Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Obviously my point went right over your head as always.

The point was that abortion and birth control (which is cheap) were a mandate by Commie Care--life sustaining medications were not. It had nothing to do with the wellness of our citizens, it had to do with vote buying.

In fact the entire plot had nothing to do with bettering the country, it had to do with creating and forcing people into government dependency. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

In other words Commie Care was entirely political--not practical.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So what to do ? Simple question.

Simple answer: if you apply for any kind of public assistance, you don't get a dime until you are fixed first. Problem solved.

Yes, because being in need for a short period of time should cost you your ability to ever procreate.

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

You can't reverse sterilization.

In most cases you can reverse vasectomies. In most cases you can untie tubes.

Forget the fact that you're wrong.

Why ITF would you suggest someone should have to suffer such a thing.

You are truly dopey.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

No, just have their children removed from the home if they can't support them; no different than if the parents were abusive towards the children, hooked on drugs, sent to prison.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Forget the fact that you're wrong.

Why ITF would you suggest someone should have to suffer such a thing.

To stop them from having children we taxpayers have to pay for, that's why.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Except, apparently where it's not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, you may not be high moron, but I have to take drug tests for work along with my coworkers. A few got busted for smoking pot while on vacation. We were all warned that pot stays in your system for weeks. It doesn't matter if you're high or not. If a driver gets busted with pot in their system, their medical card is suspended by the government and they can't work.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

No, just have their children removed from the home if they can't support them; no different than if the parents were abusive towards the children, hooked on drugs, sent to prison.

You would need a law for that, dope.

 

[Dragonlady]

So you want someone else to work 3 jobs and support your children because you "won't," or can't?

I don't want anyone's children to die, but I want you to put forth, as you expect me to put forth, the effort to contribute to supporting your children's needs.

So what to do ? Simple question.

Simple answer: if you apply for any kind of public assistance, you don't get a dime until you are fixed first. Problem solved.

Yes, because being in need for a short period of time should cost you your ability to ever procreate.

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

You can't reverse sterilization.

Yes you can. Tubal ligation is now done with a ring, which can be removed. When I had it done, the tubes were cauterized, and even then I had a successful reversal.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Forget the fact that you're wrong.

Why ITF would you suggest someone should have to suffer such a thing.

To stop them from having children we taxpayers have to pay for, that's why.

I'm sorry.
You're straight up retarded.

 

[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

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.

Didn't I already? The OP: 50% of babies born in the US were born on Medicaid.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So what to do ? Simple question.

Simple answer: if you apply for any kind of public assistance, you don't get a dime until you are fixed first. Problem solved.

Yes, because being in need for a short period of time should cost you your ability to ever procreate.

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

You can't reverse sterilization.

Yes you can. Tubal ligation is now done with a ring, which can be removed. When I had it done, the tubes were cauterized, and even then I had a successful reversal.

Why do you support his nonsense?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

No, just have their children removed from the home if they can't support them; no different than if the parents were abusive towards the children, hooked on drugs, sent to prison.

You would need a law for that, dope.

Of course we would dope. WTF did you think I was talking about?

 

[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.

No, you may not be high moron, but I have to take drug tests for work along with my coworkers. A few got busted for smoking pot while on vacation. We were all warned that pot stays in your system for weeks. It doesn't matter if you're high or not. If a driver gets busted with pot in their system, their medical card is suspended by the government and they can't work.

No shit!

Now what in the Fuck does that have to do with the question I asked the other poster?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Didn't I already? The OP: 50% of babies born in the US were born on Medicaid.

You didn't, of course.
You in no way showed that those who have children with Medicaid benefits also use every other assistance program as well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Not at all, the state would pay. It would be much, much cheaper than paying the poor to have babies and fund them until adults. It would eliminate them having multiple children on the taxpayer dime.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

No, just have their children removed from the home if they can't support them; no different than if the parents were abusive towards the children, hooked on drugs, sent to prison.

You would need a law for that, dope.

Of course we would dope. WTF did you think I was talking about?

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?

No, just have their children removed from the home if they can't support them; no different than if the parents were abusive towards the children, hooked on drugs, sent to prison.

Of course we would dope. WTF did you think I was talking about?

Hard to say.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Not at all, the state would pay. It would be much, much cheaper than paying the poor to have babies and fund them until adults. It would eliminate them having multiple children on the taxpayer dime.

You have this sterilization process all figured out. What have you been reading?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

when you babbled on about rubbers on bananas.

Only to point out liberal schools are still liberal schools. Next!

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.

Only after they retire, and these are plans they paid into their entire life. Now if you're talking about disability, people of all races are on it. If you decide to see a shrink, make sure you tell him about this obsession of race you have.

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.

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion

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

Sigh.......I do hope you get help soon before you go completely nuts and start killing people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Didn't I already? The OP: 50% of babies born in the US were born on Medicaid.

You didn't, of course.
You in no way showed that those who have children with Medicaid benefits also use every other assistance program as well.

Over 100 Million Now Receiving Federal Welfare

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

How many of those are illegals Medicade payed the bills for?