Babies 6 Weeks of Age?

[QualiTcare]

chicken - you're singing to the choir.

i have insurance, a home, etc. and i definitely didn't have everything given to me. in fact, i worked very, very hard to avoid being in the situation of the people i'm talking about. it's nothing to envy.

i'm just not naive enough to think that everyone is in a situation where they CAN afford cable, new shoes, etc.

i worked at a fast food joint in HS and i made about 400 every two weeks after taxes - working full time. there were adults with families and kids who worked there, and there's no way on earth they could afford insurance making that kind of money. they weren't LAZY by any means. they weren't educated. they were doing what they could to bring in money - other than getting welfare.

it seems like you think medicaid is okay for people who can't afford insurance, but do you realize people who just don't want to work are a big chunk of the ones receiving medicaid? it's just ironic that you think that's okay.

also, the fact that pregnancy would ever have to be considered a disability is just unreal. i don't know if it makes me want to laugh or puke.

[jen]

Chickshauler, you misunderstand me. It is a FACT that breastfed babies are sick less often, resulting is less missed work and less doctors appointments which does in fact save money for the company. If you need me to post the stats I'll find them for you.

My big question to you is this...

When will you be withdrawaling from the food program??? That is most definitely a gov't subsidy.

[Chickenhauler]

Chickshauler, you misunderstand me. It is a FACT that breastfed babies are sick less often, resulting is less missed work and less doctors appointments which does in fact save money for the company. If you need me to post the stats I'll find them for you.

I'm not disagreeing with your claim, but until you post something up to back it up, it's a claim, not a verifiable fact with supporting data.

My big question to you is this...

When will you be withdrawaling from the food program??? That is most definitely a gov't subsidy.

Do you understand the food program and why/who runs it?

It isn't operated by the FDA, health and human services, but by the Dept of Ag.

Now, why is the D of Ag running a program to feed kids? Their mission isn't to make sure nobody goes hungry on their dime....

...but their mission is to help the farmer.

The Food programs in schools (and later expanded to daycares, nursing homes, etc) were originally put in place to insure that food products raised by farmers were being bought and used to feed people.


And yes, I am sickened by the mass amount of money that is spent on subsidizing this, that, and the other.

Anymore, I don't really care. I've tried and tried to do for my own, on my own. I'm starting to think I'd better jump on the bandwagon and at least get something for all the money I keep paying into the system. Lord knows I won't see a dime when I turn 65 from social security.

- The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor."

-Adrian Pierce Rogers

[Chickenhauler]

chicken - you're singing to the choir.

i have insurance, a home, etc. and i definitely didn't have everything given to me. in fact, i worked very, very hard to avoid being in the situation of the people i'm talking about. it's nothing to envy.

i'm just not naive enough to think that everyone is in a situation where they CAN afford cable, new shoes, etc.

i worked at a fast food joint in HS and i made about 400 every two weeks after taxes - working full time. there were adults with families and kids who worked there, and there's no way on earth they could afford insurance making that kind of money. they weren't LAZY by any means. they weren't educated. they were doing what they could to bring in money - other than getting welfare.

it seems like you think medicaid is okay for people who can't afford insurance, but do you realize people who just don't want to work are a big chunk of the ones receiving medicaid? it's just ironic that you think that's okay.

also, the fact that pregnancy would ever have to be considered a disability is just unreal. i don't know if it makes me want to laugh or puke.

I'm basing my opinion on what I see day in, day out.

My wife has a daycare family in care, dad drives a beater minivan (maybe worth $500 to the right ****er). He had some electrical issues this winter when it was -20F, and lives in an apartment, is obviously struggling financially, so I offered to work on it in my heated shop for free.

I started chasing the wiring looking for shorts, dead grounds, etc, and what did I discover? About $3,000 worth of bumpety-bump ghetto blaster stereo gear.

He's not poor, he makes poor choices. I made a poor choice by continuing to fix his van. Next time he can stand outside and get frostbit fingers for all I care.

And he's not the exception to the rule, either.


I think Medicaid should be reserved for those physically or mentally unable to work. Not for those who would rather have window rattling stereo systems.

[Former Teacher]

I think Medicaid should be reserved for those physically or mentally unable to work. Not for those who would rather have window rattling stereo systems.

