Mother of 9 sues doctors for making her sterile

[fieryred33143]

Date: 1/7/2010 11:23:44 AM
Author: Bia

Date: 1/7/2010 11:12:39 AM
Author: Bella_mezzo
I think the idea of requiring a temporary sterilation device to go on welfare is a really good idea (maybe 6 months without that requirement as some people really do need welfare to bridge a difficult gap/situation). I think then people would make more responsible choices....it really would be a choice to go on welfare and a choice to not have any more children.

Right now there are a lot of elements of the system that are completely out of control!

I don''t support doctors taking it upon themselves to sterilize people and I don''t support abortion, but I think the Norplant/IUD strategy is a really good one!

To everything: eek!

To highlighted: I really don''t believe it is that cut and dry.

Ditto.

And honestly, how long does everyone thinik this temporary sterlization program would work before the "I don''t want my hard earned tax dollars going towards birth control when they can get a job and medical insurance themselves" start?

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2010 11:42:40 AM
Author: fiery

Date: 1/7/2010 11:23:44 AM
Author: Bia

Date: 1/7/2010 11:12:39 AM
Author: Bella_mezzo
I think the idea of requiring a temporary sterilation device to go on welfare is a really good idea (maybe 6 months without that requirement as some people really do need welfare to bridge a difficult gap/situation). I think then people would make more responsible choices....it really would be a choice to go on welfare and a choice to not have any more children.

Right now there are a lot of elements of the system that are completely out of control!

I don't support doctors taking it upon themselves to sterilize people and I don't support abortion, but I think the Norplant/IUD strategy is a really good one!

To everything: eek!

To highlighted: I really don't believe it is that cut and dry.

Ditto.

And honestly, how long does everyone thinik this temporary sterlization program would work before the 'I don't want my hard earned tax dollars going towards birth control when they can get a job and medical insurance themselves' start?

It would start before even being implemented... "Why should they get it for free? My insurance just went up and I have to pay for my own." (I can hear it all now!)

And another curve ball- Who then pays for the medical expenses should one of these temporary procedures cause harm to the person, or worse, death? Do you sign a consent form saying that you are taking the chances by receiving government assistance?

It would never end... You have to cut off the amount of funding at some point, which is what NF has shown the gov't is already doing.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

My thoughts: Nine kids is WAY too many for most people to support, much less a single mom. Still who decides what the cap on the number of children is?

With the mom who was sterilized, even though I think it''s WRONG to keep pumping out children while on public assistance, she does have an excellent case for not having control over her body.

Think of it this way. If she does win the lawsuit, she may get enough money to go off of public assistance and us tax payers will no longer be supporting her!

lol

Nine kids, though. Eh. Even my two kids are a major handful for me!

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2010 12:03:08 PM
Author: MC
My thoughts: Nine kids is WAY too many for most people to support, much less a single mom. Still who decides what the cap on the number of children is?

With the mom who was sterilized, even though I think it''s WRONG to keep pumping out children while on public assistance, she does have an excellent case for not having control over her body.

Think of it this way. If she does win the lawsuit, she may get enough money to go off of public assistance and us tax payers will no longer be supporting her!

lol

Nine kids, though. Eh. Even my two kids are a major handful for me!

Me

IMO, ANY children conceived after being approved for assistance AND while still receiving assistance should not make your family eligible for an increase in benefits.

 

[cara]

Vesper, your family being subject to lawful taxation that supports policies you disagree with is a *far* lesser intrusion than being required to undergo medical procedures at the risk of your children starving or being homeless, if you happen to be in a time of need. Its highly manipulative, kind of like a pound of flesh requirement in a loan made to a desperate person. If the person is desperate enough, they will agree to whatever terms one might put in but that doesn''t make it right.

Also, in the page you link to it says:

"With the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the US government has changed the form and regulations for many of its social welfare programs. Most significantly, it replaces Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), an open-ended entitlement program, with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a limited system of assistance funded largely through federal block grants....Virginia''s TANF program is called VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment, Not Welfare)"

So basically, the old open-ended welfare program AFDC was replaced by a temporary assistance program TANF, and in Virginia the TANF program was specifically entitled as a jobs program and NOT WELFARE. If you are concerned about generations growing up on welfare, well the temporary nature of the new job assistance programs with lifetime limits should take care of that (for the average person.)

