Welfare...what if?

  1. I was thinking today (yes, only today)..

    I'm terribly disturbed by the tons of patient's I get who have pathetic parents. They are usually on medicaid, the middle child of six kids all under the age of five and mom thinks her sole job while in the hospital is to sleep (that is IF she even stays with the child).

    What if..
    We began regulating welfare so that one is required to be capable of providing for a child prior to having the right to call themselves a parent. This would include feeding and diapering the child. So, with this, the first time a welfare parent has a child, we place that child in foster care until a time the parent(s) can prove they are capable of caring for the child. We can even take the tax money that is given to the parents in the form of welfare, and fund institutions for these kids or fund foster parent's. Also, we could provide (time limited) assistance to encourage these parents to become educated and employable. If a woman delivers the second child and is still unable to provide for that child, mandatory sterilization. I know this all sounds harsh, but these poor kids are being left to fend for themselves..and it's a viscious cycle. I think something like this would, in record time, deter those who neglect their kids and sponge off society. It would also provide the kids, of those who are unwilling to change, stability.

    thoughts? opinions?
    let's please keep this civil. i am honestly not trying to start a flame thread..
    would just like to hear some suggestions and opinions on dealing with this growing problem.
    •  
  2. 38 Comments

  3. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by nurs4kids
    If a woman delivers the second child and is still unable to provide for that child, mandatory sterilization.
    I think that is an excellent idea.

    Good topic, it is a growing problem. I see more and more women choosing not to marry so that welfare pays for the birth etc.

    Time limited assistance, parenting classes, all good ideas. We do need stiffer criteria/regulations for these parents to "prove" they can provide and nurture their children.
  4. by   Robin61970
    I also have to agree......there are too many people having child after child just to stay on welfare. If they are under the age of 5 and not in school then a single mom can draw welfare and stay on HUD to care for her child.......think this has anything to do with it? On the other hand though.......they won't do sterilization on anyone under the age of 27 I think here in Arkansas. Most of those we are speaking of have 3-4 children by then. Hell alot have 2 by the time they get out of high school......so it almost defeats the purpose if the laws on sterilization aren't changed.......
  5. by   kimmicoobug
    No. I am sorry, this wouldn't have worked for me. Ok, I never went on welfare, but I was a young, unwed, uneducated, and pregnant at 20. I did go on food stamps a couple of times (both times while I was in school), WIC, and I got Medicaid for pregnancies. I certainly didn't plan on having my child when I did, but I am so, so glad I did. She was the kick in the butt that I needed to get serious about life. I couldn't afford her, but I just loved that child to no end and would have been devastated if someone put her in foster care until I could. Five years later, I have another, and things are very tight, and I have racked up my credit to help provide, but I know that in 8 months, I can provide a living wage. BTW, I ended up marrying the dad.

    However.....I do understand your post. Sometimes, I wonder about some of these parents out there. And I do see cases where children are around drug abuse, alcohol abuse, indecent behavior. Sadly, a lot of these cases are people I know personally. They are a few years younger than me, usually, but have known them to be several years older. If they were getting government assistance, I wouldn't know.

    I don't want you to think that I am attacking your post at all, because I know tone can be miscommunicated, but if that were to be put into effect, then I would have been one of the ones that would have lost a child and missed out. I probably would not have been able to breastfeed either and that has been one of the best experiences of my life.

