Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One thing people forget. Hospitals take payments and you don't have to prepay.

The few times I've been in the hospital they mail my bill to me (takes about 4-6 weeks) and if I can't pay it in full I can schedule a payment plan.

So yeah, maybe without insurance you need to pay $20,000 out of your own pocket but it's not as if you have to walk in with it on you and you do have some time until the bill comes AND you can make payments.

Granted, the hospital might be reluctant to let you pay $100/month on a $100k doctor bill (since you'd be dead before it was paid off) but it's not like you better have $100k in savings or checking just in case something happens.

So yeah, lets all pretend that just like buying groceries with cash that you have to pay that day and/or pay up front.

The Green Git wrote:The sheer ignorance of that statement left me unable to read farther.

That's a pity, you might have found a new perspective, it wouldn't be something you'd have to take on completely, but every new perspective helps inform. Still, it does explain how you've managed to form such dogmatic opinions.

If I work, I get paid. If I don't work, I get nothing.

Well, duh. Now consider what really matters - how much you get paid. Consider how a resourceful, hardworking guy in the US might make $200k, while a resourceful, hardworking Chinese man might make $5k. From here you have two options... the first is to assume that a guy born in the US is inherently worth 40 times more than a guy in China, or you can consider that the structure of society plays a really important part in the ability of a person to earn their income.

Once you realise how important contract laws, property laws, corporation laws, infrastructure, and everything else built by society is in the generation of an individual's paycheck, it becomes a nonsense to pick out one element of that social system, taxation, and pretend that's somehow divorced from everything else.

Or at least without the divine hand of big government stepping in that's the way it would work.

There is nothing stopping social benefits being conditional. Many countries will require welfare recipients to do council work, apply for so many jobs per week, undergo retraining and the like. The idea that a social support network must mean handing out money unconditionally is plainly wrong.

Look, you can couch your argument in psychobabble all you want but you think it's OK to take possessions from a person by force of law and give to another who did nothing to earn it. That's immoral. It's called theft. It may be legalized theft, but it's theft nonetheless.

You should look up psychobabble, it involves using big, technical words to give an air of legitimacy to an idea. If there were words in my previous post then point them out and I'll explain them to you.

What did happen is that I provided another look at the concept of earning, and suggested that there is more to a person's paycheck than their own merits. In response you've said 'nuh uh' and 'that's psychobabble' - which is a pathetic effort at best. Look, it isn't the easiest thing in the world when an idea you've taken for granted gets shown in another light, but the answer is simply not. It's happened to me a lot, but the difference is that I went away, really thought about the argument and formed a new view, accepting elements of the new idea and forming real reasons to reject other elements, and coming away with a more considered view.

You don't have to accept my argument entirely, but you do need to think about it and form a real counter argument, almost certainly adjusting your original position substantially. That's how we develop ideas that don't suck.

Charity is not forced, it's derived by faith.

First up, the word you're looking for is empathy, not charity. But that's a completely different issue and I'm left wondering why you've tried so unsubtlely to drag that into the conversation.

Second up, duh. If it's forced it isn't charity. That's why the social support network isn't charity, it's part of the law. The same democratic process that says I can own my house and my car and my business also produced a law that says the more you earn the more you contribute to the running of society. We as a society have both aspiration and empathy, and we balance the two. While our aspiration encourages us to build free markets, our empathy encourages us to build systems that stop people losing their house when they get sick, that gets kids educated even when their parents can't afford it, and all that stuff.

Historical precedent is clear that the above are simply not maintained when funded through private donations. The most basic reading of 19th C living will make that very clear.

At the end of the day the Obama administration is enabling the largest entitlement program in the history of the United States, and they are doing it to placate their leftist base. You can't argue that.

Placating their leftist base? What's the difference between 'placating their leftist base' and 'enacting policy they campaigned on and won an election on?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Yeah, soon your country will be on par with 3rd world hellholes, like Sweden and Canada...