Yes, an extreme person might be able to game the new system like your woman that jumped states to continue to receive aid. Some states can have more lax rules, but most states impose tougher rules and require any person receiving aid to be working or training for work. Any system will have some fraud, and one of the drawbacks to our governmental organization is that sometimes people can game the system by switching states - this is not limited to welfare situations - and is just one of those tradeoffs made in having a less centralized federal government. The questions are, what is the extent of fraud? how does it compare to the benefits the system provides to other non-fraudulent recipients? how can the fraud be reduced? are the fraud-reduction systems efficient and cost-effective (or just add more bureaucratic red-tape with minimal benefit to the system)? It doesn''t sound like you are concerned with any of those questions or want ANY person to be receiving some kind of state aid, which makes me more skeptical of your proposal to tie aid to medical procedures. What evidence do we have that the birth rate is high for women now receiving temporary aid? Have we tried less intrusive programs (education, free birth control) and not found them to work? etc. Its a humiliating, dehumanizing situation to put someone in, and contrary to the goal of getting people to take responsibility for their own lives. You have to give people at least a teaspoonful of responsibility if you want them to step up.

Anywho, this is all a side show. Doctors should not perform medical procedures without proper consent on anyone. Whether the person is responsible or irresponsible. And in extreme cases, that is what the legal system is for, imperfect though it is.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/7/2010 12:07:26 PM
Author: meresal
Me

IMO, ANY children conceived after being approved for assistance AND while still receiving assistance should not make your family eligible for an increase in benefits.

I just checked Washington State DSHS website.

A family of five (that mom + her four kids) with NO income, assets, or rent (assuming that is paid for by taxpayers) gets $793 a month in food stamps. With her other five kids living with her, she gets $1,352 for the family of 10. I wonder if that is enough to feed them all? I guess she would go to the food bank?

Yeah, I agree with you, though, that if a person is on public assistance they shouldn''t be having babies.

But, once that can of worms is opened, what will happen next? A friend of mine wants four kids and her husband makes big bucks. Should the gov. tell her that her current 3 kids is enough? Personally, I cannot imagine having that many kids regardless of how much $ my husband brings in. . .but, still. . .

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2010 12:17:01 PM
Author: MC

Date: 1/7/2010 12:07:26 PM
Author: meresal
Me

IMO, ANY children conceived after being approved for assistance AND while still receiving assistance should not make your family eligible for an increase in benefits.

I just checked Washington State DSHS website.

A family of five (that mom + her four kids) with NO income, assets, or rent (assuming that is paid for by taxpayers) gets $793 a month in food stamps. With her other five kids living with her, she gets $1,352 for the family of 10. I wonder if that is enough to feed them all? I guess she would go to the food bank?

Yeah, I agree with you, though, that if a person is on public assistance they shouldn't be having babies.

But, once that can of worms is opened, what will happen next? A friend of mine wants four kids and her husband makes big bucks. Should the gov. tell her that her current 3 kids is enough? Personally, I cannot imagine having that many kids regardless of how much $ my husband brings in. . .but, still. . .

As far as the $1352 a month, I'm assuming that is only for food. It's low but I'm sure it covers the necessirites, which is a few small meals a day to keep from starving. You have to also realize that the government provides programs for everything a family would need. Housing assistance being the other major one. I work with municipal bonds and many of our gov't dwellings require that a certain percentage of their spots be housed by "low-income" families. I see the monthly reports and depending on your status you could be living in a $900/month apartment for the price of $250, $150/month, or even on a government grant of some sort.

RE: Highlighted part: If they aren't receiving assistance, I don't see how or why you would want to mandate them.

