Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[TheDude]

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 .

I guess you missed the part they're having babies they can't afford, and it's on the tax-payers dime. This would imply a high majority of these parents represent the lessor end of the gene pool, which dictates they're producing more of the lessor end of the gene pool, which "PROGRESSIVELY" makes things work.

Sorry Timmy, but stick your socialist positions where the sun doesn't shine. You invite and welcome weakness for dumbing the public down to mere vegetables. I suggest you watch the movie Idiocracy. It's a documentary.

 

[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

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

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.

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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 .

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children when they become adults. Upper middle-class people usually end up with upper middle-class children when they become adults. Wealthy people usually end up with wealthy children when they become adults. Nothing different about the poor.

So what our social system does is reward the poor to procreate more poor people, and then the libs sit back and can't figure out why we can't solve poverty.

You sound quite a bit like Margaret Sanger.

You mean the lib hero Margaret Sanger?????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Too bad that the op like many conservatives are too stupid to realize that many people work and receive Medicaid.
So his false and ignorant narrative that assumes working people don't avail themselves to Medicaid is simply more conservative b.s.

Whether you work or not, if you are on Medicaid, you are poor, and poor people should not be having children we taxpayers are forced to support.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Discouraging the poor, the uneducated, the weak, the 'flawed' from having children is a form of eugenics.

And what is encouraging them to have babies they can't afford but theft of the taxpayer?

You want a baby, fine with me. You want ten babies, fine with me, just as long as you can support them and not me. But by me not wanting to support YOUR babies is not eugenics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Be responsible, you idiot. Birth control is everywhere at no charge, USE IT!!!

Good grief do you ever think before you post? If you're on Medicaid don't get PG you're in no financial shape to be raising kids. Trust me it takes a ton of money.

Typical conservatives. You have all kinds of opinions but no SOLUTIONS!

Their solution is to let them die or force the father to work 3 jobs.

Conservatives are fucking evil

I'm not a conservative, used to be a demorat till that party went batshit crazy anti white, anti american. Anyway, why don't the people that are all for babies being brought into the world by parents who can't afford them, start up their own fund for taking care of these babies? obama and the clintons could easily come up with the first billion or two. Now that's compassion. Will they do it? Hell no.

When Democrats talk about taking care of people, they mean taking care of them with other people's money, not their own.

I have no problem paying taxes to help support my fellow American's health, especially for the kids....I was raised around a fellow that said it was best, his name was Jesus Christ..

Jesus Christ taught us to help those who could not help themselves--not those who could help themselves...... especially to other people's money.

 

[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

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

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.

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

It's easily possible unless you can prove that the revenue from other sources was insufficient to cover PP's out of pocket costs for abortions.

 

[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?

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.

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

It's called accounting. Funds from one source may be used for certain activities. funds from other sources may be used for other activities.Funds from the government can't be used for abortion. It's called the Hyde amendment.

 

[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

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

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.

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

It's called accounting. Funds from one source may be used for certain activities. funds from other sources may be used for other activities.Funds from the government can't be used for abortion. It's called the Hyde amendment.

It's called ridiculous.

It reminds me of years ago when people were pushing the lottery in our state. There were pro's and con's to the idea. They finally convinced people that the lottery was a good idea since 10% went to fund Ohio schools.

So 10% did go to fund the schools, and then the state pulled out their funding for the schools. So technically, did the lottery fund our schools? Yes they did, but the schools were no better or worse than before.

Planned Parenthood gets money from various sources. It's impossible to separate government money from other money because it all goes to one place. Oh, sure they can put whatever they want on paper, but once government stops funding for PP, You will see a reduction in abortions they perform.

 

[Moonglow]

Typical conservatives. You have all kinds of opinions but no SOLUTIONS!

Their solution is to let them die or force the father to work 3 jobs.

Conservatives are fucking evil

I'm not a conservative, used to be a demorat till that party went batshit crazy anti white, anti american. Anyway, why don't the people that are all for babies being brought into the world by parents who can't afford them, start up their own fund for taking care of these babies? obama and the clintons could easily come up with the first billion or two. Now that's compassion. Will they do it? Hell no.

When Democrats talk about taking care of people, they mean taking care of them with other people's money, not their own.

I have no problem paying taxes to help support my fellow American's health, especially for the kids....I was raised around a fellow that said it was best, his name was Jesus Christ..

Jesus Christ taught us to help those who could not help themselves--not those who could help themselves...... especially to other people's money.

I don't know of too many kids that can take care of themselves..

 

[Moonglow]

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

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.

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

It's called accounting. Funds from one source may be used for certain activities. funds from other sources may be used for other activities.Funds from the government can't be used for abortion. It's called the Hyde amendment.

It's called ridiculous.

It reminds me of years ago when people were pushing the lottery in our state. There were pro's and con's to the idea. They finally convinced people that the lottery was a good idea since 10% went to fund Ohio schools.

So 10% did go to fund the schools, and then the state pulled out their funding for the schools. So technically, did the lottery fund our schools? Yes they did, but the schools were no better or worse than before.

Planned Parenthood gets money from various sources. It's impossible to separate government money from other money because it all goes to one place. Oh, sure they can put whatever they want on paper, but once government stops funding for PP, You will see a reduction in abortions they perform.

When Texas shut down Planned Parenthood, there was an increase in teenage pregnancy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Their solution is to let them die or force the father to work 3 jobs.

