Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 23

[kitteh]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 


Yes. If someone steals a loaf of bread from the store because they are starving, that's looked on very differently than someone with plenty to eat that stole it just for fun.
I really, truly don't mean to twist things around. Honestly, for some reason I have a hard time deciphering your posts, something about the syntax just doesn't quite make sense to me, almost like reading a second language, so I do the best I can. I apologize if I've misinterpreted what you've said.

OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive? Maybe she made decent money or had great benefits as a long-term employee and no new jobs have comparable wages or benefits to make up for how much she'd have to pay in daycare, transportation, etc.

This kind of happened to me. I was working as a waitress when I found out I was pregnant with DD, and I worked up until the last month or so, and returned to work again after 6 weeks. I hated being a waitress, especially since I had completed my degree and wanted to get on with my career search, but I realized that providing for my family was more important than my career aspirations. I worked lunch shift and my DH worked afternoon/evenings. Luckily we had the same 2 days off together. It sucked for our relationship, but it was what we had to do in order to ensure that WE raised DD (not that we could have afforded daycare anyhow, but still.)

But then when my DD was about a year old I was fired out of the blue and went on unemployment for 6 months. Ultimately I decided not to stay at home 100% of the time, but found a part-time job working in a local elementary school. Because it is just a part-time (less than part-time, actually) job I am still eligible for partial unemployment and that has helped us bridge the gap until my annual 5% raises start to add up. DH has also had a raise during this time, which will help when the unemployment benefits end in a few months.

So my story isn't EXACTLY as you have described, but similar in that we have decided that I will not go back to looking for full-time work until both of our children are in school full-time. It just wouldn't make sense, financially, because most of the extra income would be going to childcare. That means at least another 4-5 years of working part-time. Although we don't receive TANF or food stamps, we do get WIC and live in public housing.

[serenbat]

Quote:

OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive?

it is not the same as quitting to get assistance! not even close, this is not even supported in countries that do support mothers to stay (a short time) with their children- other countries often do not support homeschooling because they expect the parent to work and they do not support the parent to be a SAHM for 18 years as a paid life style choice

ETA- and as it was pointed out by another poster- in other countries you have to have worked so many months prior to receive assistance after a birth

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

it is not the same as quitting to get assistance! not even close

Right, and most of the situations where it might sound like someone quit specifically to get assistance, there are likely extenuating circumstances that you aren't privy to. My point is, if someone chooses to accept public assistance, most of the time they have already thought it through carefully & done the best they can to improve their circumstances & have good reason to be on welfare. I know you happen to know a few people cheating the system, but most of those on welfare are NOT doing so, most aren't bending the rules, most are people who had to make a tough choice.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make, and I'm not sure my efforts to clarify have been successful. My point is that we should reserve judgement of someone on welfare, no matter how it may look on the outside. We should expand welfare limits to encompass more of those just above the poverty line, and we should make it easier (and less stigmatizing) for people to apply for & receive benefits, while at the same time cross-referencing IRS data etc. to zero in on the small amount of fraud that does exist. We should look to what other countries are doing & consider adapting the system to better serve those who are struggling. But above all, we should allow people the freedom to make their own choices for their family -- stay at home, work, work part-time, buy lobster, get their nails done... as long as they are following the their state laws and successfully feeding their children etc. then they should not be criticized for their choices. That's my point and I don't understand whether you agree or not but even if not, there isn't really anything you could say that would change my mind on this aspect of welfare, it's pretty ingrained in my personal beliefs. So I don't understand what we are even debating anymore lol.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

Quote:

Now my kids are older and yet because of our "lifestyle choices" we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system.  We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that.

when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should subject  others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others

I do not know what you mean.  I am paying my own way.  I cannot afford health insurance and that, quite simply, is that.  At this time this is the shape of our lives and I will mot accept being judged by somebody with NO grounds to judge.  You do not know me and your words are ridiculous.

My husband and I operate our town's little independent bookstore seven days a week even though it teeters on the edge of survival--we are essentially keeping it open with willpower rather than money, we employ a single mom a few hours per week on a schedule made to meet her needs, I have a tiny but successful online craft business, and I am struggling to manage my children's needs as well.  We are also working on other plans.  There is hardly a day that goes by that someone doesn't express extreme gratitude for our efforts and willingness to keep our shop open when so many bookstores and small businesses have closed.  I am following through on a promise made.  When I bought this business, I created an income for the founder's widow and she has received a payment from me every month for 3.5 years so far while many months I have done without.  She can travel and go on trips but I cannot and I accept that completely because I made a commitment.  I may be a d*%# fool to do it as a businessperson but I am most certainly not making other people pay for me.  I am working my butt off but it ends up unpaid because of issues with our business expenses.  We are barely squeaking by and working on how to solve our challenges without jeopardizing any of our commitments.  I am contributing to our society and community in many ways by the measuring stick that counts.  My family lives 100% on self-employment income and I provide some income directly to two people who are not in my family--and I put their needs first.