I TOTALLY agree with you Chickenhauler!!!

[professionalmom]

First, I share many of the opinions of Chickenhauler. However, I do see both sides of this debate. My opinion is that both sides are right AND wrong. I have been trying to work on an idea that would satisfy both sides (to a degree). I think that the US should develop a program for men AND women to accrue time off for PAID maternity/paternity leave. Not like an insurance program where EVERYONE pays in, but elective, like a 401K or FSA (flexible spending account). I had a job where I could choose to take an extra week of paid vacation. It really wasn't paid. They deducted 1/26 of my weekly pay from each biweekly paycheck. So during that extra week, I got paid (from the money I "saved" via payroll deductions).
Make it ELECTIVE and SELF-FINANCED and for both MEN and WOMEN.
Now here's the added advantage:
Look at the state of the economy. Sure, they keep "bringing more jobs in", but it's not helping when you replace $20/hr jobs with minimum wage jobs. Employers are paying minimal wages and salaries because they can in this market. By allowing more new parents to take more paid (self-funded) time off (for months at a time), you are freeing up work. That work still needs to get done. So the employer needs to bring in a temp or long-term temp. That temp is now off welfare and paying taxes. Lessens the burden on society. The more time a woman is on maternity leave, the more women on maternity leave each day. More women on maternity leave, more vacancies. More vacancies, takes more people off welfare and into the job market. This can spiral into less unemployment, less welfare, etc. This also evens the playing field between employers and employees. Employees can bargain for high wages and salaries. Employers will have to pay the higher salaries to keep good employees. Overall, salaries go up. Fathers (or the parent working outside the home) can bargain for better pay, increasing their ability to be better able to support their families on that one income. So some of these mothers (or stay-at-home parent) do not HAVE to go back to work unless they choose to.
I'm sure my ideas will get poo-pooed, but at least I'm trying to come up with a solution that supports the family unit without turning our country into a socialist country. God bless!

[QualiTcare]

there isn't an even playing field and never will be.

just ask the top 10%.

they're the ones who should really be PO'd, but they aren't allowed to be cus then they'll be called greedy.

and - canada and MOST other civilized countries have managed to succeed at providing maternity/paternity leave, healthcare, and education that's available to anyone who wants it - without being socialists.

that's what's pathetic about our "great country."

[Chickenhauler]

First, I share many of the opinions of Chickenhauler. However, I do see both sides of this debate. My opinion is that both sides are right AND wrong. I have been trying to work on an idea that would satisfy both sides (to a degree). I think that the US should develop a program for men AND women to accrue time off for PAID maternity/paternity leave. Not like an insurance program where EVERYONE pays in, but elective, like a 401K or FSA (flexible spending account). I had a job where I could choose to take an extra week of paid vacation. It really wasn't paid. They deducted 1/26 of my weekly pay from each biweekly paycheck. So during that extra week, I got paid (from the money I "saved" via payroll deductions).
Make it ELECTIVE and SELF-FINANCED and for both MEN and WOMEN.
Now here's the added advantage:
Look at the state of the economy. Sure, they keep "bringing more jobs in", but it's not helping when you replace $20/hr jobs with minimum wage jobs. Employers are paying minimal wages and salaries because they can in this market. By allowing more new parents to take more paid (self-funded) time off (for months at a time), you are freeing up work. That work still needs to get done. So the employer needs to bring in a temp or long-term temp. That temp is now off welfare and paying taxes. Lessens the burden on society. The more time a woman is on maternity leave, the more women on maternity leave each day. More women on maternity leave, more vacancies. More vacancies, takes more people off welfare and into the job market. This can spiral into less unemployment, less welfare, etc. This also evens the playing field between employers and employees. Employees can bargain for high wages and salaries. Employers will have to pay the higher salaries to keep good employees. Overall, salaries go up. Fathers (or the parent working outside the home) can bargain for better pay, increasing their ability to be better able to support their families on that one income. So some of these mothers (or stay-at-home parent) do not HAVE to go back to work unless they choose to.
I'm sure my ideas will get poo-pooed, but at least I'm trying to come up with a solution that supports the family unit without turning our country into a socialist country. God bless!

