Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[eflatminor]

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

Institutionalized theft and indentured servitude are alive and well. The future will hopefully look back at us as a highly immoral people.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Because that is how insurance remains cost effective. If you sell it as ala carte you will have to raise rates

Do you think women should have to pay more for their insurance because they can become pregnant?

Sure, as you said, that's the way insurance works.

That's besides the fact it has little to do with abortions or birth control. It has to do with vote buying which is what Commie Care was and is.

The medication I need to survive is about $250.00 a month. If I don't have my medication, I die. Now whats more important, a woman getting free this and free that so she can screw around, or people that need life sustaining medication? Well...... people who need life sustaining medication are a much smaller voting block than one half of our society. That's why there is no government mandate for insurance to provide that medication, but there is for birth control and abortions.

All medications that have been approved by the government, and recommended by the AMA, and are not more expensive versions of something else that works, and is not experimental, are covered by insurance. I'm not buying it, Ray. Don't forget that I spent 50 years in the health insurance business, and my wife was a pharmacist, and my daughter is a nurse.

What does this have to do with the AMA or approval?

There is no mandate in Commie Care or any other law that states an insurance company has to provide life sustaining medication.

In my 50 year career in health insurance, in which I worked, or consulted with 12 companies, not one has excluded a life sustaining medication that was approved by the FDA, the AMA, was not experimental, and was not available in a cheaper form under another name. I'm not buying it.

You never heard of prescription coverage? What kind of agent were you anyhow? Prescription coverage is an option, not a mandate, especially under Obama Care.

If you choose not to exercise an option to buy life sustaining drug coverage that the government requires insurance companies to offer to sell you, then it is on you, not on the government. I have diabetics, and I have a need Byetta, which costs me $750 per month when I hit the donut hole in Medicare. Sounds like you demand that the insurance company must offer the drug to you, and somebody else should pay for it. I have no sympathy, Ray. You are a chronic whiner, and there is no pleasing you until you get free insurance to cover your particular illness. Tough luck, kid.

 

[JoeB131]

When did I bring up schools in this topic? Maybe be a little more specific.

when you babbled on about rubbers on bananas.

Just because Republicans make the policies doesn't mean that Democrats in those red states won't continue to be irresponsible. That's besides the fact that some of those red states are not really red at all. They consider a red state as one that voted Republican the last Presidential election. That's about 2/3 of our country.

Um, look at the map. The ones that have the higher teen pregnancy rates voted Red in the last FIVE elections.

Another obsession of yours. How do you fix poverty, especially when you belong to a party that promoted single-parent homes which are directly related to poverty? How do you fix poverty when you incentivize poor people making more poor people?

Again, guy, single parent families (most kids born outside marriage actualy have fathers in their lives) aren't the problem. Wealth inequality and lack of good jobs are.

Most people on "Welfare" are only on it for a few years. Compared to White People Welfare like Social Security and Medicare, which people are on for a lot longer.

Since this supposed war on poverty began, we spent trillions and trillions of dollars on it doing it your way, and what have we got to show for it? A very minute drop in poverty after 50 years. Your way is a failure.

Except we really didn't spend all that much. I would love is we spent on the War on Poverty like we spend on the war on terror. But we spend less than 1% of our GDP on poverty relief programs.

Even if that were true (which it's not) that's no excuse for having children you can't afford. It's no excuse for the public to support the things you want in life.

Again, coming from the guy who can't get health insurance because his boss considers him as replaceable a pet hamster.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 17776388

Nothing that can't be reversed once you're off social programs.

So you would force fix somebody so they would not die in the streets. Then you pay welfare benefits until they find a job. Then you send your birth police in to determine if that person qualified for a vasectomy reversal.

He gets the reversal. I expect the state is not paying for it under your sterilization of the poor program.

He works for six months and we have another whammy like the Great Bush Recession. He finds himself unemployed again. He applies for aid. Nobody is pregnant. Do you sterilize him again.

His partner is pregnant. But they have no income for no fault of their own.

Do you deny the child a proper medically supervised birth payment under Medicaid or not.

The Birth Police are going to very busy.

 

[JoeB131]

Institutionalized theft and indentured servitude are alive and well. The future will hopefully look back at us as a highly immoral people.

maybe we need to put up a safe space for Libertarians. No taxes, and no government.

