No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Show me the link from the IRS to this website. The IRS regulates the compliance of this act.

 

ETA: I have checked it out but it conflicts with information given on the IRS website.

 

Can you give an example? The site I linked is very comprehensive and is meant to provide info on this law to individuals, employers, etc. I did not find comprehensive info at the IRS site at all which makes sense since that part of the law has not fully taken effect yet.

Edited June 3, 2011 by priscilla

[Cheryl in NM]

Can you give an example? The site I linked is very comprehensive and is meant to provide info on this law to individuals, employers, etc. I did not find comprehensive info at the IRS site at all.

 

I have, re-read my posts. I don't mean to be rude, but I've posted all of this in detail with links several times today and asked you several times to read my actual posts. I need to leave for awhile so don't have time to retrieve them all for you and consolidate them into a nice neat post.

 

ETA: I agree that the IRS website in not very user friendly, but the buck stops there.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have, re-read my posts.

 

Specifically I meant the links to this info:) I recall one link from the IRS without a lot of info:)

[Mrs Mungo]

okay, well that's 4% the .2% are the companies possibly affected by penalties with LESS THAN 50 employees.

 

This is a confusing thread with lots of numbers. We need to be clear what we are debating in each post.

 

I really didn't think it was *this* confusing.

 

Here is what that paragraph says: 96% of businesses have fewer than 50 employees. Therefore, the rule only applies to 4% of them, overall. Now, 96% of *that* 4% already have health insurance for their employees. Therefore, only .2% of *all* companies might face new requirements that they are not already meeting.

 

The website *does not* conflict with what the IRS website says. The IRS website is written in less clear language and doesn't contain the statistics that the other website does. There are (quite obviously) a lot of misunderstandings about this. That's why the government has set up websites with clear language to explain it.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[cindergretta]

I absolutely *hate* anecdotal stories to make a point, but now I am offering one. :glare:

 

Dh works for a company with 25 - 30 FT employees. Our coverage is outrageous expensive b/c we are small. Small companies find it very difficult to afford medical coverage. That said, the owner of my dh's company made the decision to pay *all* of the premiums. Because it was so high, he didn't want that burden on his employees. So that comes right out of his bottom line. On top of that, the coverage isn't the most awesome. So, this man *also* pays the 2nd half of each employees deductible.

 

Not only is dh's company not being killed, it is *thriving.* People get a job here and never want to leave. The owner literally takes care of his "people." That breeds loyalty. Loyalty breeds hard work and productivity.

 

There is a lot more to this (profit sharing, flexibility with hours, etc) but because this owner doesn't rank making money higher than his employees, he is actually making quite the fortune because it is such a highly respected company.

 

(It is also, unfortunately, rare. <sigh> )

[Beetkvass]

Wow, I've only been through 7 pages and find a good bit offensive and hurtful. After having been on them before my opinion is different than it would have been before. Do you know what it's like to have an already meager come get slowly reduced so you are barely covering basic bills and minimal food with nothing extra? Nothing extra meaning shoes, clothes, books. In the mean time your savings are being slowly depleted because of the income reduction and you are eating into your food storage. You hold on to hope the income will improve. But nope you lose your job while you are at rock bottom with no savings at all.

 

Then you have food stamps. Which are now your largest source of income or support while your family helps you out a little and you desperately search for any kind of work to bring in more income. When you are in that place there is nothing extra to set aside for any treats at all. There's nothing extra because you can't meet basic needs. When you are in that position sometimes it's just nice to relax with a soda because you have no money for real treats. And it's nice to fill your kids stockings with candy that qualifies for Food Stamp coverage because you really don't have money for presents. Sure the soda and candy are crap! But even people who were "stupid" enough to run through their savings and then lose their job still like a little comforting crappy food every now and then! And it's still food even if it's nutrient profile is no better than a bag of sugar or a jar of corn syrup.

 

So knowing what it's like to have nothing but Food Stamps I would never begrudge someone soda with FS's. I don't assume the worst of them daring to need Food Stamps and feel like the food type needs to be tightly controlled so as to prevent them wasting the tax dollars of more deserving citizens.

[kalanamak]

Change the name to:

Solid Food Stamps

 

 

 

 

 

:D:D:D

[justamouse]

 

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/ Ahem. I think that if memory serves these bishops are in fact speaking from authority given them by the Vatican.

 

Excellent, excellent site.

Edited June 4, 2011 by justamouse

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Wow, I've only been through 7 pages and find a good bit offensive and hurtful. After having been on them before my opinion is different than it would have been before. Do you know what it's like to have an already meager come get slowly reduced so you are barely covering basic bills and minimal food with nothing extra? Nothing extra meaning shoes, clothes, books. In the mean time your savings are being slowly depleted because of the income reduction and you are eating into your food storage. You hold on to hope the income will improve. But nope you lose your job while you are at rock bottom with no savings at all.

