Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:55 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Almost Half of U.S. Births Covered by Medicaid Back to Topics
maddog57

Champion Author
Winston-Salem

Posts:154,018
Points:3,287,235
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 4:47:47 PM

According to researchers from the George Washington University (GWU) School of Public Health, in 2010, almost half of all births in the United States were paid for by Medicaid, and that rate is only going to go up. Medicaid was responsible for 48% of the 3.8 million births in 2010, an increase of 90,000 births from 2008, which was an 8% increase during that period. Lead investigator Anne Markus, an associate professor of health policy at GWU, said, "As states expand coverage, low-income women of childbearing age will be able to obtain more continuous coverage before and between pregnancies. Now, for the first time, researchers will have a comprehensive baseline that will help them determine how increased access to services might change pregnancies and ultimately birth outcomes.” Study co-author Cynthia Pellegrini, senior vice president for public policy and government affairs at the March of Dimes, said that the analysis would help to ascertain how successful Medicaid was in addressing the reduction of childbirth complications and the health of women and their babies: "This study gives us a window into the vital role Medicaid plays in maternal and child health. With these data in hand, we'll be able to accurately monitor the impact of Medicaid expansion and other factors on the births covered by state Medicaid programs.

Almost Half of US Births Covered by Medicaid

[Edited by: maddog57 at 9/8/2013 4:49:40 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,623
Points:831,930
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2013 7:00:39 PM

I've suggested it elsewhere, but it's worth mentioning again. Take the "incentive" out of the equation.

Cap welfare, SNAP, etc. where it is right now. No increases or COLAs. Then reduce it by 5% next year across the board. Based on whatever you would have received the previous year. Continue for the next ten or more years as necessary. That takes levels to one -half of present levels or less. I'm betting that at some point it will become obvious that working for your income beats getting "free" money from the government in increasingly smaller amounts.

Fund the current children that benefits recipients have or are carrying PLUS ONE. That allows for a "mistake". Additional children would not be funded at all. The benefits for the previous one or more would continue, but would have to cover any additional children as well. Naturally, the father would be required to be identified and contribute to the upkeep of the PLUS ONE child. Mandatory blood tests for paternity would be required for any man identified as the potential father. A side benefit would be the lack of confusion on Father's Day. The absent Baby Daddies would be held accountable. This eliminates the "welfare mother" with six children by seven fathers [wasn't really sure about number 4].

Of course, all the job training and placement programs would remain as needed. Mothers or fathers needing welfare due to divorce or death of a spouse, would start at the full levels [determined by this year's level] and then start the reduction [weaning] cycle. The total lifetime benefits would be capped at twenty years.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,693
Points:45,820
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2013 10:54:15 AM

The only thing that's worked to reduce poverty locally is to price poor out of the area via gentrification and reduction or elimination of their support systems - subsidized housing, low income landlords, slumlords, multi-family construction etc.

We steer many of the poor to surrounding counties/cities with walkable neighborhoods, public transit, welfare motels, subsidized housing projects, homeless shelters, low income landlords, slumlords willing to rent to Section 8 and DSS welfare tenants, tolerance for crime, blight, drugs, vagrancy, panhandling, loitering, construction/safety/occupancy code violations etc.

Due to the shortage of affordable housing many don't have kids and/or have abortions.

It's very difficult for a low income single mother with kids to find a private landlord willing to rent to her especially if DSS is paying her rent.

I don't know if the effect was intentional or not, but years ago DSS stopped paying security deposits and stopped informing landlords when tenants no longer received rent payments, so many evicted welfare tenants and will no longer rent to welfare tenants.

---We've also provided bus tickets for many to move to warmer southern climates where housing is cheaper and weather is more favorable for the homeless.

A single welfare household can cost local property taxpayers a small fortune, so even if you had to pay them thousands to move elsewhere it would be well worth the investment.


[Edited by: MarkJames at 9/11/2013 10:56:46 AM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,768
Points:3,210,720
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2013 10:49:38 AM

>>I also disdain the misuse of your tax money, Nick. I really do.<<

Thanks, I75, I appreciate your support!