Let's check tax rates, shall we?

http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_2649_201185_41498313_1_1_1_1,00.html

The Canadians I know tell me that they have to pay more taxes than we do in the states, and there can be hours long waits in the clinics there.

In 2008 Canadian total govt spending was CAN$237 billion. Total GDP in the same year was CAN$1,321 billion. 18%

In 2008 US total govt spending was US$2.9 trillion. Total GDP in the same year was US$14.4 trillion. 20%


The idea that the US is avoiding high tax by not having basic services is bunk. You're spending as much or more than the rest of us already, you're just spending it on crap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:One thing people forget. Hospitals take payments and you don't have to prepay.

The few times I've been in the hospital they mail my bill to me (takes about 4-6 weeks) and if I can't pay it in full I can schedule a payment plan.

So yeah, maybe without insurance you need to pay $20,000 out of your own pocket but it's not as if you have to walk in with it on you and you do have some time until the bill comes AND you can make payments.

Granted, the hospital might be reluctant to let you pay $100/month on a $100k doctor bill (since you'd be dead before it was paid off) but it's not like you better have $100k in savings or checking just in case something happens.

So yeah, lets all pretend that just like buying groceries with cash that you have to pay that day and/or pay up front.

How many families can access $20,000 within six weeks? How many families simply can't access $20,000 at all? There's a reason sickness is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US, and it isn't because people are pretending it's grocery shopping.

Fateweaver wrote:One thing people forget. Hospitals take payments and you don't have to prepay.

The few times I've been in the hospital they mail my bill to me (takes about 4-6 weeks) and if I can't pay it in full I can schedule a payment plan.

So yeah, maybe without insurance you need to pay $20,000 out of your own pocket but it's not as if you have to walk in with it on you and you do have some time until the bill comes AND you can make payments.

Granted, the hospital might be reluctant to let you pay $100/month on a $100k doctor bill (since you'd be dead before it was paid off) but it's not like you better have $100k in savings or checking just in case something happens.

So yeah, lets all pretend that just like buying groceries with cash that you have to pay that day and/or pay up front.

You still have to pay though.

I know you love your country, and that's to be commended - but surely tribalism can only take you so far? Too many people seem to interpret an attack on the current American health care system as an attack on America and American values. Viewed objectively, I can't understand how people could say that the system works. The idea of $100K doctor's bills seems absolutely monstrous to me.

The Green Git wrote:

sebster wrote:
... as you've started with the myth that an individual's paycheck is entirely the result of his own labour and nothing else. <much typed diarrhea snipped>

The sheer ignorance of that statement left me unable to read farther. If I work, I get paid. If I don't work, I get nothing. Or at least without the divine hand of big government stepping in that's the way it would work.

Look, you can couch your argument in psychobabble all you want but you think it's OK to take possessions from a person by force of law and give to another who did nothing to earn it. That's immoral. It's called theft. It may be legalized theft, but it's theft nonetheless. Charity is not forced, it's derived by faith.

Yes, that's OK since without law you wouldn't be getting anything. And your saying who didn't earn it.... So I take it you think anyone handicapped should live under a bridge or something cause they can't earn it?

Loving this thread.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Funny though all the Canadians I know hate the Canadian healthcare system. But they are older and have to deal with it more, especially in comparison to us US counterparts.

I have never met a canadian that didn't think their system was superior. I also live in the middle of Maine, which is basically canada. That said, I don't hang out with canadians often. By contrast I have never met an American that didn't hate the American healthcare system.

You should get out of your parents basement more often then.

Ive been in the workforce since I was 17, got insurance via work when I was 19, paid my way through 7 years of college, and am now a husband and father of 6. Ive never had the need to be coddled by anyone, much less the government. Ive had to move 3 times to go where the work was and have had insurance each time through 5 jobs. If your employer is giving you less hours, go somewhere else.

