Immigration Reform: Set to add millions to welfare rolls.

[_just me]

Not everyone is employable. That's the sad reality.

Not everyone is capable of working. That is the sad reality.

Not everyone who loses a job is willing to settle for a minimum wage job.

Perhaps we should just let the disabled, mentally ill and incompetent DIE along with any offspring they might have.

Or, maybe we should force employers to employ people that they would otherwise pass up.

But, wait. The OP is actually not about welfare. It's about healthcare. Why shouldn't we make healthcare affordable and available to everyone again? I forget the answer.

[_subgenius]

Most people on welfare on white.

yes, but most people in America are white.
It would be better to compare what percentage of each race in America is on welfare.

To be fair in 2011 the welfare recipients were:
Black-39.8%
White-38.8%
Hispanic-15.7%
Other-3.3%
Asian-2.4%

[_ajax18]

A lot of people who get paid to do nothing are capable of doing something.

Not everyone who loses a job is willing to settle for a minimum wage job.

Thank you for describing the problem. I think you should be willing to take whatever job is available until you can find something better.

And yes, employers should have to employ people they would otherwise pass up, or pay what it takes to attract a better employ.

[_subgenius]

Why shouldn't we make healthcare affordable and available to everyone again?

why should we? why should we have our government force money into insurance and hospital companies?

should we not make good food and clean water a priority?
should we not make access to clean air and exercise a priority?

exactly how is "universal" healthcare some sort of magic bullet?

if you can force me to pay into a system that will assist a person with self-inflicted ailments then why not simply force them into a prescribed lifestyle?
if you can negate my ability to choose freely why can you not negate theirs?

exactly which option empowers people?

does this mean we have to abandon the child with leukemia? no...that child is not even abandoned now.
if we re-distribute resources to care for the cigarette smoker all we have done is diminish resources available to that same child.

[_just me]

A lot of people who get paid to do nothing are capable of doing something.

Not everyone who loses a job is willing to settle for a minimum wage job.

Thank you for describing the problem. I think you should be willing to take whatever job is available until you can find something better.

And yes, employers should have to employ people they would otherwise pass up, or pay what it takes to attract a better employ.

So, employers should be forced to employ convicted criminals, people who can't count, people who can't read?

How can a bedridden person gain employment? What about a severely mentally disabled person?

Are you going to be willing to pay more for your Whopper so that Burger King can pay their employees more?

The truth is, we don't really know much about that 8% number. We don't know who is included in it. Chances are it is a wide variety of people in a wide variety of circumstances. That 8% doesn't really tell us anything about who is on "welfare."

[_just me]

Why shouldn't we make healthcare affordable and available to everyone again?

why should we? why should we have our government force money into insurance and hospital companies?

To save lives. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/ ... W520090917

should we not make good food and clean water a priority?

We should and do.

should we not make access to clean air and exercise a priority?

We should and do.

exactly how is "universal" healthcare some sort of magic bullet?

Who said it was magic?

if you can force me to pay into a system that will assist a person with self-inflicted ailments then why not simply force them into a prescribed lifestyle?

Care to give an example? Are you suggesting we ban pregnancy?

if you can negate my ability to choose freely why can you not negate theirs?

It's called a community. Without it, you have no "freedom."

exactly which option empowers people?

Dead people are not empowered.

does this mean we have to abandon the child with leukemia? no...that child is not even abandoned now.
if we re-distribute resources to care for the cigarette smoker all we have done is diminish resources available to that same child.

Just lol. The reason that child is not abandoned is because they qualify for free healthcare!
What makes a cigarette smoker unworthy of treatment?
You've presented a false dilemma, anyway.

Healthcare workers expose themselves to illnesses every day. Shall we not treat them because they CHOSE to be exposed? Is that where this is going?

[_ajax18]

So, employers should be forced to employ convicted criminals, people who can't count, people who can't read?

