What a week! I look back over the past week and I realize just how busy I have been. I didn't even have a hour to fix my truck until Sunday and I knew what I needed to do for over a week. That's what happens when family visits.
I have a question. Who is planning on going to a public fireworks display? Personnaly, I don't want to go to one because it is a pain in the rear. If I can find a spot nearby that I can see the display from, then I would rather go there. The reason is that when you go to a public display you find that everyone else went as well. Either you arrive hours ahead of time and stake out your spot, which means your car is now blocked in and you also don't get to leave for hours afterward, or you arrive just beofre it starts, walk a mile to get to a decent spot, hope that you can actually sit (with 8 people this year, not going to be easy), then try to navigate the crowd on your way out. No matter how you look at it, is 15 minutes of fireworks really worth the hassle? Maybe if we planned on meeting a couple of families there it may be worth it, but I just don't see it as worth it with what we have to deal with.
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing fireworks, I just don't like all the problems that come with it. At least if we stay close to home, the boys can go inside if they get scared or decide they are too tired. I just don't want to go. I want a couple of days at home without running in circles. Is it too much to ask to have a holiday at home with my family without pressure to run somewhere for some reason? Oh well, making hte wife happy is important too.
Other than the fireworks dilema, I really am looking forward to the 4th. I am making homemade ice cream again this year (strawberry this time). We are planning on going traditional with burgers and hot dogs. I have a few fireworks to light off at home and of course, we have games to play. So much fun. I hope you have a wonderful 4th. Tomorrow will be my last post of the week due to the holiday and the wierdness of my schedule.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
The problem with the misnamed Affordable Health Care Act.
Seems that everyone is talking about yesterdays SCOTUS decision on the affordable health care act. Guess that means that I need to weigh in as well. Let's clear something up first. The first thing I need to tell you is that , for the most part, I agree with what is in the act. What I don't agree with is the mandate that everyone have health insurance, the misnaming, and the lack of protection from the insurance companies. These all go hand in hand so I will start with the most basic problem, the name.
This act does nothing to affect the cost of health care. Why do I say this? Firstly, it does nothing to address the issue of health care costs. The bill deals almost exclusively with health insurance and provision of care. In otherwords, who pays for the health care. Either insurance companies, the states, or the federal government. The same as it was before. This has no effect on the cost of health care. At best, the name should be the health insurance reform act.
Now for the meat of the problem, the mandate. The supreme court ruled that there will be a fine for those who don't have health insurance. The first thing you need to realize is when this fine is levied. It isn't on your tax form or by the policeman pulling you over, it is levied when you visit a doctor without health insurance. This means that you still visited the doctor without health insurance and have to pay that bill and now you have an additional fine on top of it. So lets figure out who wouldn't have health insurance.
When it comes to health insurance, There are several categories. There are those that can afford it and pay for it. Those that can afford it, think they are healthy enough not to need it and thus don't buy it (a minority). Those that can't afford it and qualify for state or federal health care (Va, Medicare, etc.) and are on it. Then there is the last 2 categories. These two are the ones hurt most by this bill. The first category is those that can't afford health insurance but aren't poor enough to get government health care. Then there are those that have been denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Let's talk about those with pre-existing conditions and how this bill does nothing to help them. While it is true that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage to someone with preexisting conditions, there is no provision to make that affordable. We are talking about private comanies here. They exist to make money, not to care for people. Everything they do needs to be profitable. They aren't going to offer insurance at reasonable rates for everyone if it affects their bottom line. Here is what I see happening. A person with a pre-existing condition applies for health insurance and the company, because they have to offer insurance, quotes them an annual rate that will cover their costs and then some (for profit, remember). Now, the applicant can't afford the coverage and thus declines it. The insurance company complied with the law and offered to cover you, you chose to decline it adn thus it is your fault you aren't insured. Nowhere in this law is that prevented.
As for those who couldn't afford health insurance already, once again, there is no provision to make it affordable or get them on government programs. All we've done is make criminals out of people who are just trying to survive and increase the profits of a bunch of health insurance companies.
