How does the US welfare system work?

[Fencer128]

I'm not a US citizen - and have no idea.

Is it under state or federal control? Do you have the equivalent of an unemployment benefit?

How is it that people who are "anti-welfare state" can reconcile the need for the unemployed (for whatever reason) who may need money to keep themselves/their family going whilst getting another job?

If you have the time - on another note I *think* I know that in the US you need medical insurance to get access to medical care? How does that work if you do not have the money available for the insurance - or you need emergency (ie life threatening) treatment but, for whatever reason, you don't have insurance.

Sorry about all the questions - I'm just curious as to how this all works (as opposed to the UK where I live).

Cheers,

Andy

 

[GasX]

First of all you have to live in the inner city. Then you have to be an uneducated single mother - preferably with a drug habit. Then you should have unprotected sex with a long string of unemployable equally uneducated and ignorant men.

The result is that you can live on the Gub'ments dime while increasing your income every time your high risk lifestyle results in another baby.

 

[CPA]

They are primarily administered by the states, but most of the money comes from the Feds. That said, the Feds have a lot to say in the "rules of the game".

Unemployment is a different issue because most states tax the employer for a portion of wages paid to employees, and some states also levy unemployment taxes on the employee themselves. In addition, employers are required to pay a tax on the first 7K of wages per employee/per year for Federal unemployment. So the system is taken care of with it's own specific tax. Other welfare programs come out of the "general fund".

You do not need medical insurance to get basic medical care in almost every state. That is a misnomer. Yes, you will need it for more extensive surgeries and such, but for medical emergencies, the basics are provided.

 

[Nitemare]

Basically anyone who is too lazy to work won't starve to death.

Also, you get paid per kid, so you have alot of trailer trash and ghetto babies running around not knowing who their father is so they can get a check.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
First of all you have to live in the inner city. Then you have to be a uneducated single mother preferably with a drug habit. Then you have unprotected sex with a long string of unemployable equally uneducated and ignorant men.

The result is that you can live on the Gub'ments dime while increasing your income everytime your high risk lifestyle results in another baby.

Apart from the cynics - are there any real answers to these questions?

Andy

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mwilding
First of all you have to live in the inner city. Then you have to be a uneducated single mother preferably with a drug habit. Then you have unprotected sex with a long string of unemployable equally uneducated and ignorant men.

The result is that you can live on the Gub'ments dime while increasing your income everytime your high risk lifestyle results in another baby.

Apart from the cynics - are there any real answers to these questions?

Andy

Seriously, what is wrong with my answer?

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Apart from the cynics - are there any real answers to these questions?

Andy

read CPA 's post, he answered your question, and it is highly accurate AFAIK

 

[MisfitsFiend]

Can't give you specifics.... There are those that use the system to get back on their feet again, but it is unfortunate that there are so many more that abuse the system and have no desire to get off the system, find work, and do anything productive with their lives. The system doesn't work, and reform is in dire need!!!

-mf

 

[DougyDanger]

Wefare started out well intentioned enough. But eventually people bagan taking advantage of it. Rather than get a job they stay on welfare as long as possible to avoig working. Not making enough money on welfare? Have another kid (Yes, many people in the inner city do this). The abusers may be in a minority, but they do consume huge ammounts of resources to finance their laziness and need for HDTVs (yes, they do buy $3000 TV while their kids go in rags and starve). It is these abusers that prompt the 'anti welfare state' sentiment.

As for medical care, if you show up in a hospital, they must treat you. In some areas where illegal imagration is high (texas, California, and New York) the ammount of free medical care given out is staggering. Thats one of the big reasons its so expensive for the rest of us.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CPA
They are primarily administered by the states, but most of the money comes from the Feds. That said, the Feds have a lot to say in the "rules of the game".

Unemployment is a different issue because most states tax the employer for a portion of wages paid to employees, and some states also levy unemployment taxes on the employee themselves. In addition, employers are required to pay a tax on the first 7K of wages per employee/per year for Federal unemployment. So the system is taken care of with it's own specific tax. Other welfare programs come out of the "general fund".

You do not need medical insurance to get basic medical care in almost every state. That is a misnomer. Yes, you will need it for more extensive surgeries and such, but for medical emergencies, the basics are provided.

Quite close. More money comes from the states than used to. I believe 1/3 of the MA state budget goes towards welfare.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CPA
They are primarily administered by the states, but most of the money comes from the Feds. That said, the Feds have a lot to say in the "rules of the game".

Unemployment is a different issue because most states tax the employer for a portion of wages paid to employees, and some states also levy unemployment taxes on the employee themselves. In addition, employers are required to pay a tax on the first 7K of wages per employee/per year for Federal unemployment. So the system is taken care of with it's own specific tax. Other welfare programs come out of the "general fund".