There are jobs that convicted criminals can do while presenting the least amount of risk to society. Not every crime deserves the death penalty. As long as that is true, convicted criminals should retain the right to work somewhere. Employers who simply deny anyone convicted of a crime as policy in favor of hiring illegal immigrants who they can stiff on their wages should be fined and given an economic incentive to keep the law.

How can a bedridden person gain employment?

work online? Art Berg managed to make a living after becoming a quadriplegic.

What about a severely mentally disabled person?

Many mentally disabled people suck it up and do what they can and I admire them for it. I agree that not everyone can make enough to provide themselves with the necessities of life. But from what I've seen of the system, it punishes those who attempt to do a little by taking their welfare.

Are you going to be willing to pay more for your Whopper so that Burger King can pay their employees more?

Of course I would and if I am not, than I shouldn't be eating out.

That 8% doesn't really tell us anything about who is on "welfare."

There are too many Americans on welfare who think the jobs available are beneath them. They think such jobs are only worthy of illegal immigrants. And we will all sorely pay for enabling that attitude.

[_just me]

So, employers should be forced to employ convicted criminals, people who can't count, people who can't read?

There are jobs that convicted criminals can do while presenting the least amount of risk to society. Not every crime deserves the death penalty. As long as that is true, convicted criminals should retain the right to work somewhere. Employers who simply deny anyone convicted of a crime as policy in favor of hiring illegal immigrants who they can stiff on their wages should be fined and given an economic incentive to keep the law.

Point being not ALL employment opportunities are open to convicts, for example. People who cannot read or write have diminished opportunities for employment. There are lots of other examples we could look at. Not everyone can just go out and qualify for a vast number of jobs.

How can a bedridden person gain employment?

work online? Art Berg managed to make a living after becoming a quadriplegic.

You need to really get out more. Or widen your circle. There are people who are completely incapable of any work. Yes, some people are able to find income producing work that fits their circumstances. This is not true for everyone.

What about a severely mentally disabled person?

Many mentally disabled people suck it up and do what they can and I admire them for it. I agree that not everyone can make enough to provide themselves with the necessities of life. But from what I've seen of the system, it punishes those who attempt to do a little by taking their welfare.

Not everyone is capable of working. You seem to be willfully ignoring that fact. Tell me, what can a baby do on their own to earn money? There are adults who function like babies.

Are you going to be willing to pay more for your Whopper so that Burger King can pay their employees more?

Of course I would and if I am not, than I shouldn't be eating out.

I feared you would take this example too literally. You should realize that the price of all food and goods would go up if the workers start to earn more money.

That 8% doesn't really tell us anything about who is on "welfare."

There are too many Americans on welfare who think the jobs available are beneath them. They think such jobs are only worthy of illegal immigrants. And we will all sorely pay for enabling that attitude.

Who? You are making an assertion with no evidence to back yourself up.

What "welfare" are these alleged people on? Give me some evidence. Show me some studies.

And, for the record, I'm a fan of making legal immigration easier to prevent illegals from being taken advantage of.

[_ajax18]

And, for the record, I'm a fan of making legal immigration easier to prevent illegals from being taken advantage of.

So you leglize 20 million illegal immigrants. That's been done 3 times in the past 15 years. You're just going to get 20 million more illegals who replace them. That doesn't solve anything. It just makes the American taxpayer responsible for taking care of more people.

[_subgenius]

why should we? why should we have our government force money into insurance and hospital companies?

To save lives. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/ ... W520090917

from your link:
"Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said."

again, why are you nailing the final nail in the healthcare-is-now-finally-a-commodity coffin?

so it is not just about being uninsured...it is also that the uninsured options are "mysteriously" disappearing.
why do we need an insurance company? is not the success of a "universal healthcare" system based upon simply allowing anyone to walk in the hospital door?
otherwise, your link is absurd as a logical response...the dramatic increase of "patients" into an already burdened and understaffed system is likely to negate any "survival" rates you may dream of, and as such the market will respond with a wal-mart attitude...and your new statistic will read as 45k die because of lousy health service...all paid for...but still lousy.
your team is playing short-ball with an obvious long-ball issue.

should we not make good food and clean water a priority?

