Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Whew, complex issue. Unfortunately, I feel inadequate to define the solution.

Where do your figures come from by the way? I have heard that bulk of welfare
families are single parent families, with the mother normally being the single
parent. Can you confirm or refute this? 

I would like to see some way of increasing jobs for everyone, increasing the
gross national product, bringing back more making of actual goods rather than
a service economy, bringing back a sense of community to our neighborhoods,
towns, and cities, but I haven't the faintest how to achieve it.

Leslie

    
    > I have heard that bulk of welfare families are single parent families,
    > with the mother normally being the single parent. Can you confirm or
    > refute this?

    This is true. But of all the ways to be a single mom - divorce,
    separated, widowed, never married - the never-married welfare mom is
    the minority. This minority of the never-married teenaged mom is being
    touted as the norm by welfare's most outspoken, public critics and it's
    just not true! There are enough real issues that need to be addressed
    without resorting to misrepresentations and deceit.

    > Where do your figures come from by the way?

    I first heard these figures, or similar ones, reported on NPR. Later, I
    found a study from the Twentieth Century Fund, a non-partisan
    foundation founded in 1919. They are progressive, but not
    'bleeding-heart' liberal. The data for this particular study comes
    largely from published US government reports and Congressional
    testimonies.

    Eric

    Since the subject has been brought up, let me expand upon .0 a
    bit for a better rounded look at what most people call "welfare".
    
    First, Eric only mentions AFDC payments.  It is true enough that AFDC
    payments alone are not a real big fiscal issue.  Some conservatives give 
    this a higher priority than it really needs to have, probably because of 
    the entire "entitlement" mentality that big-government is instilling in
    America.  
    
    You cannot simply look at AFDC, though, as this is only a part of the
    cost for those on welfare.  It is misleading to simply chalk welfare
    (for the poor) up to being ONLY a monthly check.  There is housing
    (which costs more than AFDC), food stamps, medical care (which costs a
    LOT more than AFDC) and other free services (that the taxpayer has to pay
    for) that up the ante quite a bit.
    
    If it were up to me, the first reform I'd make would be to take all
    entitlement programs away from the federal government.  Let the states
    run these programs for their own citizens.  Let the states reform these
    programs to best fit the needs of its people ("one size fits all"
    programs DO NOT WORK, and that's what you get with federal
    beauracracies).  Just this ONE reform (without changing anything else),
    would save billions of dollars, after it was transferred, due to
    reduction of federal beauracracies (currently, the recipient gets only
    26 cents of every tax dollar set aside for assistence).
    
    Less waste, less beauracracy, and no subsidizing welfare states to keep
    them afloat.  Why should a state with 1% welfare population have to
    support a neighboring state with a 20% welfare population?  Seems that
    the welfare state would be forced to do some serious
    revamping/streamlining of its programs, should such subsidy cease.  This, 
    in the long run, would be a good thing for that state.  It would be 
    forced to change what's wrong with its current policies, or go bankrupt 
    (and unfortunately, this is probably the only kind of motivation that will 
    get things moving in the right direction - this is the only reason that a 
    balanced budget is being pushed for on the federal level, IMO).
     
    One thing is certain.  We cannot keep upping the entitlement ante by
    11% each and every year- we can't even pay for our CURRENT outlay of
    $$ earmarked for these programs, yet we continually bump them up 11%
    each year.  Folks, this is simply irresponsible fiscal policy-
    criminally so, IMO.  
    
    Sooner or later, we WILL hit our debt limit, and welare as we know it- one 
    way or the other- will come to an end.  Why not do something now, when 
    changes will cause the least amount of pain?  The longer we wait, the 
    worse the pain will be when reform comes.
    
    As long as we have those in Congress (and the White House) who
    do not know the meaning of the word "cut", I expect nothing to be done. 
    Even the Republicans are not cutting these programs- their proposals
    merely reduce the automaitic increase of Medicare from 11% to 6%.  Why
    not just spend the same amount of money next year (0% increase) and the 
    year after that, etc., until the budget is balanced?  Why not freeze
    ALL federal outlays for a few years?  All extra tax income above the 
    current budget goes towards the national debt until the debt is paid in 
    full.  Once it is paid, we can then look to spend more on certain
    things.
      
