Planned Parenthood's Problem vs. Capitalism

[Turtle]

Granted, my experience with benefits is limited to unemployment, but even that, which is earned, has so many strict rules and conditions that I find it very hard to believe that benefits that aren't earned would be easy to get.

OK, starting with the premise that benefits which are unearned are difficult to get, and knowing that anything difficult to obtain is a natural barrier for people in general (as people will usually take the path of least resistance, and the smallest difficulty will cause most to simply give up), what percentage of the US population receiving unearned welfare benefits would you consider to be an expected percentage figure that would represent the difficulty in obtaining those benefits.

Additionally, at what percentage would that need to be before the premise of "difficult to get" would need to be changed to "not all that hard to get"?

Worded differently, if unearned welfare benefits aren't all that easy to get, what percentage of the US population do you think would be willing to jump through the various and sundry hoops to obtain them?

 

[davekc]

Granted, my experience with benefits is limited to unemployment, but even that, which is earned, has so many strict rules and conditions that I find it very hard to believe that benefits that aren't earned would be easy to get. Especially with state and federal governments [who split the benefits] almost all claiming to be in dire straits. It would be easier to get a job, if one could get a job that covers the cost of living, that is.
Look at the trouble vets have getting adequate and timely assistance - and they're very popular, politically. How much harder is it for the politically unpopular to get "money for nothing"?
I read a pretty good illustration today of how different things are for working people and influential business: A couple in Alabama found their BCBS premiums raised last year from $800/mo to $1200 [same coverage as the previous year], and the deductible from $750/ea to $2000/ea. Blue Cross blames Obamacare, but interestingly, State Sen Slade Blackwell introduced a bill [which passed with no dissent] to include the salaries of insurance executives in a list of "confidential work papers" that are kept from public disclosure. BCBS is virtually the only insurance available in Alabama that satisfies the ACA rules [except for some 'sharing' plans that aren't much good] Coincidence?
Government is supposed to be "of, by, and for the people", not the greedheads for whom there is no such thing as 'enough profit'.

Things are much easier over the last six years. No longer in many states do you have to report or provide anything. Just call and tell them you need your check. California is a big one on that. Plenty of jobs, but they don't pay the combination of working under the table and getting benefits. That has been shown time and again.
With regards to veterans, they historically don't vote democrat, so they aren't currently a priority, and it shows. Money will always go to the voting bloc.
As for Obamacare, yep, "have to pass it before you really know what is in it". Lmao. People were warned and now we know. Pretty much a disaster. The only "beneficiaries" are the insurance companies. It wasn't exactly a accident that they provided a lot of money to the democrats. Another, "follow the money" episodes.
Now even quite a few democrats thinks its a mess.

 

[Turtle]

The only "beneficiaries" are the insurance companies. It wasn't exactly a accident that they provided a lot of money to the democrats. Another, "follow the money" episodes.

Have you seen the recent stories of pharmaceutical companies raising the prices of some medications? Follow the money is right. Do a Google News search for Turing Pharmaceuticals. A medication that's been on the market for 62 years that is used to treat malaria and toxoplasmosis goes from $13.50 per pill to $750 overnight. And the antibiotic Doxycycline (1967 - a broad-spectrum tetracycline-type antibiotic used to treat a wide range of infections, from chlamydia and cholera to Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever) jumped overnight from $0.06 per pill to $4.80 - that's 8000 percent. Clomipramine, a drug used to treat OCD, has gone from $0.27 a pop to $8.57 per. The manufacturers cite supply and demand, lack of other suppliers (monopoly effect), and in one of the most creative euphemisms for "thank" I've ever seen, they "blame" Obamacare, with the Turing CEO flatly stating that what insurance won't cover, Obamacare will.

 

[cheri1122]

That Obamacare is primarily a gift to the insurance and drug companies is why I never supported it, and don't have insurance still. Insurance and drug companies don't deserve to be rewarded, they're a large part of why people can't afford medical care to begin with. Like the Turing CEO, they will take advantage of an excuse to raise premiums, deductibles, and prices, when it's actually their greed that is to blame.