It'll be fun to watch ou guys descend into barbarism.

 

[CowboyTed]

If you're on Medicaid you don't need to be having babies. Get situated in life then start a family

And if you get pregnent because lack of education or access to birth control. Guess who has been stopping all that...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you're on Medicaid you don't need to be having babies. Get situated in life then start a family

And if you get pregnent because lack of education or access to birth control. Guess who has been stopping all that...

Birth control is readily available for anyone wanting it in the United States

 

[eflatminor]

Institutionalized theft and indentured servitude are alive and well. The future will hopefully look back at us as a highly immoral people.

maybe we need to put up a safe space for Libertarians. No taxes, and no government.

It'll be fun to watch ou guys descend into barbarism.

Already starting to move the goalposts I see.

I NEVER said "no government". I support the original idea of our federal government. That's hardly anarchy.

I stand against institutionalized theft from some citizens, handed out to others. The founders agreed that an income tax for purposes of redistribution is fundamentally immoral.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

No.
The debate is why you applaud a plan that removes so many from that benefit.
Nearly 2/3 of seniors in nursing care depend on Medicaid as well.


Let's put this in perspective. Do you believe that contraception should be free and readily available?

No I don't because that wouldn't solve the problem. Poor people are not having children they can't afford because of BC, they are having children because they will not be financially responsible for them. Lots of folks would love to have larger families, but only the poor on social programs can fulfill that desire because they are not supporting them. Working people who are not on any government program have to limit the size of their family, and I think that's totally unfair, because the working people have to support their own kids, and other people's kids as well. It's just plain wrong.

Condoms cost anywhere from 37 cents each to $1.55 each depending on how fancy you want to get:

Condoms | Walgreens

Poor people are not having children they can't afford because of BC, they are having children because they will not be financially responsible for them

^WITF does this mean?

It means taxpayers will pay for the child's medical care, taxpayers will pay for the child's food, taxpayers will pay for the child's housing, taxpayers will pay for the utilities in the apartment or house. Middle-class working people have to worry about those things if they decide to have a baby; they have to pay for everything themselves.

No doubt you will post supporting evidence to corroborate such a claim.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Actually, why should insurance cover child care at all? It's totally elective . Might as well pay for nose jobs .

Why should other insured pay for it ? The only people who should have kids are those who can pay for it out of pocket .

Insurance has contracts. You BUY a contract that covers child birth. It will probably cost you more than buying insurance that doesn't cover child birth, but there is nothing wrong with insurance that wishes to offer such plans.

The ACA mandates that it's covered, fool.

Yes it does, even for people in their 50's or 60's.

As it should. Just as they still pay in to public schools even when their kids are grown just as the previous generation before them did.

So if you don't own a car and use public transportation, would you buy car insurance? Would you buy house insurance if you rent an apartment? If not, why should people who will never need abortions or birth control have to pay for such coverage?

More childish nonsense.
My point was clear. If you missed it, it's your problem. Read it again and report back.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why is it necessary for every single worker in the US to pass a drug test? That's insane, unless you're operating heavy equipment or driving. What does it matter if your waiter smoked a joint with his friends last night?

Because that waiter is representing ME, the owner of that restaurant. I don't want someone representing me who was stoned the night before. If that's MY requirement for MY business and you want to work for me, those are the conditions. If you can live with that requirement, go down to my competitor's restaurant.

How does the person who was stoned the previous night represent you differently than the person who had a few cocktails the previous night?

Alcohol stays in your system at tops 10 hours. Pot stays in your system for over three weeks.

You aren't high for three weeks, moron.

It amazes me how idiots that have absolutely zero experience with something are suddenly experts on the subject.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's only a ridiculous notion to someone lazy and entitled like yourself. There were plenty of times in the past I worked more than one job and I would do it again if ever needed. There used to be an understanding in this country that you earned your own keep. Then LBJ came along with his welfare state and the result is people like you who somehow feel working hard is beneath you.