    Well, those are my thoughts on the subject. I am pretty sure when you posted this thread, you didn't have people like me in mind, but if this were the case, it would be people like me who would lose. This is an interesting topic.
  6. by   kimmicoobug
    just reread your post. What exactly did you mean by welfare? Money, food stamps, health insurance, daycare, very low income housing? All of it, or any aspect of it. Are you talking about parents who apply for money? Or the public in general?
  7. by   kelligrl
    While I totally understand your frustration--I can't think that this is the answer...I too, was pregnant early in life (19). I couldn't afford it and had NO idea what I was getting into, but my boyfriend (now husband) and I worked our behinds off and didn't take a cent from anyone. While I understand that you aren't referring to those like us, the problem is that we would have lost...we were POOR!! Lived in the ghetto on minimum wage and student loans (I'm gonna be paying those for the rest of my LIFE!!LOL:chuckle ) I technically would have been one to have my child taken away...too much room for interpretation with something like this. Who would decide, and how would it be decided? And what would we do with all those kids?? Foster care is so deeply overburdened, even now. And to be honest, I believe that it wouldn't end up deterring any of the numerous unwanted and neglected children that you were referring to in your post. They are born of women who (usually) know only poverty and hopelessness. They don't know better and generally don't care to. Products of their environment, so to speak. The cycle would continue, and continue...all the while continuing to overstress an already overburdened foster care system...Good debate topic, though. It will be interesting to see people's responses.
  8. by   Q.
    I've often fantasized that after your FIFTH child, and on welfare, you get sterilized.
  9. by   tiger
    we had a discussion like this a long time ago and my suggestion was this. people who recieve welfare (except those that CANNOT work due to physical reasons) should be required to live in a home(for lack of a better word).sort of like a dorm. they would be required to work in the home as well as learn someway to support themselves /or look for a job, or work. parenting classes would be offered if not required for the parents. they could work in the home by doing laundry, babysitting, cooking, etc... they would have to follow certain rules to be allowed to stay in the home. like curfew(sp), no booze or drugs, etc. this way they have an incentive to get off of their butts. plus a helping hand to do it. thoughts?
  10. by   Robin61970
    Kelli and Kimmi.....you two did not choose to sit on welfare and have more children just to "milk" the system. If you need it to get on your feet and help out that's one thing....I am talking about people who do nothing but play babymaker to stay on assistance in my post. I am about to go on food stamps and perhaps HUD so that I don't have to go to work while in school, but I know that it is a temporary thing and that I am using it in order to better myself. I don't fault anyone for using it to better themselves or to get through some hard times, but I do have a problem with the above babymakers......my opinion.....but as I stated....with sterilization laws and such it would never work.......
  11. by   at your cervix
    I always just wish that people would have a sense of responsibilty for themselves. I fully believe in public assistance programs, but it makes me so mad to see people take advantage. We often see pt's come in during the evening hours with very vague complaints of pain, usually started 1 week ago, really not there now, but just thought they should get it checked out. I think it would be a great idea if people on medicaid were required to pay at least a small fee for services, such as $5.00 for dr office visit, $10.00 for er, $50.00 for ambulance etc. It just seems to me that there are so many people that take advantage of these programs!!!
  12. by   SmilingBluEyes
    why FIFTH, Suzy? Just plain curious. Why screw up FIVE lives rather than one, if you believe sterilization is a suitable answer? honestly.... NOT being rude, just wondering where that number comes from.
  13. by   l.rae
    l think pple should be given temporary asst. and a limited amnt of time to get their act together , not have another kid to stay on the public dole...a lot of good ideas here....but if ever implemented, the ACLU and flaming liberals would be all over it like flies on a dead possum.................l saw an interview on FOX news back when the beating mom was the big news, and l don't know who this clown was they were talking to, but he was sure all the conservatives who cut the aid and social programs were to blame for this mom's abuse to her dgtr....can you belive it...he said if there had been MORE social programs available, things like this wouldn't happen.......geesh.........LR
  14. by   Brownms46
    Hi Nurs4kids...

    First I don't believe either the idea about placing children insitutions, foster care or having a home for unweds or those on public assistance would work or should even be attempted.

    Second what would putting the child in an insitutution or in foster care,(saying that you could even find one, as there have never been enough foster paents), do to bonding between parent and child? What would keep the women from just leaving the child where they're at, and just having another child?? Even if you could find foster homes that were willing to take these infants, what would happen to those who were placed in bad foster homes?? What legal ramifications would this cause for the state?? What would be the cost for such care??

    Second, there isn't even facilities to take care of all the mentally ill out there either, let alone an insitituion for infants. How would this affect the children??

    Next...placing them in work homes. Where would these homes be, and what community would want these kind of home in their midst?? What would be the cost of feeding and providing the facilities to house these families?? In affect you would be taking about their freedom and treating them as if they were criminals! Just because they messed up and had a child?? What would keep them from having more children, and what would be the pentaly if they did?? Throw them out???

    I realize something needs to be done, but I don't agree this is the way to solve the problem. Putting people a bunch of strangers together in crowded settings would only IMO lead to more trouble!

close