We should and do.

No, Matt Damon, i meant in America. For example, the Baker's Union in support of Twinkies was holding for money...not for a better product...just more money.

should we not make access to clean air and exercise a priority?

We should and do.

No we don't. The money is going to Insurance companies and Hospitals....not to gyms and trails.

exactly how is "universal" healthcare some sort of magic bullet?

Who said it was magic?

you did...with your first response above about the 45k and your last response below.

if you can force me to pay into a system that will assist a person with self-inflicted ailments then why not simply force them into a prescribed lifestyle?

Care to give an example? Are you suggesting we ban pregnancy?

Nope. But i support people not getting pregnant if they can not afford the baby, just like a car dealer wont let you buy a car if you can't pay for it.

if you can negate my ability to choose freely why can you not negate theirs?

It's called a community. Without it, you have no "freedom."

and neither do they.

exactly which option empowers people?

Dead people are not empowered.

huh?

does this mean we have to abandon the child with leukemia? no...that child is not even abandoned now.
if we re-distribute resources to care for the cigarette smoker all we have done is diminish resources available to that same child.

Just lol. The reason that child is not abandoned is because they qualify for free healthcare!
What makes a cigarette smoker unworthy of treatment?

the smoker is worthy if he has the ability to pay for treatment, he is also worthy if he can not pay...unfortunately he can not receive treatment if he does not pay (see my first response above).
That is why the child is free...the child is a child...not an adult...not an adult who has voluntarily remained a part of a community where one is entitled to the consequences of one's free choices...whether those consequences are a reward or a punishment.
If i choose to spend money on cigarettes and not health insurance then so be it...why would i consider it a virtue of "community" to care for me...clearly i have made decisions counter to being in that same community - intentionally becoming a burden on the community is contrary.
Now if i was smoking cigarettes to keep cigarettes out of the hands of innocent children then perhaps you have a "community" argument.

You've presented a false dilemma, anyway.

nope - you did when you posted that health insurance equals health care

Healthcare workers expose themselves to illnesses every day. Shall we not treat them because they CHOSE to be exposed? Is that where this is going?

absurd exaggeration. and no, it is not where i am going. I am going towards a notion that in order to live in a free society a person must be afforded liberty in their decisions.
To allow adult citizens to make decisions only to have the consequences of those decisions undermined by mitigation is ridiculous. To lay the foundation that a community will bear the burden of a member's intentional action to undermine that same community is degradation.
We deprive criminals of certain rights and privileges in order to maintain integrity of our community....we do not modify our definition of community to meet the criminal's standard but rather..they must meet ours...or they forfeit the benefits.
Is this simply a black and white issue? not likely....but the concept is.

Am i entitled to "free" healthcare? you bet i am...and so are you...but only in as much as you are a part of the community which pays for it...does that mean you have to be employed and always paying into the "system"? not necessarily, but it certainly should be an exclusion if your actions are contrary.
But wait...criminals get healthcare...not the same...we put them there in order to maintain integrity...our rules...so of course we pay for the prison...but we can just as easily determine otherwise.

So, y what measure will you establish the virtue of healthcare? That it should remain a cog in the gear of capitalism? or should it be an essential government service? If it is an essential government service, like the military, should it still be privatized? - sounds like Bush wanting to hand over social security to hedge fund companies.....soo....why is anyone paying for healthcare as a service? i don't have to get insurance to put my kids in a public school...i don't have to buy insurance or shop for it in order to have a police force in my city.....exactly what sort of hybrid government-business are you endorsing.
The saddest part about this whole thing is that most liberals do not see what is actually occurring....it is not another example of government intrusion into big business...but an example of business intrusion into government.
and that is something our country has been sick with since Nixon.