marie
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by marie on Apr 26, 2009 20:25:31 GMT -5
Hurrah for Shriners! I was wondering how you managed all those surgeries.
|
|
|
Post by themomma on Apr 26, 2009 22:17:49 GMT -5
I am not against using services but don't tell me you are "trusting" God to provide. If you are going out and solicitating clothes from shelters and food from banks, God is not providing. . Well.. I don't agree with this. It think it limits God to doing magic acts. Someone donated food to those food banks, and gaining access to it is no different than having someone leave a box at your doorstep. Does God not provide through our society? Charity, whether private, church or government is based on a desire to help and care which most believers in a God would say is an impulse based in the divine. I have no problem with someone trusting in God to provide and thanking God for the food bank. Isn't God in everything? Maybe if a person feels like they take more than they give it's an opportunity to make a meal with that foodbank food for another family in stress, a pay it forward thing. America seems preoccupied with judging how deserving people are of receiving any kind of aid. I am horrified to read that Vyckie feels guilty about getting Medicaid for her three girls surgery. It's a different perspective when you live in a country with socialized medicine and such a questions never comes up. That women are choosing dangerous home births because they think it would be a bad testimony to get Medicaid for a hospital birth.. wow. I did have a home birth myself but that cost me 2000.00 as opposed to having a birth center or hospital birth which would be free, thanks to the socialized medicine. One reason I didn't bother having any more at home was to save money and because the birth centers were like having a baby in a luxury hotel suite. I can see your point of view...I wil have to think about that for awhile. There is a food bank in our town of about 15,000. But to be able to get certain things like the Thankgiving/Christmas baskets you have to have a food stamp card. You also need it for Toys for Tots... I still think if a family needs medicaid or food from a bank please, use it. I guess there was one example that I heard one time about taxes. If I took money from you, it would be stealing. If I took that money from you for a good cause, that is still stealing. That is kind of like taxes. I think our system is broken and I don't have the answers on how to fix it, and I don't really want to go that route...
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Apr 26, 2009 22:41:53 GMT -5
I think if a family needs welfare, Medicaid or to use a food bank, they certainly should do so and meet their needs, with the intention to work toward become self-supporting.
What I don't understand, and what I am almost certain that I will never think is good (especially since I don't think any god is commanding people to have as many children as possible), is KNOWING IN ADVANCE that you don't have the resources to provide for another child without a large amount of government or charitable assistance, and then going ahead and deliberately trying to get pregnant. I understand that for many here, it was a belief that getting pregnant as much as possible was what God wanted- but without that quiverfull mindset, I can't think of any good reason to keep having children that are going to be mainly dependent on outside assistance.
|
|
linnea
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by linnea on Apr 26, 2009 22:59:28 GMT -5
Themomma, I have a different way of looking at taxes, social programs, etc. I believe that when the government spends money to help children grow up well, with good nutrition, safe homes, good education, medical care, etc, this benefits *everybody*, even the people whose money is "stolen" to pay for these services. Yeah, I think I'm a socialist at heart.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Apr 27, 2009 6:34:57 GMT -5
Well, talking about Taxes is the third rail for any blog—right after vaccines and god himself/herself—but I really have to take exception to those well worn jokes about how Taxes are either some kind of misbegotten “forced charity” or outright “Theft.” The basic fact of living in any social organization larger than the family is that, if we are lucky, we choose to do so. Historically women and children didn't choose, but men sometimes did. Men chose to ally themselves in larger than family groups for mutual protection, religious reasons, and because towns/cities/societies were more able to carry out large plans and schemes for mutual benefit or for the benefit of god kings or tyrants. When societies became nations, and nations became modern countries, subject became citizens. When subjects became citizens—and women became citizens too—taxes are the way we have chosen to pay for what we choose to do as a community. We raise taxes to pay for the common defence. We raise taxes to pay for police. We raise taxes to pay for roads, firemen, emergency vaccines for influenza. All of these are not foregone conclusions—some of them are in the constitution which we sign on for when we decide to stay here as citizens. Others are decisions that our lawfully elected representatives made—sometimes after painfully discovering what it is like when ¼ of your population dies from influenza because you have no serious vaccination or public health infrastructure. Other things, like the FDA and food inspections, or the EPA and air quality, or even the SEC and banking regulation arose in a similar manner. WE discovered what happened (and we are still discovering) when there is no organization larger than a corporation—no organization with an actual fiduciary duty to the citizens instead of its shareholders—to fight for the health, safety, and future of the citizens. Families are too small—for example—to vaccinate large swathes of the country against a pandemic. They are certainly too small and too disorganized to care for all the people who can get sick. Families can't prevent a large corporation from dumping poison into their groundwater, or selling them tainted food. Government agencies, if they are properly funded and run, can and will.