Because my dh works about 60 hours per week at our bookstore I am able to be at home for homeschooling though many times I work late into the night on paperwork and other things.  Both of us end up paid for only a small fraction of our hours, perhaps 30%.  The only days we have both had together as a day off were Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter.  Those are our "weekends"   He does some other paid work that is occasional only so then I drop in and run the bookstore.  While I am a "SAHM" some of the time, I am also a WAHM and a WOHM and I am poor.  I spend two full days a week at our homeschool co-op, which means I am contributing to that community by teaching classes and helping coordinate the group, and although this is work that nourishes many people it is unpaid as well.  I don't receive state assistance for many reasons including the fact that I am paying for my own decisions.  The small risk of an ER visit is not enough for me to screw all of the people who are counting on me over by abandoning what I am doing.

Oh, the story I could tell.  You have NO idea how I have worked and what I have been through on the path to this place or where I am going next.  YOU have no right to decide that someone who cannot afford insurance should overturn every aspect their life that matters to them to fix that one piece.  I have been attempting to fix that one piece but so far we do not have a solution.  I think I'll just keep trying to do the right thing in the spot I am in and work on figuring things out.  So offended.  No one has EVER said anything like that about how I live.  Maybe because mostly I talk to people who actually know me.   

[serenbat]

Quote:

 YOU have no right to decide that someone who cannot afford insurance should overturn every aspect their life that matters to them to fix that one piece. 

the govt decides and they are trying to change that

this is not some level playing field - I don't have the choice to not use my insurance if I have to go to the ER- my care would not be free- I can't say I just can't pay it and be done with it

the mother that has no insurance because they do not for not work or what ever reason, does cost others when they seek services 

this whole notion that some how by making a "choice" to stay home and still receive assistance vs not is some how equal simply is not true

if you have a "life style choice" that causes you to not have/afford medical care ....who do you think pays for it?

                                    Why do you think people want to change this if it is so great to not be covered?

[littlest birds]

Most of the medical care my family has used since I had no insurance has been simply paid for out of my pocket. I think we used a non-profit clinic once that had a sliding scale fee. It's independently funded.

In ANY health care system we are all paying for each other.  If we pay insurance companies, they spread the cost among all payers, those who consume less care are paying extra to cover those who use a lot of care.  We are paying for each other.  When we have people receive "free" charity care from hospitals (which our local hospital does), the hospital raises their charges to cover their average costs and so again we are all paying through that.  If we pay taxes and the government distributes care to the poor and elderly we are all paying for each other, too.  Where's the bad guy exactly? 

The ones who are paid for most by others are not those who access government-funded care so much as those who have major conditions and high expenses.  Collectively the less healthy people are taking away from everyone else by consuming a larger share of services.

I don't mind when others cost me and they shouldn't mind when I cost them whichever access point I happen to have.  I've done my part more than many insured just by taking better care of my health and my children's health so that we need a smaller portion of care from any source.  If I minded I'd have to go around pointing my finger at all the obese and inactive people and everyone with acquired lifestyle health problems and telling them that it is their fault that health insurance is too expensive for me.  If everyone used health care at the level I use it I could afford insurance.  Anytime I have paid for health insurance, I have paid much higher costs than what I use while others have used much more "at my expense."   I don't need to go around complaining about this because I just don't have problems with other people so much.  

You cannot identify who is and has done their fair share in this society based on whether they receive benefits for a period while being a SAHM. 

Sometimes we give, sometimes we receive.  Part of your life you might pay more and receive less, sometime you may pay less and receive more.  That is okay by me.

I've said this whole thread I don't judge other people's decisions because they receive assistance.  I trust moms to make the best decision for their family.  Even if they "might" be wrong I don't mind.  I'm glad they have the freedom to choose.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

the govt decides and they are trying to change that

this is not some level playing field - I don't have the choice to not use my insurance if I have to go to the ER- my care would not be free- I can't say I just can't pay it and be done with it

the mother that has no insurance because they do not for not work or what ever reason, does cost others when they seek services 

this whole notion that some how by making a "choice" to stay home and still receive assistance vs not is some how equal simply is not true

if you have a "life style choice" that causes you to not have/afford medical care ....who do you think pays for it?