Dave: can you cite anything that shows how "it's much easier over the last six years", and "in many states you just have to report or provide anything, just call & tell them you need your check"?
Because that's not what I've seen, and it looks incredibly irresponsible.

 

[cheri1122]

OK, starting with the premise that benefits which are unearned are difficult to get, and knowing that anything difficult to obtain is a natural barrier for people in general (as people will usually take the path of least resistance, and the smallest difficulty will cause most to simply give up), what percentage of the US population receiving unearned welfare benefits would you consider to be an expected percentage figure that would represent the difficulty in obtaining those benefits.

Additionally, at what percentage would that need to be before the premise of "difficult to get" would need to be changed to "not all that hard to get"?

Worded differently, if unearned welfare benefits aren't all that easy to get, what percentage of the US population do you think would be willing to jump through the various and sundry hoops to obtain them?

What on earth ever gave you the impression that I could answer that? I don't speak math!
If the answer was 12%, I'd accept it. Ditto with 27%, 38% - I truly have no idea. Nor do I see where it matters when the premise is that benefits are easy to get or not so easy to get. Both of which speak more to the needs of the policy writers than the needs of the potential beneficiaries.

 

[Turtle]

What on earth ever gave you the impression that I could answer that? I don't speak math!
If the answer was 12%, I'd accept it. Ditto with 27%, 38% - I truly have no idea. Nor do I see where it matters when the premise is that benefits are easy to get or not so easy to get. Both of which speak more to the needs of the policy writers than the needs of the potential beneficiaries.

The premise is everything, as the percentage of people receiving unearned welfare benefits goes directly to how easy, or hard, it is to obtain them. If benefits are hard to get, as you claim, with all the strict rules and conditions, then a rather small percentage of people would A), even qualify for them, and B) jump through all the hoops to obtain them. Even those who qualify for the benefits, not all of them would jump through all the hoops. So, more difficult implies a smaller percentage of participation.

If benefits are hard to get, then I would imagine somewhere between 5% and 10% of the US population might be the number, based on unemployment rates and the barriers of strict rules and conditions to obtaining the benefits. If the benefits are easy to get, with few barriers, then I would imagine a much larger number, like 25% or 35%, perhaps even higher.

So, what do you think? High or low participation? And what percentage do you think would be too high, and thus the benefits are too easily obtained?

 

[davekc]

That Obamacare is primarily a gift to the insurance and drug companies is why I never supported it, and don't have insurance still. Insurance and drug companies don't deserve to be rewarded, they're a large part of why people can't afford medical care to begin with. Like the Turing CEO, they will take advantage of an excuse to raise premiums, deductibles, and prices, when it's actually their greed that is to blame.

Dave: can you cite anything that shows how "it's much easier over the last six years", and "in many states you just have to report or provide anything, just call & tell them you need your check"?
Because that's not what I've seen, and it looks incredibly irresponsible.

Well it is easier. The numbers say it is easier. You went from 26 million to 48 million in that period. I believe it was Fox News that did a "hit" piece showing how easy it was with "lobster boy". Sign up once and you are good to go. Some of it is surrounded by changes in work requirements but it is different depending on what state you are talking about.

 

[cheri1122]

Well it is easier. The numbers say it is easier. You went from 26 million to 48 million in that period. I believe it was Fox News that did a "hit" piece showing how easy it was with "lobster boy". Sign up once and you are good to go. Some of it is surrounded by changes in work requirements but it is different depending on what state you are talking about.

Do the numbers say it's easier, or that the need is greater? I haven't read anything to indicate that the former is true. The change in work requirements, which had been tightened as part of 'welfare reform', was at the request of state governors, who wanted flexibility in view of unemployment levels - it's unreasonable to require people to have a job when jobs available locally aren't the solution for the people who need employment, for many reasons.
I've read a lot to indicate that the latter is the cause for the higher numbers of people getting one kind of assistance or another. Just for instance: people working at WalMart & fast food places who get food stamps - that's something that never happened years ago: employment and poverty at the same time.
I'm not surprised that Fox would do such a 'hit piece', that being what their viewers want to see, but I'd be very skeptical about accepting it at face value.
Not that they'd lie, or anything.