    Balancing the budget and paying off the debt would not be a big problem
    is the federal government were reduced to its constitutional powers and
    activities.  The assets left over from the beauracracy cuts could be
    sold to pay on the debt (current governmental holdings are around 7
    trillion $$ total, if I remember my figures correctly).  This will
    never happen, though.  
    
    
    -steve  

re Note 1203.3 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     this a higher priority than it really needs to have, probably because of 
>     the entire "entitlement" mentality that big-government is instilling in
>     America.  
  
        We might need to distinguish between "big government
        spending" and "big government".

        The federal workforce is smaller today (even before the
        shutdown :-) than at any time since the 1920's.

        Bob

    Yes, I did mean "big government spending".
    
    Thanks.

    
    > First, Eric only mentions AFDC payments.

    I didn't mean to obfuscate the fact that there are other entitlement
    programs, but this is the program most often referred to as 'welfare'.
    AFDC was the program targeted by the 'Contract with America' and it's
    proponents. If you (not you personally) refer to someone as being on
    welfare, you don't mean they got food stamps this month, or that their
    disabled child qualifies for Medicaid, you mean that they don't work
    and they get cash and benefits (AFDC) from the government. AFDC is the
    program demonized by the presidential candidates, if not by name then
    by definition.

    There are other entitlements, of course, that cover everything from
    Philip Morris to the disabled eleven year-old.

    > Just this ONE reform (without changing anything else), would save
    > billions of dollars, after it was transferred, due to reduction of
    > federal bureaucracies

    Well it would save billions of *federal* dollars, but I don't see how
    replicating the single federal program 50 times would save tax-payer
    money. It might, I just don't see how.

    > (currently, the recipient gets only 26 cents of every tax dollar set
    > aside for assistance)

    In 1993, AFDC administrative costs were 13%. I realize this is just
    AFDC, but were do you suppose the other 61% goes? This is another
    figure I don't understand and would like further explanation, please.

    > Why should a state with 1% welfare population have to support a
    > neighboring state with a 20% welfare population?

    At one extreme you might say "Why should a family with no one in need
    have to assist another family who is in need." The other extreme is
    "The world is my family and I will do what I can to help my family." To
    answer your question, you need to decide where you draw the line of
    responsibility: your self, your family... block, town, county, state,
    country...?                                                      

    > Even the Republicans are not cutting these programs- their proposals
    > merely reduce the automatic increase of Medicare from 11% to 6%.

    Before we get too carried away with the 11% thing, let's remember that
    as the population ages, and as the income gap widens, with more people
    falling into the lower end, the number of people qualifying for
    Medicare and Medicaid increases. We should be worried about why more
    people need assistance, and not simply the total dollars spent for a
    program. But I agree, we should spend our limited resources wisely. 

    Balancing the budget should be a priority, but so should promoting the
    general welfare. We do need to be responsible in our spending, but to
    focus on welfare as the spendthrift devil of our nation is just
    political posturing, in my opinion. We should reform welfare, and all
    entitlements, but with the intent of helping as many people in need, as
    productively and effectively as possible. But not in a spirit of disdain,
    enmity and disregard for those financially, intellectually or
    spiritually worse off than us.  


    Eric

Re .0

I've learned to be VERY VERY cautious about ~statistics~ being used by people
with an agenda.  I don't know the underlying data for the stats quoted in .0,
but, as an vehicle for demonstrating what I mean, consider that these stats 
were posed by a group who supports welfare, a group who doesn't have a problem 
making thing seem like something they're not...

 > Nearly 75% of welfare families have two or fewer children. So
 > where are the baby mills?

