Social Welfare Policy and Macro Practice

Canadian Health Care private insurance option

2011-05-16T14:28:00.000-07:00

A student pointed out this article about the MyCare program offered in Canada, a sort of private supplement to their national health care insurance.

Example of debate on welfare and taxes

2011-05-15T14:47:00.000-07:00

I recently engaged in dialogue with someone in Facebook, and we discussed social welfare policy. I have decided to stop engaging with this person. One thing I learned while earning a doctorate is that there just isn’t enough time to engage with everyone and do everything you want to do. So, when we get into discussions and debates, it’s important to only do so when there is good faith, and both sides are interested in comparing information and seeking truth. There are very many people who are ignorant, or, frankly, no very bright, and we should limit the amount of time we devote to engaging such persons in debate if they are not open to fair inquiry. The world is full of bad information, and there is precious little time to waste consuming and digesting the dreck.

On the other hand, as an activist and community organizer, and one who sometimes teaches social work students about advocacy and organizing, I am conscious that one of the most important things we can do is share our opinions and engage with fellow citizens in discussions of matters of public importance. We should look for opportunities to give people good information. We should try to build within the public accurate perceptions of problems and proposed solutions, and also we should motivate people to join us in regularly communicating with our elected and appointed government representatives and servants, telling them what we want, and sharing our opinions with them. This is part of what everyone ought to do in a democracy such as ours, and this is especially important for social workers, who have an ethical duty to strive to secure efficient and effective services for people who need them.

So, sometimes I am drawn into public discussions of policy in Facebook or comment forums in newspaper or magazine or NPR articles.

Here I’ll give examples from the dialogue I was recently in, showing the sort of conversation that led me to just give up on this person.

The whole conversation was sparked by comments in response to a video of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates suggesting that taxes on the wealthy could be increased. A link to the film is below.

http://front.moveon.org/warren-buffet-and-bill-gates-on-why-the-wealthy-need-to-pay-more-taxes/

I’ve put my interlocutor’s posts in a brown, serif font. I have edited my own posts in three places to correct grammar, and in one place to add information I had intended to include. I have not edited other persons' posts.

On the payroll tax - the payroll tax is not really a tax in the sense that they discuss it. It is a requirement that people set aside their own money now so that they can retire in the future. Taxes are money you pay for a service provided by someone else or to pay for a service given to someone else.

It seems to me that you are describing Social Security as if it were a public forced savings account using individualized retirement savings accounts, but it is a public Social Security retirement scheme, and there are not individualized accounts in which people keep their own money. I think an interesting alternative to the current Social Security system would be a public pension scheme (a modification of the current Social Security Old Age benefit) that returned to all Americans over 65 a guaranteed minimum income of, say, 140% of the poverty rate for single individuals. The benefits would be taxed at the same rate as other income. This would have an advantage over the current system in that it would entirely eliminate poverty among the elderly in the United States (currently the elderly have a poverty rate around 9-10%). This universal public retirement benefit would be partnered with a forced savings account, where Americans would be forced to put aside about 10% of their income into a private retirement account. Upon retirement, everyone would have the flat 140% of poverty benefit and everyone would have a personal retirement account to supplement this.

The only ones paying a payroll tax are the rich. They do not receive the same money they put in. Instead much of it is removed and transferred to those that the Democrats claim are paying too much payroll tax.

This passage uses the terms “rich” and “poor” in ways I am not familiar with. Nearly all workers pay a payroll tax, and their employers also pay payroll taxes, which could be given as salary, and so stand as hidden payroll taxes that further reduce worker salaries. There is a few percent for Medicare, a few percent for Unemployment Insurance, and several percent for OASDI (Social Security). Social Security, remember, isn’t just a retirement pension scheme, it’s also a form of insurance that gives benefits to persons who become disabled and unable to work, and it also provides benefits to survivors (dependents) of workers who die. Through the Earned Income Tax Credit, the progressive tax rates, and various deductions and credits, most married couples with two dependent children jointly earning under $35,000 will effectively have more refunds and benefits given back to them than they paid in taxes. However, their tax refunds and credits do not come from the Social Security Trust Fund, so I do not see how it is technically correct to say that they do not pay payroll withholding.

Further, do you have any actuarial accounts or economic analysis of lifetime payments into Social Security and lifetime benefits received? I have read studies of this, and the conclusion is that persons who live longer tend to receive more in benefits than they pay into the system, whereas persons who die before retiring or within eight or nine years of retiring end up paying more than they personally receive in benefits (but everyone gets benefits in the sense that we don’t live in a society in which impoverished seniors must live in county workhouses as they did before Social Security). In other words, Social Security may give a net transfer of wealth from the short-lived (mostly poor and minority taxpayers) to the longer-lived (mostly wealthy and healthy professional class).

‎The poor are already subsidized by social security. It's nothing but a welfare program that democrats want to expand, and the poor shouldn't be complaining about it since they don't pay enough already.

If you have any studies that show you are correct, good studies that aren’t a set of stupid assumptions and made-up numbers by some clown who is a Koch brother hack working out of George Mason or the Cato Institute, I’d be interested in learning more, and I am open to being persuaded that I’m wrong. There are good conservative economists, and even libertarian economists, who deal with reality and make logical arguments. The University of Chicago has many. In fact, most mainstream academic economics journals, and the departments of most universities, especially those in conservative areas of the country such as the Mountain West and the South will have many reputable and intellectually honest economists who take conservative positions, and surely one of these persons has published in some reputable peer-reviewed journal or a good scholarly press some facts supporting this idea that Social Security is “nothing but a welfare program” in which the poor “don’t pay enough already.” Robert J. Lampman did the main work on the income transfer effects of Social Security and public spending, back in the 1970s, but I think his findings would still hold true. Social Security is mainly a transfer of wealth from middle-income persons to other middle-income persons, and has a trivial progressive transfer effect of paying out more to the poor and taking more from the wealthy. I think mainly, it’s a transfer from those doomed to die before their 75th birthdays to those who will live past 80 years of age. Check out life expectancy tables by ethnicity or class and see if you still think Social Security is a big redistributive policy.

If Democrats would stop preventing social security from being privatized, the poor could pay less and receive even more than they do now.

For a brief time in the late 1990s before the tech stock bubble burst, I think there were some studies showing that private savings accounts would return a better yield than Social Security. However, I haven’t seen any studies since 2000, and certainly none since 2008-2009 financial crisis, making such claims. It’s important to include the insurance function of Social Security to make fair comparisons between private retirement savings schemes and Social Security. When scholars (good scholars, not the intellectual prostitutes working for the Koch brothers) compare private and public schemes and include the disability insurance and survivor benefit functions of Social Security, I believe the comparisons are close, and private schemes (which have fees and profit-taking associated with them far higher than the administrative costs of public systems such as Social Security) do not fare especially well.

I can give an illustrative example. I am a state employee paying into a state employee pension fund, and therefore exempt from paying Social Security taxes. I started working for the State of Illinois in 2000, and chose to have a “self-managed account,” which is essentially a privatized account. I recently received an estimate from this plan of what I can look forward to if I continue working for the State of Illinois and retire in 22 years at age 65: about $1,000 per month. But that isn’t adjusted for inflation, and if I do adjust for inflation, that will probably have the purchasing power of about $400 in 2011 dollars. Is it my fault for choosing unwisely in how to invest my self-managed account? No, the two funds I have been putting money into are among the top five performers out of the approximately 40 funds I could have invested in. My colleagues who get a defined benefit will receive probably eight times more income than I will if they retire when I do (assuming I continue working for the State of Illinois, which obviously I cannot). The public (state-managed) pension plan is far, far better than the “privatized” self-managed plan. Even if the state cuts public pensions by half, even if they cut public pensions by 75%, still the defined benefits for state employees will be at least twice better than what I get with my privatized retirement investment plan.

Do you really believe the poor would get better pensions if we privatized Social Security? I know there is a theory that says this is true, but can you give me ANY empirical evidence to support this conjecture?

As to income taxes in general, I agree that in principle, the rich should pay more than the poor, since a certain amount of money is required for survival. However, right now, the poor are charged a negative tax, so they receive money instead of having to pay it.

Of course they do. If the principle is that people need to consume at some lower threshold or floor of consumption, then those who earn less than this threshold will need to be subsidized so that they can consume at levels that keep them alive and healthy and allow them to participate in society. However, I think you are only considering federal income taxes. If you include state and local taxes on property and sales, is it still the fact that so many of the poor receive a net benefit when we total their taxes and benefits? At what level of income should a family be expected to start having a net decrease in consumption due to taxes, and no longer receive a net increase in consumption due to benefits? Would it be a $25,000 for a family of four? Perhaps $30,000 for a family of four? Do you think $15,000 for a family of four? Currently, I think that almost every household with income over $35,000 is paying out more in taxes than they receive in benefits (although they are due some Social Security benefits that they may collect later, but let’s ignore that now). That means there are many retired people collecting pensions and Social Security whose Social Security pensions and Medicare benefits are larger than their tax obligations, even if they live in states with high property taxes. Are you suggesting that we need to raise taxes on seniors who live on modest fixed incomes slightly above the poverty line? Really? Are you concerned that the employees in the service economy who earn $10 per hour, or the agricultural workers, or the meat processing plant workers, who are making less than $25,000 per year to support their spouses and children need to pay more in taxes? And this is because you think the persons earning over $250,000, who pay between 18% and 23% in federal taxes on income, capital gains, and so forth, shouldn’t be asked to pay $23% to 29% instead? Really?

I don't think that Gates or Buffet receive money from the government. There is one thing that people don't understand about the rich. They are necessary even when they are totally worthless individuals. Newly developed products normally come out first as very high priced products designed for the rich. An example is flat screen TV's which originally were over $23,000. Only the rich could afford it. This enabled the TV companies to bring out a product slowly in small quantities and make very large profits with which to fund more R&D to bring the price down and quality up. In addition, the rich are investing their money, which again provides the resources for the same development. Without the rich, companies would be faced with having to come out with new products in very large quantities in order to have a low price. They would have to borrow the money for this, which increases their risk and cost and in the long run results in no new products. Hence the reason why no purely socialist society has ever developed any new commercial product for the public good. Challenge to any one doubting, name one. Of course, mixed economies have done so, but it is the private sector that does the work, and there are rich people in those mixed economies.

There is no logical equivalence between the argument that persons with high incomes should pay higher taxes and the argument that we should so highly tax the wealthy that we no longer have a wealthy or affluent class. No one is making the argument that we should eliminate wealth, or constrain wealth so that no one is allowed to keep any fortune over $5 million in value, or anything like that. This is an argument against a straw man who doesn’t exist. Suggesting that households with incomes over $1 million per year ought to pay, on average, $350,000 in taxes rather than, on average, $210,000 (the IRS has reports on how much the wealthy pay in taxes, and these numbers I’m using are reasonable approximations), is not an argument that the government should seize all industry and eliminate free market forces and competition. Of course I agree with you that we need the wealthy, and they play a role in our society, and we need promises of wealth to motivate many people. There is no argument here. It would be better if people addressed their arguments to the actual points people are making, instead of inventing idiotic arguments no one is making so that they can easily defeat them.

Gates and Buffet are complaining that they have an advantage with the low capital gains tax, which may be true, but this is the engine that drives new development. If you are spending money to increase production, quality, bring out new products or reduce prices, why should you pay any tax on it at all? This benefits everyone. So, while it may seem unfair, it still results in a better quality of life for everyone than if the rich spent their money on taxes instead of investment.

This is an interesting point. Could we craft a capital gains tax that was lower for capital gains that resulted from innovation, increased production, higher quality, and new development? Right now a very large portion of capital gains result from speculative paper shuffling and financial dealing that actually harms productivity and diverts resources away from productive sectors of the economy. I’d be happy to see a 5% capital gains tax on those capital gains that can be honestly attributed to innovation and improved efficiencies, and slapping a 50% capital gains tax on speculative and non-productive or destructive dealing and financial games.

I will not agree that we are always better off when people privately invest their money rather than paying it in taxes. Such a statement is true or false, depending upon how money is invested or how it is used by a government. Private speculative investment in credit default swaps, speculative bubbles in housing or commercial real estate, mortgage derivatives, precious metal investing, the production of gizmos that guzzle fossil fuels or spew Mercury and Lead and Cadmium into the atmosphere, etc. is less productive than taxes that are transferred to medical research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, or research funded by the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation for the development of road surfacing that collects solar energy, or investment in innovative techniques to get the best teachers into the public schools with the students who need the most help, or studies and foreign aid that might lead to the eradication of mosquitoes, malaria, or measles.

Some people would rather live in squalor than see someone else get more than they do. It’s not as noble a position as it seems.

It seems to me that you are accusing people who disagree with you of preferring to force us into a society where people live in squalor because they are envious of wealthy people. I think mainstream liberal Democrats and Greens and Democratic Socialists in North America tend to look at places like Denmark and Norway and Sweden, or perhaps the Netherlands and Germany and France, as examples of the sort of higher taxes and higher services they would like. Although, as such people are Americans, and have faith in America, they tend to think that we could do it better, and smarter, than our European cousins do. Have you been to Western Europe or Scandinavia? I would not describe living standards there as “squalor.” I have, however, done fieldwork in poor neighborhoods of Saint Louis, and East Saint Louis, and the rural areas of Mississippi County, Missouri. I have seen squalor there.

I think there is nobility in the conservative arguments about the importance of individual responsibility, and the ideal of fiscal responsibility and sustainability. There is also nobility in seeking a society in which chances are equalized, which will require, I think, some redistribution from those who have many chances to those whose chances are narrowed and limited by poverty. I don’t think it’s productive to claim that one side is ignoble or motivated by base desires (I don’t think Republicans are all greedy Ayn Rand-worshipping nutcases). Actually, American radicals and conservatives have a vast common ground when it comes to respect for human rights and civil rights, and the two sides are looking for the best means to achieve an affluent and just society where everyone’s chances are bright and happiness is maximized. It’s mostly a matter of disagreement about how to achieve this world that embodies our shared common American ideals that gets us into disagreements.

[A third participant, on old friend of mine named “Billy” posted]

Eric. you sound very well versed and i'm not challenging any of your points.However, it would be interesting to know if there are any studies on say the poor that collect social benefits of all kinds as well as deal drugs? Or perhaps the drain on america for the social benefits recieved by illegal aliens? Or the fraud and abuse done by the poor (both american and non american alike) of social benefits?If you combined all these things and redisritubed THAT wealth back to the "legally poor" or the poor elderly, how much would that raise their stadard of living?..My point is I suppose untill the government has got a handle on the things that are wrong with its programs, it's a tough sell to the american people to prove to them they can do anything correctly.

Billy raised some very important questions.

First, what about drug use and drug selling by welfare recipients?

When people have done qualitative studies of how very low-income people who receive welfare live, they do find that, as a matter of survival, most turn to undocumented cash income activities or informal in-kind support from friends, neighbors, and relatives. Drug-dealing turns up as a behavior some use, but it's not very common. The best work on the lives of welfare recipients has been done by scholars such as Mark Rank, Lillian Rubin, Sandra Morgen, Sharon Hays, and of course, the classic work is "Making Ends Meet" by Kathryn Edin and Laura Stein (1997). Since most persons receiving TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and housing subsidies are children, or elderly, or disabled, and studies of the able-bodied working-aged mother show fewer than 5% engage in illicit drug traffic, I'd say an estimate of 1-2% for the total welfare-using population that sell drugs is likely to be correct. Sexual services is the illegal income supplement more of those persons receiving welfare use, but even that isn't very common.

Billy's question about the drain on the economy from undocumented workers deserves an answer.

