• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Republican War on the Poor


They are wasting away in shanty towns on the streets, in absolutely atrocious conditions. If this was any other president the press would be fine with this. There is a massive homeless problem in the country and leftist policies are escalating the problem.
 
They are wasting away in shanty towns on the streets, in absolutely atrocious conditions. If this was any other president the press would be fine with this. There is a massive homeless problem in the country and leftist policies are escalating the problem.

conservatives moving us along to the Cyberpunk nightmare they've always wanted
 
Why doesn’t trump just issue an executive order to remove all the homeless people from the country as useless freeloaders
 
Liberals taking once thriving cities and turning them into less than third world shanty towns.

Yes, this is definitely what’s happening. Cities aren’t thriving at all and it’s rural American that’s booming like its 1950!
 
Liberals taking once thriving cities and turning them into less than third world shanty towns.

how exactly have liberals exacerbated the homeless population? It is actually GOP that is destroying programs (affordable housing, shelters turning away transgendered, VA completely rudderless) developed in assisting in helping the homeless...what has this administration done to try to correct this problem?
 
how exactly have liberals exacerbated the homeless population? It is actually GOP that is destroying programs (affordable housing, shelters turning away transgendered, VA completely rudderless) developed in assisting in helping the homeless...what has this administration done to try to correct this problem?

Seattle spends nearly 100K of tax payer money on for each homeless person in the city. Yet the problem is worsening by the day. You can't always just blame the GOP, especially when the problem is rooted is liberal strong holds.

Allowing people to camp freely on public property, not moving people into health facilities to treat opiate addiction, and not requiring and helping the homeless to seek mental health treatments are just a few places to start.
 
It's not at all the cost of housing in Seattle created by large and small construction companies.

Blaming "liberals" for homelessness is nonsensical, but not surprising.
 
Those "liberal strongholds" are also homes to huge, influential multinational corporations.
 
Seattle spends nearly 100K of tax payer money on for each homeless person in the city. Yet the problem is worsening by the day. You can't always just blame the GOP, especially when the problem is rooted is liberal strong holds.

Allowing people to camp freely on public property, not moving people into health facilities to treat opiate addiction, and not requiring and helping the homeless to seek mental health treatments are just a few places to start.

Seattle spends that much money to provide good services to homeless people. That homelessness is on the rise in Seattle is not the same issue as how we treat homelessness. Homelessness prevention strategies are rooted in housing policy, economic opportunity, and transitioning between public systems like child welfare, criminal justice, and health systems. That programming from local govts does tend to come from liberal policy and reform.

To your next points, I'm unclear if you're arguing for or against encampment and forced addiction treatment/mental health treatment. Institutionalization (probably) isn't the answer.
 
I basically felt the same about Grandma's farm. It's a shame my parents and aunts and uncles didn't get that little bit of inheritance, but it didn't ruin anyone's life. However I am starting to realize that's a very privileged perspective.

The article briefly made another point that I wish they had explored more, which is the inequity between how government health care for the middle class/rich (Medicare) works vs. government health care for the poor (Medicaid). Medicaid comes after you for your house. But if we middle to upper class folks live into our 80s/90s, or get a cancer or other expensive disease after age 62, it is pretty much guaranteed that we will take more money out of Medicare than we ever paid in. In many cases, lots more. A fat slob like Newt Gingrich can be worth millions, have a couple triple bypasses and hip replacements on the taxpayer dime, and spend 5 weeks in the ICU before he dies - and nobody is coming after his estate to recover the costs. Personal responsibility for thee, but not for me.


Well, it's all pretty complicated.

If you are really wealthy and elderly, very likely you have medicare and a supplement that covers most all of your costs. You might even be in the minority of folks that have purchased expensive long-term care insurance. So you have not only money but protections against loss.

If you are truly poor, medicaid ain't great but it's pretty good. Actually provides for a number of services that most other insurances don't. And if you're really poor, you don't have assets that can be taken from your estate after your death. Hence the actually collected amounts are small and from a program perspective minimally helpful.

As usual, the folks most at risk for painful financial losses due to crappy collective insurance protections are the working poor and non-wealthy middle class.


In the specific case highlighted in the Atlantic piece, it's absurd they/we can't figure out how to make an exception for the lady who moved into/renovated her parents' home and took care of her mother there for 5 years after removing her from a medicaid-paid for nursing home bed. Shameful.
 
Well, it's all pretty complicated.

If you are really wealthy and elderly, very likely you have medicare and a supplement that covers most all of your costs. You might even be in the minority of folks that have purchased expensive long-term care insurance. So you have not only money but protections against loss.

If you are truly poor, medicaid ain't great but it's pretty good. Actually provides for a number of services that most other insurances don't. And if you're really poor, you don't have assets that can be taken from your estate after your death. Hence the actually collected amounts are small and from a program perspective minimally helpful.

As usual, the folks most at risk for painful financial losses due to crappy collective insurance protections are the working poor and non-wealthy middle class.


In the specific case highlighted in the Atlantic piece, it's absurd they/we can't figure out how to make an exception for the lady who moved into/renovated her parents' home and took care of her mother there for 5 years after removing her from a medicaid-paid for nursing home bed. Shameful.

transfer the ownership of the home into her name before applying for medicaid?
 
The mom was already on medicaid before she moved in as a caregiver.

And "look back" rules apply to transferred assets, generally.
 
The mom was already on medicaid before she moved in as a caregiver.

And "look back" rules apply to transferred assets, generally.

transfer into daughter's name
burn house down
take insurance money and buy different property
burn that house down and rebuild at replacement cost
win
 
Seattle spends nearly 100K of tax payer money on for each homeless person in the city. Yet the problem is worsening by the day. You can't always just blame the GOP, especially when the problem is rooted is liberal strong holds.

Allowing people to camp freely on public property, not moving people into health facilities to treat opiate addiction, and not requiring and helping the homeless to seek mental health treatments are just a few places to start.


what a load of horseshit. most big cities are, in your own words, "liberal"! I just call it just were educated people go to do work. does that mean more educated people are liberal? in your terms, yes. they have a wider range of education, experiences and interactions with a variety of like minded people as well as many other races, etc.. in most of these cities they are not "allowing people to camp freely on public property", that is just where there are options for homeless (shelters, food kitchens, VAs or what have you). they will not find this in bum-fuck NC.

you are generalizing way too much.
 
Seattle spends nearly 100K of tax payer money on for each homeless person in the city. Yet the problem is worsening by the day. You can't always just blame the GOP, especially when the problem is rooted is liberal strong holds.

Allowing people to camp freely on public property, not moving people into health facilities to treat opiate addiction, and not requiring and helping the homeless to seek mental health treatments are just a few places to start.

So what you’re saying is liberal cities (big or midsized cities) are more compassionate than conservative cities, like wilkesboro or franklin. Interesting.
 
Seattle spends nearly 100K of tax payer money on for each homeless person in the city. Yet the problem is worsening by the day. You can't always just blame the GOP, especially when the problem is rooted is liberal strong holds.

Allowing people to camp freely on public property, not moving people into health facilities to treat opiate addiction, and not requiring and helping the homeless to seek mental health treatments are just a few places to start.

I can if I want to.
 
Back
Top