Dem congresswoman says unfair to make medicaid users work since they're all addicts!!

[Meathead]

Society can not go back. It is just is not possible.

Ever hear of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe or South Africa?

 

[kyzr]

The problem would be determining who is able bodied or is fit to work. A person who addicted to drugs may seem fit to work but if they are really addicted, they will not be able to keep a job.

We need mandatory drug testing for welfare/Medicaid benefits. Fail a drug test, lose all benefits.

 

[kyzr]

There was a time when most Americans felt ashamed to be on the public dole and would do almost anything to avoid that stigma. People unable/unwilling to properly house, cloth, feed their children would lose them to the state or they would be placed with other relatives until the parents were willing and capable of doing that. But because it was so socially unacceptable to be in that situation, most adults found ways to support themselves and their families. Being poor was no shame. Being a freeloader was.

Now parents who are alcoholic or druggies or in whatever bad situation and cannot or will not take care of their children are put on welfare and the kids are left in that very destructive environment. Many won't ever escape it leading to generations of damaged, irresponsible, 'useless' people. (Useless meaning a drag on society instead of being a contributor to it.)
A return to basic human values that most Americans once shared would do wonders to right a ship that is very wrong in that regard.

Anyone who fails a drug test or are alcoholics should not get any charity, such as food stamps, welfare, or Medicare.
If they need tough love, that's what they should get.

 

[Foxfyre]

Anyone who fails a drug test or are alcoholics should not get any charity, such as food stamps, welfare, or Medicare.
If they need tough love, that's what they should get.

But children should not be left with such people. There needs to be tough love policies and laws on the books.

 

[Foxfyre]

Society can not go back. It is just is not possible.

I don't believe that. I think President Trump in his first term and now in his second term is showing that what the conventional wisdom says is impossible is usually not impossible at all. It often just takes wisdom, intelligence, courage and and will to make a difference to accomplish it.

I won't believe we are stuck with a screwed up, irresponsible woke government, major institutions--education, media, entertainment, scientific organizations, big business, etc.--in perpetuity.

It will likely take some trial and error. Mistakes will be made. There will be those lacking courage to stay the course that will just quit. But I have to believe with the right leadership, policy, vision, values we can do much much better.

 

[Flopper]

BS, read again. He made no such claim.

It is in title the Op created for the this thread

Why?

You will fund them because you don't have a choice. When a person under the influence of drugs drives down an interstate the wrong way and kills himself and seriously injuries or kills a dozen people and does millions of dollars in property damage, someone has to pay and it's not going to be the person that caused the accident. It will be the insurance companies who pass the cost on to their customers, government that passes the cost of repairs on to tax payers, families left destitute who have depend on welfare which ends up being paid by taxpayers, hospitals that don't collect enough in fees who pass costs along to insurance companies and patients... etc, etc.

 

[Flopper]

We need mandatory drug testing for welfare/Medicaid benefits. Fail a drug test, lose all benefits.

That might inspire him or her to cheat on a drug test but give up drugs, not if the person is really hooked.

There are also legal and practical reasons why we don't drug test for government benefits. First, being both 4th and 5th rights would be violated and second because it would be illegal.

Also research suggests that drug testing welfare recipients is not a cost-effective method for identifying substance abuse or encouraging treatment. Studies have shown that the prevalence of drug use among welfare recipients is similar to that of the general population, making random testing inefficient and expensive.

 

[80zephyr]

That might inspire him or her to cheat on a drug test but give up drugs, not if the person is really hooked.

There are also legal and practical reasons why we don't drug test for government benefits. First, being both 4th and 5th rights would be violated and second because it would be illegal.

Also research suggests that drug testing welfare recipients is not a cost-effective method for identifying substance abuse or encouraging treatment. Studies have shown that the prevalence of drug use among welfare recipients is similar to that of the general population, making random testing inefficient and expensive.

They do it for workers.

 

[kyzr]

But children should not be left with such people. There needs to be tough love policies and laws on the books.

That is what Foster Care is for.

 

[Flopper]

I don't believe that. I think President Trump in his first term and now in his second term is showing that what the conventional wisdom says is impossible is usually not impossible at all. It often just takes wisdom, intelligence, courage and and will to make a difference to accomplish it.

I won't believe we are stuck with a screwed up, irresponsible woke government, major institutions--education, media, entertainment, scientific organizations, big business, etc.--in perpetuity.

It will likely take some trial and error. Mistakes will be made. There will be those lacking courage to stay the course that will just quit. But I have to believe with the right leadership, policy, vision, values we can do much much better.

The course of America can be changed by a single president, but not through unilaterally changing the Constitution or through executive orders that directly contradict existing laws.

