Want Medicaid? Ditch the Vanity Plate

I will say what I said before how does he even know how someone paid for that $30 tag. It could've been a gift they may have used their tax check because yes some people who receive medicaid work especially those whose children receive medicaid. As a matter of fact many of them work for the State. Many children of state workers if they're not on medicaid they're on CHIPS but lets remember work works!

Republican conservatives are truly confusing. Aren't they the ones who want less government regulation? I suppose that only counts if its regulating things on their particular bandwagon ... big business, Wall Street, the 1 percent, etc. God know if you're poor or a minority you need more regulation, not less. [snark off]

Sounds like a bunch of legislation looking for problems.

All this CRAZINESS is coming from the party of "small government", "less government".... WOW. I don't think some of them understand Medicaid. State agencies should give briefing sessions on how these programs actually work which might de-bunk some of the myths they have about a particular program. Maybe someone bought their mom's tag and wanted them to have a special tag. And all this testing just creates another level of bureaucracy that has to manage and implement all these new policies. The CRAZINESS never stops.

The courts will not allow the state to drug test Medicaid recipients, so why waste money and effort on it?

How exactly are single mothers--who make up the majority of public aid recipients--supposed to do 20 hours of community service a week? At least so-called "welfare reform" provided the promise of child care, a promise that has not been kept. But here, there is not even an empty promise.

The common thread in all these proposals is contempt for the poor. Given how clueless these legislators seem, we would all be better off drug-testing them. Let's get them out digging ditches. That way, they would be making a worthwhile contribution to society, instead of making themselves look like buffoons.

thanks Brian and its based on the assumption that no one on assistance works when many people who get assistance do have jobs and many who don't there is a reason. It's insulting to act like poor people don't work or volunteer many of these same people would volunteer if they weren't busy surviving. I for one am poor, have seven kids, get food stamps and I still volunteer as much as I can. My children even volunteer in the community and we donate to local charities(clotheis etc).I was working but now I am not due to health problems how in the hell am I suppose to volunteer for 20 hours a week on top of dr's appt's taking care of my sick mother, myself and my kids. I am so sick of these politicians taking a small minority of people on aid and making them the poster children the programs. It's garbage! I say drug test them before they can get there state funded pay checks. Drug test CEO's before their companies can get special tax breaks and other corporate welfare. Ugh I'm done typing in anger

No, no, no a thousand times NOOOOO!!!! The common thread is that those who are struggling, having successfully petitioned the right of those who actually, uh... dig ditches. Note that it's _you_ who demonstrate contempt for poor, working people with comments like

Let's get them out digging ditches. That way, they would be making a worthwhile contribution to society...

While I am truly sympathetic to the plight of those those who suffer (like the angry-typing commenter above), what's not obvious to the non-moocher, ditch-digging guy like me who *pays for your Green Stamps* is that it is my duty or obligation to support you. What are you doing for me?

First of all S&H Green Stamps were stamps that people collected for purchasing items in a variety of stores, pasted them to sheets and redeemed for discounts and prizes. They were popular post-Depression and, while still available, have largely gone the way of the horseless carriage (and, for that matter, "welfare").

You might be referring to Food Stamps, the popular name of a federal program that's actually called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP offers benefits averaging around $135 a month to about 45 millions households that are at or near the poverty line, enabling them to buy food.

(Much more on SNAP and other public assistance calculations: here. Warning... that link assumes an actual interest in facts.)

As for the line "What are you doing for me?" the line deserves no response, but I'll give it anyway. Many of the people who receive aid are raising the children that we eventually (a.) send to war to "defend" us, (b.) put to work in any variety of ways to improve society and (c.) ideally, feed, clothe, house and educate in a way that will enable them to overcome the hand they've been dealt as children, thus becoming education professionals and valued citizens of our great republic.

(Some of these programs offer the added benefit of helping Americans to *not die in the streets*, which means less potential damage for your family's SUV.)

One of the FUNDAMENTAL things that people arguing against a variety of public assistance programs need to come to terms with is that fact that able-bodied adults are, by and large, already left completely in the cold by public assistance programs. The exception to that might be considered unemployment benefits, and if you don't see the benefit of paying unemployment, particularly during recessionary times, then you're probably beyond hope.

(Hint: http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blygd49.htm)

Public assistance programs exist, by and large, to help poor families and single, widowed or abandoned parents with children.

Similarly, the tax code is written, by and large, to help middle- and upper-class families and single parents with children.

I assume PI Guy, in caring for the family you've mentioned, that you're ready and willing to give up your child tax credits, your mortgage interest deduction, your medical payment deductions, your personal deductions per child, and the variety of education deductions.

Or did you, in some way, *earn* these subsidies?

"'Other legislators have targeted specific programs. Sen. Merle Flowers, R-Southaven, wants to prevent Medicaid recipients from getting distinctive license plates.

If you're on welfare, you ought to spend that money on medicine or food, Flowers said.

If the taxpayers are picking up the tab for your health-care costs and/or your welfare benefits, you ought to be responsible enough to spend our money wisely.'"
===============
That has got to be the most ignorant suggested legislation of the year. I was going to say of all time but remembered we're talking about the Mississippi legislature. First of all does the county not get a piece of the vanity license plate pie? Secondly, what is Flowers presuming here with all this detective work to prevent medicaid recipients from purchasing these tags? Are they going to take that $30 to $50 savings and voluntarily put it toward a medical bill that medicaid covers? Uh huh that will save the State millions I'm sure. Flowers should probably just come clean and introduce the legislation he'd really like to see passed. All medicaid recipients have to purchase tags with the inscription "Lazy bum medicaid moocher" stamped from the top left to bottom right corner of the tag. Betcha that'll make them lazy good for nothings put down their crack pipes and get a job. They can label that the GOP's jobs bill. What an ingenious plan to create more and higher paying jobs in the poorest state in the nation. And we wonder why we're the poorest state in the nation. Don't look at car tags, look at the Einsteins snoozing in their seats in the State legislature. It's not the unemployed and poor citizens with no job or a PT worker needing FT that is the problem. It's the part-time workers working at the Capital that are in dire need of education that ails this State.

