue." The end result may not be zero-sum ��" there's good reason to think lower medical costs would be good for the economy and the deficit in the long term ��" it will mean reshuffling at providers like the Cleveland Clinic in the short term. Whether you think that's a good idea probably has a lot to do with your political outlook ��" and also with whether you happen to be, say a doctor or an uninsured person.
Now back to the topic and how the GOP has no problem with people going hungry.
Thanks, epi, for that lengthy analysis of the Affordable Care Act issue. Even more, thanks for pointing back to the reality that the GOP is quite willing to let people go hungry. Maybe mrsk could go back to checking grocery carts about Snap expenses.
Hungry people with no health care............
The GOP future
epi, Reuters wrote what the CEO said yesterday before receiving a call from Sebelius. So I'll take his word for it.
Hungry people with no health care............
The GOP future
.......but as Joe pointed out, they do have "firepower" and hunting is easy in the USofA.
Shame on those in power who abuse it, and shame on those who defend the abusers, but then I am not surprised ... as I said when I returned after only a month this forum reads more and more like the free republic with defenders in the house.
"eye of the needle"
ok mrskjun, so you're ok with government using its obamacare money to hire people so that they can have government jobs instead of government food stamps?
Pidge, just trying to keep it real.
Mrsk, you are welcome to believe what you want. My post was for others and to share facts, not necessarily for you since you ignore anything that doesn't fit your agenda or neatly in your anti-Obama, Democrat, Liberal,... box anyway.
There are plenty of people working jobs that still need food stamps to live. If it wasn't for super rich people like the Walton family or the Koch bros. this would not be an issue.
I suppose starving people is one way the Koch brothers think they can get their way with Coal. They are so crafty!
before receiving a call from Sebelius.
I did several searches for this, but found nothing.
Care to share your source?
No esh, I'd just like for him to quit spending money the government doesn't have....to stop being so unpatriotic as he says.
epi...now I should ignore Reuters and the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic? Alrighty then!
So let's go back to the question. If people are better off with a job (and they are, I agree), how does reducing food stamps help them in that regard?
We may see a repeat of the food riots of 1863 and 1931 in this country, the difference is that now the citizenry is so much better "armed".
Well, a republican congressman answered that by saying the person who is cut off food stamps will no longer be laying on the couch munching his free food but will be out looking for a job. Simple, isn't it?
epi...now I should ignore Reuters and the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic?
You can do whatever you want to. Since the article I linked clearly stated that the Reuters report you cited was flawed and there is no information to be found to verify your claim about Sebelius I find your information dubious at best.
"...saying the person who is cut off food stamps will no longer be laying on the couch munching his free food but will be out looking for a job. Simple, isn't it?"
I agree that it is an overly simplistic statement, only true for some and not for others, no doubt.
Like that person wasn't looking for a job? Food stamps is on average $133 a month, did it say? I'd say that a job is way better than that.
Much of the food stamp debate turned on the question of who are those 47 million people? Greenslate is not exactly a representative example. Government data make clear the vast majority of households receiving benefits include at least one member who is either a child, elderly, or disabled. But Republicans have focused on recipients who are able-bodied adults without dependents -- people who may be like Greenslate.
Able-bodied adults without dependents made up 10.2 percent of SNAP population in 2011, up from 6.6 percent in 2007. Federal law only allows such "ABAWDs" to receive three months of food stamps, but most states waive the requirement because of high unemployment.
Research shows the doubling of food stamp rolls from 2007 to 2012 owes to the bad economy. But Republicans, led by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), have emphasized the waivers. Thursday's legislation would take the waivers away, thereby denying benefits to 1.7 million Americans next year.
I applaud them for going after the able bodied adults. I just don't want any collateral damage. And unfortunately there will be.
.....wonder if the recent partnership with Community Health Systems has anything to do with the "cutbacks" at Cleveland Clinic? (Sorry for the OT Pidge, but sometimes there is more behind the curtain than what the "wizard" would have you know) ... course the justice department probably knows more about Community Health Systems, what with their ongoing investigation of them regarding medicare fraud.
There's a ton more going on at the Cleveland Clinic...and Mayo Clinic than one silly article that epi cites would have you believe. Tons more. And as a patient, I've already been affected by cuts in care offered.
Back to the subject....
There has been a ton going on at the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic and other health organizations for a very long time they just haven't been reported. The article addressed the misinformation. Everyone has been affected by cuts and the adjustments and the changes and we have also been affected and dealing with the elephant in the room for a very long time... the prohibitive costs in healthcare that need(ed) to be addressed.
Cleveland Clinic CEO Shares His Incredible Vision For The Future Of Healthcare
Dec. 5, 2012
Of the many policy battles being fought in the United States, few are as important to the long term future of the country as that over healthcare.
Simply put, if we don't find a way to slow down the growth of healthcare costs, we're eventually going to drown in debt. Increasingly expensive treatments, longer lifespans, chronic illnesses, and demographic trends all but guarantee it.
The passage of the Affordable Care Act was the first big effort in many years, and turned the issue into a political live wire, making progress even more difficult. Part of the effect has been a movement towards hospital consolidation as small practices are pressured and bigger systems hope to gain efficiency through scale.
But bigger hospitals are only the beginning. For costs to come down, hospitals need to embrace innovation in how they do business, and start to change some of the behaviors that have made healthcare more and more expensive without making it any better for patients.
We spoke to Dr. Delos Cosgrove, the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic. In the Presidential debates, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney mentioned the hospital as a model of innovation and of how to bring healthcare costs down.
"You've seen by the recent shout-outs we got in the Presidential debates that we're being looked at a model of how to go forward," Dr. Cosgrove said, "And I really think our model is our secret sauce."
98 percent of the people that request a same day appointment at the Cleveland Clinic get one, and there were over one million such appointments last year. Focusing on costs doesn't have to come at the expense of the patient.