 

[cheri1122]

The premise is everything, as the percentage of people receiving unearned welfare benefits goes directly to how easy, or hard, it is to obtain them. If benefits are hard to get, as you claim, with all the strict rules and conditions, then a rather small percentage of people would A), even qualify for them, and B) jump through all the hoops to obtain them. Even those who qualify for the benefits, not all of them would jump through all the hoops. So, more difficult implies a smaller percentage of participation.

If benefits are hard to get, then I would imagine somewhere between 5% and 10% of the US population might be the number, based on unemployment rates and the barriers of strict rules and conditions to obtaining the benefits. If the benefits are easy to get, with few barriers, then I would imagine a much larger number, like 25% or 35%, perhaps even higher.

So, what do you think? High or low participation? And what percentage do you think would be too high, and thus the benefits are too easily obtained?

I think there's more involved than how easy or hard benefits are to get, [like knowledge of available benefits & ways & means of applying for them], but the idea that they are as easy to get as Dave KC says [just call & tell them you need money, the check is on it's way] is contrary to my knowledge and experience.
I also think percentages such as you ask me to provide are for wonks, which I am plainly not. :english:

 

[Turtle]

Nice Dodge. Since you're clearly getting excellent mileage with it, I'd stick with it.

 

[davekc]

There are a few extra hoops to jump through just for unemployment benefits depending on the state, but welfare and the whole list of other freebies, not so much.

 

[paulnstef39]

U.S. Welfare Programs - Federal Safety Net

Kind of a "welfare" benefits description.

 

[cheri1122]

There are a few extra hoops to jump through just for unemployment benefits depending on the state, but welfare and the whole list of other freebies, not so much.

In Tn, the limit for food stamps [avg benefit is $132.50 per person per month] the limit for an adult without children is 3 months out of 36. Cash assistance is limited [to everyone] to 48 months lifetime total. Also, if one is subject to the work requirements, cash assistance allows a licensed vehicle for each working person, combined total value of vehicles not to exceed $8,500. There are also limits on home value and bank accounts and other assets, and do you suppose the state will take your word for it, or might you have to prove what everything is actually worth? With acceptable documentation, of course.
Sounds like "a few extra hoops" to me, lol.

PS When the company I worked for closed the doors forever, employees were eligible for "job training" assistance, which amounted to lessons in how to write a resume, how to dress for an interview, places to look for 'help wanted' ads, etc. Any actual training was reserved for people on welfare already, which left most of the unemployed out.

 

[davekc]

Depending on the state, there are some limitations, but the federal freebies don't have many. Sure you have to provide some information (who knows if the reported is true?) but not anything too intense. Limits for food stamps using TN, can be extended over and over. Almost laughable actually.
Have to remember, these people are unemployed. Plenty of time to gather information to collect on a free benefit.

 

[Turtle]

Have to remember, these people are unemployed. Plenty of time to gather information to collect on a free benefit.

That's certainly the incentive, anyway.

 

[cheri1122]

Depending on the state, there are some limitations, but the federal freebies don't have many. Sure you have to provide some information (who knows if the reported is true?) but not anything too intense. Limits for food stamps using TN, can be extended over and over. Almost laughable actually.
Have to remember, these people are unemployed. Plenty of time to gather information to collect on a free benefit.

