we the people

Reply

  #41  
Old 07-24-09, 05:09 PM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
=chandler;1597635]I just had my knees shot with Synvisc One. Great stuff for bone-on-bone knees. It is a synovial fluid made from a rooster's comb. 6 ml syringe (you have to buy it and take it to the doctor for injection) is $823. Times two knees. Thankfully my wife's insurance at the hospital is good. I paid $60 each for them.
A doctor administering a patients meds. I never knew they had BYOD (bring your own drugs) days at the docs office.

sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.






NOW, someone tell me a product that has been on the market for years has residual research costs like that? Hockeypuck!
It's the roosters union at fault here. They demand more for their combs than the non-union sector roosters AND they have the political clout to get Congress to only allow union rooster comb.

take it up with your congressman.

Doctors and nurses earn their pay (at least my wife tells me she does), but drug costs shouldn't be that high
do you have any idea how much they spent on the R&D?

another huge cost to consider is:

liability costs (insurance)


Why, if the cost is there, can't the government do their bidding with the drug companies.
it is called capitalism. If the gov forced the prices down, the companies simply do not do the R&D. No new drugs.

I think the elderly could stay healthier if they didn't have to choose between necessary drugs and beenie weenies.
cat food, not beenie weenies. and it isn't just the elderly. The situation I posted above was concerning an approx 50 y.o.


It's too bad they quit making that Shimmy Stop stuff for the ball joints of your car. I bet that would work for your knees and I am sure it was a lot cheaper.
 
Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old 07-24-09, 05:28 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Synvisc One costs too much for the doctor to inventory it. He writes me a prescription for it, I hand it to the pharmacist, pay for it and take it to the doctor. It isn't a class 1 narcotic, or anyting like that. I do see your point about the rooster's union, though.
I didn't say the government should shut down the drug manufacturer's profits, but, instead (they're giving it away anyway) "stimulate" them. I think they are entitled to respectable profits, as any one is.
Personally, I think there is medical knowledge out there to totally replace the viscous portion of the knee. We are losing the ability to keep the bones apart. They make breast implants, why not a knee implant? It could even be done arthroscopically(spell check had no idea) so it would be minimally invasive.
My doctor advises against total replacement at this time due to my work activities, and the fact the recovery time would be at least 6 months. I'd starve to death.
 
  #43  
Old 07-24-09, 06:44 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,349
do you have any idea how much they spent on the R&D?
Actually, the government already does pay a large portion of the research costs, usually in the form of grants to universities.

You might find it interesting that the "drug companies" spend more on advertising than they do on R&D. The information is readily available.
 
  #44  
Old 07-25-09, 06:30 AM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by chandler View Post
They make breast implants, why not a knee implant? It could even be done arthroscopically(spell check had no idea) so it would be minimally invasive.
My doctor advises against total replacement at this time due to my work activities, and the fact the recovery time would be at least 6 months. I'd starve to death.
there are several methods currently in use to stimulate the regrowth of the articular cartilage. I'm not big into such things so I so not know the success rate of any of them.

It does appear there are many parties working on a replacement for the degraded cartilage. Not sure why such a difficult thing to do but I would think that maybe anything other than a joint replacement is not durable enough to last for any length of time. As you have been told by your doctor, your physical activities make a joint replacement less than the best current treatment. Most likely this is due to the prosthesis not being able to withstand the abuse it would be subjected to and fail prematurely.

A knee is subjected to extreme forces and as such, any repair must be extremely durable lest it be a very short term repair.

as to your comparison between a breast implant and a replacement for articular cartilage:

well, if you don't mind a bunch of guys getting off and wanting to squeeze your knee, you may be in luck but simply put, a breast prosthesis is for aesthetic design while a knee would be a very different use.

Kind of like the difference between an $500 paint job on your car and a $5000 paint job. They both look great right out of the booth but subject to any wear, only one has longevity.
 
  #45  
Old 07-25-09, 10:27 AM
nightowlpunk's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Connectitax
Posts: 456
Could've sworn I heard of pro athletes getting cartilege injections for damaged knees. May have been mistaken though. Cannot understand why they don't have joint donations from cadavers like we have organ donors of which I am a member of that tribe.
 