Depending on how one defines family, this could mean just about anything.  If
one woman has 6 kids by 3 different guys, is that one family with 6 kids or 3 
families of 2?  Does a single father of several kids constitute a family with
size 1?  This is not a ridiculous example.  I'm involved in the Big Brothers 
program and have seen many situations like this.  Point is, what definition 
of family is being used?  Is the one which best supports the desired bottom 
line being chosen above the others?

 > Only 8% of the welfare moms are teenagers. So what what
 > 'reform' is there in denying benefits to children born to
 > these young women?

What percentage of them WERE teenagers on welfare, having kids, etc...?  

(Aside: equating reducing welfare to teenage moms with "denying benefits to
children" wreaks of emotional manipulation)

 > Only 15% of recipients stay of welfare continuously for 5
 > years or longer. So what reform is there in setting limits?

If someone's on welfare for 4 years, takes a job for 3 months, back on welfare
for 4 more years, works for 4 months, etc... this statistic holds but is very
misleading.  The word "continuously" looks to be very carefully chosen in 
this case.

 > In 1970, the average monthly welfare check per family was
 > $676 (in 1993 dollars). In 1993, the average monthly welfare
 > check per family was $373. So what do we hope to accomplish
 > by cutting benefits further?

Were other benefits, like health insurance, provided back in 1970?  Food Stamps
anyone?  Any others?  fuel assistanc?  rent control?  The dollar figure may 
only be a small portion of the total compensation.  The statistic should have
reflected some sort of "total compensation" figure.  (unless of course THAT
statistic didn't support the desired image).

Before I continue, I'm not discrediting the stats in .0.  I'm simply saying
that they could be very very misleading.  If the "other side" really wanted to,
I'm sure they could take the same underlying data and make an equally
convincing set of opposing statistics.  It's all part of playing politics. 

I think the groups opposing the conservative factions who cited "teenage moms" 
intentionally took the thing out of context in an effort to discredit  the
conservatives.  IMO, "teenage moms on welfare" was being used to cite an
unacceptable situation in society, even if the figures indicated 1% instead of
8%.  But the game of statistical retalliation was played.   And what will the
other side do in response?  Probably come up with a set of statistics of it's
own looking ~almost~ the same inform but with radically different numbers.  
So who do you believe?

In my efforts to get at the truth, I tend to give credence to sources reputed 
for being objective and not having an agenda.  Scientific American is one 
that comes to mind.  I'm afraid NPR falls into a different catagory.  

Remember Sprole's Law: 
 "If there is an opinion, facts will be found to support it."


 > As I see it the problem is not welfare, per se; the problem is the
 > lack of social, moral and ethical values being instilled in our
 > young people. And this, as any self-respecting conservative will
 > tell you is not the job of government. It seems to me that the hue

I agree 100% (is that a statistic?  YIKES).  Our forefathers said repeatedly
that this form of government could never work without God.  I took that to mean
that the level of morality needed to keep civil order must come from outside
the government because the constitution is lacking in that area.  And I agree
with them, and with you.

With regard to the rest, there's nothing that promotes a desire to work more
than an empty stomach.  And there's nothing that promotes a desire to lie down
than a full one.  I'm not suggesting starvation as a mechanism of change.  I am 
suggesting that welfare ought to be set to a point to sustain life and assist 
in making recipients more productive and/or independent.  Providing too much 
leads to complacency.  And dead beat dads ought to be MADE responsible for ALL 
their children until their 18. ANything less should be punished with forced 
labor with proceeds flowing to the kids.   

Children are another matter.  They deserve the best, regardless of the economic
situation of their parents.  Not sure how best to implement this, but children
are sacred (IMO) and they are not OWNED by anyone, including their parents. 
One thing for sure, assistance FOR kids ought to go directly TO the kids 
without passing through the fingers of the parents who can't make provision
on their own.

Nuff Said.

Good Topic.

-dave

    
    Or is it big-spending government?  :^)
    
    Eric
    

    
    Dave,

    I agree with your caution regarding statistics. All I can say is this
    study seems honest. The statistics are from US government publications
    and not just the ramblings of some rep. in the congressional record. I
    think the study is honest, but you should look it up and decide for
    yourself. It's on the web some place; I'll post a pointer when I locate
    it.

