Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Posted by demifloyd 8 (My Page) on
Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 12:15

Some months ago we were discussing whether policies and programs promulgated by liberals and widely supported by democrats had contributed to dependency on the government, and encouraged it.

I believe this to be true no matter the good intentions to help those in need. Some cases, I believe, are intentionally designed to keep people where they are because there is money and power in keeping certain factions of people dependent on the government--politicians--votes.

I mentioned a billboard that I had seen that did just that, by the specific language of a "way to get" the government to "care for you and your family" and the "family" was a young minority girl with a minority baby--no father. No Daddy anywhere around.
No "get the government to educate you" and no "don't have sex if you can't afford a child."

Just--"GET" the government to "care for you and your family."

WELFARE DEPENDENCE is actually being PROMOTED in one of the highest minority populated parishes in the state by Bayou Health, which is the agency through which most CHIP and MEDICAID recipients receive health care services.

You get more of what you subsidize.

And to the poster that questioned me about this billboard with the obvious implication that I was lying,
here it is--I had an opportunity to pull over and take a picture this week.

There were opportunities to send a different message.
Society sends a message that someone else will compensate for your decisions and bear responsibility for them, and here's how you GET THEM TO DO IT.

I am appalled at the message this billboard sends and my representatives will be hearing from me.

 photo IMG_1441_zps2fa350d3.jpg

This post was edited by demifloyd on Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 12:17


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Funny how people look at different things.

When I look at the billboard, I look to see who put up the ad - Bayou Health. .... is the way most of Louisiana's Medicaid and LaCHIP recipients receive health care services. The overriding goal is to encourage enrollees to own their own health and the health of their families. It is a message of empowerment that seeks to motivate Louisianians to make healthier choices for themselves and their families.

and Amerigroup. Our only business is managing publicly funded health programs for our nation’s most vulnerable.

Currently serving approximately 2.7 million members in 13 states nationwide, Amerigroup is dedicated to offering real solutions that improve health care access and quality for our members, while proactively working to reduce the overall cost of care to taxpayers.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Ah, those folks in Louisiana ... they know how to work it, don't they? I suspect it is those two businesses promoting it - the more clients they get, the more gov't money comes to them.

How can you deny them the right to make a buck anyway they can? This is capitalism at its finest. They found a need and they are filling it.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Funny how people look at different things.

kind of like seeing the glass as either half full or half empy. dave.

I see the same thing in the billboard as you do dave.

Demi, I just don't see how you can come up with what you see and believe in that billboard.
Just doesn't make any sense to me.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I realize that--and if it weren't for the GOVERNMENT paying for people's lack of personal responsibility--the businesses would not be exploiting it.

My point is, the SYSTEM is promoting government dependency and it starts with tax payer dollars and ends up with people being encouraged to produce illegitimate children and to learn to "get" others to "care" for their family.

It sickens me.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

kind of like seeing the glass as either half full or half empy. dave.

*

My daughter gave me a pitcher for Christmas with markings on it--it says "half empty" and "half full." ;)

I don't have a problem with advertisements telling people where they can go for help--not a problem with that.

It is the photo combined with the text that is so offensive--the message that is sent--the entitlement, and pandering to a minority group that they "need" someone else to care for them and how to "get" taxpayers to pay for their families--regardless of their irresponsible actions.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 13:00

Disclosures of Employers Whose Workers and Their Dependents are Using State Health Insurance Programs

.... this raises the issue of whether states are being put in a position of subsidizing the cost-cutting measures of private sector employers.

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

It is the photo combined with the text that is so offensive--the message that is sent--the entitlement, and pandering to a minority group that they "need" someone else to care for them and how to "get" taxpayers to pay for their families--regardless of their irresponsible actions.

That is not the message, that is your opinion of what the message is and as you can see, others have a totally different opinion, different view of what they see or don't see in that billboard advertisement.

Those familiar GOP and Demi words, just knew that was coming in this thread.

"people's lack of personal responsibility"
"regardless of their irresponsible actions."

How can one live without hearing, seeing, reading those words.

It must be so wonderful to be so perfect that one has such perfect personal responsibility and irresponsible actions never happen.

Could that be why the majority of the voters are not GOP/TeaParty supporters and did not support the party in the last presidential election?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Some months ago we were discussing whether policies and programs promulgated by liberals and widely supported by democrats had contributed to dependency on the government, and encouraged it.

The failed policies of the Bush administrations are what caused the soup lines and grew the numbers of families on government assistance....but you know that. Your ilk voted for him twice.

We can go through the numbers again and you know that also. Doing the MrsK routine is OLD.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

For your information, demi, young mothers get medicaid primarily--- if not solely-- for BIRTH CONTROL SERVICES. The baby gets free medical care, yes--as it would in any state. I presume even you would not call the baby lazy or lacking in personal responsibility.

