A new data point on Utah birthrates


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it is better to be financially independent.  Don't you?

Indeed...  I don't even have an issue with people who suffer some kind of reverse getting help so they can get back up to being independent again.  The general problem with government aid is that it people tend to get on it and never get off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fether said:

Forgive me for my ignorance on this subject... but is receiving government aid bad?

I don't think it's "bad". As in those who have used medicaid have need to repent or something. On principle there are serious problems with government aid though, particularly if one sees socialistic ideologies as equivalent to Satan's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it is better to be financially independent.  Don't you?

Well yes... but if your not and it isn't because of being lazy... is one just suppose to starve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, Fether said:

Well yes... but if your not and it isn't because of being lazy... is one just suppose to starve?

I don't think any of us here want to see anyone starve. 

My concern with government hand outs is that they generally lack oversight and are much more open to abuse than private, charitable hand outs. If you have virtually unlimited money (like the government) and very little accountability for when things go wrong (like the government) things can spiral out of control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fether said:

Well yes... but if your not and it isn't because of being lazy... is one just suppose to starve?

Of course not.  The question, though, is whether fully thirty-one percent of parents in Utah--or seventy-odd percent of parents in New Mexico--are unable to pay for their own health care for reasons other than laziness.

The success rate of a society should be measured by how many people don't need government help; not by how many people do need it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think it's "bad". As in those who have used medicaid have need to repent or something.

Not all but considering how many game the system and are not honest in their dealings (temple rec question) - repentance is definitely in order for some.

An example - my brother's active mormon neighbor (in UT btw) purposely refused work so he wouldn't lose his gvmnt help.

 

Edited by my two cents
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, my two cents said:

Not all but considering how many game the system and are not honest in their dealings (temple rec question) - repentance is definitely in order for some.

An example - my brother's active mormon neighbor (in UT btw) purposely refused work so he wouldn't lose his gvmnt help.

 

That makes the individual bad. Not the program itself. Individuals can be bad within any system. Individuals can also be good within any system. Systems can be bad or good as well regardless of the people in them. It doesn't matter what sort of system you have if people are evil. Evil people will make for an evil world, regardless of they system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fether said:

Well yes... but if your not and it isn't because of being lazy... is one just suppose to starve?

No, no one should starve or be without medical care. We need a safety net for those that really need it. Individually we need to be responsible for ourselves and our children.  If you're on medicaid because you lost your job, or are disabled etc I think we need that safety net.  

I will probably get blasted for being judgemental but there it is for the record I am not singling anyone out this is just my opinion.  AS A GENERAL RULE: If you're a young married couple and don't have insurance don't make babies.  

Our system is ripe with abuse, with very little oversight as stated by @MormonGator.  

Responsible adults should make adult decisions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Fether said:

Well yes... but if your not and it isn't because of being lazy... is one just suppose to starve?

This is a forced dichotomy.  And a false one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

No, no one should starve or be without medical care. We need a safety net for those that really need it. Individually we need to be responsible for ourselves and our children.  If you're on medicaid because you lost your job, or are disabled etc I think we need that safety net.  

I will probably get blasted for being judgemental but there it is for the record I am not singling anyone out this is just my opinion.  AS A GENERAL RULE: If you're a young married couple and don't have insurance don't make babies.  

Our system is ripe with abuse, with very little oversight as stated by @MormonGator.  

Responsible adults should make adult decisions.

 

I'm not going to blast you in the way you might think I would, but I do disagree with the idea of not making babies if you don't have insurance. Responsibility is not avoiding doing anything with risk. It's taking ownership of that risk. If you gamble and you lose, then you are accountable for the loss. The problem with government handouts (socialist principles) is that they are all about removing accountability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Fether said:

Well yes... but if your not and it isn't because of being lazy... is one just suppose to starve?

Government is not the answer to everything.  IT SHOULDN'T BE.

Question:  Is one supposed to starve?

Answer:  No.  That's what FAMILY is for.  And if Family can't handle it, then that's where the Church or friends comes in.  You don't have family or  Church or friends?  Then the problem is much bigger than any government should take on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

But don't mothers need more than just the deliverY? Prenatal check ups? Ultrasound to look out for protential problems eg breech birth? 