He can't, he's still in High School.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

The Green Git wrote:
Look, you can couch your argument in psychobabble all you want but you think it's OK to take possessions from a person by force of law and give to another who did nothing to earn it. That's immoral. It's called theft. It may be legalized theft, but it's theft nonetheless. Charity is not forced, it's derived by faith.

I sincerely hope that you aren't a Christian. I don't see how a follower of the man who told you that to be righteous, you should sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. The hypocrisy of Christians opposing universal healthcare is almost laughable.

If this is theft, then allowing the poor and the homeless to die without healthcare that you can provide cheaply is murder, isn't it? And those taxes that pay for roads, bridges, firemen, cops and everything else are theft too.

But no, you're right. feth the poor.

Your biblical ignorance is laughable. Giving should be a voluntary act, not a dictated one. You shouldnt be dragged into giving. And yes, it IS theft when those taxes are used for anything but roads, bridges, firemen, cops or caring for the poor. Most turnpike tolls etc start out this way, then wind up funding junkets. Look it up.

Your what, 18, 19 years old? Wait until you have to work for a living and wonder who the hell is FICA and why does he get so much of my check? Trust me, I was once in your boots.

I give at church, I give to charities. I make the decision who gets what and how much of it. As for murder, I feel funding abortion is murder, so is it moral to force someone to pay into something that to them is immoral?

You should get out of your parents basement more often then.

My moms basement is cold.

Your biblical ignorance is laughable. Giving should be a voluntary act, not a dictated one. You shouldnt be dragged into giving. And yes, it IS theft when those taxes are used for anything but roads, bridges, firemen, cops or caring for the poor.

This ones pretty good. So healthcare reform isn't related to taking care of the poor?

Your what, 18, 19 years old? Wait until you have to work for a living and wonder who the hell is FICA and why does he get so much of my check? Trust me, I was once in your boots.

Was that before or after your 15 kids?

I give at church, I give to charities. I make the decision who gets what and how much of it. As for murder, I feel funding abortion is murder, so is it moral to force someone to pay into something that to them is immoral?

There are quite a few people that believe that overseas internment camps and predator drone strikes are immoral. Funny how you're not crying about that!

ShumaGorath wrote:

You should get out of your parents basement more often then.

My moms basement is cold.

Your biblical ignorance is laughable. Giving should be a voluntary act, not a dictated one. You shouldnt be dragged into giving. And yes, it IS theft when those taxes are used for anything but roads, bridges, firemen, cops or caring for the poor.

This ones pretty good. So healthcare reform isn't related to taking care of the poor?

Your what, 18, 19 years old? Wait until you have to work for a living and wonder who the hell is FICA and why does he get so much of my check? Trust me, I was once in your boots.

Was that before or after your 15 kids?

I give at church, I give to charities. I make the decision who gets what and how much of it. As for murder, I feel funding abortion is murder, so is it moral to force someone to pay into something that to them is immoral?

There are quite a few people that believe that overseas internment camps and predator drone strikes are immoral. Funny how you're not crying about that!

Put down the sugar kid, your bouncing all over the place. The healthcare reform isnt actually about healthcare reform. Do you think they accidently left out the part about offering healthcare to children with preexisting conditions? This reform is more about control. Isnt it inspirational how Congress wrote itself out of being affected by this bill by giving itself an exemption?

Ive never been slumming, so Im pretty sure youre not one of mine.

As for overseas internment camps etc, FOCUS, we arent talking about that. Stick to the topic. Up your ritalin if necessary.

It's Shuma. He'll derail a thread just to attack people.

LOL.

How does charity help when one group is despised by those in society with money? They are unlikely to give or help, and the problem will not be solved.

And lads, constantly calling people "kid" and making reference to their age in a disparaging manner? Guess what. It doesn't make your arguments any better.

Sure thing Grandpa Boss.

That's Uncle Boss to you, Skip.

Fateweaver wrote:It's Shuma. He'll derail a thread just to attack people.

LOL.

Unlike you of course.

LOL.

Da Boss wrote:How does charity help when one group is despised by those in society with money? They are unlikely to give or help, and the problem will not be solved.