 

Then you have food stamps. Which are now your largest source of income or support while your family helps you out a little and you desperately search for any kind of work to bring in more income. When you are in that place there is nothing extra to set aside for any treats at all. There's nothing extra because you can't meet basic needs. When you are in that position sometimes it's just nice to relax with a soda because you have no money for real treats. And it's nice to fill your kids stockings with candy that qualifies for Food Stamp coverage because you really don't have money for presents. Sure the soda and candy are crap! But even people who were "stupid" enough to run through their savings and then lose their job still like a little comforting crappy food every now and then! And it's still food even if it's nutrient profile is no better than a bag of sugar or a jar of corn syrup.

 

So knowing what it's like to have nothing but Food Stamps I would never begrudge someone soda with FS's. I don't assume the worst of them daring to need Food Stamps and feel like the food type needs to be tightly controlled so as to prevent them wasting the tax dollars of more deserving citizens.

 

Yes, I know what all of those circumstances are like. Truly, it sucks to get poorer and poorer while there are not enough jobs and the savings run dry, and it really, really sucks to go without needed shoes and books. I just don't think anyone owes me or my children candy or food so we can relax or be comforted by corn syrup! I find that attitude to be mind-boggling.

 

The world does not owe me a living! And I should not be made by the government to provide for any children but my own.

 

As a Christian, my husband works for two reasons, both of which are proscribed by the Apostle Paul:

 

1. Work to provide for your own family.

2. Work to share with those in need.

 

And we do share. My husband gives to several different charities. He will go without lunch himself rather than stiff the local mission of the money he has promised. He does it out of love and not out of obligation.

 

He doesn't want to pay ever more taxes to provide food stamps to able-bodied people who are strangers to him because he wants his full pay to have money to people within his life who need his help. He doesn't want to pay for public schools, either, because he wants his money to provide an education for his own children and for children of his acquaintance who could benefit from his help.

 

We are getting very radical around here, wanting the reward of our sweat to go for the purposes we choose instead of the purposes chosen by a government and a society whose values are so decidedly different from our own.

 

Independence. Freedom. Brotherly love. These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

[Barry Goldwater]

As a Christian, my husband works for two reasons, both of which are proscribed by the Apostle Paul:

 

1. Work to provide for your own family.

2. Work to share with those in need.

 

And we do share. My husband gives to several different charities. He will go without lunch himself rather than stiff the local mission of the money he has promised. He does it out of love and not out of obligation.

 

He doesn't want to pay ever more taxes to provide food stamps to able-bodied people who are strangers to him because he wants his full pay to have money to people within his life who need his help. He doesn't want to pay for public schools, either, because he wants his money to provide an education for his own children and for children of his acquaintance who could benefit from his help.

 

We are getting very radical around here, wanting the reward of our sweat to go for the purposes we choose instead of the purposes chosen by a government and a society whose values are so decidedly different from our own.

 

Independence. Freedom. Brotherly love. These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

 

:cheers2: OUTSTANDING POST! AMEN!

[Wabi Sabi]

I'd rather buy the OTC out of pocket, then buy it out of my HSA and pay a 20% penalty. I can't afford to spend $100 to see my primary care dr. to get a script for an OTC med. I have other costs that use up my HSA money and then some every month.

 

Do you already have a primary doctor? I ask because I have a FSA account with some money that has to be used by the end of this month or else I lose it. I called my doctor's office yesterday and just asked if she'd write a few different prescriptions out for some vitamins and other OTC meds that our family uses. It wasn't a problem, I just have to stop by the office and pick up my prescriptions from the receptionist. No office visit or copay necessary. Nothing more than a 2 minute phone call.

 

As long as you're already an established patient I can't imagine why a doctor wouldn't just give you a prescription for vitamins without an appointment...?

 

Hope that helps!

Edited June 4, 2011 by Wabi Sabi

[cdrumm4448]

Yes, I know what all of those circumstances are like. Truly, it sucks to get poorer and poorer while there are not enough jobs and the savings run dry, and it really, really sucks to go without needed shoes and books. I just don't think anyone owes me or my children candy or food so we can relax or be comforted by corn syrup! I find that attitude to be mind-boggling.

 

The world does not owe me a living! And I should not be made by the government to provide for any children but my own.

 

As a Christian, my husband works for two reasons, both of which are proscribed by the Apostle Paul:

 

1. Work to provide for your own family.

2. Work to share with those in need.

 

And we do share. My husband gives to several different charities. He will go without lunch himself rather than stiff the local mission of the money he has promised. He does it out of love and not out of obligation.

 

He doesn't want to pay ever more taxes to provide food stamps to able-bodied people who are strangers to him because he wants his full pay to have money to people within his life who need his help. He doesn't want to pay for public schools, either, because he wants his money to provide an education for his own children and for children of his acquaintance who could benefit from his help.