I've read a few studies of this, and those of course referred to other studies, but I haven't seen anything trying to estimate this since 2008, before the financial crash, so things may be different in the Great Recession. Anyway, there is no consensus about whether undocumented people give our economy a net gain or a net drain. The only consensus is that the net effect is small. The persons who suffer the most from undocumented workers are low-skilled native-born Americans who suffer lower wages and fewer job opportunities because of competition. Taxes paid by undocumented aliens and workers probably cover more than our government spends on providing services to them, especially if we exclude the costs of border security and deportation proceedings as "services" to them.

As a person who thinks the ideal population of the USA is about 100 million (rather than the 450 million we will have probably surpassed by the time I die) I'm all for securing the borders and reducing immigration. A higher priority than border security, though, is swiftly processing claims and filings and petitions by people here in a legal limbo, where they are quasi-legal residents. Immigration reform is needed, so we can clear all these cases arising from the stupid policies we've had up until now.

Billy's question about fraud:

My own estimate, as a social worker who reads policy journals and does some quantitative analysis of welfare policy as part of my job, is that about 2% to 4% of the people getting SSI or Unemployment or TANF or SNAP are just fraudsters who are ripping off the system. There is another segment that deserves or is entitled to benefits, but gets significantly more than they are supposed to get because they are not entirely honest, and that group is probably another 5% or more. You probably have higher rates of corruption, graft, fraud, and dishonesty among banking and insurance CEOs. I expect levels of corruption among politicians are probably at a similar level to what you find with welfare recipients. Basically, my take on this is that any system that works with humanity as the raw material is going to have to deal with about 5% who have no ethical standards, no empathy, and who just want to rip you off.

[a fourth participant named “Christopher” responds to something someone else wrote about the Mondragon Co-op in Basque Spain]

I am not doubting that this commune was successful, nor am I challenging that it became the largest appliance manufacturer in Spain. I know that you are just showing how a socialistic idea can work, but the challenge is not whether something can be made to work, it is innovation. Starting in a small community and building your own stuff, building your own schools, and so on, does not fuel the kind of growth that free-market competition does. Socialistic programs do not foster the environment to find a cure for a major disease, or invent an automobile, etc. Further, socialistic systems collapse under their own weight eventualy, either by bad leaders taking power or by someone asking the question "why can't I have a refridgerator with an icemaker like they have over there?" The Soviets are a great example of a large scale system like the one you are talking about, but they collapsed when they needed to keep up with technological advances in the world, in that case it was defense spending, and they were the ones who started the arms race in the first place. Free market competition provides the most robust environment for mankind to innovate and I have never seen a shread of proof to discount that fact.

Christopher, wouldn't you agree that there are gradations of socialism? If socialism is state (public) ownership of the means of production, then we can have the public owning a tiny bit of the means of production, or a modest amount, or quite a large amount, or entirely everything. I think socialism in which *everything* is public and belongs to the state is entirely unworkable for political reasons, more than economic ones. A working system of social organization needs to let people stand outside the system and criticize it. A system where *everything* "belongs to the people" can't leave room for anyone or anything to be outside the system and criticize it, because if you already are supposedly "in power" and already "own" the means of production, then how can you be against anything?

But, what I don't know is where the tipping point is. Clearly the state can own some of the means of production with no harm done, and clearly the state can own too much of the means of production, and the system becomes unsustainable and stagnant. I suspect the workable and sustainable range of public ownership in a society is quite wide, perhaps 20% to 70%. Perhaps if a person thinks 20% is as far as we should go with public ownership in the economy, then anyone who thinks 30% is acceptable might look like a socialist to them. I think the optimal range is somewhere between 45% and 55% (a significant bit more than what we have in the United States now, but not really in my opinion radically different). I consider myself a moderate, but in America where so many people now seem to think that the government should be 20%-30% of the economy, I probably look like a radical socialist to many.

I'm suggesting it all depends on where you *think* the optimal level of public control in the economy ought to be. I don't think anyone *knows* the answer, and I suspect the answer varies depending upon historical conditions, stage of economic development, sophistication of the electorate, level of democratic participation in the society, and so forth.

In essence, I hear Gates and Buffet saying, "the public is extracting and then spending and investing about 40% of the economy now, and it would be okay if the public extracted and spent 42% or 44%, and took that extra 2% or 4% from the top 10% of the wealthiest in our population, who already earn or control about 60% of the economy and the wealth."

I sometimes feel myself vexed when engaged in dialogue about this and someone starts warning of the dangers of socialism and describes the command economies of the Soviet Union (which, incidentally, did innovate and organize a massive industrialization between 1925 and 1940, although it used unethical and to my mind unacceptable means to accomplish this). Intelligent people already know that a system like the Soviet Union where the state controls 90% of the economy or more doesn't yet yield sustainable prosperity, and no sensible person is advocating for that. What people are advocating is something like a shift from 39% to 45%, which seems to some of us to be about right for an older society that has reached a certain level of economic and social development.

To my mind it is as if any time a Libertarian or current-era Republican claimed to me that we would all be far more happy and prosperous if we disbanded many social programs and cut back the public sector to 30% of the economy rather than the 39% or 40% we're at now I responded with a stern warning about how if we allow private property rights and capitalism to run unregulated as has been attempted in the past we'll move back to slavery, which was extremely profitable and efficient (for slave-owners). No, of course conservatives aren't arguing in favor of that (I think), so I don't bring it up. And yet, conservatives continue to warn about the dangers of socialism, and by "socialism" they mean something like Stalinist Russia.

***** my debate opponent responds ******

[I had been describing the work of Robert J.

I don’t know too much about Bob, but I see he is very popular with the poverty institute. That tells me he was a liberal with an agenda. Unfortunately liberals have a history of manipulating data to come to a foregone conclusion. Too many liberals avoid the truth like Dracula avoids sunlight. This has been most obvious with the embarrassing revelations coming out of the global warming data manipulation and publication scandal. Just as you won’t accept right wing studies, I see no reason to accept one from the left. In any case, much has changed since 1970, including demographics, social security fees and payout. However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Bob’s study is correct. The argument seems to be that the poor don’t live very long, so they could actually pay more than their share in spite of the fact that the rich pay more into social security. Who was it that designed, enlarged, and defended this system against all attempts to improve it? Liberals.

Let’s look at a conservative solution to the social security problem. I’m glad to see that you find this system interesting. You must not be a very good liberal, and if you’re not careful, your formal liberal friends will turn on you. Under a typical conservative plan, an individual might supply his own funds or in some cases be subsidized to buy a retirement fund from a variety of investment companies. Those companies being the greedy capitalist pigs they are, would run an actuarial analysis on the poor in order to maximize their profits. Having no outside agenda, this would not be an analysis based upon 1970 data, but would be an accurate analysis because it is to their benefit to be accurate. The analysis would be conntinuously upgraded by experience and include such factors as race, income, weight, lifestyle etc. They then would supposedly determine that the poor live shorter lives than their rich counterparts. The poor would become highly sought after customers. Companies would compete for their share of the market by decreasing the costs to the poor and increasing benefits. The poor would thereby end up with their fair share. The monies being saved would be invested so that when time comes to retire, the recipient would receive a much greater amount than with the present system. This has been proven by a section of Texas that was not required to join in the social security system when the system started. These people eventually received 5 times what their social security compatriots received. In addition, the trillions of dollars of funds invested by all would significantly increase the effective savings rate increasing the growth rate of the overall economy. This would make us more competitive, increase jobs, and increase the value of the dollar reducing the amount the poor have to pay for gas to get their food stamps. The best thing about this plan is that it can no longer be called a “tax” by Democrats and used as an excuse to raise income taxes on the rich. By the way, I didn’t say the poor don’t pay any payroll withholding. I said it’s not a tax. Let’s just agree to use liberal terminology and call it an “investment”.

Compare the conservative plan to the present socialist solution. The payments and services have nothing to do with your personal situation or life expectancy, but instead are determined by the amount of political power the group you belong to has. Payout will continuously increase because votes can be bought and the price to pay can be put off. The fund was inevitably hijacked by Lyndon Johnson and his democrat friends, and we have nothing left but an IOU to ourselves. It and all the other giant pyramid schemes the democrats have created are all going bankrupt which means that no one will receive anything if something doesn’t change. The conservative plan is sustainable and the socialist plan is not. It is clear that liberals are more concerned about feeling good about themselves than actually coming up with solutions. They want the good feelings and moral superiority that goes with it without having to make much sacrifice. Rich liberals outnumber rich conservatives. There is another solution to this problem. All the rich liberals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and any other guilt ridden liberals should get together and agree to give enough money to bring the poor up to the average income level. Leave the rest of us out of it.

“ Of course they do. If the principle is that people need to consume at some lower threshold or floor of consumption, then those who earn less than this threshold will need to be subsidized so that they can consume at levels that keep them alive and healthy and allow them to participate in society.”

– Not so. Some of them are just plain lazy. They don’t need to be subsidized, they need to be encouraged to get jobs and training. If the physically able had to support themselves most would rise to the occasion. They might even go to school or learn a valuable trade. Charitable organizations and individuals could handle the rest. liberals are doing a disservice to these people. They have destroyed the black family with the welfare system. And yet they continue to promote more of it in spite of all the obvious evidence. Woe be it to the poor slob that is the target of a liberal’s compassion. I recently heard that well known liberal Bob Beckel volunteer that the democrats had unfortunately created a permanent underclass of dependency with their programs. He then went on immediately to criticize conservatives for not supporting more of the same types of social programs. Wake up!

“Are you suggesting that we need to raise taxes on seniors who live on modest fixed incomes slightly above the poverty line? Really? “

– I don’t believe in raising taxes on anyone, liberals do.

Post 5

“There is no logical equivalence between the argument that persons with high incomes should pay higher taxes and the argument that we should so highly tax the wealthy that we no longer have a wealthy or affluent class. No one is making the argument that we should eliminate wealth”

– maybe you aren’t but that is the end game of many of the liberals surrounding Barack –I’ve-been-to-all-fifty-seven-states Obama, (BIBTAFSSO), who are outright communists. You need to take a hard look at some of your liberal friends.

“This is an interesting point. Could we craft a capital gains tax that was lower for capital gains that resulted from innovation, increased production, higher quality, and new development? Right now a very large portion of capital gains result from speculative paper shuffling and financial dealing that actually harms productivity and diverts resources away from productive sectors of the economy. I’d be happy to see a 5% capital gains tax on those capital gains that can be honestly attributed to innovation and improved efficiencies, and slapping a 50% capital gains tax on speculative and non-productive or destructive dealing and financial games.”

– We agree in principle, but 50& is too high. Keep in mind, this is not your money to spend. People have property rights and you cannot just take them away anymore than you can take their lives.

“I will not agree that we are always better off when people privately invest their money rather than paying it in taxes. Such a statement is true or false, depending upon how money is invested or how it is used by a government. Private speculative investment in credit default swaps, speculative bubbles in housing or commercial real estate, mortgage derivatives, precious metal investing, the production of gizmos that guzzle fossil fuels or spew Mercury and Lead and Cadmium into the atmosphere, etc. is less productive than taxes that are transferred to medical research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, or research funded by the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation for the development of road surfacing that collects solar energy, or investment in innovative techniques to get the best teachers into the public schools with the students who need the most help, or studies and foreign aid that might lead to the eradication of mosquitoes, malaria, or measles.”

– Not much of the federal money is spent on these things. How much of this is just pork projects, turtle research, sex research etc. Anything some liberal professor can come up with. In most cases, private concerns can do research better, and it won’t be wasted.

Post 7

“It seems to me that you are accusing people who disagree with you of preferring to force us into a society wher...e people live in squalor because they are envious of wealthy people. I think mainstream liberal Democrats and Greens and Democratic Socialists in North America tend to look at places like Denmark and Norway and Sweden, or perhaps the Netherlands and Germany and France, as examples of the sort of higher taxes and higher services they would like. Although, as such people are Americans, and have faith in America, they tend to think that we could do it better, and smarter, than our European cousins do. Have you been to Western Europe or Scandinavia? I would not describe living standards there as “squalor.” I have, however, done fieldwork in poor neighborhoods of Saint Louis, and East Saint Louis, and the rural areas of Mississippi County, Missouri. I have seen squalor there.”

– I have been to Denmark. All of these countries have not had to deal with the demographic issues we have and they are still going bankrupt. The car tax in Denmark causes new cars to be 350% of the real cost. Gas is more than twice as high as here. They tell me it is hard to get well educated people to do development work because the average Joe makes almost as much money and doesn’t have to work as hard. So, fewer people are taking the hard courses, like science and engineering. They have recently discovered that their unemployment compensation coverage of 5 years resulted in most laid off people waiting 5 years to get a job. They have reduced it. Their system is going down the tubes too, and since liberals don’t believe in having kids, they are having to import workers. Soon some enterprising politician will discover that by playing the race card and dividing people into groups pitted against each other, they can destroy the capitalist system entirely, which is the whole purpose.

Now we have BIBTAFSSO on tape as having said that although he realizes that cutting the capital gains tax would help the economy, he won’t do it because it wouldn’t be fair. What did I say about some people preferring to live in squalor?

“I think there is nobility in the conservative arguments about the importance of individual responsibility, and the ideal of fiscal responsibility and sustainability. There is also nobility in seeking a society in which chances are equalized, which will require, I think, some redistribution from those who have many chances to those whose chances are narrowed and limited by poverty. I don’t think it’s productive to claim that one side is ignoble or motivated by base desires (I don’t think Republicans are all greedy Ayn Rand-worshipping nutcases). Actually, American radicals and conservatives have a vast common ground when it comes to respect for human rights and civil rights, and the two sides are looking for the best means to achieve an affluent and just society where everyone’s chances are bright and happiness is maximized. It’s mostly a matter of disagreement about how to achieve this world that embodies our shared common American ideals that gets us into disagreements.”

– in some cases but not most. I believe most radical liberals want power. Again, look at those people surrounding BIBTAFSSO. The union bosses give speeches about power and talk about the persuasion of power. They shut down a democratically elected government in Wisconsin for weeks. They don’t believe in the original American ideals but instead in those principles that thousands of Americans have died fighting against.

*** my last response ****

Here, is my summary of where things are at:

You write, I don’t know too much about Bob, but I see he is very popular with the poverty institute. That tells me he was a liberal with an agenda. Unfortunately liberals have a history of manipulating data to come to a foregone conclusion. Too many liberals avoid the truth like Dracula avoids sunlight.

You are making a logical equivalence between working at the Poverty Institute and being a “liberal with an agenda” and you go on to make generalizations about “too many” liberals avoiding the truth. I made a similar point about the scholars at the Cato Institute and the economics department of George Mason University being full of people who are not real scholars, but are instead people who will say anything to satisfy their ideological paymasters (Koch Brothers and others like them). I agree wholeheartedly that there are ideologically-driven people putting forth half-truths and bad data or illogical argument in support of positions that would be far less supportable if we used better (less biased) facts and more honest argument.

I of course do not agree that it’s fair to say “liberals have a history of manipulating data” although I would agree with a statement such as, “humans have a history of manipulating data” and I suggest it applies equally well to humans of conservative and liberal political proclivities. That is why we teach critical thinking in schools, so people won’t get away with it when they try to fool the people.

You write about, “the embarrassing revelations coming out of the global warming data manipulation and publication scandal.” I’ve looked into that, and I hope you will as well, because when you are familiar with the facts of the case, it’s not really so embarrassing, and doesn’t undermine any of the studies from the Climatic Research Unit. Try http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/25/climate-science-vindicated-for-umpteenth-time/ and also go to a primary source and read the House of Commons Report (in pdf) at http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf

You wrote: “Just as you won’t accept right wing studies, I see no reason to accept one from the left.”