    Conservatives have been maligning welfare (AFDC) for some time, and
    have made some specific reform proposals. The study seems to have been
    designed to put real numbers behind the rhetoric. I would appreciate a
    pointer to another study that shows welfare moms are baby factories,
    that AFDC is overloaded with moms who are minors, that most (many) use
    welfare as a way of life.

    > Depending on how one defines family, this could mean just about
    > anything.

    A family is one (or both) parent(s)  and the dependent children. A
    single mother with three children by three different men is one family.
    A single, non-custodial father is not a family of one.

    > What percentage of them WERE teenagers on welfare, having kids,
    > etc...?

    Good question. Since only 6% of all teens 15-19 have had a baby (down
    from 9% in 1970) I'd say it would be a minority. The study says that
    the majority of the welfare moms were between 18 and 20 when they had
    their *first* baby.

    > If someone's on welfare for 4 years, takes a job for 3 months, back
    > on welfare for 4 more years

    This could be the case. But then the Republican proposed five year
    limit is just posturing.

    > Were other benefits, like health insurance, provided back in 1970? 
    > Food Stamps anyone?  Any others?  fuel assistant?  rent control?  The
    > dollar figure may only be a small portion of the total compensation. 
    > The statistic should have reflected some sort of "total compensation"
    > figure.  (unless of course THAT statistic didn't support the desired
    > image).

    Food stamps, housing assistance, rent control, medical assistance were
    all available and well funded in 1970. I don't know about *federal*
    fuel assistance. Each program is independent and must be applied for
    separately. AFDC isn't given out as a percentage of some imaginary
    total compensation package. There is no package; it's all a la carte.
    Again, I understand your suspicions, but they seem to be based on
    intuition and not fact.

    People speak with authority and conviction, but little is offered in the
    way of support for bold statements. It's all 'welfare encourages
    illegitimacy' and 'rampant fraud and abuse' and 'welfare queens' with
    not so much a reference to a fortune cookie to back it up. All I'm
    trying to do is say "Here is why I don't think the Republican reforms
    make sense and why I think their podium thumping is just pandering."

    Yes, we should encourage anyone who is able to work to do so. But, as a
    Christian, I cannot support the empty-stomach approach of 'reform.' That
    is alien to the Good News of Jesus. 

    Eric

    Re .9 (Eric)

    >All I can say is this study seems honest.

    And that's what it boils down to, finding a trustworthy source.  One
    thing I try to do is listen to both sides of the story.  If the
    conservatives have stats which counter those in .0, you might want to
    consider looking at them.  I think you'd be amazed at how similar they
    look in description and how different the numbers look in magnitude.  
    Many people make very good livings by "data mining" and making data look
    like whatever the boss asks to have it look like.  It's scary, it's
    manipulative and I think it's evil.  It's gotten to the point where I
    won't accept anything said by anyone with an strong agenda.  I prefer
    reams of basic, raw data... hold the interpretations!  I like to make my
    own assessments, thanks very much!

    With regard to welfare in general, is it a system which could run on a
    voluntary basis?  If Joe Smith is a man of great compassion who wants
    to give 30% of his $50K annual income to welfare, and Mary Jones does
    not want to contribute any of her $50K to welfare, is that the same as 
    both contributing 15%?  The bottom line numbers work out to be the same
    but we both know it'd never work in the practical sense.  Darwin
    predicted that.  Instead of saying Joe Smith is a man of great compassion 
    and Mary Jones is greedy and selfish, we say that it's "not fair" for 
    Joe to carry that weight all by himself and then pass legislation 
    FORCING Mary to help out.  "You ARE going to be charitable Mary, even
    if we've got to squeeze it out of you".  And this leads to the base note
    of 1202.
    
    -dave
    
    Who sets the level of 

    
    > "You ARE going to be charitable Mary, even if we've got to squeeze it
    > out of you".  And this leads to the base note of 1202.

