Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[toobfreak]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

I think I've mentioned this before, but I live next to a HUD property. This is the suburbs, and I resent putting HUD people in our city. They don't belong here and are nothing but problems. In fact, I had the cops out here just last weekend.

When I see their children playing outside, there are six of them: four from the HUD house in the front of the property, and two from the HUD rear house, although those are her grandchildren who her daughter sent here to take advantage of our school system which they don't pay anything in to.

If government will pay for home in the suburbs, pay to educate your kids, pay for all your food, pay for your utilities, pay for your medical care along with your family, what's the point of working your way to the suburbs? Nothing, because they are doing just as well if not better than the working people in this neighborhood.

The only incentive left is personal dignity to want a better way of life for yourself.

 

[Borillar]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

Well, repugs are opposed to abortion, birth control, planned parenthood, and sex education. You expected a different outcome?

Bingo!

[emoji844]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Then once the kid is born, they bitch about that too.

Not if the parents are taking care of them we don't. What we bitch about is the taxpayer taking care of them. Big difference .

Everybody pays taxes and we don't get to pick and choose what it gets spent on. I'd rather spend mine on Medicaid, Medicare, and Planned Parenthood than a useless wall, bloated military industrial complex, and police state agencies. YMMV.

 

[TheDude]

Maybe you'd prefer that all those Medicaid babies had been aborted?

Or taken away for adoption. If you take the incentive away of having children on government programs, that will greatly reduce the amount of people having kids while on Medicaid.

Who's going to adopt half of the children born in the US? You already have hundreds of thousands of kids growing up in foster care because there aren't enough families who want to adopt them.

Where are you going to find enough middle class families to take all these kids in year after year?

Many aren't desirable because they're disabled. A good portion those is the result of fetal-alcohol syndrome. At the end of the day, I'm not ignorant enough to believe humans are somehow superior, simply because the bible or ego says so. No other species is as fucked as we are.

The kids in foster care are not put up for adoption. Dragonliar is presenting a false premise (aka "LIE"). Kids are not in the foster system because there is nobody who will adopt them. They are in the foster system because they were put there, and the state won't allow anybody to adopt them.

That's not completely. I managed a DCFS website. Surely foster care and adoption are two different things. Some foster kids transition to adoption, and in at least some aspect, it's managed by at least some DCFS offices. Matter of fact, my sister in law adopted a girl, which began as foster care.

I also read where kids are in foster care because their parents can't take care of them. In many cases it's because they won't. They abuse them instead.

 

[Clementine]

You dopes are the same guys who say people shouldn't be forced to get health insurance . So young people don't get health insurance . Guess who has babies ??? YOUNG HEALTHY PEOLPLE!

Yes, it's true we put a lot of aid into having healthy babies . Why ? Because it's the right thing to do AND it saves the taxpayer in the long run.

Unless you'd rather have sick babies being born ? Penny wise , pound foolish .

Why doesn't the left ever talk about people learning to be more responsible with their choices? That is never discussed but is at the root of many problems.

 

[koshergrl]

Maybe you'd prefer that all those Medicaid babies had been aborted?

Or taken away for adoption. If you take the incentive away of having children on government programs, that will greatly reduce the amount of people having kids while on Medicaid.

Who's going to adopt half of the children born in the US? You already have hundreds of thousands of kids growing up in foster care because there aren't enough families who want to adopt them.

Where are you going to find enough middle class families to take all these kids in year after year?

Many aren't desirable because they're disabled. A good portion those is the result of fetal-alcohol syndrome. At the end of the day, I'm not ignorant enough to believe humans are somehow superior, simply because the bible or ego says so. No other species is as fucked as we are.

The kids in foster care are not put up for adoption. Dragonliar is presenting a false premise (aka "LIE"). Kids are not in the foster system because there is nobody who will adopt them. They are in the foster system because they were put there, and the state won't allow anybody to adopt them.

That's not completely. I managed a DCFS website. Surely foster care and adoption are two different things. Some foster kids transition to adoption, and in at least some aspect, it's managed by at least some DCFS offices. Matter of fact, my sister in law adopted a girl, which began as foster care.

I also read where kids are in foster care because their parents can't take care of them. In many cases it's because they won't. They abuse them instead.

That's my point. Kids aren't in foster care while waiting for adoption because there aren't people who want to adopt them (which is what dragonliar said). There are people who are available to adopt them, as soon as the state will allow. Kids are in foster care because they've been removed from their parents. The reasons are myriad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

 

[danielpalos]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

I already gave you the solution; it is compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. The right wing doesn't like it, Because the poor may benefit.

You want the Government/Taxpayer to compensate the lazy or inept?

Unacceptable.

Capitalism has an inept, Natural Rate of Unemployment that needs compensating for.

 

[danielpalos]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

I already gave you the solution; it is compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. The right wing doesn't like it, Because the poor may benefit.

the right wing has even less, with nothing but repeal.