The idea that your health insurance will go down as a result of this law is highly laughable. The reason is simple. These companies are making huge profits on those who are already paying, they aren't going to jeopardize them for this law. They will make up the costs in whatever way they can. This means by raising rates for those of us that are healthy should their lawyers advise them to insure the previously uninsurable. What motivation do they have to lower rates? To be nice? They're trying to make profits. If they can increase rates to increase profits they will. At some point someone is going to mention auto insurance, so I will address that right now. Yes, there are a ton of auto inurance companies out there and they all claim to save money. The fact is, auto insurance rates have gone up signaificantly over the years at a rate higher than inflation. But yours has gone down? Has your driving record improved? Did you get older? If you compare apples to apples, auto insurance has gone up, not down. Sure people are always saving according to the commercials, but what they don't tell you is that people don't switch unless they are going to save money or their insurance dropped them (in which case, they usually don't save money). The reason these people save money is because, for the most part, they haven't reviewed there policy in years and were getting charged at the rate they started in which didn't reflect there current status (good driving, accident free, getting older, etc.). Health insurance will be no different. Why should it be? They both are working for profit.
Now for the solution. In order to make health care affordable, there has to be a baseline alternative. Something everyone can afford and sets a bar that the health insurance companies need to meet. The only way to do this is through a government offered insurance plan. The way that would work of there is an allowable deduction for health care. If you take the deduction, you are saying you have purchased health insurance from a private company. If you opt to not take the deduction, you are enrolled in the government health insurance which is a basic insurance (regular preventative medicine, emergency care, etc.) for one year (your next tax return). Then, if you go to the doctor and you don't have health insurance, instead of a fine, you get and IRS audit, are investigated for tax fraud/evasion, and face jail time. This would increase tax revenues, make health insurance affordable for all, and allow freedom of choice of providers.
Let's go back to the point I made about the unisured visiting hte hospital. Under this bill, a fine is levied if you visit a doctor, for any reason, without insurance. Those that are currently visiting doctors wihtout insurance usually do so via the emergency room. This wouldn't change. Those without insurance would visit the ER and then have a fine to pay ontop of an ER bill. As I mentioned before, the primary group that does not have insurance are those that can't afford it. If they can't afford health insurance, what makes the politicians think they will pay for an ER visit and a fine. They would already ignore the bill from the ER so what is ignoring a fine. Health care costs stay the same and insurance goes up. We all lose.
This is my opinion and I take responsability for it. If you can dispute any of this, I welcome it. I love being proven wrong. OK, I don't love it, I do accept it though and learn from it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
This act does nothing to affect the cost of health care. Why do I say this? Firstly, it does nothing to address the issue of health care costs. The bill deals almost exclusively with health insurance and provision of care. In otherwords, who pays for the health care. Either insurance companies, the states, or the federal government. The same as it was before. This has no effect on the cost of health care. At best, the name should be the health insurance reform act.
Now for the meat of the problem, the mandate. The supreme court ruled that there will be a fine for those who don't have health insurance. The first thing you need to realize is when this fine is levied. It isn't on your tax form or by the policeman pulling you over, it is levied when you visit a doctor without health insurance. This means that you still visited the doctor without health insurance and have to pay that bill and now you have an additional fine on top of it. So lets figure out who wouldn't have health insurance.
When it comes to health insurance, There are several categories. There are those that can afford it and pay for it. Those that can afford it, think they are healthy enough not to need it and thus don't buy it (a minority). Those that can't afford it and qualify for state or federal health care (Va, Medicare, etc.) and are on it. Then there is the last 2 categories. These two are the ones hurt most by this bill. The first category is those that can't afford health insurance but aren't poor enough to get government health care. Then there are those that have been denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Let's talk about those with pre-existing conditions and how this bill does nothing to help them. While it is true that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage to someone with preexisting conditions, there is no provision to make that affordable. We are talking about private comanies here. They exist to make money, not to care for people. Everything they do needs to be profitable. They aren't going to offer insurance at reasonable rates for everyone if it affects their bottom line. Here is what I see happening. A person with a pre-existing condition applies for health insurance and the company, because they have to offer insurance, quotes them an annual rate that will cover their costs and then some (for profit, remember). Now, the applicant can't afford the coverage and thus declines it. The insurance company complied with the law and offered to cover you, you chose to decline it adn thus it is your fault you aren't insured. Nowhere in this law is that prevented.
As for those who couldn't afford health insurance already, once again, there is no provision to make it affordable or get them on government programs. All we've done is make criminals out of people who are just trying to survive and increase the profits of a bunch of health insurance companies.