    Well this gets to the whole sordid issue of taxation. There are many
    ways my tax dollars are spent by my government with which I disagree,
    but as a Christian my objections to the principle of welfare spending
    ranks low on the list. In this note I was hoping to explore ways of
    improving our welfare system through reform. The current crop of
    ultra-conservatives are not looking to reform, but abolition, and
    should be honest enough to admit it.

    Eric

    >The current crop of
    >    ultra-conservatives are not looking to reform, but abolition, and
    >    should be honest enough to admit it.
    
    I think you're a little hard on the conservatives.  They seem heartless
    on the outside when they talk about cutting things like Medicare
    payments.  The liberals will jump on this, pointing to the hardship it
    will cause.  But perhaps the conservatives have a greater vision on
    this and are actually thinking about YOU and your children and their
    children.  With the rate the money's being spent now, there'll be no 
    Medicare for us when we get old.  That or we're going to have to cripple 
    our children with a taxes to support it.
    
    Maybe this whole thing is a matter of mindset.  I mean there's nothing
    in the Constitution that guarantees everyone a free ride.  IMO, the
    government should not play the role of unemployment insurer, health
    insurer for the elderly and retirement planner.  If it wants to play
    these roles, fine, just let it be a voluntary thing.  If you want to
    participate, participate but don't require me to do the same.  I mean
    if we allow for the systematic extermination of our unborn under the
    guise of "choice", then let me "choose" on this matter.  If there were
    some practical way to defend the country ona personal basis, I'd be for
    that too.  But there isn't and we have to either defend it as a nation
    or not.  If there were some practical way to build/maintain
    infrastructure on a personal basis, I'b be for that too, but it's
    impractical for me and you go out and groom out 2 ft. sections of Rt 495
    so we do it as a group.  Charity IS something we can do ona personal
    basis and we might want to consider moving in that direction.
    
    
    
    
    

    Eric:
    
    I've mentioned this in the past and stand by it.
    
    Scrap the current FICA code and break it down into IRA programs.  At
    65, you get exactly what you put into it...one tax free lump cash sum. 
    This puts the onus on the individual and gives the person choice, and
    alot better wealth plan than the crummy system we have today.
    
    -Jack

    re: .12
    
     One nit:  NOONE is talking about cutting Medicare payments.  Under the
    GOP plan, Medicare payments nearly DOUBLE (per person) over the 7-year
    time  period.  This can only be considered a cut in DC, and of course,
    the biased media.
    
    
    -steve

re Note 1203.14 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>      One nit:  NOONE is talking about cutting Medicare payments.  Under the
>     GOP plan, Medicare payments nearly DOUBLE (per person) over the 7-year
>     time  period.  

        Is that doubling the total budget outlay, or the payments per
        person?  If it is payment per person that doubles, is it
        doubled when adjusted for the expected rate of medical care
        inflation?

        The "bottom line" is whether a recipient (who could be your
        or my parents, and eventually you and me) gets more net
        medical benefit, less net medical benefit, or the same net
        medical benefit.  Which is it?

        Bob

        
    Two nits:
    
    It is spelled 'no one' not 'noone'
    
    Total Medicare expenditures are *projected* to nearly double in seven
    years (from today's $178 billion, to $345 Billion) NOT the cost per
    person since the number of beneficiaries will increase by an estimated
    2.5 million people. These are *projections*, the congress and the
    administration are proposing to spend much less than the projections.
    Actual benefits per person would go from $4,800 (1995) to $6,700 (2002)
    based on the Congressional budget. But the inflation in the medical
    community has been 7.1%, which means to maintain parity in 2002, the
    benefit would need to be $7,700. So when is an increase in dollars
    really a decrease in benefits?
    
    I'm not saying we shouldn't look at ways to save money in Medicare, I'm
    just trying to state the 'facts' as I know them. And I am troubled that
    we are cutting social programs at the same time we are funding military
    programs the Pentagon doesn't even want.
                                  
    
    Eric

    
    Of course liberal government programs such as Medicare have  largely
    driven medical costs through the roof and will continue to do so
    without significant change in entitlement and choice.
    