                                    Why do you think people want to change this if it is so great to not be covered?

We canceled our health insurance before my husband lost his job because we could not afford it.  Even spending a few hundred dollars on eye exams and glasses was less than one month of what our insurance cost us. 

If you were to visit the ER without health insurance they will let you set up a payment plan.  If you canceled your health insurance and put half of what it's been costing you each month into a savings account, you'd probably be able to pay on the spot for almost anything.  Major events are likely to max out many insurance plans anyway and you can end up paying them down for a decade or more whether you had insurance when they occurred or not.

Especially as the effort is being made to cover more and more people and obligate us all to pay toward that coverage, lifestyle choices that result in poorer physical health are the ones that cause someone to receive a large share of other people's dollars.  Not whether the share comes via private insurance or a government program.  (And as an added bonus, children at home with their mother probably consume fewer health care dollars than those in day care.)

[serenbat]

Since there seems to be a problem with those without insurance paying there payment plan we are going to all paying.

When I "life style choice" cost others money it tends to not be viewed as favorable by the masses.

[littlest birds]

My lifestyle choice simply does not cost others money.  Especially looked at as a whole.  Similarly I think anyone who chooses to be a SAHM who you may want to judge would have her entire life and all of the different things she has done and will contribute considered before you say she should not have that freedom.  Since making such judgments well is extremely complicated, better to let the woman who knows her own life best make her decision to the best of her ability.

If I needed assistance I would get it.  I don't so I don't.  That is its purpose.  But for years no one has paid a penny in that way to support my lifestyle choice.  Because of my low income I am vulnerable enough that someday I might need a safety net. 

That's exactly what it's for.  You make it sound like any lifestyle choice that might contribute to a family being poorer/needing benefits should be considered unethical.  I think life is not that simple and decisions like that have to take a lot of things into consideration.  Most people who receive benefits have contributed as well, and will contribute more int he future.  I don't think SAHMs receiving help should be spoken of as freeloaders.  Moms of young children should decide for themselves whether staying at home is worth using a safety net.

[serenbat]

Quote:

My lifestyle choice simply does not cost others money.

you may not think so  but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured

so much so that we voted in effect to change that

We use to not have to have car insurance in my state, it cost those who had it too much to keep paying for those who chose not to, so now it is the law here.

I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's life style choices that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

you may not think so  but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured

so much so that we voted in effect to change that

Many (even most?) of us want universal health care not because we don't like paying for the uninsured, but because we don't like people having to skimp on essential medical care due to lack of insurance.

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's life style choices that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.

I don't understand why you keep referring to "lifestyle choices"... every choice we make in our lives could be considered a "lifestyle choice" by definition. It sounds more like you are saying you don't want to pay to help people who might make different choices than you would. Which, quite frankly, could be just about anybody, because we are all unique so we all make different choices. So it seems like you are saying that you aren't willing to have your money go toward helping anyone else. I think most of us do want to help others so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that many Americans don't just because you don't.

[serenbat]

Quote:

 I think most of us do want to help others so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that many Americans don't just because you don't.

so you want to pay more (in added taxes, your own out of pocket health cost, etc) so someone else who choose not (by her own choice, as in the poster who stated so) does not have to pay? and if you really think all those uninsured are making payments when they use the ER you must live in a dream world because we are finding as a nation that is not working 

money is not tight for you, like it is or others? 

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

you may not think so  but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured

so much so that we voted in effect to change that

We use to not have to have car insurance in my state, it cost those who had it too much to keep paying for those who chose not to, so now it is the law here.

I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's life style choices that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.

I'm not consuming any health care.  When I have I've paid for it myself.  If you consume more than your share beyond what you have paid into your insurance then others will pay for you, too.  You will be using a different safety net a different way.  It looks a lot different, you enjoy the advantage of appearing to yourself and others much more responsible, but in real terms it's not so much different.  As long as I am successful in providing the level of care we need no one else is paying for me.   

I do not predict that I will need health care I cannot pay for but it could happen and others might help. 

You do not predict you will need health care beyond your the part of your insurance contributions that doesn't go to the company's administrative costs/profits, but it could happen and then others might help you.