Changing the incentives
So what exactly do they do? One of the biggest issues in healthcare in the United States has been an emphasis on quantity of care rather than quality, as insurance companies and doctors often get paid more for expensive tests and procedures. That's led to a great deal of inefficient, expensive treatment.
The Cleveland Clinic's solution? All doctors are salaried and on one year contracts. "We have no financial incentives to do more or less. We just try to look after what the needs are for a patient because it doesn't make a difference to us personally," Dr. Cosgrove said. "We all have one year contracts, there's no tenure, and we have annual professional reviews. I don't know of another institution that has annual professional reviews and one year contracts. In the annual professional review we go over all individual contributions to the organization, and that contributes to our decisions about what we do about salary or whether we reappoint or don't."
Doctors focus on what's best for the patient, rather than what gets them paid, leading to fewer unneeded tests and surgeries. They're evaluated on the quality of care rather than earnings. When you can have cheaper care that's also better for the patient, it's clear that there needs to be some change in the industry.
Those one year contracts go all the way to the top level. Dr. Cosgrove's had 37 one year contracts in his time at the hospital. "You stop and think, almost every major business I can think of has annual reviews. And healthcare traditionally has not," Dr. Cosgrove said. "You got privileges at a hospital and they were yours for life unless you committed murder or something. So it's very seldom that people look at the qualities and the outcomes for each individual."
The data revolution
Part of changing the focus and how people are evaluated is actually having the data to do so. That's an area where hospitals can improve on cost and quality. "The more we measured, the more we found problems," Dr. Cosgrove said. "And when you found a problem you could really sort of screw down into it and find out what the root of it was and begin to deal with that particular issue. And what resulted is that we got better and better as we went along."
Now, every part of the hospital system transparently publishes its outcomes, adds more data every year, and continually works to get better. Cost is even easier to measure, and it needs to start to be a part of every decision. "Cost has been looked at what you get paid to do something, not what it costs to do it," Dr. Cosgrove said." So what we've done, over the years we've begun to understand how much it costs to do each one of our procedures. We've asked each of our institutes to go and look at the cost of their number one or two or three things they do. The urologists looked at prostatectomies, they looked at the cost of the sutures, how many instruments they had on the table, how long the patients stay in the recovery room, etc. and they were able to take 25 percent out of the actual cost of what they did."
Ending the Departments of Surgery and Medicine
One of the keys to what the Cleveland Clinic's done is not being afraid to change structures that have been around forever. Just because something's persisted, doesn't mean it's good, especially in an industry that's slow to change.
"Most hospitals are organized around the department of surgery, the department of medicine, the department of pediatrics. There's essentially a guild system for whatever your profession is. And what we said was, wouldn't it be nice to organize a hospital around what a patient needs? Novel idea, right?" Dr. Cosgrove said. "If you've got a headache, you don't know whether you need to see a psychologist, a neurologist, or a neurosurgeon. So let's put everybody who deals with a neurologic system in a neurologic institute, and we'll have one head. So if you go in for your headache you can see, there in one location, everybody who you could potentially need to see. And they talk to each other, they're physically proximate to each other."
It's more efficient and less costly because patients spend less time in the hospital bouncing around between departments. It was a huge change. Hospitals have been organized around departments of surgery and medicine for years, and people were nervous at first. Rather than slow down, Dr. Cosgrove sped it up.
"The whole organization was anxious. We started one by one to move people to various locations, and finally everybody was so nervous that we said we're going to do the whole thing at once. In one year we changed the whole organization, so there's no more department of surgery, no more department of medicine, it's all by institutes," Dr. Cosgrove said. "It wasn't beating guys over the head. Nobody came to me and said that's a terrible idea, not one person, but everybody was anxious. And nobody has come to me and said we have to go back. So everybody could see the value of doing it."
Cutting costs is also about doing little things, and being physician led has helped the Cleveland Clinic do that. "We also put a price tag on supplies in the operating room," Dr. Cosgrove said. "In the past, if a doctor thought he needed a suture he would just grab it, open it, and throw it away. Now, they see the price."
As a former surgeon, Dr. Cosgrove knows how they behave. "We didn't know what things cost, so we'd just say, 'give me one of those.'"
Where are the copycats?
So if this has all been so successful at the Cleveland Clinic, why haven't other hospitals emulated it? Dr. Cosgrove told this story to illustrate how entrenched certain habits are.
"Two years ago, I was invited to the White House and I'm there with 9 other CEOs of hospital systems, you know there's the New York Hospital System, Columbia, Penn, Hospital CEOs from all over the place. Everybody's given three or four minutes to tell their story about what they can do to improve healthcare delivery. I'm the last guy to talk and I described our system, how we're integrated and how we're all employed. And everybody says, 'Oh we couldn't do that.' I said, 'Wait a minute, guys. How many of you would like to have that system?' Everybody raised their hand. So the point is, that we're entrenched in a different system. We're going from an individual sport ot a team sport, and getting everybody to change their headspace is a big deal."
We're only at the beginning of what's going to be a long period of change for the healthcare industry. The Affordable Care Act hasn't even been fully implemented yet. Hospitals either need to be proactive about changing, or they're going to be forced to.
"I think the pendulum is moving fast," Dr. Cosgrove said, "it's really amazing how fast things are changing."
Back to the subject…
Epi's post at 17:33
Thank you, Epi.
'm not sure esh, but 1.7 trillion for Obamacare might come in handy. The reason people are moving to part time.
The trend towards part time employment has been going on for quite a while now, so you can't really blame it on healthcare.
Thanks for that post ,epi.
During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts.
The Cleveland Clinic isn't alone in cutting costs and trimming its workforce in the face of health care reform. On Wednesday, Summa Health System in Akron, Ohio, confirmed that it was trimming $8.2 million from its budget by laying off 58 workers this week, cutting back the hours for 46 more, and opting not to fill 132 open positions, mostly through attrition. In February, Akron General Health System laid off 132 employees and cut 118 other positions. In 2011, University Hospitals announced $100 million in cuts over two years, and MetroHealth Medical Center laid off 450 people by cutting $30 million and closing a 144-bed skilled nursing facility.
pidge: "Any politician who would vote like this truly makes me sick. I know what's coming on this thread, and I know who the posters are who will blame the hungry and not the people who literally take food out of their mouths. Disgusting."