    Medicare should be means tested, insurance companies should be required
    to offer insurance to old folks presently on Medicare, and Medicare
    should be largely driven to the HMO model of healthcare delivery, and
    other choices given to Medicare enlistees for managing their healthcare
    expenditures (such as the healthcare savings accounts).
    
    jeff

    re: .16
    
    "noone" is a typo.  It is not, however, spelled wrong (I failed to hit
    the space bar).  Enough with the silly nits, though.
    
    Military spending is constitutional.  Military spending is not
    even an issue, currently (budget-wise).  From 1955 to 1995, the budget has 
    gone up *very* little in total dollars (there are some very revealing 
    figures that have been posted in SOAPBOX that you might want to check 
    out- see 'balanced budget' topic).  We can sustain the meager increases 
    that we have seen in the past, indefinitely, without straining the
    budget in any way, shape or form.
    
    [This does not mean that we shouldn't use common sense when spending
    military $$...I'm sure there are some areas that could be cut, so that
    other areas would get the money needed to insure a strong defense. 
    Cutting the budget should not even be an option.]
    
    Entitlement spending increases, particularly Medicare, cannot be
    sustained at current levels - there is simply not enough money to pay for 
    such huge growth (which is a big reason why we have such a large national 
    debt...we continue to fund ridiculous increases without having the money 
    to pay for it).  
    
    It matters not that my parents, your parents, or even you or myself, 
    personally, may not get the same quantity of benefits as past generations. 
    The FACT is that we CANNOT SUSTAIN CURRENT SPENDING INCREASES FOREVER.  
    Somewhere down the line, we have to make some serious cuts, and I mean 
    CUTS (not reduction of a % increase per year).  
    
    SS is in similar trouble.  It was never meant to be a retirement
    fund, yet that is exactly how it is used today.  This program,
    too, is in big trouble as the number of those collecting grows out of
    proportion to those paying in.  The pyramid scheme has caught up with
    us, yet no politician dares touch this program for fear of the AARP. 
    Better to continue accumulating national debt than to lose ones job
    come next election, I suppose.  Better to increase the tax burden on
    those paying in.
    
    Medicare HAS to be cut.  We simply cannot supply the baby-boomers with
    the same level of benefits as we did the previous generation.  The fact
    is, there will be too many people collecting and not enough
    people paying in.  It is a matter of simply mathmatics.  
    
    So, while we go down the fiscal toilet nationally, the argument rages
    on about how to change entitlement spending without decreasing
    benefits.  This is simply an untenable form of "fix".  Even if the GOP
    plan goes through, we still have automatic increases of 6% per year
    (Medicare), which is STILL too high when you consider the population
    proportions after this 7-year period (proportion of payees to
    beneficiaries).  After this 7 year period, we would be in the exact
    SAME position as we are today, as there will be a huge segment of the
    population retiring then.  
    
    The whole entitlement attitude of this nation will soon bankrupt it. 
    The lobby groups who our Congressmen fear will see to it.  The media
    and its distortions will see to it.  And our current president, should
    he be re-elected, will see to it.  
    
    Sometimes I wonder if bankrupting this nation is the goal.  Certainly,
    no one is very serious about fixing the real problems, and the great
    sucking sound Perot kept mentioning in the last Pres. election is
    getting louder every day.
    
    The simple solution is the freeze the budget.  Whatever we spent this
    year (1.6 Trillion, I think), we spend next year.  We keep it frozen
    until the budget is balanced and the debt is paid off.  Let Congress
    argue where the money will go, but give them a concrete CAP of what can
    be spent.  The budget would be balanced in ONE year.  The debt would be
    paid off in around 10-15 years (assuming the economy growth patterns).   
    
    The net result would be beneficial to all, as Congress would be forced to 
    be frugal with their budget and their spending (just like the rest of us). 
    They would learn the value of a dollar, and everyone would learn a hard
    (and much needed) lesson that there is no such thing as something for
    nothing; sooner or later, the bill comes due.
    