Such a position will end all debate, won’t it? Fine with me. But, I do accept studies and reports from the right wing. I’m glad to read them. I regularly do so. I’m a member of some very right-wing and libertarian groups, and contribute my membership dues so that I can continue reading materials from this spectrum of the political debate. I sometimes find such reports refreshing, provocative, and illuminating. On rare occasions, I’ll even find something persuasive and change my mind about something, and there are issues or policies in which I think conservatives or Libertarians have excellent ideas, sometimes even better ideas than liberals or radicals. So, I hope I’ve cleared up this misconception about my refusing to read right wing studies. I simply ask for good studies, or good information, and warn that there are academic departments and think tanks that would be on the fringe of policy debate and economic or social sciences if it were not for the very wealthy funders and the right-wing media outlets and political leaders who use their shoddy work. The left has a few of these as well, but the problem is far greater for conservatives who have intellectual integrity than it is for the liberals and radicals who fret over their less intellectually honest allies.

I hope you will accept or at least consider the work of scholars who happen to have liberal or radical values, at least when their data are sound and their arguments logical.

You describe the “Galveston Plan” and describe how a privatized Social Security System would work. You should read the report on this experiment. It's at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf and when you read the report, remember that the report was written in 1998-1999, and that was before the stock market’s 1999-2000 crash and the dismal stock market performance of the 2001-2010 decade. When you say, “These people eventually received 5 times what their social security compatriots received” you are just not factually correct. You’re wrong. Read the report. If the Galveston plan experiment, or if the self-managed plan in the State University Retirement Plan (which I’m a part of, and is very much like the plan you are suggesting) worked so well, I’d be supporting the privatization of Social Security as you are. But these plans do not work well, when compared to Social Security. Please, read the report, or talk to people who have been part of the plans where people can opt out of Social Security (as I am). See if after checking these facts you still think this is a better way.

Why warn me that if I’m not a good liberal my liberal friends will turn on me? I’m sure most people have (as I do) friends all across the political spectrum. And I think that most people will reach the sort of conclusion I have about political beliefs and personal character, that there isn’t any correlation. I don’t see liberals or conservatives as being better friends or more honest people or more decent than each other. I’m not aware of any recent research on this, but long ago Gordon Allport (I think it was) did study the “F factor” in personality, which was a tendency toward rigid (fascist) thinking, that he did find concentrated in people who were at the time very conservative and very racist (these were mostly Democrats from the South, as this was back in the 1940s or 1950s I think). Maybe we could update that study and use better techniques and figure out if there is any moral superiority to people who tend to be conservatives or liberals. I would be shocked if we found anything like that—any indication that friends of one political persuasion or the other were better or worse then their ideological opponents.

What’s with this sarcastic stuff about “capitalist pigs”? That’s a real bummer, having a swell guy like you using terms that aren’t groovy any more.

We disagree on so many of the facts about Denmark that it is exhausting to contemplate investigating to confirm that all your facts are wrong. Could you please post a link to something that supports any of the points you make about Denmark’s economy?

Calling our president by the sarcastic acronym you use is, I think, disrespectful of the office he occupies. I didn’t like it when, after he actually won the presidential election in 2004, liberals called President Bush by derogatory nicknames or offensive epithets (even though I think there is a plausible case to be made that he is guilty of war crimes). I am just as offended with Obama’s political foes use the sort of terms you use to describe him.

You write about people receiving welfare: If the physically able had to support themselves most would rise to the occasion.”. You are absolutely correct. They would, and they do. People who stay on welfare for the long-term are not physically (or mentally) able to get off welfare and stay off it. Either their bodies or their brains do not work well enough for them to find an employer who can profit from their labor, or they are unable to start their own businesses and thrive. Most persons who use welfare are able-bodied, and use welfare for a transitional period during their lives. That would include most Americans. Most of us use welfare at some point in our lives. For example, a great number of us use Medicaid when we are born. Most of us use the Earned Income Tax Credit when we first start out on our careers and our salaries are low. Many of us use TANF for months or a year or two when we go through a divorce and become single. You write that some people who receive welfare are lazy. Yes, some of them are. So what? How many of them are lazy? How many of them are just working the system? It’s not a large percentage. It’s quite a small percentage, certainly single-digit, perhaps 1% or 2%. That’s still hundreds of thousands of people, given that tens of millions of Americans gain some benefit from SNAP or TANF or SSI or Medicaid or the EITC or Affordable Housing Vouchers or Public Housing or School Lunches, etc.

You write about property rights. I believe in property rights. They are very important. However, they are not absolute. We only have property because we live in societies that recognize property and set up rules to protect private property. In order to live in such a society where we are protected from theft and the sort of life Hobbes described as “nasty, brutish, and short” we must recognize that we owe some portion of our lives or property to sustaining the society that allows us to thrive. If Americans vote for themselves a government that confiscates 50% of income from the richest quarter of the population, then anyone who wants to live in the American republic and participate in the society that spends this tax money on roads, schools, police, the military, science, education, health care, welfare, support for persons with disabilities, and so forth is free to do so, but they will have to pay their taxes and obey the laws. They are free to try to convince their fellow citizens to vote themselves a government that will set the tax rates down to 20%, and if that happens, then the people will live with whatever society can be sustained with taxes at that level. If taxes are too high in the United States and someone despairs of ever seeing the American electorate vote for itself a government with significantly lower taxes, they can evaluate the costs of abandoning America and moving to a society with lower taxes on the wealthy. Likewise, if America ever has a system with very low taxes and most of what we now consider to be “public services” are delivered through private companies, those who prefer higher taxes and more public services will be free to go and live in a society where taxes are higher and services are private.

This is one reason I’m not worried about a tipping point where we tax ourselves too highly and the government takes over everything. Long, long before we reach the situation where the government has become so large that we can no longer change things or criticize the system, there will be economic slow-downs and an exodus of creative and hard-working people, and the response to this will be to swing back toward a smaller government, lower taxes, and a more vibrant private sector of the economy. I think we could double the federal income tax actually paid by the wealthy (so that the wealthy were paying about 44% or 45% of their income as federal income taxes) and we still wouldn’t even see any economic slow down or mass exodus of talented, hard-working people. You seem to think we’re already there. This is an empirical question. We can look and see what happens, or what has happened. I’m unaware of any time in American history when we lost masses of talented people because taxes were too high and the government was too large, nor can I think of a time when economic growth was significantly reduced by high taxes and a swelling public sector. So, I think we could go back to any of the several historically higher tax rates we’ve had in the past without any problem. What evidence do you have that contradicts this, that suggests that any increases in taxes and the size of the public sector will put us dangerously near the point of losing economic vitality, chasing away investment, forcing talented and hard-working Americans to flee to low-tax havens in places such as Hong Kong and Singapore?

You mentioned that a Democratic strategist admitted that some welfare programs had fostered dependency among a segment of the population. This is not news. In 1996 when the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was passed, many Democrats supported it, and the President (A Democrat, Clinton) signed it into law. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html. Not all Democrats or liberals agree that it is accurate to emphasize the role of welfare in creating dependency among a segment of the poor, but there is no monolithic group of like-minded liberals or Democrats who agree about everything. There is nothing wrong with saying that some policies have problems with them, or have had problems with them, and then saying that despite the problems, those policies should be supported, or claiming that similar policies have been improved so that the problems have been eliminated.

You write:

I believe most radical liberals want power. Again, look at those people surrounding BIBTAFSSO. The union bosses give speeches about power and talk about the persuasion of power.

The concept of power and the use of power in analysis of social dynamics is a standard part of social science and community organizing. I teach my students in macro practice classes who to analyze who has power in a community, and how to use power to get things done. Power and money are just ways that we get things done in human society. If you have some idea about how this society would be better, and you want to see your brilliant idea tried out, you’ll need to collect power and mobilize it in order to get investors or politicians to help you put your idea into practice.

They shut down a democratically elected government in Wisconsin for weeks.

Yes, that is called protest. It’s also perhaps called obstructionism. It’s a very old tradition in democratic societies that have free speech. Both dominant political parties use such techniques. So what? I hope you don’t agree with the Republican deputy attorney general (Jeffrey Cox) who wrote, “you’re darned right I advocate deadly force” when asked about how to handle the protests in Wisconsin. I don’t think we Americans should be looking to governments in Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, or China to get ideas for how to handle protesters.

They don’t believe in the original American ideals but instead in those principles that thousands of Americans have died fighting against.

Generalizations like this move beyond the level of rational discourse. The proposition that liberals do not believe in the original American ideals is nonsense. Such rhetoric is empty of substance or logic, and is emotionally inflammatory. To say that thousands of Americans have died fighting against principles, and then say that someone you disagree with is supporting those principles against which Americans died fighting, is a nasty and thuggish rhetorical device when it is not true.

Americans have died fighting to: 1) Preserve their liberty from illegal actions and tyranny committed by the British Crown and Parliament. 2) Protect the nation from invasion. 3) Protect Americans from being captured and held in slavery or indentured servitude or held for ransom. 4) Protect democracy itself and the viability of the nation when slave-owning wealthy elites sought to destroy the republic through rebellion when their property rights to own human beings were threatened. 5) Preserve the union. 6) Ensure that government by the people, for the people, and of the people should not perish from the Earth. 7) Help give birth to a new freedom by ending slavery in the country. 8) rescue colonized people from the cruel hand of imperialist masters. 9) fight against governments that waged war on neutral shipping and killed civilians in this war. 10) destroy an imperialist power that had attacked us. 11) destroy a government that advocated an ideology of racial superiority and a right to conquer and enslave other peoples in order to expand its borders and civilization. 12) protect people from Stalinist/Maoist/North Korean/Vietnamese totalitarian regimes loosely based on Marxist-Leninist ideologies (not just in Korea and Vietnam). 13) protect people in countries we occupied from insurgencies and terrorist groups seeking to force our withdrawal and impose their governance on an unwilling population. 14) destroy forces that had directly attacked us through terrorism or supported the forces that had attacked us. 15) settle a boundary dispute with a government in Mexico headed by an anti-democratic dictator in such a way that we would be able to expand our territory and diminish the territory controlled by this dictator and his government and the Mexican nation. 16) force nations that invaded other countries to withdraw and restore sovereignty to the occupied nation, in cooperation with the United Nations.

Liberals are not advocating any of these 16 things that Americans died fighting for or against. To suggest that persons who want to see taxes raised are advocating for systems that are similar to those totalitarian systems that operated in Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, Baathist Iraq, or Taliban Afghanistan is just a way of telling people that you are not interested in serious debate. You are instead interested in name-calling and taunting.

I’ll add that Americans have died for many other things that are quite ugly and horrible, including the genocide of American Indians and theft of their lands, the profitability and secure property rights of American-based multinational companies that wanted to dominate economies and governments in the Caribbean and Latin America, the desire of American companies and their political allies to profit from war and access to oil fields in foreign lands, and the oppression of people who wanted freedom and independence for their nations (as in the Philippine War of Independence against the United States). Sadly, these embarrassing reasons have sometimes been mixed in with the noble reasons I’ve listed above.

Ending Hunger in Illinois

2011-05-15T12:12:00.001-07:00

An Effort to End Hunger in Illinois

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 1,532,238 people, including 500,000 children, now live in poverty in Illinois. Living in poverty means that in many cases, a major concern for families is how to provide sufficient amounts of food for survival. There are currently 8 food banks located throughout Illinois that serve an estimated 1 million people a year. In the past two years, there has been a 50 percent increase in the amount of people that require emergency hunger relief help. In an effort to help with this growing problem, Senate Bill 3158 created and sponsored by Senator Don Harmon establishes a Commission to End Hunger. In early March 2011, Governor Pat Quinn announced that 22 individuals will be appointed to the commission.

The individuals appointed come from a wide variety of not-for-profit programs. There are both Democratic and Republican representatives who have agreed to work together for the greater good of Illinoisans. There are representatives that range from different food pantries to minority groups to AIDS foundations and even a representative from Kraft foods. Since hunger is not limited to one group of people, it makes sense that so many programs are interested in helping to fight the problem that affects so many people in Illinois.

With Illinois being in a heated debate over how to cut funds to rectify the extreme debt the state is in, this program is a breath of fresh air in that it will focus on helping the needy without using anymore state funds. An article published by Don Harmon’s staff on his website states that “an amendment explicitly states that DHS [Department of Health Services] and the State of Illinois will not incur any costs because meeting coordination, reports, and other duties will be completed by a food bank representative who will serve as co-chair of the Commission” (Harmon staff). In fact, one goal of the program is to research how to receive an estimated 42 million dollars in federal funds from the government to avoid putting the state in any more debt.

Although there are already programs in place that are focused on providing food for children, the focal point of the Commission to End Hunger revolves around educating individuals on what programs are available to them. In addition, the commission will spend time coordinating opportunities for individuals to participate in programs available to them. A final responsibility for individuals working with the commission will be to research what other sources are available to fund programs that are fighting hunger.

Senator Harmon is focused on making sure that this is not another program that is established and then forgotten. In his proposal, he states that the members of the commission will gather approximately every two years to reevaluate the progress made or determine what changes need to be made.

This program could potentially help the 1,532,238 people mentioned at the start of this article. If all goes as planned, with the help of Senator Harmon’s proposal, we will be on our way to having an exceptionally less hungry state.

Student reaction paper on health care reform

2011-05-15T12:11:00.000-07:00

Over the past several weeks of class, there has been a significant amount of focus on health care and the reform. I found a new interest in finding out what would happen with the reform because so many other students in the class seemed to have an opinion on the subject. I was curious as to what other programs could be affected. After doing some research, and after a twenty minute segment where President Obama explained what his program would offer, I realized that I really needed to make more of an effort to understand policies that are going to affect me. In fact, I recently studied a woman named Bertha Capen Reynolds, who stated that social workers needed to show their concern through political activity and that particular writing assignment just reinforced it. I am frustrated that I keep coming across topics in this class and I say, “wow, I need to focus more energy into really finding out what is going with various policies and bills that are being passed,” and I never actually make the effort.

Although I was happy to learn about all the money that was going towards prevention programs, I was really impressed to find out that the healthcare reform will allow for an extension of dependent coverage for adult children up to the age of 26. If it had not been for this class, I would not have gone out of my way to see this new resource that is available for me. I know that a huge reason why policy class is important in our social work education is because it focuses on empowering our clients and I agree with an article I read along the lines that talks about how the reform will increase American’s access to medical services which will in fact empower people who previously faced barriers to medical resources.

With it being the end of the semester, I have more and more work due so I feel overwhelmed at times with all the required readings. I feel like I can never really be caught up because there are always more resource links being put up to look at. I actually really liked this past week's discussion board posts because I felt like I could post my opinion and everyone wasn’t looking at me. It was really nice to read everyone’s personal stories about how they were affected by health care. I always wish I had more of an opinion on some of our topics we cover in class but I constantly feel like I am not educated enough on the subjects to be putting my opinion out in the open for the class to judge.

Civil Unions

2011-05-15T12:09:00.000-07:00

A paper on civil unions.

Civil Unions

Legislators in Illinois passed a law that will forever change history and the structure of family as we legally know it.

Against many opponents, civil unions passed both legislative houses with just 1 and 2 votes to spare.

This bill hit the Governor’s desk for signature and it was signed into law shortly thereafter.

There are only a few other states in the nation that have taken an active stance on civil unions, allowing same sex couple to unite and secure some of the very same rights that a heterosexual married couples now have.

Once the law goes into effect, Illinois will be the sixth state in the U.S. to allow homosexual couples to legally unite.

Whether a person believes that such a law should exist, its passage is another milestone in the 150 year progression of civil rights in the United States of America.

The issue of gay marriage has raised so many social and moral issues, that when Vermont, the first state to successfully adopt such a law, began the quest to legalize gay marriage, the term “civil union” was coined.