  #46  
Old 07-26-09, 08:33 AM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Originally Posted by chandler View Post
Ec, note one of the side effects of one of the psoriasis drugs is death??? Hey, give me a dozen of those!!
And the side effect of some anti-depressent drugs is -------depression! What?! Or worse - suicide. What?! And the drug company hope the patient talks their doctor into prescribing this stuff to them? I think the human race has gone bonkers.
 
  #47  
Old 07-26-09, 08:37 AM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Originally Posted by chandler View Post
Personally, I think there is medical knowledge out there to totally replace the viscous portion of the knee.
Someone just told me this weekend that their disc collapsed in their back. And the doctor pumped it back up with some kind of injection procedure that only took like 15 seconds.
 
  #48  
Old 07-26-09, 11:24 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Yeah, I've heard of that for spinal disks, but the knee takes more punishment, so it would have to be something probably semi solid, rather than the tempting fondling materials aforementioned. But, my gosh, we put a man on the moon. That was 40 years ago. Surely science, or medicine has advanced itself enough to address something like this!!
 
  #49  
Old 07-26-09, 11:31 AM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 20,789
Well, if they would just build those orbiting hotels and the lunar colony they were promising, my knees and ankles wouldn't need repair materials...

ecman...heck I can do that with a can of fix-a-flat and a needle tip for a grease gun...lol.
 
  #50  
Old 07-26-09, 06:25 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Ooooh, fix-a-flat or maybe even triple expanding foam sealant and a good needle. You may be on to something, GG. I'll let you know.
 
  #51  
Old 07-27-09, 02:15 PM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
I'm telling you guys (if you are old enough to remember the stuff) Shimmy Stop will work much better than Fix-A-Flat. It gets fairly rigid and is intended for weight bearing joints (ball joints that is)

I just don't think it is available anymore though.
 
  #52  
Old 07-27-09, 02:47 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 20,789
nap...I do remember seeing that! Pretty sure I never tried it even in my poor teen days.
 
  #53  
Old 07-27-09, 05:32 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Originally Posted by chandler View Post
Surely science, or medicine has advanced itself enough to address something like this!!
Too bad they have not come up (yet?) with freezing people instantly, that have heart attacks, so their bodies can shut down long enough for surgeons to clear out a clogged heart or whatever.

Ever hear those stories how people almost drown?, and yet can be revived long after the 15 minute window expires?, because their entire body has shut down to preserve itself? I've also thought of this if a person has a bleeder going on, that freezing them might slow the heart rate way down so that less blood squirts out. Ambulances would have to be equipped with freezers they'd throw the person in. This would be reserved only for people who are thought to be already dead, or are about to be, unless extraoredinary drastic steps are taken.
 
  #54  
Old 07-27-09, 06:10 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
But they do. In certain circumstances, they can lower the blood temperature to an extent to be able to do certain procedures that couldn't be done with 98.6 blood pumping all over the place. Totally freezing.....may be in Obama's health care plan for the elderly.....don't know.
 
  #55  
Old 07-28-09, 07:57 AM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Originally Posted by chandler View Post
Totally freezing.....may be in Obama's health care plan for the elderly.....don't know.


Hahahaha, actually.

I think Obama himself is not quite sure how the whole plan is supposed to work. He, though, like everyone else, knows the current system as is(the status quo, as they say), is unacceptable, as insurance will cost as much as wages, in the not too distant future, at current rate hikes, with their bogus explanations as to why the huge rate hikes!
 
  #56  
Old 07-28-09, 08:13 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 977
A goverment run program will be cheaper for some people ( the people that have never paid & will not have to pay under the new program ) but some sucker is going to have to pay for a new gov. trillion plussssssssss program--guess who...................
 
  #57  
Old 07-28-09, 08:24 AM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 20,789
Someone else?

And someone elses kids..and their grandkids....and their great grandkids.....Ad infinitum
 
  #58  
Old 07-28-09, 12:39 PM
nightowlpunk's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Connectitax
Posts: 456
Although I cannot afford to do this, if Obama's health care plan gets through, I would love to be able to change my national anthem to a country that doesn't have the abomination known as universal health care. Am I the only one who trusts the government to do the right thing as far as it is possible for a single human being to throw a fully loaded tractor trailer with just two hands and no help of any kind?
 
  #59  
Old 07-28-09, 04:30 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
What is scary is if the gov't pays, that means for them to cut costs, they will then tell you how to live idealistically so you never get injured or sick. And that will end up encompassing everything! No more Twinkies. No more mountain climbing. Etc. Your freedoms will go out the window in the name of helping save costs for everyone, because Big Brother says so, or else!
 