Conservatives are fucking evil

I'm not a conservative, used to be a demorat till that party went batshit crazy anti white, anti american. Anyway, why don't the people that are all for babies being brought into the world by parents who can't afford them, start up their own fund for taking care of these babies? obama and the clintons could easily come up with the first billion or two. Now that's compassion. Will they do it? Hell no.

When Democrats talk about taking care of people, they mean taking care of them with other people's money, not their own.

I have no problem paying taxes to help support my fellow American's health, especially for the kids....I was raised around a fellow that said it was best, his name was Jesus Christ..

Jesus Christ taught us to help those who could not help themselves--not those who could help themselves...... especially to other people's money.

I don't know of too many kids that can take care of themselves..

We're not talking about the kids, we are talking about the parents. If you really want to help the kids in the future, then support taking kids away from parents that can't afford to have or raise them. That will cut down unwanted pregnancies by at least 50%.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm not a conservative, used to be a demorat till that party went batshit crazy anti white, anti american. Anyway, why don't the people that are all for babies being brought into the world by parents who can't afford them, start up their own fund for taking care of these babies? obama and the clintons could easily come up with the first billion or two. Now that's compassion. Will they do it? Hell no.

When Democrats talk about taking care of people, they mean taking care of them with other people's money, not their own.

I have no problem paying taxes to help support my fellow American's health, especially for the kids....I was raised around a fellow that said it was best, his name was Jesus Christ..

Jesus Christ taught us to help those who could not help themselves--not those who could help themselves...... especially to other people's money.

I don't know of too many kids that can take care of themselves..

We're not talking about the kids, we are talking about the parents. If you really want to help the kids in the future, then support taking kids away from parents that can't afford to have or raise them. That will cut down unwanted pregnancies by at least 50%.

I'm not an ass when it comes to judging folks because they don't live a standard you require...

 

[Borillar]

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

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.

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

It's called accounting. Funds from one source may be used for certain activities. funds from other sources may be used for other activities.Funds from the government can't be used for abortion. It's called the Hyde amendment.

It's called ridiculous.

It reminds me of years ago when people were pushing the lottery in our state. There were pro's and con's to the idea. They finally convinced people that the lottery was a good idea since 10% went to fund Ohio schools.

So 10% did go to fund the schools, and then the state pulled out their funding for the schools. So technically, did the lottery fund our schools? Yes they did, but the schools were no better or worse than before.

Planned Parenthood gets money from various sources. It's impossible to separate government money from other money because it all goes to one place. Oh, sure they can put whatever they want on paper, but once government stops funding for PP, You will see a reduction in abortions they perform.

Sure, because they'll have to use money they get from other sources to perform the functions they used to do with government funding.

 

[Moonglow]

The day them rich folks stop getting the best of the deals from the govt. will be the day I concur that all folks should pull their own weight..

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not a conservative, used to be a demorat till that party went batshit crazy anti white, anti american. Anyway, why don't the people that are all for babies being brought into the world by parents who can't afford them, start up their own fund for taking care of these babies? obama and the clintons could easily come up with the first billion or two. Now that's compassion. Will they do it? Hell no.

When Democrats talk about taking care of people, they mean taking care of them with other people's money, not their own.

I have no problem paying taxes to help support my fellow American's health, especially for the kids....I was raised around a fellow that said it was best, his name was Jesus Christ..

Jesus Christ taught us to help those who could not help themselves--not those who could help themselves...... especially to other people's money.

I don't know of too many kids that can take care of themselves..

We're not talking about the kids, we are talking about the parents. If you really want to help the kids in the future, then support taking kids away from parents that can't afford to have or raise them. That will cut down unwanted pregnancies by at least 50%.

Can you please get the mainstream of the GOP to run on taking children away from low income Americans?

 

[Moonglow]

When Democrats talk about taking care of people, they mean taking care of them with other people's money, not their own.

I have no problem paying taxes to help support my fellow American's health, especially for the kids....I was raised around a fellow that said it was best, his name was Jesus Christ..

Jesus Christ taught us to help those who could not help themselves--not those who could help themselves...... especially to other people's money.

I don't know of too many kids that can take care of themselves..

We're not talking about the kids, we are talking about the parents. If you really want to help the kids in the future, then support taking kids away from parents that can't afford to have or raise them. That will cut down unwanted pregnancies by at least 50%.

Can you please get the mainstream of the GOP to run on taking children away from low income Americans?

Smaller govt....They just can't get enough of it...

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

 

[Borillar]

I have no problem paying taxes to help support my fellow American's health, especially for the kids....I was raised around a fellow that said it was best, his name was Jesus Christ..

Jesus Christ taught us to help those who could not help themselves--not those who could help themselves...... especially to other people's money.

I don't know of too many kids that can take care of themselves..

We're not talking about the kids, we are talking about the parents. If you really want to help the kids in the future, then support taking kids away from parents that can't afford to have or raise them. That will cut down unwanted pregnancies by at least 50%.

Can you please get the mainstream of the GOP to run on taking children away from low income Americans?

Smaller govt....They just can't get enough of it...

Yep, small enough to fit inside a woman's uterus. Small enough to fit inside your family.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

We probably won't and they would have to remain in an orphanage. But it will at least stop poor people from having kids to get social benefits.