Role of Welfare

[mcqueen625]

I find myself living on a CPP Disability Pension due to an acute cardiac condition, along with Diabetes, and when my wife and I separated I found myself with absolutely no medical coverage to pay for my medications, and I am now forced to apply for Income Assistance in order to obtain the medications necessary to keep me alive. Yes, I know some of you scrooges would begrudge that coverage to me saying that I should purchase medical insurance, but the truth is that most insurance companies only want to sell coverage to healthy people, and when they discover you have developed a medical condition that they consider uninsurable they wait with baited breath for the first opportunity to discontinue your coverage.

In my case up until October I had coverage, and between myself and Blue Cross my medications costs from January, 2008 until October 10th were approximately $8,000.00 and my annual income is under $12,000.00. I have been deemed by my doctors as totally disabled, and therefore unable to work at any type of work. Sure at one point before I had the heart attack I was gainfully employed, and purchased through my employment Long-Term Disability, which was cut off after two years on the grounds that in their opinion I was not totally disabled and able to go out and look for work. In the opinion of the claims officer (Clarica, now Sun Life Assurance) their definition of disabled differs from that of Canada Pension Claims analysts, but they never did explain how they reached that determination since they simply ignored all reports from my cardiologist and other Specialists. They even were willing to send me to a Occupational Therapist to assess my cardiac condition to determine how much I could lift and how much stress I could take. It was only after I asked them if they had a Cardiologist on staff did they decide that they were not willing to conduct the tests on behalf of the insurance company and the fact that they would be liable should I have another MI on their premises.

So for all of you people who are dumping on those people unfortunate enough to have the financial resources to meet the necessities of life, I hope for your sake that you never find yourselves in the position I now find myself in. But you should never say NEVER, because I for one never thought that I would find myself in the situation I now find myself in.

[Hydraboss]

So for all of you people who are dumping on those people unfortunate enough to have the financial resources to meet the necessities of life, I hope for your sake that you never find yourselves in the position I now find myself in. But you should never say NEVER, because I for one never thought that I would find myself in the situation I now find myself in.

Is welfare (you know...taxpayers) paying for your internet and computer equipment?

[Hydraboss]

Ok, well since you're clearly not the 'bleeding heart' type, I'll frame the problem for you in cold dollars.

Paying a very few people a very meagre amount of money is cheaper for you than supporting the type of police infrastructure that you would require to put down a revolution.

First of all Michael, read the damn post. I said "And since they are qualified to collect, make the damn sum of money substantially higher to give them a fighting chance." For those that don't qualify, screw them.

As for your statement about welfare being cheaper than a revolution...nice red herring. Bullets are substantially more cost-efficient than police or welfare. There would be no revolution (at least not for long).

edit:sp

Edited December 13, 2008 by Hydraboss

[Michael Hardner]

First of all Michael, read the damn post. I said "And since they are qualified to collect, make the damn sum of money substantially higher to give them a fighting chance." For those that don't qualify, screw them.

I think I caught the gist of it - especially the 'screw them' part. Did you think I would re-evaluate and think you ARE a bleeding heart ?

As for your statement about welfare being cheaper than a revolution...nice red herring. Bullets are substantially more cost-efficient than police or welfare. There would be no revolution (at least not for long).

I suppose if you want to line up the poor and shoot them... sorry... line up the unqualified and shoot them then you're right.

But if you want to live in an unstable and crime-filled society that still has rights, then be prepared to sacrifice a lot of safety and personal freedom and to pay out-of-pocket for personal security.

Again, I'm just trying to speak your language here.

I'd rather spend the extra money on finding a place for these people in society, rather than looking down at my nose at them as failures. I believe that many who fall by the wayside are as much a victim of their luck as the winners in society. I actually have an acquaintance who was both lucky and unlucky in this regard. As a young man, he fell down and became homeless. He found a place, and then through some luck ended up being a millionaire.