 

We are getting very radical around here, wanting the reward of our sweat to go for the purposes we choose instead of the purposes chosen by a government and a society whose values are so decidedly different from our own.

 

Independence. Freedom. Brotherly love. These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

 

Thank you for saying this so well.

[cdrumm4448]

I want medicare for all and I truly believe that businesses and millions of Americans will be relieved and will prosper under a medicare for all system.

 

My healthcare is not your choice.

 

When my DH's private insurance is gone (having been driven out of business by the carp they call universal healthcare) I will personally hold all supporters responsible.

[justamouse]

My healthcare is not your choice.

 

When my DH's private insurance is gone (having been driven out of business by the carp they call universal healthcare) I will personally hold all supporters responsible.

 

I guess you didn't read my post before? Where we, a small business, are having to fire people or drop healthcare or close? Even my super conservative Dh is wishing we pushed through a public option.

 

I really wish we HAD the choice, but it's taken away from us by exorbitant pricing. So what would you do, fire people who are almost family or cut out healthcare?

 

Private insurance is driving people out of business. It's one of our biggest nuts, and that's just not right.

 

How is it right that Starbucks pays more for its employees health insurance than its coffee beans?

 

That is what you support, then? Businesses being strangled by healthcare costs?

 

And you wonder why companies leave the country?

Edited June 4, 2011 by justamouse

[Haiku]

That is what you support, then? Businesses being strangled by healthcare costs?

 

 

:iagree:

 

My dh and I are liberals. My dh is more liberal than I am. I have posted before that he nearly froths at the mouth over the idea that the Republican party, the party of business, seems to think that coupling health insurance with employment status is a good idea. My dh works for a company that has two owners and three employees. In the past they have had up to 15 employees. They have slowly let people go as health care costs have gone up by close to 1000% in the past 10 years. My dh wants to start his own company but can't due to pre-existing health conditions in our family. We are "uninsurable" by an individual policy. The current system of health insurance does more to stifle/smother entrepreneurship and small business than probably anything else.

 

When my DH's private insurance is gone (having been driven out of business by the carp they call universal healthcare) I will personally hold all supporters responsible.

 

When my husband's business closes or stops offering health insurance due to the obscene price gouging of small companies, I'll hold those who think market-based health insurance is a good idea responsible. :tongue_smilie:

 

Tara

[texasmama]

The current system of health insurance does more to stifle/smother entrepreneurship and small business than probably anything else.

 

When my husband's business closes or stops offering health insurance due to the obscene price gouging of small companies, I'll hold those who think market-based health insurance is a good idea responsible. :tongue_smilie:

 

Tara

:iagree: My dh is a small business owner. He owns and runs the business and has no employees. We pay for private health insurance which is ungodly expensive, hard to qualify for, with a high deductible. It goes up in cost every year. If we want to change the deductible (raise or lower it), we must go through the long and tedious process of underwriting again and risk not qualifying. For several years, I was on one policy (due to receiving B12 shots and being uninsurable by most companies) while the rest of the family was on another. My hemmorhoids are not covered. My daughter's clubfoot treatment (and anything remotely considered to be related) is not covered. My migraine headaches are not covered. Ear infections for my son are not covered. Forget dental. They priced us out long ago. And lordy, if dh's vasectomy fails and I get pregnant, that is not covered, either!

 

I have seriously considered working at Starbucks part time for the health insurance benefits. (I would have to give up my professional jobs of adjunct professor and therapist to make coffee drinks so we could have better and more affordable health coverage.)

 

Something is wrong with this picture.

Edited June 4, 2011 by texasmama

[justamouse]

See, the funny thing is that people who love Private Insurance think they're entitled to it, yet holler about how they don't want to 'pay' for anyone else entitlement programs/health insurance. Who do you think is paying for your insurance? If not, you, than who? Your boss, that's who.

 

So yeah, yell about how no one is entitled to health insurance and don't forget to thank your boss for paying yours.

[Cheryl in NM]

Yes, I know what all of those circumstances are like. Truly, it sucks to get poorer and poorer while there are not enough jobs and the savings run dry, and it really, really sucks to go without needed shoes and books. I just don't think anyone owes me or my children candy or food so we can relax or be comforted by corn syrup! I find that attitude to be mind-boggling.

 

The world does not owe me a living! And I should not be made by the government to provide for any children but my own.

 

As a Christian, my husband works for two reasons, both of which are proscribed by the Apostle Paul:

 

1. Work to provide for your own family.

2. Work to share with those in need.

 

And we do share. My husband gives to several different charities. He will go without lunch himself rather than stiff the local mission of the money he has promised. He does it out of love and not out of obligation.

 

He doesn't want to pay ever more taxes to provide food stamps to able-bodied people who are strangers to him because he wants his full pay to have money to people within his life who need his help. He doesn't want to pay for public schools, either, because he wants his money to provide an education for his own children and for children of his acquaintance who could benefit from his help.