This might come as a surprise to you but you can actually get Prenatal check-ups even ultrasound without needing to carry insurance.  And trust me, it can be cheaper than what you're paying in monthly premiums if you go directly to your doctor and negotiate rates.  How do I know?  I've done it.  And it wasn't hard.  I simply went to my OB and told him, I'm self-pay.  But yeah, that's not possible anymore with Obamacare so you're now forced to pay tons of money for your medical care.  Which is really the main reason why a lot of people are on Medicaid.

By the way, you know you're in a first world country when all pregnancies are considered a medical issue.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That makes the individual bad. Not the program itself. Individuals can be bad within any system. Individuals can also be good within any system. Systems can be bad or good as well regardless of the people in them. It doesn't matter what sort of system you have if people are evil. Evil people will make for an evil world, regardless of the system.

From a byu talk given by a member of the seventy in *1980*:

If higher concepts are formed from and built upon unsound concepts, the pyramid has a weak foundation and will crumble. When it crumbles, it takes with it all the concepts it has supported, and the fall thereof can be great. The welfare program of our nation is based upon unsound concepts, which today are threatening us with economic disaster.

There are other good points as well - https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/royden-g-derrick_gospel-concepts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My parents raised 11 kids - without insurance.  They also went to great lengths to make ends meet.  Some of my earliest memories are of the muskrat (trapped by dad during off-work hours) skins hanging on our back porch to dry before dad took them to the buyer.  Also, our winter meat came from dad's hunt in the fall.  

Just a couple examples of what can be done in order to be self-reliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, my two cents said:

From a byu talk given by a member of the seventy in *1980*:

If higher concepts are formed from and built upon unsound concepts, the pyramid has a weak foundation and will crumble. When it crumbles, it takes with it all the concepts it has supported, and the fall thereof can be great. The welfare program of our nation is based upon unsound concepts, which today are threatening us with economic disaster.

There are other good points as well - https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/royden-g-derrick_gospel-concepts/

A. I disagree. Pyramids do not work that way. The foundation of a pyramid is it's foundation (base), not it's pyramidion. A wicked people establish a wicked government. Not the other way around.

B. Even if true, it's beyond my point, which certainly (if you've read my other posts) is not supportive of a welfare state, which as I've said, I consider pretty well in line with Satan's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, my two cents said:

My parents raised 11 kids - without insurance.  They also went to great lengths to make ends meet.  Some of my earliest memories are of the muskrat (trapped by dad during off-work hours) skins hanging on our back porch to dry before dad took them to the buyer.  Also, our winter meat came from dad's hunt in the fall.  

Just a couple examples of what can be done in order to be self-reliant.

You can provide meat for your family for a full winter just by hunting? Wow, I had no idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The general problem with government aid is that .. people tend to get on it and never get off.

People will call me a conspiracy theorist, but:

a) At best, it's so poorly designed and administered that it's exceedingly difficult to get off it (i.e. it doesn't help you to get off it).

b) At worst, it is designed and administered to ensure people don't get off it (and there are cultural and industrial influences to ensure this doesn't change).

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

We need a safety net for those that really need it.

And that safety net should be 100% manned by family, friends, churches, and others who are able, willingly giving to support those in need.  Government should go jump in a lake rather than be involved in this net.  (It's too late to go back to that short of complete collapse, but that's how it should be.)

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Then the problem is much bigger than any government should take on.

Now there's a beautiful idea that is lost on modern society - that a problem can be too big for government.

45 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You can provide meat for your family for a full winter just by hunting? Wow, I had no idea. 

That's just because nobody likes alligator meat that much. :P

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You can provide meat for your family for a full winter just by hunting? Wow, I had no idea. 

I'm not sure if you were being facetious or not.  But I'll go ahead and talk about this.

You bet.  A mule deer can provide something like 50 to 80 lbs of meat.  That's often enough for one to two months of meat (+ other items from a root cellar and canning) for an average family.

