Keep crapping out kids with no baby daddy in the house. That's all it takes.

 

Indeed, it is the epidemic of poor people gaming the system that has brought the United States to the brink of economic collapse. Surely the economic issues of the day have not been brought to us by first class citizens in the banking profession who used regulatory loopholes (ie GAMING) to pillage our global economy.

Gaming the system happens at every level in society.  The most destructive example that we have seen occured at the upper end of society. 

Somewhere out there is a cop who is slacking on the job, gaming the system.  Or a judge who did not do the required legal research in rendering her/his opinion.  Or an SEC employee, who did not enforce the rules and lived off a government paycheck, meanwhile people like Madoff ran billion dollar ponzi schemes.

Why is it always the poor who game the system the ones who receive the most ire?  It seems to me that the ones at the top who abdicate their responsibilities to their jobs and to society are the ones who cause the most damage.

 

That happens RIGHT NOW in the United States.  Insurance companies decide who gets coverage and who does not every day.

However, you are not addressing the issue, it does not matter what happens in other countries.   What in the current version of the health care bill in congress calls for the establishment of death panels, or as you put it establishes a "set of individuals making the calls on who gets life saving meds.. and who doesn't?".

Yeah, because no one has said anything derogatory about wall street and the bankers recently. I suppose I should rail less on the 'poor' because their poor.

 

 

Well have a look in your backyard then. Native Americans are the only Americans (by treaty) to have a "right" to health care. The Govt. runs the program. The running joke among native Americans is don't get sick after June as that's when the funding runs out. And some people want the govt. to provide health care for everyone! Read and see what night be in store for many more Americans.

http://nativetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1950&Itemid=&Itemid=55

http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7030&Itemid=114

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Cagle_Editorial_NativeAmericans_Aug30_2004.htm

 

Not because they are poor, but because their negative effect on the economy is not catastrophic.  There will always be people gaming the system, it is all about costs and enforcement.   It is all about priorities. 

I suppose  all comes down to "work" and not performance.  As long as a person appears to be working, they are not a noticeable leech on society.   I can see why it would anger people because it is more visible.  However, the gaming that is not visible is far and away more detrimental.

I am patiently awaiting your proof of death panels in the health care reform proposal.

 

So your position is that the government cannot be trusted to run an efficient health care plan?  Ok! Great! The current health care reforms with a public option are for you then.  If you do not like or do not trust the government to run health care, then simply do not buy it.   Keep your existing private insurance.  The public option is simply an OPTION. If you don't like it do not use it.

 

I always find it strange how some people rail against the incompetance of the government on one side and overlook things they normally praise (ie the military).  The military is the largest government run program.  Should it be privatized?  What about the police?  Privatize them?  Firemen?

So the government can effectively control the military, and control thousands of nuclear warheads, but obviously any government health care plan would be horrible because it is run by the government...

 

 

If they're successfully denying meds I'd call them individuals in line for big promotions. If they're granting too many meds I'd say they're on their way out the door.

That's how our current system works.  There's no way a government system is going to work perfectly, but why do we have to pretend that a cost/benefit analysis isn't at the heart of every business, including our current insurance providers?

How are the pockets of privately funded insurance so bottomless?

 

I don't get this. I very rarely see people posting links to sophomoric Olbermann segments, the majority of liberals/progressives I know don't rally around a personality figure the way conservatives do around Glenn Beck. I watched that video the republicans are whining about with the celebrities taking a pledge to Obama at the end, and all I could think was "this is creepy" and "who gives a shit about Ashton Kutcher?"

I just think prominent democratic figures (beside Obama) aren't nearly as important and need not be defended the way someone like Beck/Limbaugh is. Point out some crazy shit a progressive said and at least in my circle of friends we'll call it crazy along side you. Try posting a thread with some of the outrageous Olbermann stunts or diatribes and see how many people rise up to defend it, I seriously doubt many will care, other than the conservatives who jump on it to bash the guy.

You guys need to disassociate the information from the personality. The fact that people here are still linking Glenn Beck's site in spite of his antics which are clearly eccentric and off-putting instead of going to a more presentable source which corroborates thestory cuts to the heart of the issue.