 

We are getting very radical around here, wanting the reward of our sweat to go for the purposes we choose instead of the purposes chosen by a government and a society whose values are so decidedly different from our own.

 

Independence. Freedom. Brotherly love. These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

 

YES!!! This reminds me of the ending scene of Braveheart. FREEEEDOOOMMM!!!!! It's what our country was based on.

[Cheryl in NM]

Do you already have a primary doctor? I ask because I have a FSA account with some money that has to be used by the end of this month or else I lose it. I called my doctor's office yesterday and just asked if she'd write a few different prescriptions out for some vitamins and other OTC meds that our family uses. It wasn't a problem, I just have to stop by the office and pick up my prescriptions from the receptionist. No office visit or copay necessary. Nothing more than a 2 minute phone call.

 

As long as you're already an established patient I can't imagine why a doctor wouldn't just give you a prescription for vitamins without an appointment...?

 

Hope that helps!

 

My doctor's office will only do this if you have been in to see them within the last 6 months. I've asked.

[Cheryl in NM]

See, the funny thing is that people who love Private Insurance think they're entitled to it, yet holler about how they don't want to 'pay' for anyone else entitlement programs/health insurance. Who do you think is paying for your insurance? If not, you, than who? Your boss, that's who.

 

So yeah, yell about how no one is entitled to health insurance and don't forget to thank your boss for paying yours.

 

We don't feel entitled to it. It was a perk that was considered when Dh took this job. He left an okay paying job with no health insurance to take a good paying job with health insurance.

[Tohru]

I didn't read all the replies because some where getting nasty, but I did read the article and had to laugh...

 

Those guys in the picture definitely do not need to worry about being obese from drinking sodas - obesity being the primary reason that NY wants to deny soda purchases with food stamps. :lol:

 

Imagine yourself in their life circumstance.

Let them enjoy a soda, it's such a tiny, tiny pleasure.

 

And it's Fizzy Drinks, not just soda.

[cdrumm4448]

I guess you didn't read my post before? Where we, a small business, are having to fire people or drop healthcare or close? Even my super conservative Dh is wishing we pushed through a public option.

 

I really wish we HAD the choice, but it's taken away from us by exorbitant pricing. So what would you do, fire people who are almost family or cut out healthcare?

 

Private insurance is driving people out of business. It's one of our biggest nuts, and that's just not right.

 

How is it right that Starbucks pays more for its employees health insurance than its coffee beans?

 

That is what you support, then? Businesses being strangled by healthcare costs?

 

And you wonder why companies leave the country?

 

I am the last person to wonder why companies leave the country.

 

Universal healthcare will not fix your problems.

[cdrumm4448]

See, the funny thing is that people who love Private Insurance think they're entitled to it, yet holler about how they don't want to 'pay' for anyone else entitlement programs/health insurance. Who do you think is paying for your insurance? If not, you, than who? Your boss, that's who.

 

So yeah, yell about how no one is entitled to health insurance and don't forget to thank your boss for paying yours.

 

Actually, I thank God for the Koch brothers just about every day.

 

You are entitled to acquire health insurance for yourself. My DH trades his valuable skills for compensation, which include health insurance.

[Haiku]

 

You are entitled to acquire health insurance for yourself.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Tell that to the health insurance companies who won't cover anyone who had a hangnail in the past decade.

 

They'll laugh you right out of their fancy offices.

 

Tara

[cdrumm4448]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Tell that to the health insurance companies who won't cover anyone who had a hangnail in the past decade.

 

They'll laugh you right out of their fancy offices.

 

Tara

 

 

That is not true in all cases. Before she went on Medicare, my mother applied for and acquired health insurance from Blue Cross. She has a mitral valve prolapse as well as a problem with her nervous system. She takes prescription meds for both. She had several pre-existing conditions and they took her. The premiums weren't overly expensive.

[Haiku]

That is not true in all cases. Before she went on Medicare, my mother applied for and acquired health insurance from Blue Cross. She has a mitral valve prolapse as well as a problem with her nervous system. She takes prescription meds for both. She had several pre-existing conditions and they took her. The premiums weren't overly expensive.

 

I am, truly, happy for her. I contacted every major insurance company in our state asking about individual coverage (meaning for the family, not sponsored by an employer). I was declined by every one. One representative even LAUGHED at me when I shared my kids' medical diagnoses. He told me flat out that they don't cover people who are sick.

 

Tara

[Mrs Mungo]

A kid with a medical diagnosis versus an old person with a diagnosis are entirely different scenarios to insurance companies. Again, many of us grateful that *something* has been passed have uninsurable children.

[Supertechmom]

:iagree: I for one am looking forward to the reaction of the advocates of this sort of social policy being forced to actually live under it. It will be very entertaining.