You sound itchy pidge. Very itchy. Do you have a pillow in the house that you can punch around?
Apparently, I don't even have to say anything on this topic. Pidge, oh wise one, knows exactly what I would say. She has already passed judgement too.
Have you heard the new pope?
Love, love, love being called "wise one"!
Hope the ankle is doing well, Pidge...
I saw this SNAP fiasco in the news a couple of days ago.
We already need food stamps AND a job to survive... what are they thinking? Or, aren't they... again?
Yep,"one" of the reasons. Insitutions cutting costs is no surprise to anyone. The article I posted above is from December and the CEO was already insituting changes as he needed to. . What is your point? Ir still doesn't verify your claim about Sebelius above or your stats.
When is the last documented case of a citizen of the United States starving to death, other than intentional starving?
Name, date, place, circumstances.
So it is okay if they are just hungry as long as they don't starve to death?
Maybe not starving to death, no, but yes, going to bed hungry, having been unable to afford a balanced, well-rounded, nutricious meal.
This seems the ultimate cruelty from the Oligarchs. And if the economy is improving, why, then, are so many working 3 or 4 part time jobs, with low wages and no benefits?
"Let them eat cake...."
Cake... commercially prepared cake... uses brominated, processed flour. Something to think about...
Republicans hate domestic spending, but their hatred is not completely indiscriminate. Some programs offend them more, and others less. The general pattern is that social programs offend Republicans to the degree that they benefit the poor, sick, or otherwise unfortunate.
House Republicans are not only locking in high agriculture subsidies, they are throwing more money at agriculture than Democrats want to spend.
The program they pick to defend is, on the substantive merits, the most unjustifiable program of any significant scale in the federal budget. It is also one that accrues to disproportionately wealthy and overwhelmingly white recipients. (As opposed to Obamacare, whose beneficiaries are disproportionately poor and non-white.)
It’s the juxtaposition of the two programs that so clearly exposes the party’s agenda. Anti-government ideology can justify even the most vicious cuts to the safety net. It can’t justify the massive socialist scheme that is agriculture policy. And, to be fair, conservative intellectuals generally don’t justify agriculture socialism. But the Republican Party certainly does. The ultraconservative Republican Study Committee recently banned the Heritage Foundation from its meetings because Heritage denounced the GOP’s farm subsidies. There is a grim hilarity here: Republicans punished Heritage for its one technocratically sane position.
What hypocrites. I think we can safely assume the conservative posters on this forum are just as hypocritical as the hand puppets in the GOP Central Committee.
Here is a link that might be useful: Link
Perhaps it would be pertinent to make some cuts in Washington pay... eh? I mean, just to prove they aren't hypocrites...
So, unless they're actually starving and dying in the streets, you know, the garbage bins are empty because they've cleaned them out, there's no need for food stamps.
See? These kids are finding plenty to eat. Now, can we get on with cutting taxes for the job creators, deregulating the coal industry and the banks, and get this country back on track, financially?
The trouble is, we don't allow dump-picking in America, it's unsafe. Someone could get hurt and sue the owner (white, middle class, male), and that would be bad for business.
Dumpster diving is still legal, but only if it's in a public area - alley, street, etc. But that will soon change, I'm sure; we can't have pictures of hungry American children climbing out of dumpsters with left-over and spoiled food.
Exactly what city and state in the US is that picture from david?
Where did David say that this was in the USA?
When is the last documented case of a citizen of the United States starving to death, other than intentional starving?
Name, date, place, circumstances.
Doh, what was I thinking? Nobody has actually starved to death (maybe?) so everything is just dandy. Keep cutting food stamps until there isn't any. Unless someone ACTUALLY DIES, it's not a problem. Silly me caring about hungry children. What was I thinking? They're still alive. They should be thankful and stop asking for my financial help.
Hit a nerve.
Still waiting for one name, instance, location where a citizen in this country died from starvation because of lack of food and not because they intentionally starved themselves or were held hostage and starved.
Right jill, you care about hungry children...why? Would it be for the same reason most people care about hungry children? Do you honestly believe that anyone wants a child to go without food...or are you just parroting the liberal fear tactics? Starve the children, throw granny off the cliff.
No, I think we're all in agreement. Unless someone is actually starving, no food for those "takers".
This should extend to charity, church-run food banks and the like. It just encourages them, eh?
Like here, a line of lazy surfer-boys, who could be out working, instead of mooching off Christian Charity.
At the link is a followup on the surfer dude that FOX (Prize jerk.
Now how, from that, the Republicans in the house conclude that there must be millions of them like that out there and we're justified in cutting billions out of the food stamp program? No need. It fits the new, class warfare meme of "makers vs takers" so thats all thats needed. One guy = gut the program.
Keeping in mind, of course, that they voted to expand the guaranteed income for farmers act.
How do we move beyond the charity hand out model to a social justice based approach?
Very good question duluth.
The GOP wants nothing to do with social justice.
Charity handouts go to the same people who get government hand outs.
We "liberals" want a social justice model, and we have some good programs in place, but they need to be better, much better at identifying who REALLY needs help with food, housing, jobs, and who is just feeding like a pig at the trough of, for example, farm subsidies.
And we need a better way to move them off of government assistance and in to an independent life. It's shameful that for generation after generation, families can't seem to (or don't/won't) break the cycle. That's where we have really failed.
This post was edited by momj47 on Sun, Sep 22, 13 at 9:11
I'm still waiting for an answer too Demi. Do you believe that it is okay for USA citizens to go hungry as long as they don't starve to death?