  #60  
Old 07-28-09, 06:58 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Reminiscent of "1984", huh? I need to re-read it, I guess.
NOP, you're not the only one who is seeing through the veil. It is unnerving to watch this scenario play itself out. We have history to rely on, but we must stop our complacency. As Ben Franklin loosely said, If we don't learn from our mistakes, we are most certain to repeat them. We are allowing our administration to repeat the mistakes of 1917 Bolshevik Russia, 1939 Germany, and other oligarchies and tyrranical states. Ever watch Dr. Zhivago?? When the lead character returned to his former posh house, he finds it has been divvied up to "spread the wealth". Don't you think for a minute our downward spiral won't eventually put us in similar circumstances. BUT, only if we let it. If we don't go down screaming and clawing, we will..." have met the enemy, and he is us". Thank you Pogo.
 
  #61  
Old 07-29-09, 03:39 AM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
Our complacency is the enemy within. Until such time we all become politically active and demand accountability and responsiveness of our government and our representatives, we are destined to watch ourselves being controlled. If we allow such, without objection, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
 
  #62  
Old 07-29-09, 07:45 AM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
I think, unfortunately, it is easy for people to be complacent, who say have a relatively decent factory job that pays insurance, and they have payroll taxes deducted. They don't really see any life-changing problem.

And if they are used to their lifestyle, and think they are doing okay, they are not in any big rush for change.

My neighbor is one of these. And I doubt he thinks there is much of a problem. He also was able to have the bulk of his huge hospital stay paid for through his employer.

When taxes are deducted, a person sort of thinks (I am presuming) they are really earning only what they get to keep. That is the way I always thought, when I was under a payroll system.

But now, technically working for myself, when taxes come due, it really hits home. Plus I watch(am addicted to) cable news shows(surprised Sean Hannity does not have a bounty on his head, by the administration, due to how he talks about Obama! ), rather than tend to rugrat kids after work and on weekends, like his mind is occupied with.
 
  #63  
Old 07-29-09, 12:30 PM
nightowlpunk's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Connectitax
Posts: 456
I have ideas of how to drastically improve government, but they are a bit too extreme to mention here.
 
  #64  
Old 08-24-09, 06:39 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ohio
Posts: 3
can we back up to the "created equal" stuff for a minute?

The operative word here is "created." That language was in response to the "right of birth" thing that existed in Europe at that time. A person was born into a certain class, and had to remain in that class throughout his life. If you were born a nobleman, you had privileges and benefits that someone born a yeoman did not and could never have.

And "inalienable" rights. A thing is inalienable when it cannot be taken away from an entity without turning that entity into something else. What they were basically saying is that certain things belong to a person by virtue of his having been born human, and cannot be taken away from him without just cause and due process.

Remember that in much of Europe at that time, a nobleman could kill a commoner, rape his wife or daughter, and help himself to whatever possessions the commoner had, and the commoner had no recourse. These are the things our forefathers were addressing--not whether everyone has an equal right to health care, food, or anything else.

Also, it didn't say we have a right to happiness, just a right to "the pursuit of happiness" --an entirely different thing. They wanted to create a system of government under which a person was free to pursue his own goals and create the best life he could for himself and his family.

And the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" begs the question, "At who's expense?" There is nothing in our Constitution that even hints that anyone has a responsibility to provide these things for anyone else. (other than minor children)

Much of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence was founded on Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and "A Social Contract." This country was not founded as a democracy, but as a republic. Our founders believed that there was such a thing as natural moral right, and that laws were instituted among men to protect the natural rights of all men.

Citizens within a community (or country) had a contractual obligation to abide by these rules in exchange for the benefits they received from them. The community had the right to impose punishment upon those who broke the rules.

So yes, since citizenship is a requirement for life in the United States, illegal aliens do NOT have the right to the benefits and protections that a citizen does. And no, a person who doesn't have the resources to pay for medical care does NOT have a right to that care at someone else's expense.
 
  #65  
Old 08-24-09, 06:46 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ohio
Posts: 3
and by the way...

We aren't well to do, as some of you may be imagining from my post below. We have no health insurance, and like a couple others here do most of our own health care. We have the disposable staple guns, and order antibiotics and medical supplies through a veterinary supply catalog. Socialized medicine would certainly benefit us, but only at the expense of our children and grandchildren--so we're totally against it, and against most other social programs as well.
 