Did you know that actual welfare is a tiny proportion of the annual federal budget? Medicare --- socialized medicine for the elderly--- and Social Security---- welfare for the elderly, in some cases----are the two largest budget items and have been for years.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

And to add---your use of the words "living color" is disingenuous at best.

This post was edited by kswl on Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 14:04


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

It is Sunday and I am feeling good. I do not want to lose that spirit today. This thought process has been explained already and we know where it comes from.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Perhaps this will suit your refined sensibilities better.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 14:11

So, you'd like to deny health care to people, in Louisiana, in this case?

Just let them die.

There, but for the Grace of God, go all of us.

This post was edited by momj47 on Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 14:12


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I'll tell you what appalls me...some people's complete, total, utter lack of responsibility empathy.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Well, none of it will matter much if the state gets sucked down a growing sinkhole, through the collapse of salt domes, poor management and safety calls made by those corporations within that group of industries... petroleum and chemicals, etc... you can watch it grow in size through dated Youtube videos, as acre after acre is swallowed...


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

This is what happens when you privatize management of government funded services. The private business is out there to make as much money as possible ... even at taxpayer expense.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Now anyone want to call that lack of personal responsibility down in LA with that sinkhole? You know, personal responsibility by way of the petrol and chemical companies?

nah, not personal responsibility, that's reserved for those liberals, you know the one that support the democratic party, voted for and support President Obama. It's reserved for those that support a helping hand to the poor, the needy, those that need health insurance, medical care. It's reserved for those that support human rights for all, civil rights for all, gay rights, women's rights.

But heck, most of us know all of that.

There, but for the Grace of God, go all of us.

You got it, jodik. one never knows if one will find oneself in need and needing the help, but heck if the GOP/TeaParty have their way, there will be none of us left that will need that help, we will all die off.

Funny though, the GOP isn't smart enough to realize how much they really need the rest of us. We are the ones that are doing all the work so that they can have all the money. If we aren't around to do the work for them, well, they aren't going to have all that money.

and people really vote for these people for political office.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 15:19

Nice picture, but if both of those young people are working at low paying jobs that offer no benefits, they will still need the health care services offered by BayouHealth. And since this is Louisiana - they probably are and probably will.

Walmart is counting on BayouHealth to be there for their employees.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

You know it's interesting how people interpret things. My last job before I retired was for a health care company. For some reason, when one sees the generic term 'health care', some just jump to a particular conclusion. I saw that sign and I saw two entities...BayouHealth and Amerigroup. So I went and looked them up. BayouHealth is apparently a department within the State of Louisiana system. Amerigroup is a private company. Here is a blurb on their website on what they do:

Our only business is managing publicly funded health programs for our nation’s most vulnerable.

Currently serving approximately 2.7 million members in 13 states nationwide, Amerigroup is dedicated to offering real solutions that improve health care access and quality for our members, while proactively working to reduce the overall cost of care to taxpayers. Together with WellPoint’s affiliated health plans, we serve more than 4.5 million beneficiaries of state sponsored health plans in 20 states, making us the nation’s leading provider of health care solutions for public programs.

So my assumption is that Amerigroup is a company that has contracts with various state governmental entities to do services like advertising, database management, etc. I'm assuming that states save money by outsourcing to companies for specific services instead of maintaining a complex organization like this on their own. Conversely these private companies make money by providing these services to multiple state and local governments.

Makes sense to me...but maybe I'm assuming too much.

Of course, some people just view and lump these issues into the trash bin of irresponsible entitlements.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

The smiling girl on the billboard looks like she just won a million dollars.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Interesting. I can see how you would read that into the billboard message, Demi. And the image is unquestionably intimating that the program's for young black women and their kids. But isn't that logical in an area where a sizable proportion of the poor are black? The "single mother" referent seems your own invention.

The verb "get" can have different valences. My instinct would be to read it differently - isn't Louisiana the state that has that bizarre telephone lottery twice a year just to get the application forms for state health care? From the point of view of the disadvantaged, whom Louisiana has clearly failed in terms of health care, "get" could also mean "make the state agency do what they're tasked to do".

Ron, you made me lol.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Well, none of it will matter much if the state gets sucked down a growing sinkhole

That state is just a step away from a sinkhole, oil spill, hurricane non-existence state any minute ready to happen. Then we will see all those with so much Personal Responsibility how much gumbit money they think they need.

When you live in a glass house you should not throw stones. Things have a way of showing you that you can be knocked off the high rock you stand upon that you think cannot be moved.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by jomuir z5 detroit (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 16:15

'Disclosures of Employers Whose Workers and Their Dependents are Using State Health Insurance Programs.... this raises the issue of whether states are being put in a position of subsidizing the cost-cutting measures of private sector employers.'