>>In many states including New York people with kids receiving numerous welfare benefits make as much if not more than educated and skilled workers, so it's nearly impossible to encourage them to become self sufficient.<<

This should NEVER be the case. ALL benefits, tax credits, etc. should be calculated on a sliding scale so that working outweighs not working.

>>As mentioned before, disability is The Holy Grail of benefits.<<

Yeah, this needs to change, too. We've already seen threads about Jesse Jackson Jr. getting something like $83,000 per year for disability, and the guy who got a government contract as a disabled vet because he suffered a minor football injury while in the military (or something like that).

>>The libs as a majority do not support any reforms to the current system.<<

Really? As you would say, "Well prove it!" You can't because you know it's total BS. We just don't support most of the draconian measures proposed by cons and based on lies. In fact, when Obama gave states more flexibility to meet work requirements that Republican governors were asking for, many of you crapped all over that, falsely claiming that it would "gut" the work requirement. Why is that? Oh yeah. Because even though it was Republican governors asking for this, ultimately it came from Obama.

Hey, I75, be sure to tell AF about that "broad brush".

[Edited by: NickHammer at 9/11/2013 10:50:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,452
Points:3,837,505
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2013 4:02:26 AM

"And I happen to know someone who went to HS with Shania Twain and her sister. Can't remember if he was from Hamilton or Weirton? The former, I think. I think the Twains weren't quite as poor as you are advertising."

Not poor? At 8 years of age she sang in the bars (after serving hours) to make a bit of money in tips for the family.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,560
Points:3,488,120
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2013 1:00:20 AM

rumbleseat said: "Yeah, prohibit the poor from having children, and eventually the poor will die off and all that will be left is rich people, right? LOL!"

--blah, blah, blah.. oh, look at all the poor, poor people.. boo hoo. Guess what? If you are willing to educate yourself and work hard, you can pull yourself out of poverty, at least in the Western World, and that is what we're talking about. Nobody is saying "kill the poor", that would be a stupid, stupid statement. However, look at some of the numbers MarkJames is quoting. How do you stem the tide of people having kids who cannot afford to raise them? I'd love to hear how you do it in Canada, if you please! We need that wisdom here in America to help reduce our welfare rolls.

Oh, and Steve Jobs grew up more or less MIDDLE CLASS, but yes he was adopted. But here, now, again you prove my point in that his birth mom knew she couldn't afford to keep him and did right by him by giving him up to a family that COULD afford to raise him. And I happen to know someone who went to HS with Shania Twain and her sister. Can't remember if he was from Hamilton or Weirton? The former, I think. I think the Twains weren't quite as poor as you are advertising. My pal knew them, his best friend dated Shania's younger sis..

gocatgo said: "Ac, "birth control is available" and you are in favor of it paid for with taxes?"

--gocat, once again, you're lumping me in with religious right wing cuckoos, of which I am not one. I'm absolutely in favor of publicly paid abortions. It's a hell of a lot cheaper (that and birth control) than it is for the taxpayers to raise the spawn of the irresponsible who can't afford to raise them themselves. I also think they ought to REDUCE welfare benefits to those having kids as a disincentive to breeding. Currently, the system is "gamed" to give even MORE money for more kids born on welfare and out of wedlock. That's just wrong, too.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,700
Points:1,283,150
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 6:47:39 PM

>>>I seem to recall that your family was on the public dole for a while, getting tax credits for being poor. You're welcome for the money my family gave you to help you improve your lot in life. Too bad you and other righties lose all empathy as soon as you get a little money.<<<<<

I have never been on the public dole unless you conceder tax deductions or Social Security the public dole.

I have never taken unemployment, food stamps or welfare. My wife did for a very short time take food stamps and it was the most embarrassing thing she ever did and didn’t do it after her first husband died. She did take the Social Security that her husband paid into.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,700
Points:1,283,150
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 6:46:21 PM

Here is A/C’s complete post. I seem to see the word “encourage” in the second sentence.