[Renegade]

Paying a very few people a very meagre amount of money is cheaper for you than supporting the type of police infrastructure that you would require to put down a revolution.

Generally MH, I agree with you, however how do we establish the minimium amount to pay which still quells the level of instability? If the report is correct and the level of welfare payments have goine down, has it resulted in more unstability in society? I don't see much evidence of it. In addition perhaps the welfare funds distribution should be better targeted to minimize social instability.

[Michael Hardner]

Generally MH, I agree with you, however how do we establish the minimium amount to pay which still quells the level of instability? If the report is correct and the level of welfare payments have goine down, has it resulted in more unstability in society? I don't see much evidence of it. In addition perhaps the welfare funds distribution should be better targeted to minimize social instability.

Ren,

It's enough to know that there is a amount of money that will achieve this. It should be somewhere between the absolute minimum to keep people alive, and the lowest of the 'poverty' amount. And, again, I maintain that we should invest in more case workers to help those who are on welfare for the wrong reasons move forward. And further to that, I think welfare recipients should have their financial situations open for review so that they can get financial counseling as well.

[Renegade]

It's enough to know that there is a amount of money that will achieve this. It should be somewhere between the absolute minimum to keep people alive, and the lowest of the 'poverty' amount.

I don't think it is enough. Government make specfic decisions on how much to pay out, whether to increase or decrease payments. Frequently those decisions are based upon political factors rather than whether it achievies the aims of the program.

And, again, I maintain that we should invest in more case workers to help those who are on welfare for the wrong reasons move forward. And further to that, I think welfare recipients should have their financial situations open for review so that they can get financial counseling as well.

Investing in more case workers my be worth the additional cost, or it may not. I understand that it is an opinion but do you have any evidence to back up that this woudl be a worthwhile investment?

[Oleg Bach]

Everyone assumes that homeless people are that way because they were mentally ill to begin with.. I don't believe that- grinding systemic poverty breaks down the physical and mental health of people. Poverty like child care is now a thriving industry staffed by parasites. When a person falls upon hard times a one time offer of "start up money" is given - in some municipalities it's almost 2000 dollars - plus the basic shelter payment. In order to save money the officals move to quickly with the granting of the start up.

Most people once they hit the welfare system are in a state of unfocused up heavel - Officals attempt to get them out of the public purse as fast as possible - problem being...these folks have not had time to think or adjust to their totally changed life - they have to start all over again from scratch - Start up money should not be granted for a few months untill the client is stablized emotionally and mentally. Most who get the start up cash go back to their usual spending habits prior their collapse and simply blow it.

Then the cycle begins - a type of addiction to small amounts of free money....not enough to be mobile or eat properly or to even afford a telephone...so they live well for one week out of the month - and then it's total poverty and isolation...as time passes they become depressed and evenutally medicated to the point where they will never have the power to focus and rehabilitate. Then these "clients" are food for a huge burearcracy and their soul purpose is that of sustaining the bureacracy. START UP MONEY is a waste if given too soon.

Clients should have time to settle then proper interviews and real planning should take place - THEN before their health becomes damaged - the start up cash should be granted. Also - If some how the client can generate money - that money should go into an account where it can accumulate instead of taking 50% of it away in the form of a deduction - these deductions form a trap that is almost unescapalbe.

[Michael Hardner]

Rene -

Investing in more case workers my be worth the additional cost, or it may not. I understand that it is an opinion but do you have any evidence to back up that this woudl be a worthwhile investment?

Actually, I don't. But I would like to examine this.

Welfare Statistics

This report seems to indicate that there are hundreds of thousands of able-bodied folks collecting welfare. That's a cost of billions, maybe as many as ten billion. It seems to me that spending one billion dollars could give us 10,000 counselors. If one counselor could get one person a month into a stable, paying job then they would pay for themselves.

How does that sound ?

