told ya

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by striperman36

If we could as Tynan stated find a way to limit those that abuse the system we could find a significant amount of savings. However, the moment we start to restrict access some bleeding liberal will start screaming about socialistic actions by the state and then the ACLU will get involved and it will end up a real legal battle costing us yet more money to end up with the status quo.

Before we stop people from abusing the medical system, let's stop people from abusing the Welfare system. Mostly the same people anyway.

In CT, if you're on State Medicaid, you *have* to be taken to the hospital by ambulance. Doesn't matter if it is for a bloody nose and you live across the street.

When I was an EMT in Harford, I literally drove a guy from his "home" across the street the ER for a "cough I've had all week." It was actually further for me to take him to the ambulance entrance than it would have been if he walked in the front door.

That's $400 of state money well spent.

My opinion, if you refuse to contribute to society, you don't get to reap any of the benefits - including gov't health aid, gov't assistance for college, gov't housing. Eventually, the lazy good-for-nothings will die off, crime will decrease and we'll all live happily ever after.

If that gangster can't get free medical care to sew up his gunshot wound, then they'll finally start killing each other off.

[striperman36]

It does go very deep in the entitlement system, which is the challenge on how to reform it.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Before we stop people from abusing the medical system, let's stop people from abusing the Welfare system. Mostly the same people
My opinion, if you refuse to contribute to society, you don't get to reap any of the benefits - including gov't health aid, gov't assistance for college, gov't housing. Eventually, the lazy good-for-nothings will die off, crime will decrease and we'll all live happily ever after.

I agree JD, but government entitlement programs are so deeply entrenched no politician ,from either party, has the guts to make the needed changes.

From what i have seen their main purpose has always been geared to get votes, keep people quiet and not to to give people the incentive to work and contribute.
So it goes on and on.

Imho, most of these problems were started with and continued with the New Deal,The Great Society war on poverty, and the give away programs after the 60's riots.
Why should they contribute when they have been given just enough to be kept quiet and happy in their current lifestyle? There is no incentive to contribute.

The politicians need to get back to JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Seems like things have gone too far to get back to anything like that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I agree JD, but government entitlement programs are so deeply entrenched no politician ,from either party, has the guts to make the needed changes.

I'd agree but would also note that corporate welfare is just as entrenched. Yes, we have a very high corporate tax rate on average, but the big industries have lobbied their way around this over the years.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd agree but would also note that corporate welfare is just as entrenched. Yes, we have a very high corporate tax rate on average, but the big industries have lobbied their way around this over the years.

-spence

Agreed Spence, but the difference being, big industries have created jobs, provided benefits for their employees and through research, invention and production created the best economy in the world.

Not perfect, but great contributors.