The idea that your health insurance will go down as a result of this law is highly laughable. The reason is simple. These companies are making huge profits on those who are already paying, they aren't going to jeopardize them for this law. They will make up the costs in whatever way they can. This means by raising rates for those of us that are healthy should their lawyers advise them to insure the previously uninsurable. What motivation do they have to lower rates? To be nice? They're trying to make profits. If they can increase rates to increase profits they will. At some point someone is going to mention auto insurance, so I will address that right now. Yes, there are a ton of auto inurance companies out there and they all claim to save money. The fact is, auto insurance rates have gone up signaificantly over the years at a rate higher than inflation. But yours has gone down? Has your driving record improved? Did you get older? If you compare apples to apples, auto insurance has gone up, not down. Sure people are always saving according to the commercials, but what they don't tell you is that people don't switch unless they are going to save money or their insurance dropped them (in which case, they usually don't save money). The reason these people save money is because, for the most part, they haven't reviewed there policy in years and were getting charged at the rate they started in which didn't reflect there current status (good driving, accident free, getting older, etc.). Health insurance will be no different. Why should it be? They both are working for profit.
Now for the solution. In order to make health care affordable, there has to be a baseline alternative. Something everyone can afford and sets a bar that the health insurance companies need to meet. The only way to do this is through a government offered insurance plan. The way that would work of there is an allowable deduction for health care. If you take the deduction, you are saying you have purchased health insurance from a private company. If you opt to not take the deduction, you are enrolled in the government health insurance which is a basic insurance (regular preventative medicine, emergency care, etc.) for one year (your next tax return). Then, if you go to the doctor and you don't have health insurance, instead of a fine, you get and IRS audit, are investigated for tax fraud/evasion, and face jail time. This would increase tax revenues, make health insurance affordable for all, and allow freedom of choice of providers.
Let's go back to the point I made about the unisured visiting hte hospital. Under this bill, a fine is levied if you visit a doctor, for any reason, without insurance. Those that are currently visiting doctors wihtout insurance usually do so via the emergency room. This wouldn't change. Those without insurance would visit the ER and then have a fine to pay ontop of an ER bill. As I mentioned before, the primary group that does not have insurance are those that can't afford it. If they can't afford health insurance, what makes the politicians think they will pay for an ER visit and a fine. They would already ignore the bill from the ER so what is ignoring a fine. Health care costs stay the same and insurance goes up. We all lose.
This is my opinion and I take responsability for it. If you can dispute any of this, I welcome it. I love being proven wrong. OK, I don't love it, I do accept it though and learn from it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
What was I typing? Or ahfalswgljkhdsa
I've been told that I am weird. My response is always the same. What's your point? I know it, my family knows it, my friends know it, and now you do to. Actually, anyone who has read any post of mine knows it. I have a tendancy to overstate stuff, go off the deep end, and just plain ramble. I can't help it, it just happens. I'll start typing and the words just flow out. Sometimes they make sense and others, well, not so much. What it all comes down to is the simple filling of white space. Sometimes that is all my blog is. I fill the white space on the screen with words and sometimes coherent thought (although that tends to happen less often than I would like).
As you've probably guessed by now, today's post isn't really about anything. Thoday is one of those random thoughts days. The kind of day where even I don't fully understand the point of the post or even what I am going to type next. My philosophy is to just go with it and see what happens. Kind of like taking a shotgun target shooting. You save time by tearing up targets with fewer shots than someone with, say,a .22. Not to mention the boom is slightly more satisfying. But I digress, then again, I really haven't had a point from the begining, which I guess is the point so I have been on point and I am confusing myself.
Wow, just wow. If you can figure out where I am going with this, please leave it in the comments because I am lost. I think that since I have lost control of this post in a major way, I will stop writing before it gets any more out of hand. Let me leave you with a final thought (or a first one depending on how you read the post). Not all is as it seems. What? You were expecting something deep and witty? Did you not read the rest of the post? Sorry, I didn't mean to fail to live up to your expectations.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
As you've probably guessed by now, today's post isn't really about anything. Thoday is one of those random thoughts days. The kind of day where even I don't fully understand the point of the post or even what I am going to type next. My philosophy is to just go with it and see what happens. Kind of like taking a shotgun target shooting. You save time by tearing up targets with fewer shots than someone with, say,a .22. Not to mention the boom is slightly more satisfying. But I digress, then again, I really haven't had a point from the begining, which I guess is the point so I have been on point and I am confusing myself.
Wow, just wow. If you can figure out where I am going with this, please leave it in the comments because I am lost. I think that since I have lost control of this post in a major way, I will stop writing before it gets any more out of hand. Let me leave you with a final thought (or a first one depending on how you read the post). Not all is as it seems. What? You were expecting something deep and witty? Did you not read the rest of the post? Sorry, I didn't mean to fail to live up to your expectations.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Another answer: What does God mean to me.