"(Some of these programs offer the added benefit of helping Americans to *not die in the streets*, which means less potential damage for your family's SUV.)"

OMG Todd that is classic....lol

Unfortunately I'm afraid the non-angry commenter you are replying to has already suggested to their local representatives that the dead bodies that accumulate after cutting everyone off medicaid be used as pothole filler to save taxpayer dollars on infrastructure repairs. People could just write the name and dates of their deceased loved ones on the spot where there was formerly a pothole. Human bones are quite strong and there could be an endless list of the types of repairs that could be made using ex-medicaid recipient remains. They could call it GOP Bondo.

Have these people even thought about the ramifications of forcing people to do community service? They will have to covered under some type of liability insurance. People who are doing a job they didn't volunteer to do are most likely going to sue somebody (the State) when they fall off that ladder, burn their hand cooking at the Stewpot, are bitten by a snake while clearing some abandoned lot. The State's medicaid program will have to carry workman's comp. So litter gets picked up or some playground gets revamped. That somehow saves the State money by forcing medicaid recipients to do the work and at the same time carry liability insurance for when they sue the State for some type of injury or negligence etc.??? STupid stupid stupid....Not to mention that the majority of medicaid funds come from the Federal government so how those funds are used and the restrictions placed on the recipients will have to be approved by the Fed. I'm sure there won't be any costly law suits where the taxpayers will be paying the bill right? How long is the legislature in session? However long is too long!

It seems all these proposals are a disaster waiting to happen. None of them save the State money even the ones that may succeed in removing some off the welfare roles. There are a lot of families on welfare right now that would otherwise be working and either be close to becoming totally non-dependent on assistance or be off it entirely if there were enough jobs for DHS to send these people. "An application for assistance is an application for a Job" That's the motto at all the State's welfare offices and in healthy economic times it's not just a motto it's fact. If DHS sets you up with a job and/or job training and you fail to show up you lose your benefits. So Mr.,Mrs.,MS Honorable State Representative, the welfare and medicaid programs are already designed to weed out those that are able but not willing to work for a living. If someone turns down work no assistance, get it??? Also with the welfare to work reforms women are not given additional checks for each new child they bring into this world once already receiving welfare. The old adage that women just spit out more babies to get more welfare has long since been abolished. Also a new provision that is part of the WTW reforms passed in the 1990's and a few additional reforms passed under the masterful architect of the "almost as" Great Depression, George W, allows a person or persons with dependent children a total of 6 years eligibility to draw welfare. I'm not sure if it applies to medicaid but most people who have medicaid but do not qualify for welfare is due to the fact that they are actually employed. They just don't make enough money, as hard as that is to believe in MS, to afford healthcare. so the bottom line is no one is allowed to draw assistance of any kind if 1) they refuse a job offer in which they are capable to perform, and 2) no matter what the circumstance, they have 6 years cumulatively per lifetime in which they are eligble to draw welfare no matter if they have 10 kids to care for. That's 6 years total, not 6 years per occasion or 6 years inbetween every stint of employment. It's 6 years per recipient per lifetime.

If these people duly elected by the people want to sincerely help "all" the people of this State they will stop this attack on Mississppi's poor and concentrate on job creation. If our reps use their brains instead of their bias and come up with ways to spur new jobs for the people of this state DHS will send the people drawing assistance to work at these jobs. If they take these jobs they will greatly diminish their need for assistance or eliminate it altogether. If they refuse to take the jobs the assistance is eliminated. Improve MS's economic future and beureacratic red tape like drug testing and banning vanity plates won't be necessary because people will be drawing paychecks. No jobs for DHS to assign welfare recipients = people in need of assistance.

What do people on "food stamps" do for you many work at the "food stamp" office, they serve and cook your food at the places you eat, if you ever need home care or go to a nursing home high chances are he or she may be wiping your ass, and many of them are just old, poor, and have already paid into the system and are living out the rest of their days. I have worked since I was 14 many other single moms work or have worked so get off your high (inaccurate) horse.
Well put as always Todd

Pi Guy, it doesn't help your argument to announce that you oppose all assistance--including even aid for pregnant women!--but support measures such as drug testing recipients. Why wouldn't you want to make the program as inefficient and onerous as possible, if you want to abolish it anyway? You are not making good-faith proposals for reform.

Fortunately, your call for an end to all public aid is quite unpopular. The only way you'll get your way is through a coup.

HooYoo2say you outline much of what I wanted to say but did not I just wish that people who call for dismantling programs actually took the time to know what they are talking about before they go spouting off. Usually I just hear a bunch of stereotypes and sound bytes from the 90s that weren't true then and are even less true now. Welfare will never be dismantled because business needs it.

Unfortunately, people who call for such drastic reforms don't realize that what they want to accomplish ends up costing more money and perhaps, create even more bureaucracy in the process. To them, the ends justify the means, even though many studies will show that the numbers don't add up to the rhetoric. It's a cheap way of getting votes in the short term, but ends up costing us way more in the long term.