News-Record.com

By "reached a healthy adulthood" I'm going to guess you mean a most-fingers-all-toes kind of healthy. A mental state that allows a person to have multiple children (you said you had six kids, and they have 15 kids between them, with at least eight uninsured) without a sense of nurturing or responsibility for the health of the children isn't what many would consider healthy in other ways.

I understand that your company covered your six children, but that's not the only way. I'm not sure if you've researched it, but you can get insurance that isn't employer-provided.
http://www.insurance.com/Health.aspx
is a decent place to start. I suggest something with a high deductible so that the monthly payments will be low. Yes, your children might have to sacrifice in other places (not eating out saves an amazing amount of money, and driving older cars does, too) or even get a part-time job to support the children they chose to have. I would bet that, if your children and grandchildren still need help, the insurance company would accept a check from you as well.

Another option, if they refused it in the past, might be to encourage them to opt-in the next time employee-provided insurance is offered. Tell them to watch for the annual sign-up. If it isn't offered with their current employer, encourage them to pursue a job that does offer it.

Most of all, though, please ask them to accept personal responsibility for the choices they've made and to do whatever might be necessary to support their kids, because those children are watching and learning how they should approach life from their parents' actions.

Roger

Roger,

Perhaps you did not mean for your response to come across as judgmental and condescending but it did. You assumed a lot about Michael's children and their circumstances. The first and most glaring assumption is that his children had children without regard as to how they would provide for them. It may very well be that the parents could provide the necessities of life, including insurance, when their children were born. Many families have found their situations to have changed drastically in the last two years thru no fault of their own. After all, who would have thought that most of American jobs would have ended up overseas?

Another assumption you made is that Michael's grandchildren are enjoying all the perks of life. They may be doing without many of the things you mentioned already. When one assumes, they show not only their lack of knowledge but their lack of grace also. Unless you know these families personally, why would you automatically assume they are deadbeats?

In the not-so-distant past many people's situations were quite different. They could feel fairly comfortable about their prospects for the future. Unfortunately, our nation's, our friends', families' and our neighbors' circumstances are not what they were just two years ago. For people to compare what was happening years ago to today is like the proverbial apples to oranges, imho.

Not to be unkind or to pick on anyone but a good example of what I am talking about is Dan's frequent comment about him always "finding" the money to pay for his children's insurance. And perhaps you did also, Roger. This is well and good. But when you start making judgments about others, without knowing their circumstances, you are saying more about yourself than you are about the other person. Also, for most people, it was easier to "find" a little extra money four to six years ago.

Unless you are walking in the shoes of others, how can you "know" their situations?

Michael Scotto:

As Darryl might say,

'' YOU SPEAK MY MIND ''!!!

Great touch of irony in the style of Jonathan Swift--don't worry the "conservatives" who post here have no idea what you OR I am talking about.

Best Letter This Week!

The letter states:
Not to worry, though, we've stopped creeping socialism in its tracks!

That's the best news I've heard all week.

TLC, you said it before me!

Yvonne, thanks for your post. That helps put this issue in a better perspective!

Shalom

Yvonne,
(long post everyone else)

I'm not sure if you read Scotto's letter or not, but if you'll look over it again you'll maybe see that, other than being upset because other people aren't paying for his grandkids' healthcare, he told us two things.
1- He had six children and the six had fifteen children between them, and
2- At least eight of his grandchildren don't have healthcare.

I never said that they didn't intend to take care of them. I'm sure they did. What I did say is that the parents of at least eight of those children aren't doing what needs to be done to provide insurance coverage for their kids.

"After all, who would have thought that most of American jobs would have ended up overseas?"
Come now. "Most?" But, sticking to the spirit, even if jobs go overseas, are you telling me that the employee who lost his job shouldn't respond to the loss and figure out some other way to pay the bills? "Thru no fault of their own" is okay for why the job left America (I'll refrain from discussing how union influences push jobs overseas), but not for why the employee can't figure out what to do next. If your situation changes, shouldn't you change with it?

"Another assumption you made is that Michael's grandchildren are enjoying all the perks of life."

Please read what I wrote and not what you read.