And lads, constantly calling people "kid" and making reference to their age in a disparaging manner? Guess what. It doesn't make your arguments any better.

Actually, in this country, that isnt the case Da. The poor are not despised, they are taken care of for the most part. If you dont have insurance, you can go to the hospital and still be seen by a doctor, they cannot send you away. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, WIC, Food Stamps, unemployment insurance etc. Now, if you choose to be off the grid, then your on your own.

As per http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
"No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American."

The reference to "Kid" was in deference to his post, not really his age. But now that you mention it...

I know that americans are very charitable, personally. And I didn't mean that you guys despise the poor, per say (though comments on this board about recipients of welfare do make me wonder).
But when in a community, at a local level, one group is hated- an example would be black families in a predominanty racist area, though a good one from Ireland would be Irish Travellers in a settled community, or whatever.
Do you see what I mean? It's entirely possible they won't get the help they need. Charity is too haphazard, though it is commendable.

Da Boss wrote:I know that americans are very charitable, personally. And I didn't mean that you guys despise the poor, per say (though comments on this board about recipients of welfare do make me wonder).
But when in a community, at a local level, one group is hated- an example would be black families in a predominanty racist area, though a good one from Ireland would be Irish Travellers in a settled community, or whatever.
Do you see what I mean? It's entirely possible they won't get the help they need. Charity is too haphazard, though it is commendable.

No, I dont buy that argument wholesale due in large part to my personal experience. I grew up in the NY metropolitan area. I was thankfully exposed to many races and cultures, and when young grew up in the "slums" (my parents owned a house about 4 blocks away from the government tenements). I am also of mixed race. As I grew older, we moved to a more affluent area which was predominantly white. I have seen racism practiced from both spectrum's (Nation of Islam in the city, and "rednecks" -"stupid white people" - in the more affluent areas. I am lucky in that I was born and grew up in the post rights movements of the 70's and have benefited from it. People in the United States are, for the most part, more tolerant of each other than what some would believe. Is it all good, no of course not, we are dealing with human beings, but it is way better than what it was say 60 years ago.

So no, I dont see a "hatred" that needs addressed via government intervention. Maybe in some countries or areas that are more homogeneous than others that may be an issue? But in this country, those enclaves are getting smaller and smaller.

I also see how government assistance creates an entitlement mind set which robs people of dignity and the drive to better themselves and succeed. I've seen first hand how much of a failure Lyndon B Johnson's grand experiment of the Great Society destroyed African American community's and small business'. Ive also seen people who refuse to allow themselves to be victimized and to succeed themselves. So yes, this does taint my view of government assistance. Government and those in government have been the same since the days of the Pharaohs: it exists to propagate itself.

As it is, most charities, minus government intervention can and do great good. Government is too cumbersome, too corrupt to actually fulfill its stated intent. One need only look at how the US government has been dealing with the Native American nation to see just how inefficient and corrupt government assistance can be.

Put down the sugar kid, your bouncing all over the place. The healthcare reform isnt actually about healthcare reform. Do you think they accidently left out the part about offering healthcare to children with preexisting conditions? This reform is more about control. Isnt it inspirational how Congress wrote itself out of being affected by this bill by giving itself an exemption?

You mean the state childrens health insurance program which was expanded in 2009? I'm not sure if the bill addressed that or not actually, but there was already a program for it. And hey, my mommy let me drink some sody pop, so forgive me for being a bit hyper. She said I could play some nintendo if I stopped shouting.

As for overseas internment camps etc, FOCUS, we arent talking about that. Stick to the topic. Up your ritalin if necessary.

Sure, I'll focus on something other than your amusing set of conflicting ideals about charity, poverty, and theft. I'll just sit here and watch you rant like a soap box magistrate.

As it is, most charities, minus government intervention can and do great good. Government is too cumbersome, too corrupt to actually fulfill its stated intent.