I saw a pattern in that site, not unexpected either. Funny no repubs/conservatives whatever they call themselves, have responded to it?

As for the billboard, I'm a lot more disturbed by the race-baiting language used by OP than the notion that a poor black child with a single mother may receive publicly funded basic health care. But then I'm a (mostly) liberal person who would love to see truly universal health care for all citizens of this great USA.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

LaCHIP is Louisiana's Children's Health Insurance Policy. I see promoting insured children as a net savings for the state; children with insurance are taken to doctors' offices and clinics at the first signs of an illness rather than waiting (hoping whatever it is goes away on its own) until the symptoms are more severe and the state pays for emergency room treatments. Same for the adults using Medicaid.

Not addressed in this statement -- Society sends a message that someone else will compensate for your decisions and bear responsibility for them -- is the fact that Medicaid and LaCHIP helps small businesses in much the same way as the earned income credit does. By having the state subsidize low-income earners, small businesses (as well as WalMart) are relieved of having to supply insurance.

Again, access to affordable health care for low-income earners will safe the state money, as well as being good -- both as a benefit and being the correct thing to do -- for residents of Louisiana.

Would you really want a low-income earner with a communicable disease and no insurance working with the public? Or have the means to be treated?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Perhaps a map of good rocks to crawl under instead eh DEMI!


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Perhaps a map of good rocks to crawl under instead eh DEMI!

Well, labrea, you know what the GOP/TeaParty say about health insurance, remember?

health insurance is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford it, than you do without until you can afford it.

Heck they believe that any and all entitlements are destroying this country.

What they don't say is that the only entitlement that is a good one is one that fattens the wallet at the top of the chain, those at the bottom, well like labrea said, "give them a map of good rocks to crawl under"


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 17:39

Many people aren't interested in what the facts are, that is shown over and over here - and everywhere else. Once a significant emotional investment is made in a particular point of view, it can become an agenda that is clung to like a bible.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

The advertising agency that developed that billboard knew what they were doing.

1. Clearly identified the target market - there is no mistaking who is being targeted
2. set themselves apart from the competition by the use of "new way"
3. Identified the need - health insurance - and the message is clear.
4. sets the viewer up to act - phone number.
5. Pulls emotional strings - smiling faces are happy/satisfied customers.

I partially agree with your interpretation, demi, because of the points I've just listed. but I disagree that Bayou Health and Amerigroup are promoting dependence on welfare. I think they are trying to grow the customer base which, all other things being equal, should drive down costs.

Jomuir, the race baiting was done by those who developed the ad.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Why am I not surprised that Demi would choose to read this in a negative way?

And the title of this post speaks volumes.

~Ann


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

And I am struck by the belief in the Azartraskicans from the Beta Quadrant-space aliens who direct our resources into all sorts of evil avenues trying to bring the human race into such a depressed state of dependence that they can move in on us and take over the jewel of the universe aka Earth-instead of recognizing that "the government" is us-we the people with all our warts who have through our representatives set up these systems to look after the wants of the wanting.
If you look hard at 'you get what you subsidize' then why not look at who gets all the money-it is not women and children on assistance-it is the military-lets weep and wail on that for a while.


 o
Kids, kids and more kids.

1997 article: Religion and Welfare Shape Economics for the Hasidim

"From household incomes to school budgets, public assistance has penetrated the world of Southside's Hasidim. The Hasidim's ability to make the welfare system work for them has provoked both admiration and suspicion among welfare agency officials and many people who live alongside the Hasidim in Southside.

...

At least one-third of the estimated 7,000 Hasidic families in Williamsburg receive public assistance, according to neighborhood leaders.

The benefits, including welfare payments, food stamps and subsidized housing, sustain the families with as many as 10 or 12 children;

...

And they have large families: the average household has eight children, neighborhood leaders say. Hasidic parents commonly say that large families are the most satisfying realization of their religion, which tells them to be fruitful and multiply.

But their religious emphasis has created economic dead ends for many of the Hasidim of Southside. The focus on religious studies results in children ending secular education at age 13, curtailing job skills.

...

''I hope to get off, I am trying to get off,'' he said. A teacher who has four children, he conceded that he started his family knowing his restricted economic situation. ''But we don't first have a business and then children. We do what we feel is right, and then try and do our best.''

...

The System

Relying on Help Is Ingrained

One foundation of the Hasidim's economy is an organized, aggressive approach to winning welfare benefits. For example....."

Hay


 o
Kids, kids, kids.....

"The poorest place in the United States is not a dusty Texas border town, a hollow in Appalachia, a remote Indian reservation or a blighted urban neighborhood. It has no slums or homeless people...."

...

"And, yet, officially, at least, none of the nation’s 3,700 villages, towns or cities with more than 10,000 people has a higher proportion of its population living in poverty than Kiryas Joel, N.Y."