I am stuck again. I really have no idea what to write today. I started to write a few things but they degraded into useless rants filled with supposition and unfounded opinion, which is something I just can't support. So I think for today, I will post another answer for my sons. Yes, I know, I'm taking the easy way out. But my head hurts and I can't think straight for some wierd reason. Anyway, Here it is.
5-1 What does God mean to you?
God means, for lack of a better word, everything. He is a comfort when I am hurt, a guiding light when I am lost, and a friend when I am alone. He is a ready ear when news is good, a breath of life when all is said and done. He is always ready to listen and willing to forgive even when we think we are beyond forgiveness. He is hope in the deepest canyon, light in the darkest night, and strength when I am weakest. He is the first one we should turn to when we have, well, anything. We should thank him when things are good, ask for his help when things are not so good, and trust in his guidance.
Sure, some of this sounds as though I am just spouting what is taught in church and in various devotionals, but it doesn’t make it any less true. Granted, I sometimes lose sight of this and who it is we stand for, but he always welcomes me back. When he forgives me, he lets it go and chooses to ignore it. He guides me when I need it, sometimes with a gentle nudge and other times with a not so gentle beat down, but never more than I need or can handle. He allows me the freedom to choose what path I take, but still keeps me in his hands. He cares for me and all I do and knows me better than I know myself.
God is the only one I love more than my wife. He is first in all I do, and when he isn’t, due to my selfish (human) nature, he waits patiently for my return. And I do return, I can’t help it, I am addicted to him. He draws me in and feeds me with his presence. There are times when I forget to fill myself on his presence and it is noticeable. I become irritable and hard to be around. I am selfish and want only what I want. And it isn’t long before I ache for him to refill me.
I am his and he is mine. He gave me more than I could ever repay. I could go on and on, but there are some things you just have to discover for yourself. God’s awe inspiring presence is one of those things.
What does God mean to me? Love, Forgiveness, Grace, Mercy, and Peace, above all, peace that’s what God means to me.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
An Apology, a solution, and a loving wife.
After rereading yesterday's post, I realize that I owe a huge apology to my wife. I allowed anger to cloud my judgement on what I posted and it was wrong. The way I posted it makes it sound as though my wife is evil, coniving and self centered. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The disagreement we had was based solely on mutual misunderstanding and was solved to both of our satisfaction. We have since made up and have moved on (at least until my wife reads yesterdays post and I have to apologize all over again, which I will do when I get home). I made a mistake and will deal with it when I get home. It should also be noted here, that as of this post, my wife has not read yesterday's post and thus may not know of what was written. Thus this apology is not prompted by arguements or otherwise. I am sorry, dear, I will speak to you on this when I get home.
I was going to add on to this post a seperate commentary on an unrelated matter, but realized it would muddy the waters and possibly dilute the first part. So I will end today's post with this. Men, just because you feel wronged (even if you weren't) is no erason to air it publicly. In a loving relationship, who is right has no bearing on the outcome. Solutions are the goal of every conversation (and argument) between you and your wife. It doesn't matter who was right (and, by proxy, who was wrong) only that you solve your problems and move forward. To dwell on the mistakes of others is to live with the results and mess of those mistakes rather than to correct them. The longer you point fingers, the longer it takes to find a solution and move on. I could keep spouting cliches, but you get the picture. I didn't until last night. Thank you to my lovely wife for pointing me in the right direction (again).
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
I was going to add on to this post a seperate commentary on an unrelated matter, but realized it would muddy the waters and possibly dilute the first part. So I will end today's post with this. Men, just because you feel wronged (even if you weren't) is no erason to air it publicly. In a loving relationship, who is right has no bearing on the outcome. Solutions are the goal of every conversation (and argument) between you and your wife. It doesn't matter who was right (and, by proxy, who was wrong) only that you solve your problems and move forward. To dwell on the mistakes of others is to live with the results and mess of those mistakes rather than to correct them. The longer you point fingers, the longer it takes to find a solution and move on. I could keep spouting cliches, but you get the picture. I didn't until last night. Thank you to my lovely wife for pointing me in the right direction (again).
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Monday, June 25, 2012
The art of being right.
Let me begin by apologizing for not posting last week. I got shifted to swing shift on short notice Monday and was not up to posting. This means I need to catch you up on what happened last week. It began with the Septic guys showing up to finish the job. Some time the preceding Friday, the inspector showed up and okayed it. Tuesday and Wednesday were spent removing the rocks, trash, and clumps of old grass from the dirt in preparation for seeding. Thursday, we actually seeded the lawn. Now we just have to wait for it to grow. Luckily we have spare seed if we need it.