The problem isn't with cutting people off AFTER being approved for assistance, I think that is about as dry as it gets. The problem lies in where to draw the cut off line as far as the amount of children WHEN you are initially approved. Someone made a good point about the Duggers. They are able to provide for their children now, but what if something happened. Should the government just automatically approve funding for a family of 19? That I really have no opinion on, becuase I have no idea how you even go about making that decision.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/7/2010 12:33:37 PM
Author: meresal
As far as the $1352 a month, I''m assuming that is only for food. It''s low but I''m sure it covers the necessirites, which is a few small meals a day to keep from starving. You have to also realize that the government provides programs for everything a family would need. Housing assistance being the other major one. I work with municipal bonds and many of our gov''t dwellings require that a certain percentage of their spots be housed by ''low-income'' families. I see the monthly reports and depending on your status you could be living in a $900/month apartment for the price of $250, $150/month, or even on a government grant of some sort.

RE: Highlighted part: If they aren''t receiving assistance, I don''t see how or why you would want to mandate them.

The problem isn''t with cutting people off AFTER being approved for assistance, I think that is about as dry as it gets. The problem lies in where to draw the cut off line as far as the amount of children WHEN you are initially approved. Someone made a good point about the Duggers. They are able to provide for their children now, but what if something happened. Should the government just automatically approve funding for a family of 19? That I really have no opinion on, becuase I have no idea how you even go about making that decision.

Okay, just for entertainment sake, I checked the DSHS food stamp program for WA again. For a family of 9, the $1352 is provided. Get this, when I changed the family number to 21, the amount was reduced to $0. Then I reduced the family number back down to ten and it STILL is at $0. Apparently, after 9 family members, DSHS no longer fathoms a family that large and refuses to calculate on their website. lol The Duggers would be out of luck.

Anyway, you''ve made a lot of good points. I agree that it''s terrible that people take advantage of the system. I do think that eventually there will be some form of population control regardless of income level. There are only so many resources in the world. My friend and I were talking about how scary it''ll be when our kids get their first cars and then I realized, there may not be any gas available by then so we may not have to worry!

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2010 1:14:11 PM
Author: MC

Date: 1/7/2010 12:33:37 PM
Author: meresal
As far as the $1352 a month, I''m assuming that is only for food. It''s low but I''m sure it covers the necessirites, which is a few small meals a day to keep from starving. You have to also realize that the government provides programs for everything a family would need. Housing assistance being the other major one. I work with municipal bonds and many of our gov''t dwellings require that a certain percentage of their spots be housed by ''low-income'' families. I see the monthly reports and depending on your status you could be living in a $900/month apartment for the price of $250, $150/month, or even on a government grant of some sort.

RE: Highlighted part: If they aren''t receiving assistance, I don''t see how or why you would want to mandate them.

The problem isn''t with cutting people off AFTER being approved for assistance, I think that is about as dry as it gets. The problem lies in where to draw the cut off line as far as the amount of children WHEN you are initially approved. Someone made a good point about the Duggers. They are able to provide for their children now, but what if something happened. Should the government just automatically approve funding for a family of 19? That I really have no opinion on, becuase I have no idea how you even go about making that decision.

Okay, just for entertainment sake, I checked the DSHS food stamp program for WA again. For a family of 9, the $1352 is provided. Get this, when I changed the family number to 21, the amount was reduced to $0. Then I reduced the family number back down to ten and it STILL is at $0. Apparently, after 9 family members, DSHS no longer fathoms a family that large and refuses to calculate on their website. lol The Duggers would be out of luck.

Anyway, you''ve made a lot of good points. I agree that it''s terrible that people take advantage of the system. I do think that eventually there will be some form of population control regardless of income level. There are only so many resources in the world. My friend and I were talking about how scary it''ll be when our kids get their first cars and then I realized, there may not be any gas available by then so we may not have to worry!

Maybe they figure if you can still afford internet with over 9 kids, and are looking into government assistance, then your priorities aren''t quite in line... lol. Enforcing a "Back to the drawing board approach" if you will!

No GAS?!?! I should warn hubby that our little man on the way, might not be taking over the family oil company... I''m still holding out though.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/7/2010 12:33:37 PM
Author: meresal

I'm assuming that is only for food.

Correct. The recipient doesn't get cash. He gets stamps or, more recently, a card that can be used towards the purchase of certain items only (no cigarettes, alcohol, etcetera-there are some nutrition limitations) in approved grocery stores.