 

My hubby's company has all ready in place that if the mandate for "business with 50 employees have to pay for 60% of their health insurance" comes about, they will fire each and every one of them. They will rehire as contract employees, 1099. NO benefits, no vacation, no build up of time off, no health care, no anything. a loop hole the health bill never addressed. Companies do not have to have employees. They can for the most part contract it all out.Desperate in this economy to keep a job, most employees if not all will sign up as 1099. What else can they do and where else can they go? Even fast food is not hiring. we are crossing our fingers that I will be out of school and working by that time. Commission sales has enough stress. Add to it the worry that you won't be asked back the next week because your sales were bad.......:001_huh:

[cdrumm4448]

And aren't there already over a thousand companies and unions with waivers? How exactly is that covering everyone?

[Slartibartfast]

A kid with a medical diagnosis versus an old person with a diagnosis are entirely different scenarios to insurance companies. Again, many of us grateful that *something* has been passed have uninsurable children.

 

:iagree:

 

No insurance company would insure my son. I supported it. It wasnt exactly what I wanted but we had to do something.

[Audrey]

A kid with a medical diagnosis versus an old person with a diagnosis are entirely different scenarios to insurance companies. Again, many of us grateful that *something* has been passed have uninsurable children.

 

I think it should be a crime to utter the phrase "your child is uninsurable."

[Koerarmoca]

It took me nearly 2 days to read this :lol:

 

I multi quoted a bunch and lost it somehow :lol:

 

So my take...

 

eh..buy soda I don't care. I do think its somewhat foolish to do so on a regular basis because it would cut down on healthy foods that you could be buying over the soda. It wouldn't bother me at all if it was not covered. I do get FS for the record. It bothers me more when I see my drug dealing escalde driving neighbors bringing home lobsters because they get food stamps because they don't go in and say "hey I'm a drug dealer I make 1,000 a day" :glare:

 

I live in a highly impoverished area, by choice. We moved here to save $$ we make up for it in gas for the commute :( My husband drive from OH to Pittsburgh for work 5-6 days a week. Local employment is McJobs only unless you are a doctor, lawyer or professor at the university. I work from home (barley) just to keep him in gas for the most part.

 

I for one am thankful for the system. Having a child who requires several hospitalizations and life sustaining medications that with out Medicaid would cost us more than my dh makes in a month we have no choice truly. Food stamps allow me to send my children to bed with a full stomach. I am grateful. We have lived on both ends of the tax bracket and I had no issue putting our taxes in at all. It's the Christian thing to do, help others in need.

 

Despite this we find ways to help others when we can. Weather it be with $$ or volunteering.

 

My kids may never know what it is like to shop for "new" clothes or shoes, to have cable television, their own cell phones, fancy toys etc. but they are very happy, well adjusted, children. And they know they are blessed.

[BlsdMama]

I think it should be a crime to utter the phrase "your child is uninsurable."

 

Nodding head vehemently. :iagree:

 

 

My kids may never know what it is like to shop for "new" clothes or shoes, to have cable television, their own cell phones, fancy toys etc. but they are very happy, well adjusted, children. And they know they are blessed.

 

And it could be argued that they are blessed, happy, and well adjusted (read: content) BECAUSE of these things. :) Frankly, we try to work very hard NOT to give our children too many things to help them to be content. There is a time coming, especially with the economy, that they will grow up. I frankly feel they will never achieve the "standard of living" we have enjoyed as young people. Giving them a lot of things and amusing them to death is truly setting them up for a miserable adulthood. But what do I know? It's just my .02 and you can't buy a thing with that anymore. :P

Edited June 4, 2011 by BlsdMama

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I guess you didn't read my post before? Where we, a small business, are having to fire people or drop healthcare or close? Even my super conservative Dh is wishing we pushed through a public option.

 

I really wish we HAD the choice, but it's taken away from us by exorbitant pricing. So what would you do, fire people who are almost family or cut out healthcare?

 

Private insurance is driving people out of business. It's one of our biggest nuts, and that's just not right.

 

How is it right that Starbucks pays more for its employees health insurance than its coffee beans?

 

That is what you support, then? Businesses being strangled by healthcare costs?

 

And you wonder why companies leave the country?

Bravo:hurray:

[texasmama]

I am, truly, happy for her. I contacted every major insurance company in our state asking about individual coverage (meaning for the family, not sponsored by an employer). I was declined by every one. One representative even LAUGHED at me when I shared my kids' medical diagnoses. He told me flat out that they don't cover people who are sick.

 

Tara

 

We worked with an independent agent who helped us to apply to the three major insurance companies who do business with independent insureds in the state of Texas. Two turned me down because I am on B12 shots. I don't even have a diagnosis. The B12 shots cost about $30 a year, including needles (I self-inject) and they are not covered by any insurance because they are a vitamin, despite the fact that, for me, they are medically necessary. Yet, based on that fact, I was turned down by the first two insurance companies and was rated up significantly by the last one, who did agree to insure me. ("Rated up" = The insurance company charges you a 25% or 50% higher monthly premium to insure you due to your medical issues.) Two of my three kids were rated up for things as benign as ear infections. Conditions were excluded, including anything related to my dd's clubfoot. If you can get can even get coverage, it will price many people out of the market.

