Drug Testing for Welfare recipents

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Gonna jump in here with my opinion of the entire problem. It is a false sense of entitlement. Generally speaking, society is leaning more and more toward the thought process: "I am an American, (or Illegal Immigrant living in America) and I am entitled to have a driver's license, home, computer, cable, fast food meals, etc...etc... without any strings attatched." It is this thought process that is inherently flawed and, in my opinion, a huge part of the problem. People have gone away from the true American Dream of working hard and reaping your own rewards. A part of this is the natural course of a "wealthy nation", but another part of this is trying to get the government involved in almost every aspect of a person's life. No, a person is not "entitled" to own a home. You have the right to work hard (or smart) and buy a home, or to learn and abide by the traffic laws and have a driver's license, or to follow the current laws and become a legal citizen. But there is nothing written anywhere (nor should there be) that by just existing in a location, you are entitled to have such things. For about 4 years I tried an experiment with myself and my wife. I shut off our cable service. At the time, my income was sufficient to afford it, but my wife was not working. I told her that if she wanted to have cable service, she would have to gather up her on money somehow (I was assuming by working) and have it turned on, and keep paying the bill. Guess what happened? She got a part-time job, and not only turned on the cable (after a few years), but also bought her own vehicle. Amazing how that works huh?

Same thing should apply to Health Insurance (hey its your life, take care of it!), Housing Loans (there are still apartments out there, I am living in one right now), and Luxury Items (T.V.s, Computers, Cell Phones, etc...). If you want it, get off your butt and work for it. Stop looking for a hand out. In the 60-70's most families (yes even the ones in nicer housing) had one T.V. I know in our society now, computers are becoming more and more neccessary (heck, most job applications are done over the internet now), but the local library, work-force center, etc, have computers that you can use. It is not a neccessity and people certainly should not be entitled to these luxuries.
Well, I couldn't agree more about housing loans, electronics, and most stuff, really. But I think access to medical care should be a different discussion, because it has different consequences. One can do without a car. I live in a part of the country where it's inconvenient, but hey, life isn't always convenient. One can do without cell phones or televisions. I do without those things myself. One can do without computers or, as you point out, use public libraries. One can do without a house. But, depending on the circumstances, it's sometimes not the case that one can do without medical care. I've been fortunate, I think, myself. I was hospitalized once as a teenager for a broken bone and once as a precaution during a bout with gastroenteritis because my mother was scared. And I haven't needed to go to a hospital since, except when I did so to help other people (relatives and a neighbor) out. I had a doctor prescribe me medication for shingles and I think by that time I did have medical insurance (for a while I didn't) and they paid for part of it, but even then it wasn't a life-threatening illness or anything. I could have done without. I think I've taken, let's see, one sick day from work ever. I've spent time with no medical insurance and suffered no repercussions from it. But not everyone is the same as me. I recognize that sometimes people, despite trying, need help.

You call it "entitlement." And yes, that's exactly what it is. There's a notion a lot of people have that I can understand that people are entitled to certain basic things. Not cell phones or televisions, sure. But things that are essential to life. As you say, we are a wealthy country. Is it unreasonable to contend that we should take care of our people if they need help? Now, I've seen it pointed out that this sort of attitude would be exploited by freeloaders, and some people are particularly averse to having their tax dollars going to support freeloaders. I think that's a fair point. Maybe your preference would be to cull all entitlements. Tell people life is tough, so live with it. Or, failing that, die with it. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being, I suppose, flexible. I could have it either way, because I think either way could work, more or less, and it depends on what things one values. I'm not saying I'm certain that a society where nothing is free is one I'd like to have. I'm saying I'm open to at least discussing it. I'm not ruling out. I can actually think of some pretty nice advantages if we went down that road.

But, just for the sake of consistency, I should also point out that there are other entitlements that you haven't mentioned. Maybe just because you didn't care to in your post, but they do exist and I happen to know that some people who are very much against having access to medical care as an entitlement are also very much in favor of these entitlements. Some examples...

Police. As you say, "It's your life, take care of it!" This applies to protecting oneself and one's property. Protect yourself, or hire someone else to do it. I don't want my tax dollars going to protect people too lazy to protect themselves.

Education. I had to pay for some earlier this year, incidentally. And if I get accepted to that university, I'll be paying for even more a couple months from now. It's completely unreasonable that I must buy my own education while my tax dollars go to fund schools that my freeloading neighbors send their little brats to without being charged a penny.

Roads. I have potholes in my driveway. I deal with it. But last year, without my consent, the government had sent people to do maintenance work on the roads in my neighborhood even though they were in better shape than my driveway. Why should my tax dollars go to that? I could have used that money to fix my driveway and instead it's going to help my freeloading neighbors drive their children to those schools that they're apparently entitled to. That is, unless their kids take the bus. And speaking of that...

Schoolbuses. Oh, come on! What an entitlement this is. Freeloaders don't even have to take their children to school. The government will do it for them. Your tax dollars at work. I'll be those yellow monstrosities cost a lot to maintain. Don't you think so?

The military. It has its charms, but not being attacked by foreign invaders is definitely an entitlement. If some Canadians or whatever decide to come over here and boss me around, I will smash them. I spend years training in martial arts and paying for it out of my own pocket, and yet my tax dollars go to hiring soldiers to keep my wimpy neighbors from being enslaved and forced to work in a Canadian hockey stick factory or whatever.

Edit: And please don't misunderstand. I'm not making fun of you or anyone else. I'm just saying, well, exactly what I'm saying. These things are entitlements. So is access to medical care. I could live in a society that takes them for granted or one in which one must pay the price. Sometimes I prefer the former and sometimes I prefer the latter. I'm an extremist, but I'm a fickle extremist.
 
D

DarthFerret

Guest
While I actually do appreciate your counterpoints Oversoul, and agree with a few of them, I feel the need to point out a subtle difference. Some of the services that you mentioned (police, road maintenance, military, education ((but NOT Schoolbusses)) ) are pretty much neccessary to maintain a level of society in this industrial age we live in. (Ok, maybe not 'technically' the industrail age, but you get my drift). Without a lot of these services our society would not be able to sustain or perpetuate itself. It would, in essence toss us back to an agrarian society (no roads for Trucks to deliver groceries, so you would have to grow or hunt your own food, etc...). I just do not feel that medical care is one of these things that needs to be a part of this. While there are levels of abuse currently existing in most if not all government programs, I think the biggest ones would be seen in the Health Care industry. Oh no, I have a stuffy nose, time to go to the doctor. Oo, oo, oo, a hangnail! Oh no, my girlfriend broke up with me, I am sad, I need to see a therapist about depression! Some of this stuff sounds pretty stupid to us right now, but I guarantee there are people out there that will do this (especially the typical over-protective mother).

I agree about the schoolbusses part, and I am sure there are many other government provisions that are more entitlement orriented. I did not mention them due to the fact that it either did not occur to me at the time (or even now) and to keep the post somewhat brief.

As for education, the problem with not having it funded by government (and required by law until you are 16ish or so I think), is to prevent a parent from not allowing thier child to get an education before said child has the free will to make the choice for him/her self. My daughter is a prime example of this. She lives with her mother, and if school was not mandated, I am pretty sure they would not let her go (thus why her mother is my EX-wife). She is a very smart girl (had the option to skip one or two grades, but is holding off til next year to decide). She will be going to college (I have a fund already set up for her, just need more in it). I would not want her to suffer because her mother does not think education is that important. (although I suppose you could argue that without police, I could just go take her away and enroll her in a private school, but that is another argument).
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
EricBess said:
But that's exactly my point. If the bank was going to fail and no one was willing to purchase their loan bundles at the prices they were asking, they wouldn't have had any choice but to lower the price in an effort to reclaim as much as they possibly could. The government never really let that happen.

A business failing isn't an instantanious thing. There are processes for selling off assets and paying creditors.
But that's MY point. There seemingly wasn't enough time for the bank to lower their prices to get a buyer before failing. If you're going to fail, you can't stop and say "Hold on, wait while I lower my prices and see if anyone buys then so I can get money to pay you."

But it sounds like we need more info on what exactly happened instead of speculating on this or that.
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
While I actually do appreciate your counterpoints Oversoul, and agree with a few of them, I feel the need to point out a subtle difference. Some of the services that you mentioned (police, road maintenance, military, education ((but NOT Schoolbusses)) ) are pretty much neccessary to maintain a level of society in this industrial age we live in. (Ok, maybe not 'technically' the industrail age, but you get my drift). Without a lot of these services our society would not be able to sustain or perpetuate itself. It would, in essence toss us back to an agrarian society (no roads for Trucks to deliver groceries, so you would have to grow or hunt your own food, etc...).
What kind of society we would have if we removed or added entitlements is an important question (that would take us to yet another topic in this already absurd thread). But it's not necessarily the case that we would become an agrarian society. Yes, not having roads would certainly be problematic, sort of like not having doctors or hospitals at all. The fact that roads exist isn't an entitlement. The entitlement is that they are maintained. Money, through taxation, is taken from people and some of it goes to maintain or build roads. Even if one does not personally use those roads, or doesn't use the roads in question, one still pays. And people are free to use those roads even if they are unable to pay for their construction and upkeep. But we can still have roads without having the entitlement part. Just use tolls and such. If I only need to use a road on occasion and others use it all the time, it's only fair that they pay more for it than I. Of course, if we actually did this, it would have a dramatic effect on the highway system and on our society, but it wouldn't necessarily mean we all become subsistence farmers.

Also, while I'm not surprised that you singled out school buses as the least necessary of the entitlements I listed (I'd do the same myself), there are certainly people who would argue aggressively that they're important. And if we listed all the entitlements we could think of, there would be more of that. There'd be a lot of consensus in some cases as to what was valuable too. But how do we make that call?

I just do not feel that medical care is one of these things that needs to be a part of this. While there are levels of abuse currently existing in most if not all government programs, I think the biggest ones would be seen in the Health Care industry. Oh no, I have a stuffy nose, time to go to the doctor. Oo, oo, oo, a hangnail! Oh no, my girlfriend broke up with me, I am sad, I need to see a therapist about depression! Some of this stuff sounds pretty stupid to us right now, but I guarantee there are people out there that will do this (especially the typical over-protective mother).
I see your overprotective mothers and raise you a ranch hand in New Mexico who was hospitalized out of nowhere and in critical condition for days due to some mystery illness. He couldn't afford health insurance and certainly couldn't afford to pay his massive hospital bill. He just happened to be semi-popular with his crazy YouTube videos and his brother set up a PayPal account to help cover the hospital bill. If it hadn't been for that, he'd have been screwed. He'd probably never have been able to pay the bill on his own. What about someone who has an even worse medical problem? What if it's chronic? What if the person doesn't have any family?

Oh, and what about people who do the same thing you're describing with health care, only with the police? You know? Any little dispute and it's time to call the cops and try to get the other person arrested, or maybe my neighbors made me angry so I'm going to file a noise complaint.

As for education, the problem with not having it funded by government (and required by law until you are 16ish or so I think), is to prevent a parent from not allowing thier child to get an education before said child has the free will to make the choice for him/her self. My daughter is a prime example of this. She lives with her mother, and if school was not mandated, I am pretty sure they would not let her go (thus why her mother is my EX-wife). She is a very smart girl (had the option to skip one or two grades, but is holding off til next year to decide). She will be going to college (I have a fund already set up for her, just need more in it). I would not want her to suffer because her mother does not think education is that important. (although I suppose you could argue that without police, I could just go take her away and enroll her in a private school, but that is another argument).
Speaking of children, have you heard about those cases where the kid has diabetes or whatever and the parents won't take him/her in for treatment because it's against their religion (often Christian Science)? I haven't been following news of any kind lately, but it seems like every year or so one of these cases crops up in the headlines. But yeah, there have been some deaths and at least one instance of the state taking custody of the child. Certainly some jailed parents. I'm not fond of these idiots, but in contrast to the way education is mandatory and free, if they had done the right thing and taken their kids to hospitals, they would have had to pay for it. There's something a bit off about that...
 
E

EricBess

Guest
I see your overprotective mothers and raise you a ranch hand in New Mexico who was hospitalized out of nowhere and in critical condition for days due to some mystery illness. He couldn't afford health insurance and certainly couldn't afford to pay his massive hospital bill. He just happened to be semi-popular with his crazy YouTube videos and his brother set up a PayPal account to help cover the hospital bill. If it hadn't been for that, he'd have been screwed. He'd probably never have been able to pay the bill on his own. What about someone who has an even worse medical problem? What if it's chronic? What if the person doesn't have any family?
How often do we hear about situations like this and when word gets out, people donate and their needs are covered. Isn't this a great example of how people with exceptional needs are still covered by society and we don't need the government to step in?
 

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
How often do we hear about situations like this and when word gets out, people donate and their needs are covered. Isn't this a great example of how people with exceptional needs are still covered by society and we don't need the government to step in?
So, How much have you donated? Just kidding to make a point.
How many times have people on this board ever donated to this specific type of cause....... to someone you don't know or live near? I have once......
But, the point is, should Health care costs be totally voluntary and when bad things happen, we all become beggars to raise the funds?
What would have happened, if they didn't get the publicity to raise the money?
BTW- Health insurance is a socialistic idea...... Insurance in general is socialistic...... IMHO
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Mooseman - I donate on a regular basis.

But I want to be clear about something. I agree with you Mooseman and insurance is sort of a socialist concept. Everyone pays a small amount of money so that the few people that need the money have it when they need it. But there is a huge difference between this being voluntary and being mandatory.

Are you familiar with the law of consecration? Basically, it is a utopian ideal where everyone in a society contributes everything they have and receives back based on their needs and desired. This has been tried in several cases and every time that I'm aware of, it has been extreamly sucessful for a certain amount of time and then one or two people decide that what they are contributing is worth more than what everyone else is contributing and the whole thing falls apart. Personally, if everyone were playing fair, this would be the ideal society, but as long as there are people who don't play fair, it doesn't work.

I personally believe that the best society is one where everyone has everything in common, but because they all want to participate, not because they are forced to do so.

But I digress...I believe in everyone being able to make their own decisions regarding health insurance and everyone being accountable for their decisions. For example, if a corporate CEO decides not to have health insurance and ends up with a multi-million dollar health bill, I don't think you are going to find too many people simpathetic to his cause. But if a single mother who struggles to make ends meet gets the best insurance she can afford and it is not enough to cover some major procedure needed by one of her children, I would be happy to assist in any way I could and I think most Americans feel the same way.

You bring up a good point about getting the word out, but I think that there are plenty of ways to do that in today's society. It is sad that some people probably fall through the cracks because they are too ashamed to ask for help. If there is a problem, it is that there is a social stigma that comes with being in a position to need charity. That is very unfortunate.
 
T

train

Guest
so did we decide we were going to try and get this initiative on the ballot in any states?
 
Top