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/7/2010 1:14:11 PM
Author: MC

I agree that it's terrible that people take advantage of the system.

And I think it's impossible to take advantage of "the system"! There is nothing to take advantage of (forgive me for dangling a preposition). Do you want to know what it is really like to live on food stamps? Read this article in, "The New York Times". I just wish I could find the story that went with the picture of the elderly man (I believe he was 90 years old or older) who was pictured on the front page of, "The New York Times" in December. He lived in the midwest and was pictured with his tiny house and stacked wood. He had never taken welfare, but he needed either free food from the town food bank or something like that. He had trouble driving, but was afraid that if his license was taken from him that he would go hungry. It was terrible. I could picture my own, elderly father there. There but for the grace of God go I. That is one reason that I liked Old Miner's suggestion that some profits from Pricescope's community service project go to the Salvation Army. We are talking about diamonds, but elderly people are starving and freezing in the United States. Have we nothing better to do than to worry about people who use the pitiful few resources that are offered to the poor?

AGBF

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2010 2:53:59 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/7/2010 1:14:11 PM
Author: MC

I agree that it's terrible that people take advantage of the system.

And I think it's impossible to take advantage of 'the system'! There is nothing to take advantage of (forgive me for dangling a preposition). Do you want to know what it is really like to live on food stamps? Read this article in, 'The New York Times'. I just wish I could find the story that went with the picture of the elderly man (I believe he was 90 years old or older) who was pictured on the front page of, 'The New York Times' in December. He lived in the midwest and was pictured with his tiny house and stacked wood. He had never taken welfare, but he needed either free food from the town food bank or something like that. He had trouble driving, but was afraid that if his license was taken from him that he would go hungry. It was terrible. I could picture my own, elderly father there. There but for the grace of God go I. That is one reason that I liked Old Miner's suggestion that some profits from Pricescope's community service project go to the Salvation Army. We are talking about diamonds, but elderly people are starving and freezing in the United States. Have we nothing better to do than to worry about people who use the pitiful few resources that are offered to the poor?

AGBF

AGBF, falsifying your household income in order to recieve food stamps IS taking advantage of the system. There are many people that do it. I do know a girl that did this, and I posted about it earlier in the thread.

Maybe there would be more money for the people that actually NEED it, like the man you posted, if these other people weren't going about attaining help they don't actually need.

ETA: Here is a link as well... All of these people were caught "Cheating" the system.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=cheating+the+welfare+system&aq=0&oq=cheating+the+welfare+&aqi=g1

 

[y2kitty]

Date: 1/7/2010 2:53:59 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/7/2010 1:14:11 PM

Author: MC


I agree that it's terrible that people take advantage of the system.

And I think it's impossible to take advantage of 'the system'! There is nothing to take advantage of (forgive me for dangling a preposition). Do you want to know what it is really like to live on food stamps? Read this article in, 'The New York Times'. I just wish I could find the story that went with the picture of the elderly man (I believe he was 90 years old or older) who was pictured on the front page of, 'The New York Times' in December. He lived in the midwest and was pictured with his tiny house and stacked wood. He had never taken welfare, but he needed either free food from the town food bank or something like that. He had trouble driving, but was afraid that if his license was taken from him that he would go hungry. It was terrible. I could picture my own, elderly father there. There but for the grace of God go I. That is one reason that I liked Old Miner's suggestion that some profits from Pricescope's community service project go to the Salvation Army. We are talking about diamonds, but elderly people are starving and freezing in the United States. Have we nothing better to do than to worry about people who use the pitiful few resources that are offered to the poor?


AGBF

So this woman has the right to keep having children even though she needs help providing for them?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/7/2010 7:21:10 AM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/6/2010 8:38:46 PM

Author: neatfreak

Vesper Did you read my posts above on family caps? Welfare these days IS NOT an entitlement. There ARE a lot of conditions you need to meet to receive it. And even if you have more kids-you don''t get more money except maybe in one state. And there is an ''at a time'' limit of 2 years and a LIFETIME limit of 5 years. So the days of people living off welfare for their entire lives are over. States do have some discretion over what they want to do, but most are stricter, not more lax.