Used to be more "extra jobs" available
Used to be you could get a low skilled job that still paid the bills
Used to be you could get a union job and be set for life
Used to be minimum wage would pay for some life essentials

That is before Republicans sold out to corporate America

Yeah, sure, tard, automation and technological advances would have never happened if it weren't for evil Republicans colluding with corporate America. I'm sure the buggy makers were pretty upset when Henry Ford starting cranking out automobiles. Good thing Bernie Sanders wasn't around then to halt the production of Fords and rein in that greedy corporatist making them.

"Used to be" sounds like a wonderful Utopia, but this is now. Learn a new skill. Make yourself needed and if all else fails, well, the world needs ditch diggers too. Who's responsibility is it to make sure you have the skills to get a job? Oh, yeah, yours.

More excuses and finger pointing at everyone else but yourself.

Same thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference

Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.

Good question

We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate

Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society

It's a good question for a ten year old maybe.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Insurance has contracts. You BUY a contract that covers child birth. It will probably cost you more than buying insurance that doesn't cover child birth, but there is nothing wrong with insurance that wishes to offer such plans.

The ACA mandates that it's covered, fool.

Yes it does, even for people in their 50's or 60's.

As it should. Just as they still pay in to public schools even when their kids are grown just as the previous generation before them did.

So if you don't own a car and use public transportation, would you buy car insurance? Would you buy house insurance if you rent an apartment? If not, why should people who will never need abortions or birth control have to pay for such coverage?

Because that is how insurance remains cost effective. If you sell it as ala carte you will have to raise rates

Do you think women should have to pay more for their insurance because they can become pregnant?

A concept well above his ability to understand.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ray From Cleveland, post That is your solution?

The working poor could not afford an insurance plan out of employer group plans prior to the ACA.

A private plan covering pregnancy and childbirth was probably a few thousand a month.

What are people in poverty supposed to do? Sell Drugs to make the payments.

That is no solution. You are a fraud.

Claiming you have posted solutions.

Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?

Well, duh! That's not a solution. It's wishful thinking and in no way addresses the problem.

I think I've addressed the problem quite well. Since poor people are generally irresponsible, we can't expect them to take precautions when having sex which leads to pregnancy. So if we made a regulation that states you can't get one dime from the government until you are fixed first, that would greatly reduce the amount of poor children being born that the taxpayers no longer have to support.

No, you've addressed nothing. You've simply stated what you think it ought to be. That's wishful thinking.

Unfortunately you are correct, nobody would have the guts to address this problem, and that in itself is the problem. My solution would work however.

Except you didn't offer a solution. You simply stated how you wish people behaved.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Same thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference

Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.

Good question

We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate

Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society

And how did this great society do? Well......the poorest among us are now producing 50% of the babies, that's how good it worked.

Fucking is free.......one of the last pleasures they have left

Fucking may be free, but supporting children are not, and it shouldn't be the productive in our society providing that support. It only leads to more irresponsibility.

Maybe you should start a business that provides intimacy proctors that are responsible for birth control and pull out reminders.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.

Good question

We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate

Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society

And how did this great society do? Well......the poorest among us are now producing 50% of the babies, that's how good it worked.

Fucking is free.......one of the last pleasures they have left

Fucking may be free, but supporting children are not, and it shouldn't be the productive in our society providing that support. It only leads to more irresponsibility.

Outlaw sex unless you have at least a $20,000 bond.

I'm surprised that this is not one our your solutions, Ray. it makes as much sense as bring back orphanages..

At least a pre-approval from a procreation lender.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Good question

We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate

Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society

And how did this great society do? Well......the poorest among us are now producing 50% of the babies, that's how good it worked.

Fucking is free.......one of the last pleasures they have left

Fucking may be free, but supporting children are not, and it shouldn't be the productive in our society providing that support. It only leads to more irresponsibility.

Outlaw sex unless you have at least a $20,000 bond.

I'm surprised that this is not one our your solutions, Ray. it makes as much sense as bring back orphanages..

He goes beyond orphanages and wants to bring back poor farms
Round up the children of the poor and send them to work farms until their parents can scratch up the money to buy their freedom

American caste.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So among those of you who think we should let poor kids die for lack of healthcare, to I guess teach their parents a lesson of some sort,

shouldn't we also deny those kids an education?

So how would you stop it? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal so you want it to go on forever.

It has nothing to do with teaching parents a lesson. It has to do with stopping the cancer that we currently have.