As a society we made a determination very early on that children were entitled to an education. They are entitled to an education because we want our citizens to be highly educated regardless of the educational attainment of their parents. We want doctors, and scientists, and teachers even if the parent generation is illiterate. The child's right to that supersedes the parent's rights to ignorance. The same ought to be, and in some senses is, true of health care. Even if parents don't see the value in raising a healthy child the state and the community at large does. WE don't have a great educational system because towns and communities selfishly decided to base most educational taxes on property taxes, thus ensuring that rich communities have good schools and poor communities have bad schools. That's not a question of taxes/not taxes thats a question of public will. In other words—that situation came about because taxes are too democratic and the citizenry too selfish for the great communal bargain that we have made in becoming a democratic country.
I am sick and tired of hearing about how “taxes are theft” and we are “taxed too much.” If you want a better government—I did!--vote for better representatives. I opposed the Iraq war (and still do) but I was obligated to pay taxes to support it. I opposed the Bush deficits, the off budget spending, the failure to regulate the big banks, the failure to protect the environment (arsenic in our drinking water), the failure to inspect food of foreign origin...etc..etc...etc... But not only did my taxes not go down with the Government's refusal to spend tax money on regulation, my tax burden went up in the form of visits to doctor's offices (for food borne preventable illness), for soldiers deaths (there's a tax on their families), for fees that towns and cities have had to levy to make up for taxes wasted in war and on the military machine. My tax money was certainly wasted for the last eight years—but it wasn't stolen. Paying taxes is something we agree on in order to be citizens of a mighty and prosperous industrial nation. Without taxes we end up Afghanistan, or Somalia, or Sudan—prey to whatever warlord can organize a big enough militia. No roads, sewers, schools, hospitals.
aimai
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Apr 27, 2009 6:50:08 GMT -5
For years, my grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, my husband and myself have had medicaid money taken out of our paychecks. None of them have qualified to use it because their income level is such that the state says they make too much.
My husband and I finally qualified for it years ago and with a special needs child, you better believe I was taking advantage of it.
Thanks to the YEARS of my family members paying in to this system, my son, who was diagnosed with autism at 18 months (he's now 10 years old), isn't falling through the system and is able to have health care and a one-on-one interventionist with him at all times during the school day. our state will not provide one without private insurance or medicaid.
If my family members are going to have to pay in for YEARS and someone is going to use it, it might as well be me.
Medicaid IS my provision from God.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Apr 27, 2009 6:55:17 GMT -5
I need to amend my screed up above--I didn't mean to imply that our soldiers were "taxed" after dying, but that their deaths were a kind of "tax" on their families.
I'd like to point out though something that seems to have completely escaped people's attention during these public debates on taxes. We pay almost nothing as a country for welfare programs. We spend a great deal on the military and on tax breaks and credits for large corporations. The right wing gets people out in the street complaining that some single mother somewhere got WIC but no one goes out in the street except unions when factories are shut down and moved overseas thanks to favorable tax policies by the government.