So what are the major differences between marriage and civil unions?

Marriage is defined in the United States Constitution as a legal contract or social union between one man and one woman that forms a lawful kinship. This legal arrangement is honored across state lines, throughout religions of all denomination and in every country across the globe.

Civil unions are described as a legal contract or joining of two people, there is no clear distinction of gender matching or opposites, however civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, preventing same sex couples from taking advantage of some of the benefits married couples are eligible to receive. Also, most religious organizations are against civil union and do not recognize it as part of their religious doctrine.

Though unionized couples miss out on some of the benefits and recognition that heterosexual marriage has to offer, they still have many protections that were once not available to them.

As a unionized couple living in a state that recognizes their legal merger, couples are eligible for insurance benefits, to take part in medical decisions of their partner, and take advantage of joint filing of taxes at the state level.

Opponents of civil union argue that all legal rights and protections can be obtained by drawing up a legal document with one’s attorney and having it notarized by the courts to achieve a legal agreement that will recognize the protections granted in marriage.

However the stark reality of the issues is that same sex couples not joined in civil union can only secure a small number of rights such as power of attorney or executor of estate, and even those may be challenged by a blood family member who happens to be next of kin.

Legalization of civil unions in Illinois is a step in the right direction to stabilizing families and creating a lasting bond that will impress upon children the importance of family and taking care of those we love.

Nearly 25% of all gay or lesbian couples in the United States are currently raising children and reside in states where it is illegal to marry their partner.

I personally believe that the enactment of this law is a good thing, and that it should be enacted in other states as well.

As I mentioned above, I believe that marriage brings stability to couples and families and all should have that right.

There were many great men and women who lived before our time who pushed for all races to be created equal, and I believe that this is no different.

You can argue that one is not born gay, it is a decision that one makes when they reach sexual maturity, but it is no different than religion.

We can be born one religion because that is what our family believes, but once we establish our lifestyles we can chose a completely different one and that is okay.

In America you cannot be legally discriminated against because of your religious practices, so why should someone be treated differently because they like boys instead of girls or girls instead of boys. Civil unions are the right decision for the people of Illinois and the people of America. It may take a little bit of getting used to, but in 50 years it will be a blip in the past just like colored only drinking fountains.

How we treat welfare recipients

2011-05-15T12:08:00.000-07:00

A student paper here about how we treat those who receive assistance. This reminds me of the lyrics of a song by the Clash from their Combat Rock album (Know Your Rights) in which Joe Strummer sings, “You have the right to food money, provided of course you don’t mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers—rehabilitation.”

Policy Evaluation

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the 32^nd President of the United States of America. Under his direction the United States Congress enacted a series of economic programs that are known as the New Deal. The focus of these programs were referred to as the three R’s: Relief, Recovery, and Reform. Relief was for the unemployed and the poor. One law designed to establish programs for relief was the Social Security Act. Under this act the Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was born. This program provided financial assistance to families with children whose income was low or non-existent. Many people felt that this program was a gratuity provided by the government rather than an obligation of society to care for the poor. This mentality has led to the government imposing many restrictions onto those who receive benefits. Today, the AFDC program has evolved into the more restrictive program now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Few people would dispute the fact that rules and regulations need to exist in order to determine the extent of a need and/or the eligibility of those who are seeking services. Those rules and regulations should not violate the rights of those in need; nor should the recipients be made to feel that they are criminals. People who apply for TANF benefits should have the same rights to privacy that other citizens do. Some of the regulations that have been put into place impose a standard of moral behavior on the beneficiaries of these programs. If passed, Illinois House Bill 0011 will mandate the Department of Human Services to conduct random drug tests on TANF recipients. The fourth amendment of our constitution protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. Mandatory drug testing is considered a search. Employers who impose mandatory drug testing can do so when it is deemed that their employee would put the general public at risk if he or she were using drugs. Receiving TANF benefits does not put the general public at risk. Have you ever asked your child, grandchild, or neighbor to pick up a few groceries for you? If passed, Illinois House Bill 161 will put an end to such niceties for TANF recipients. If this bill is passed TANF recipients who receive food stamp benefits will have to have their photograph placed on the card; barring anyone but that person from using the card. Adult recipients of TANF must sign and follow a “Responsibility and Service Plan.” Recipients cannot have countable assets greater than $2,000.00 or an automobile with value greater than $8,500.00. A family of four would receive approximately $470.00 per month in TANF. This benefit is reduced by $1.00 for every $3.00 the recipient earns from employment. Even with these limited resources the recipient is expected to devise and complete a plan to work their way out of poverty within five years. Elementary schools are given the names of those children whose families receive TANF benefits. These schools are to monitor and report any irregular attendance of the children to the Department of Human Services. What agency is monitoring your child’s school attendance? Recipients are required to work with state agencies to enforce child support. In other words, recipients must identify and help pursue the father of their children in order to receive child support assistance. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in the loss of benefits.

The Heartland Alliance reports that the Illinois poverty rate was 13.3% in 2008 and the extreme poverty rate was 6.0%. In October 2008 the Department of Human Services reported that there were 26,675 TANF households in Illinois totaling 62,117 persons. The current Illinois unemployment rate is 9.4%; somewhat greater than the national unemployment rate. It is time for Americans to stop allowing stereotypes and fear to shape the rules and regulations of our social policies. The number of people in need is growing. One of those people could be your parent, sibling, child, or friend. How would you like them to be treated?

Student essay about HB-1685 and Medicaid Reform

2011-05-15T12:06:00.000-07:00

Here is a student paper about health care reform and a bill to establish a Basic Health Program within Medicaid, in preparation for the changes to Medicaid that will begin on January 1^st, 2014.

Lack of health care coverage is a serious problem for many Americans. The Census Bureau estimates that 50.7 million Americans and 14.89 percent of Illinois residents are uninsured. It is estimated that 25 million Americans are underinsured. A study performed by Harvard Medical School linked the lack of health insurance to 45,000 Americans deaths annually. This subject has been the root of heated debates within our society and our government for many years. On March 22, 2010 President Barack Obama signed health care insurance reform legislation.

HB 1685 proposes to

amend the Medicaid Revenue Act. This bill will require the Department of Healthcare and Family Services to establish a Basic Health Program within the existing Medicaid Managed Care and Care Coordination programs. This program must be established within the guidelines of the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act along with the

Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 make up President Barack Obama’s Health Care Reform 2010. The development and implementation of a Basic Health Program will provide services to

individuals earning between 133% and 200% of the federal poverty level. This program must be operational by January 1, 2014. This program will also ensure that the State of Illinois will be eligible for the enhanced federal matching funds. HB 1685 will make the Department of Healthcare and Family Services responsible for ensuring that Illinois is eligible for, and receives, the enhanced federal matching funds.

It is estimated that an additional 500,000 to 800,000 people will be eligible for Medicaid in the state of Illinois on January 1, 2014. Currently the Federal government matches Medicaid dollars at 61.9 percent for the state of Illinois. With the implementation of HB 1685 the Federal government will cover 100 percent of the state’s initial costs to cover the newly eligible enrollees for the years 2014 through 2016. In 2017 the matching federal funds will begin to gradually decrease. By the year 2020 the matching federal funds will decrease to 90 percent. The Department of Healthcare and Family Services estimates that the state of Illinois could spend between $200 million and $9.1 billion dollars annually to accommodate the addition of the estimated 500,000 to 800,000 participants.

While most people agree that uninsured Americans is a serious problem, no one seems to be able to agree on a solution. What type of coverage and who will pay for it seem to be the biggest questions. Many argue that opening the Medicaid program to more participants will only increase the number of underinsured Americans.

It will be a few years into the future before we know how well HB 1685 has performed. Maybe then society and our government will be able to decide what is more costly, to provide health insurance coverage for all Americans or to allow thousands to go uninsured.

On February 15, 2011 Illinois House Bill 1685 was filed with the clerk by Representative Edward J. Acevedo. The first reading was held on February 16, 2011 and the bill was referred to the Rules Committee. On February 22, 2011 HB 1685 was assigned to the Executive Committee. On March 17, 2011 HB 1685 was sent back to the Rules Committee.

Elder Abuse

2011-05-15T12:04:00.002-07:00

Here is a student reaction paper about elder abuse.

“With age comes wisdom” is an old adage that seems to be lost on the majority. In various countries, such as China, the elderly are revered for their wisdom and are seen as being an integral part of any deliberation process. Younger people are expected to defer to their elders, let them speak first, and always sit down after them. If aging is a natural part of life that should bring about wisdom and respect, how is it possible that every five seconds someone’s mother, grandmother, or grandfather is being abused in the United States?

Elder abuse is defined as “any knowing, intentional, or negligent act by a caregiver or any other person that causes harm or a serious risk of harm to a vulnerable adult.” Each year hundreds of thousand of older individuals are abused, exploited and neglected by the people they trust to care for their personal wellbeing. This can be family members, friends, or paid helpers. While volunteering at a local senior center I saw first hand how inadequately the elder population was being treated in my community. A majority of the residents were either alone, or had families that were unable or unwilling to care for them. The facility did what they could to offer support, providing one hot meal a day and assistance with basic chores when needed; but the sad truth was it simply wasn’t enough. On numerous occasions there wasn’t a sufficient supply of food for all of the residents, the younger population would exploit the elderly for money and other goods, and the individuals running the programs seemed unsympathetic by this obvious negligence. When I asked a woman in charge about these issues she simply stated that it is an independent living facility, and the residents are expected to fend for themselves a greater part of the time. All I could see in that moment was my own grandmother, and how I’d feel if someone told me she’s expected to “fend for herself.” Elder abuse is not exclusively defined as physical abuse, but: negligence, exploitation, emotional abuse, abandonment, or self neglect as well. As a country we’ve established this way of thinking that once an individual can no longer hold down a job or partake in every day tasks they are insignificant and it’s this exact train of thought that leads to abuse.

Every elderly person has seen things we could never dream of, been through things we could never imagine, and lived a life that deserves respect. I truly do believe with age comes wisdom, and it’s sad that a country as advanced as our own wouldn’t choose to utilize this strength instead of treating it’s own people as second-class citizens.

Funding Planned Parenthood

2011-05-15T12:04:00.000-07:00

Here is a student editorial about Planned Parenthood.

On April 14^th, 2011 the U. S. Senate voted against Resolution 36 (58-42), which was similar to the Pence Amendment that has passed in the House of Representatives a few weeks prior. The main focus of the Pence Amendment was to defund Planned Parenthood as well as many of its affiliate organizations in the budget plan for the fiscal year 2011. The Amendment would have cut the $317 million Title X program which funds these family planning programs in our country. Of that $317 million budget allotted for family planning organizations Planned Parenthood receives approximately $75 million.

Representative Mike Pence (R-Indiana) sponsored this proposed amendment. Pence claims that by cutting the Title X program funding, then clinics providing family planning services would be less likely to be able to perform abortion procedures. This is despite the fact that federal funds already cannot be used to perform those procedures. Many supporters of this amendment feel that by cutting the funds, not only would it limit the amount of abortions that are occurring in the country, but also lessen the nation’s growing deficit.

The fact of the matter is that programs like Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations provide more than just abortion services. They provide a variety of services for men, women and teens such as gynecological exams, clinical breast exams, birth control services, emergency contraception, male reproductive health services, STI testing and treatment, pregnancy testing and counseling services, HIV testing and counseling, as well as HPV and hepatitis A/B vaccines. All of these services are provided to women and men who may not have access to these essential services otherwise. Abortion is not illegal in our country; Planned Parenthood Clinics are performing legal services, yet law makers are still trying to punish them. By trying to cut funds to family planning services, law makers are overlooking all of the life saving services that are provided by the organization, like cancer screens and HIV testing. Some of the services provided by Planned Parenthood actually prevent unwanted pregnancies and in turn prevent abortions. If women do not have access to the contraceptives that are provided by Planned Parenthood, then many unwanted pregnancies could result which could reduce the standard of living for both the mother and unwanted child.

Another point you could make is that cutting funding to Planned Parenthood won’t save money, because other costs incurred when people are unable to get the services provided through Planned Parenthood will be greater than the savings gained by cutting final support to Planned Parenthood. If abortions are immoral this shouldn’t be a consideration, but the fact is, abortions are much less expensive than the costs of helping a young parent take care of a child they did not want to bear. Most often, there will be costs to Medicaid, WIC, SNAP, TANF, and childcare subsidies that would be avoided if the government had funded the abortion. It’s true that most children, even those born in poverty to parents who did not initially plan them or want them will grow up to be productive citizens who contribute more in taxes and economic activity than they receive in benefits when they are young and poor, but children born to poor, young, unmarried and unhappy mothers who didn’t want those children are at a higher risk of becoming a net economic burden, spending time in jail and so forth.

In the long-term, it might be fiscally wise to make abortion more difficult to receive, if children born because their mothers didn't get abortions grow up, on average, to contribute more to society than they take in terms of resources. In the short-term, it's not fiscally wise, because in their initial years of life, such children are likely to drain financial resources. Now, again, let me stress that this is leaving aside questions of environmental burden and carrying capacity, and also entirely ignoring the value of human life, the moral issues around abortion, and religious values. Once we include those in our considerations, I think all the financial considerations will become trivial to many people.

Works Cited

Bosch, T. (2011, February 18). What Is the Pence Amendment, and What Does It Mean for Planned Parenthood? Retrieved April 22, 2011, from AOL News: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/18/what-is-the-pence-amendment-and-what-does-it-mean-for-planned-p/

Cross, K. (n.d.). Proud to be Targeted by Planned Parenthood, Proud to be Pro-Life. Retrieved April 22, 2011, from National Right to Life Political Action Committee: http://www.nrlpac.org/

Eigenberg, C. N. (2011, March 19). Why we should protect Planned Parenthood. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/18/nixon.eigenberg.planned.parenthood/index.html?iref=allsearch

Medical Resources: Teenage Pregnancy. (2009, November). Retrieved March 22, 2011, from March of Dimes: http://www.marchofdimes.com/medicalresources_teenpregnancy.html

NOCERA, D. N. (2011, February 18). House votes to defund Planned Parenthood. Retrieved April 22, 2011, from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49830.html

PARKINSON, M. J. (2011, February 18). House Votes to Strip Planned Parenthood of Federal Funding. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-votes-strip-planned-parenthood-federal-funding/story?id=12951080

Pregnancy, N. C. (2010, January 26). Teen Pregnancy Rates in the United States.

Quinn, P. (2011). Illinois State Budget. Ch.6 Pg.23.

Teen Parent Services. (n.d.). Retrieved March 22, 2011, from Department of Human Services: http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=31976

Teen Parent Services Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved March 22, 2011, from Illinois Department of Human Services: http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=32887

Services for young mothers

2011-05-15T11:58:00.000-07:00

Here is a paper by a student. The student writes about some services for young mothers in Illinois.

There is a major social problem that is affecting the State of Illinois today. This problem is the rate at which teenagers are becoming parents. According to a study done by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and Unplanned Pregnancy, in 2010 approximately 6.7% of females between the ages of 15 and 19 became pregnant in the state of Illinois. According to the March of Dimes, in 2006 more than 10% of all births in the United States were to teenage mothers.

Teenage pregnancy is such a major issue because of the many health risks as well as the risk of an impoverished future affecting both the mother and child. Babies born to teenage mothers are more likely to have low birth-weights, which can in turn lead to newborn health problems, long-term disabilities, or even death to the infant. Infants with low birth weights also run the risk of being born with organs that are not fully developed. Being born without fully developed organs could lead to breathing problems, bleeding of the brain, vision loss or even serious intestinal problems. Teenage mothers also face a greater risk of complications during pregnancy than do their non teenage counterparts. They face a higher chance of developing anemia, high blood pressure, and premature labor during their pregnancy.