    
    -steve                                      

    
    Steve,

    I should have put a smiley face next to me 'noone' comment, sorry.

    I wasn't really questioning military spending, per se, in my reply, but
    rather the spending on pet projects - pork if you will - while
    vilifying AFDC, Medicare and Medicaid. The recent funding for military
    hardware that the pentagon doesn't want was just an example. I could
    have just as well used tobacco subsidies, or spending on congressional
    perks. 
    
    Eric

    Jeff,
    
    30-odd years ago when medic*** was started 70% of people who had a
    heart attack died within the first year, the survival rate for most
    cancers was less than 5% for 5 years, and the infant and maternal
    mortality rate was significantly higher.  An infant born at 35 weeks
    had a poor survival rate (kess than 25%) and was likely to be blind if
    it survived beyond that the birth was considered a miscarriage and most
    preemies died in the first 48 hours.  Back surgery was a major risk and
    most people lived with their pain and were totally disabled.
    
    What has changed in the world of medicine is technology.  We have
    better tools to save the person with a heart condition, better
    treatment options for cancers, earlier detection methods, better
    prenatal care and testing, and better procedures available when a
    mother or infant is in trouble before during or after a delivery.  We
    can save a baby who is born at 25 weeks gestation in about 25% of the
    cases and 35 weeks gestation is a cake walk.  We have MRI's which can
    pinpoint the exact trouble spot and often can succfessfully rehabe a
    person with an injured back.  There is arthoscopic surgery which can
    repair knees and have a person living at close to a normal activity
    level within weeks.  There are joint replacements for those crippled
    with arthritis or denerative bone problems.  There are paramedics
    available to deal with trauma at the site of an accident or illness
    which saves thousands of lives yearly.
    
    Of course this has come with a price tag, If we went back to the
    sixties level of medicine and medications available, the cost per
    patient would probably be about the same as it was then.  However, are
    you willing to pay the price in increased infant mortality, increased
    loss of mothers, increased deaths from a minor heart attack, increased
    traffic deaths, deaths from drownings, deaths from cancers, disabled
    people..........?
    
    meg

    
    
    FWIW: Medicare has been around since the '30s

    The irony I see with Republican Medicare reform proposals - and I'm not
    making a value judgment here - is that they contain *so* many concepts
    that three years ago they were railing against when the Clinton health
    plan was proposed. Politics is one funny animal.

    Eric

    >  Politics is one funny animal.
    
    On this we can agree 100%.  8^)

    
    Hi Meg,
    
    I don't know what you're saying exactly but if you're saying that
    the existence of Medicare has not driven up medical costs
    substantially, then I disagree with you.
    
    jeff

    re: .19
    
    The difference is that you get *something* that benefits the economy out 
    of the tax $$ spent making military hardware.  Whether we need it or not 
    is not the issue.  AFDC is money down the tubes, fiscally speaking, as
    it creates no wealth or commodities.
    
    A little bit of this brand of spending can be tolerated in a strong
    economy (if you ignore the Constitution, anyway), but it isn't just
    AFDC we are talking about when welfare is being attacked.  Getting
    people off welfare is more than saving the AFDC check, it is saving
    housing aid, food subsidies, medical, etc.  
    
    Today, we simply have our budgetary priorities completely out of whack.  
    Entitlement spending is a huge portion of our current budget- dwarfing 
    the much villified military spending.  The economy cannot sustain this,
    pure and simple.
    
    I think the media is tweaking the emotions of the US populace, trying
    to make the GOP seem like a bunch of heartless swine (and don't get me
    wrong, some may well be heartless swine), by passing off the lie that
    they are specifically targeting AFDC.  Yes, this is one focal point,
    but it is inseperable from the big entitlement picture, as it is
    intricately weaved into the rest of the benefits- housing subsidies,
    food subsidies, medical subsidies, etc.  
    
    I am equally opposed to corporate subsidies, but to be honest,
    comparing corporate subsidies to welfare is not an apples to apples
    comparison, economically.
    
