Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

That is a complete dumbing down of the welfare system.

So what's your point?

My point is I don't enjoy dumbed down debates, they start on the floor and stay there.

So what's your point agian the current US government spends more on the welfare complex that has accomplished that never before in this entire nations history that people are consuming the wealth of others than creating their own that has led to massive deficits and promises that can never be paid for.

There are many people I know who have had to take some welfare here and there since this economy

was crashed in such a dramatic fashion. All of them are back on their feet and working, creating

wealth again, contributing to society. They put their money in the banks and the banks invest that

money and the world goes on.

People game the system that take from those who truly need it but then agian it is not the governments job to feed,cloth and educate others that is what charity is and what makes charity better than welfare it is freedom of choice to help instead of a gun held to their head and saying do this.

A gun to who's head? That is a very emotional argument and I'm not interested in going

back to the floor with you.

As to the rest of the world not the topic believe that the op clearly made a distinction about the US welfare versus entitlement argument.

So, I have my own perspective, I'm sure the person can except that his is not the only person

with a perspective.

Personally talking about Mexico and Africa makes them sound like a Neo Con.

If you want to bring up Neo Con, you are the person who claims to be conservative and

also champions the military industrial complex and war spending. Which some would say is the

markings of a Neo Conservative.

Talking about poverty is logical because we are talking about poverty.

Poverty manifests itself the same way where ever you find it, we are not yet Mexico

City, but we could be and I doubt you would like it more than this current manifestation

of America.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If the person has insurance that is provided by the state they can receive treatment for

Cancer and a variety of other illnesses that can be terminal.

My point was to say that Emergency room policy will not even address longer term issues

unless the person is near death in the first place. There are some Charity Hospitals, but I

am not sure they have the resources to take on the entire roster of people on welfare.

reply to post by dawnstar


Yeah well i have Jefferson's take;

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[8]

As well as all taxation being uniform throughout this country.

People are free to disagree with that but that is what i beleive and that is my story and i am sticking to it

reply to post by Beanskinner

f you want to bring up Neo Con, you are the person who claims to be conservative and also champions the military industrial complex and war spending. Which some would say is the markings of a Neo Conservative. Talking about poverty is logical because we are talking about poverty. Poverty manifests itself the same way where ever you find it, we are not yet Mexico City, but we could be and I doubt you would like it more than this current manifestation of America.

Actually the US constitution clearly defines by law providing for the common defense of this country after all

All that free food,free homes,free educations free everything did not stop Pearl Harbor and the first world trade center attack or the attack on the Uss Cole or 9-11 and it sure as hell did not win the cold war.

Definition of welfare in 2012 is very different from the definition of welfare in 1776.

You can't take a modern definition and claim that's what the founding fathers meant.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


yes, that is what I am suggesting!!
hurt my ankle at work, ran up the medical bills till I ended up so broke I didn't have the gas to get to work....
was falling down at work anyways, quit the job, which left me without insurance. about six or so months later, got up, took a few steps and hears a couple of snaps, and well, down I went. broken ankle. went to the er, they slapped a splint on it, handed me the number of a surgeon to call for follow up. the surgeon wanted thousands of dollars before he would do the surgery, which, well we had three kids we were support, me without a job and hubby making around $20,000 a year. we had no stash of money for anything!! and of course, the dear gov't (fed, state, and country) were taking the heck out of us with the justification of the "cost of medicaid"..
well, I tried other avenues since this guy didn't want to do it without an insane down payments, with no luck, and finally just settle back with the belief that hey, I was never gonna walk again! I believe hubby went to work and told his boss what was going on and was planning on quitting and just flying the coop, thinking that then they would help me, I think it was his boss that called the state senator on my behalf, and the state representative called me. which well, I went into what was going on, and told him quite frankly just how the whole medical system as it was was quite unconstitutional....if two people are in need of medical treatment, you cannot take the resources of one to provide the care for another. and that well, quite frankly, it made little sense to me to let me lay there without any help, when in fact, it was gonna lead to a disability check for me because if I can't walk, then I certainly ain't gonne be able to work and take care of myself!!! after we hung up, it wasn't that long till the surgeon that the hospital referred me to called back and set a time for the surgery.

reply to post by Beanskinner


heck, if you are poor enough, the gov't will pay, and pay again, just so you can run your kid to the doctor every time they have a runny nose, just so you can rest assured that it's nothing major.......