With regards to this:

I don't think it is enough. Government make specfic decisions on how much to pay out, whether to increase or decrease payments. Frequently those decisions are based upon political factors rather than whether it achievies the aims of the program.

I meant that it's enough to know that there is a theoretical 'ideal point' for payouts, in order to determine that a welfare system is worth having. The amount to pay is a different discussion, I think.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Michael Hardner

[Oleg Bach]

It's not about amount - there was a time when in Ontario the payout was double what it is now - Harris cut it back out of arrogance...and contempt for the poor...what he failed to realize was that welfare clients were spending machines that dispersed the cash..they do not save or invest! There purpose originally under the old system was to spend...now that purpose is gone.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not about amount - there was a time when in Ontario the payout was double what it is now - Harris cut it back out of arrogance...and contempt for the poor...what he failed to realize was that welfare clients were spending machines that dispersed the cash..they do not save or invest! There purpose originally under the old system was to spend...now that purpose is gone.

Ole - the commonly quoted 'cut' figure from the Harris government was 20%, not 50%.

The government can spend its money better than that, though. For example, they could spend it on getting these people to work and produce something valuable for the economy.

[Mr.Canada]

Ole - the commonly quoted 'cut' figure from the Harris government was 20%, not 50%.

The government can spend its money better than that, though. For example, they could spend it on getting these people to work and produce something valuable for the economy.

Not everyone on welfare wants to work is the problem, many want their free ride through life without effort.

If the Premier agreed and though welfare should be higher he would've done it by now, he's been in office for 2 terms.

[Oleg Bach]

It takes a lot of effort and creative cunning to surive on welfare. It is just a real low paying job..You job as a wefare client is to feed the right criterium into the machine so welfare workers can continue to work and you continue to get paid. It's a system - and not a free ride...nothing is free in this world.

[Michael Hardner]

Not everyone on welfare wants to work is the problem, many want their free ride through life without effort.

True, but some of them do. The sad thing is that no one seems interested in finding out just how many do.

[fellowtraveller]

Alberta took the approach(mid 90s) that if you were single and employable, no welfare. Period.

The welfare rolls were cut in half abruptly.

No reports of people dying in the gutters.

I think the popualtion of Vancouver had a sudden increase though.

[kuzadd]

The role of "welfare" in society is to keep the lower classes from overthrowing the upperclass, and it is failing miserably.

Look at it for what it really is CLASS WARFARE restrained.

Just take a look at what is going on around the world...............

Look at the tax dollars going to bail out corporations or banks?

Why is that ok, with people, when it is actually the peoples money?

Well, it just goes to demonstrate how very well conditioned society is, how well the propoganda worked.

But I am sure this thread will fill up with nonsense about people being lazy, and not working hard enough, when people are working longer, and more members of their family are working.

Mom, Dad, the kids

Just like a good old 3rd world country.............

Edited December 13, 2008 by kuzadd

[Oleg Bach]

I remember the old government in BC - when I was a hippy kid - you could go get a card (no questions asked)...and stand in line once a month and get free cash...the system attracted long haired loafers from as far away as Quebec...it was great. Those were heady times and all were on some mission to find the ideal...Young single males of today collecting welfare will bee line to the cocaine dealer with their first cheque. They have no ideals or purpose. Then they find themselves homeless because they are not welcomed back to the local office for more money. I tried to explain to one young man about addictions....First addiction is shelter - second - food and water - last one is clean laundry...then if there is something left over have a beer and a smoke. Lastly have a dream and do the work neccesary to achieve a level of skill - be it the arts or buisness - you must do the work.....................he wants everything out of life including wealth and fame - but has no skill.

[kuzadd]

Not everyone on welfare wants to work is the problem, many want their free ride through life without effort.

do you know that for a fact? What is the percentage?

I read assumption here.........

Really who the hell wants to live a miserable existence, using food banks, getting dirty looks from self-righteous people.