Now there is a solution that isn't mandatory, doesn't increase the size of the government, and is privately funded.

Now that's a solution worth talking about!

[Chickenhauler]

there isn't an even playing field and never will be.

just ask the top 10%.

they're the ones who should really be PO'd, but they aren't allowed to be cus then they'll be called greedy.

and - canada and MOST other civilized countries have managed to succeed at providing maternity/paternity leave, healthcare, and education that's available to anyone who wants it - without being socialists.

that's what's pathetic about our "great country."

That is the definition of socialism. When gov't steps in and levels the playing field.

Socialism really boils down to allocation of resources.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Karl Marx

[QualiTcare]

That is the definition of socialism. When gov't steps in and levels the playing field.

Socialism really boils down to allocation of resources.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Karl Marx

well, since the top 10% in america own appx 3/4 of the wealth - i'd say we're already in that state, aren't we? do you think you or i pay the same for our schools or roads as those folks? why shouldn't we?

it's already unevenly distributed - now if it were just properly distributed to things that matter most. of course nobody can agree on what matters most - especially when it involves those who don't matter aka poor people.

[Chickenhauler]

well, since the top 10% in america own appx 3/4 of the wealth - i'd say we're already in that state, aren't we? do you think you or i pay the same for our schools or roads as those folks? why shouldn't we?

No, we're in a capitalistic state. You missed the whole topic. Are we having the same discussion here?

I already pay more than you, him and her combined for the roads. I pay on average $17k per year in road use taxes. Why? Because I use the roads ALOT and put ALOT of wear on them.

Even when it comes to personal vehicles, my wife's car's license is much, much cheaper than the license on my one ton dually. Why? Because the dually weighs more.

Not only that, but it burns more fuel to go the same distance, thus it is paying even more per mile in fuel taxes.

On school taxing, where I lived it is based upon home value. I think that's a total crock. But, you can 500 billion dollars in the bank, and live in a 150k home, and still pay the same property taxes as the guy in the 150k home next to yours.

it's already unevenly distributed - now if it were just properly distributed to things that matter most. of course nobody can agree on what matters most - especially when it involves those who don't matter aka poor people.

Therein lies the problem....why should we redistribute the wealth?

Who are you (or the gov't) to say that Richey Rich be required to give a portion of his money to Poor Paulie?

What makes it right that if one person makes more money, we take a higher chunk of his earnings? WHY?

In case you missed it the first time-


- The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor."

-Adrian Pierce Rogers


It's not that poor people don't matter, it's that nobody matters to me. EVERYONE, white, black, red, purple, green, poor, rich, they all come SECOND after me and my family. My family will always come first.

Why? Because they are MY responsibility and nobody else's.


Sorry if that makes me selfish, so be it.

[QualiTcare]

No, we're in a capitalistic state. You missed the whole topic. Are we having the same discussion here?

I already pay more than you, him and her combined for the roads. I pay on average $17k per year in road use taxes. Why? Because I use the roads ALOT and put ALOT of wear on them.

Even when it comes to personal vehicles, my wife's car's license is much, much cheaper than the license on my one ton dually. Why? Because the dually weighs more.

Not only that, but it burns more fuel to go the same distance, thus it is paying even more per mile in fuel taxes.

On school taxing, where I lived it is based upon home value. I think that's a total crock. But, you can 500 billion dollars in the bank, and live in a 150k home, and still pay the same property taxes as the guy in the 150k home next to yours.



Therein lies the problem....why should we redistribute the wealth?

Who are you (or the gov't) to say that Richey Rich be required to give a portion of his money to Poor Paulie?

What makes it right that if one person makes more money, we take a higher chunk of his earnings? WHY?

In case you missed it the first time-


- The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor."

-Adrian Pierce Rogers


It's not that poor people don't matter, it's that nobody matters to me. EVERYONE, white, black, red, purple, green, poor, rich, they all come SECOND after me and my family. My family will always come first.

Why? Because they are MY responsibility and nobody else's.