Before you go spouting off about welfare policies maybe you should understand what they are.

Yes, I do understand welfare policy, and also the inherent flaws in it, which is why I feel entitled to ''spout off'' about how poorly they are implemented.


Even though most states do have limits, they are very easy to get around. Here is a quote from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html:


All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary. All states allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for “child only” cases (which account for about one-third of all welfare cases nationwide and are not subject to time limits in any state) and for recipients with medical problems. In many states, recipients who comply with work requirements but are unable to find jobs can receive extensions, although states define and assess compliance in different ways. As a result, some states routinely grant extensions to recipients reaching time limits, while others close most of these cases.


I personally know a woman with 6 kids by 4 different men who has been on welfare for over 35 years. She just packed up the kids and travelled from state to state (only staying in each a couple of years), living in shelters and seefy motels. Besides welfare checks, her entire family was also receiving Medicaid. I am good friends with her oldest daughter (who left home at 18 and shuns her mother''s irresponsible lifestyle) and she said that even though her mother is fully capable of full-time work, she chooses to live in the middle of nowhere where there is no work so that she can keep saying that she can''t find anything so that she can keep receiving checks. Trust me, there are many more people like her out there.

You are selectively choosing things you like. Just because you know *1* person who goes out of their way to game the system does NOT mean that everyone is spending their life on welfare. Of course there will always be people who game any system you make. But that does not mean that everyone is gaming it as you seem to think.

Federal funds cannot be used to grant more than 20% of people extensions. States can do what they like with their own money, but even in most states they are choosing to enact shorter/tighter time limits rather than using their own money to extend them. There are only a few states that routinely allow extentions and these are usually very tightly regulated. It isn''t a free for all like you are making it out to be.

If you want some more facts from MDRC:
In a given month in FY 2005, approximately 4.5 percent of TANF assistance cases (and 8.0 percent of all adult-headed families) had received at least 60 months of assistance. No state had reached the 20 percent cap for granting extensions beyond 60 months due to hardships by FY 2005, although a small number of states were approaching the cap.

That means that overall only 4.5% of cases were at or over their 60 months of assistance. That isn''t a lot now is it?

The rolls have dropped dramatically since the PRWORA in 1996. MANY fewer people are on welfare and for much shorter amounts of time.

It seems like many people (not just you) are debating policies that they don''t know anything about.

I highly suggest that if everyone is so passionate about welfare policy, get involved. These decisions can be shaped by YOU. Knowledge is power-learn about the policies and bring ideas to your local representatives. You can''t have opinions on policies you know nothing about-so learn about them!

I will get off my soapbox now but if anyone has questions about welfare policy I am happy to answer them. I think I''m pretty qualified to answer-I will be finishing my Ph.D. in public policy this year and I work in social welfare and health policy.

AGBF Although they have done away with a lot of it, there is still cash assistance available, to limited families, for limited time periods. It''s called TANF and stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about it.

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:01:41 PM
Author: y2kitty

Date: 1/7/2010 2:53:59 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/7/2010 1:14:11 PM

Author: MC


I agree that it's terrible that people take advantage of the system.

And I think it's impossible to take advantage of 'the system'! There is nothing to take advantage of (forgive me for dangling a preposition). Do you want to know what it is really like to live on food stamps? Read this article in, 'The New York Times'. I just wish I could find the story that went with the picture of the elderly man (I believe he was 90 years old or older) who was pictured on the front page of, 'The New York Times' in December. He lived in the midwest and was pictured with his tiny house and stacked wood. He had never taken welfare, but he needed either free food from the town food bank or something like that. He had trouble driving, but was afraid that if his license was taken from him that he would go hungry. It was terrible. I could picture my own, elderly father there. There but for the grace of God go I. That is one reason that I liked Old Miner's suggestion that some profits from Pricescope's community service project go to the Salvation Army. We are talking about diamonds, but elderly people are starving and freezing in the United States. Have we nothing better to do than to worry about people who use the pitiful few resources that are offered to the poor?