Nor can a single president change the social norms which have become ingrained in society. I don't see us ever going back to the day when healthcare was considered a privilege for those who could afford it, or when national isolationism was foreign policy, or destruction of the environment was considered progress, or when government had no roll in economic development or social justice.

I remember the day when families were expected to take care of their own and there existed loyalty between employer and employee, and families knew their neighbors. All good things but these are gone forever because the world has change and not change back.

 

[kyzr]

That might inspire him or her to cheat on a drug test but give up drugs, not if the person is really hooked.
There are also legal and practical reasons why we don't drug test for government benefits. First, being both 4th and 5th rights would be violated and second because it would be illegal.
Also research suggests that drug testing welfare recipients is not a cost-effective method for identifying substance abuse or encouraging treatment. Studies have shown that the prevalence of drug use among welfare recipients is similar to that of the general population, making random testing inefficient and expensive.

1. I call bullshit on the 4th amendment. Where I worked there were routine drug tests.

2. I call bullshit on the 5th amendment. See #1, and if you want taxpayer dollars stay clear of drugs.

3. Welfare should have a 2-year lifetime max, like we had in the 1990s, and some states still have.

Which States Have Welfare Time Limits?

There are many states that have adopted wide-ranging policies concerning how long an individual can obtain welfare benefits. Time limits range from 24 months to 60 months. Only a few states have no time limits. All states allow exceptions to time limits within their policies.

careertrend.com

 

[Flopper]

That is what Foster Care is for.

Foster care today is better than living on the streets but not by a lot. Many of these children have suffered some form of serious abuse or neglect. About 30% of children in foster care have severe emotional, behavioral, or developmental problems.

I have have know 3 adults who were in foster care most of their childhood and all 3 have serious problems today. There are fine foster homes where children are really cared for well. However, for many foster parents, it's just a business and the kids know it.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is what Foster Care is for.

When I served on a school board, our meetings, especially committee meetings, were often early mornings. And arriving at the school on a cold, winter morning, it breaks your heart to see the little children huddled and shivering near the cafeteria door waiting to be let in for breakfast. I was one of several instrumental in arranging for a safe room for the kids to gather so that didn't happen.

But when my kids were school age, no matter how rushed or sick or pressured I was, I would NEVER have sent them off to school without breakfast. What kind of parent does that? And should a parent who cannot or will not give a child breakfast be allowed to keep that child? Where do the kids eat on weekends? Or during the summer when the schools are closed for three months?

We did have our kids eat lunch at school because I was usually working and couldn't always get home for lunch. But we sent lunch money with them to pay for it. It would have been hugely embarrassing to think our kids got free lunches because we could not or would not provide for them.

So yes foster care is sometimes the answer. Better yet are good group home facilities that are competently staffed and provide excellent role models and reinforce positive values. These can become permanent homes for children when the parents never step up to their responsibilities.

But children should not be left with irresponsible or incapacitated parents or any other adults who cannot or will not provide at least the bare basic minimum of care and love that all children should receive.

 

[Foxfyre]

The course of America can be changed by a single president, but not through unilaterally changing the Constitution or through executive orders that directly contradict existing laws.

Nor can a single president change the social norms which have become ingrained in society. I don't see us ever going back to the day when healthcare was considered a privilege for those who could afford it, or when national isolationism was foreign policy, or destruction of the environment was considered progress, or when government had no roll in economic development or social justice.

I remember the day when families were expected to take care of their own and there existed loyalty between employer and employee, and families knew their neighbors. All good things but these are gone forever because the world has change and not change back.

I have lived a very long life now and I don't recall a time ever that healthcare was considered a privilege for those who could afford it. But healthcare was far more affordable for most people before the government got involved in it. Maybe it's okay with you if pharmaceutical companies charge Americans thousands of dollars for a drug that they charge a small fraction of that in other countries? It isn't okay with me. It isn't okay with our President.

And since I live in a community in which we all know our neighbors and look after each other and we come from a very large family that also loves and looks after each other, I simply do not accept your premise that we cannot have an America that is mostly like that again.

We can't do it by importing millions of people who don't want that. We can't do it with partisans who do not want the current Administration to succeed in anything. We can't do it with people with no vision or courage or willingness to right a broken ship.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foster care today is better than living on the streets but not by a lot. Many of these children have suffered some form of serious abuse or neglect. About 30% of children in foster care have severe emotional, behavioral, or developmental problems.

I have have know 3 adults who were in foster care most of their childhood and all 3 have serious problems today. There are fine foster homes where children are really cared for well. However, for many foster parents, it's just a business and the kids know it.

