Why are people so heartless about social programs?

Question

I hate people abusing the programs but if my taxes are going to pay for a little kids health care I don't mind one bit. Why should the kid suffer because of the parents?

Answer 1

They are heartless because they do not understand the math and they blame people for not earning more money.

If you earn $10 per hour, work 40 hours a week, that's $400. Don't forget that taxes come out every week and you have to file to get them back, so hold back about $100 per week. Now let's live on $300 per week. If anything happens that week, like the crappy car you need to use to go to work breaks down, you earn less than $400 and will have to make due with less than $300 that week. Remember you have to pay for survival items like, food and shelter. For a family of 3, mom and two kids, how much do you think they should spend on food? Milk about $3 per gallon, cereal, over $2 per box, meat, $2 to $4 per pound. Do you think that because they are poor, the kids should have no variety in their diets or they do not deserve a treat? Let's spend about $50 per week on food. Now we have $250 left. Toilet paper, diapers, dishwashing liquid, laundry soap, money for laundromat, there goes another $50. Down to $200. Let's deduct $100 to save for the rent. Down to $100. One kid gets sick, now we miss a days work (next week deduct $80 from salary).

Oh, I almost forgot day care! Never mind, we're already spent more to live that we take home!

Answer 2

It is the American way to help, whenever we can. I think that most people want to help others, particularly little kids.
The problem occurs when you cannot afford to , for instance, insure yourself, because your insurance premiums are outrageous,due to a pre existing condition, or age, or the fact that you are self employed, and about 50% of the money you earn goes to support these social programs which are innefficient and wasteful. There comes a point when enlightened self interest has to take precedence. If I have a heart attack at age 56, I will leave my 15 year old daughter an orphan. Her father is already dead. If I have a heart attack, I surely won't get treated, because I don't have insurance, because of the previously stated issues.
I work full time, and I support myself and my family, but I cannot afford to give my child the security of having her mom around, and I have to choose whether I will let her go homeless as well as doing without her mom, if I were to elect to be treated, and if the treatment I have isn't successful.
My daughter has insurance, that I pay for. She, like most children, is healthy and doesn't really need it. That is why I can afford it, while i cannot afford my own, because I actually need it.

There is something wrong with a system that denies my family security, yet provides it to families who don't think it is necessary to work, and those of us who do work, are priced right out of the market, because the price of medical care has been artificially inflated by the government programs that we don't qualify for.

Answer 3

Having grown up in a home where my mother was on welfare with 5 children, I have to say that some government programs are a good thing. They do however need to make sure that the children are actually getting the things they need. Instead of handing over money they need to give vouchers that can only be used for a specific thing. Like the power bill or rent. My mother never spent the money she got on things she was supposed to. As a result we went without electricity several times, food was always short, and if we needed new clothes we had to ask grandma or take a trip to the goodwill. I agree that the children need to be taken care of, but if a person has a child and is using the system they should not be allowed to have another child until they can provide for the first one. Health care shouldn't be an option for anyone. If we can send AIDS meds to foreign countries we sure as hell can let our own citizens get hospital care when they need it without encouring a $4,000.00 bill. The government really needs to take a look at the programs they have and ajust them so that only people who are willing to help themselves get help.

Answer 4

The state of the world is a troubling state of affairs. I think it needs to be put in context, if the parents had not lived a life to date in which they lacked for basics of life like food, health care, housing , parental stability etc, they would not be hoarding everything they can get.. from social programs or otherwise. It is a very sad state of affairs we live in today. Many people have little emotional reactions to seeing someone suffer anymore. They idea of helping your neighbor is fading away. which is compounding the problem because these people are not able to get the help they need from their direct community, they often need to go beyond catchments and so on to get what they feel they have a right to. For many all they are looking for are the basics, but there are some that take everything they can get,not just what they need.. but I think we need to realize why they are doing this... because they are gathering subconsciously much like a chipmunk in case there is a time of lack again. Cheers, Ame

Answer 5

Because these programs run by the government are wasteful and abused. Private charities can be far more effective and are less wasteful with the dollars they receive. No child will be denied needed care in the US. If you're talking about the recent veto of the SCHIP program, the issue there is that the Dems wanted to expand it dramatically. They also proposed raising the qualifying income levels by large amounts as well far above the poverty line.