AC >>>Ouch! That high a percentage? It seems to me that they ought to encourage folks on Medicaid NOT to have children. In a sense, the poor ought not to be having children on the public dime. Why should any of us be paying for someone else's irresponsible behavior? But if it is planned? Well, then those who are having kids should be obliged to pay for it themselves, not with public money. That's not fair to the taxpayers at large.<<<<

Here was Rumbleseats response.
>> Yeah, prohibit the poor from having children, and eventually the poor will die off and all that will be left is rich people, right? LOL!<<<

As you can see the idea of encourage has been switched to prohibit.
Profile Pic
ZennieWA
Sophomore Author Washington

Posts:157
Points:131,925
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 4:05:01 PM

<<Who's poor on this forum? >>

I fall in the 47% category but I work over 40+ hours a week and receive no government benefits. By most standards I would be considered cash poor.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 3:00:06 PM

His claim has zero basis. I guess I do not understand how people are all of a sudden going to get a moral compass when they have already proven when given something for free they will not use it anyway.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 2:14:37 PM

AFS, you're trying to use logic (and doing a bang-up job of it!) on people who deal in plays to emotion.

0bamacare has been the law of the land for three years already.
How's it working out so far?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 2:05:16 PM

"Afs, "obamacare will not help it" you might want to wait a couple of years for some numbers first."

How is it going to help this situation? 50% of births are already being paid for by the government (me as a taxpayer) and birth control is available for those women but they did not take it. Is ObamaCare going to make people act more responsible all of a sudden?
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,693
Points:45,820
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 1:42:24 PM

What I find interesting about attitudes about the poor is that many of the haters are themselves poor.

Many don't qualify for many benefits as they don't have dependents and/or qualify for many benefits but they're to proud to apply.

There's a huge financial/benefit divide between the childless poor at the bottom and the mothers with multiple kids receiving the equivalent of $40,000 plus per year.Poor vs poor jealousy/hatred is also why much welfare fraud is reported by others on welfare.

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 1:30:04 PM

Who's poor on this forum?
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,182
Points:3,177,110
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 1:14:38 PM

Ac, "birth control is available" and you are in favor of it paid for with taxes?

Afs, "obamacare will not help it" you might want to wait a couple of years for some numbers first.

Johnny, good numbers on births, cons crying about abortion should be very happy. ;0 "Let them pay for it themselves", good luck with the sermon.

nick, "you and other righties lose all empathy when you get a little money" How soon some forget the past. Shock, Shock.

The indignant snobbish angry white man certainly has an opinion when it comes to the poor on this forum.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 11:06:36 AM

We need to put limits and timelines on welfare. The problem is when it becomes a handout and not hand up nobody wants to improve themselves. The libs as a majority do not support any reforms to the current system. Bring up drug testing and you get a fight from the left. Why is that? Make them earn government benefits through some kind of labor exchange (stole that from ObamaCare)...you say you want to work and not be on welfare...well prove it! But the left will fight that also. Not all but as a majority. So again I ask, why is that?
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,693
Points:45,820
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 10:51:33 AM

We'll always support many people because of their kids.

Unfortunately kids can't choose their parents.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 10:50:55 AM

>> Are there people who don't "use these programs to better themselves"? Yep, there sure are and there always will be. But there are also plenty who are trying to better their lives and the lives of their children, to become productive tax-paying members of society.<<
and
>> You are picking winners and losers and declaring them all losers.<<

Not at all. People are given a chance. They themselves determine whether they are going to be winners or losers.
We're just tired of continually subsidizing the losers.
The shining examples are out there. Those shining examples are also often ignored and overlooked.

And it's not just "righties" tax money, it's everybody's tax money. I also disdain the misuse of your tax money, Nick. I really do.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,693
Points:45,820
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 10:47:24 AM

In many states including New York people with kids receiving numerous welfare benefits make as much if not more than educated and skilled workers, so it's nearly impossible to encourage them to become self sufficient.

We have many non immediate relatives in New York and Vermont receiving 30K to 50K in welfare benefits annually. That's actually small in comparison to their total cost to income and property taxpayers.

The only way to get many off the dole would be time limits and/or work search, training and participation like the TANF programs.

Many of our working age relatives are on disability which has become the new welfare without asset tests, time limits and work requirements.

As mentioned before, disability is The Holy Grail of benefits.