Actually Mrsk, I do believe that some think it is okay for a child to go hungry. I remember some comments made on HT to the effect that if "they" are made to live on the street and their children go hungry that they will clean up their act and find work.
... effect that if "they" are made to live on the street and their children go hungry that they will clean up their act and find work.
Unfortunately, world history tells us that when there are very high infant mortality rates - be it from starvation, disease, wars, or what not, women have more kids, not less.
The way to have less kids is via woman's education. A very high correlation between level of education obtained and fewer kids.
Ann, I don't answer ridiculous questions and I don't tend to answer questions from people who don't have much to say except to goad and insult other posters.
STILL waiting for names and places where US citizens have STARVED TO DEATH.
What if there are none? Let's say that no US citizen has starved to death and that's great. Thank goodness.
Now what? It's ok for them to just be hungry? Or if not hungry now but hungry later because of the cuts?
My name is Jason. I turned 35 less than a week ago. My first job was maintenance work at a public pool when I was 17. I worked 40-hours a week while I was in college. I’ve never gone longer than six months without employment in my life and I just spent the last three years in the military, one of which consisted of a combat tour of Afghanistan.
Oh, and I’m now on food stamps. Since June, as a matter of fact.
Why am I on food stamps?
The same reason everyone on food stamps is on food stamps: because I would very much enjoy not starving.
But I’ve known people recently - soldiers in the Army - who were in the first and third. They were off fighting in Afghanistan while their wives were at home, buying food at the on-post commissary with food stamps.
And nobody bats an eye there, because it’s not uncommon in the military.
It’s not uncommon - nor is it shameful. It might be shameful how little service-members are paid, but that’s a separate issue.
The fact remains anyone at a certain income level can find it difficult from time to time to pay for everything. And when you’re poor you learn to make sacrifices. Food shouldn’t be one of them.
The whole concept is un-American. People living here, in the greatest country on Earth, with the most abundant resources, should be forced to go hungry because of the intellectual notion of fiscal conservatism and the ideological notion of self-reliance.
I didn’t risk my life in Afghanistan so I could come back and watch people go hungry in America. I certainly didn’t risk it so *I* could come back and go hungry.
Imagine, people serving our country have families on food stamps. They've gotta be slackers.
Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Sat, Sep 21, 13 at 14:40
Of course not.
I didn't say that, despite the smarmy rantings suggesting otherwise.
I still want to know exactly who has starved to death in this country because they couldn't get food and wanted it.
There's probably no sense in trying to put some things to rest.
The WHO recorded (and the last time they did) 120 "lack of food" deaths in the US in 2004 - names, addresses, circumstances unknown. Because of low occurrence, records just aren't kept.
Truth be told, while there is certainly malnutrition, food insecurity, etc., deaths aren't occurring due to poverty and lack of access to food; there is a variety of other social reasons involved here.
This post was edited by duluthinbloomz4 on Sat, Sep 21, 13 at 15:21
It is shameful that men and women serving your country are so poorly paid that they have to depend on food stamps to support themselves and their families.
Esh, don't expect an answer. Apparently Demi only asks ridiculous questions.
Posted by ann_t 8a (My Page) on
Sat, Sep 21, 13 at 14:59
Apparently you only make smark aleck comments to and about other posters, ann.
That's one thing that is consistent.
There are probably plenty of Americans who have starved to death, mostly children, but it's attributed to all the other conditions brought on by malnutrition and starvation. But you knew that already, didn't you?
I would guess that you are asking your pointless questions over and over again because you don't have anything else to say.
Children who are malnourshed or starving die from infectious diseases and conditions that wouldn't make a healthy child blink. And these hungry children are poor enough that they don't have health insurance, and probably have very limited access to health care. In rural areas, clinics are few and far between.
Generations of poor children, with access to food and education, had a chance of getting out of poverty, and many did. But no more, the next generation - the GOP generation - will have neither. Oh wait - maybe that's the point - that they'll die and then won't be a burden to middle class white Republicans any more.
You expect poor people without transportion, to get to the "nearest" charity soup kitchen day after day, meal after meal? Wouldn't it be better to create a program that lets them buy and prepare their own meals? Or are you going to bring it to their door, day after day, meal after meal.
Have you ever driven through the hollows of West Virginia or the mountains of northeastern New Mexico. People living in tumble down buildings with dirt floors, and their churches are no better. Are these the churches that should feed and clothe their poor? There are no jobs, and they have no resources, so they can't leave. Mobility is a middle class idea.
Conservatives apparently can't see beyond the end of their noses.
So no one can produce any names, demi. Now what? What does that mean?
My original question to you wasn't "smart Aleck". Nor was it insulting. I asked you a question. But rather than just answer the question you came back with "snark".
So if anyone is being consistent I would say it was you.
Wrong mom, conservatives can see a lot further than the end of their noses. We can see what an economic disaster we are leaving for our children and grandchildren if this doesn't stop. As far as the food stamp program, we are talking about a 5% cut over a ten year period. Are you telling me that in a system that has grown from 17 million to 47 million in just a few years that there isn't at least a 5% fraud ratio? Explain to me why an administration is advertising food stamps and free cell phones? For what purpose?
I don't know about the phones part, but certainly putting information out to help people be aware how and where they can apply for assistance is not a bad thing. They still have to qualify in order to get the food stamps.
Why would you not want to let people know where they can get help if they need it?
Hmmm......I believe that advertising and those free cell phones started in, at least, the last administration. How quickly some forget the sins of the fathers.
Ann, I don't answer ridiculous questions and I don't tend to answer questions from people who don't have much to say except to goad and insult other posters.
STILL waiting for names and places where US citizens have STARVED TO DEATH
Darn, I keep forgetting the demi rules of HT.
Demi can ask whatever she wants. Doesn't matter how ridiculous. We're supposed to answer anything she wants us to. Because, well, she's waiting.
But, heaven forbid anyone ask her a question! If she deems it "ridiculous", then it is and won't be answered.