  #66  
Old 08-24-09, 07:00 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
You may not be "well to do" financially, but you have a way with words. Thank you for a calm rendering of the facts. We get caught up in entitlements, and those entitlements are translated into "rights", and that's wrong.
Strange....although we are blessed with good insurance (my wife is a nurse), I find myself doing exactly s you do in gathering medical supplies to keep on hand, and find the local feed store has exactly what we need at a fraction of the cost, AND the basic inability of procuring things for "humans".
Good luck with your projects and keep 'em comin'.
 
  #67  
Old 08-24-09, 07:00 PM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by Kathryn McDowel View Post

So yes, since citizenship is a requirement for life in the United States, illegal aliens do NOT have the right to the benefits and protections that a citizen does. And no, a person who doesn't have the resources to pay for medical care does NOT have a right to that care at someone else's expense.

well, citizenship is not a requirement for life in the US. We have (legal) alien residents here continually but we were not speaking of benefits but rights. Huge difference. The rights we were speaking of were the inalienable ones that all men have. You know, the ones that were seen as God given rights.

Oh, I see, our God here in the US is better than any other God in the world so we have more rights. OK, I can see that.

as to the care at another's expense; so, you are fine with grandma being told to go home and die because we just killed medicaid and she cannot stay in the hospital any longer, regardless that all she is having is an asthma attack. After all that is at another's expense, yes?


what about an entire family not getting treatment for tuberculosis because they cannot afford it. So, they die. Big deal but what about all the people they infected?

In a civilized society (which I would like to believe we have) we do things in the name of society. We do pay for things for those less fortunate. Not because we have to but because it is the civilized thing to do.

Gee, since we shouldn't be supporting anybody with public funds, I'll let you tell the portion of the 15 million unemployed that are still collecting UI benefits that we are cutting that off as of today. I guess we have to let them die as well because we should be stopping medicaid payments as well. Sure hope they heal well without medical treatment.


Have I misunderstood the term: civilized society
 
  #68  
Old 08-24-09, 07:10 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
We have had for years, protocols to help the aged, poor, children, etc. who cannot afford health insurance. Those protocols are being overshadowed by a health plan that is nothing but a give away program at the expense of future generations. It is fiscally unsound and irresponsible.
Just because you have a flat tire, you don't trade in the car. You fix what is wrong with what you have. A complete revamping of an entire health care system is not what we need. I can't comprehend a politician making decisions for my health and how much they will pay and what procedures I can have. Which Senator do you want between your doctor and yourself?
 
  #69  
Old 08-24-09, 08:10 PM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
I didn't say things were great or socialized medicine is the fix. I was simply responding to Kathryn that apparently has a problem with all social programs and her comments on non-citizens and rights.
 
  #70  
Old 08-24-09, 11:11 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ohio
Posts: 3
Nap, you said:
...so, you are fine with grandma being told to go home and die because we just killed medicaid and she cannot stay in the hospital any longer, regardless that all she is having is an asthma attack. After all that is at another's expense, yes?
Since I AM a grandma that will probably die because of a lack of medical care, I believe I'm probably in a better position to answer your question than most. I am 64 years old, with a history of cancer. I have not seen a doctor in 9 years. Because of the co-pay on medicare, this isn't likely to improve after I turn 65. Most of those expensive tests aren't fully covered.

I don't believe I have a "right" to expect the young people in this country to mortgage their futures to possibly extend my life by a few years. And that's what it comes down to.

Your ranting about people in the US having more rights than people in the rest of the world didn't make sense.

The rights our Constitution guarantees are simply the right to strive toward our life goals without undue interference and to make the best life we can for ourselves. Nothing gives us a "right" to impose a responsibility on someone else to provide us with anything.

Of course there is also nothing in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from voluntarily providing anything to someone else, so those of you who can afford to and choose to can certainly do so.

Before the government can "give" anything to someone, they have to take it from someone else. This often leaves the people being taken from without the resources to provide for themselves decently.