I am glad you are living your life according to your values and personal opinions.  I just don't feel like whatever you are choosing to sacrifice gives you the right to judge others that aren't making the same sacrifice.  I do not mean to be so personal, but when you criticize others it can feel personal.  Everyone makes different compromises and sacrifices.  Being a mom in family at the lower end of the income spectrum is really difficult whether you WOH or SAH.  Why look down on others?  If you really wish you could be a SAHM then maybe you should reconsider your choice and sketch out the costs and benefits of going in a new direction yourself.  But if you made the right choice for you, I would hope you could be at peace with others' choices.

Anyhow, I noticed that you referred to the opinions of the masses and I am not sure where that is going or what it is supposed to mean.  The idea that millions of people have these kinds of opinions bothers me, yet millions of people have opinions on the other side of the issue as well and I will never get the chance to talk to most of them.  Because most of those opinionated people are strangers, they shouldn't be the ones determining which poor people can make which lifestyle choices--the people living with their choices should decide for themselves as much as we can reasonably arrange for the programs to allow.

I think that current programs are getting a lot of things right.  Work requirements, time limits, documentation of living situation and income, evaluation of personal assets, exclusion of alcohol and deli items from food stamps with freedom to make food choices, child care help and programming that encourages volunteer work, training, and education.  And allowing mothers of young children to receive some selected benefits without being employed is one of the things they are doing right. 

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

so you want to pay more (in added taxes, your own out of pocket health cost, etc) so someone else who choose not (by her own choice, as in the poster who stated so) does not have to pay? and if you really think all those uninsured are making payments when they use the ER you must live in a dream world because we are finding as a nation that is not working 

money is not tight for you, like it is or others? 

Money is desperately tight for me, so I cannot afford insurance.  I have for instance chosen to homeschool.  But I do not receive benefits to so.  Like many Americans I simply can't fit health care into my budget.  It is scary. 

While I do not think everyone makes payments, some of us do and I have.  I've paid for several things out of pocket but I couldn't handle something major.

I know money is tight for you too but I don't think that means you should be mad at SAHMs receiving benefits.  I would rather pay higher taxes and have wider benefits for young families and for health care.  For anyone who wants that, why be upset with someone who qualifies now just because you may wish you were included too?  Unfortunately, it breaks my heart that we have to pay for a system of care that is full of waste and for people who aren't putting much effort into their own health.  Our health care system (childbirth for example) is overly medical and tech and it makes it really fancy and expensive often with little improvement in outcomes.  How many unneeded C-sections are we paying for--via insurance and medicaid both?  How often do we medicate with costly prescriptions for an illness that would resolve if allowed to run its course?  That's costing us way more than those awful welfare moms. But that's a whole other subject...

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

so you want to pay more (in added taxes, your own out of pocket health cost, etc) so someone else who choose not (by her own choice, as in the poster who stated so) does not have to pay?

Yes, I'd rather pay more so everyone can have access to health care, no matter what other choices they've made throughout their lives.

Originally Posted by serenbat 

money is not tight for you, like it is or others? 

Ummmm money is extremely tight, we are just above the cut-off for assistance and medical costs plus our (underwater) mortgage eat up virtually our entire income. We may lose our house. I still think making sure everyone in my community has food, medical care, and shelter is more important than my personal financial struggles.

[mamaofthree]

serenbat: i am honestly blown away by how angry you seem over this. you keep saying "life style choices" (in quotes, like it isn't a life style or something) is taking away from your family. so even if the government stopped social welfare programs do you think you would have so much more money in your pocket? i don't see why someone using benefits that they qualify for is so upsetting to you? 

back when we lived in maine, dh and i both worked 2 jobs a piece and even with that we could just barely make ends meet. in fact we couldn't heat the house properly. we couldn't deal with dh's chronic cough, we could barely put food on the table. it finally got so bad that we applied for WIC, food stamps, and mainecare. fortunately for us dh got a great job offer on the other side of the country and we moved. now i am blessed to be a SAHM things are still tight, but we are making it work. how much harder needed we work? how many jobs should we have had? we both have degrees, i am a nurse for crying out loud. stuff was crazy. what sort of life style choices should we have made? given our children away? what is the better way? we needed help and so we asked for it and if the job had not come up we would probably still be using that help. i don't think we a users or jerks or lazy at all. who is anyone to judge us? is my dh a jerk for occasionally picking up a little caesars pizza on his way home for $5.00? we had internet but dh needed that for his job. are we bad because we had that? or bad because we paid $9.00 a month for netflix?