Originally posted by babybunnies
Definition of welfare in 2012 is very different from the definition of welfare in 1776.

You can't take a modern definition and claim that's what the founding fathers meant.

In the O.P. I provided two sets of definitions. One was from the dictionary and that definition of welfare (1) is the same meaning at the time the Preamble was written, which by the way was written in 1787.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

f you want to bring up Neo Con, you are the person who claims to be conservative and also champions the military industrial complex and war spending. Which some would say is the markings of a Neo Conservative. Talking about poverty is logical because we are talking about poverty. Poverty manifests itself the same way where ever you find it, we are not yet Mexico City, but we could be and I doubt you would like it more than this current manifestation of America.

Actually the US constitution clearly defines by law providing for the common defense of this country after all

All that free food,free homes,free educations free everything did not stop Pearl Harbor and the first world trade center attack or the attack on the Uss Cole or 9-11 and it sure as hell did not win the cold war.

It does not call for an offensive military that takes 700 Billion dollars to fund every years.

Like other posts have proven, you love spending as long as it fits into your agenda. That

agenda sounds very Neo Conservative to me - I would much rather feed people than waste

good money on bombs that blow up, kill and have no potential to grow in positive ways.

You might as well set money on fire

I think people are more precious than bombs or killing, by a long shot.

Originally posted by Beanskinner
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If the person has insurance that is provided by the state they can receive treatment for

Cancer and a variety of other illnesses that can be terminal.

My point was to say that Emergency room policy will not even address longer term issues

unless the person is near death in the first place. There are some Charity Hospitals, but I

am not sure they have the resources to take on the entire roster of people on welfare.

Medicare and Medicaid do cover these things, and I am assuming you understand this and are arguing that if we were to take these government programs away that charity would not cover the costs. Is that correct?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


just because someone is making too much to get medicaid and too young to get medicare, doesn't mean they have thousands of dollars to throw at medical bills???

reply to post by Beanskinner

It does not call for an offensive military that takes 700 Billion dollars to fund every years.

Actually it does because that military is built of technology that changes faster than cell phones and what people forget and condemn the military to become a walmart version paid for at bargain prices that do nothing more than get people killed pretty easy to say screw the military and yet they are the only reason people can sit there and trash talk them and say free crap is more important.

ike other posts have proven, you love spending as long as it fits into your agenda.

oh sounds familiar like how free crap suits your agenda.,

I would much rather feed people than waste good money on bombs that blow up, kill and have no potential to grow in positive ways.

Giving over 120 trillion dollars to people for doing nothing is the biggest waste of good money there has ever been but hey give those people a slow death so you can claim the moral high ground.

Might as well set that fiat money on fire because it has never returned what the military has a place and a country where we all can run our mouths til we are content.

reply to post by dawnstar


Okay, so it was not the hospital that did anything wrong here, according to your story, they referred you to a surgeon who wouldn't play ball, then a Senator got involved and ultimately the surgeon played ball. In terms of emergency care, where is the lie? If you needed a surgeon for your ankle, are you suggesting that ER should have rushed you into surgery immediately?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Progressives are Constitutionally illiterate. I'd even argue that many of them don't understand the basic premise and purpose of the Constitution. I think they think of it as just a fancy historic document or some kind of sister document to the Declaration of Independence, rather than valid and supreme law.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

just because someone is making too much to get medicaid and too young to get medicare, doesn't mean they have thousands of dollars to throw at medical bills???