 

Texas has a high risk insurance pool which covers those who are uninsurable by other companies. It has expensive premiums and high deductibles. That was my last house on the block. Fortunately, I didn't need it.

[Haiku]

Texas has a high risk insurance pool which covers those who are uninsurable by other companies.

 

I know some states have this. Unfortunately, ours doesn't. We do have insurance, through my husband's employer. Unfortunately, it costs $1800 a month. Unfortunately, dh hasn't worked full time in 8 months. *sigh* Fortunately, I love my part-time job in the neighborhood beer and liquor store. :)

 

Tara

[texasmama]

I know some states have this. Unfortunately, ours doesn't. We do have insurance, through my husband's employer. Unfortunately, it costs $1800 a month. Unfortunately, dh hasn't worked full time in 8 months. *sigh*

 

Tara

 

:grouphug: I understand being in situations that you never expected yourself to be in. It can happen to anyone.

[Mrs Mungo]

My hubby's company has all ready in place that if the mandate for "business with 50 employees have to pay for 60% of their health insurance" comes about, they will fire each and every one of them. They will rehire as contract employees, 1099. NO benefits, no vacation, no build up of time off, no health care, no anything. a loop hole the health bill never addressed. Companies do not have to have employees. They can for the most part contract it all out.Desperate in this economy to keep a job, most employees if not all will sign up as 1099. What else can they do and where else can they go? Even fast food is not hiring. we are crossing our fingers that I will be out of school and working by that time. Commission sales has enough stress. Add to it the worry that you won't be asked back the next week because your sales were bad.......:001_huh:

 

And I think such a mandate is stupid. The reason it doesn't kick in until 2014 is because of all the preliminary work that must be done-health care exchanges, etc. Like someone said above, companies that provide good benefits have loyal, hardworking employees. Firing everyone so that you don't have to give them benefits is probably going to mean your employees are always going to be looking for something better, something that feels more permanent. It is foolish on the part of the company, imo.

[Impish]

I think it should be a crime to utter the phrase "your child is uninsurable."

It IS a crime. Just not one that they can be arrested for :glare:

[Supertechmom]

And I think such a mandate is stupid. The reason it doesn't kick in until 2014 is because of all the preliminary work that must be done-health care exchanges, etc. Like someone said above, companies that provide good benefits have loyal, hardworking employees. Firing everyone so that you don't have to give them benefits is probably going to mean your employees are always going to be looking for something better, something that feels more permanent. It is foolish on the part of the company, imo.

 

YEa it's stupid. BUt in sales....you're not looking for hardworking and loyal. You're looking for who can sale the most this week, this month. Nothing matters as long as you can back whatever with a high dollar amount. And I do mean nothing. the work behavior is horrendous sometimes. Sales people are always looking for the next best thing. And a company that falls under the mandate may not be able to pay 60%. For my hubby that means they will pay $720 a month per employee verses the $100 they pay now. 36,000 a month vs 5000. They are not going to do it. And when they do this, pretty much every car place in this state will too. They all offer the same type of pay plans and benefits. And since some of them are owned by dealers that are multi state with multi lots, this will travel beyond my state. Their rationale is better to be a contract employee than no job at all because we closed.

 

We can rationale it all day and debate pros and cons but the reality is they have weighed the pros and cons with their lawyers, accountants and the IRS and this is how they plan to survive. And yea while the company is making money, they aren't making enough to survive that much of their bottom line going out in addition to the increase in business insurance in addition to the new tax from the state and county. They are going to cut where they can. And we have no choice but to swallow it until a better job opens up.

[Tea Time]

Well plenty of Catholics disagree, and academia is HARDLY the institution to whine about the issues. They are practically putting young people into positions of indentured servants to make sure they keep their jobs, so I don't want to hear their philosophical/theological, irrational, certainly not Catholic, and not true to the idea of subsidiarity ramblings.

 

It is not moral to keep people perpetually in a cycle of poverty by supporting programs that never have to account for actual results. It is not moral to be so completely irresponsible with public funds as to drive an entire nation into bankruptcy with borrowed funds from future generations.

 

And if that organization is so concerned with Catholic teaching, then where is their outrage against law makers so fond of abortion? MIA. Give me a break. I have already explained (ignored), that Christ did not mandate government taxation but individual charity. That picture makes a pretty good Monty Python style joke.

 

This convinces no one who is not part of that choir already, and it definitely is not the position of the Vatican. Repeating it and adding :iagree: signs does not make it correct.

 

 

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/ Ahem. I think that if memory serves these bishops are in fact speaking from authority given them by the Vatican.

 

This site is the American Catholic Bishops, not the Catholic academics who sent out the letter to Boehner.