You do not need medical insurance to get basic medical care in almost every state. That is a misnomer. Yes, you will need it for more extensive surgeries and such, but for medical emergencies, the basics are provided.

Quite close. More money comes from the states than used to. I believe 1/3 of the MA state budget goes towards welfare.

You may be right, as there has been a lot of changes to the welfare programs over the last 5-6 years, especially with the work requirements.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mwilding
First of all you have to live in the inner city. Then you have to be a uneducated single mother preferably with a drug habit. Then you have unprotected sex with a long string of unemployable equally uneducated and ignorant men.

The result is that you can live on the Gub'ments dime while increasing your income everytime your high risk lifestyle results in another baby.

Apart from the cynics - are there any real answers to these questions?

Andy

Seriously, what is wrong with my answer?

What's wrong is that its sarcasm. All it says is - I think that the only people on benefit are lazy no good junkies.

Andy

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
First of all you have to live in the inner city. Then you have to be an uneducated single mother - preferably with a drug habit. Then you should have unprotected sex with a long string of unemployable equally uneducated and ignorant men.

The result is that you can live on the Gub'ments dime while increasing your income every time your high risk lifestyle results in another baby.

nah, most welfarians live in rural ghettos, are named cletus, and have like 30 kids.

 

[Fencer128]

So - if you scrap the welfare system - how do the people who aren't abusing (ie people who are out of work and looking for more - but are very poor) get along? Surely what's needed is reform, not scrapping.

BTW - what sort of % tax are people paying on their income? How much of that do you think goes into welfare?

Andy

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
So - if you scrap the welfare system - how do the people who aren't abusing (ie people who are out of work and looking for more - but are very poor) get along? Surely what's needed is reform, not scrapping.

BTW - what sort of % tax are people paying on their income? How much of that do you think goes into welfare?

Andy

The problem is that all those people on welfare are voters. Keep promising them no reforms and more money, and they will vote for you. End of story.

 

[rudder]

If you have the time - on another note I *think* I know that in the US you need medical insurance to get access to medical care? How does that work if you do not have the money available for the insurance - or you need emergency (ie life threatening) treatment but, for whatever reason, you don't have insurance.


Here in Tennessee we have what is called Tenncare. If you cannot afford insurance or cannot get insurance, the state will provide it for you. If you have money you are able to buy your own insurance and have more choices as far as your healthcare goes. Tenncare limits you to which doctors you can see etc. Nationwide we have medicade and medicare which are similar programs for people who cannot get insurance.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Fencer128
So - if you scrap the welfare system - how do the people who aren't abusing (ie people who are out of work and looking for more - but are very poor) get along? Surely what's needed is reform, not scrapping.

BTW - what sort of % tax are people paying on their income? How much of that do you think goes into welfare?

Andy

The problem is that all those people on welfare are voters. Keep promising them no reforms and more money, and they will vote for you. End of story.

Thanks for your input, but can anyone answer the above - I don't see how scrapping the system will aid the people it set out to help. Surely only reform can be the way forward?

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: rudder
If you have the time - on another note I *think* I know that in the US you need medical insurance to get access to medical care? How does that work if you do not have the money available for the insurance - or you need emergency (ie life threatening) treatment but, for whatever reason, you don't have insurance.


Here in Tennessee we have what is called Tenncare. If you cannot afford insurance or cannot get insurance, the state will provide it for you. If you have money you are able to buy your own insurance and have more choices as far as your healthcare goes. Tenncare limits you to which doctors you can see etc. Nationwide we have medicade and medicare which are similar programs for people who cannot get insurance.

Thank you. If you (or anyone else) has the time. Could someone explain the phrase "Tenncare limits you to which doctors you can see etc." a bit. Is there some two tier standard of healthcare? Are they really that different and does medical insurance cost a lot?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Fencer128
So - if you scrap the welfare system - how do the people who aren't abusing (ie people who are out of work and looking for more - but are very poor) get along? Surely what's needed is reform, not scrapping.

BTW - what sort of % tax are people paying on their income? How much of that do you think goes into welfare?

Andy

The problem is that all those people on welfare are voters. Keep promising them no reforms and more money, and they will vote for you. End of story.

Thanks for your input, but can anyone answer the above - I don't see how scrapping the system will aid the people it set out to help. Surely only reform can be the way forward?

Andy

You see, the way America was originally set up was like this... If you worked, you got fed. If you didn't, you starved. This was how America grew to be so wealthy and so powerful so quickly. Everyone was doing their fair share and more! because they wanted more. Nowadays there is no inscentive to work hard. If you put in 50% effort, you still get a raise thanks to unions. If you put in 100%, you get the same as those giving only 50% and you start to slack off. Once you decide you don't feel like working anymore, you just go on welfare. The original system is obviously the way to go. Unemployment benefits help people who are in-between jobs, so there is acually no real need for welfare. If you are not smart enough (notice how nicely I phrased that) to get knocked up and have 5 kids and no way of supporting them...it's unfortunate and I feel sorry for the kids, but they will have to attempt to muddle through on their own. Welfare is 100% unnecessary if you think about it rationally.