You should probably do a little bit of investigation into largescale charity fraud and overhead abuse then. Government doesn't make charities corrupt, corrupt people make charities corrupt. Government is just a boogeyman thats easy to blame.

One need only look at how the US government has been dealing with the Native American nation to see just how inefficient and corrupt government assistance can be.

Which nation, which program, and which state? Native integration has certainly been mishandled, but it's not because of a lack of efficiency so much as a lack of focus and clear directives with how to deal with a perennially segregated diaspora of people whose entitlement to land and culture grants them conflicting amounts of freedoms within another sovereign nation.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Put down the sugar kid, your bouncing all over the place. The healthcare reform isnt actually about healthcare reform. Do you think they accidently left out the part about offering healthcare to children with preexisting conditions? This reform is more about control. Isnt it inspirational how Congress wrote itself out of being affected by this bill by giving itself an exemption?

You mean the state childrens health insurance program which was expanded in 2009? I'm not sure if the bill addressed that or not actually, but there was already a program for it. And hey, my mommy let me drink some sody pop, so forgive me for being a bit hyper. She said I could play some nintendo if I stopped shouting.

As for overseas internment camps etc, FOCUS, we arent talking about that. Stick to the topic. Up your ritalin if necessary.

Sure, I'll focus on something other than your amusing set of conflicting ideals about charity, poverty, and theft. I'll just sit here and watch you rant like a soap box magistrate.

As it is, most charities, minus government intervention can and do great good. Government is too cumbersome, too corrupt to actually fulfill its stated intent.

You should probably do a little bit of investigation into largescale charity fraud and overhead abuse then. Government doesn't make charities corrupt, corrupt people make charities corrupt. Government is just a boogeyman thats easy to blame.

One need only look at how the US government has been dealing with the Native American nation to see just how inefficient and corrupt government assistance can be.

Which nation, which program, and which state? Native integration has certainly been mishandled, but it's not because of a lack of efficiency so much as a lack of focus and clear directives with how to deal with a perennially segregated diaspora of people whose entitlement to land and culture grants them conflicting amounts of freedoms within another sovereign nation.

I could attach a plithy google lmgtfy link, but here:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/free/biatrustfund.html

But thats all the effort youre worth.

ShumaGorath=Epic Fail.

Which nation, which program, and which state? Native integration has certainly been mishandled,

Note how I agreed with you. Not that it matters, and not that you have actually been reading the posts that you have been shouting down.

But thats all the effort youre worth.

Oddly enough it was precisely what I asked for, so uhh.. Thanks?

ShumaGorath=Epic fail.

So how are those blinders working out for you? You beating the great foolish child-enemy yet? I would comment as to how well your doing so in this thread, but clearly there's some sort of great and elaborate written battle between the two of us somewhere in your head that unfortunately I can't see.

Mad Rabbit wrote:I sincerely hope that you aren't a Christian. I don't see how a follower of the man who told you that to be righteous, you should sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. The hypocrisy of Christians opposing universal healthcare is almost laughable.

You're misquoting Scripture and clearly are ignorant of the basic tenants of the faith. That (mis)quote of our Lord and Savior was His answer to a direct question asked by a man of means to Jesus.

1. Jesus told the man to sell his possessions and give it all to the poor so he would have treasure in heaven.
2. Jesus then told him to "come, follow me".
3. It was a parable intended to show how the man placed his riches above following Christ.

You have yet to show how me preferring to keep what I earn and give it to local charities is better than feeding the huge monster that is our Federal Government. But still, it's clear that you are following the progressive mantra of demonizing those that oppose PresBO and the takeover of our liberties by the Fed.

Mad Rabbit wrote:If this is theft, then allowing the poor and the homeless to die without healthcare that you can provide cheaply is murder, isn't it? And those taxes that pay for roads, bridges, firemen, cops and everything else are theft too.