Gee, not sure why I find it hard to remember that rule.
Do you honestly believe that anyone wants a child to go without food...or are you just parroting the liberal fear tactics? Starve the children, throw granny off the cliff.
MrsK, I respond to what you and your "Independent" friends here say. And more often than not what they say is the equivalent of "I don't a child to go hungry....but it's not my problem so don't expect me to pay one thin dime to help that hungry child...the parent shouldn't have been so lazy to have allowed their child to be hungry." So, if you and others stop talking like that, the rest of us won't get the impression that you want to starve the children. Simple as that. Here on HT you are defined by what you write. Don't like how you're perceived? Look in the mirror and think about what you write.
It means no one here can prove to me that any citizen of this country has died from not having enough to eat when they wanted it.
It means people are eating, perhaps not nutritionally, perhaps not what they want, but they're apparently not starving to death.
Even if the federal government was not handing out food stamps to everyone they think they can get a vote from, plenty of food banks, communities, churches, and individuals provide food to hungry people.
I know I do, and support those efforts with my charity.
So, I would be interested too, in where that photo of the children in the garbage dump was taken.
Getting a bit OCD aren't you?
Actually, it's kind of funny, in a pathetic sort of way. And boring.
This post was edited by momj47 on Sun, Sep 22, 13 at 9:12
gee jill...YOU are defined by what you write? I'm sorry.
Thanks to 47 million of them getting food stamps ....
It means no one here can prove to me
FGS, it means absolutely nothing,
You reap what you sow. No one owes you an answer. Did you ever stop to think that no one is going to give in to your demands when you never answer any questions posed to you? Maybe when you start answering questions then others will show you the same courtesy but right now you don't deserve it. There are many questions throughout this board that you left unanswered. Perhaps you should answer some. or at least one, of those first before you make demands on others.
Yes, I am defined by what I write. I don't hide from what I write. I don't deflect from what I write when what I write is wrong. If it's wrong, I admit it's wrong. I don't try to change the subject when I'm wrong. Unlike you, MrsK.
I think demi just showed by her last response that, yes in fact, she does want to starve the children. The ones she doesn't approve of. Of course, she supports the ones she does approve of with her charity (or so she claims). But can't be having any children she doesn't approve of get any of her money to pay for food.
For me, I am happy to pay my taxes and have some of that money go towards food stamps. Sure, maybe there are a few out there that get food stamps and might not deserve it. I will take that chance to make sure that everyone that needs help, can get help. Not just the ones I deem worthy of that help.
That's the difference between me and you.
And I'm happy to be me and happy to be defined by what I write.
(edited to make clear who I was speaking to)
This post was edited by jillinnj on Sat, Sep 21, 13 at 17:56
The elderly die from starvation. There are so many old people who don't have anyone to help them out and can't get to the store. They go without food and the lack of nutrition eventually that causes other conditions like heart attack and stroke. Many are poor people who simply do not have the resources to hire someone to shop for them and are not knowledgeable enough to sign up for programs. Some of these people have dementia and have been abandoned by their families.
The communities with higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, social isolation and disability are more likely to have higher rates of malnutrition-related deaths, wrote the author, Matthew Lee, a sociology professor at Louisiana State University.
"Communities where adults are living alone and are widowed have higher rates of dying from malnutrition," he said. "When people are embedded in strong social networks, they fare better."
In 2010, 2790 people in the US died from malnutrition, 2680 in 2009, 2644 in 2007, 3003 in 2003.
Looks like that increase in SNAP recipients made a bit of a difference, at least to the people who didn't die.
These are from the CDC Vital Statistics Reports. We rank 140 in the world, with a rate of 1.0 death from malnutrition per 100,000 people. Haiti is first, with 53/100,000
I was on the board, which was composed of a coalition of churches in the area, of a food bank where I previously lived for about 8 years. We served a specific locale made up of people with certain ZIP codes. Our policy was that the first time someone came for food, they were served and told that they had to bring something to show where they lived and what ZIP codes we served if they came back. Volunteers from the member churches handed out the food every week. A few of the volunteers would grouse that they didn't think that some of the people, who stood in line for about an hour before we opened, were poor enough to qualify. Our policy there was that it was better that someone got food they could have afforded to buy than to possibly deny food to someone who needed it.
I feel that way about food stamps, also.
Look, American poor people have refrigerators. I think we can cut these programs for the poor a lot more.
Why am I not surprised that demi is playing one of her ridiculous games again? She said, "Jump!", and no one said, "how high." Glad for that, makes her cruelty look even more evident.
Dockside, that is the way I would expect a food bank to operate.
Mrsk thinks it is okay to cut the budget by 5% because she believes that there is at least 5% that are cheating. Doesn't matter to her if the other 95% in need find it even more difficult to feed their families.
I can't get my mind around this type of thinking.
I think demi just showed by her last response that, yes in fact, she does want to starve the children.
No she just wanted some attention. It is just funny.
This turned into the demi show as it almost always does.
The GOP wants to preserve the two day old fetus , but the kid is on it's own when it's born into an impoverished family who can't provide nourishment for healthy physical and mental development.
I say... it's better to account for a tiny percentage of fraud than it is to be the cause of some child's hunger by cutting benefits.
Welfare fraud is such a small percent of the overall program... a series of programs that help so many.
What I don't see is anyone who has more than enough stepping up to the plate to insist on giving a little more for the benefit of those who have nothing.
A Christian man's perspective:
Today, the House of Representatives votes on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly food stamps. The proposal would cut SNAP by nearly $40 billion over the next 10 years. These cuts would hurt millions of people, namely seniors and the poorest among us. But it will most heavily affect low-income families with children where the parent(s) work for a living but don't make enough to adequately feed their families. Working families with kids are 72 percent of all SNAP beneficiaries.