This is speculation on my part, but given that Obama won the election by a significant amount and Fox is still getting better ratings than the other 'liberal' networks I'm inclined to believe it shows a large number of progressives are getting their news from other sources. For better or worse that means the internet. I mention that because I just really don't have the strong feelings towards any liberal news personalities that you guys seem to have with yours. I rarely see Olbermann lionized, and if he had a tea party I might send him a dress and some stuffed dolls, but I certainly wouldn't go chant in front of a camera for him.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of people out there who would, but overall I think liberals just don't put anyone on a pedestal the way you guys seem to.

I find this perplexing too. Clinton (with a republican congress) worked arduously to cut back the number of people on welfare. The recent spike of people applying for welfare has an obvious economic trigger.

I don't doubt that there's people gaming the system, but that's inevitable with any system. The 9/11 charity debacle is a perfect example of how reprehensible people can be especially since charity systems tend to be inherently poorly policed. That doesn't mean, however, that the purpose of welfare is thwarted, it just means that, assuming investigation wouldn't cost so much that it's a major net loss, the qualifications of welfare recipients need to be more effectively enforced. I'm sure it's a very complicated issue when you go through the technical aspects of it.

I just view people gaming the system the way department stores view 'shrinkage.' You need to establish acceptable thresholds and act accordingly when they're crossed, not just close up shop.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2009/04/most_welfare_families_have_few.html

 

Numbers in the News question

Q: I ask you to take courage and post the number of women who have 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or more children on welfare. - Barbara Santillo

A: I wasn't able to to locate precisely the information you sought, but this should go along way toward answering your question:

Among families receiving cash assistance, three-quarters have 1 or 2 children. Here's the breakdown:

• One child, 47.9 percent.
• Two children, 27.8 percent.
• Three children, 13.8 percent.
• Four or more children, 8.6 percent.
• Unknown (for the study), 1.9 percent
• Average, 1.9 children.

The data is from a 2006 report to Congress and is for 2003. Sharon Parrott, who follows welfare reform and related issues for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the trend probably has not changed much since then.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services was unable to provide me information on the demographics in the state.

Sure don't buy it, but you still pay for it. So, could you blame people for not wanting to pay twice. Soon enough the govt. "plan" will be bloated beyond belief. We can alway do what Norwood, Ontario does and have a lottery to get a doctor. Google it yourself.

Having spent 24 years in the military, there is a lot of waste their too. But they are getting better. You touched on a key point... Military personnel manage the military day to day, not the Washington bureaucrats.  The highest generals get paid less that the newest congressman. Nobody is getting rich in the military. I often found myself personally responsible for the safety of billions of dollars worth of aircraft at a time, all while getting paid far less than the guy taking out the trash in the capitol building. I'd call that a bargain to the taxpayer. I guarantee your UHC administrators won't be so cheap. Of course if you effectively  pay no taxes, what a deal.

Actually, leftists are out on the streets with their hands out waiting for someone to fill it.

This presidency is already becoming a laughing stock.  In record time, I might add.

Nobody is suggesting everyone on welfare is cheating. However, here's what your numbers don't tell you. The 8.6% with 4 (or more children) are using 300% (or more) benefits each case than 47.9% with 1 child. So your small number is misleading as they are getting a minimum of 32% of the benefit. Three kids 200% more than one kid or 40.2% of the benefits. That means that 72%+ of the benefits go to people with 3 or more kids. Damn statistics huh?

What does that prove? That welfare benefits children? It's possible that people with multiple kids are spending all the money on liquor, but it seems more likely to me that a large part of the money they're getting is going to its intended target - their children.

Sadly the statistics I was able to find don't show the age of the recipient, their marital status, or the age of the children, but a single mother with two or more children getting more benefits than a married couple with one child doesn't sound all that nefarious to me.

 

What are we even talking about here though? Maybe I missed something you said in the mix of everyone else's replies, but you don't seem to be saying we should tear the whole system down and I'm not saying there's no abuse going on. It doesn't really seem like we disagree on anything here, other than you probably think there's more abuse going on than I realize, but I don't fancy myself an expert on the level of abuse anyway, I'm quite willing to admit there's probably more than I think there is.