Teenage pregnancy can also increase the chances of diminished futures for both mother and child. According to the March of Dimes, teenage mothers are more likely to drop out of school than are their peers who delay giving birth, even if both individuals come from the same social and economical backgrounds. Due to the fact that they drop out of school, teenage mothers may also tend to lack skills that would aid them in finding steady employment. As a result, they become financially dependent on their families or welfare assistance programs.

The Illinois Department of Human Services has many programs that target youth in Illinois. TPS, otherwise known as Teen Parent Services, is a program targeted at teens without a high school diploma or its equivalent and who are pregnant or already parenting. The program targets both male and female parents and in the year 2010, the TPS program aided approximately 6,387 teenage parents in Illinois. Teens who are receiving TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) benefits are required to participate in this program. The main purpose of the program is to encourage the acquirement of a high school diploma or the equivalent, lessen subsequent pregnancies, advance parenting skills, and boost the rate of immunizations, well baby visits, and screenings for developmental delays for the children of teenage parents. A number of services are provided to clients of TPS through individualized service plans. Each plan is developed from an assessment made of the client’s strengths, barriers, family issues, educational needs, and career goal exploration. From there, long and short-term goals are established.

The Illinois Department of Human Services budget consists of about $6,346,019,000. Out of that total budget for the Human Services Department, the Teen Parent Services program budget consists of only about $102,646,900 according to Governor Quinn’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget plan.

Teenage parents can access these services through a number of approaches. When applying for TANF benefits, they will be required to participate in this program, otherwise many local health departments, community agencies or community colleges, and DHS offices provide information on how to obtain services. According to the Department of Human Services website, the TPS program has helped approximately 2130 teenage parents obtain their high school diploma or GED equivalent, as well as kept a 0.5% birth rate for subsequent births in program participants.

Grades in SWK-355 for Spring 2011.

2011-05-15T11:51:00.000-07:00

Here are the grades for SWK-355 Social Welfare Policies and Services in spring of 2011.

Cuts to childcare subsidies seem wrong to student

2011-05-12T09:06:00.000-07:00

Here is a student reaction essay about proposed cuts to childcare subsidies in Illinois.

Budget Cuts to State Programs

There could possibly be a $400 million cut to the Illinois Department of Human Services. This cut would take place for the mid year of (FY11). The budget cut will affect the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) program by $100 millions. The governor has proposed reducing state subsidies for child care from about $600 million to about $400 million. If this cut takes place this will leave 4 months left in the (FY11) budget. This means that services will have to be cut 3 times as much as they would have been cut of the start of the fiscal year to obtain comparable savory.

In December 2010, there were a total of 188,000 children in the CCAP program. If the budget is cut by $100 million, this would mean that 1/3 of the funds will be cut from childcare. This would, by my estimate, cut or reduce support for childcare for a total of 63,000 children. Many would be cut from the program. Many low-income single mothers who get a job will no longer be eligible for childcare assistance. There will be a total of 7000 to 8000 children that will have to be put on a waiting list, because such drastic cuts will reduce the number of child care facilities; some will close, many will shrink as they lay of child care workers. The childcare program has not had a waiting list since the program started in 1997.

For many parents are looking for affordable, quality childcare, but such care is unaffordable to families earning incomes between $10,000 and $20,000, and often not even affordable for families with incomes up to $30,000 or higher, especially in the more expensive Chicago region. Faced with a choice to take a job that might pay $10 or $11, and require $4-per-hour childcare costs, parents will calculate that after taxes and transportation costs and childcare costs, the job will actually only leave them with $5 or $6 per hour, which will not be enough to pay rent, utilities, and buy food. Childcare subsidies are an important aid to help parents get into the labor force, but without such subsidies, many parents will not possibly be able to accept jobs with low starting wages. These parents will have to leave their children home with relatives, unless they can find very low-cost childcare, but some low-cost childcare may be informal care, given by persons who may be unqualified, who may simply let children watch television all day in their living rooms. There children stand the risk of not receiving the quality child care that a licensed family provider or license center are mandated to provide.

The CCAP program was established as a part of the War on Welfare Bill. Cutting childcare assistance will be a bad public policy decision all the way around. I think this will be one of the worst policy decisions there are in terms of killing jobs during the recession for the working parents. Parents who receive TANF or Unemployment Insurance will have a further incentive to stay out of the labor force or turn down jobs and remain on public assistance, and costs for SNAP (food stamps) and other programs may increase. So, cuts to childcare may simply shift costs to other forms of welfare. Such drastic cuts as have been proposed will affect the employment of the childcare providers as well because most of the funds for services come from the CCAP program. As we know, the unemployment rates in Illinois regions such as Chicago are greater than 10%. If another 5,000 or 10,000 childcare workers lose their jobs, they will spend less money, and the local economies will further decline. The harm to the state and to communities will be much worse than any harm we would suffer through modest increases in state income taxes or a broadening of the state income taxes to include many services.

And here is another version of the paper written as a more formal paper, rather than a reaction essay:

The DHS: Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) is in jeopardy of funding being cut from the program. The Y12 state budget faces a deficit of around $15 billion. Legislators have proposed a solution to the problem by cutting the CCAP funds by $70 to $100 million. The CCAP is a program that low-income families can qualify for to assist in paying for their childcare. The Department of Human Services supports an average of 174,000 children in the program, and if funds are cut at levels considered by the legislators, about 77,000 children will be cut from the program. There are now about 90,100 low income families receiving assistance from the CCAP in paying for childcare. If this program is cut, many families won’t be able to afford daycare. The average cost of childcare in a family home daycare is around $130.00 per child per week. Parents who work a minimal wage job could possible only be bringing home $500-$600 biweekly. The payment of childcare would equal over a quarter of the parent’s paycheck.

CCAP provides childcare for children ages 6 wk to 12 years old. The families that are on the program are either employed or attending school (or receiving TANF). If funds are cut, parents will have to quit their jobs or rely on other means of childcare. Some parents may have to leave their children at home with relatives. One of the primary goals of this program is to support qualify low-income families by providing child care subsides. This allows parents to maintain employment to further their education. This also decreases their dependence on public assistance.

Another goals is to allow families access to multiple options for affordable, quality child care, early education, and after school programs. This will allow children the opportunity to grow, learn and be cared for in a safe, nurturing environment. Licensed childcare providers and centers offer quality care for the children in their programs. These licensed facilities are overseen by The Department of Family and Children Services, which has certain quality requirements and standards that facilities must meet and maintain.

One of the many ways that childcare providers and working families have began to fight back is going to the State Capitol and rallying. These rallies are held when our state and local government representatives are in session. The goal of the rallies is to talk to as many representatives about how this will affect the community. After speaking with working families, the legislators hear constituents tell them that without childcare assistance many low-income families wouldn’t know what to do. Some working parents say they work two jobs and/or weekends. There are very few daycare centers and few childcare provider that will provide care for these working parents who have late shifts or weekend work, because of the hours and difficulty hiring childcare staff to work weekend days and nights. Without the funding of childcare, it would be hard to find a reliable childcare provider.

Not only will working parents suffer, childcare providers will suffer as well. Family childcare providers depend on providing the service of childcare because this is their source of employment. Some providers depend on these funds as their only source of income. Without this income, family childcare providers could possibly add to the job unemployment list. This will lead to more victims of unemployment.

Reaction paper on workplace safety at state mental hospital

2011-05-11T21:27:00.000-07:00

There was an article on NPR on workplace safety in a state mental hospital in California, and several of the students in this semester's class were moved to write reaction essays in response to what they learned.

In my second reflection paper, I choose to write a response to an article entitled, “At California Mental Hospitals, Fear Is Part of The Job.” The article detailed how psychiatric hospitals throughout California are known for violent acts committed by their very own patients. The article details how an employee was even killed by a patient. The article talks about the safety, or lack thereof, for the hospital’s employees.

Upon reading the article, I found it rather disturbing. While the mentally ill population is one that should be cared for, those that care for them should feel safe. Any type of job that you work for, you should feel some sense of security. However, one would argue that with some jobs, that just isn’t going to be possible. For example, people that go into law enforcement police) know that their lives are at risk each time they walk out the door. As well, those who work with the mentally ill are at a higher risk for violence. The patients who are in these sorts of environments obviously are not in the right state of mind and thus act out more. I believe that if you choose to work with this population, you must also be aware and be okay with what may happen. I want to make clear that no one should feel fear going into their place of employment, but I suppose you have to really love your job and the people you work with, in order to stay employed in this field.

Further, the 92-page plan created by the Justice Department seemed to have been successful, but at the expense of its employees! That is not acceptable. No plan enacted by the government should remain if it causes harm to the very people who are serving this group of people. While the plan may be good, it needs to offer changes so that it works for every person involved. The article stated that since the plan had been enacted, the violence in hospitals has been on the rise, perhaps due to excessive paperwork. Employees stated that they can’t spend as much time with their patients because they are busy completing paperwork. So, why not create a plan that is still effective but with limited paperwork (paperwork that is absolutely necessary)? Another point the article stated was, there were some problems with patients being neglected, substandard care, and bad record keeping. That could be a result of employees being tired of fearing for their lives. As a result, that could be there way of retaliating and having an “I don’t care” type of attitude. It is just important to make sure both parties (patients and employees) are happy.

Personally, it is not my desire to work with this group. I don’t know if I could directly relate to them nor do I think I want to risk my life. I believe that there are people who can deal with certain groups of people, but I don’t this is my group. Instead of being helpful, I would be fearful because I would never know what to expect from the patients. This article was a real eye opener for me and if I contemplated working with this group before, it has definitely proven wrong!

Student paper on prison overcrowding

2011-05-11T21:21:00.000-07:00

This is a student paper about prison overcrowding. I've removed some footnotes where the student gave sources.

Prison Overcrowding

“Based on current projections, by 2011 the U.S. prison population will increase by 13% – which is triple the growth of the entire population as a whole – to more than 1.7 million”* (Alcohol Monitoring Systems). This statistic is astounding and it is all in regards to prison overcrowding.

A major public policy problem lies in prison overcrowding. Many of our prisons are filled with offenders that have not actually committed violent crimes. Actually, many of the offenses that are against the individuals are non-violent crimes. Perhaps they are in jail because they committed a crime that involved drug usage or being pulled over for a DUI. These types of arrests don’t warrant one to be placed in jail; rather the offender needs to be rehabilitated. I believe a solution would be to provide more services or rehabilitation programs that can better aid the core issues criminals have, instead of incarcerating them.

Prison overcrowding is at an all-time high. According to Alcohol Monitoring Systems, experts from criminal justice think tanks and the U.S. Department of Justice predict that by 2011 the U.S prison population will increase by 13 percent to more than 1.7 million. That number is triple the growth of the entire population as whole! This means that more money has to be funded to prisons to be able to accommodate this large number. Talk about needing more money! As well, that large increase would cause American taxpayers and local/state budgets an estimated $27.5 billion dollars!

Prisons should house people who have committed more heinous crimes such as murder, child mutilation and the like, instead of crimes such as a DUI. Another factor that should be investigated about offenders before they are even placed in prison is why they committed the crime. For example, a person may have committed a murder, but may have been in the wrong mental state. If they have a serious mental issue, prison will not alleviate the problem, it will simply hide it. The mental issue needs to be evaluated so that upon their release, they will not commit the crime again. Thus, individuals should be screened to address the root cause of the crime, and this would cut down on the amount of prison entries.

Another issue to take into account is the rate of recidivism. If you house prisoners for a crime they committed and they are released but return, that can also cause prison overcrowding. It is clear that perhaps a person spending time in prison does nothing to deter them from crime, if they end up back in prison. According to the prison commission, after three years of release 67% of former prisoners are rearrested and 52% are re-incarcerated. This a very high rate because that is over half of the released population. If this is true and prisons are not deterring crime, monies should be put in other places. Studies have further shown that about forty percent of offenders committing violations to parole end up going back to jail. In this manner, they are taking up valuable space, space that could be used to offenders who have committed more serious crimes. I am not totally against prisons; I just think that overcrowding would not be present if there were better alternatives.

As well, the monies being placed in the prison systems could be monies placed into more community programs, to prepare offenders to go back into society. Especially needed are reintegration programs for those who have not committed hard crimes, as well as juveniles, as they have the best probability for staying out of trouble after release, and we should expect good programs to lower recidivism from 67% to 40% or lower.. Also, more community programs would make for more jobs to social workers, teachers and the like. Why not help people so that they can in turn help others? As well, what about charging fines to those who have smaller crimes as opposed to incarceration?

The social work profession is founded on believing that people can change no matter what they have done. That is, with the proper services and support. Prison overcrowding would decrease immensely if we focused more on helping troubled individuals, rather than wagging our fingers at them and placing them in a ”time out”.

Educational and Opportunities for Developmentally Disabled Savings Pool

2011-05-11T20:38:00.000-07:00

Here is a student editorial I wanted to share.

I am writing in favor of House Bill 3032 which states that this bill

...authorizes the state treasurer (Illinois) to establish and administer an Educational and Opportunities for the Developmentally Disabled Savings Pool to supplement and enhance the investment opportunities otherwise available to persons seeking to finance the cost of providing expanded educational and employment opportunities to persons with a developmental disability. Provides that participants in the pool are required to use money distributed from the pool for qualified expenses. Contains penalty provisions. Creates a deduction for individual tax payers equal to the amount contributed by the tax payer up to $20,000 to an Educational Opportunity for the Developmentally Disabled Savings Pool account during the taxable year. Effective immediately.

I believe this bill should be passed for various reasons, one of which being that the state of Illinois could finally recognize all people within it’s borders as productive, contributing citizens to their communities, and therefore are worthy of having such a resolution passed to help supplement their educational goals. According to www.progressiveservicesnetwork.org, Illinois is dead last to provide appropriate services to those with disabilities. Those with developmental disabilities (DD) would be able to be productive, contributing citizens in their communities and those that choose to contribute to the pool will get a tax write-off up to $20,000. With the Illinois economy the way it is right now it is crucial to save every dime we can by claiming it on our tax returns.

According to an article by Amanda Drapiewski for the Southwest Suburban News/Herald in Chicago, the estimated lifetime costs for those born in 2000 with DD are expected to total more than $50 billion for people with mental retardation and $11.5 billion for people with cerebral palsy. The act that is being brought up for amendment could greatly lower the costs of people having to pay taxes for the care of people having developmental disabilities, and it gives the citizens of Illinois the chance to choose how much they want to contribute to the pool.

In today’s society we preach equal opportunity for everyone. By providing a well-rounded education and equal employment opportunities for those with DD we would set a very good example for our future generations. Parents contributing to this pool will set an example to their children to also contribute in the future to a worthy cause. Also, it’s about time for a bill like this, because it is the twenty-first century and we need to get with it when it comes to helping people with developmental disabilities.

Many more bills are needed to help improve the lives of people with DD, but this is a good start. As stated on www.progressiveservicesnetwork.org, Illinois ranks 43^rd lowest of the 50 states and DC in funding community-based support and services for individuals with intellectual/developmental disabilities. Illinois also ranks 51^st of the 50 states and DC in the percentage of individuals with DD living in community-based residential settings. Obviously, much more needs to be done. I believe passing this bill will encourage people to contribute to the pool and help get the ball rolling as well.

A social work student's opposition to abortion insurance

2011-05-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

Everyone remembers the huge Roe versus Wade, lawsuit that happen back in 1973, and most know how this court decision made abortion legal. It allowed women to kill the baby up until 3 months of being pregnant. Now there is a proposal suggesting that they are trying to legalize it so it will be okay for abortion to be insured. There are already such policies with both public and private insurance, where persons with coverage will have their insurance cover the costs of abortion in cases with life threatening situations, with rape or incest, and even if there is a fetal abnormality. There are five states with the insurance plan needing to be private and twelve states that are allowing such abortion insurance for public employees.