 

[Fencer128]

You see, the way America was originally set up was like this... If you worked, you got fed. If you didn't, you starved. This was how America grew to be so wealthy and so powerful so quickly. Everyone was doing their fair share and more! because they wanted more. Nowadays there is no inscentive to work hard. If you put in 50% effort, you still get a raise thanks to unions. If you put in 100%, you get the same as those giving only 50% and you start to slack off. Once you decide you don't feel like working anymore, you just go on welfare. The original system is obviously the way to go. Unemployment benefits help people who are in-between jobs, so there is acually no real need for welfare. If you are not smart enough (notice how nicely I phrased that) to get knocked up and have 5 kids and no way of supporting them...it's unfortunate and I feel sorry for the kids, but they will have to attempt to muddle through on their own. Welfare is 100% unnecessary if you think about it rationally.

So, you really see no instances where people are going to suffer/starve through no fault of their own? How would this say matter if we had a similar situation to the great depression come around again - mass redundancies?

I find this debate interesting. In the UK we have a welfare state. Although many see problems with it similar to you - no one really wants to scrap it. The majority either think that "you will always have abusers" in the same way I guess "guilty men will always go free if we have a system of innocent until proved guilty" - a necessary evil if you want the right people to get the help. People really only push for reform. I thought it may be similar in the US.

Andy

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

You see, the way America was originally set up was like this... If you worked, you got fed. If you didn't, you starved. This was how America grew to be so wealthy and so powerful so quickly. Everyone was doing their fair share and more! because they wanted more. Nowadays there is no inscentive to work hard. If you put in 50% effort, you still get a raise thanks to unions. If you put in 100%, you get the same as those giving only 50% and you start to slack off. Once you decide you don't feel like working anymore, you just go on welfare. The original system is obviously the way to go. Unemployment benefits help people who are in-between jobs, so there is acually no real need for welfare. If you are not smart enough (notice how nicely I phrased that) to get knocked up and have 5 kids and no way of supporting them...it's unfortunate and I feel sorry for the kids, but they will have to attempt to muddle through on their own. Welfare is 100% unnecessary if you think about it rationally.

So, you really see no instances where people are going to suffer/starve through no fault of their own? How would this say matter if we had a similar situation to the great depression come around again - mass redundancies?

I find this debate interesting. In the UK we have a welfare state. Although many see problems with it similar to you - no one really wants to scrap it. The majority either think that "you will always have abusers" in the same way I guess "guilty men will always go free if we have a system of innocent until proved guilty" - a necessary evil if you want the right people to get the help. People really only push for reform. I thought it may be similar in the US.

Andy

Of course it is unnecessary Fencer. Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

You see, the way America was originally set up was like this... If you worked, you got fed. If you didn't, you starved. This was how America grew to be so wealthy and so powerful so quickly. Everyone was doing their fair share and more! because they wanted more. Nowadays there is no inscentive to work hard. If you put in 50% effort, you still get a raise thanks to unions. If you put in 100%, you get the same as those giving only 50% and you start to slack off. Once you decide you don't feel like working anymore, you just go on welfare. The original system is obviously the way to go. Unemployment benefits help people who are in-between jobs, so there is acually no real need for welfare. If you are not smart enough (notice how nicely I phrased that) to get knocked up and have 5 kids and no way of supporting them...it's unfortunate and I feel sorry for the kids, but they will have to attempt to muddle through on their own. Welfare is 100% unnecessary if you think about it rationally.

So, you really see no instances where people are going to suffer/starve through no fault of their own? How would this say matter if we had a similar situation to the great depression come around again - mass redundancies?

I find this debate interesting. In the UK we have a welfare state. Although many see problems with it similar to you - no one really wants to scrap it. The majority either think that "you will always have abusers" in the same way I guess "guilty men will always go free if we have a system of innocent until proved guilty" - a necessary evil if you want the right people to get the help. People really only push for reform. I thought it may be similar in the US.

Andy

Define: "through no fault of their own".

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Fencer128

You see, the way America was originally set up was like this... If you worked, you got fed. If you didn't, you starved. This was how America grew to be so wealthy and so powerful so quickly. Everyone was doing their fair share and more! because they wanted more. Nowadays there is no inscentive to work hard. If you put in 50% effort, you still get a raise thanks to unions. If you put in 100%, you get the same as those giving only 50% and you start to slack off. Once you decide you don't feel like working anymore, you just go on welfare. The original system is obviously the way to go. Unemployment benefits help people who are in-between jobs, so there is acually no real need for welfare. If you are not smart enough (notice how nicely I phrased that) to get knocked up and have 5 kids and no way of supporting them...it's unfortunate and I feel sorry for the kids, but they will have to attempt to muddle through on their own. Welfare is 100% unnecessary if you think about it rationally.