And yes, I do have a problem with most of the social entitlement programs, for several different reasons. For example, in our area, a family of 3 that I know has an income of $21,000 and doesn't qualify for any of the social entitlement programs. Health care premiums alone would take roughly a third of that families' income, leaving only around $14,000 to cover all living expenses. Obviously, they don't have health coverage. Yet a mother with 2 children who chooses not to work at all qualifies for subsidized housing, (for which she pays only $65 per month for rent with utilities included) food stamps, complete medical coverage, and a cash benefit of around $400 per month. Believe me, the Welfare family is living much better than the working family above.

One of the justifications for legalizing many of the illegal immigrants in this country is that they are doing menial work that most Americans wouldn't want to do. Well, I've done a lot of work in my life that I didn't really want to do. If we booted out the illegals AND did away with many of the entitlement programs, I think there'd be significantly more Americans willing to take these menial jobs.

National health care doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint, either.

Talk to anyone from a country like Canada or Britain that has national health care, and you'll find that those that can afford to come here for medical treatment. As someone mentioned below, the waiting time for medical treatment in those countries is unbelievable, and many life saving, costly procedures simply aren't available. The same thing will happen here if a national health care plan is adopted.
 
  #71  
Old 08-25-09, 05:20 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Much of the health care is debatable, but non-citizens (cute word for illegal aliens) absolutely don't have "rights", as they are not citizens of our country. They only bleed off what we have.
Want "rights", take the test. Make the commitment. Learn the language.
 
  #72  
Old 08-25-09, 08:36 AM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ohio
Posts: 3
rights -vs- privilege

Chandler:

The illegal aliens have and should have exactly the same rights as citizens and legal aliens, i.e., life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What they don't and shouldn't have is the privilege to enjoy those rights here, at our expense.

As you said in an earlier post, there seems to be a lot of confusion about terms. People use words like "rights," "entitlements," "privileges," and "benefits" as though they were interchangable. It's often surprising how quickly disagreements are resolved when everyone in a discussion agrees to use the literal definitions of key words. (How else can thoughts be communicated accurately?)

For example, simply living in this country is a right for a citizen. It is not a natural (inalienable) right, but is part of the social contract guaranteed by law. It is a privilege for a legal alien, and can be withdrawn if he fails to do as he has agreed to in exchange for that privilege. (again, social contract)

The illegal alien has no contractual basis upon which he can lay claim to the privileges and benefits available to citizens and legal aliens.
 
  #73  
Old 08-25-09, 11:07 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,349
Well stated, Kathryn. I think that far too often people get confused over the differences between rights and privileges.

I also find that generally speaking it is people that have made poor choices during their lives that are at the forefront of demanding more rights. I have a friend, a woman that I love dearly, that is all for more and more social programs that give to the poor what more affluent people have had to work to obtain. She has had a hard life but it is almost entirely of her own making. While she is a college graduate she has almost no marketable skills and she has no intention of developing any such skills. We go through periods of sometimes several years without speaking to each other because she (I believe) sometimes thinks of me as the "enemy" because I think that a person should earn what they take from society.

I'm retired, I worked for twenty-five years at a large company, often not particularly liking my situation but knowing that when I accounted for all I received in exchange for my labors and time I had a pretty darn good deal. My best job within this company, where I spent the best nineteen years of my working life, was terminated when I had less than three years to go before being eligible for retirement. My options were to quit and essentially start over with a different company, take a lower paying position with terrible working hours in the same division or to transfer to a lower paying position with good hours in a different division. I took the latter choice and while I was NOT happy with the approximately 25% drop in my salary I did enjoy the better hours. I was able to pay off my mortgage and survive for two years under a supervisor I detested (he was instrumental in eliminating my previous position) before taking a leave of absence and then early retirement.

I live in a nice, but modest, home in an upscale community with a pension of about $22k yearly. I have an excellent medical plan, all things considered. I think of these things as payback for the long hours and poor conditions I worked during my working life. I know that my friend probably thinks of me as some kind of privileged person yet the truth is that she could have had a similar retirement IF she had not decided that she was NOT going to do so many different things in her life. What she told me several years ago about what jobs she would NEVER take, that she had no intention of going back to school to improve her job skills, that it was her RIGHT to buy all new furniture and run up credit card debt in the tens of thousands and then declare bankruptcy and have a large portion of her debt forgiven.

Even today she lives on just a part-time job and her wits. She has nothing and will never have anything unless I give it to her. But she is adamant that she should have all her wants and desires furnished by either the government or those that worked to amass some bit of of "pie" for their retirement.