To me this is just not right. I think that people should have better morals that to kill an innocent life that does not have a choice. There is a reason for everything that happens in life. My standing on this idea is obviously against it. I get this from my upbringing in my religious background. I think God has things happening for a reason. There are people that ask where the people that find the cures for cancer are, but to me that is an easy answer. It is the babies that we choose to abort every day. You never know the capability of that baby, but you are willing to risk their life just to spare yours a little bit longer or make yours “easier”. I do not see how one life is better than the other.

Well, you’ve given the standard argument that the value of the life of the unborn child is more important than the convenience of the mother. Nearly everyone agrees with you late in the pregnancy when the mother’s health isn’t threatened and the child is developing normally and likely to be healthy. But, as we get earlier in the pregnancy, or as the mother’s health is threatened, or as the unborn child’s apparent deformities or health problems seem more severe, fewer and fewer people want to limit abortion, until if you reach the case of a woman who is likely to die if she bears her embryo to term and gives birth, and the embryo itself is likely to have a horrible deformity that will make it almost certainly die within hours of birth, and if the pregnancy is only in the first few weeks after fertilization of the egg, almost everyone will agree that an abortion should be allowed. Where do we draw the line between that situation where nearly everyone opposes an abortion and the situation where nearly everyone supports an abortion? That’s of course a personal choice. My personal choice might be very much like yours, as I suspect the sacredness of the life begins early. But then there is the question of where we want the public (legal) line for abortion to limit abortions. My take on this is that the Creator or the Universe (or stochastic chance) has already set up a situation where perhaps 30% of fertilized human eggs do not end in a live birth, so it’s difficult for me to think that early artificial terminations of pregnancy can really be so objectionable to the Deity (or the Principle of Life Emergent from the Universe). And so, I’m willing to have liberal abortion laws, and leave these decisions up to the mother and the consequences to whatever judgment may come from God (or the cosmos).

Sometimes I have to help students learn to write well

2011-05-11T16:42:00.000-07:00

Here is an example of a student paper where I have tried to improve the writing style.

The death penalty is something that not only affects the lives of the person that has been sentenced to be executed, but also affects the people of our country and/or state. Not only does the death penalty plug up the processes in the court systems but also has the taxes raised because of the fact that the money spent on the death penalty and the processes for it is unexpected expenses and then get taken away from other things that need the money. The death penalty has raised the taxes on the people in the state and have instead of using the money on fixing highways it is used on the death penalty process, whether it is the cases or the actually execution part. Not only do death penalty cases plug up the courts with lengthy and costly processes, but also these death penalty cases take money away from more important priorities, because their high legal costs divert funding from better criminal justice programs (such as crime prevention), schools, or road maintenance, and keep total public safety spending higher than it needs to be, thus pushing up tax rates.

Another problem ~~them~~ that seems to have affected the death penalty is the fact that people who were already put on death row have been found to be innocent ~~that has already been put on death row~~. There is also ~~a little bit of a plus side~~ a possible benefit with the death penalty. It helps lower rates of capital crimes the fact of crime in risk of being put on death row and be executed. The deterrence benefit of capital punishment hasn’t been conclusively proven, and there is evidence on both sides, but some recent work by researchers such as Naci Mocan, Cass R. Sunstein, and Adrian Vermeule (all formerly or currently death penalty opponents) judge the evidence in favor of a life-saving deterrence effect of the death penalty to be strong (see “Does the Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate,” by Adam Liptak, in the New York Times, November 18, 2007, page 1)

It is almost a catch twenty-two. Do you get rid of the death penalty because there is are innocent people that have been put on death row, or do we keep it because it helps out the crime aspect in keeping it lower than what it ~~normally~~ otherwise would be? Another problem the government faces with the death penalty is the fact of that people receive different treatment based on such arbitrary factors as the age, race, and gender of the victim and the convicted offender. For example, ~~the~~ women and ~~juveniles~~ younger offenders have less of a chance to go onto death row because of the their gender and their age. In fact, the Supreme Court decided on March 1, 2005 that it is unconstitutional to sentence any person to death for a crime committed before their 18^th birthday. It is hard for the ~~people~~ juries, judges, and prosecutors dealing with the cases ~~or the people in the government have a hard time sending~~ to send females and ~~juveniles~~ young adults to death row because our society says that the women are the nurturers and the children are innocent. ~~With these~~ These ideas that society has put into our heads about gender and age~~, it has~~ have made in it almost impossible for us to be able to ~~be okay with the fact of~~ accommodate ourselves to any situation in which we sentence women and ~~basically children being sentenced~~ young adults to death.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

2011-05-10T23:34:00.000-07:00

Here is a student paper on the mandatory minimum sentencing law.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences Law

Second Medium Length Paper

The United States started “War on Drugs” in 1971 to fight against distribution, consumption and use of harmful drugs. Richard Nixon was the first president to hold fame in the “War on Drugs”. Nixon had shown promise on this war and created the Drug Enforcement Agency in 1973 for the narcotic and marijuana outbreak in the United States and elsewhere. Later presidents, such as President Clinton in 1996, used this idea, enforced many anti-drug laws, and committed millions of dollars to this war. (Suddath, 2009). One interesting law used in this war was hastily put together without any contributing outside sources, and this was the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing law.

in 1986 the Congress passed a law that put a mandatory minimum sentencing for cocaine users. This federal mandatory drug sentence depended on three different things, “the type of drug, weight of the drug mixture, and the number of prior convictions” (DPA, 2010). The judge could not look at the person’s reason for using the drug, what role they had in their possession, and whether the person was likely to use the drug again. This prevented wealthy drug traffickers from bribing the judges to reduce their sentences or dismiss the cases against them.

One drug that became a prominent scare and a target of the mandatory sentencing law was cocaine. Through history cocaine was used for almost everything, but in its refined form it has caused addiction, and its use harmfully affected many addicted users. In the 1960s there was a rise in cocaine which led the Congress to classify it as a drug with a high level of potential abuse (ONDCP, 2009).

By the late 1980s, a new and more refined type of cocaine was becoming popular, and it appeared to public health officials and police that this new form was especially potent, much cheaper, and far more addictive than other forms of cocaine, and this cocaine was called crack. Everyone who had five grams of crack cocaine would serve five years imprisoned. This leaves a 100-1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine. If a person had powder cocaine they would need 500 grams of cocaine to be imprisoned for five years. Was crack really that much worse? Was the harsher sentence for crack related to its lower cost and its relative abundance in poorer neighborhoods, communities where users and dealers were more likely to have African or Hispanic heritage?

If someone is caught with crack, their only hope for escape from the five plus year mandatory sentencing is to snitch on other users. Only the upper level drug dealers would be able to use this escape to their advantage, since they are the ones who deal the drugs to dependent users, and know who the users are. The users that are on the lower distribution level didn’t have the information to give, and so this loophole in the mandatory minimum sentencing law resulted in the perverse situation of the least harmful users spending more time in jail than the more harmful dealers.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ budget has increased from $22 million in 1986 to over $3 billion in 1997 (Huffman, 2006). This law has resulted in prison overcrowding, racial injustice and increases in imprisoned women. Judges generally hate the law, and even some prosecutors will admit that the sentencing guidelines under the mandatory minimum sentencing regime can be unfair. Even with these issues that make many question the law, it does seem that harsh mandatory penalties may help lower drug use. The dealers and users know what to expect if they are caught possessing a certain amount of illegal drugs, and this knowledge will deter them. Some experts claim this law has stabilized the crack cocaine epidemic and helped contribute to the historic decline violent crime rates that was experienced between 1996 and 2000. (Hutchinson, 2008)

Bibliography

DPA. (2010). Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Retrieved 2011, from Drug Policy Alliance: http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/mandatorymin/

Huffman, A. A. (2006). Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Offenses. Retrieved 2011, from California State Conference: http://www.ca-naacp.org/advocacy-drug-offenses-mandatory-minimum.php

Hutchinson, A. (2008). Have mandatory minimum sentences been an effective tool in the war on drugs? Retrieved 2011, from ProCon.org: http://aclu.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000731

ONDCP. (2009). Cocaine Facts & Figures. Retrieved 2011, from Office of National Drug Control Policy: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/cocaine/cocaine_ff.html

Suddath, C. (2009). The War on Drugs. Retrieved 2011, from Time: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1887488,00.html

The paper above was written as a descriptive paper in a journalistic style. The same student wrote an editorial on this same subject, included next:

The Anti-Drug Act of 1986

The Anti-Drug Act of 1986 provided a mandatory minimum for drugs. This removed a judge’s discretion, and gave every drug trafficker or user the same sentence. The drug that was mostly targeted at the time was cocaine. A person that possessed five grams of crack cocaine would receive a five year sentence, and a person with 500 grams of power cocaine would get the same sentence. This created a 100-to-1 disparity, and affected a significant group of people. The most targeted were minorities in poverty, and this law affected first time users the same as habitual or repeat users.

This law has caused more damage than good to many victims. There is a significant increase in prisons, and inequality. Drug arrests have tripled to 1.8 million arrests in 2005. This is a high increase in the prison population of non-violent drug users who are not close to any drug lords, but it the people who wrote these mandatory sentences were writing the laws to help keep drug lords in jail for longer sentences. Six in ten persons in state prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity (Mauer & King, September 2007). Not only are the common users in jail but also was there an inequality within the prison system. Before the mandatory minimums were effective the “average Federal offense for African Americans was 11% higher than Caucasians. After the mandatory drug sentencing laws, the average drug offense sentence for African Americans was 49% higher than Caucasians” (Huffmann, 2006).

There hasn’t been an improvement with the mandatory minimums. This law just brought more African American males into imprisonment for unreasonable amount of time. The only improvement was in the amount of money the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget received, which was $3.9 billion in 1997, way up from $220 million in 1986. There has been more money contributed to enforcement and prisons. With 1.8 million imprisoned non- violent drug users it costs about $9 billion each year (Huffmann, 2006).

There are many people against this outlandish law like the group, Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Numerous studies done on sentencing have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of a standard sentence given to every person like in a one size fits all law such as this one. There is no proof that this law deters drug crimes, but rather, it seems this law only increases the number of arrests being made. Taking a drug user off the streets into prison only gives more room for other potential users, which brings those who suffer from substance abuse or addiction to an unending harsh cycle involving the criminal justice system.

Bibliography

Carrillo, S. (2000). Should Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws Be Repealed? Retrieved 2011, from Speakout.com: http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1127b-1.html

Huffmann, A. A. (2006). Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Offenses. Retrieved 2011, from California State Conference: http://www.ca-naacp.org/advocacy-drug-offenses-mandatory-minimum.php

Mauer, M., & King, R. S. (September 2007). A 25- Year Quagmire: The War on Drugs and Its Impact on American Society. The Sentencing Project, 2- 6.

Vagins, D. J. (2006). ACLU Releases Crack Cocaine Report, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Deepened Racial Inequity in Sentencing. Retrieved 2011, from American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu-releases-crack-cocaine-report-anti-drug-abuse-act-1986-deepened-racial-inequity

CCAP Child Care Support Program in Illinois

2011-05-10T23:09:00.000-07:00

This is a good paper briefly describing a particular welfare policy. CCAP was costing the state over $600 billion in FY 2010. I don't know what typical costs per-hour or per-day for child care are in this state or in Chicago, but I know that nearly 100,000 households in the state benefit from CCAP assistance with child care expenses.

The Social Problem I would like to address in this paper is Child Care and the Policy I will be looking into is the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP). DHS' Child Care Assistance Program provides low-income, working families with access to quality, affordable childcare that allows them to continue working and contributes to the healthy, emotional and social development of the child. Families are required to cost-share on a sliding scale based on family size, income, and number of children in care. In addition to helping low-income, working families, the Child Care Assistance Program also serves: Families who are receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and participating in education and training in accordance with their responsibility and service plans (RSP); Teen parents seeking a high school degree or its equivalent; and/or families not receiving TANF, who are pursuing additional education to improve their job opportunities. (DHS)

Child Care is a big issue for most every family; especially those who can’t afford it or need help covering the high costs of childcare. It is hard enough for a married couple, both working full time jobs, to afford quality childcare, let alone those who are less fortunate. The Department of Human Services (DHS) is there to help serve the public in many ways, including childcare. The childcare services that are now offered are in jeopardy of being cut. The Illinois budget is so messed up right now that they are preparing to cut millions from the budget, mainly from the DHS. This would directly affect the programs that are there to help people with childcare. The programs and the money provided for them would have to be cut severely and therefore people will be in jeopardy of loosing their assistance from CCAP.

We are looking at a cut to human services of around $400 million; a cut to CCAP of around $100 million and that is a bad decision for everyone involved. Cutting that much money from this organization and this program specifically will take away a major portion of budgeted money to help the community with childcare costs, approximately one-third. If that happens it will affect the parents, the children, and the childcare workers and service providers. As of December 2010, there were approximately 188,000 children in the CCAP. At least 63,000 children would have to be cut from the program to save $100 million. They would also most likely be unable to continue accepting more children to the program, for a period of time. (Illinois)

“Families may apply for licensed care from a statewide network of approximately 175 contracted providers. Eligibility is determined on-site by the provider allowing families the freedom to choose from a variety of care settings to best meet the needs of both parents and children. In order to find out if you qualify for assistance from the Child Care Program, please check the Child Care Assistance Program Eligibility Calculator to get an estimated calculation. This is located on the Department of Human Services website. You will need to know the county you live in, the number of family members in your household, how many children will need care, and your annual income. Contact your local Child Care Referral & Resource agency if you would like to find quality child care or receive an application to apply for the Child Care Assistance Program.” (DHS) In my research on this topic I did not find much about people who are against this program. All the information I found about CCAP was positive and pro-CCAP.

Works Cited

"DHS: Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP)." DHS: Illinois Department of Human Services. Web. 05 Apr. 2011. <http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30355>.

"Illinois Child Care Assistance Program and Other Human Services in Grave Jeopardy : The Shriver Brief." The Shriver Brief: Poverty Law Commentary & Insights : Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law : Affordable Housing, Healthcare Reform. Web. 05 Apr. 2011. <http://www.theshriverbrief.org/2011/02/articles/child-care/illinois-child-care-assistance-program-and-other-human-services-in-grave-jeopardy/>.

A student's reaction paper reflecting on the budget problems.

2011-05-10T22:42:00.000-07:00

Today I want to discuss my thoughts on the budget, the debt, and the plans to eliminate the deficit. I watched a speech, which Obama gave recently at a Virginia University about his plans to eliminate debt and fix budget deficit. The speech was pretty good and I liked most of what I heard him saying. He talked about not cutting anymore from education and about how he thinks we should be adding to education because if it weren’t for loans, grants, and scholarships, most students would not be able to afford their college education, including him and Michelle.

He talked about making health care and Medicaid affordable and attainable for everyone so that people will be able to receive adequate care for their needs. He also talked about wanting to improve our health care services so that people will not feel as though they need to travel far distances to receive quality care, including out of the country. I agree that health care and education should be added to and improved instead of taken away from and crippled. Every student should have the opportunity to go to college and get the help they need. Every human being should be able to count on getting quality health care assistance in their local community.

Why can’t they just make some even cuts across the board, in all areas, instead of finding a few to make huge cuts to; if we made small cuts to each area maybe we could make up some of our losses. Also why can’t the President just use the Treasury Department he has there in DC and print the money we need to pay off our debts, and then start over on a clean slate? I know people say it will affect the value of the dollar, but who controls that anyway? He is the freaking President so he should be able to make those kinds of decisions. And also, stop paying people so much money; why does anyone need to make over one million dollars a year? That is just plain stupid and greedy; take some of that money and pay our debt instead of paying entertainers and athletes.