The Iraq war was hugely expensive. More expensive than getting national health care fully funded for every citizen so that you won't get "taxed" by paying out of pocket and trying to stay employed while being treated for cancer. So 1/2 of all bankruptcies, which are due to medical bills, won't occur. We'd have been lucky if our tax money had only been appropriated for "good" and "charitable" purposes. You get what you pay for in this world, in taxes as in everything else. We were not canny consumers and we allowed one party to sell us on the notion that there could be a free lunch, tax wise. Then they picked our pockets anyway and took our tax money and flushed it down the toilet.
aimai
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 27, 2009 7:12:24 GMT -5
THANK you aimai! We have voted representatives who determine how much and for what our tax money goes. NOT THEFT! And if you are very upset your preferred representative is never elected-- the one who will remove all taxes-- well you could always move to Somalia. No taxes there. No government either... The two kinda go together and MOST people do want a government. Makes life easier.
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Apr 27, 2009 7:52:09 GMT -5
Aimai is 100% correct! Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Apr 27, 2009 9:40:24 GMT -5
Of course another reason that patriarchs and men in the QF movement hate and preach against government services is that government services enable women to leave oppressive family situations and get back on their feet financially. Without welfare, public education, SSI, etc... women would be even more a prisoner of their sole breadwinner husbands than they are now. aimai This is one of the reasons I think its important not to guilt trip QF moms about accepting any government benefits for which they qualify. Its a safety net for them and the children. I remember my husband was very controlling about medical care. He called up the PA and told her not to treat me because he did not believe in using antidepressants, if I'm depressed- GOD is the one who will heal me. The PA told me that my medical care is private, I don't have to tell my husband. A couple years earlier, the same PA told me that perhaps social services should come in and see if they could find out why my 18 month old (the youngest of 8) was "failure to thrive". That scared me! I knew why- we were heat deprived and the sole inadequate heat source (wood stove) was puffing out choking smoke. The baby had repeated ear infections and 6 rounds of antibiotics that winter, and NO appetite. My husband would not deal with it, despite my "nagging". I see the connection with that PA (who is a Christian too, BTW) as a little window of clarity on the reality of the abusiveness of my situation. If QF mom's have no connections with such voices of reason, the reality gets soooo twisted, its like living in a fog.... So, I suggest gentle encouragement not to feel guilty or afraid to accept help from government programs.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Apr 27, 2009 9:47:17 GMT -5
On Submission and Learned Helplessness: Maybe this really needs its own separate post but I wanted to bring this up here somewhere and I think Vyckie can move it if she wants. aimai ~ good post ~ excellent point. But ~ I would prefer if it was its own topic under the members' forum. If I moved it, it would show up as my post ~ so could you please move it over to the members' forum? Thanks ~ lots to consider in all of this and I believe that learned helplessness is a big part of the whole picture. aimai, Can't see the new post yet. Can you post a link?
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 27, 2009 9:50:16 GMT -5
That's a really good point, Charis - if people feel bad about taking the help that is offered, then they're MORE stuck where they are.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 27, 2009 18:58:14 GMT -5
Of course another reason that patriarchs and men in the QF movement hate and preach against government services is that government services enable women to leave oppressive family situations and get back on their feet financially. Without welfare, public education, SSI, etc... women would be even more a prisoner of their sole breadwinner husbands than they are now. I live in a country where there is very little anti-welfare sentiment, and the word "welfare" is not used to describe government handouts. When I left my abusive husband I went straight on the payments the government hands out to single mothers and I was eternally, overwhelmingly grateful. I did not have to take finances into consideration when I left--which as I type it now seems amazing to me. Sure we were poor, but oddly even though my income was about 1/3 what it was when married to the abuser (who btw paid no child support) we seemed to have far more money than before! My abusive ex had spent huge sums on himself and was a control freak about money (of course). He never had enough for xmas or birthday presents because he was incapable of budgeting. It was amazing to me to be able to buy my kids nice presents with planning, take them to movies (they had NEVER been!!) and other fun things. I know we were technically below the poverty line but I always felt incredibly grateful and well off. 200.00 you are not allowed to spend because your husband refuses is worth nothing while 10.00 you can spend freely is worth a lot of joy, that was my experience. Anyway, prior to my leaving my ex used to speak with absolute hatred about these government payments and about single mothers, he was QUITE aware that they meant women could up and leave a man they were financially dependent on. You are quite right in your quote Aimai, I heard this complaint from many fundamentalist males, sometimes veiled and sometimes quite direct.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Apr 27, 2009 21:41:31 GMT -5