[kitteh]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

you may not think so  but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured

so much so that we voted in effect to change that

We use to not have to have car insurance in my state, it cost those who had it too much to keep paying for those who chose not to, so now it is the law here.

I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's life style choices that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.

Au contraire. In fact, one of the major changes to be made under the US National Healthcare Act is that people with pre-existing conditions CANNOT be denied insurance coverage, as is the common practice now with private health coverage. The reason these people are turned away from receiving coverage under the pre-"Obamacare" system is because the insurance companies KNOW that they are going to need more care (and therefore cost more money to the insurers) than they can possibly be asked to pay into the system. And there simply aren't enough able-bodied, young, healthy people paying into the system to offset the expense of someone who has cancer, or some other chronic disease. The insurance companies don't want those chronically or seriously ill people cutting into their profit margin, so they deny coverage, which in some cases is essentially a death sentence. Many--I'd venture to say that MOST--people see it as inhumane and immoral to deny care, often life saving care, to those in need simply because they cannot pay their "fair share", and because the insurance companies don't want to lose profits.

So, we have voted, in effect, to change THAT, and the solution actually involves MORE people paying for coverage that they probably will not use so that those who truly need it will not be turned away.

[bmcneal]

People who are poor should *never* have anything new. In fact, it would be better if they didn't spend any money on anything at all, outside of bills. If you have money for variety of food, you're spending too much money. Poor people should *only* have ramen noodles. Better if you can split one package/day. If you aren't working 24/7, better get a better/second/third/forth job. How *dare* people who are poor attempt to enjoy life at all!

/sarcasm

[serenbat]

Quote:

Au contraire. In fact, one of the major changes to be made under the US National Healthcare Act is that people with pre-existing conditions CANNOT be denied insurance coverage, as is the common practice now with private health coverage. The reason these people are turned away from receiving coverage under the pre-"Obamacare" system is because the insurance companies KNOW that they are going to need more care (and therefore cost more money to the insurers) than they can possibly be asked to pay into the system. And there simply aren't enough able-bodied, young, healthy people paying into the system to offset the expense of someone who has cancer, or some other chronic disease. The insurance companies don't want those chronically or seriously ill people cutting into their profit margin, so they deny coverage, which in some cases is essentially a death sentence. Many--I'd venture to say that MOST--people see it as inhumane and immoral to deny care, often life saving care, to those in need simply because they cannot pay their "fair share", and because the insurance companies don't want to lose profits.

So, we have voted, in effect, to change THAT, and the solution actually involves MORE people paying for coverage that they probably will not use so that those who truly need it will not be turned away.

uninsured by lack of wanting to pay also factor into it- I know many that use the ER as their health care and do not make their payments, could careless about their credit score and have skated by for years doing so-they are costing the system and others certainly are paying it

all assistance is designed for short term need, not because you just don't want to pay it (as in the case some not paying for health insurance) - same as we can't just all quit and expect unemployment 

I seriously feel many think this is just some never ending money pit that will always be there- clearly states are not being able to supply this even with federal help

[captain optimism]

Fine, whatever, the national policy is going to be that everyone over a certain level of income has to buy health insurance, that all insurers have to cover everyone, and that the government is going to, at least in theory, cover more people.  Anyone who doesn't buy health insurance who can afford it is going to have to pay a fine, and everyone who can't afford it is going to be eligible for more government health insurance. 

This is an inelegant solution to a huge problem, but it is the one our dysfunctional government was finally able to agree to do. Sort of--we still have some idiotic politicians resisting the idea as socialism, even though we got it from the Heritage Foundation, which is a right-wing think tank. A better solution would have been to pay taxes to the government and have them insure everyone, like they do in countries where they spend less money and get better life expectancy and health results. (That's a lot of countries, since the US spends the most on health care.) 

I'm sure, once this set of regulations is fully in place, that there will be some people who make too much to be eligible for Medicaid and too little to afford health insurance, so you guys can still have this stupid argument.

I think it's stupid because it's predicated on the idea that every person who suffers a misfortune must deserve it. People neither deserve to get sick because they didn't behave well enough to prevent it, nor do they deserve to have to choose between health insurance and other necessities because the insurance is too expensive. 

Or you know what? If they DO deserve to be sick or poor (or sick and poor) I don't give a cr@p. Public policy should be based on the idea that some people are going to be in trouble sometimes, and we as a whole society plan ahead to deal with that. You want to sit in your houses and feel superior to sick people or to people who can't afford health insurance, enjoy.