So, you really see no instances where people are going to suffer/starve through no fault of their own? How would this say matter if we had a similar situation to the great depression come around again - mass redundancies?

I find this debate interesting. In the UK we have a welfare state. Although many see problems with it similar to you - no one really wants to scrap it. The majority either think that "you will always have abusers" in the same way I guess "guilty men will always go free if we have a system of innocent until proved guilty" - a necessary evil if you want the right people to get the help. People really only push for reform. I thought it may be similar in the US.

Andy

Define: "through no fault of their own".

They have little money (not been a very well paid job for very long) and have been made redundant.
They are not well educated (because they're not particularly intelligent) and are finding it difficult to get any kind of long term manual/unskilled work.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
[

So, you really see no instances where people are going to suffer/starve through no fault of their own? How would this say matter if we had a similar situation to the great depression come around again - mass redundancies?

I find this debate interesting. In the UK we have a welfare state. Although many see problems with it similar to you - no one really wants to scrap it. The majority either think that "you will always have abusers" in the same way I guess "guilty men will always go free if we have a system of innocent until proved guilty" - a necessary evil if you want the right people to get the help. People really only push for reform. I thought it may be similar in the US.

Andy

It is like this. You just happen to have met some of the more ____ members who believe that welfare is totally unnecessary. I'm personally in favor of welfare reform, and in the past decade or so we've been making some steps. One of the programs I like best is the welfare to work program where in order to be on welfare you have to enroll in a program that helps you learn job skills and find employment.

If after a certain amount of time, you haven't made any progress, then you're at risk of losing your welfare money. What needs to be done is to make sure that all welfare programs are designed to get people off of welfare eventually. What some of these more cynical members don't realize is that there are some people who are working full time while on welfare.

After my parents divorce and my dad's disappearance, my mom had to find work. She got a minimum wage job as an airport screener which required a two hour commute on public transportation each way. She worked overtime almost every day to afford the rent on a 1 bedroom apartment in the only neighborhood she could afford. That's a total of about 18 hours for work every day. She had two kids living with her and one in college. Even with all that work, without food stamps we would have starved. 10 years later, all of her kids are out of college and she owns a house, a car, and perfect credit. She is far from an exception to the type of people that use welfare, but all some people want to believe in are crack moms and 8 kids. There are many people who do use welfare as a temporary step to survive while they better themselves.

Please show me one example of someone on welfare with a $3000 tv and starving kids. Myths like these are why some feel so callously about it.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Fencer128

You see, the way America was originally set up was like this... If you worked, you got fed. If you didn't, you starved. This was how America grew to be so wealthy and so powerful so quickly. Everyone was doing their fair share and more! because they wanted more. Nowadays there is no inscentive to work hard. If you put in 50% effort, you still get a raise thanks to unions. If you put in 100%, you get the same as those giving only 50% and you start to slack off. Once you decide you don't feel like working anymore, you just go on welfare. The original system is obviously the way to go. Unemployment benefits help people who are in-between jobs, so there is acually no real need for welfare. If you are not smart enough (notice how nicely I phrased that) to get knocked up and have 5 kids and no way of supporting them...it's unfortunate and I feel sorry for the kids, but they will have to attempt to muddle through on their own. Welfare is 100% unnecessary if you think about it rationally.

So, you really see no instances where people are going to suffer/starve through no fault of their own? How would this say matter if we had a similar situation to the great depression come around again - mass redundancies?

I find this debate interesting. In the UK we have a welfare state. Although many see problems with it similar to you - no one really wants to scrap it. The majority either think that "you will always have abusers" in the same way I guess "guilty men will always go free if we have a system of innocent until proved guilty" - a necessary evil if you want the right people to get the help. People really only push for reform. I thought it may be similar in the US.

Andy

Define: "through no fault of their own".

They have little money (not been a very well paid job for very long) and have been made redundant.
They are not well educated (because they're not particularly intelligent) and are finding it difficult to get any kind of long term manual/unskilled work.

Just off the top of my head.

Very true, however, a person can live (not nicely, but live) off $1,000 per month. If they have been laid off, unemployment kicks in (McDonalds is always an option). As for education, here in America education is free until you graduate HS. If you drop out, that is your own fault. There is no excuse for not having a basic eduation here (I don't know how it is by you). If you are really unintelligent (mentally retarded) then you shouldn't be on welfare anyway...you should be on some sort of disability compensation.