A caribou can provide 100 to 150 lbs of meat.  Elk, even more.  One elk could provide two month's worth of meat for a family my size.  Two elk throughout the winter would be plenty.  And you can also do small game hunting for pheasant, rabbit, etc. to supplement that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure if you were being facetious or not.  But I'll go ahead and talk about this.

You bet.  A mule deer can provide something like 50 to 80 lbs of meat.  That's often enough for one to two months of meat (+ other items from a root cellar and canning) for an average family.

A caribou can provide 100 to 150 lbs of meat.  Elk, even more.  One elk could provide two month's worth of meat for a family my size.  Two elk throughout the winter would be plenty.  And you can also do small game hunting for pheasant, rabbit, etc. to supplement that.

Nevermind that Texas spring / summer meet-up, we should just head over to Carb's place for the winter meat up... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, zil said:

 

And that safety net should be 100% manned by family, friends, churches, and others who are able, willingly giving to support those in need.  Government should go jump in a lake rather than be involved in this net.  (It's too late to go back to that short of complete collapse, but that's how it should be.)

 

I think I disagree, not everyone is religious, and will not turn to religion for help, some people for whatever reason have no family, some people outlive their friends and family. One gentleman comes to mind he is 94 and has outlived everyone.  Then you have your mentally ill and otherwise afflicted. 

I think that there is a role for government, albeit a tiny one but there is a place for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I think I disagree, not everyone is religious, and will not turn to religion for help, some people for whatever reason have no family, some people outlive their friends and family. One gentleman comes to mind he is 94 and has outlived everyone.  Then you have your mentally ill and otherwise afflicted. 

I think that there is a role for government, albeit a tiny one but there is a place for it.

Yes, there is a role for government - keep the economy stable and provide a secure nation so that young people will have the opportunity to befriend 94 year olds and the mentally infirm.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Fether said:

Forgive me for my ignorance on this subject... but is receiving government aid bad?

No.

Note the exact opposite response above me.

We can be of opposite opinions and still be good people I think.

The church teaches us to try to be self sufficient, but there are times when people are not or cannot be.  I think the commands of the Lord are to Love him with all our heart, might, mind and strength and the second is like to it, to love our neighbor like our selves.

If we were living the true higher law, there would be NO poor (and NO RICH) among us.  Obviously we are not charitable enough to do this.  Instead of being charitable enough (and this includes me) we blame the poor for the problems instead of seeing that it may be something that is there to test us, to see if WE will be valiant and many of them perhaps already were...it is not their test...but ours.  Others (and this really applies to me) are too selfish and are afraid of the future.  WE want to make sure we have enough stored up or ready for retirement, future payments, safety net...etc. to give as much as we probably could to the poor.  This means that we do not live in a Terrestrial society where all have enough for their needs.

However, as we do have rich and poor among us, we are fortunate in many nations which have a system to help those in need in various ways.  Why anyone would want the poor to suffer or starve, or die in our streets, or say every man for themselves is sort of puzzling to me.  I've been to nations that are that way, and it really is NOT PRETTY.  It makes one appreciate modern western society far more in many ways, especially that we don't have the poor sitting themselves to die because there is no food, or others are dying in their 50s and sometimes 40s (or earlier) in larger numbers because the medical treatments are not for everyone are where they live.

I do not see how it is Christlike to try to ignore the poor or to blame them and say we are more deserving children simply because...rather than do what is more Christian.  The Lord stated that if we do it to the least of these, we do it unto him.  We should remember that during his ministry, he himself in some ways might be technically considered homeless and wandering.  How would we have treated him?

Anyways, that's personal opinion.  Luckily, the church does not force one way of thought or another.  It does not condemn someone for being poor, or receiving government aid (and, at times, leaders are told to try to help members in need any way they can with the resources available.  Despite what some may think, NOT a ton of Fast Offerings are there to help every ward, and some wards do NOT have the resources to pay everything for everyone in need...at times government resources ARE the route that is the best suggestion) nor does it condemn someone who is against government aid.

It is largely up to the opinion and desires of each member in that regard, and thus you can have those who have entirely different opinions from each other who are both members in good standing with temple recommends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share