I defy you to show me any perks that I listed. I defy you to show me where I called them deadbeats. I made suggestions on how to save money. Here's a handy example: I drive a 15 year old sedan that gets 32mpg. Could I sell it and buy a less-valuable 17 year old diesel that gets 40+mpg, thereby saving money? Yes. Do I choose not to? Yes. If I needed to free up some money, should that be an option to consider? Yes.

Nowhere did I mention cell phones, cable/satellite TV, internet access, air conditioning, or any other things that could be dropped to save money. Nowhere did I mention looking around the house for guitars or TVs or jewelry or cameras or antiques to sell. Nowhere did I mention downsizing where they live. What I did mention were two things that are pretty easy, very cost efficient, and don't take much work. If that doesn't give the needed results then other measures should be considered. One is finding extra work (lots of leaves in lots of yards this time of year, and rakes are cheap) or changing jobs. Work in one's field is not a given. The market doesn't respond to the individual. Doing what you "want" to do isn't the same as doing what you need to do. Right now, this very instant, there are jobs on the City of Greensboro's website for firemen, policemen, and janitors with no educational requirements to speak of. They pay $20k-low $30s with benefits. None might be the desired career, but all have benefits. Get in, get the insurance, show that you're a good employee, and move up or move on.

But move.

I've never "found" money other than change in couches and the like. Every bit has been earned. But you're right about the shoes. And you're right about judging people without knowing their circumstances and how it says a lot about the person doing the judging. I just took off my shoes not too long ago. Does working odd jobs and going to a community college when you're 40 to try and refresh your math skills so you can compete with young fresh minds to get into engineering school because you can no longer do what you used to but know you have to do something to pay your bills suck as a way to spend your time? Yes. Is it hard? Yes. But was it anyone else's responsibility to figure out a way to meet my obligations to my family and the bank? No.

"When one assumes, they show not only their lack of knowledge but their lack of grace also."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Roger

Another great supposition from the "conservative" playbook:

ASSUME EVERYONE HAS THE SAME MENTAL, PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, AND FAMILY MAKE UP---THEN BELITTLE THOSE ON THE MARGINS AS "NOT TRYING" OR "UNWILLING".

Good try Ribar. But it has been going on time immemoriam. Good try.

Roger,

I believe in mandantory birth control for anyone accepting public assistance.

If a man has fathered children on the dole, a few snips will prevent it from happening in the future.

Nitpicker, I'm glad you posted. I was wondering if my response to Yvonne went through since it has been so quiet since I clicked "post." I thought maybe the boards were having trouble.

Can you imagine the uproar you would start? Can you imagine if you coupled it with "If you or your children are accepting government assistance at X-level (city, county, etc.) you will be ineligible to vote in X-level elections due to conflict of interest"?

I doubt whether a great deal of influence would be lost (let's make sure to note the upcoming total turnout), but I'd bet the roar and thunder would be impressive.

I'd written it in another discussion a few days ago, but I'd like to see an everybody-gets-five-years-at-200%-poverty-level plan implemented for all but the totally (and truly) disabled. We might all need it at some time, and I'd think 1/6 of the accepted career-life as a safety net would be adequate. Use it a percentage at a time or use it all at once, but once it's gone there is no more. After that you'll need to go to your local churches and community groups and, instead of a faceless bureaucracy taking money from people it doesn't know to give to people it also doesn't know, let the people who know you give you money. Or not.

Patiently waiting,
Roger

As the Liberal Conservative points out, it's foolish to assume that poor people are capable of taking care of themselves and making responsible decisions. They don't have the same "physical, mental, emotional and family makeup" as rich people do. You wouldn't expect a baby to take care of itself. Why would you expect a poor person to do so?

That's why we need socialism: to help rich people help poor people. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." I think Al Gore said that.

(tap-tap)
Testing. One, two...
(tap-tap)
Is this thing on?

Yvonne?

Bennet,
Are you doing the LARRY CRAIG 'TOE TAP'???

Brian444,

Another great supposition from the "conservative" playbook:

ASSUME EVERYONE HAS THE SAME MENTAL, PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, AND FAMILY MAKE UP---THEN BELITTLE THOSE ON THE MARGINS AS "NOT TRYING" OR "UNWILLING".

Good try Ribar. But it has been going on time immemoriam. Good try.