According to the Census Bureau, food stamps kept 4 million people out of poverty last year. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the House proposal would cut assistance to nearly 4 million low-income people in 2014 and an average of 3 million more each year for the next decade. Christian leaders across the evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American church spectrum are reacting with moral outrage at this assault on the people that Jesus specifically instructs us to protect.
One pastor I spoke to recently, a good man and friend, told me he was worried about government dependence, like the food stamp program. When I told him that the vast majority of food stamps go to working families with young children, and that they are usually only on the program temporarily during hard economic times; he said, "You should get that out." He didn't know the facts and the faces of SNAP. So many of us in the faith community have worked to tell the facts and show the faces -- to share our stories, to "get that out."
The program has enjoyed bipartisan support through the years, but now congressional Republicans are determined to cut these critical nutrition programs to America's hungry. Although SNAP benefits are modest (an average of less than $1.50 per person per meal), SNAP is the nation's foremost tool against hunger and hardship, particularly during recessions and periods of high unemployment. Currently, 47 million Americans benefit from SNAP, but that number is expected to be greatly reduced once the economy recovers. SNAP is designed to expand in periods of great need and contract when the economy is better.
If you know the facts and faces of the hungry families that are helped by SNAP, I believe it is a moral and even religious problem to vote to cut funding for the program. The Bible clearly says that governmental authority includes the protection of the poor in particular, and instructs political rulers to promote their well-being. So the argument that the poor should just be left to churches and private charity is an unbiblical argument. I would be happy to debate that with any of our conservative Congressmen who keep telling our churches that we are the only ones who should care for the poor. To vote against feeding hungry people is un-Christian, un-Jewish, and goes against any moral inclination, religious or not.
Why do I, a person of no faith, feel closer to what he is saying than to what some other persons of strong faith say?
Here is a link that might be useful: source of course
esh, I feel the same way. The folks who post here about how they see god everywhere and blather on about their spiritual lives don't seem to see him in the faces of people who are hungry or food insecure. Well, maybe if those people actually starve to death directly or indirectly through malnutrition-fueled ailments or disease, we'll get some sanctimonious "may they rest in peace" BS.
I am fine with a few pennies of my tax dollars going to help those that have stepped forward and qualified for assistance.
Far more of my money is funneled towards war and war-mongering that what is being used to help these people get a few extra mouthfuls of food. And these are people in my own country that I'm helping!
Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Sat, Sep 21, 13 at 17:48
Hey mom--THIS is the sad and pathetic post (as well as a flat out lie, and mean, and judgmental, and petty) just so you will know !
But pretty much they all are.
What bothers me the most in all of this is the assumption that these working poor could simply" do better" if they only wanted to.
The reality is , even if they all went back to school tomorrow and upgraded themselves there will never be enough middle income jobs to accommodate them all.
Even if they did find these non existent jobs we still need low level workers to support our middle and upper middle life styles.
Fruit needs to be picked, bathrooms need to be cleaned, hotel beds need to be made, meals need to be served.
There will always be a need for low level workers and those of us who literally enjoy the fruits of their labors have an obligation to ensure they make an adequate wage OR subsidize the poverty level wages with things like food stamps.
It is the only civilized way. Other than that we are nothing more that the users of the poor for our own needs. .......and that's not right.
Pidge, Esh... I couldn't agree more. And since so much is interconnected, Pidge is correct... this will directly, or indirectly, affect the health of millions through lack of or inadequate food supply... which will in turn bump cost of health care...
I wonder if anyone defending such SNAP cuts has thought about the cost of doing so...
Well, the fact is just some people can't or won't do better.
Entry level jobs don't have to stay that way except for the mentally challenged.
Hard work, average intelligence and initiative get people out of those low wage jobs, and rather quickly.
One of the problems is, some people--when they get assistance, tend to do "just enough" to get by. So they don't work two jobs, they don't do a good job, they don't show up on time, they don't care to stay late or get there early to show initiative, improve where they work, and they stay in those jobs--if they can keep them.
And, or they make or do not make personal decisions which would better their lot--they have children they can't afford or care for, they make careless decisions in partners and wind up left with children to care for, no help at home, or they drink or do drugs and set a bad example for their children and have problem with their children which causes problems at work, or they don't think outside the box and supplement their income with work on the weekends or after hours, or they don't pick up and move where there is better work and more opportunity.
Of course plenty of people DO NOT do these things.
They're the ones that aren't stuck in minimum wage jobs.
They're the ones making good personal decisions.
They're the ones caring for their families.
They're the ones paying taxes to support the people that won't do what they did.
They're the ones that don't whine and make excuses.
America was built on THESE kinds of people.
The others will be the downfall.
Oh for Pete's sake, not this old worn-out mantra again.
You didn't seriously expect something new or different, did you, Pidge? ;-)
Of course. Same ole blah blah blah blah....just more of the usual, just as many expected including the poor me, victim component. It would be easier to just copy and paste and be done with it.
This post was edited by epiphyticlvr on Sun, Sep 22, 13 at 9:51
Tell me, do you honestly think that 30 million more people are now hungry and unable to feed themselves since Obama took office? If that is true, then you must feel he has done one horrendous job in the past five years.
Why do some make it appear as though the world didn't begin until Obama hit office?
People have been in need of help all along... but logic tells us that as our population grows, and as our economic woes multiply, more people will be in need of help.
The good news is they do exist. Anyone who is financially well off that believes they should pay a higher percentagein taxes than their secretary. Warren Buffet is a good example. There are more. There are people not in the news that also feel the same way and vote that way. There aren't enough of them and certainly not enough here on HT, but they do exist.
Of course it's the same old same old from the same old same old crew. It will always be the same old same old from these people who don't want their penny helping anyone other than themselves. As long as there are people that want to help the poor, and these people have to pay a few pennies for that, they will stick to their same disgusting rants.
Oh, you mean there were poor, hungry people in the US during the Bush administration?
Wow. I bet there were some during the George Washington administration, too.
Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Sun, Sep 22, 13 at 9:36
The same can be said for you and others, jodik. ;-)
Please provide sources for your assertions.