The truly sad thing is that she is not alone in this thinking. We have become a nation of people that demand that they have at least as much as anyone they might see, no matter how that other person came to have what they do. We are becoming a nation of people that think the only requirement for living the good life is that they are breathing and they have no requirement of taking care of themselves.
 
  #74  
Old 08-25-09, 02:19 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ohio
Posts: 3
entitlement programs

Furd, yes, there are a lot like the woman you described, unfortunately. They just don't seem to understand the connection between having and earning. It amazes me how many are like your friend--intelligent enough to complete college, but too dense to make that simple connection.

The earliest relief programs in this country began during the Depression of 1929-39. They weren't entitlement programs, they were work/relief programs under which the government created jobs, and paid people who were otherwise unemployed to do them. Nothing wrong with that.

Most of the entitlement programs we have today were, in the begining, initiated as stop gap measures, on the theory that when people ran into trouble they'd receive help, and when they got back to work they'd "pay back" through their taxes, which in turn would be used to help others in a similar position. Nothing wrong with that, either.

In the fifties and early sixties, Welfare was primarily a short term thing. Johnson's Great Society propaganda, I believe, was the first to declare that every person in the country had an absolute right to a certain standard of living. This was the beginning of the "entitlement" mentality. And there definitely IS something wrong with that.

Concurrent changes in the minimum wage laws in 1966 added to the problem. Many employments that had previously been exempt were then covered, such as farm labor and domestic help. These changes didn't usually raise wages for these jobs, they simply eliminated the jobs. It was cheaper for farmers to automate than to pay minimum wage and the taxes involved.

When I was a kid, every farm had at least one hired hand that lived with the family and had all his basic necessities provided for him. A lot of middle income families had domestic help, who also lived with the family and were provided for. Most only received $5-10 per week in cash, which wasn't as bad as it sounds, when minimum wage was only $1.00 per hour, and all their living expenses were taken care of. Many of the hired hands on the farms were at least mildly retarded, and incapable of doing any other sort of work. I've heard the same was true of a lot of the domestic help, though I can't speak from experience.

When the minimum wage act eliminated so many farm and domestic jobs, many of these people ended up on welfare or ADC. (ADC, by the way, was an amendment to the Social Security Act of 1935, and funded by monies from the Social Security fund.)

Instead of a stop gap measure to help people through hard times, welfare and ADC became a way of life for many. With the myriad benefits available, why would these people want to work when they were paid as much if not more by the government for not working?

In the late sixties, a family of 3 on ADC in New York received $80 per month more than the Navy paid their Chief Petty Officers. Their medical benefits and housing allotments were as good or better, and they received food stamps (which Navy personnel did not). Not much incentive to work, is it?

I think perhaps that the entitlement mindset is contagious: People see others living well without working, and see no reason why they should do otherwise.

The cost to tax payers isn't limited to the benefits paid directly to Welfare recipients. The number of indirect entitlement programs is unbelievable.

There's WIC (Women, Infants & Children) that provides additional food to families that are already receiving food stamps. As usual, the costs of administrating the program are almost triple the cost of the benefits distributed.

Then there's Head Start, which is free daycare and pre-school for children from very low income homes. (Why do these women need daycare when they aren't working?)

There's a transportation service to run low income people back and forth to the store, doctor's visits, etc.

Subsidized housing is one of the biggest drains. Not only does the government pay most of the rent and utilities, but they also award grants and low interest loans (through HUD) to investors to build low income housing. This by the way, is a very high profit business. These apartments are NOT rented to low income families at a reduced rent. The rent charged is the average for a similar apartment in the area, but the tenant pays only a percentage of their income and the government picks up the tab for the rest. If the apartment is damaged, the government guarantees reimbursement to the landloard.

Someone--I forget who--accused me of being against all "social programs." I'm not. I don't have a big problem with Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Compensation, or Worker's Comp. (although I think they could be administrated better, and financed more efficiently in the private sector) These programs are all essentially contractual, in that those who receive benefits also pay into the fund from which benefits are drawn.

What I am against are the entitlement programs--the "something for nothing" ones.

The resources in this country are finite. The only way the government can finance these and additional programs is by raising taxes and by printing more money. Every additional dollar that the government prints devalues the existing currency, (which is the biggest reason we're seeing high inflation right now.) which means every dollar you have will buy less.