Most, if not all, assistance programs are a joint federal & state thing, with the fed providing the bulk of the funds, and the state choosing how [and to whom] to disburse it. I find it hard to believe that the states would take an attitude of generosity to such benefits - it defies every claim they've made for years, about needing to cut programs, benefits, etc.
You don't think they try to disqualify every single applicant they can? I do, because they don't want to give the benefits to people, they'd much rather find a way to 'repurpose' that money.
One program I know is federal is Pell grants, for college - have you seen the application? Holy cannoli, they demand proof of everything, [must include copies of tax returns], and then they tell you what the "expected family contribution" is, and it's just like the insurance: their idea of 'affordable' is based on something other than reality.
COBRA is another program: continues medical insurance in certain cases, at a lower group rate - but if every 't' isn't crossed and 'i' dotted, disqualification is swift - and irreversible.
You have to remember that most unemployed are actively looking for a[nother] job, which is a full time job itself. Been there, done that. It's also a very discouraging and demoralizing one, and people can only be rejected for so long before they quit trying. The idea that life without work is a picnic is a myth, period. [Unless there's plenty of money, and even then, people prefer working, because it's in our DNA.]

 

[Turtle]

I find it hard to believe that the states would take an attitude of generosity to such benefits - it defies every claim they've made for years, about needing to cut programs, benefits, etc.

For most of the states and most of the benefits, federal law prevents them from cutting the benefits, or if they do, they will lose other federal dollars that are tied to unrelated programs. For example, if states cut food stamps, they risk losing federal education dollars, since they are tied together.

You don't think they try to disqualify every single applicant they can? I do, because they don't want to give the benefits to people, they'd much rather find a way to 'repurpose' that money.

Well, first of all, very little of that money can be repurposed. And zero of the federal dollars can be repurposed, and it's federal dollars that make up the bulk of the dollars. Second, if they wanted to disqualify as many applicants as they can, they could disqualify almost all of them for one reason or another. But they don't.

You have to remember that most unemployed are actively looking for a[nother] job, which is a full time job itself.

You must remember that while that sounds good, the reality is the exact opposite. There are countless stories of employee placement agencies who have a worse batting average than an American league pitcher at placing people in jobs in which they are qualified because people simply don't want to work. The only thing they are "active" in is getting proof that they looked for work. But when work is offered, they find some reason not to take it.

Further, Maine proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that most people on welfare would rather not work. Last year Maine singled out able-bodied adults who aren’t disabled, aren't mentally ill, don't have dyslexia, have graduated high school, and who don’t have children at home, who are claiming the food stamp benefits because of a lack of financial resources. Maine passed a measure that would require only these particular types of individuals who are recipients of SNAP to complete a certain number of work, volunteer, or job-training hours before being eligible for assistance. If individuals can’t get and hold a part-time job of twenty hours per week, they can qualify by enrolling in training program. If that doesn’t get them a job, they can still qualify by volunteering.

After requiring these recipients to work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the number of recipients dropped significantly,from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500.

Maine Democrats are just furious. No reason. Just because. It's unfair. Or something.

 

[cheri1122]

For most of the states and most of the benefits, federal law prevents them from cutting the benefits, or if they do, they will lose other federal dollars that are tied to unrelated programs. For example, if states cut food stamps, they risk losing federal education dollars, since they are tied together.

They can, however, cut the number of persons approved for assistance, which saves them the money that is their contribution. They can also enact limits , like Tn's maximums [3 mos of food stamps in 36 mos]. They can't cut the amount, true, but when it's a whole $33.25 per week, [Tn's SNAP benefit for each person], there's not much point in it.


Well, first of all, very little of that money can be repurposed. And zero of the federal dollars can be repurposed, and it's federal dollars that make up the bulk of the dollars. Second, if they wanted to disqualify as many applicants as they can, they could disqualify almost all of them for one reason or another. But they don't.

We don't know how many are disqualified, do we? I haven't found any discussion [much less facts] on that subject, have you?


You must remember that while that sounds good, the reality is the exact opposite. There are countless stories of employee placement agencies who have a worse batting average than an American league pitcher at placing people in jobs in which they are qualified because people simply don't want to work. The only thing they are "active" in is getting proof that they looked for work. But when work is offered, they find some reason not to take it.