Answer 6

I don't hate social programs, I hate the fact they are broken and rather than fix them people say "throw more money at it."

If we actually fixed the programs, cut off services to the people who abuse the system, establish strict guidelines and ensured the programs were at the very least efficient (well more efficient than the current state) then I would have no problem with social programs.

But I can not bare the idea of dumping in more cash to pay for something that will be broken from the get go, that will hemorrhage the cash we spend and will produce sub par results.

Kids do need health care, but the fact the government put together a plan without even fixing the issues we currently have with health care in my opinion is like building an add on to a condemned house....

Answer 7

Some I think, believe they can get greater power through direct or targeted charity, others may believe it's not their problem and I'm sure there are numerous other rationales for anger towards social programs.
Personally, I think the idea that hard work alone is sufficient to achieve success is an oversimplification of the world. We need hard work, good timing and a little luck. I also believe in a social contract, so I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't support somne kind of social entitlements.

Answer 8

What makes people so angry about social programs are the dollars wasted on managing the program. And how dollars can be syphoned off for purposes unintended, such as advertising, or endless studies often used to justify how money is spent. Then there is the problem of limiting the dollars dispensed on certain kinds of treatments, that creates a lot of negative press for such programs.

Historically, the survival rate for children has never been better. While doing family tree research, it amazed me how many children would die at very young ages, it was not uncommon for a family of eight to lose two or three children to deseases that are virtually extinct today.

Answer 9

If my tax dollars were to go to help people that could not afford to acquire health insurance on their own I could stomach it better. I guess I am heartless when it comes to having money taken away from my children to pay for insurance for people that make more money than me.

The 12 year old spokesman for SCHIP attends a $20K per year school and his parents live in a $3000K home. His father owns a Real Estate business but chooses not to buy health insurance. They his parents claimed they could not afford health nsurance but a check on the Internet found a policy for $425 per month.

Am I supposed to feel guilty because I do not wish to pay for this guys children when I have my own to support.

When confronted with the facts Nancy Pelosi merely muttered something about hate radio.

This is merely a backdoor attempt at socializing medicine and Bush did not fall for it.

Answer 10

Leonardo,
I love to know what country you are from. I think such social programs are great. Yes you are right they will be abused but Iould like to see a better world too. I wish India would have great programs like that and really make a difference for the poor children. I hope fo a better future for our children.

Answer 11

As Vasanth K. points out, the problem with all social programs is that money gets siphoned off along the way, eventually having a lessened effect. All government programs are essentially jobs programs; Republicans are no different - they just prefer to kill children instead of providing health care to them as a pretext to divert money to their friends - the Iraq war is basically a huge program to funnel money into politically connected contractors and defense suppliers. Killing Iraqis is just a side effect to please their racist constituency.

While people should be responsible for their own well-being, the economic system has been manipulated to make it more and more difficult for individuals to get by on their own. And when people get sick and don't get early care because they can't afford it, they eventually get so sick they have to go to emergency rooms, and we all have to pay for them anyway. Preventative health programs can save all of us money in the long run.

Ultimately, however, wealthy executives of major corporations are the biggest recipients of welfare, in the form of tax abatements, grants, and subsidies; if the wealthiest members of society would pay their fair share, instead of hiding their wealth in offshore corporations and other tax shelters, the middle class wouldn't have to shoulder most of the burden of supporting a civilized society. These wealthiest people are also responsible for destroying communities by moving jobs overseas, selling and using toxic chemicals that poison the environment, and destroying local food supplies. All these things are done to make people more desperate and dependent on corporate products, and dependent on corporate jobs for survival.