I want to add, I've supervised some employees who were not on assistance, who did exactly the same thing as those employees you are complaining about above.
What gets me is the notion that 30 some million working poor could just move up to 30 million middle class jobs if they just worked harder....and that 30 million non working poor are ready to take there menial jobs when they do.
Pay people a decent wage and that will take care of a huge number of food stamps recipients.
Disclaimer...before I get jumped on I just picked 30 million. The only number I could find is that over 30 % of food stamps go to the families of working poor.
The point is there are millions and millions that all supposedly just need to work harder to get all those millions of jobs awaiting them.
The pope supports the nuns on a bus. I wonder if any priests will refuse communion to those elected officials that support cuts to food stamps and other social programs. How about it, Paul Ryan?
Pope Francis on capitalism and the poor: “A savage capitalism has taught the logic of profit at any cost, of giving in order to get, of exploitation without thinking of people... and we see the results in the crisis we are experiencing,” the pope said. [ . . . ]
The first non-European pontiff in centuries, the Argentine-born pope last week called for financial reform, condemning a “dictatorship of the economy” and a “cult of money”.
In a recent speech to ambassador Francis condemned the global “cult of money” and urged world leaders to do more for the poor. He added money should be made to “serve” people, not to “rule” them.
“Money has to serve, not to rule” said the Pope emphasizing that in his strongest a major reason behind the increase in social and economic woes worldwide “is in our relationship with money and our acceptance of its power over us and our society”.
“We have created new idols” where the “golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.”
Francis further pointed to policies and actions that stem from a “gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces man to one of his needs alone, namely, consumption.”
“We have begun this culture of disposal,” he said, where “human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away.”
Sure, Jill... but those kinds of people are few and far between. Not everyone believes that it takes a village, and some seem to think that they have achieved wealth all by themselves, and that if you haven't, it's because you are lazy and have no personal responsibility. And this is the mantra we see repeated endlessly.
The same can be said for you and others, jodik
Yes, it can. Thank goodness! Thank goodness there are those that care about the poor and will continue to speak out everytime the selfish, I got mine, stay away from mine, ones that do not care speak out. Thank goodness!!
Chase - you keep stating the obvious. Someone has to do those jobs. And while they won't live lavish lifestyles like the more fortunate, they should be able to live. They should be able to provide food and shelter for themselves and their families without assistance. But, if they were to be paid a living wage, then the "job creators" might have a couple less dollars in their pockets and we can't have that, now can we? Much easier for those people to just crap on the poor people. I really do wonder how they look themselves in the mirror. In fact, I'd venture a guess a few have a hard time doing that. Like when somoene (epi?) mentions something about how some came to their money and someone here took that quite personally and told them they'd overstepped their bounds, even though they weren't speaking to them and never mentioned their name. Sounds to me like some might live rent free, but not guilt free.
It is much easier to believe the problem is with the poor themselves than to find real solutions by tackling the true, complex problems in our society.
If we blame the poor, then the poor themselves must provide their solutions. This absolves everyone else from having to figure out and deal with the actual problems ( which they might contribute to) and solutions ( which they resent being dragged into).
Blaming the poor is the easy way out. It allows everyone else to go on with the idea that hey - " I worked hard, made all the right choices and deserve the fortunes I enjoy! The poor has to work harder, make my choices and get their own!"
This deep belief that the poor are the only ones responsible for their strife also allows for feelings of anger and resentment when those dam libruls insist that the causes might be much more complex and that everyone must play their part in the solution.
And that's how to sleep at night and look at yourself in the mirror and respect what you see. By really buying into that stuff. It also is good for back patting. When you frequently drive by obviously poor neighborhoods, it can also leave you with a great sense of self righteousness.
Everyone who isnt poor should live close to poor neighborhoods. Its the best thing ever for boosting self esteem and provides GREAT fodder for future idle chatter about the lazy cheats who want to take all your fabulous stuff.
mylab - maybe that's one of the biggest differences between conservatives (ie, "independents") and liberals. Conservatives get a great sense of self righteousness and liberals get a great sense of empathy.
Sure there were mom...there were 17 million people on food stamps then. Now there are 47 million.
And we've gone through the worst economic downturn since the Depression, with millions losing their homes, jobs, incomes, etc.
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744.
That should be plenty to pay the rent, electricity, water, heat, gas, bus fare, and job-searching expenses, with plenty left over for food, amirite?
Sheech. If only Obama would cut taxes on the Job Creators and deregulate the coal industry, the banking industry, and build the KeyStone Pipeline, all this would just go away.
Pope Francis got this one right!
I have to agree with Jerzee that it is not just children dying of malnutrition, but many of the elderly.
And I want to underline what Mom wrote about the remote hollers of West Virginia. Often these folk, old and young, are so removed as to be below the system or even out of it. (I lived in W VA 3 years).
There is nothing in society that is not tainted with a little fraud. Is this a reason to "throw out the baby with the bathwater"? That is the mindset of these conservatives. What they don't get it that feeding the poor improves society, overall, so keep the food stamps for pragmatic reasons, if nothing else.
For myself, I choose to err on the side of compassion! (there but for the grace of the gods, go I, or you....)
WASHINGTON: " A Tennessee congressman who supports billions of dollars in cuts to the food stamp program is one of the largest recipients of federal farm subsidies, according to new annual data released by a Washington environmental group.
Using Agriculture Department data, researchers at the Environmental Working Group found that Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn., collected nearly $3.5 million in subsidies from 1999 to 2012. The data is part of the research group’s online farm subsidy database, from which the group issues a report each year.
In 2012 alone, the data shows, Mr. Fincher received about $70,000 in direct payments, money that is given to farmers and farmland owners, even if they do not grow crops. It is unclear how much Mr. Fincher received in crop insurance subsidies because the names of people receiving the subsidies are not public. The group said most of the agriculture subsidies go to the largest, most profitable farm operations in the country. These farmers have received $265 billion in direct payments and farm insurance subsidies since 1995, federal records show.