The fun didn't really start until Friday night. First I need to give you the lead up. About a week or so ago, my mother in law (great woman, not a battle axe, but a wonderful woman) called and asked if it would be OK to come out in July. She also wanted to bring out our neice with her. We said sure, we really don't have much planned for July. So Friday night we get a call and she says, would Monday be OK. The wife says sure. If you note, it is Monday, most definitely not July, and, yes, she is arriving this morning, 15 year old Niece in tow. I should point out here that she is welcome and we are glad to have her. I have no problem with her visiting on short notice. The problem I had was with my wife. We have discussed it and we have since come to a reasonable solution (I am wrong, she is right and that is that, at least that was how it ended).
You see, about 4 weeks ago, I volunteered to help out at my church's fireworks stand. We discussed what times would be best and settled on Friday evening and Saturday afternoon as that was what worked around our schedules. She also had a dinner with friends scheduled for Saturday evening. The problem came when I reminded her of our prior commitments for this weekend as she started trying to plan things to do with her mom that the conflict arose. Apparantly, she was against the times I scheduled from the beginning and I chose those times on my own. Thus, it is my fault that she can't plan a great weekend with her mom. Apparantly, I should have known that she was against me working those days even when she agreed to them and scheduled my time volunteering for during the week. Thankfully we got it worked out that I was wrong so we can move on.
Quick note, men, if you end an argument with your wife and you were right, you may want to check back and make sure you actually have a bed to sleep in. I'm not saying women are vindictive and always right because that would get me in trouble. I am just warning you that if your wife ever tells you you are right, you had better make sure that you are in fact right and that whatever it is you are right about is not something that will come back to haunt you. Just saying.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
The fun didn't really start until Friday night. First I need to give you the lead up. About a week or so ago, my mother in law (great woman, not a battle axe, but a wonderful woman) called and asked if it would be OK to come out in July. She also wanted to bring out our neice with her. We said sure, we really don't have much planned for July. So Friday night we get a call and she says, would Monday be OK. The wife says sure. If you note, it is Monday, most definitely not July, and, yes, she is arriving this morning, 15 year old Niece in tow. I should point out here that she is welcome and we are glad to have her. I have no problem with her visiting on short notice. The problem I had was with my wife. We have discussed it and we have since come to a reasonable solution (I am wrong, she is right and that is that, at least that was how it ended).
You see, about 4 weeks ago, I volunteered to help out at my church's fireworks stand. We discussed what times would be best and settled on Friday evening and Saturday afternoon as that was what worked around our schedules. She also had a dinner with friends scheduled for Saturday evening. The problem came when I reminded her of our prior commitments for this weekend as she started trying to plan things to do with her mom that the conflict arose. Apparantly, she was against the times I scheduled from the beginning and I chose those times on my own. Thus, it is my fault that she can't plan a great weekend with her mom. Apparantly, I should have known that she was against me working those days even when she agreed to them and scheduled my time volunteering for during the week. Thankfully we got it worked out that I was wrong so we can move on.
Quick note, men, if you end an argument with your wife and you were right, you may want to check back and make sure you actually have a bed to sleep in. I'm not saying women are vindictive and always right because that would get me in trouble. I am just warning you that if your wife ever tells you you are right, you had better make sure that you are in fact right and that whatever it is you are right about is not something that will come back to haunt you. Just saying.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Why cut the pay for those that work and not those that don't?
So I missed yesterday's post because I got sent home to deal with my Septic system. Turns out, I shouldn't have worried. Hopefully it happens today. Unfortunately, I have duty so I will not be able to be there and my wife will have to take care of it. She worries about it, but I think she will do fine.
As I was looking at various things, I came to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with politicians. How else do you explain the idea that in order to save money, you cut pay and wages from working people (military, federal workers, etc) in order to maintain pay to those not working (welfare, jobless benefits, etc.) Don't get me wrong, I think that these programs are necessary to a point, but to justify cutting pay from those who work and not to those that don't at the same time is ludicrous. We cut jobs for the sake of savings only to have those whose jobs we cut end up on unemployment and other costly programs as they search for jobs to replace the job we cut to save money.