Again, we couch the with support for replacing Government in the place of charity in moralistic terms. The taxes that pay for roads, bridges, firemen and police services are necessary evils. But government is not the solution to EVERY ill that besets man. Our Constitution in particular reserves all rights to the States that are not expressly granted the Fed in that document. Please explain what the Constitutional charter is for the FED to interfere in the health care of an individual in any given State. My doctor and I both live in the same state so there is no Interstate commerce.

Mad Rabbit wrote:But no, you're right. feth the poor.

No, only the libs do that by keeping them in indentured servitude.

The hypocrisy is here all right, but it's now where you think. Did you know Conservatives give 30% more to charities than liberal households?
http://richiericher.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/arthur-brooks-who-really-cares-the-surprising-truth-about-compassionate-conservatism/

So why is it only OK for charity to be provided with someone else's money? Why don't you dig deep and take a local bum to the doctor if you are so concerned?

No, only the libs do that by keeping them in indentured servitude.

Versus passing that servitude on to Monsanto like the reds do?

The hypocrisy is here all right, but it's now where you think. Did you know Conservatives give 30% more to charities than liberal households?

http://www.blogher.com/charitable-giving-what-studies-numbers-and-statistics-say

More like the compassionate truth about selling lots of books. Try harder to find actual relevant statistics in a field almost totally untracked and undocumented please. You could just as well say that conservatives more often wistfully stare at the moon and remember that one time in france for how well it's been statistically recorded.

Da Boss wrote:But when in a community, at a local level, one group is hated- an example would be black families in a predominantly racist area, though a good one from Ireland would be Irish Travellers in a settled community, or whatever.
Do you see what I mean? It's entirely possible they won't get the help they need.

I would say that if such a broad group of people is in dire straights, neither charity nor welfare is going to be the solution.

"The hypocrisy is here all right, but it's now where you think. Did you know Conservatives give 30% more to charities than liberal households?"

Nice try, but that statistic includes "tithing" - the regular donations demanded by churches who so often think that "charity" begins and ends with taking their parishioners' spoiled brats on a ski trip.

Orkeo: I'd contend that state welfare has a better chance of sorting it than charity.
But OBVIOUSLY I see the problems inherent in state welfare, I just don't think individual charity is a better option.

As for charity, I could easily believe that americans are more charitable than Europeans.

I'd contend that it has about as much of a chance of making it worse as it does of fixing it. Institutional poverty among discriminated groups comes from a lack of opportunity to advance; all welfare does in that case is further add to that group's dependence. Hell, the natural effects of discrimination are also being obscured by the wealth being given to them by others, which should reduce the attention given to the problem. Not to mention the practice will likely gain the ire of those who would rather not support them, replacing what may have otherwise been empathy with resentment.

Also, if this is a democracy, the hated group will be just as bad off - or worse - looking to the government for help as it would be looking for individuals, so they must be liked well enough on the national/state level, at least. But in this case what's to stop aid from coming from outside of the region?

Pretty hard one to prove, either way.

I'll think about it some more.

Yeah, unfortunately it's the kind of thing where it's so broad and there are so many variables you can't really tell what's happening for sure in either case.

What are you talking about when you say welfare? Does it include everything from food stamps to unemployment benefits?

In most situations, people receiving welfare benefits, do so because there is no other option. I am not entirely sure I follow the line behind, "It will make them dependent", as they would appear to have no options in most cases, without such benefits.

I don't consider charity and government welfare, to be entirely comparable. Charity tends to spread much thinner, throughout various organizations, while welfare at least appears to be direct enough to help those, who are in the least advantaged groups.

Charity is a good thing, but it really doesn't appear to be much of an alternative to government institutions doing the same things, without having to work through multiple orgs, for every subject of concern. You may find more than a dozen different orgs running the same service within one city, and where that can be a good thing, it is often not the case. In the most advanced cities (social support-wise) there tends to be a even mix of orgs taking care of various concerns, clothing, food, shelter, etc... This is hardly the rule, and more of an exception in many cases. The substantial support, usually comes from the state, not the charities. I would consider charities a fantastic way to provide emergency support, as they often come in the form of churches, which can usually have more flexible hours of distribution; as in not government time (9-5, except Thursdays, and the 1st Wednesdays of the month, but not on leap years where we are only open on Saturdays...).