And yet children who grow up in loving, competent, caring group facilities almost all succeed very well in life. Foster care is almost always temporary so it does not provide the stability a good group home can provide. A good group home with positive role models can be a replacement for and closet thing to a stable family the kids will ever otherwise know.

It is a near certainty that children who are forced to grow up in homes with parents or other adults who are alcoholic, druggies, abusive, neglectful etc. will have serious problems as adults.

 

[Flopper]

1. I call bullshit on the 4th amendment. Where I worked there were routine drug tests.

2. I call bullshit on the 5th amendment. See #1, and if you want taxpayer dollars stay clear of drugs.

3. Welfare should have a 2-year lifetime max, like we had in the 1990s, and some states still have.

Which States Have Welfare Time Limits?

There are many states that have adopted wide-ranging policies concerning how long an individual can obtain welfare benefits. Time limits range from 24 months to 60 months. Only a few states have no time limits. All states allow exceptions to time limits within their policies.

careertrend.com

Legally there is big difference between drug testing at a place of employment and drug testing the public. In the work place, drug testing is typically a condition of employment and there are logical reasons whey drug testing is needed. It is difficult to show the need in getting government benefits.
Also random testing the public is considered unreasonable searches and seizures by the government (4th amendment).

 

[Flopper]

I have lived a very long life now and I don't recall a time ever that healthcare was considered a privilege for those who could afford it. But healthcare was far more affordable for most people before the government got involved in it. Maybe it's okay with you if pharmaceutical companies charge Americans thousands of dollars for a drug that they charge a small fraction of that in other countries? It isn't okay with me. It isn't okay with our President.

And since I live in a community in which we all know our neighbors and look after each other and we come from a very large family that also loves and looks after each other, I simply do not accept your premise that we cannot have an America that is mostly like that again.

We can't do it by importing millions of people who don't want that. We can't do it with partisans who do not want the current Administration to succeed in anything. We can't do it with people with no vision or courage or willingness to right a broken ship.

Can't say I'm happy to pay higher costs for drugs but I do understand why.

Most of the countries where drug prices are extremely low compared to the US are in Africa where all but the cheapest drugs are unfordable.

However, the general reason drug costs are high is the need to support research and development cost of those drugs. The fact that the US market is far less regulated than for example the European market makes it much easier to charge the higher prices in the US.
There are some advantages such as more new drug trials and new drugs come on the market faster, however I'm not such that is worth the extra cost

 

[Zincwarrior]

Mist Medicaid recipients work
.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can't say I'm happy to pay higher costs for drugs but I do understand why.

Most of the countries where drug prices are extremely low compared to the US are in Africa where all but the cheapest drugs are unfordable.

However, the general reason drug costs are high is the need to support research and development cost of those drugs. The fact that the US market is far less regulated than for example the European market makes it much easier to charge the higher prices in the US.
There are some advantages such as more new drug trials and new drugs come on the market faster, however I'm not such that is worth the extra cost

The UK, France and Germany are not exactly third world countries.

 

[Flopper]

I have lived a very long life now and I don't recall a time ever that healthcare was considered a privilege for those who could afford it. But healthcare was far more affordable for most people before the government got involved in it. Maybe it's okay with you if pharmaceutical companies charge Americans thousands of dollars for a drug that they charge a small fraction of that in other countries? It isn't okay with me. It isn't okay with our President.

And since I live in a community in which we all know our neighbors and look after each other and we come from a very large family that also loves and looks after each other, I simply do not accept your premise that we cannot have an America that is mostly like that again.

We can't do it by importing millions of people who don't want that. We can't do it with partisans who do not want the current Administration to succeed in anything. We can't do it with people with no vision or courage or willingness to right a broken ship.

Medical care in the past say in the 50's was dirt cheap compared to today and worth about what you paid for it. Diagnostics were x-rays and basic blood tests. Treatment for Heart disease in the 50's was typically developing a healthily life style, retire, take it easy, and wait to die. A diagnosis of of cancer was typically a death sentence.

No doubt government has played a role in the increasing cost, particular regulations on delivering healthcare, and regulations on development of devices and medications. However the biggest factors are cost of high tech treatments and cost of specialized personnel.

In 1950's 85% of American lived in houses and 70% owned those houses. Typically people live in those houses 20 to 25 years. Today only about 60% live in houses. 100 million live apartments. People who own houses live in them an average of 8 years. Those in apartments live there for about 3.6 years.

In most of America today neighborhoods have changed drastically. I remember knowing all of my neighbors next door, across the street and most of the people living down the block. Today I know those that live next door. In my last condo, I really didn't know anyone, they came and left so fast.

The bottom line is that the old neighborhoods are shrinking and they are unlikely to return in most cities in America because the world is changing as are it's people.