...

"About 70 percent of the village’s 21,000 residents live in households whose income falls below the federal poverty threshold..."
...

About half of the residents receive food stamps, and one-third receive Medicaid benefits and rely on federal vouchers to help pay their housing costs.

...

Women marry young, remain in the village to raise their families and, according to religious strictures, do not use birth control. As a result, the median age (under 12) is the lowest in the country and the household size (nearly six) is the highest. Mothers rarely work outside the home while their children are young.

Most residents, raised as Yiddish speakers, do not speak much English. And most men devote themselves to Torah and Talmud studies rather than academic training --- only 39 percent of the residents are high school graduates, and less than 5 percent have a bachelor’s degree. Several hundred adults study full time at religious institutions.

....

“If people want to work in a religious setting and make less than they would earn at B & H, that’s a choice people make,” said Gedalye Szegedin, the village administrator, referring to the giant photo and video retail store in Manhattan whose owner and many of whose employees are members of the Satmar sect."

Hay


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

A new way to get Medicaid and LaCHip to care for you and your family--

Information...is just that. Some people don't realize that there are programs out there that they qualify for. And even some of those who have qualified for these programs are not aware of specific services that are offered. That billboard is an informational tool. How some can read into that one sentence, what they read into it, is beyond me...unless one's mind is predisposed.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

How some can read into that one sentence, what they read into it, is beyond me...unless one's mind is predisposed.

Bingo, Ron, you win. That is exactly what is going on and you stated it perfectly.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 21, 13 at 21:27

Hay you will never see this group of people on a billboard ... any more than you would see the group out in Utah :)


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I think I've posted about Kyrias Joel on here about 3 or 4 times.
Your not going to see all of Warren Jeffs Wives & Children on those billboards either. More than half the FLDS crowd were on welfare & food stamps.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

If you look hard at 'you get what you subsidize' then why not look at who gets all the money-it is not women and children on assistance-it is the military-lets weep and wail on that for a while.

patriciae, That is so true.

To see a billboard that is aimed at any help for someone in need and the thing that comes to your mind is 'you get what you subsidize'. How miserable of a life can you have to think this is something to protest? Protest the least of thee will not bring joy to your life.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

"That billboard is an informational tool. How some can read into that one sentence, what they read into it, is beyond me...unless one's mind is predisposed."

Agree, Ron... two parts predisposition mixed with a dash of context and comprehension results in a specific recipe.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Agree, Ron... two parts predisposition mixed with a dash of context and comprehension results in a specific recipe.

Don't confuse them with facts. It only makes them angrier.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Well, I think the thread title sets it all up right off the bat...


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I would say these have been interesting responses, but they aren't.

For the most part, disappointing to the extent that the responses weren't about the topic, but about me.

Insults, conjecture, smarmy comments, tsk tsk between posters.

Sadly, not unexpected.

That always indicates there is validity to the topic.
The knee jerk attack the messenger is Saul Alinsky 101.

Esh and JMC101--kudos for thoughtful, intelligent posts and I agree with your posts. JMC101 in particular nailed the marketing ploy, and Esh showed how the government feeds capitalism at the expense of the taxpayers. Sometimes that its a good thing--here, not necessarily.

Nancy and Ohiomom brought up a few points, although peripheral to the topic.

As I said IN THIS THREAD, I believe that people should be made aware of services--what I object to is the text--the message in the wording and the photograph. Of course that was totally ignored by those that tried to accuse me of not caring about people and the one particularly nasty and long stretch at racism. Yawn. If you repeat something long enough, do you actually believe it?

Someone finally got what Bayou Health Services is.
Glad the research was done on that.

A couple of good responses, thanks for those.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Nancy and Ohiomom brought up a few points, although peripheral to the topic.

My comments were not peripheral at all.

There will always be some portion of the population that earns so little that health care is impossible to afford. Making sure that those persons are in the system and learn how to access services is an important step in learning the benefits of preventative medicine -- which saves the state money. How is saving taxpayer money peripheral to a point that is essentially about the use of taxpayers' dollars?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

In the 'developed' world, we take for granted a basic high level of societal health - done through nation-wide vaccinations, strict water and waste treatment, laws on disposal of garbage, and a huge effort to educate the population on everything from washing hands to how to prepare food safely.

In the US now, with the teaparty, shrink the gub'mint, 'personal responsibility' given as the excuse to do nothing about society-wide problem - everything from massive un-employment to ...."It isn' my problem you don't vaccinate or educate your kids" combined with an intentionally orchestrated distrust in the government to do anything well, we forget what the alternative is.

So, around the world right now, we have strains of TB that are almost impossible to treat - oh look, thats a biggy in Russia, spread through prisons, alcoholics, poor public health, the collapse of that nations' health care system. Um, lets just hope that the person in front of you, coughing, isn't one of the millions infected, passing it onto you.