AGBF

So this woman has the right to keep having children even though she needs help providing for them?

Yes. Because if she doesn't, it opens up a floodgate. And the next person might not be allowed just because those financially better of than you think you're too poor to raise them.

As far as the whole "welfare" debate, it should not have any bearing on the right of anyone to have kids. I don't get such anger at these people. Be angry with the lack of education that's responsible for these situations.

 

[y2kitty]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:14:16 PM
Author: elle_chris

Date: 1/7/2010 3:01:41 PM
Author: y2kitty

Date: 1/7/2010 2:53:59 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/7/2010 1:14:11 PM
Author: MC
I agree that it's terrible that people take advantage of the system.

And I think it's impossible to take advantage of 'the system'! There is nothing to take advantage of (forgive me for dangling a preposition). Do you want to know what it is really like to live on food stamps? Read this article in, 'The New York Times'. I just wish I could find the story that went with the picture of the elderly man (I believe he was 90 years old or older) who was pictured on the front page of, 'The New York Times' in December. He lived in the midwest and was pictured with his tiny house and stacked wood. He had never taken welfare, but he needed either free food from the town food bank or something like that. He had trouble driving, but was afraid that if his license was taken from him that he would go hungry. It was terrible. I could picture my own, elderly father there. There but for the grace of God go I. That is one reason that I liked Old Miner's suggestion that some profits from Pricescope's community service project go to the Salvation Army. We are talking about diamonds, but elderly people are starving and freezing in the United States. Have we nothing better to do than to worry about people who use the pitiful few resources that are offered to the poor?



AGBF

So this woman has the right to keep having children even though she needs help providing for them?

Yes. Because if she doesn't, it opens up a floodgate. And the next person might not be allowed just because those financially better of than you think you're too poor to raise them.


As far as the whole 'welfare' debate, it should not have any bearing on the right of anyone to have kids. I don't get such anger at these people. Be angry with the lack of education that's respobsible for these situations.

Its an honest question from me as to why people have that right, but I don't agree. You can't live in society and do everything you want no matter what with no regard to your resources. Just my opinion. I'm opposed to the Duggars behavior for this reason as well. Although they can materially provide for their kids, I can't imagine they get a decent amount of individualized attention.

 

[AGBF]

This story , also from , "The New York Times", is a more inspiring one.


AGBF

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:22:50 PM
Author: AGBF




This story , also from , 'The New York Times', is a more inspiring one.


AGBF

No one is saying there aren't people that need to be helped. From reading this thread, it is obvious that people are not lacking inspiration.

ETA:
RE: Fresh produce... it is indeed very healthy. With that siad, I volunteer at a Food Bank, and the problem with produce is that it does not sit on shelves and you can't eat it a week later, especially when you don't have money for refridgeration.
While working there I get to help load the vans of shelters and places like that, and the only ones that will take fruit and vegatables are churches and a very select few soup kitchens. Families that come to get meal boxes are never given produce and the bigger places (soup kitchens and churches) hardly take it, with the exception of frozen green beans. It's sad actually, becuase most of it ends up moldy and entire flats of boxes, that were donated by large grocery chains, get thrown away.

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:18:06 PM
Author: y2kitty

Its an honest question from me as to why people have that right, but I don''t agree. You can''t live in society and do everything you want no matter what with no regard to your resources. Just my opinion. I''m opposed to the Duggars behavior for this reason as well. Although they can materially provide for their kids, I can''t imagine they get a decent amount of individualized attention.

Are you really asking why people have the right to have children or the right to have a certain number of children?

Really?

 

[y2kitty]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:25:40 PM
Author: fiery

Date: 1/7/2010 3:18:06 PM

Author: y2kitty


Its an honest question from me as to why people have that right, but I don''t agree. You can''t live in society and do everything you want no matter what with no regard to your resources. Just my opinion. I''m opposed to the Duggars behavior for this reason as well. Although they can materially provide for their kids, I can''t imagine they get a decent amount of individualized attention.

Are you really asking why people have the right to have children or the right to have a certain number of children?


Really?

Yes, why are you so surprised?