    
    -steve 

    re: .23
    
    ...and you would be correct.

    Jeff,
    
    I don't know what you think, but tell me what the cost of a sonogram
    machine, MRI, heart/lung machine, isolette, blood-gas monitors, eegs,
    EKGs, CTSCAN mmachine, etc are.  Then tell me this has had little to no
    impact on medical costs.  
    
    Medicare isn't substantial, many dr's won't take patients on a
    non-emergency basis because of how little medicare pays compared to
    your private insurance.  Maybe we should just abolish all insurance for
    medical care, and then the costs would go down?
    
    meg

re Note 1203.23 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     I don't know what you're saying exactly but if you're saying that
>     the existence of Medicare has not driven up medical costs
>     substantially, then I disagree with you.
  
        There is no doubt that demand (along with the ability to pay
        what it takes to meet that demand) raises prices.

        Is is medicare that is causing this evil, or is it simple
        free-market economics?

        Bob

re Note 1203.24 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     is not the issue.  AFDC is money down the tubes, fiscally speaking, as
>     it creates no wealth or commodities.
  
        What do you think AFDC recipients do with the money, put it
        in their mattresses?

        Bob

    <--- What do you think would be done with that money if it was not
    confiscated for AFDC, et al?

    
    I have had to help my parents with their Medicare billing (Medicaid is
    nearly identical).  There are two kinds of doctors who provide
    services.  Those that accept assignments and those that don't.  If a
    doctor accepts assignments, he or she can only bill for the amount
    Medi* allows.  The patients is not responsible for any difference
    between that amount and the regular fee.  These doctors are extremely
    hard to find.  The carrot to accept assignment is that the gov't will
    promptly pay way is owed.  No more bad debts. 

    As the discrepancy between what the Medi* programs pay and what the
    usual fees are grows, fewer and fewer doctors are accepting assignment. 
    This means that the patient is responsible for the entire amount. 
    Hopefully, the patient has some form of gap insurance to cover the
    difference.  The doctor is within his/her rights to turn unpaid amounts
    over for collection.

    There may have been a time when Medi* programs did influence the cost
    of medical care, but the costs have now out-paced the programs.  there
    is also a side effect:  there are fewer doctors willing to take on
    Medi* patients.   The number of OB/GYN doctors accepting assignment in
    Texas was less than 150 in 1992.  (I assume there were Medicaid and not
    Medicare patients (:)

    One of the thrusts of Medicaid was to move people out of the emergency
    room and into regular doctors offices, where care would be less
    expensive.  When reforming these programs, we need to be aware of any
    side effects that might throw hundreds more people into overly crowded
    ERs.

 Yesterday on "The Coral Ridge Hour" Dr. D James Kennedy spoke on the church's
 responsibility to those on welfare.  It was an inspiring message, a bit
 convicting in that he was challenging churches to help to reduce the
 dependance on welfare.  In the brief piece after his message, several
 churches in the south that sponsor programs to reduce the welfare roles
 were presented, along with numbers that showed how effective they were.
 One church bought a few local businesses and hired people on welfare, at
 the same time running schools for the children/families free of charge,
 where work ethic and skills as well as the basics of education were taught.
 It was quite encouraging hearing the people who participated in these programs
 speak and share their experiences  

 It has me wondering if churches (mine included) should be spending the money
 for big church buildings (which I know are needed) when perhaps that money
 could be better spent on such programs which could have an impact on
 generations.

 It also was heartening to read about the good that Christians are doing,
something which I doubt we'll see on the evening news.



Jim

        Remember, the problem isn't welfare, it's poverty.

        And the problem really isn't poverty, per se (some people do
        quite well with little income), but the (real or perceived)
        inaccessibility of necessities and the resulting
        hopelessness.

        Bob

 ZZ   LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (
    
    I think your set personal says it quite well.  While Welfare can be a
    life saver, it is only part of the equation.  One must develop a vision
    for their life, devise a concrete way of progressing out of their
    current dilemna.  It can be done.
    
    -Jack