An odd welfare story

**irmanator** · 09-24-2008, 06:28 PM

wow i'd support it. it probably wont go thru though........

**LivingAlmostLarge** · 09-24-2008, 06:34 PM

I have friends in public health. In the poorer area of LA they were trying to offer free Birth Control to women and they wanted it but if their boyfriends found out they'd be pissed. So they were trying to do free implants that stop conception for 5 years.

The study was to see if women wanted it and what would happen. It was ended because it was thought to be discriminatory against poor people.

**irmanator** · 09-24-2008, 06:39 PM

so what they need it .... its not like rich people need free birthcontrol

**kork13** · 09-24-2008, 06:42 PM

This isn't the first time I've heard of such proposals... However, it's one that I've generally found to be less-than-warmly welcomed by all levels of society. In theory, it's great. You prevent poor families from having many more children who can't be supported (and would thereby be supported on the state/nation's dime), then continue into adulthood where there is a fair chance (at best, approaching certainty at worst) where those same children may only continue the same unfortunate cycle. All the while, you're providing what could be a major windfall for some families.

However, most of what I've heard regarding this sort of policy (whether optional or not) is that it's percieved as diminuitive toward women (or men, depending on which the given program targets), devalues life, and encourages a permanent 'fix' in return for a temporary benefit, which can't (easily/affordably) be undone if so desired. For better or for worse, I don't expect something like that will gain much momentum....

As to the article itself, I was a bit underwhelmed with the lack of decisiveness in stating "here's the plan". The proposal seems to have dozens of "if/then" clauses in order to be a catch-all. In general terms, policymakers trying to predict conditions and exceptions, then quantify them into policy works out infrequently, or if it does get through the state/national legislature, the policy normally does poorly. I don't really have much opinion toward this proposal either way myself, but I just don't see it coming to fruition.

**MonkeyMama** · 09-24-2008, 06:47 PM

No kidding.

There is some woman out there churning out babies for a member of our family who can not conceive.

Certainly a blessing for our family, but it is completely mind boggling all the same.

Even though they received the children upon birth and adopted them immediately (foster-to-adopt system) the state will pay a large amount for the children. Throughout their life.

At what point do you say enough is enough? Our family received the 10th & 11th child this woman put into the system. There will no doubt be more. Our relative struggles when to say enough is enough. Of course she wants them all, but what if she has 10 more kids?

I wonder if this woman would voluntarily get her tubes ties. I have no idea her age. $1k would be a bargain in a case like this.

I agree with Kork to an extent.

But on the flip side, when do you say enough is enough?

**PrincessPerky** · 09-25-2008, 09:11 AM

why not offer the same price to a man for vasectomy? that would level the gender divide so to speak.

and how about not paying extra, just having it as a free option, or subsidized. a simple part of the welfare healthcare...but with a required ask all women an fathers on state healthcare.

at one time in PA you had to accept implants to receive state healthcare...well that is what I heard from one participant..she hated the implant. (the old arm sticks)

**kork13** · 09-25-2008, 02:39 PM

I believe one of the many conditions in the proposal does allow the same for men.

If it were simply free (no "reward"), many people wouldn't bother doing it. What's the point? Only those forward-thinking enough to consider that another pregnancy could cost them significantly would go--not to stereotype, but I don't expect many people would get it done without some sort of incentive.

**asmom** · 09-25-2008, 06:29 PM

Statistics have proven thta most women on welfare have 2 children or less and are on welfare for less than 5 years, and there has never been any evidence of widespread so-called generational welfare. And why not offer the same deal to the men? That would actually be cheaper and easier. Sheesh....

It's amazing that while our so-called leaders are debating on a 700 billion giveaway to the corporations and we are spending billions in Iraq per month, someone is wringing their hands about a 3-year old getting some government cheese, and to this extent. Simply amazing.

**ThriftoRama** · 09-25-2008, 06:41 PM

In New Orleans, where this idea is coming from there is a serious systemic generational poverty and welfare issue. It's overwhelming. Three and four generations living in the projects and on welfare. But New Orleans is very different than most cities.

**kork13** · 09-25-2008, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by asmom View Post

and there has never been any evidence of widespread so-called generational welfare.

In fairness, I'll state upfront that I've never been a big fan of our welfare system, in large part probably due to how and what I grew up around. So there is that bias...

hmm.... my guess would be that maybe it hasn't been studied? i don't know, but back home on Guam, there were definitely families who had been raised on welfare. families qualify for welfare because of the large number of children and grandparents they are caring for, then continue on it for years and years.... The family of a friend of mine (in like... 5th grade) was on welfare... I didn't know what welfare was at the time, but I remember finding out that his grandparents, parents, and his older siblings all were receiving food stamps, and had for a while (again, 5th grade... long enough to not really know how long).

That's a major beef that I have with our welfare system... people are given food stamps, and go to the store and use 2 shopping carts. One for the stuff food stamps will cover (food staples), the other for other stuff. They pull up to the register, pay for their rice and cheese and such with food stamps, then pay for steaks, cigarettes, and beer with cash. They may see a difference, but in the end, we're all still paying for their cigarettes! I actually saw some people get in an argument about this in front of the cashier when somebody behind this person in line challenged this exact point after they asked for a pack of cigarettes from behind the counter.

I realize that many (probably most) people who get welfare don't abuse it, and legitimately need it. I just wish that somebody (it's way above me) could figure out a better way to do it to prevent those who do abuse it....

An odd welfare story