 

[danielpalos]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

In the Age of Corporate Welfare?

 

[JoeB131]

I am opposed to killing babies. I think if you need birth control you should pay for it. Planned Abortion instead of Parenthood should stop doing abortions on my dime. I am not opposed to sex education, and I don't think I am alone. That makes you totally confused, doesn't it? I guess truth hurts.

Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions on your dime.

PP does contraception, health screenings and other health services the big Corporate Medical won't do in poor communities because there's no money to be made there.

Also, you are a stupid, bible thumping Rube is who being played for a fool by the One Percent on this issue. You'd think after 44 years of wonderfully glorious legal abortions supported by Republicans, you'd have figured that out

I guess the truth hurts.

 

[danielpalos]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

I think I've mentioned this before, but I live next to a HUD property. This is the suburbs, and I resent putting HUD people in our city. They don't belong here and are nothing but problems. In fact, I had the cops out here just last weekend.

When I see their children playing outside, there are six of them: four from the HUD house in the front of the property, and two from the HUD rear house, although those are her grandchildren who her daughter sent here to take advantage of our school system which they don't pay anything in to.

If government will pay for home in the suburbs, pay to educate your kids, pay for all your food, pay for your utilities, pay for your medical care along with your family, what's the point of working your way to the suburbs? Nothing, because they are doing just as well if not better than the working people in this neighborhood.

Dear, nothing but repeal really is worth-less when there is no porn involved. Come up with a better solution, right wingers.

 

[rightwinger]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

 

[danielpalos]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

I think I've mentioned this before, but I live next to a HUD property. This is the suburbs, and I resent putting HUD people in our city. They don't belong here and are nothing but problems. In fact, I had the cops out here just last weekend.

When I see their children playing outside, there are six of them: four from the HUD house in the front of the property, and two from the HUD rear house, although those are her grandchildren who her daughter sent here to take advantage of our school system which they don't pay anything in to.

If government will pay for home in the suburbs, pay to educate your kids, pay for all your food, pay for your utilities, pay for your medical care along with your family, what's the point of working your way to the suburbs? Nothing, because they are doing just as well if not better than the working people in this neighborhood.

The only incentive left is personal dignity to want a better way of life for yourself.

The right wing has nothing but repeal; slackers.

 

[danielpalos]

You dopes are the same guys who say people shouldn't be forced to get health insurance . So young people don't get health insurance . Guess who has babies ??? YOUNG HEALTHY PEOLPLE!

Yes, it's true we put a lot of aid into having healthy babies . Why ? Because it's the right thing to do AND it saves the taxpayer in the long run.

Unless you'd rather have sick babies being born ? Penny wise , pound foolish .

Why doesn't the left ever talk about people learning to be more responsible with their choices? That is never discussed but is at the root of many problems.

A natural rate of unemployment is not a very good option for any choice.

 

[Dragonlady]

Or taken away for adoption. If you take the incentive away of having children on government programs, that will greatly reduce the amount of people having kids while on Medicaid.

Who's going to adopt half of the children born in the US? You already have hundreds of thousands of kids growing up in foster care because there aren't enough families who want to adopt them.

Where are you going to find enough middle class families to take all these kids in year after year?

Many aren't desirable because they're disabled. A good portion those is the result of fetal-alcohol syndrome. At the end of the day, I'm not ignorant enough to believe humans are somehow superior, simply because the bible or ego says so. No other species is as fucked as we are.

The kids in foster care are not put up for adoption. Dragonliar is presenting a false premise (aka "LIE"). Kids are not in the foster system because there is nobody who will adopt them. They are in the foster system because they were put there, and the state won't allow anybody to adopt them.

That's not completely. I managed a DCFS website. Surely foster care and adoption are two different things. Some foster kids transition to adoption, and in at least some aspect, it's managed by at least some DCFS offices. Matter of fact, my sister in law adopted a girl, which began as foster care.

I also read where kids are in foster care because their parents can't take care of them. In many cases it's because they won't. They abuse them instead.

That's my point. Kids aren't in foster care while waiting for adoption because there aren't people who want to adopt them (which is what dragonliar said). There are people who are available to adopt them, as soon as the state will allow. Kids are in foster care because they've been removed from their parents. The reasons are myriad.

That is NOT what I said at all. I said there are hundreds of thousands of kids in the foster care system who can't find permanent homes. That doesn't mean all foster children are available for adoption.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

 

[danielpalos]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour; everybody knows, Capitalism cannot be trusted with something as important as the general Welfare and the common Defense.

 

[danielpalos]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

Just lousy social management. Unemployment compensation as an option, would reward people for being "ready reserve Labor".

 

[rightwinger]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

No, the market controls what you earn. 30 million people receive government assistance. There are not 30 million"better jobs" out there to be filled. Not everyone has the mental or physical capabilities to do more than low skilled labor
There was a time when low skilled jobs still paid enough for the workers to support themselves......they no longer do

That is why the taxpayer has to make up the difference