I guess I'm back at page one- missed a couple comments addressed to me.... sorry for the delay Charis ~ I completely understand why this discussion would be painful for you ~ it was painful for me to read too ~ which is why I wanted to write that post and explain what a screwed-up position it puts women in when they are made to feel hypocritical for accepting government benefits for which they qualify. You state that it is not biblically inconsistent ~ would you please explain? If you can show from the bible that it's acceptable to receive assistance ~ I think that would go a long way in alleviating some of the angst of QF/P for those who still care what the bible has to say about how we ought to be structuring our families today. . I haven't done a thorough study on this, but "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" applies to paying taxes. In the OT law, there was a tithe given to the Levites which was used- in part- for social welfare. Our tax rate is more than a tithe, and we are really blessing those who have given to support any social welfare programs of which we partake because "it is more blessed to give than to receive" But, we have personally come out of our "great depression" and don't qualify for any assistance any more. Now that we only pay Caesar and don't receive benefits, I do not begrudge at all a poor hardworking family from receiving benefits. And if I was a millionaire I would sponsor things like braces that we could NOT get before- even with benefits. Its not "medically necessary" but it sure can be hard on a kid.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Apr 28, 2009 14:21:06 GMT -5
Somewhat off topic: Did your midwife have a dietary regiment? Our midwife has a rather strict outline of what to eat (to over simplify it here a bit: but high in protein, fat is fine, complex carbs, and refined sugars are verboten) and she has never had a case, in over 1000 deliveries, of preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.
Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 28, 2009 15:32:03 GMT -5
Well, I had a completely different midwife but I was so ill my *entire* pregnancy that my nutritional advice from my midwife was "sniff it, and if it doesn't make you nauseated, try to eat it." Implying that women cause their own pre-eclampsia or gestational diabetes by not eating right is not only mean-spirited, it's magical thinking - you can't control everything about your health, no matter how much you wish you could.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 28, 2009 15:50:58 GMT -5
Somewhat off topic: Did your midwife have a dietary regiment? Our midwife has a rather strict outline of what to eat (to over simplify it here a bit: but high in protein, fat is fine, complex carbs, and refined sugars are verboten) and she has never had a case, in over 1000 deliveries, of preeclampsia or gestational diabetes. Just wondering. Hey austinavery ~ I'm so glad you've registered for the NLQ forum ~ it's good to have you here Actually, I did follow a very careful diet during that pregnancy ~ lots of protein ~ but my blood sugar problem was so bad that the protein I ate only lasted for a couple of hours before the symptoms showed up again. Whenever Judy checked my sugar level, it was always low ~ which is why she insisted that I did not have gestational diabetes. Towards the end of the pregnancy, she recommended that I take GTF (glucose tolerance factor) chromium ~ and that immediately made me feel better ~ but it was too little, too late to make a significant difference. I have never actually figured out what my blood sugar problem is ~ I always thought it was stress ~ and that seems to be confirmed by the fact that I don't have nearly as much problem with my health now that the main source of stress (Warren) is out of my life.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Apr 28, 2009 16:47:23 GMT -5
Vyckie, your problem was stress, it seems clear. No diet can fix that.
And I did not mean to suggest that the problem had to be diet. Our midwife was very scientific in her approach (although she was fine with candles, crystals, whatever the woman felt happy with), and she had great success, even with "vbacs," avoiding problem pregnancies.
That being said, she also had us put together a comprehensive plan, with maps, phone numbers, pre-packed luggage, etc., for a transport to the nearest hospital at a moment's notice if necessary, and we had an Obgyn ready to take our call, who knew our midwife and was on-board with the whole procedure.
So, obviously, she wasn't relying on nutrition as a cure-all.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 28, 2009 17:44:03 GMT -5
I have never actually figured out what my blood sugar problem is ~ I always thought it was stress ~ and that seems to be confirmed by the fact that I don't have nearly as much problem with my health now that the main source of stress (Warren) is out of my life. Perhaps similar to the way the lifestyle induced a diagnosable mental condition in Angel that was entirely situational you were developing physical manifestation of a situational problem...
|
|