One of our cousins clenched his fist and shouted YESSSS!!! after winning his disability claim. You would have thought he won the lottery.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,768
Points:3,210,720
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 10:46:23 AM

>>Can you understand that?<<

What I understand is that many of you righties don't want to have YOUR tax money spent on people who aren't as well of financially as you are. Unlike a guy like MarkJames, who "feels sorry for many of the kids", it seems that many of you righties would just as soon kick them to the curb - you know, "Let them pay for it themselves" with the money they don't have.

You said that a "Broad brush makes for messy painting", but you used that same broad brush to talk about 'five decades of nearly unlimited spending on "social" programs'. Are there people who don't "use these programs to better themselves"? Yep, there sure are and there always will be. But there are also plenty who are trying to better their lives and the lives of their children, to become productive tax-paying members of society. And yet it appears that you and others would lump them all together and deny assistance to those who would use these programs to improve their lot in life. You are picking winners and losers and declaring them all losers. And what miffs me is that there are those who have received government assistance in one form or another at some point, yet would deny it to others.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,593
Points:1,542,400
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 10:30:59 AM

I hate to be cruel here...but
We need to stop rewarding poor people everytime they have another baby.
What is to stop them???
They get welfare cards to buy what they want for each child.
They get medicaid to pay for the birth.
Section 8 housing to live in.

When are we going to say NO MORE.
You want to live...... YOU WORK to support yourself.
A Low Life will always be a LOW LIFE.....Its because thats all they know.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 9:57:02 AM

Mark, you hit the nail right no the head. There is so much opportunity for the underprivileged and yet many of them refuse to take advantage of these programs. It would be too much like work! A very high percentage of students receiving Pell Grants and other financial aid never graduate and end up dropping out of college.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,693
Points:45,820
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 9:04:12 AM

100 percent of our non immediate relatives on numerous forms of welfare (mostly due to having kids they can't afford) had access to free forms of birth control, however didn't use birth control.

Most are multi-generation welfare recipients and will likely receive numerous welfare benefits the rest of their lives as long as there are no time limits.

I feel sorry for many of the kids as they'll likely be welfare recipients like their mothers, grandmothers, great grandmothers etc.

What amazes me about many poor single mothers is their poor choice in mates. They often have unprotected sex with unemployable types with no education, no skills, no jobs, no homes, no credit, no savings, no vehicles, no driver's license, criminal records etc.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 7:45:08 AM

Well, Nick, after about five decades of nearly unlimited spending on "social" programs, such as Medicaid and TANF (formerly know as AFDC), food stamps, various "free" programs such as free condoms and free needles and free phones and free lunches and subsidized rent and heat, we see many members of our society who have not used these programs to better themselves and gain an independent lifestyle but have used them to carve out a lifestyle of "free" stuff, and they bring more babies into that lifestyle with no intention of changing, we "righties" get a little miffed.

Can you understand that?
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,768
Points:3,210,720
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 12:38:22 AM

>>Broad brush makes for messy painting.<<

That's true, I75. I did not say ALL other righties, and perhaps I should have said SOME other righties. But to a tee, pretty much the entire lot of you are against using, as you say, "MY money" to help those less fortunate unless you can direct how they live their lives, yet I know some of you were (again, as you would say) "takers" at some point in your lives.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,452
Points:3,837,505
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 12:24:53 AM

"Learn to read and understand what is said."
It is unfortunate you choose not to recognize a satirical comment for what it is.

I then posted about poor and welfare folk who have made it big in the world to show the world could have missed some great and powerful people if the policies that some advocate had been in place.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 12:05:48 AM

>> Too bad you and other righties lose all empathy as soon as you get a little money. <<

Broad brush makes for messy painting.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,768
Points:3,210,720
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 11:59:47 PM

>>Learn to read and understand what is said.<<

johnny, maybe it's YOU who needs to "learn to read and understand what is said". rumbleseat responded to "the poor ought not to be having children on the public dime." The word "encourage" is not in that sentence, and the rest of AC's post says that anyone who is on Medicaid can only have children if they can pay for it. You would essentially be prohibiting poor people from having children, because you don't want any of YOUR money spent on the poor.