 

The Catholic Bishops POV from the site you linked:

We support self-sufficiency and self-determination as the best strategies for change. We support projects that break the cycle of poverty for good. Find out more about CCHD and the programs that are changing people’s lives.

 

It is my view that this statement supports what I said, so thank you for posting it.

 

If you have a Vatican website that supports the letter sent to Boehner that was linked and given as proof of the Catholic POV, by all means, post it. Posting that Catholics support taking care of the poor doesn't cut it. Forced charity through taxation is not a principle of Christianity. The elimination of free will is never a principle of Christianity.

[Scarlett]

I wonder.....

 

Do you people wear shoes in your house?

 

:tongue_smilie:

[cdrumm4448]

YEa it's stupid. BUt in sales....you're not looking for hardworking and loyal. You're looking for who can sale the most this week, this month. Nothing matters as long as you can back whatever with a high dollar amount. And I do mean nothing. the work behavior is horrendous sometimes. Sales people are always looking for the next best thing.

 

As a salesperson for ten years (with a Master's degree), I take offense to these statements.

[cdrumm4448]

This site is the American Catholic Bishops, not the Catholic academics who sent out the letter to Boehner.

 

The Catholic Bishops POV from the site you linked:

 

 

It is my view that this statement supports what I said, so thank you for posting it.

 

If you have a Vatican website that supports the letter sent to Boehner that was linked and given as proof of the Catholic POV, by all means, post it. Posting that Catholics support taking care of the poor doesn't cut it. Forced charity through taxation is not a principle of Christianity. The elimination of free will is never a principle of Christianity.

 

You are correct.

[6packofun]

However, on the other side, what I see is post after post of a long list of responsibility, hard work, frugality, and other Boy-Scout type characteristics offered with the clear implication that people on assistance doesn't also have and express those characteristics.

 

*Thank you.*

[justamouse]

This site is the American Catholic Bishops, not the Catholic academics who sent out the letter to Boehner.

 

The Catholic Bishops POV from the site you linked:

 

 

It is my view that this statement supports what I said, so thank you for posting it.

 

If you have a Vatican website that supports the letter sent to Boehner that was linked and given as proof of the Catholic POV, by all means, post it. Posting that Catholics support taking care of the poor doesn't cut it. Forced charity through taxation is not a principle of Christianity. The elimination of free will is never a principle of Christianity.

 

The USCCB adopted its current name in July 2001. The organization is a registered corporation based in Washington, DC. As with all bishops' conferences, certain decisions and acts of the USCCB must receive the recognitio, or approval of the Roman dicasteries, which are subject to the immediate and absolute authority of the Pope.

 

What elizabeth way trying to show you was that they HAVE the approval of the Magesterium.

 

And, is you read through their teachings and links, they absolutely say that is the job of the more affluent to help the poor.

 

Not to mention in the gospels. :glare:

[edelweiss]

Yes, I know what all of those circumstances are like. Truly, it sucks to get poorer and poorer while there are not enough jobs and the savings run dry, and it really, really sucks to go without needed shoes and books. I just don't think anyone owes me or my children candy or food so we can relax or be comforted by corn syrup! I find that attitude to be mind-boggling.

 

The world does not owe me a living! And I should not be made by the government to provide for any children but my own.

 

As a Christian, my husband works for two reasons, both of which are proscribed by the Apostle Paul:

 

1. Work to provide for your own family.

2. Work to share with those in need.

 

And we do share. My husband gives to several different charities. He will go without lunch himself rather than stiff the local mission of the money he has promised. He does it out of love and not out of obligation.

 

He doesn't want to pay ever more taxes to provide food stamps to able-bodied people who are strangers to him because he wants his full pay to have money to people within his life who need his help. He doesn't want to pay for public schools, either, because he wants his money to provide an education for his own children and for children of his acquaintance who could benefit from his help.

 

We are getting very radical around here, wanting the reward of our sweat to go for the purposes we choose instead of the purposes chosen by a government and a society whose values are so decidedly different from our own.

 

Independence. Freedom. Brotherly love. These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

 

 

Brilliant post! :hurray:

[lionfamily1999]

Wow, I've only been through 7 pages and find a good bit offensive and hurtful. After having been on them before my opinion is different than it would have been before. Do you know what it's like to have an already meager come get slowly reduced so you are barely covering basic bills and minimal food with nothing extra? Nothing extra meaning shoes, clothes, books. In the mean time your savings are being slowly depleted because of the income reduction and you are eating into your food storage. You hold on to hope the income will improve. But nope you lose your job while you are at rock bottom with no savings at all.

 

Then you have food stamps. Which are now your largest source of income or support while your family helps you out a little and you desperately search for any kind of work to bring in more income. When you are in that place there is nothing extra to set aside for any treats at all. There's nothing extra because you can't meet basic needs. When you are in that position sometimes it's just nice to relax with a soda because you have no money for real treats. And it's nice to fill your kids stockings with candy that qualifies for Food Stamp coverage because you really don't have money for presents. Sure the soda and candy are crap! But even people who were "stupid" enough to run through their savings and then lose their job still like a little comforting crappy food every now and then! And it's still food even if it's nutrient profile is no better than a bag of sugar or a jar of corn syrup.