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:27:24 PM
Author: y2kitty

Date: 1/7/2010 3:25:40 PM
Author: fiery

Date: 1/7/2010 3:18:06 PM

Author: y2kitty


Its an honest question from me as to why people have that right, but I don''t agree. You can''t live in society and do everything you want no matter what with no regard to your resources. Just my opinion. I''m opposed to the Duggars behavior for this reason as well. Although they can materially provide for their kids, I can''t imagine they get a decent amount of individualized attention.

Are you really asking why people have the right to have children or the right to have a certain number of children?


Really?

Yes, why are you so surprised?

I guess to me I''m surprised because my rights to have a child should never be questioned by anyone but me.

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:27:24 PM
Author: y2kitty

Date: 1/7/2010 3:25:40 PM
Author: fiery

Date: 1/7/2010 3:18:06 PM

Author: y2kitty


Its an honest question from me as to why people have that right, but I don''t agree. You can''t live in society and do everything you want no matter what with no regard to your resources. Just my opinion. I''m opposed to the Duggars behavior for this reason as well. Although they can materially provide for their kids, I can''t imagine they get a decent amount of individualized attention.

Are you really asking why people have the right to have children or the right to have a certain number of children?


Really?

Yes, why are you so surprised?

Well, what you''re really saying is only those that a certain group deems fit should be able to reproduce. That''s a form of genocide imo.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/7/2010 2:33:34 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/7/2010 12:33:37 PM
Author: meresal

I'm assuming that is only for food.

Correct. The recipient doesn't get cash. He gets stamps or, more recently, a card that can be used towards the purchase of certain items only (no cigarettes, alcohol, etcetera-there are some nutrition limitations) in approved grocery stores.

AGBF

I had read that food stamps have been used as money. People would trade their food stamps for drugs, alcohol, or other items that normally food stamps would not cover. Basically using them as "cash." Maybe this is particially why the debit card system has been put in to place, along with other reasons such as avoiding the stigma attached to using stamps.

 

[somethingshiny]

After reading the newest link, I have another off-topic question:

Should Public Aid recipients (or anyone else for that matter) be better off taking cooking, canning, preserving classes?

You can definitely have a smaller food budget if you don''t buy prepared and processed foods. You can take advantage of fresh fruits and veggies and keep them for a long time.

Where I live, it''s common to take your home growns and share them with neighbors and freeze the rest. That way everyone has a nice selection of produce through the long winters.

 

[y2kitty]

As far as all this goes, my feeling is, in this country we attack byproducts of problems instead of fixing what''s really wrong. Drugs and lack of education would be two very real problems that need to be worked on.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:02:53 PM
Author: neatfreak


You are selectively choosing things you like. Just because you know *1* person who goes out of their way to game the system does NOT mean that everyone is spending their life on welfare. Of course there will always be people who game any system you make. But that does not mean that everyone is gaming it as you seem to think.

Federal funds cannot be used to grant more than 20% of people extensions. States can do what they like with their own money, but even in most states they are choosing to enact shorter/tighter time limits rather than using their own money to extend them. There are only a few states that routinely allow extentions and these are usually very tightly regulated. It isn't a free for all like you are making it out to be.

If you want some more facts from MDRC:
In a given month in FY 2005, approximately 4.5 percent of TANF assistance cases (and 8.0 percent of all adult-headed families) had received at least 60 months of assistance. No state had reached the 20 percent cap for granting extensions beyond 60 months due to hardships by FY 2005, although a small number of states were approaching the cap.

That means that overall only 4.5% of cases were at or over their 60 months of assistance. That isn't a lot now is it?

The rolls have dropped dramatically since the PRWORA in 1996. MANY fewer people are on welfare and for much shorter amounts of time.

It seems like many people (not just you) are debating policies that they don't know anything about.

I highly suggest that if everyone is so passionate about welfare policy, get involved. These decisions can be shaped by YOU. Knowledge is power-learn about the policies and bring ideas to your local representatives. You can't have opinions on policies you know nothing about-so learn about them!

I will get off my soapbox now but if anyone has questions about welfare policy I am happy to answer them. I think I'm pretty qualified to answer-I will be finishing my Ph.D. in public policy this year and I work in social welfare and health policy.