Wow, that's a life I would chose if I could!

and what about all that corporate welfare, the endless subsidies.

Example the banks in the US took the taxpayers dollars and bought up other banks and assets, in other words, the corporate welfare ( taxpayer dollars) went to enrich themselves. It was supposed to free up credit.

I always wonder why humans are so willing to crap on other humans, but, will go without to bail, subsidize, prop up, big business. What does it say about some members of the human race?

Edited December 13, 2008 by kuzadd

[Oleg Bach]

A down and outer asked me once on the street..."why do they hate the poor?" Took me a while to figure it out...like your friend there that insists that "they don't want to work" - he dislikes the poor because he knows if he does not tow the line of social compliance that he will be poor...so to distract from that fact - you need a hate object..It's out of fear that this contempt for the poor arises - we all know that could be us within a period of a month. And dispising welfare people will not guard him from the possibility that he could be the next victim of an unforgiving system - he so proudly defends by smacking down the weak.

[kuzadd]

A down and outer asked me once on the street..."why do they hate the poor?" Took me a while to figure it out...like your friend there that insists that "they don't want to work" - he dislikes the poor because he knows if he does not tow the line of social compliance that he will be poor...so to distract from that fact - you need a hate object..It's out of fear that this contempt for the poor arises - we all know that could be us within a period of a month. And dispising welfare people will not guard him from the possibility that he could be the next victim of an unforgiving system - he so proudly defends by smacking down the weak.

If someone is that pathetic, that they need to "smack down the weak" to make themselves feel good.

When their turn comes, and it looks like it is coming............. They will get their karma, so to speak.

Then their arrogance will turn to depression awfully quick............

[Oleg Bach]

If someone is that pathetic, that they need to "smack down the weak" to make themselves feel good.

When their turn comes, and it looks like it is coming............. They will get their karma, so to speak.

Then their arrogance will turn to depression awfully quick............

We are all human and all vulnerable - even those at the very top of the economic heap are fearful - at least the once with common sense. Karma is not something I believe in - justice? Yes - and under natural law it comes slowly but it does come...I would not pick on the rich investment banker anymore than the panhandler. What will this person do when the ones at the top that he respects come to his door for a kind word and a meal - this can happen - better be nice to everyone - rich and poor...that is the only good investment left - each other!

[DrGreenthumb]

Those are some of the write-offs. The list of those who contribute nothing is substantially longer. Teachers, for example.

Now I have heard the most ignorant comment ever put onto these forums.

Teachers contribute nothing? I sure wish they never contributed to teaching you how to read and write. Teachers contribute nothing???? I can't believe I am the only one to have challenged that statement. Do you know how to add/subtract too? Thank a teacher then. What a stupid freakin thing to say. Teachers pay a shitload of income tax too.

What have YOU contributed to this society that even comes close to what teachers contribute?? Compared to teacher's contributions I'm sure yours amount to a fart in windstorm.

[Oleg Bach]

Buy a pack of smokes - I contribute...can you imagine what a mess we would be in if it was not for that addiction taxes - Be thankful to the ones who sacrafice their lives so others can live... as for teachers - ever look at your kids typing or texting....apparently we should all be illiterate in 5 years.

[guyser]

Now I have heard the most ignorant comment ever put onto these forums.

Teachers contribute nothing?

Maybe a teacher flunked him and he is still angry. While not the most ignorant thing posted here, it is up there.

[fellowtraveller]

Buy a pack of smokes - I contribute...can you imagine what a mess we would be in if it was not for that addiction taxes - Be thankful to the ones who sacrafice their lives so others can live... as for teachers - ever look at your kids typing or texting....apparently we should all be illiterate in 5 years.

MY wife teaches children how to read, and has been a positive influence on hundreds of them.

Can you say that about your life?

Oh, and did you realize that texting and typing both require some knowledge of the alphabet, one of the elements in the acquirement of literacy- a subject of which you are profoundly ignorant?