Sorry if that makes me selfish, so be it.

what makes it right if one guy makes more, we take a higher chunk of his earnings? THAT IS MY POINT!

if the top 10% (meaning the wealthiest people) didn't pay more than the rest of us - we'd all have to pay a LOT more than we do - and it'd be impossible. unless you think you could pay the same taxes as a billionaire? i know i couldn't.

therefore, the wealth is ALREADY redistributed! it's just that nobody cares because it's the richest people that are "suffering" when it comes to taxes.

[Chickenhauler]

what makes it right if one guy makes more, we take a higher chunk of his earnings? THAT IS MY POINT!

if the top 10% (meaning the wealthiest people) didn't pay more than the rest of us - we'd all have to pay a LOT more than we do - and it'd be impossible. unless you think you could pay the same taxes as a billionaire? i know i couldn't.

therefore, the wealth is ALREADY redistributed! it's just that nobody cares because it's the richest people that are "suffering" when it comes to taxes.

Actually, if everyone paid their fair share....I read recently that the number was 17%.....17% of their income for EVERYONE. From Bill Gates to Minimum Wage Dude (no deductions for things like child credits, mortgage interest, etc for employees) just a straight up 17% across the board, the Feds would have a surplus of funding.

Now, IDK how accurate all the numbers are, but if you earn $100, you take home $83 (which is more than you do now) and that would be the end of it.

No filing at the end of the year, no returns, no nothing, no capital gains tax. Just 17%.

[professionalmom]

Actually, if everyone paid their fair share....I read recently that the number was 17%.....17% of their income for EVERYONE. From Bill Gates to Minimum Wage Dude (no deductions for things like child credits, mortgage interest, etc for employees) just a straight up 17% across the board, the Feds would have a surplus of funding.

Now, IDK how accurate all the numbers are, but if you earn $100, you take home $83 (which is more than you do now) and that would be the end of it.

No filing at the end of the year, no returns, no nothing, no capital gains tax. Just 17%.

I've been saying this for years. Then we wouldn't have to worry about tax returns, etc. No worrying about an audit because you may have made a mistake on your taxes due to the insanely complicated tax code. Simple, fair, and makes everyone own up to their responsibilities.
I know some may say that it's not fair that Richie Rich pays the same as Poor Paulie, but they are only paying the same PERCENTAGE. If Richie Rich makes $1,000,000 per year, he PAYS $170,000 (based on the 17% example). But Poor Paulie who only made $20,000 only PAYS $3400. So Richie Rich is still PAYING more dollars, just at the same percentage.
As things are now, it doesn't pay to work your behind off to earn more because if it bumps you into the next tax bracket, you could end up bringing home LESS than you were before. And why would I work harder and longer to make more only to have the government come in and take 30-40% of it? Where's the incentive?
Either way, the original issue was mothers (or fathers) being able to spend more time with their babies to allow for more bonding. I think we all agree that it SHOULD be this way, it's just a matter of HOW. There are ways, but it takes ingenuity. Plus, the idea I proposed would get shot down by many people just because people think government (funded by the wealthiest people) owes them something and should pay for the extra time off. They think that if they have a need or a want, all they need to do is hold out their hand to have government put money in it. And mentioning "responsibility" or "self-reliance" in Washington will get you black-listed and shunned faster than anything I know.

[jen]

I agree with that as well...

In Minnesota as well as many, many other states individual who aren't offered insurance through their employers can PURCHASE insurance through the State. It is less expensive because you are buying in to a group plan and because although it has wonderful day-to-day coverage, the Major Medical isn't great.

For the working poor, that insurance is subsidized but not free. I believe that the max premium is around $600 with no deductibles. While I am aware that there are those who feel that EVERYONE should have figured out away to have insurance without intereference from the State, I would say this...

...it's a perfect world and EVERYONE went to college and moved on to lucrative careers. Or didn't go to college and figured out a lucrative career all on their own.

Who the hell is working at Walmart? The gas station? Doing daycare? Last I checked, not every brain was created equally. For those who might be a bit on the challenged side of the IQ test, what shall we do with them? Maybe working at Walmart (who is famous for not letting people work enough hours to qualify for insurance...hell, they are currently being sued for not allowing employees to use the washroom) is the best that they can do. Shall we let them go without proper medical care because they aren't truly "disabled?"

It is easy to spit out Sarah Palin like platitudes but in reality complex problems require complex thinking.