I seem to recall that your family was on the public dole for a while, getting tax credits for being poor. You're welcome for the money my family gave you to help you improve your lot in life. Too bad you and other righties lose all empathy as soon as you get a little money.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,412
Points:2,451,605
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 11:53:32 PM

They won't pay-they will have babies and we will end up supporting them.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,700
Points:1,283,150
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 9:02:02 PM

>>AFS-there are millions of women without health insurance and not on Medicaid. Let's get them contraception...Obamacare should help this situation<<

I have a better idea. Let them pay for it themselves. Why should I lose the healthcare I had because some guy wouldn’t wear a rain coat and some girl couldn’t keep her legs together.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,700
Points:1,283,150
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 8:53:50 PM

>>Yeah, prohibit the poor from having children, and eventually the poor will die off and all that will be left is rich people, right? LOL!<<

Learn to read and understand what is said. The word used was “encourage” not prohibit. Just in case you don’t know the difference here are the relevant definitions of each.

encourage , “to attempt to persuade” example of use “
1.<they encouraged him to go back to school>”

Prohibit, “to forbid by authority” or “to prevent from doing something” example of use “
1. <The rules prohibit dating a coworker.>
2. <The prison's electric fence prohibits escape.>

Big differences here. The facts are that single mothers typically do not have the money to raise a child by themselves. If the mother is a teen, pregnancy is the number one reason for girls dropping out of school. Single mothers have a much lower income level than married mothers in a large part due to a lack of education.

Talking about abortion in this context is just another way to ignore the fact that people are engaging in activity that caused pregnancy with no regard for the consequence of their actions. Having others pay for an abortion, birth, welfare, childcare and the child’s healthcare is not a consequence. For some it’s even a lifestyle choice. .
Teens and people who can’t take care of a child need to be “encouraged”, through education of the consequences not to squeeze out babies they can’t take care of.

Maddog; here are some number to add to the ones you posted.
76% of Hispanic births were covered by Medicaid, 43 percent of Hispanic women who had given birth in the past year were unmarried.

70% of births in the black community were covered by Medicaid, Sixty-eight percent of black women who had given birth in the past year were unmarried.

31% of whites were covered by Medicaid. 26 percent of non-Hispanic whites of women who had given birth in the past year were unmarried.

My Grandfather died when my mother was seven. She was the first of five. In order to make things work she had that “single mother” live with her. She taught school, (back when teachers didn’t make much money), and delivered head stones out of the back of her car. There were no food stamps, Medicare or any other government help. It was her and her church. The three boys shared one room and my two aunts and grandmother shared a room. The single mother and her daughter shared the last room. Today that would be called child abuse.

The problem today is there is no stigma attached to expecting someone else to pay for your lifestyle choices, in fact its encouraged. Just look at modern T.V. and the movies. If that isn’t enough look at what is on things like MTV and shows like teem mom and 16 and pregnant. Then you have the shows that glamorize sex without touching on the consequences. Then when one of these “stars” does get pregnant she is glamorized. They don’t mention the fact she can do it because she is rich.

[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 9/9/2013 8:55:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 6:34:02 PM

"AFS-there are millions of women without health insurance and not on Medicaid. Let's get them contraception...Obamacare should help this situation."

All ObamaCare is proving to be is Medicaid on steroids. It is going to cost me a lot more money because somebody has to pay for the benefits somewhere along the line.

BTW, this states that almost half the births were already paid for by Medicaid so ObamaCare will not help it. How is ObamaCare going to make people start being responsible? It isn't!!!! It has proven that almost half the births in the USA were paid for by me in some way and that they could have gotten birth control and yet they did not. So tell me again how ObamaCare is going to fix that problem?
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,412
Points:2,451,605
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 6:20:11 PM

AFS-there are millions of women without health insurance and not on Medicaid. Let's get them contraception...Obamacare should help this situation
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 12:58:13 PM

"Self responsibility" presumes a measure of morality, i.e. knowing the difference between right and wrong. No, there will not be a sermon on the concept. I'll leave the sermonizing to "another one" who claims to be qualified to do so.
I will just point out that the moral bearing of the country has been off course for quite some time now. It looks more like Jack Sparrow's compass, if you can follow my "drift".
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 10:39:39 AM

"Tax funded birth control pills are a heck of a lot cheaper than the cost of saving every fetus. Yes, I do have a conservative side."