The financial problems this country is facing are horribly complex. There are no easy answers, I'm sure. Anything that is done is going to create hardship for someone. I'm certainly not smart enough to come up with an answer. But I am smart enough to know that the money for these programs has to come from us--the average tax payer, unless something is done to limit all the give aways to people that are every bit as capable of working as the rest of us!
 
  #75  
Old 08-25-09, 04:01 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 20,789
Kathryn.....are you married? lol...just kidding....
 
  #76  
Old 08-25-09, 05:23 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,349
GG, you took the words from my fingers!

Kathryn, I agree almost 100% with what you wrote. The only thing I might find fault with is your stance on Head Start. Maybe the studies are skewed but they clearly show that children that attended Head Start do better when enrolled in the "regular" school system. Then again, I have little, if anything, good to say about the public schools system in our country.

An example of a program that was intended to help people into meaningful (read, well-paying) jobs was CETA, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. It must have passed sometime in the early to mid '70s. I was working for a local government at the time and I remember how several jobs were created out of thin air and then filled with people with minimal or no skills. The argument in favor of all these "make work" jobs was that money was coming from the Federal government and as such it had no adverse effect upon the locals or the city government employment. I was a "classified" civil service employee and I obtained my job through a process of competitive examination but the CETA jobs seemed to be handed more on the basis of "who you knew" than any other criteria. Although not in my particular position, probably because it required certification and licensing, other jobs were filled by CETA workers rather than via the civil service provisions. I don't think I ever saw ANY "training" in regards to CETA employees unless learning how to "work the system" could be considered training. As I remember CETA was only supposed to "employ" a person for a maximum of two years and then they were supposed to leave the sheltered environment and become gainfully employed in the general populace.

I don't think I ever saw a CETA employee leave the city employment and then get a job in the real world. I heard plenty of complaints from CETA employees that their time was running out and that they would soon be unemployed. I think in many cases the program failed them because, as I wrote, I never saw any training go along with the jobs.

I'm not religious but I do believe in the idea that giving a man a fish feeds him for a day yet teaching him how to fish allows him to feed himself and also his family forever. One of the biggest problems I see with our current system of entitlements is that it teaches and reinforces the idea that those that refuse to work or learn have a legal claim against those that DO work.
 
  #77  
Old 08-25-09, 08:55 PM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
I don't believe I have a "right" to expect the young people in this country to mortgage their futures to possibly extend my life by a few years. And that's what it comes down to.
I never said it was a right. I said in a civilized society that society does spend assets to assist those that need it. No rights, just being civilized.

Your ranting about people in the US having more rights than people in the rest of the world didn't make sense.
Ranting?

If you can remember back a few posts, we were speaking about rights. You seemed to interpret that as privileges. I simple was being a bit dramatic to make my point that the rights we are afforded by our Constitution are not dependent on our nationality or anything else other than you are a human being.
The rights our Constitution guarantees are simply the right to strive toward our life goals without undue interference and to make the best life we can for ourselves.
Our Constitution does not guarantee any rights but in your context, you are still wrong. The rights our Constitution was enacted to protect are much grander than the simple right to strive forward toward our life goals...etc.


Nothing gives us a "right" to impose a responsibility on someone else to provide us with anything.
actually, our Constitution does give our government that right but again, this is not the rights I was speaking of.

Of course there is also nothing in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from voluntarily providing anything to someone else, so those of you who can afford to and choose to can certainly do so.
ok

Before the government can "give" anything to someone, they have to take it from someone else. This often leaves the people being taken from without the resources to provide for themselves decently.
that is all part of the game of politics and government. Injure but don't kill is my view of it. If you kill somebody, they can never donate again. If you injure them, they can heal and donate again and again.

And yes, I do have a problem with most of the social entitlement programs, for several different reasons.
that is a huge commentary on your ability to empathize.
For example, in our area, a family of 3 that I know has an income of $21,000 and doesn't qualify for any of the social entitlement programs. Health care premiums alone would take roughly a third of that families' income, leaving only around $14,000 to cover all living expenses. Obviously, they don't have health coverage. Yet a mother with 2 children who chooses not to work at all qualifies for subsidized housing, (for which she pays only $65 per month for rent with utilities included) food stamps, complete medical coverage, and a cash benefit of around $400 per month. Believe me, the Welfare family is living much better than the working family above.
I never said the system was perfect or did you read somewhere that I did?