Now comes the fun part. I was always taught that if you don't have a solution or aren't willing to discuss one, don't bring up the problem. So here goes. I say put the people on welfare to work. Set up day care that is open only to those on welfare and staff it with those on welfare. Next, put those who now have free time to work in jobs appropriate to their physical abilities. If they don't know how to do the job, they get trained. If they don't want to work, they don't get welfare. I can hear some of you saying, "what about those who are disabled?" I didn't say anything about those on disability, I said welfare. But they can work too. There are phones that need answered, data that needs inputted, etc. There are jobs out there for all disability levels. Just as there are jobs out there for all ability levels. Streets need cleaned, ditches need dug, parks need mowed. Fences need built. Fences need painting. Trees need planting. I could go on and on. But we continually complain about those on welfare and the job market. But no one wants to do the jobs that are available, either because the job is not at their particular "skill level" or because it doesn't pay as well. I think that if you gave people a choice of working for their welfare and unemployment checks on these needed government jobs that they would either work or get off of welfare.
The other side of this is that the work we are either not doing or contracting out at exhorbant rates would get done rather cheaply. One other thing to throw out there. Because they are working and may actually want to better themselves, you put into place a policy that gives them the freedom to job hunt while doing the work. What I mean is, you give them the flexibility of schedule that allows them to better themselves. If they want, you give them the option of going to school on the governments dime with the agreement that they will stop getting welfare in 5 years. This gives them the time to get a degree and another year for the following job search. Once they sign up and take money, there is no turning back. They are off of welfare regardless of whether they finished school or not. Of course this means we supply tutoring, but in the long run, it saves us a ton of money.
This is all my opinion and you can take it however you want, but we have a problem here in the US and it is a selfish problem. No one wants to take responsibility for themselves. Everyone wants the government to provide for their comfort. And it does, as long as you are willing to claim that you can't do anything else and throw everything away and start over. Do that and you will find that you can live pretty well on the government dime. Especially if you combine programs properly. If you give something to someone for Free without any end in sight, you find that there is no reason for them to take a risk and get off of it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
As I was looking at various things, I came to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with politicians. How else do you explain the idea that in order to save money, you cut pay and wages from working people (military, federal workers, etc) in order to maintain pay to those not working (welfare, jobless benefits, etc.) Don't get me wrong, I think that these programs are necessary to a point, but to justify cutting pay from those who work and not to those that don't at the same time is ludicrous. We cut jobs for the sake of savings only to have those whose jobs we cut end up on unemployment and other costly programs as they search for jobs to replace the job we cut to save money.
Now comes the fun part. I was always taught that if you don't have a solution or aren't willing to discuss one, don't bring up the problem. So here goes. I say put the people on welfare to work. Set up day care that is open only to those on welfare and staff it with those on welfare. Next, put those who now have free time to work in jobs appropriate to their physical abilities. If they don't know how to do the job, they get trained. If they don't want to work, they don't get welfare. I can hear some of you saying, "what about those who are disabled?" I didn't say anything about those on disability, I said welfare. But they can work too. There are phones that need answered, data that needs inputted, etc. There are jobs out there for all disability levels. Just as there are jobs out there for all ability levels. Streets need cleaned, ditches need dug, parks need mowed. Fences need built. Fences need painting. Trees need planting. I could go on and on. But we continually complain about those on welfare and the job market. But no one wants to do the jobs that are available, either because the job is not at their particular "skill level" or because it doesn't pay as well. I think that if you gave people a choice of working for their welfare and unemployment checks on these needed government jobs that they would either work or get off of welfare.
The other side of this is that the work we are either not doing or contracting out at exhorbant rates would get done rather cheaply. One other thing to throw out there. Because they are working and may actually want to better themselves, you put into place a policy that gives them the freedom to job hunt while doing the work. What I mean is, you give them the flexibility of schedule that allows them to better themselves. If they want, you give them the option of going to school on the governments dime with the agreement that they will stop getting welfare in 5 years. This gives them the time to get a degree and another year for the following job search. Once they sign up and take money, there is no turning back. They are off of welfare regardless of whether they finished school or not. Of course this means we supply tutoring, but in the long run, it saves us a ton of money.
This is all my opinion and you can take it however you want, but we have a problem here in the US and it is a selfish problem. No one wants to take responsibility for themselves. Everyone wants the government to provide for their comfort. And it does, as long as you are willing to claim that you can't do anything else and throw everything away and start over. Do that and you will find that you can live pretty well on the government dime. Especially if you combine programs properly. If you give something to someone for Free without any end in sight, you find that there is no reason for them to take a risk and get off of it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)