We have an AIDS pandemic, which brings along with it this same strain, and others, of TB. The new, deadly bird flu in China seems to have now evolved to human > human transfer. Polio is coming back in Nigeria after a series of unbelievable fiascos, and so on.

I'd rather live in a country where we have the medical capacity to deal with the victims of the recent bombings and explosions, as well as any deadly epidemic that shows up.

And you can't effectively fight the 'war on disease' if you exclude people who can't afford the absurdly high insurance rates we have.

Edited to add that I forgot: I don't care how much money one has, or how 'isolated' one lives in some gated community and travels by private jet / helicopter, they can still inhale a germ breathed out by some urchin. Or the maid caught it from her cousin. Or the gardener didn't wash his hands after burying the trash at his Uncle's pig farm. Etc.

This post was edited by david52 on Mon, Apr 22, 13 at 11:13


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

"In the US now, with the teaparty, shrink the gub'mint, 'personal responsibility' given as the excuse to do nothing about society-wide problem -

That's a pretty standard response to anyone who questions ANY of our outrageous government actions.

I'm pretty much against Socialism. That DOES NOT mean that I think we shouldn't have a police force. That does not mean that I don't think we ought to have roads.....

I don't know that I'm too happy about someone having 12 kids that I get to support.

I'll gladly vaccinate every one of them however. Line'em up.

Hay


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

For the most part, disappointing to the extent that the responses weren't about the topic, but about me.

That's not how I see it at all. The responses were about the topic.

The basis of this thread is your interpretation of the billboard -- that the government promotes welfare dependance.

Many posters disagree with your interpretation of the billboard. I agree with those posters and do not interpet it the way you do. Therefore, since we disagree that the billboard is promoting "government promotion of welfare dependance", we state that we disagree with your interpretation.

Your interpretation of the billboard is on topic.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 22, 13 at 14:07

For those who do not want "welfare health" for low wage employees, I would suggest not eating out....not talking bout' mcD etal but the high scale joints too. Having done so myself and having a couple of kids that worked in the "back of the house" where food is prepared, you might want to think about who is preparing/handling your food.....or not :)

Then there are the myriad of other low wage workers that you inadvertently come in contact with ... you might again want to think about who is being denied health care ... or not :)

As David pointed out they got some stuff out here that would not only "fell a horse" but you (collective you) quicker ... might want to think bout' that .... or not :)


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

The points made by Ohiomom, David, jmc and myself regarding the benefits of promoting Medicaid and LaCHIP -- cost savings and protecting the health of all LA residents -- are ignored in favor of trading insults.

Be the change you want to see.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

"...illegitimate children...."

Maybe you can get someone else to chomp, but not me.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I wouldn't expect people that don't pay federal taxes to be too concerned about subsidizing bad decisions--they don't have to pay for it.

No wonder so few people are concerned--so many do not do their share by paying anything in federal taxes.

They're usually the most vocal about how tax dollars they do not contribute are spent.

You get more of what you subsidize.

The billboard is encouraging people to "GET" someone to care for them and their family.

That sends a message of no personal responsibility.

Adults are only victims if it is advantageous for them to be victims--which it is with our welfare systems.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Maybe you can get someone else to chomp, but not me.

Okay I will chomp....

Demi are you grieving this week? Now the way I hear your comments.......

The little ba&&tards want me to take care of them. I made the woman have these little ba&&tards now she darn well better get out there and take care of the crumb snatchers. Health Care heck they are not legitimate they do not need health care let them suffer what do I care if they need medical attention. I made sure they were born my job is done. I do not want to give one dime to these things that want my money. They are not even legitimate why do they need my money.

Is that what you mean?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Demi, where on earth do you get "illegitimate", other than your own preconceived ideas about the poor-slash-black mother depicted in the image?

Nowhere in that ad is any mention whatsoever about the legitimacy of the children involved.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Because there was not a photo of a father on the billboard and the text referred to "family."

Of course I suppose the father could be dead.

Considering the illegitimate births in Morehouse Parish, where the sign is located, I doubt widows with babies were the intended audience.

But hey, who knows? Maybe that's all the billboard was directed to--minority teenaged widows with infants.

Apparently no one wants to discuss whether this billboard sends the wrong message about who is responsible for you and your family.

I have no problem, as I said, with advertising the availability of services. I do with the photo combined with the wording.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Demi if all your excuses and yes I think of them as excuses why you want to protest this ad because of your comments.

Whether they are in a traditional family structure or not should not come into your conversation, you would not bring into the discussion about who pays taxes and do not pay taxes.

The argument you present is weak and laced with racism, due to assumptions, and personal feelings of only you pay taxes. It does not seem to occur to you that others disagree with your perception because we feel as a society it would be beneath us to deny health care and financial support for the poor. Regardless of color or whether they are legitimate as you state.