There are problems in both systems, but the systems themselves appear to be very complimentary to eachother, in general.

Here is an interesting article, outlining the costs of housing. Basically, shelters (which are often in the form of government subsidised, and charitable churches; a hybrid of sorts) cost more per head than standard apartments do. If anyone has ever stayed in a shelter, they would understand why this is mildly shocking. Almost getting stabbed, confrontations with guns, urination on peoples belongings, bullying, drug use, etc... Shelters suck, and they are extremely hard to manage effectively.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-25-homeless_N.htm

Cities, states and the federal government pay more to provide the homeless with short-term shelter and services than what it would cost to rent permanent housing, the U.S. government reports.

A study of 9,000 families and individuals being released today by the Department of Housing and Urban Development finds that costs to house the newly homeless vary widely, depending on the type of shelter and social services provided by the six cities in the report.

Emergency shelter for families was the most costly. In Washington, D.C., the average bill for a month in an emergency shelter ranges from $2,500 to $3,700. In Houston, the average is $1,391.

Many communities probably don't know that they are spending as much "to maintain a cot in a gymnasium with 100 other cots" as it would cost to rent an efficiency apartment, says Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies housing policies. "We are paying for a form of housing that is largely substandard, and we are paying as much, if not more, than standard conventional housing."

Wrexasaur wrote:What are you talking about when you say welfare? Does it include everything from food stamps to unemployment benefits?

Generally speaking, a transfer of wealth meant to allieviate the symptoms of poverty.

In most situations, people receiving welfare benefits, do so because there is no other option. I am not entirely sure I follow the line behind, "It will make them dependent", as they would appear to have no options in most cases, without such benefits.

I don't consider charity and government welfare, to be entirely comparable. Charity tends to spread much thinner, throughout various organizations, while welfare at least appears to be direct enough to help those, who are in the least advantaged groups.

Charity is a good thing, but it really doesn't appear to be much of an alternative to government institutions doing the same things, without having to work through multiple orgs, for every subject of concern. You may find more than a dozen different orgs running the same service within one city, and where that can be a good thing, it is often not the case. In the most advanced cities (social support-wise) there tends to be a even mix of orgs taking care of various concerns, clothing, food, shelter, etc... This is hardly the rule, and more of an exception in many cases. The substantial support, usually comes from the state, not the charities. I would consider charities a fantastic way to provide emergency support, as they often come in the form of churches, which can usually have more flexible hours of distribution; as in not government time (9-5, except Thursdays, and the 1st Wednesdays of the month, but not on leap years where we are only open on Saturdays...).

There are problems in both systems, but the systems themselves appear to be very complimentary to eachother, in general.

It looks to me as though you're considering the current state of welfare with the current state of charity. But what I was addressing was the hypothetical proposed by Da Boss: an ethnic/cultural/religious/etc group that was - as a group - requiring aid, but not recieiving any because they were too widely hated. This isn't a case of individuals who are down on their luck being unable to support themselves due to what could be a wide range of reasons, but rather a case of a whole block of people unable to support themselves due to... well, something significant that's standing in their way, as a group. And it's a case of people who would otherwise help them out charitably not doing so because of their membership in this group. Under these circumstances, I don't see welfare as being any better. While dependency may be something of an issue for an individual, for a group of people - especially a group isolated from others - dependency is more dangerous. It becomes cultural, especially as the reson for the dependency is that they are part of that group. And it blunts the real need for whatever reform will put this group in a better states.

Whereas from you I'm getting the impression that you think welfare is necessary not because it will be applied more evenly, particularly, but because there simply won't be enough charity supplied funds in circulation to support everyone who needs it.

(Given the current state of the economy, I would be rather surprised if private charity could act as enough of a "safety net" right now myself.)