Pathologizing the unfortunate and blaming the rest of us
Two stories were featured in the Columbus Dispatch August 27 article about the working poor not having health insurance, but both demonstrated the government insurance system for low income families is working--they do have health insurance--they don't have the employment they desire. But that's not the government's fault, it's not my fault, and in neither case, is it their fault. Getting a teaching degree isn't the same as getting a job in a market like Columbus, Ohio, loaded with colleges and plenty of teachers; getting diabetes may mean you chose the wrong parents.One family has dual incomes, $80,000 in student debt, and 5 children, and therefore qualifies for Medicaid. The other is a single parent with a debilitating disease, who lost her job, and was given free medication until she qualified for assistance. In other words, the system, patchwork though it is, is working but it doesn't allow for the perks of a "middle class life style."
- Four years ago, Gwen Brown, 31, and her husband were struggling to make ends meet while raising their five school-age children. Then she worked as a resource leader for the Girls Scouts and her husband worked as a barber.
She hoped her finances would improve after earning a bachelor's degree last May at Capital University. But with no full-time teaching position, she still qualifies for Medicaid for her children.
She owes $80,000 in student loans and wonders why she's still straddling the poverty line with a college degree.
"We did things to change our lives and nothing has changed," said Brown of the West Side. "That's where my frustration lies."
Last year Penny Self of Grove City, who has had diabetes for about 12 years, lost her job and health insurance. Free samples of her medication from her former doctor kept her healthy until she got Medicaid.
Even before Self lost her job at Sofa Express as a credit representative last year, she tried not to make too many doctors' office visits because she could barely afford the $25 co-payments on her company insurance, she said.
"Now if I get sick or if my son gets sick I don't have to struggle with the co-payments and I don't have to try to be a doctor at home when he is sick," said Self, 43.
Posts
5 comments:
It's all part of the media theme that we are a wicked, selfish nation, which is why we needed Obama to lead us out of the wilderness.
It's all about choices!
Do you pay your debt to the society that subsidized your college education, so that you became more affluent?
Do you make the choice to bear five children you obviously can't afford, and have to turn to society to bail you out because you lost your job, health ins. etc. etc. etc.
Do you choose to buy a house you really can't afford, and whine when you can't pay for it and it goes into foreclosure?
Do you run up credit card debt and declare bankruptcy when you can't pay for your luxury cars, clothes and vacations?
Do you see a pattern of lifetime entitlement here?
Time to grow up, because society can't/won't support you any longer.
So, please get your hand out of my pocket, take your thumb out of your mouth, stop whining, put on your big girl panties and take responsibility for your choices.
You're entitled to what you earn and not one more penny of
taxpayer money.
Time for the "ME GENERATION" to pay for their SELFISH choices, themselves.
Murray sez:
As long as we maintin the same political structure (two-party) we will continue to be overwhelmed by demands that we need to help the poor and children. Both parties need these two excuses to take the attention away from the real problems. It could be called "feel good" legislation as it's difficult for anyone to challenge helping the poor or children. If you do....U B BAD! Plus, the passage of a bill for these causes, can carry a lot of PORK.
Murray, you just need to figure out how we get to a viable 3 party system. It's been tried for years, and all that happens is the election of a Democrat and the weakening of the Republicans.
Anon #2: As for me, the more I investigate the meltdown, the more I see how many hands were being held out for a piece of the action. Not after the bailout, but before--years before. Particularly non-profits and private industry "partnerships" and the various tax credits. Huge porkers, all. People in that part of the equation weren't poor--some were quite rich--but I think they were getting much more than the so called recepients of our "charity."
It's sort of like baking a cake--you have to grease the pan before you pour in the batter and bake it to twice the size. The poor were the grease to keep it from sticking so you could get your piece. But they didn't really get the biggest slice of dessert.
If Paulson and Pelosi are going to bail out Detroit, the least they can do is pay off Gwen's college loans. And everyone else's bad loans and debts. Why should anyone have to pay if car makers have their hand out and are only in trouble in Michigan where the unions control them?
Post a Comment