Making cuts across the board? Well, some things are mandated by law, while other things are not legal obligations, and the government can decide to decrease funding (discretionary spending). So, when it is time to cut, the cuts are focused in the discretionary spending, and mandatory spending gets very little reduction. Also, some spending is very productive, and helps the economy, so we would like to preserve that and cut the less productive spending. For example, if we could use our education spending to make our population super-smart and hard-working and outstanding in their skills and knowledge, that would make our society much wealthier, and all the spending on education would come back to the government in increased tax revenue and decreases in needs for poor relief. Other spending isn’t so productive, or is actively counter-productive. There are some agricultural and energy subsidies that probably do significant harm to many people, and mainly are useful because they enrich a few powerful and wealthy landowners. So, if we could distinguish between the harmful or wasteful spending and the good investment spending, many of us would like to make selective cuts against the wasteful spending (I’d like to cut defense spending by about 50%, myself).

Another reason why we make deep cuts in some programs and preserve other programs is related to political power. Some programs enjoy broad appeal, and other programs are controversial. I think that some of the stuff we as a nation do with international aid is among the best stuff we do. I’m proud of our role in rebuilding Europe after the Second World War, and I’m proud of our work to increase literacy and women’s health in the less materially developed world. And yet, many Americans would like to cut foreign aid, or even eliminate it. In contrast, there are very few Americans who would cut the levels of benefits in Social Security, since most Americans receive Old Age benefits, or expect to.

The president does not control the money supply. The Treasury isn’t responsible for creating money. Money is created by the Federal Reserve Banking system, which is not directly answerable to any politician. If politicians did control the money supply, they could increase the supply, and use it to pay off debts. However, this would make it very expensive to ever borrow money again. Also, there would be significant inflation, and inflation can be harmful, especially to banks and wealthy people. When inflation increases, interest rates increase. If you owe money and have a rate locked in, whoever lent you money will lose much of the value of their loan to you if inflation and interest rates go up. This would not be good for banks. In case you haven’t noticed, the bankers are a very powerful special interest in our society. The politicians will do very little that harms the interests of the banks or the people who control great wealth. But yes, a decrease in the value of the dollar and a little bit of inflation can be a good thing for American competitiveness, as it will make our products cheaper on world markets, and that may increase demand for services and goods that are produced by Americans.

A short observation on poverty and programs

2011-05-10T22:19:00.001-07:00

Here is a short student paper with my response.

Poverty

Why are so many people in our country living below the poverty line? Is the poverty line not set a reasonable level?

I think that our country has flaws in the system currently that make it almost impossible for many people to get out of poverty once they enter it. It is obviously not a desirable option for anybody. Unfortunately many people do not know where they can go to get assistance or are denied the accessibility. It is than likely whenever a person applies for disability assistance, they are denied the first time and must apply multiple times. Alright, so they are already disabled, yet they must wait and go through the process multiple times before they get any help? That sure does not make any sense to me and is only one of many flaws in our system. Why are we not trying to help the people that need it?

In addition to the problems of our system denying help to some people who clearly need it, we also have the problem of people getting assistance when they do not need it. It seems to me that in many cases we need to more tightly control how we help people. There are people who use their LINK card to buy alcohol or trade with others. I am also aware of people who are using SSI or other forms of assistance to buy drugs. I do not support this in any way, but that is how the people are trying to survive. Maybe drug tests needs to be put into effect to get specific forms of aid.

Poverty is difficult, this is a fact. There are ways to get out of poverty and to help yourself, but people do not where to go or what to do. There are also people receiving aid that probably should not. Our government system needs to be fixed so that we can help those that need it.

As we squeeze those who receive benefits so that we catch the undeserving ones who cheat, we will increase administrative costs and inconvenience the ones who are honest and do need the money, and we are likely to deny some benefits to those who really deserve it. Likewise, if we make it easier for people to get benefits, and deny fewer claims for programs such as SSI, we are likely to allow more dishonest and unworthy applicants to get benefits. This is the way the world works. Given a willingness to allocate a certain percentage of program costs to administration and regulation, we can choose to be tight-fisted and deny more worthy applicants or use a more open hand and allow more undeserving to get benefits. Spending more on administration and regulation might reduce both types of problems, but at some point it becomes ridiculous to devote too much money that could be helping worthy applicants to hunting for the less worthy. This is sometimes called the “unavoidable error” problem in social welfare policies. Given large and complex systems that give out benefits to people, error will occur. Which error do we prefer, the error of too much regulation and control, or not enough regulation and control? Are we more concerned with being too generous and having cheaters take advantage of us, or of being too stingy and denying help to those who deserve it and would greatly benefit from it? If we spend 20% of some welfare budget to administer and control it, is that somewhat like stealing from those who should be getting benefits to support swarms of parasitic bureaucrats, social workers, investigators, and paper-pushers, or is 20% a reasonable amount? What about 10%, or 30%? At some point we have to accept a bit of sloppiness and a bit of error. You can’t have a perfect system. A system that denies a few worthy applicants and allows a few cheaters may be the optimal system, so long as a very small percentage of worthy applicants are wrongly rejected, and a very high percentage of would-be cheaters are discouraged or caught, and all this is achieved with a very low percentage of program expenses going to administrative costs and a very high percentage

Regional Integrated Behavioral Health Network

2011-05-10T21:45:00.000-07:00

Here is a student paper in favor of extending more services for mental illness and substance addictions into rural areas and small cities and towns, where such services are now often unavailable.

HB2982

The purpose of this bill is to provide more accessible treatment services for those suffering from a substance abuse illnesses along with mental health illnesses. Currently, it is difficult for people to find adequate services that fit their needs. The bill would create the Regional Integrated Behavioral Health Network Act to ensure the appropriate treatment would be made accessible and resources could be used efficiently and effectively. Rural areas are currently lacking in services, so the goal of the networks is to allow them to use the same treatment as the urban residents. They need to be able to access legitimate and appropriate care no matter where they may reside.

Statistically, there is an estimate of about 25% of people living in Illinois that are over eighteen years old that have had incidents with a mental or substance abuse disorder. Also, 700,000 Illinois residents that are adults have a serious mental illness. Finally, 240,000 Illinois children and adolescents suffer from a serious emotional disturbance. These people may be going without treatment at any point in time because no treatment center is located near them, which makes treatment less accessible, because the distance is a barrier. This is mostly caused from fragmentation, geographic inconsistency, lack of funds, psychiatric and other workforce shortages. The far distances to adequate treatment centers makes transportation an issue, as many low-income persons in less densely populated areas of the state live without owning cars, and cannot afford gas for regular long commutes even if they own cars. If they cannot reach a treatment facility, they cannot receive and benefit from treatment.

Since the people are not able to receive the proper treatment, they experience increased suffering, and may lose their ability to function in their social roles or even their daily activities. This loss of functioning and increase in suffering can push people to increase their use of medical services or emergency medical care. If drug treatment and mental health services were available and accessible, the persons receiving treatment would increase their productivity at work, or would be more likely to find employment. Their unemployment is causing many of them to become homeless. Persons who face addiction or mental illness without treatment or help may withdraw from their social support networks, or actively repulse those who love them and would care for them, and this decreasing desire to be a part of their family and/or communities may lead to additional problems. Persons with untreated mental illness and addictions are often unable to complete their schooling. These people are ending up behind bars or even dying. None of these scenarios or effects is an example of how we want our people to be living. It is not fair to them to not receive their proper treatment. Illinois needs to respond to the different regions to work out a more integrated system of treatment in which services are available in smaller towns and rural areas that are distant from the state’s cities. The correct care needs to be delivered at the appropriate time to the persons who desperately need it.

There are many goals associated with this bill, but there is one main one. The hopes are that the networks will be able to allow people to access the most effective treatment for their mental and substance abuse illnesses throughout Illinois, but focuses in rural areas of Illinois. It is most important for the different treatment centers to work together as to make the process run smoother. The people are suffering and it is having highly adverse effects not only on them, but also the community.

Illinois Dream Act

2011-05-10T08:44:00.000-07:00

Here is a paper by a social work student who was interested in the Illinois Dream Act. I think it's an interesting paper, and worth sharing. My comments are in the red typeface at the end of the editorial.

On May 4^th, SB 2185 was passed with a 45-11 vote. This bill will create a DREAM Fund, which will be a scholarship account entirely funded by private dollars, and it will give out scholarships to students without legal resident status seeking higher education. The fund would open up college savings programs and prepaid tuition programs to all Illinois residents. The eligibility requirements for a student to receive a scholarship include: lived with their parents or guardian while attending a public or private high school in Illinois, graduated from a public or private high school or received the equivalent of a high school diploma in Illinois, has attended an Illinois school for at least three years as of the date the student graduated from high school or received the equivalent of a high school diploma, and to have at least one parent who immigrated to the United States.

I have mixed feelings about this new bill. These students were brought here with their parents, they had no control over whether their parents had legal status or not, and so to deny them an education is cruel and a violation of international treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A while back Illinois passed a law so these residents could benefit from the in-state tuition rate and that was a fair step. And yet I am also worried that somehow American citizens of Illinois will have to pay for their education, for although American citizens who reside in Illinois and benefit from the taxes paid by undocumented workers (e.g., payroll taxes for Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, or Social Security that these workers will probably never collect, sales taxes, and even sometimes property and income taxes), I worry that the children of undocumented workers might receive public education subsidized by taxpayers (many without any children in public schools or universities) who expect their taxes to support only the citizens and legal residents in their communities. I know the bill says the scholarship funds will be from private dollars and donations, but this is Illinois; we’re not known for managing our money or our programs’ money the way we should. I don’t want to be seen as an uncaring person who is against the bill, but if these residents are of college age then shouldn’t they now know their undocumented status and either work on changing it before going to Illinois colleges and universities or else go to universities in the nations where they have legal status?

Yes I am an European-American but I worked just as hard to get into school and I have taken out loans to help pay for it. But sometimes it bugs me that if you are not European-American and a school has to fit the diversity quota for that year, then come on in and here is a scholarship for you just because of your ethnic background and not your academic achievement. It would just be nice to find a way for people to earn their education by following the law, and by not taking opportunities or funding away from the students who are legal immigrants and those who are American citizens.

One point you want to make is that there is a sort of compact between citizens and their government, and so residents who are not citizens stand in a special situation, and it seems that those residents who obey immigration regulations ought to be rewarded by receiving nearly equal treatment with citizens, while those residents who do not follow immigration laws or regulations ought to be forced to do so. You have not mentioned anything about a government’s responsibility to establish clear procedures and to process immigration cases at a reasonable speed, but I think you probably are assuming that we expect non-citizen residents to “follow the law and procedure” because we expect laws and procedures to be clear, fair, and administered with reasonable speed (which is not, unfortunately, the case for immigration case processing in our nation). But at any rate, it is clear that some citizens support their government because they conceive of their government as an expression of the common interests of citizens and legal residents. Inasmuch as the government may devote American lives and treasure to the support of undocumented non-citizen residents or foreign citizens living abroad, such citizens may feel the government is diminishing the resources available to support citizens and legal residents. So, it seems your opposition to public funding to support undocumented resident aliens must rest on this feeling that this is to some degree a breach of the contract and trust between citizens and government.

There is also the quite natural sentiment that laws established in democracies are the laws we as citizens want, and people who come to our land should follow our laws. Persons who live here without legal status are not obeying our laws, and are therefore demonstrating that they are willing to live in a way that contradicts the will of the citizens and legal residents. You are suggesting that the children of such households ought to take care of their status to become legal residents (but you do not examine whether we as a people have pushed our government to make this feasible or a possible option for such children), or you are suggesting (implying, but I have edited the paper to make it explicit) that such children ought to seek an education in the lands where they have citizenship. You are also concerned about ideals of equal opportunity and the principle of individual merit, and you somewhat object to policies that give more opportunities to individuals because of the groups those individuals happen to belong to, regardless of individual merit. Again, the principles, when spelled out, make sense.

The DREAM Fund is to be supported with private donations, rather than public funds, although some public funds will be used to administer it, I suppose. And various programs we have to give incentives to Illinois residents to send their children to schools in Illinois will now be open to persons whose resident status is undocumented or in limbo.

By the way, it is sometimes claimed that because undocumented foreign residents in the United States don’t have Social Security numbers, they therefore do not pay Medicare or Social Security withholding on the earned income. In fact, undocumented foreign workers who have jobs in the United States tend to use fake Social Security numbers. This is how employers and banks are starting to catch undocumented workers and account holders, by comparing the Social Security numbers reported and the names associated with those Social Security numbers in government databases. It’s true that some very casual labor jobs or agriculture jobs might pay cash only, without any withholding or taxes paid, but even in those cases where income taxes are evaded, most residents cannot escape paying sales taxes or (sometimes indirectly through their rent payments) property taxes.

Child Care Assistance Program

2011-05-09T15:48:00.000-07:00

Here is a paper one of my students wrote about child care subsidies in Illinois. I've included some comments at the end of the paper.

Senate Bill 1236 was introduced by Senator Toi W. Hutchinson and it amends the Illinois Public Aid Code. This requires the Department of Human Services to establish a co-payment scale that provides for cost sharing by families that receive child care services. The co-payment will be based on family income and family size, and also based on other factors when appropriate. The co-payments can be waived for families whose incomes are at or below the federal poverty level. This will set new co-payment levels for families participating in the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP)

The Illinois General Assembly understands the importance of child care for working families, and that child care is expensive for families with low income. The Department of Human Services provides child care support, but with rather than simply determining that a family does or does not get free childcare, a system of co-pays exists so that while childcare may be provided without cost to the poorest Illinois families who qualify, families with higher incomes and less need will pay a greater share of childcare costs, and the family co-payments increase as family incomes increase, until finally at some threshold the co-pay is so large that the child care support is simply no longer something the family qualifies to receive. the Illinois Department will cover child care costs for families in these categories: recipients of TANF who are participating in work and training activities, families transitioning from TANF to work, families at risk of becoming recipients of TANF, families with special needs, and working families with very low income. The department will look at families to see how whether they qualify, and to determine their co-pay based on their income and other factors.

The eligibility for child care benefits and amount of child care provided will vary based on family size, income, and other factors. To determine income eligibility for child care benefits, the department will annually, at the beginning of each fiscal year, establish one income threshold for each family size. This will be in relation to percentage of state median income for a family of that size, so that families with incomes below this line can have assistance and families with incomes above this line will be ineligible. Starting through and including fiscal year 2007, the specific threshold must be no less than 50% of the then current state median income for each family size. In 2009 (the latest year for which we have data), the median income for four-person families in Illinois was $75,484, so the threshold for cutting off child care support would need to be higher than $37,742) Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the specific threshold must be no less than 185% of the then current federal poverty level for each family size. In 2011, the poverty threshold for four-person families is $22,250, so the threshold for child care support for such a family needs to be over $41,162. Four-person families with incomes below this level would qualify for some child care assistance, although those near the threshold probably have co-pays that approach the cost of unsubsidized day care. The department will allow $7,500,000 annually for a test program for families who are income eligible for child care assistance, who are not recipients of TANF under Article IV, and who need child care assistance to participate in education and training activities.

According to the CCAP website, the following families may qualify for child care assistance:

· Those families where someone works and earns an income, but family incomes are low (presumably for a family of four, “low incomes” are incomes below $41,160, which is 185% of the Federal Poverty Line for such families.
· Families who receive TANF when the recipients are participating in their education and training and otherwise meeting their responsibilities.
· Teen parents who are seeking a high school degree or its equivalent.
· Families who are neither receiving TANF, nor earning incomes, but where the parent(s) is(are) pursuing additional education to improve their job opportunities.

