Welfare

During the last month some lady named Nadya Suleman had octuplet's and immediately went on the media circuit. I still cant see why anyone would want or need 8 kids at once, thats a personal decision. For all the critics of the current structure of the welfare system and entitlement programs, congratulations you have cause. It would be one thing if Ms Suleman had these children and had the means to raise them all, but I don't think most people have the means to raise 8 children. A recent report came out through MSNBC as a reaction piece to the interview she had on February 9th, in which she said ""I'm not receiving help from the government. I'm not trying to expect anything from anybody. [I] just wanted to do it on my own. Any resources that someone would really, really want to help us, I will accept, I would embrace.”

Nadya Suleman, the mother of the octuplets born last month, gets $490 a month in food stamps, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday evening. Three of her first children also get federal supplemental security income because they are disabled, the Times reported.

her publicist issued a statement to nbc for the article. (yes the lady who needs welfare has a publicist)

"In Nadya's view, the money that she gets from the food stamp program ... and the resources disabilities payments she gets for her three children are not welfare," he said. "They are part of programs designed to help people with need, and she does not see that as welfare."

When Mrs. Suleman was accused of having all of these kids for money she responded

“That's funny how untrue that is,” Suleman said. “Money? Money is necessary to raise children. But it's — it's paper. It is paper. To me, it is superfluous in contrast to the importance of my kids.”

the article further reports that it will cost millions just to get these children out of the hospital.

NBC chief medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman has estimated the cost of delivering the infants and caring for them until they are healthy enough to leave the hospital at $1.5 million to $3 million.

Though I know my view of this entire situation could be considered sexist, misogynistic, or classist. All I can see this situation is screwed up and simple.
Ms. Suleman doesn't see welfare as something for people in need, who else could welfare before Ms. Suleman? The rich, wait don't answer that after the bailout I can see i people can be confused about what welfare is, and is for. If she has 3 children already with disabilities that the government helps her out with, and she still cant afford to feed them. What does she possibly see her self as, not needy?
She cant afford to feed her family every month, she cant afford all the necessary care required for her 3 children at home, yet she can afford in vetro fertilization. BULLSHIT, doesn't that process cost thousands of dollars. How did a single mother afford that if she cant feed their kids, and why did she need them if she already had kids. I thought that process was only for people who have tried to have kids but for whatever reason could not. You don't see an in vetro clinic in the low income areas in Detroit, because poor people don't need 8 kids. I am sure that the million dollar bill from the hospital will be picked up by Ms. Suleman and not the government. If she really wanted a large family why didn't they adopt or get foster children. It sure would have been cheaper for everyone. The children would be taken out of the system, the government will save money by not paying a crappy group home to take care of 8 kids. At a fraction of the cost the government could have supplemented the Sulemans welfare with 50% of their savings from the children being out of group home. On top of that if she really does care so much about family her and her husband could have given 8 children in real need of a home. I
Its not the welfare system that pisses me off its the Ms. Sulemans blatant disregard or respect for the system. Not only do they abuse the system, they didn't even acknowledge the governments assistance. Damn most people are on welfare, its just not for poor people. Its for people in NEED
Welfare is financial assistance paid to people by governments. Some welfare is general, while specific and can only be invoked under certain circumstances, such as a scholarship.

You must Hate Children

At least every week I get in a discussion with someone about the current state of health care in the United States. About half of these conversations immediately turn political, "Obama's health care initiative is going destroy health care." That statement isn't enough everyone who says that statement follows it with the obligatory story from Canada or the UK. " Well my (Family Member) lives in (UK/Canada) and they have to wait for (Weeks, Months, Years) for medical care. If we go to socialized medicine, then we will have to wait forever for medical care. Well its not a particular president's health care initiative I care about, I just care about people having health care. Especially Children, they should not be held responsible based on the decisions that their parents make. Let me discuss some numbers, since they are credible and a quantifiable identifiable gauge of the state of health care.

On August 31, 2007 The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities a "policy organization..with particular emphasis on the impact of various budget choices on low-income Americans"(CBPP) Published a report entitled "MORE AMERICANS, INCLUDING MORE CHILDREN, NOW LACK HEALTH INSURANCE" Were they reported the amount of Uninsured Americans based on the data provided by the US Census Bureau. Their findings were the following:

-- The percentage of Americans without insurance climbed to 15.8 percent in 2006, above the 15.3 percent level in 2005 and considerably above the 14.1 percent level in 2001. The percentage of Americans without insurance has increased largely because employer-sponsored insurance coverage has continued to erode.
-- The percent of full-time working adults who lack health insurance rose to 17.9 percent in 2006, up from 17.2 percent. The number of full-time working adults who are uninsured climbed by 1.2 million, to 22.0 million.

Their findings in regards to insured children is alarming

-- The number of uninsured children under age 18 rose by 600,000, from 8.05 million in 2005 to 8.66 million in 2006. The percentage of children who lack health insurance also rose from 10.9 percent to 11.7 percent.
-- the number and percentage of children who are uninsured declined from 1999 through 2004, but that trend stopped and began to reverse in 2005
-- From 2004 to 2006, the percentage of children covered by public insurance remained unchanged and thus could not offset the continued reduction in the percentage of children covered by employer-sponsored insurance. The result was an overall reduction in children’s coverage.

The Report from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities "Poverty Rate and Non-Elderly Median Income, Worst Performance on Record For Any Six Years of Economic Growth"(CBPP) which analyzed the data for the year of 2007 provided by the US Census Bureau. There was an improvement but not much of an improvement.

-- The percentage of children without coverage dropped by 500,000, from 8.66 million in 2006 to 8.15 million in 2007. The percentage of children without coverage dropped from 11.7 percent in 2006 to 11.0 percent

The report also noted:

"last year Congress failed to override a presidential veto of SCHIP legislation that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would have led by 2012 to coverage for nearly 4 million children who otherwise will be uninsured; this means many states likely will be unable to sustain or build upon this progress in 2008."

These are not numbers to be proud of. In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III)(Universal Decleration of Human Rights) Article 25 section 1 and 2 states the following:

"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

This resolution that was adopted in New York City by 51 member countries including the five permanent members of the Security Council- France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. In NEW YORK CITY(U.S.A.) By no means is any resolution within the General Assembly Binding, but it should be noted this was in the first two years of the United Nations inception in which Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were credited as the creators. That being said, how are we the country not following essentially our own resolutions in decree. ALL CHILDREN...SHALL ENJOY THE SAME PROTECTION of Article 25 sec 1. If you hate socialized health insurance for kids, then you must hate children. If you hate the idea of socializing medical care because you think its communisim then you are an idiot. At least this has a benifit, its not like you dont have a SOCIAL security number or recieved an education from a Public school, or drivin on PUBLIC roads, or drink from MUNICIPAL water supply. Its all for the social good you idiot. GOOD.