What the hell are you suggesting here? That Medicare and Medicaid should be less stringent in their income earning cutoff? That surgeons charge to much? What?

Here's the deal. Medicine is too expensive in the U.S., and this has as much to do with the insurance industry spreading their slimy tentacles into the system as it does government butting their annoying butt into the medical industry as well.

Between government and the insurance industry doctors and hospitals have absurd regulations that cost absurd amounts of money to deal with. That cost is reflected on your bill.

The problems with Medicare and Medicaid that that more people are using them than paying in to them compounded by regulation that drives healthcare costs up and continually go up that do not keep with inflation and age progression.

The public version of healh care/medicare and medicaid is a joke compared to the private for profit healthcare model that offers better coverage.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Progressives are Constitutionally illiterate. I'd even argue that many of them don't understand the basic premise and purpose of the Constitution. I think they think of it as just a fancy historic document or some kind of sister document to the Declaration of Independence, rather than valid and supreme law.

edit on 25-5-2012 by snusfanatic because: (no reason given)

Worse, they view the people as idiots who do not understand what is Constitutional or isn't. While many people today have no clue as to what the Constitution say's and how that applies to them, progressives who think all people are stupid, outside of themselves and a few select of course, they're profoundly flustered and have no idea what to do or say when confronted with someone who does understand the Supreme Law of the Land and how that applies to government.

The Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment on government, not the people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Beanskinner
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If the person has insurance that is provided by the state they can receive treatment for

Cancer and a variety of other illnesses that can be terminal.

My point was to say that Emergency room policy will not even address longer term issues

unless the person is near death in the first place. There are some Charity Hospitals, but I

am not sure they have the resources to take on the entire roster of people on welfare.

Medicare and Medicaid do cover these things, and I am assuming you understand this and are arguing that if we were to take these government programs away that charity would not cover the costs. Is that correct?

Yes sir...

Exactly, I am sorry if I assumed that that was the thrust of this discussion.

I was psyched out be the masked poster... So I am more clear, I would like

the world to embrace charity more and not put so much faith in government.

But I am not convinced that charity can do it alone based upon what I have seen

in other countries.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


are you sure they wouldn't have if I had a medicaid card???

I shouldn't have had to go through the hassle I did to get it taken care of, period!! and well, if it wasn't for a boss, a state senator, it wouldn't have happened, and I wouldn't be walking and then well, I would be taking you money from you indirectly!

they healthcare system, they way is is run at the moment, is unconstitutional as all heck.....
they can do more to ensure that all that need the help get it, or they can stop helping the "poor" and we can watch as the costs drop down to a more manageable level.
but, to claim that all is kosher because well....the hospitals are legally obligated to provide emergency care is a bogus claim!

reply to post by dawnstar

are you sure they wouldn't have if I had a medicaid card???

Wouldn't have what?

I shouldn't have had to go through the hassle I did to get it taken care of, period!! and well, if it wasn't for a boss, a state senator, it wouldn't have happened, and I wouldn't be walking and then well, I would be taking you money from you indirectly!

You think the poor should be treated just the same as the rich in private industry. I get that. Under the law, all must be treated equal. In private industry where a service is offered in exchange for money, those with the money get the service. In terms of charity, or "welfare", the less on "welfare", or the less taxing charity, the more they are likely to be treated in the way you expect to be treated...period!

Here is what you seem to be missing, your husbands boss wanted to help, that boss felt the best way to help was to use his political influence and in doing so found a Senator that wanted to also help. This is evidence of goodness, and if government programs were eliminated instead of expanding like you seem to be advocating, that goodness in people would still exist. However, if we go the route you seem to want us all to go, that crappy service you are complaining about is only going to get worse.

Government thrives on their competent incompetency. It is how they convince people like you that they need more power, through their ever so competent incompetency, but granting them that power will not convince them to be less competent in their incompetency's.