If you can't afford to pay your rent, you get evicted from your apartment.
If you can't afford to make mortgage and insurance payments on your home, the bank forecloses on you.
If you can't afford your car payments, the repo man comes along and tows the car out of your driveway.

That's the way it's supposed to work when you take on a responsibility.

So you DO support letting the kids die to teach the parents a lesson.

No, but I do support government taking the kids out of the household if the parents can't support them, just like they do when the parents are hooked on dope, or the father is abusive to the rest of the family, or the parents end up in prison.

Why would you support the govt paying for an orphanage rather than helping the family as a whole?
What kind of retarded thinking is that?

Are you suggesting that poverty be criminalized?

How are we helping a family by rewarding their irresponsible behavior? It only encourages them to be even more irresponsible. That's how we got to this point

No, it encourages them to be a family.

How do you propose removing children from their parents? Will you criminalize birth for those who cannot self pay?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why do you continue to blame poor people for being poor? Why don't you try looking at the causes of poverty?

In the 1950's, you had a 20% chance of working yourself up from poverty to middle class. Today's you have a 2% chance. Why do you continue to blame those who don't succeed when the system has been totallly stacked against them?

While poverty and dependency has increased, more and more of the country's wealth and assets are being transferred to the top 5%, less and less money is going into public education in poor districts. It's like tossing the poor overboard with rocks tied to their feet and then criticizing them for not being able to swim to shore.

Poverty is a very simple problem with very simple solutions. Poverty is the state of not having enough money to live on if any money at all. The solution to poverty is money. To obtain money, you need to get a job.

There, poverty is now solved. But wait! There is more........

Once you have a job, save the money you make. Get an apartment with others in your situation or answer some ads of people looking for roommates to share expenses with. DO NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN until you have a secure job and career. If you cannot get a good job or secure a career, don't have any children. Avoid going into debt and buying things you cannot reasonably afford. Instead of taking your money to buy the newest I-phone, put that money in your savings account.

If your savings account starts to accumulate into the thousands or tens of thousands, it's time to start thinking about investments. You have an array of investments to choose from. You can use your money to start your own business like lawn care. You can use that money for a trade school. You can invest that money in the stock market, commodities market, real estate, treasury bonds.....

There. Now tell me why anybody cannot do what I just wrote.

That is a childish view of the world.

How so? Tell me where I"m wrong.

Because unintended pregnancies have and will always happen. It's not simply a matter of responsibility. Poor people are poor for a variety of reasons over varying periods.

You blanket generalizations of people and wishful thinking for their behavior is in no way either accurate or a solution of any kind.

How do you imagine that you would bring such a variety of people from varied backgrounds and circumstances to behave the way you wish?

Your whole premise is superficial and childish.

If your dog craps on your living room carpet, do you give him a treat? If your child goes into the kitchen cabinet, pulls out a glass dish and busts it on the floor, do you give him a cookie?

50% of babies being born to poor people are not unintended pregnancies, those are deliberate acts. They wanted to have babies or otherwise didn't care if they got knocked up. When you reward people for being irresponsible, you create more irresponsible people. It's that simple to understand unless you're a liberal.

If your dog craps on your living room carpet, do you give him a treat?

Except we aren't talking about dogs ,dope.

Your logic is simplistic and childish.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Cradle to grave government dependence was Obamas big sell and anybody that made objections was racist.
Trumps working to toss that and all the loathing of Trump here has a lot to do with that

Exactly. Trump's own administration proudly admitted they created 20 million more new government dependents on Commie Care. Add to that the 20 million more new government dependents he created on food stamps. Those two programs alone created over 40 million more new government dependents. It was no accident by any stretch of the imagination.

Please post evidence that shows these people are govt dependents rather than short term users.

Once people are on Commie Care, they are not getting off unless it gets so expensive they can no longer afford it. Food Stamps are decreasing because of Republicans cutting funds and Republican governors enforcing requirements for people with no dependents. Other than that, people would stay on those programs for as long as we let them.

Bullshit!

Post up the data from the actual programs if you have the balls.

Food stamp rolls plummet in states that restore work requirements

Bullshit!

Post up the data from the actual programs if you have the balls.