Looking at the State Budget Book, I see that about 87,900 families receive help with child care. (see Chapter 9, page 29 of the Executive Budget for Fiscal Year 2012).

This is a huge budget item, as over $600 million was spent on this in FY 2010, and $618 million is expected to be put into this in FY 2011. The Executive budget was proposing a cut to $285 million on child care services in FY 2012. If there is a cut of that magnitude, I don’t understand what this will mean to the nearly 90,000 families receiving this aid. I’m also not clear on whether Senate Bill 1236 will even matter, if funding is cut so low. Certainly something will have to be done to increase co-pays, lower the income threshold so that fewer families with incomes over $25,000 receive the assistance, or else just reduce what the state will pay for child care. To put this in perspective, the Developmental Disabilities Services budget is only projected to be about $780,000 for FY 2012. I would have expected the Developmental Disabilities budget to have been approximately twice as high as the child care subsidies budget (it will be more than that if the cuts proposed by Quinn in the executive budget actually take place), but in FY 2011 the child care services budget is 81% of the developmental disability services budget.

Anecdotes about health care

2011-05-07T22:09:00.000-07:00

The following are some stories and anecdotes students posted in a discussion board. I've slightly changed a few of the posts to protect the identities of the students.

My story is about dentists rather than a medical doctor, but I feel like it still relates to a medical field of sorts.

My family has been on state funded insurance for quite some time now, and because not alot of doctors or dentist accept AllKids or other forms of state insurance the options for doctors and dentists to go to is slim. My parents didn't take me to the dentist for a really long time when i was younger. I don'tthink I'd gone for like 7 or 8 years because only certain dentists where we lived accepted the insurance we had and they were all still pretty far away from where we lived. So long story short, my senior year of high school i started have really bad sensitivity and pain in part of my mouth. The dentist that I'd gone to couldn't figure out what was going on.. He decided to do a root canal on on of my teeth to try and get the pain to stop. Well, they did the root canal, but then the state insurance my parents had me on, woudn't approve for me to get a the rest of the work and the crown put on after the root canal procedure was done. Me trying to get the crown procedure approved went on for like a year, and then finally it was time for to come to college here at UIS, I found out that when i turned 19, the state no longer allows you to be on the same plan as your parents for state insurance such as AllKids. Then insurance i now have through the university doesn't include dental insurance. After I'd had the rootcanal done on the first tooth I was still have pain in the same area. When the pain proved to be too much for me, I started going to a dentist here in Springfield. This dentist offices accepts a discount from the medical insurance that I have through the University, but it's not that great of deal. After I started going to this dentist, he informed me that i had an abcess on the tooth next to the tooth that i'd had the root canal done on that still didnt' ahve a crown placed on it. The abcess is sort of a big deal because it is an infection of the bone holding your tooth in place. I ended up paying $800 to have the abcess taken care of and I still don't have a crown on the root canal I had done almost three years ago! I need to have it re done if i want to save that tooth, it's just really hard not having dental insurance, because dental work is crazy expensive. I realize I probably could have avoided this had i taken better care of my teeth when i was younger, but the fact of the matter is, that because i didn't have good dental insurance as a kid, i wasn't taken to the dentist as much as i probably should have been.

****

Insurance companies honestly boggle my mind sometimes. It seems like they want to save money immediately, instead of thinking of long term damage or taking preventative measures.

My story sort of goes along with previous examples you gave. I've struggled with my weight my entire life so when I heard of the "lap band AP" procedure, I was interested to find out more. I did extensive research, and found out it wasn't an invasive procedure like gastric bypass—though I still wasn't sure I wanted to go to such drastic measures, it was definitely worth looking into. I talked to my insurance company and they quickly informed me that if I went ahead with the procedure, they would not cover it. By all physical standards I am "too healthy" for the surgery. I don't have diabetes, my blood pressure and cholesterol are both good, they said it wasn't something I need so it would be a "cosmetic procedure"

Needless to say, I didn't have $15,000 to go ahead with the surgery; so, it was no longer an option. The thing that I found funny is they didn't take the fact that this could potentially be a preventative measure into account. I'm healthy, now, but what about the future? Obviously most overweight individuals will have health problems at some point in their lives. So because I am healthy and overweight I don't qualify, but as soon as I become diabetic or have high blood pressure they'll pay for it. They do this, instead of just paying for it now, and potentially avoiding the health issues.

***

In general, the topic of health care is a delicate subject because of course as a social worker I want the entire world to be able to have affordable health care. there are just so many obstructions that get in the way of that happening.

I guess part of me also feels like, yeah I'm healthy now and it doesnt make sense that I have to pay for people that choose to smoke and drink and abuse drugs and are less healthy because of it - but in the back of my head, i always think that I am just one small slip up away from being that person. That humbles me and makes me more willing to put up with paying for people i shouldn't necessarily have to pay for.

One thing that did stay with me though was a quote from one of the readings. I went back and found it - "between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year from medical errors". Having a father that was one of those statistics 2 years ago made that a stat that really hit home for me. Just thought it was interesting and sad and something worth knowing for anyone that didn't get around to that particular reading.

***

I know how it is always easier to think of the bad instead of the good. I think there are pros and cons to almost everything, and that as a society we need to start looking at the bigger picture and not just focusing on the negative that impacts us. The story about my health insurance is a positive aspect and a negative aspect.

Since my mom is on Medicaid, there are some rules that did not allow me to be on her insurance anymore when I came to college. I had to get the school insurance. This was not a big deal to me, but then I realized with the school insurance I have to pay a co-pay for almost any clinic I go to and Health Services at the school does not take this insurance either (crazy, I know). I cannot see a dentist in Springfield for a normal teeth cleaning without having to pay $200. When I go to a government clinic in Chicago, I have to pay a co-pay of $45 or more depending on the clinic, when I did not have to do this before when I was on Medicaid with my mom. I rarely go to the doctor for check-ups because I do not want to spend the money that I feel can be used for something else. (I will pay for it all one way or another: either now or when I am older in bad health because I never got check-ups)

The best thing about my school insurance was when I had to go to the emergency room because I had the worst headaches that I ever had (I rarely get minor headaches). I could barely open my eyes to see, I could not be in the light, I did not want to eat because it hurt to chew, and I had to stand in the shower for at least an hour to feel a little better if any. I went to the hospital and had these tests done all for the doctor to tell me that I needed some medicine that I could have gotten the generic version at Walgreens. When I received my hospital bill for the MRI, the bed I slept in, and the doctor's fee it was over $3,000. After my insurance, I only ended up paying around $600. I know that this price is still a lot of money, but my insurance paid for way over half of the expenses. I did not look at that $600 as a burden; I looked at it as a blessing because I could have easily been stuck with the original bill. I was not happy to pay it, but I found out a secret when I paid it. Because I paid my bill on time (within the first month), the hospital gives a 10% discount that I did not know of (I bet most people don't), which lowered my expenses even less.

****

My grandfather was recently told by his physician that he needed to have surgery on his prostate. They scheduled his surgery and all he had to do was come in for a stress test. During his stress test the doctor realized something was wrong. My grandfather was immediately rushed into heart surgery. He had to have five stents put into his arteries, which is usually not done all in one surgery. My mother and my aunt are both registered nurses at the hospital where my grandfather was having the surgery done and the doctor knows our family well. Knowing that my grandfather needed his prostate surgery, the doctor wanted to avoid having separate surgeries to finish the stents so he carefully completed them all in one session. Everything turned out great and afterword my grandpa felt so much better. This Monday he was able to have surgery on his prostate which also went really well. Our family is blessed that the doctors noticed his condition and carefully and swiftly took care of it.

*****

I am around doctors all day long, and most of them are nice, but some of them are rude. You would also be surprised as to how ignorant some of them are. There are certain doctors that will not clean up their mess if they spilled it themselves. Then there are the other ones that look down on you, as if you are stupid and do not understand them.

My story happened two years ago. I got LASIK eye surgery done here in Springfield by a respected doctor and I thought everything was fine. Well two months after my surgery, the doctor sent me to a specialist because he said an infection was growing under my cornea. I continually asked him how this could have happened and he blew me off and made excuses. I went to St. Louis to the eye specialist, and he told me that the only way I could have got this infection was from contaminated utensils. I couldn't believe it! I tried to talk to the original doctor about it, but he was vague. However, he did pay my check-ups and new glasses. I believe that he felt guilty. After two years, my infection is cleared up and only have minimal scarring on my corneas. I did talk to a lawyer, but they would not take my case because it is too hard to prove medical malpractice and I didn't have any extensive permanent damage.

I believe that I should have at least been reimbursed for my surgery costs; it was out of pocket as an elective. However, since our healthcare system relies on making profits beyond the norm, this will never happen.

*****

I’m not sure if this story relates but i think so. I am not one to like to go to doctors and i try to avoid them at all cost. When one of my friends started to detassel with me his skin became incredibly irritated. It started to turn colors and just itch so he went to the doctor. They sent him home with the littlest of meds and said it was nothing. It kept getting worse and worse and started to bother him a little bit. He went back and the doctor refilled his prescription and said it will get better soon. He finally went to get a second opinion and it turned out to be a staff infection that had got in his blood. The first doctor just didnt take the time and tried to get him out of there with as little attention as possible. It is frustrating because this is the reason why i dont like going. Some just dont care really and just try to get you in and out without any fuss.

***

I actually want to share a good story about doctors. I have many "bad" stories about the health care system, but this winter a very awesome thing happened to my family. My aunt is a women who has never been to the doctor. we all knew it had been a long time, but when she got sick this winter and was taken to the hospital, she told them it had been since 1978!! all the doctors were blown away from this. She had all kinds of problems going on. some were cataracts, heart problems, diabetes, goiters over 14 inches!, and fibroid problems. So of course my aunt was really really scared and upset. she had to have all kinds of tests done to check for cancer and to see what was causing all these problems. There was one doctor who was just so nice to her and showed great empathy. He went out of his way to make sure she was ok. he stayed late and talked to her for hours about changing diets, what was going on, and what he was going to do for her. He called personally every morning and night to check on her and when he learned how long it had been since she had seen a doctor, he did not react like the other doctors. Other doctors would say things like, "how could you let this happen," what is wrong with you, don't you know you need to get check ups and see a doctor regularly!" This may be true, but saying those things to her does not make the situation any better. She knows she should have seen doctors over the years and have taken care of her self better. But having this doctor talk to her with respect and with care really helped her, and I really think he helped her get her life back on track. I am grateful he was there that night in the ER!

******

I was 22 years old when I gave birth to my son. My husband worked for John Deere. We had excellent insurance, they paid for everything. We did not have any out of pocket expenses. I was able to go to any doctor I wanted. I had no idea where to go. Everyone I knew who had been pregnant were single moms and they had all gone to the same physician. So that is where I went. During labor I developed complications and another physician had to be called in. This doctor treated me like dirt. He was insulting, rude, and dehumanizing. I ended up having to have a c-section. The days following the surgery I was interviewed by several different people. Because of my ignorance I chose a family practice resident for my physician. Most of their patient's were on Medicaid. When the specialist was called he was angry because my problem was interfering with his tennis plans. He just wanted to get this over with. He thought I was another over weight, unwed, poor, woman giving birth. He actually cut my sons face with the scalpel during the delivery. One of the nurses reported him, that is what prompted the investigation. Nothing that I am aware of happened to the physician, but it was the beginning of a learning experience for me.

***

this past year I was denied health insurance. My parents had me fill out all these different papers about my health and if I had been to the hospital lately and everything. I think this all was to renew my health insurance. it was a couple weeks later we received a letter stating that I was not granted health insurance due to the fact that I had iron deficiency! I was so mad that i was not given insurance over a simple health problem. my parents were upset and we kept trying and trying to get insurance. so for a while i did not have health insurance and luckily i did not have to go to the hospital during that time. well, to cut it short, I finally was able to receive health insurance, but i hope i don't run into this problem again.

***

My mother has been on disability for about ten years. She has gotten progressively worse over the years, and is now to the point where she is bedridden almost 24 hours of the day. She and my father are still married, and he makes good money to help support the family, but he is also providing for my sick grandfather and my disabled uncle and sometimes even his youngest daughter who is a poor college student :) The whole situation is confusing, but my complaint is that the monthly allowance for people on disability is not enough. My dad does not make enough to support four people by himself; especially four people who have costly medical bills. I think that certain people on disability in special situations, similar situations to my family’s, should be eligible for more money from social security.

Medicare Part D

2011-05-07T15:43:00.000-07:00

Here is a student paper describing the Affordable Care Act and its means for addressing the "donut hole" you might hear about in policy debates about medical coverage for seniors.

On March 23, 2010 President Barack Obama signed a piece of legislation that enacted the Medicare Part D program which addresses the issue known as the “donut hole”. This legislation is called the Affordable Care Act. Before this legislation was passed much of the elderly population struggled to pay for their prescription medications. The previous system would help the elderly and disabled population pay for their prescription medication to a particular monetary cut off. Once an elderly or disabled person’s prescription medication costs exceeded a certain monetary amount, their provider would no longer assist them in paying for prescription medication. Once a Medicare subscriber exceeded a particular amount of money spent on prescribed medications, their Medicare provider would again help the care subscriber pay for their prescribed medications. This situation is known as the donut hole.

Until the Affordable Care Act many elderly and disabled Medicare subscribers would have to pay for their medication cost completely out of pocket after their medication cost exceeded about $2,840. For those individuals who prescription medication exceeded this amount, they became totally responsible for all expenses. Seniors represent about 34% of the population that is prescribed medication (Rubin, 2010). Prior to the Affordable Car Act many elderly (about 2/5) were not able to correctly take their medications because they could not afford to purchase their prescribed medications or they felt the prescribed medication was not useful (Rubin, 2010). The Medicare Part D program of the Affordable Care Act is a necessary tool to providing affordable and needed care to overlooked populations.

The purpose for the Medicare Part D program of the Affordable Care Act is to assist the elderly and disabled population that fall in the donut hole so that they may afford their prescribed medications without struggling financially. The Medicare Part D program is set up so that after a Medicare subscriber spends more than $2,840 they will be in the donut hole and will remain in the donut hole until they spend more than$4,550 a year on prescribed medications. The major difference with the Medicare Part D program and the medication system is while one is in the donut hole they will receive 50% discount on covered brand name prescribed medications (Bihari, 2010). This 50% discount continues until the total out of pocket cost reaches $4,550.

The Medicare Part D program of the Affordable Care Act is very important to help the elderly and disabled population receive the prescribed medications they need to live a healthy life. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, financing the Medicare Part D program of the Affordable Care Act will be about $55 billion in 2011 (Kaiser, 2010). The financing for this Medicare spending is estimated to come from general revenues (82%), beneficiary premiums (10%), and state contributions (7%), according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (Kaiser, 2010).

Medicare Part D is a program from the Affordable Care Act and the goal of this program is to make prescribed medications more affordable to the elderly and disabled on Medicare. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “Closing the coverage gap by 2020 is expected to bring additional relief to millions of enrollees” (Kaiser, 2010).

References

Bihari, M. (2010, November 23). Medicare Part D Donut Hole- Understanding the Medicare Part

D Donut Hole. Welcome to Health Insurance at About.com. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/medicare/a/understanding_part_d.htm?p=1

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010, October 20). The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. The

Henry J, Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7044-11.pdf

Rubin, A. & Rubin, H. (2010, August 27). Prescription Drugs and the Elderly. The Rubins.

Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://therubins.com/geninfo/eldpresc.htm

Scores on final exam

2011-05-06T15:39:00.000-07:00

Here were the scores on the final exam.
Aside from four people who probably had test anxiety, I'm pleased with the results.
The previous post for this blog showed the 101 multiple-choice questions. There were nine additional short answer questions for extra credit.