Others do not look for excuses of not being legitimate, color, my money they do not work (all those excuses) to make ourselves feel better.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I think you do have a point Demi. Its one you have been making in some way since I joined hot topics - taxpayer dollars going to people who have children they cant afford. My own personal problem is when a single mother who is on a variety of public assistance because of an unplanned pregnancy has yet another child. The first child? - everyone in life makes mistakes in judgements, the second pregnancy is, imo, irresponsible behavior and casual disregard about the welfare of the existing child. She now understands what happens when birth control is not used religiously and yet it is more likely than not that she does not use it religiously enough to prevent yet a second pregnancy. Now she has less resources available for the first child to be used to succeed in life.
But yet, a second child is born needing our resources and that it was created due to irresponsibility really doesn't come into it when discussing the needs this second child will require.
As a society we have decided that we must provide the basics needed for survival to children because they are unable to provide it for themselves. Unless we decide not to do so anymore, letting these babies die from hunger and exposure, tax dollars will be spent on this child.
My problem is that, despite your reluctance to have your tax dollar used this way, you have never offered a truly workable alternative that provides the needs of the children (without it being punitive to the child), simply because they were created in a way that was irresponsible.
They were created without being allowed any input in the matter. They did not ask to be born, especially into poverty conditions which is what they continue to live in even with your tax payed assistance, they are unable to provide for themselves.
So, my question to you is this:

how does this country responsibly provide for their needs with the continued use of your tax dollar in a way that will meet with your approval?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

The billboard is, from the point of view of a realist, getting needed information out to people, period. Why read extraneous emotional content into it?

Why would you not wish for every mother and child to have the health care that they need in this so-called "great" society?

What is the satisfaction in playing judge and jury?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Apparently no one wants to discuss whether this billboard sends the wrong message about who is responsible for you and your family.

Several people have discussed it. Several of us have said we do not interpret the billboard that way. That is your interpretation. You are entitled to you interpretation. And so are we.

If we don't interpret it the same way as you, how are we supposed to have a conversation about a message we do not think the billboard is giving? All we can do is say we don't interpet it the same way. Maybe make a comment on why we think you interpret it the way you do (based on your posting history).

I'm going to venture a guess that just about everyone here that disagreed with your interpretation, and is for providing these basic services to the needy, pays taxes. I disagreed with your interpretation. I support providing these services to the needy. Especially given the alternative. I pay taxes. So, again you are wrong in your claim about those that are for this. This is repeatedly pointed out to you. Why do you continue to say the same thing?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 23, 13 at 13:14

Plenty of us think the billboard sends the RIGHT message about who is responsible for health care for the citizens of the state of Louisiana. The state of Lousiana has taken on this responsibilty for people who have no health insurance - most, probably, because their job does not offer health insurance as a benefit, or they can't afford to pay premiums from their minimum wage salary.

Apparenlty, you disagree with us, and posted this because you were looking for support, not a discussion. It's not personal, we would have said the same thing no matter who posted. Many of us think the State has a responsibilty to protect it's most vulnerable citizens. You can take from that what you want.

I guess you could stop paying taxes if you don't like where that money is going.


 o
A picture is worth a thousand words

"Perhaps this will suit your refined sensibilities better. -Ron-"

Wow! I thought you had to be poor to be on Medicaid. But the trick is, you just have to claim you're poor. Then go ahead and plan a fancy wedding, complete with wedding dress, tux, attendants, flowers and guests. Why be responsible for yourself, when you have politicians who have made careers out of sending the bill to somebody else?

Oh...and don't you slackers forget to take good care of your SNAP card! Why pay for your own wedding cake or any of the food served at your wedding?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

jill: "I'm going to venture a guess that just about everyone here that disagreed with your interpretation, and is for providing these basic services to the needy"

There it is jill. I don't think of someone as "needy" when they choose to have a baby they can't afford. They are more "gimmee".


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 23, 13 at 16:54

So.........a single woman find herself pregnant - and don't think it doesn't happen - rape, birth control failure, or whatever, and can't afford to have a child - what are the choices - abortion? I don't think that's a solution a lot of you want to offer women. Better birth control - that also is becoming the target for men who hate women and the women who support them. Adoption - maybe, but there are far too many children stuck in the limbo of the foster care system - adoption is a poor choice, too.

So what do you suggest a single woman does? How about a careless single woman? Forced abortion?

How about a married couple who can't afford any more children? Are the rules different for them.