The absurdity of misinformation: According to a study done by Kaiser contraception is at the heart of basic family planning, and by and large, most states offer broad coverage for prescription contraceptives in their Medicaid programs.

So, birth control is available and yet...no responsibility shown. Hmm....



[Edited by: AFSNCO at 9/9/2013 10:41:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,051
Points:1,914,385
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 10:13:35 AM

str: "We need to pass legislation to bring the manufacturing base back.
We need to provide the opportunity for all to have a job that earns enough to afford a living plus."


So you pass a law ordering all manufacturing that left the country to come back, and then order that they pay everyone enough to give them a middle class existence, or else? ROFLMAO!! Good luck with that.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,182
Points:3,177,110
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 10:09:28 AM

Ac-, "encourage people on medicaid not to have children" but cons are against govt funded birth control too so what is the answer. If you are in favor of having babies pull out your wallet and pay up.

Worry, "is this topic in favor of abortion"? Good question.

175, "self responsibility" for a poor unwed teenage mother, good luck with that one. Feel free to post a good sermon on responsibility.

Mad, good topic with thought provoking numbers but don't hold your breath waiting for people to change their minds.

Tax funded birth control pills are a heck of a lot cheaper than the cost of saving every fetus. Yes, I do have a conservative side.
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 9:08:26 AM

Why am I not surprised?
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,538
Points:152,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 8:07:09 AM

This discussion happens over and over under different topics.

We need to pass legislation to bring the manufacturing base back.

We need to provide the opportunity for all to have a job that earns enough to afford a living plus.

once we establish opportunity, (jobs) that pay wages and benefits, then we need to overhaul the welfare system to provide those that need it to contribute back, providing skills, job, experience, and a work ethic.

Don't look for this to happen because Washington is broken.

Continue, in our current mode those that earn will be providing more to those that don't.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 7:57:35 AM

Worryfree, I think this topic is about self-responsibility.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,693
Points:45,820
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 7:26:40 AM

In one of the regions where many of our poor non immediate relatives live, over 60 percent of the births are paid for by Medicaid.

In addition 65 percent of the births are to unwed mothers, plus there are a lot of abortions in various age groups as the pregnancy rate is nearly double the birth rate.

This is a major issue in New York as much of our nation leading Medicaid costs are funded via property taxes. Medicaid alone consumes well over half of the property tax levy in many regions.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,412
Points:2,451,605
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 6:42:25 PM

Is this topic an argument in favor of abortion?
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,452
Points:3,837,505
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 6:06:34 PM

"the poor ought not to be having children on the public dime."

Yeah, prohibit the poor from having children, and eventually the poor will die off and all that will be left is rich people, right? LOL!

Shame on these people, they never should have been born, they were from poor families!
Dang rags to riches people!

Oprah Winfrey - born into abject poverty.
J.K. Rowling - was on welfare raising her little girl when her agent called to tell her that Bloomsbury would publish her book.
David Geffen - family lived in a 1 bedroom apartment, he had to sleep on the couch.
Jay-Z - began life in the projects.
Shania Twain - her family was too poor to pay for heat!
Steve Jobs - was adopted, dropped out of Reed College when he couldn’t pay the tuition.

Many of the most famous and wealthy celebrities had very humble beginnings, and went from rags to riches. Shame on them, they were from poor families, many of them were born or lived on the public dime!
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,560
Points:3,488,120
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 5:25:13 PM

Ouch! That high a percentage? It seems to me that they ought to encourage folks on Medicaid NOT to have children. In a sense, the poor ought not to be having children on the public dime. Why should any of us be paying for someone else's irresponsible behavior? But if it is planned? Well, then those who are having kids should be obliged to pay for it themselves, not with public money. That's not fair to the taxpayers at large.
Profile Pic
maddog57
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:154,018
Points:3,287,235
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 4:48:18 PM

In New York City in 2009, 76% of Hispanic births were covered by Medicaid, 70% of births in the black community were covered, and 31% of whites.
Post a reply Back to Topics