AGBF Although they have done away with a lot of it, there is still cash assistance available, to limited families, for limited time periods. It's called TANF and stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about it.

I don't question your qualifications, neatfreak. I just don't have any questions about TANF. As far as I am concerned, the money available is statistically insignificant. People can no longer apply for welfare from their municipalities as they once did and get help until state monetary assistance kicks in. Municipalities used to be reimbursed by the State. The State was reimbursed by federal funds. Families with children could get AFDC. Single individuals could also get welfare while they looked for work or while they awaited a determination of disability by the Social Security Administration. The muniipality could ensure that no one was homeless on any night. People could actually be put in motels for a night!!! Can you imagine that? The idea that people shouldn't be thrown into the cold, into the streets? Social workers could go to emergency food pantries right in the Town Hall and give some food to someone applying for welfare on the same day he applied.

The world has changed, and not for the better.

When I studied the history of the Progressive Era (I pursued a Ph.D in history in the 1970's) we students were shocked by the photographs by Jacob Riis in How The Other Half Lives. Now no one would find them shocking. They look like photos of our own streets today, with the homeless lying in the gutters.

AGBF

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/7/2010 2:53:59 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/7/2010 1:14:11 PM
Author: MC

I agree that it''s terrible that people take advantage of the system.

And I think it''s impossible to take advantage of ''the system''!

Ah, this is nonsense. If nobody is taking advantage of the system, then why on the DSHS site does it warn those who lie on their forms to get food stamps, will have to pay back what they were given AND that they''d possibly be prosecuted? Clearly there have been cases in the past that set the stage for such threats.

 

[somethingshiny]

MC~ Food stamps have been used as a way to barter. Even with a debit card, the cardholder can go buy $50 worth of whatever and still "sell" it to another person. I''ve seen this happen within families, like the brother has the card and the sister trades him cash for his "necessities."

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:37:53 PM
Author: somethingshiny
After reading the newest link, I have another off-topic question:

Should Public Aid recipients (or anyone else for that matter) be better off taking cooking, canning, preserving classes?

You can definitely have a smaller food budget if you don''t buy prepared and processed foods. You can take advantage of fresh fruits and veggies and keep them for a long time.

Where I live, it''s common to take your home growns and share them with neighbors and freeze the rest. That way everyone has a nice selection of produce through the long winters.

I don''t know how it is in other parts of the US but when I went to pick up DD''s birth certificate, it was in the same building as WIC and public assistance. There was a huge sign that said "We support Breastfeeding" as well as a bulletin on free lactation consultant services and free cooking classes. The cooking classes also offered a segment on how to make baby food. They were promoting as much as possible how to take advantage of your resources to cut down on your costs.

Breastfeeding alone saved $80 a month in my case (having to buy formula for myself and my caregiver). I''m amazed at how much formula costs now that we have made the switch. We also plan on making baby food now that she is eating solids.

So yes, these courses are extremely helpful if people take the time to attend.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:37:53 PM
Author: somethingshiny
After reading the newest link, I have another off-topic question:


Should Public Aid recipients (or anyone else for that matter) be better off taking cooking, canning, preserving classes?


You can definitely have a smaller food budget if you don''t buy prepared and processed foods. You can take advantage of fresh fruits and veggies and keep them for a long time.


Where I live, it''s common to take your home growns and share them with neighbors and freeze the rest. That way everyone has a nice selection of produce through the long winters.

Rural poverty is a LOT different than city poverty. In the city, in order to do that people would first have to pay an arm and a leg for the produce. Makes no sense in the city.

Also that is assuming that they have clean working kitchens, time to spend doing this, etc.

People who are on welfare are subject to work/education/job search requirements while they are on it. They aren''t just sitting around all day for the most part.

In a lot of poverty stricken areas there are NO grocery stores. Just convenience stores, etc. Think about it. If you drive through a really rough neighborhood how many grocery stores do you see? Not many. And if you don''t have a car you can''t get there easily. So you get what is available-which is often high priced items at the local bodega or convenience store.