Just let them starve from lack of food, or die from lack of health care?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm asking legitimate questions about your anger towards single women, and your lack of reasonable options or solutions to the current practices which seem to offend some people on this forum.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

So you infer illegitimacy instead of divorce (the far more obvious reason the woman might be depicted alone with a child) because she is black? I'm trying, but I'm having a really hard time following your logic here, Demi.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Posted by circuspeanut coastal 5 (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 23, 13 at 18:08

So you infer illegitimacy instead of divorce (the far more obvious reason the woman might be depicted alone with a child) because she is black? I'm trying, but I'm having a really hard time following your logic here, Demi.
*

Not necessarily, and not in all cases.

However, considering that 80.4% of births to black women in Louisiana are to UNMARRIED black women, I'm going to take a wild guess that that most of those aren't divorces--they are unmarried--not labeled as divorced.

You can figure out how many are divorced, if any, or if unmarried just means not ever married, or not married to the baby's daddy, or whatever.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

All babies are legitimate by definition... it doesn't matter if their parents are married or not. That's an outdated, religiously traditional, prejudicial, 19th century way of thinking, in my opinion. In the 21st century, we no longer use the term "ba$tards" to describe children born into single parenthood. We call them children, and whether raised by two, or one, or step, or same-sex parents, most are still loved very dearly and cared for and educated with all the parent or parents can muster.

Some of these horribly outdated visuals or voiced prejudices simply have to be put to rest. They no longer have a place within today's society.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 24, 13 at 9:29

If they needed a poster/billboard for "generational family welfare", they could have used the entire Tsarnaev family .... given asylum, as well as a free ride, by our government in "2002" which was not long after 9/11.

And while they were on "welfare", they were flying back and forth to the "home" country.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

october17 wrote,

jill: "I'm going to venture a guess that just about everyone here that disagreed with your interpretation, and is for providing these basic services to the needy"

There it is jill. I don't think of someone as "needy" when they choose to have a baby they can't afford. They are more "gimmee".

You misread what jillinnj wrote. She didn't say,

"I'm going to venture a guess that just about everyone here disagreed with your interpretation, and is for providing these basic services to the needy"

She said,

"I'm going to venture a guess that just about everyone here that disagreed with your interpretation, and is for providing these basic services to the needy, pays taxes."

That's a completely different statement.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Speaking as a person who pays a lot of income tax each year, I'd rather my taxes pay for medicaid for babies than socialized medicine--- also known as Medicare--- for seniors.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I'd rather taxes be split so everyone who needs medical help can receive what they need. Babies aren't the only ones in need of medical care.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion better health in living color

Amerigroup is provides Primary Adult Care (PAC) and Maryland Children's Health Program (MCHP) in Maryland, their ads on on buses and billboards, especially in Baltimore City.

We have so many people who need health care and can't afford it - usually because their minimum wage jobs don't offer health insurance, or they can't get enough hours to be eligible for health insurance, as well as every other reason people don't have health insurance.

It makes such a huge difference, especially for people with chronic disease - adults are getting treatment for diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure who could never afford medications before. Kids are being treated for asthma, being screened for other diseases.

This can only benefit the citizens of Maryland, and Louisiana, and every other state.

Preventively treating people with chronic disease before they become serious and disabling is always the better choice.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

As far as medical care goes, the only thing that makes sense to me is single payer. What kind of world is it that still in this country, only those who can afford the best health care are ever going to get the best health care? That makes no sense to me.
Of course, I feel the same way about education, also. When only those who can afford a great education can get a great education, a class system is firmly in place in a country, approved of by those who can afford a great education. That is something that should worry everyone imo, including those who can afford great medical care and a great education.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Mylab, I completely agree.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Well said, Mylab... I also concur.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 26, 13 at 14:08

I agree mylab, it's a shameful system.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 26, 13 at 14:21

Eventually they'll be filming the shows in the tradition of Upstairs, Downstairs and Downton Abbey in the US.

Not that we haven't had extreme inequity here before. We've even had slavery.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Hmmm, when FDR was originally preparing legislation for Social Security, universal health care was part of the package. The AMA was firmly against it, so universal health care was scratched. For decades after the AMA was the primary bulwark against universal healthcare. Now the AMA is supposedly for Obamacare. I have to ask why? Employer-funded healthcare was once the dominant form of health care/insurance for the common worker. Now that unions have collapsed and major employers can say that healthcare insurance costs too much....who's to blame. Government tries to step in again and is pilloried by reactionaries. This has been going on since President Pierce's day (yes, that long ago).

Elitists (both those in power and those who support that power) know it's against their interests to support universal education and universal healthcare. They use the phrase, "MY tax dollars..." The Russians aren't the enemy, the Chinese aren't the enemy, the Islamists aren't the enemy. It's the conservative powers that be who are the enemy. In this day and age conservatism=reactionary/regressive. Make no mistake about it.

I'm betting reactionary elements in this country will be the leading cause of our downfall. We're already half-way to a Banana Republic.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

yeah, yeah....

Don't forget, in this big world, you all are the 1%.