 

So knowing what it's like to have nothing but Food Stamps I would never begrudge someone soda with FS's. I don't assume the worst of them daring to need Food Stamps and feel like the food type needs to be tightly controlled so as to prevent them wasting the tax dollars of more deserving citizens.

:grouphug: It's especially irritating when you consider that the extras are around $1. One stinkin' dollar so you don't feel like the lowest piece of dirt in the pile. But OH NO, you shouldn't even get to choose to spend that ONE STINKIN' DOLLAR on comfort food. I guess struggling folks or the working poor don't deserve comfort. That's what it boils down to, right? Because if you aren't making it work then you shouldn't feel good ever.

 

Perhaps we should start making fs and welfare recipients wear signs or have their faces branded so we can all stand up and judge them as they shop. Wouldn't that be nice? We could ride our high horses into the store and keep a close eye on them to make sure that they don't step out of line.

 

What's funny is how very Dickens it all sounds.

[Tea Time]

The USCCB adopted its current name in July 2001. The organization is a registered corporation based in Washington, DC. As with all bishops' conferences, certain decisions and acts of the USCCB must receive the recognitio, or approval of the Roman dicasteries, which are subject to the immediate and absolute authority of the Pope.

 

What elizabeth way trying to show you was that they HAVE the approval of the Magesterium.

 

And, is you read through their teachings and links, they absolutely say that is the job of the more affluent to help the poor.

 

Not to mention in the gospels. :glare:

 

Here, from the link you posted:

 

A group of prominent Catholic academics have signed a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, on the occasion of his forthcoming commencement address at the Catholic University of America.

 

A group of "prominent Catholic academics" does not equate to United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This letter references the Bishops comments on the budget, but that is not the same as the Magisterium endorsing this particular letter to this particular politician. Please post a link from the Vatican website that references Boehner if they have endorsed this letter.

 

It is not doubt true that the Bishops are very concerned about a budget that will cause hardship to vulnerable citizens, and that is a valid concern. I trust they are very concerned with the immediate consequences of massive budget changes for people who have become dependent on the system for their needs. I share their concern! It is devastating to have made millions of people dependent on a system that is not sustainable. This, however, is quite different than the Catholic Church actually teaching that it is the duty of the affluent to have constructed such an unsustainable structure in the first place. That is why the welfare state is morally reprehensible in the first place. Making promising that you cannot keep and beholding future generations to burdens they cannot carry will cause this to happen eventually, one way or another.

 

Again, teaching that it is the job of the more affluent to help the poor is a Catholic teaching, but equating that to taxing the rich is a perversion of Christian teaching. It eliminates the personal connection and responsibility of individuals to care for their neighbor, and it breaks the rule of subsidiarity. Another problem with this letter, as I pointed out, is that no such letter has been directed at politicians promoting abortion friendly laws, which is well known to be against the teachings of the Magisterium.

 

Making it look like the Catholic Church throws the full weight of the Magisterium behind specific US policies or programs for helping the poor, and that Catholics that do not approve of each and every one of them are out of step with the teachings of the Catholic Church, is very misleading, irresponsible, and even underhanded, IMO.

 

Originally Posted by Dulcimeramy

Yes, I know what all of those circumstances are like. Truly, it sucks to get poorer and poorer while there are not enough jobs and the savings run dry, and it really, really sucks to go without needed shoes and books. I just don't think anyone owes me or my children candy or food so we can relax or be comforted by corn syrup! I find that attitude to be mind-boggling.

 

The world does not owe me a living! And I should not be made by the government to provide for any children but my own.

 

As a Christian, my husband works for two reasons, both of which are proscribed by the Apostle Paul:

 

1. Work to provide for your own family.

2. Work to share with those in need.

 

And we do share. My husband gives to several different charities. He will go without lunch himself rather than stiff the local mission of the money he has promised. He does it out of love and not out of obligation.

 

He doesn't want to pay ever more taxes to provide food stamps to able-bodied people who are strangers to him because he wants his full pay to have money to people within his life who need his help. He doesn't want to pay for public schools, either, because he wants his money to provide an education for his own children and for children of his acquaintance who could benefit from his help.

 

We are getting very radical around here, wanting the reward of our sweat to go for the purposes we choose instead of the purposes chosen by a government and a society whose values are so decidedly different from our own.

 

Independence. Freedom. Brotherly love. These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

:iagree:

Yes, it is brilliant!

[Sputterduck]

I wonder.....

 

Do you people wear shoes in your house?

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

 

Here, yes. When I was in the States, never! It's so rude to bring outside nastyness in . :lol: