Healthcare

[Gazrok]

I don't think even that's true. That group, if they were sick before, they just went to the doctor/hospital without insurance.

My adult kids, servers at the time, made out like bandits under the plan. They paid almost nothing, yet had all kinds of stuff done that they could have otherwise never have afforded.

 

[Gazrok]

Did any of you see where they tested the touch screens at numerous McDonald's and they all tested positive for human feces? That's just gross.

Just more reason to never use one.

 

[Mountain trapper]

My adult kids, servers at the time, made out like bandits under the plan. They paid almost nothing, yet had all kinds of stuff done that they could have otherwise never have afforded.

That's just the kind of thing that taxpayers like to hear about Gaz. (Being a little sarcastic here). While most of us try everything we can to stay away from doctor's because we can't afford to go. Even with insurance our deductible is $6,000 per year and the premium is $1,300 per month. Those of us who foot the bill use healthcare services the least. Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[tmttactical]

Being poor should hurt. That is the incentive to get a better life. No more free Obuma phones, or free medical or free anything. You want it, go work for it. When yo get hungry enough, all those vacant jobs will be filled and by Americans, no illegal need apply.

 

[Doreena]

Being poor should hurt. That is the incentive to get a better life. No more free Obuma phones, or free medical or free anything. You want it, go work for it. When yo get hungry enough, all those vacant jobs will be filled and by Americans, no illegal need apply.

Except that some that are hurt are innocent...like children. And some are stuck in poverty because of the lack
Of opportunity, either educational or economic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mountain trapper]

Except that some that are hurt are innocent...like children. And some are stuck in poverty because of the lack
Of opportunity, either educational or economic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But why are these "innocents" more important than my family? In case you haven't heard, there are more job openings in this country than people to fill them! There is NO reason for anyone to be without a job these days. And even less reason to take money away from my family and give it to someone else. Ever.

 

[Doreena]

But why are these "innocents" more important than my family? In case you haven't heard, there are more job openings in this country than people to fill them! There is NO reason for anyone to be without a job these days. And even less reason to take money away from my family and give it to someone else. Ever.

Why is it a choice?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mountain trapper]

Why is it a choice?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because it's coming out of my effing pocket.

 

[user 7704]

But why are these "innocents" more important than my family? In case you haven't heard, there are more job openings in this country than people to fill them! There is NO reason for anyone to be without a job these days. And even less reason to take money away from my family and give it to someone else. Ever.

My mom loves to go to Goodwill and poke around. She said there was nothing on the shelves and she asked why. The lady said they couldn't get people to come work and stock the inventory. She said they had tons of merchandise, but no one willing to help.

 

[tmttactical]

Except that some that are hurt are innocent...like children. And some are stuck in poverty because of the lack
Of opportunity, either educational or economic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The innocent are the children and since we encourage having more children ,they can't / won't support, by increasing (rewarding) the aid amounts, the children will continue to suffer. What lack of opportunity do you speak of? Public schools are and have been available for many generations, so why the lack of education? You do not have a choice of being born into a poor household, but it is your choice to stay poor.

When the government got into the charity business, it removed the choice. Before that, the choice resided with the individual. Once the government got into the charity business, it became theft by force of arms. Now ask your self why did the government get into the charity business? Maybe to limit the power of the church or maybe to make people dependent on the government. It certainly was not by popular vote of the people. You did not see any referendum to approve a government run and taxed charity proposal. If it was brought up for vote by the people, I am willing to bet it would be voted down. BUT, it will never be voted on, that would remove too much power from the government.

 

[DrHenley]

Doreena, just because we don't believe the government is a very effective or efficient charity, that doesn't mean we don't care about needy people. Various studies have shown that conservatives give a lot more money to charity than liberals - anywhere from 30% more to 100% more.
Arthur Brooks wrote a book called Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

Quoting Brooks:
“When I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

 

[Doreena]

The innocent are the children and since we encourage having more children ,they can't / won't support, by increasing (rewarding) the aid amounts, the children will continue to suffer. What lack of opportunity do you speak of? Public schools are and have been available for many generations, so why the lack of education? You do not have a choice of being born into a poor household, but it is your choice to stay poor.

When the government got into the charity business, it removed the choice. Before that, the choice resided with the individual. Once the government got into the charity business, it became theft by force of arms. Now ask your self why did the government get into the charity business? Maybe to limit the power of the church or maybe to make people dependent on the government. It certainly was not by popular vote of the people. You did not see any referendum to approve a government run and taxed charity proposal. If it was brought up for vote by the people, I am willing to bet it would be voted down. BUT, it will never be voted on, that would remove too much power from the government.

Do you support planned parenthood, then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tmttactical]

@Doreena

I support PP for contraception, I do not support abortion as a method to deal with Oh, oops. In this day and age, there should be very little birth control failure, except by irresponsible folks. Yes I do make exceptions for rape. Next question would be incest --- if a minor it is rape, if an adult and consensual, nope. Not every inbred baby is going to be defective.

Funny, I did not see any response about the government getting out of the charity business or giving the public the right to vote on government charity involvement. I think that is called deflection. Why should tax payers be forced to support entitlement programs without an opportunity to vote on them? How about we have a voluntary charity tax. You support it, then you pay for it. Real simple, real fair.

 

[KateMTx]

Doreena, just because we don't believe the government is a very effective or efficient charity, that doesn't mean we don't care about needy people. Various studies have shown that conservatives give a lot more money to charity than liberals - anywhere from 30% more to 100% more.
Arthur Brooks wrote a book called Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

Quoting Brooks:
“When I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

@Doreena I am more than happy to volunteer my time and give to charity in order to help others. What I am not happy with is when the government tries to tell me where to put my money. I believe in helping others and people call me a bleeding heart, but what they are often surprised to find out is that I am opposed most all government welfare programs because they are not voluntary and not beneficial long term.

 

[Brent S]

I will say that a lot of the comments above have opened my eyes to the far rights reasoning on anti government help for charitable causes. I believe we should all help others, once we get our own house in order. Meaning that once you have your financial affairs covered and are able, we should be concerned for others and help where we can. I am having a change of heart towards govt programs now. I still am ok with the majority of them, but think that as long as our govt is running a deficit and having to borrow money then all programs should be suspended until there is a surplus in the budget. I’m still thinking about the programs being voted on too. I’m not really against letting the people in each area having a say about how their money is spent. I’m not a greedy person, and kind of felt most were that were against social programs, but when it was presented in a new perspective I paused to think about it. There is a big difference between a charity asking for donations and the govt demanding them. I guess even an old dog can learn new things....I am still working out my feelings on this, but admittedly see some of the reasoning as sound.

 

[KateMTx]

I will say that a lot of the comments above have opened my eyes to the far rights reasoning on anti government help for charitable causes. I believe we should all help others, once we get our own house in order. Meaning that once you have your financial affairs covered and are able, we should be concerned for others and help where we can. I am having a change of heart towards govt programs now. I still am ok with the majority of them, but think that as long as our govt is running a deficit and having to borrow money then all programs should be suspended until there is a surplus in the budget. I’m still thinking about the programs being voted on too. I’m not really against letting the people in each area having a say about how their money is spent. I’m not a greedy person, and kind of felt most were that were against social programs, but when it was presented in a new perspective I paused to think about it. There is a big difference between a charity asking for donations and the govt demanding them. I guess even an old dog can learn new things....I am still working out my feelings on this, but admittedly see some of the reasoning as sound.

I don't necessarily oppose welfare programs on the state level to the extent that I do federal-level programs, because I feel that the people have more direct control at the state level. While I personally would not vote to support them, I recognize that if I choose to live in a state where the majority do, I am accepting that they will exist.

 

[tmttactical]

Force of arms donations, by the burglar or the government, there is no difference. The job of the government is to provide for the safety of the people, not the well being of the people. That is the part too many folks forget. I have donated time, money and other resources for people in need. I do not want to support 3 or 4 generation of people unwilling to get off their butts and deal with life. I have supported and continue to support charities that I believe in and whom I can check to make sure they are being effective with my donation. The federal government just pours good money after bad down the drain. I have no problem with work programs, do something beneficial for the community, get paid with a debit cards. Sit on your butt and go hungry.

 

[Doreena]

You all make good points. I don’t think anyone wants to pay for people who can work and just choose not to. The cycle must be broken, but doing so is complex. In some rural area education is difficult to get as public schools are woefully under funded, the staff under paid. Anyone who can afford to puts their children in private schools thus creating a catch 22 when less students means even less funding. And good teachers that are willing to work for so little and pay for supplies out of their own pocket are few and far between. And if a student makes it through lower grades, vocational and post secondary schools are sparse and require huge amounts of cash to attend, making getting out of the lack of education even more difficult.

Obviously not all jobs require higher education, but this situation basically promotes a feudalist system locking people with little wealth into staying there. Frustration and not being able advance isn’t conducive to working hard, as you are locked into poverty either way.

That is why I feel this is such a complex issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[user 7704]

The schools that get the most funding have low test results. These are in cities.

Throwing money at schools isn't the answer. It's mostly parental involvement, letting teachers actually teach without fear, and raising children who respect themselves and each other.

 

[Brent S]

The schools that get the most funding have low test results. These are in cities.

Throwing money at schools isn't the answer. It's mostly parental involvement, letting teachers actually teach without fear, and raising children who respect themselves and each other.

I completely agree that not enough parents are engaged with their kids. When did it become ok to let the govt decide what to teach our kids?

 

[Doreena]

The schools that get the most funding have low test results. These are in cities.

Throwing money at schools isn't the answer. It's mostly parental involvement, letting teachers actually teach without fear, and raising children who respect themselves and each other.

Sorry, I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[user 7704]

Sorry, I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check out how much Washington D.C. spends per child. It's outrageous. Their scores are some of the worst in the country. Money is not the solution.

 

[DrHenley]

This is a sore subject with me.

As a former educator, both at the secondary and college level, and with a wife that is currently a middle school teacher, I can tell you that students could be well educated with a tiny fraction of the amount of money spent on education. You just would not believe where all the money goes!

DC spends about $18,000 per student per year. Their average student to teacher ratio is 13, that's $234,ooo per teacher, but the average teacher salary is $77,500. So where does the other $156,500 go? If you've got, say 20 teachers in the school, we're talking about $3,130,000 being spent on the students in that school that is NOT going directly towards educating them!

I have maintained that any subject I have taught (with the exception of computer programming), I could teach with just a blackboard and some chalk out on a hillside with the students sitting on the ground. No school building required, no principle, no classroom, no electricity even... And yes, I actually did hold class outside a few times just to prove my point.

In public schools, really all it takes is parental support of the teachers. But you can't put all the blame the lack of parental support on the parents. When the educational system decided that they knew better than parents what was good for the kids, and started openly defying the wishes of the parents, how can you then expect the parents to support the teachers???

 

[Mountain trapper]

I have no problem with volunteer charity. But I do have a big problem with government taking money away from me that could go to my family, or to people of my choosing.
A few years ago I gave a nice 35 foot travel trailer to a young family that was in need of a place to live. Recently I gave a 30×48 foot barn to a young man who is just starting out on his own ranch. Last year I gave a half pig to a family in need. The last couple of years I donated a half a hog and some whole chickens to the senior center. Several years ago I gave thousands to one of my employees to help with her sons cancer trearment. Plus I support several other worthy causes monetarily.
If the government didn't steal so much of my income I would gladly donate more to charities and individuals in need. But I am sick of seeing generations of welfare bums sitting on their *****, drinking and drugging and demanding more "free" stuff. Right now there are more jobs than there are people willing to take them. If we didn't have such a generous welfare program then there would be plenty of workers to fill these openings.
I feel that I am far more capable of putting my money to good use than the government is.
An empty belly is the best incentive there is to get a job. And being "poor" shouldn't be comfortable. Tax payer funded welfare isn't a Right for anyone.

 

[user 7704]

This is a sore subject with me.

As a former educator, both at the secondary and college level, and with a wife that is currently a middle school teacher, I can tell you that students could be well educated with a tiny fraction of the amount of money spent on education. You just would not believe where all the money goes!

DC spends about $18,000 per student per year. Their average student to teacher ratio is 13, that's $234,ooo per teacher, but the average teacher salary is $77,500. So where does the other $156,500 go? If you've got, say 20 teachers in the school, we're talking about $3,130,000 being spent on the students in that school that is NOT going directly towards educating them!

I have maintained that any subject I have taught (with the exception of computer programming), I could teach with just a blackboard and some chalk out on a hillside with the students sitting on the ground. No school building required, no principle, no classroom, no electricity even... And yes, I actually did hold class outside a few times just to prove my point.

In public schools, really all it takes is parental support of the teachers. But you can't put all the blame the lack of parental support on the parents. When the educational system decided that they knew better than parents what was good for the kids, and started openly defying the wishes of the parents, how can you then expect the parents to support the teachers???

Amen!

 

[user 7704]

I have no problem with volunteer charity. But I do have a big problem with government taking money away from me that could go to my family, or to people of my choosing.
A few years ago I gave a nice 35 foot travel trailer to a young family that was in need of a place to live. Recently I gave a 30×48 foot barn to a young man who is just starting out on his own ranch. Last year I gave a half pig to a family in need. The last couple of years I donated a half a hog and some whole chickens to the senior center. Several years ago I gave thousands to one of my employees to help with her sons cancer trearment. Plus I support several other worthy causes monetarily.
If the government didn't steal so much of my income I would gladly donate more to charities and individuals in need. But I am sick of seeing generations of welfare bums sitting on their *****, drinking and drugging and demanding more "free" stuff. Right now there are more jobs than there are people willing to take them. If we didn't have such a generous welfare program then there would be plenty of workers to fill these openings.
I feel that I am far more capable of putting my money to good use than the government is.
An empty belly is the best incentive there is to get a job. And being "poor" shouldn't be comfortable. Tax payer funded welfare isn't a Right for anyone.

Speaking of empty bellies, did you see the refugees complaining about the food? Oh, and the woman who snuck into US to have baby, and is bitching because we treated her like a criminal. Yeah, lady, you are a criminal. You and your baby should be deposited across the border so you can go where you aren't a criminal.

 

[Doreena]

This is a sore subject with me.

As a former educator, both at the secondary and college level, and with a wife that is currently a middle school teacher, I can tell you that students could be well educated with a tiny fraction of the amount of money spent on education. You just would not believe where all the money goes!

DC spends about $18,000 per student per year. Their average student to teacher ratio is 13, that's $234,ooo per teacher, but the average teacher salary is $77,500. So where does the other $156,500 go? If you've got, say 20 teachers in the school, we're talking about $3,130,000 being spent on the students in that school that is NOT going directly towards educating them!

I have maintained that any subject I have taught (with the exception of computer programming), I could teach with just a blackboard and some chalk out on a hillside with the students sitting on the ground. No school building required, no principle, no classroom, no electricity even... And yes, I actually did hold class outside a few times just to prove my point.

In public schools, really all it takes is parental support of the teachers. But you can't put all the blame the lack of parental support on the parents. When the educational system decided that they knew better than parents what was good for the kids, and started openly defying the wishes of the parents, how can you then expect the parents to support the teachers???

Here in Alabama, the schools have very little supplies...public schools, that is. What I feel is essential are up to date books, toilet paper, writing implements of some sort, a safe and healthy environment (many of our schools have black mold)... these cost money. And the salaries I have heard about are half of what you quoted, with the teachers having to pay for the essentials that are missing. That is why I disagreed with Robinjopo. Some cash inflow is necessary. And without good teachers, it is all a waste. They have to be fairly compensated. One last point I have is that as a daughter of a dedicated teacher who spent years going to classes and getting years of experience and training of how to teach, I do believe that she and others like her do know better how to teach than someone without that experience and training. And she had to prove she had the professional skills every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[user 7704]

Teachers here are lucky to make $30k and that's rare. They need money, yes, but my point is.......just giving the schools more money is not the answer.
Most situations come back to parental involvement.

My daughter went to the oldest public school in the county. The Principal and a few teachers worked their butts off to get the accreditation for a magnet school. My daughter started the first year offered. Other parents said that they would never send their child to such an old school. The county provided the paint and the parents spent weekends painting and gardening to get it looking nice.

Within 2 years the school had the highest ranking for k thru 8 grades and parents were begging for their children to go there.

The parents volunteered to assist the teachers in improving the classrooms. We purchased supplies, etc.

Point being, the school did not receive extra $ from the school system, the teachers pay was the same as other schools. The difference is that both teachers and parents were willing to go the extra mile to help make this school special. Oh, also the children know what is expected of them and if they act like hooligans, they can go elsewhere.

 

[KateMTx]

Teachers here are lucky to make $30k and that's rare. They need money, yes, but my point is.......just giving the schools more money is not the answer.
Most situations come back to parental involvement.

My daughter went to the oldest public school in the county. The Principal and a few teachers worked their butts off to get the accreditation for a magnet school. My daughter started the first year offered. Other parents said that they would never send their child to such an old school. The county provided the paint and the parents spent weekends painting and gardening to get it looking nice.

Within 2 years the school had the highest ranking for k thru 8 grades and parents were begging for their children to go there.

The parents volunteered to assist the teachers in improving the classrooms. We purchased supplies, etc.

Point being, the school did not receive extra $ from the school system, the teachers pay was the same as other schools. The difference is that both teachers and parents were willing to go the extra mile to help make this school special. Oh, also the children know what is expected of them and if they act like hooligans, they can go elsewhere.

I've heard of other similar schools that achieved similar results by involving the students in their own education and expecting parents to participate as well. I think this may be part of why private schools tend to have higher test scores - there is more investment in the education so the expectations are higher. I think part of the problem is that schools are ultimately controlled at the federal level and a distant bureaucracy does not encourage participation of individuals.

 

[user 7704]

This is a public school. Not private.