Further, Maine proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that most people on welfare would rather not work. Last year Maine singled out able-bodied adults who aren’t disabled, aren't mentally ill, don't have dyslexia, have graduated high school, and who don’t have children at home, who are claiming the food stamp benefits because of a lack of financial resources. Maine passed a measure that would require only these particular types of individuals who are recipients of SNAP to complete a certain number of work, volunteer, or job-training hours before being eligible for assistance. If individuals can’t get and hold a part-time job of twenty hours per week, they can qualify by enrolling in training program. If that doesn’t get them a job, they can still qualify by volunteering.

After requiring these recipients to work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the number of recipients dropped significantly,from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500.

Maine Democrats are just furious. No reason. Just because. It's unfair. Or something.

I don't see where Maine proved "without a shadow of a doubt that most people on welfare would rather not work". We don't know why the jobs were turned down. Further, the option of volunteering takes work out of the equation. How many people satisfied the requirement by doing volunteer work, [presumably because suitable employment wasn't available]?
It's funny, but the only people who ever claim that collecting welfare [& food stamps] is preferable to working are people who have never tried to live on the dole. The benefits are deliberately less than work would provide, and the struggle to eat every day, and decide what to buy and what to pay and how to explain to the kids that they can't have a birthday party and living with crazy/unpleasant/resentful family because it's all you can do is a life no one would find bearable for long, if they had an alternative.

 

[Turtle]

I don't see where Maine proved "without a shadow of a doubt that most people on welfare would rather not work".

That's because it doesn't fit your argument. Nevertheless, the numbers are what they are.

We don't know why the jobs were turned down.

It doesn't matter why the jobs were turned down. No unreasonable jobs were offered, and even if they were and were turned down, the offer of training or volunteering was still good. None of people in the group were unable to work, and they had all stated they were willing and able to work. Keep in mind that these requirements only apply to able-bodied adults without dependents.

Further, the option of volunteering takes work out of the equation.

No it doesn't. Volunteer work is still work. Helllooooo. Whether it's employment or volunteer work, or training for either, a significant majority didn't want to do any of it to earn their welfare. Some simply found another way to eat, others figured if they had to work they might as well go ahead and get a real job that paid them enough to be off of welfare completely.

How many people satisfied the requirement by doing volunteer work, [presumably because suitable employment wasn't available]?

The numbers went from 12,007 to 2680. Of the 2680, 1038 (38%) took jobs offered, 567 (21%) entered the training program, and 1075 (40%) performed volunteer work. And, again, the volunteer work that gets you the benefits isn't 20 hours a week, it's just 24 hours a month.

 

[cheri1122]

No it doesn't. Volunteer work is still work. Helllooooo. Whether it's employment or volunteer work, or training for either, a significant majority didn't want to do any of it to earn their welfare. Some simply found another way to eat, others figured if they had to work they might as well go ahead and get a real job that paid them enough to be off of welfare completely.

Wow - you just know that those who dropped out "didn't want to do any of it", huh?
It's not even a possibility that some [maybe many] were perfectly willing to comply, but were rejected for employment [for any one of a dozen reasons], and training [lack of interest, ability, or possibly the same reason I didn't get government paid training, and had to pay for nursing school myself: the training program was limited to people already collecting welfare], and even volunteering, because organizations don't simply accept any & every one who says they'd like to help. They [orgs] can't afford to, because of the potential for liability, should a 'volunteer' turn out to be a legal liability, after they've done something bad.
Also too, "not mentally ill" means "not officially diagnosed", which doesn't mean not strange, odd, weird, or whatever can put people off. Maybe just kind of obnoxious. The kind of snotty know-it-all that everyone wants to clock within minutes of encountering them. Maybe they have offensive tattoos, or facial jewelry - who knows?
The assumption that they just 'don't wanna' is unfounded due to lack of evidence. Also pretty snotty, IMO. There are going to be some, sure, but I don't think it's accurate [or fair] to assume that all or most people 'don't wanna', because : Maslow's hierarchy.