One of the justifications for legalizing many of the illegal immigrants in this country is that they are doing menial work that most Americans wouldn't want to do.
that is the biggest load of hooey and no matter how many times you say it, it is still hooey. I am so tired of hearing that statement. Corrected, it is: most Americans will not perform the menial work the illegal immigrants are willing to FOR THE AMOUNT OF PAY the immigrants are willing to accept.

You see, businesses actually want illegal immigrants. It allows them a class of employees they can hire for often illegal wage rates. That removes the capitalistic action of supply and demand. I am sure if they could buy slaves, they surely would.

Bottom line; as with all capitalism; if you cannot find a person to do a job for what you pay, then you must pay more so somebody will do the work. It is a really simple principle.


Well, I've done a lot of work in my life that I didn't really want to do.
then why did you do it?

If we booted out the illegals AND did away with many of the entitlement programs, I think there'd be significantly more Americans willing to take these menial jobs.
booting; I agree with but not for the reasons you state. I want to boot them simply because they are ILLEGALS and should be held to the laws of our country. The entitlement programs; maybe but you are too big into cut and slash without a view of problems caused by your cuts. If you haven't noticed, there have been welfare reforms enacted in many states over the past decade or so. There are more stringent rules and there are often time limitations. You cannot simply cut everything at once. There must be steps or stages but yes, we do need to continue with making corrections to the system in place.

National health care doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint, either.
did I miss something I wrote? Did I say I am pro socialized medicine?

Talk to anyone from a country like Canada or Britain that has national health care, and you'll find that those that can afford to come here for medical treatment. As someone mentioned below, the waiting time for medical treatment in those countries is unbelievable, and many life saving, costly procedures simply aren't available. The same thing will happen here if a national health care plan is adopted.
again, did I miss something I wrote because I do not recall saying socialized medicine is the cure for what ails our country.
 
  #78  
Old 08-25-09, 09:06 PM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
Someone--I forget who--accused me of being against all "social programs." I'm not. I don't have a big problem with Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Compensation, or Worker's Comp. (although I think they could be administrated better, and financed more efficiently in the private sector) These programs are all essentially contractual, in that those who receive benefits also pay into the fund from which benefits are drawn.
How can you even consider UI and workers comp social programs?

UI and workers comp are quite simply mandated insurance programs and are paid for by the employers very directly.

Social security is a very poorly managed retirement assistance program. Not sure I would consider it a social program, at least in a similar definition that would include medicare, medicaid, TANF, ADC, and what have you.

If SS were properly controlled and invested, it could be a self supporting system. It is the governments poor actions that have placed it in the situation it is currently.

Out of the bunch, I'll give ya medicare.
 
  #79  
Old 08-26-09, 03:51 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,349
Social security is a very poorly managed retirement assistance program.
I guess that depends upon how you define "poorly managed". If you look at the administrative costs in relation to the benefits paid it is an extremely well managed program. I don't have the figures at hand but as I recall administrative costs of the entire Social Security program are less than 2% of the benefits paid.

Now if you mean the "return on investment" is low I might agree with you. On the other hand, at least up through the 1980s most Social Security recipients had received or would receive far more in benefits than they ever paid into the system. Again, as I recall, the "average" (whatever average may be) Social Security beneficiary would exhaust his and his employer's "contributions" in the first four years of retirement. Of course this has changed in the last twenty-thirty years. I think that according to my own benefits vs. contribution statement that once I start drawing SS benefits I will exhaust mine and my employer contributions in about ten years. Since I probably have an actuarial chance of living another twenty five years it makes SS a pretty good return considering the zero risk factor.
 
  #80  
Old 08-26-09, 02:29 PM
nap's Avatar
nap
nap is offline
New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: north
Posts: 4,163
the allowed raiding of the the fund is what I was speaking of. It could be a very good system if the funds were not used to provide cash to other funds and areas of governments that offer no real return.

While investing a fund is obviously lending it to others so as to earn a return in excess of the actual investment, the government had a great ability to loan itself money and fail to pay it, or any realized earnings, back to the original fund.

I also would like to see a limit on those allowed to draw from the fund, As it is, poor or wealthy all can draw. I suppose that would be converting it to a true social program though.


and to the zero risk factor investment; haven't you been reading the news?

I don't remember when the fund is supposed to be depleted. It has been stated that I may not be able to draw anything as it will run dry before I retire.
 
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:03 AM.