If it were just seniors and genuine people-in-need and not for the fraud I’d probably be a little more receptive to government-run programs. It just seems that many government programs have one thing in mind-to get the people addicted to the handout and buy power for the politicians.

Not all charitable institutions are faith-based; but there is a point, churches could be more involved-many are in big ways, too. I wonder if they/we could do more if we weren’t taxed so heavily for programs that seem to have no system of checks and balances?

I googled the question you asked and you are correct. Most seniors are on Medicare and not Medicaid but it is also true that approximately 23% * do receive Medicaid, a number that would certainly affect seniors.

Your next question is,for me, more problematic, since we *are* the state. In many,if not most, cases the same people who are drawing from services have, at another point in their lives, contributed to the state. From that perspective the folks on Medicaid have every right to a voice about how,when,where. To ignore that truth is to cheapen the people in our society who just don’t have much and may need assistance.It’s true that *someone* must decide when, how, where, how much will be paid out or in many cases,returned to the citizens. But that’s the crux,eh? I mean why are we all here (on this forum)?

We are here generally to discuss, debate, argue, rant…..about the issues of the day. Some of us agree with what the folks currently in power are doing. Some of us disagree. Regardless, we all have that right to determine in our own hearts what we think and to express that. I know you agree with that but the fact is, we will never have complete consensus on *any* issue, least of all what the state should do as far as helping or not helping folks.

Speaking to your comparison between borrowing from a bank and the state providing services for it’s people, well I just ain’t quick enough to keep up with your reasoning on that.

As for the state getting out of the welfare business, if we who identify ourselves as Christians had been meeting our obligations all along, welfare would never have been needed.

Another question; if someone takes money from a governmental body for a service, isn’t it fair for that government to dictate how (or where) the money is going to be spent? In other words, if someone is on Medicaid (state run program), is it not reasonable for the state to dictate where one must go to receive that service? How would that be different than the AFDC or WIC program dictating what can be purchased? How is that different than borrowing money from a bank (or individual) and that entity wanting to know how that money is going to be spent or on what item? The borrower (or beneficiary in this case) becomes the slave to the lender (or provider), right? Why then, would the state not contract to a provider who would provide the service at the (theoretically) lowest cost, then have the recipients go to that provider?

If this is true, then that is the paradox of the system and is another reason the state should get out of the welfare business, right?

I’m just asking.

One difference, by the way, in this state system and the federal one is that the federal one is mandating that everyone become a part of it; the state one is for those who voluntarily participate.

I am against socialism at every level. I support any movement that protects the US Constitution and the limits on the federal government. If President Obama is violating that, then the challenge is rightfully taken on. The courts can decide whether it stays or not. That’s the process is it not-state or federal?

Or is it not okay to challenge Dear Leader?

I said…Yep No matter who buys into it and our Republican legislature has bought into it. The point here (I’ll explain it to you) is the irony of the conservative shills in our country screaming socialist at Obama while doing the same kinds of things whenever they find some power. For example the Republican party and it’s new found love of balanced budgets. This is new since we have had a Democratic president.

And…if you think the main reason they are fighting Obama on health care is that it *may* be unconstitutional, then you haven’t been keeping up. The *weapon* they are using may be the courts but their goal is simply to get Obama out of office and undo anything he has done.Their motive is to cut out more dollars for insurance companies and their big campaign contributors.They have lied and will lie (birthers for example) to do so.

He gets castigated for doing some of the same things Republicans originally proposed or supported.

As for the governor, all he has to do is not sign the laws the legislature sends him.

Where is the Tea Party screaming about this?