When you sell your computer, stop your internet service and send the money to Haiti, I'll believe your bleeding heart.

Until then,

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

Hay

This post was edited by haydayhayday on Fri, Apr 26, 13 at 16:27


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Ron, well said. You expressed my thoughts in a more eloquent manner than I did, on another thread.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I concur as well, Ron.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I like the way your brain works Hay.

Due to your last post at 16,18 - it seems to me that you would agree with me that all those against abortion should be out there convincing just one single woman who is going for an abortion to remain pregnant and then they themselves will assume the ob/gyn and hospital bills, any financial obligations she might not be able to meet due to her pregnancy and then enter into a written contract where they agree to pay pregnancy expenses, adopt and raise the baby, seeing to all his needs both physical and emotional, providing the child all the education that the child desires at least through a four year college degree or three year trade/ vocational school if that is what the child desires. Out of all the women who feel the need for an abortion - with a sincere, compassionate plea to "save the child" in time they would eventually find that woman who would agree to the contract.
And if nobody who is against the right to abortion, thinking it to be murder, will get out there and do what it would take to put their money and sacrifice where their mouth is - then it sure does strike me that the words are actually just hollow and without true meaning or even belief- but just another political talking point to posture on and argue about.

No, to your question, I didn't sell anything but yes, I did send monthly checks for the Haiti relief fund and even though I was told I was maybe doing more harm than good, also sent more than I could afford for quite awhile to the fund for the starving children in Africa.
Stole some of it it out of our retirement fund we have been saving instead of any even short vacation for the last six years - and I don't regret it. DH thought it was foolish also since war lords would keep so much of it for themselves, but accepted that I HAD to do it. Almost not a choice.

Like you pointed out, there, but by mere chance of the circumstances of my birth, it could have been my own dying bag of bones in my own starved thin arms.
If out of all the many dollar food packets I bought, just one packet got to that child to provide it with some small relief for just a few minutes and the mother could have that minute of peaceful joy that she could provide food for her poor baby just that once, then my goal was accomplished.
It was probably terrible value for my money due to the war lords, but better than nothing at all. It was all I could do, and I hope you do what you can do too, Hay.
Not asking if you do, absolutely none of my business and I don't WANT to know, but since you have brought it up several times, I hope that for you, too its much more than a political score! point ( like I suspect the abortion debate is) and that you are one who puts your money where your mouth is on issues you insist are important to you.

Locally and universally, humanity always is in great need from those who are more fortunate. Sorry to go on and on, its a hot button for me.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Yeah, yeah.

Biden feels good, too. He donated $400 worth of the clothes he can't fit into anymore to Goodwill.

" It's the conservative powers that be who are the enemy. In this day and age conservatism=reactionary/regressive. Make no mistake about it.

I'm betting reactionary elements in this country will be the leading cause of our downfall. We're already half-way to a Banana Republic."

The Road to Serfdom begins at the corner of Bleeding Heart and Gimme Street.

It's an easy road to travel; downhill the whole way.

Hay


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

So, what are you doing about it? What are your ideas for solutions - or are you another one here who is here to complain only and endlessly, ad nauseum?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

"So, what are you doing about it? What are your ideas for solutions - or are you another one here who is here to complain only and endlessly, ad nauseum?"

Pointing out your illogical, hypocritical, absurd ideas.

Hoping that you'll see the light.

It's an uphill battle, but I don't give up easily.

Hay


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

Hay, why don't you ever post anything of substance? Laughing at the majority of us accomplishes...what?


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

I don't see Hay laughing at everyone, just some posters some of the time. Some of the posts are laughable. A lot of Hay's posts make me laugh, too.

What's a substantive post? Anything rooted in reality, I suppose. Folks post remarks: funny, snide, mean, idotic, inane, all over the place, nearly every thread. Some posters have never posted anything I would consider 'substantive.' Like many other things, whether or not something is 'substantive' is a matter of priorties; IMO what we post and how it is interpreted by each and every different reader, probably not all in the same way.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

"Some posters have never posted anything I would consider 'substantive.'"

HOOT


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

momj: Exactly how many baby mamas do you think are the victims of rape? Very few. I would bet most rape victims abort. I'll agree to very few.

Birth control accidents, probably some. Many of them probably abort too.

Babies of baby mama's babies? IT'S INTENTIONAL. And there are lots and lots and lots and lots of them.

Demi: But hey, who knows? Maybe that's all the billboard was directed to--minority teenaged widows with infants.

You are funny Demi. Made me laugh with that one! Thanks.

Facto: No, it does not change the fact that the word "needy" refers to baby mama babies - who I see as gimmee's not needies.


 o
RE: Governent Promotion of Welfare Dependance in Living Color

repeat

This post was edited by frank_il on Mon, Apr 29, 13 at 21:25


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here