During debate on the farm bill in the House Agriculture Committee last week, Mr. Fincher was one of the biggest proponents of $20 billion in cuts to food stamps in the legislation. At times he quoted passages from the Bible in defending the cuts. snip
said that Mr. Fincher was being hypocritical. “Not only is he advocating deep cuts to other people’s money while he is getting subsidies, he also voted to increase the subsidies that he benefits from,” Mr. Faber said. snip end quote.
And, no doubt, Tennessee will vote him back to Washington. He should be ashamed, as should anyone that votes for him.
What I don't understand is... how the hell do we blame poverty on the poverty stricken?
"It is much easier to believe the problem is with the poor themselves than to find real solutions by tackling the true, complex problems in our society."
Exactly. Take the easy way out... pull the plug on the poor so the rich can have more. Then, pull the rug over the problems. Nice.
The U.S. system is rigged in favor of wealthy -- the oligarchs aka the capitalist class -- and designed so that there is never full employment (unless there's a national emergency such as WW2) to keep wages down.
When the system works according to plan and produces chronic unemployment, the blame is shifted to the poor instead of examing the system itself.
If this particular group of poor works hard, betters themselves, and moves up the financial ladder, there will be others chronically unemployment or working for wages so low that they are still in poverty because that it has the system works.
Even proposals for stimulus packages, proven to work in the past, were reduced, and more than one blocked in Congress. Those protesting the stimulus plans are content with the draconian consequences of abuses by the capitalist class -- there's no other way to define their actions.
As Chase points out, those doing the humble jobs deserve to escape poverty, but there's a political party(actually one and a half) dedicated to keeping the poor in poverty.
U.S. capitalism can be allowed to become ever more savage and inequitable, or it can be modified to correct the worst of the abuses. (Or radically reformed, or abolished -- in my dreams.) Liberals tend to favor modifications, and are met with howls of socialism and communism, meaning that those defending the current system are just fine with the inequality.
Cardinal Bergoglio witnessed first hand the horrendous inequalities of savage capitalism in the poor barrios of Buenos Aires. While the so-called structural adjustments produced figures which appear as progress on paper, the reality is deepening inequality and impoverishment of the middle class. The statements by Pope Francis are based on his life experience, and should be heeded by those concerned with social justice.
I would guess that, IF (big if), any US citizen has died of malnutrition, it was a senior citizen. Some just don't have the means or where-with-all to take care of themselves (ones without caring families).
However, if you want to talk statistics, I can tell you a story about my mother. She went to the ER where the ER dr. noted she was well-hydrated and well-nourished. Three days later some idiot cardiologist determined she was dehydrated and malnourished. He probably spent all of 30 sec. with her. So, she died in the hospital a short time later. Now, which statistic do you suppose she was recorded under? (malnourished or well-nourished????)
(I learned this after her death after I requested a copy of her chart. Because you know, you are not allowed to have it until after discharge or death.)
Statistics are usually untrue and I don't usually agree with many of them. I don't disagree with people who use them just to be difficult (or whatever nasty term it is you call me), I disagree with them for other reasons.
I forgot to add the following to my comments:
For those who think that social justice equals dreaded income redistribution (which the Pentagon budget is as well) please list the names of the wealthy who have died impoverished from government transfers of their wealth.
Edited to add:
'Blame the Poor' thread #128 (at least).
This post was edited by nancy_in_venice_ca on Sun, Sep 22, 13 at 14:13
"Sure there were mom...there were 17 million people on food stamps then. Now there are 47 million."
Nevermind that we missed another great depression by a cat's whisker and that money has migrated more and more to the top in our skewed society - after all I'm all right at least I think I am, so they must be all right too - right?
Of course that is true.
The question is does that statement represent 100% of people on food stamps, 50%, 25%, 10%, 5% or 1%?
demi, what is the percentage you have in your mind when you make that statement?
Esh--I don't have a percentage because I don't know that answer anymore than you do.
In my particular region--I'd say at least 50%.
Just a guess, an educated guess and I'd bet I'm not far off.
Of course my standards are higher than the standards of others for being self sufficient.
I believe everyone that is able bodied and of able mind can take care of themselves, perhaps not in the matter which they'd like, but they can eat and have shelter.
But I personally know people that do what I said, and know OF people that live their lives this way.
Why? Because they can.
Because Democrats want them to believe that life will always be better--one day, when someone gives them enough, instead of teaching them to fish and making them fish.
esh, investigating demi's mind is a task I would not wish on anyone.
I don't know. Maybe their own negative view of the world needs confirmation.
If I had ever exhibited such attitudes, my parents would have asked me to run away from home. (They'd have called me on it as an adult, too.)
What a crock!!!
I can't believe the number of Republicans or independents, as a few like to call themselves, that lack compassion and empathy for those less fortunate. I find it interesting that many of those that profess to have a strong faith in God are often the least compassionate.
Here is my prediction for the next three years.....
Obamacare will have lots of speed bumps but will work as people come to understand what it offers and that it is not the Armageddon they have been told it is.
The situation in Syria will be resolved diplomatically and Obama will come out as the guy who really made it happen through his resolve and his deal with Russia.
Obama will enter into real and meaningful negotiations with Iran
Kerry will pull off some sort of Middle East Peace Accord....and will run for President against Hilary.
2016 Democratic sweep as the GOP whimpers in a corner complaining about "stuff"
demi, so you're saying that you think 50% of the people in your area that on on food stamps could or would do better if they didn't have food stamps making them feel like they don't have to?
This despite the published reports that Working families with kids are 72 percent of all SNAP beneficiaries.
These parents just aren't working hard enough?
Here is a link that might be useful: source of quote
esh, you and I both know that demi has simply made her statistic up out of whole cloth. Tiresome, really. This thread will end before she can provide some other foolishness. That might be a very good thing!