B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 68
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Sigh... gotta love distorted math, eh? 
First off, the figures they calculated are based on people raging from ages twelve to 64. It never differentiates these people from those who just live someplace (like a teenager for obvious reasons) from someone who is actually the head of household. In fact, you can't even find the terms "head of household", "parent" or even "adult" in this article. There's an obvious difference between someone who is living with another that may have a drug problem versus someone who runs an entire household and/or family regardless if they are receiving some form of government assistance.
The article also goes by a very vague (if not explained whatsoever) definition of "assisted family". The US Department of Labor defines it to be a family is classified as an assisted family if it reported receiving at least one of the following six types of public assistance: supplementary security income (SSI), welfare, medicaid, food stamps, government housing subsidies, or public housing.
SSI is a program where the beneficiary eligible must be aged 65 or older, blind or disabled, or has a person living with them who is also disabled. Welfare is government aid intended to help those with little to no income, including the working poor, and primarily aims at people who are disabled and/or have children to take care of. To qualify for food stamps, all people over the age of 18 must register to work and be willing to participate on a work/study training program.
As for Medicaid, you simply can't be eligible for it based on income. In fact there are many people who are poor, with incomes below the poverty level, who do not meet Medicaid requirements because they do not fit within the designated eligibility groups. These include but are not limited to:
On top of this, since the stipulations for Medicaid differ from state to state it becomes much more difficult to pinpoint exactly who qualifies. The person who may be able to qualify in Massachusetts may not be able to do so in Florida. Requirements for public housing are even more complicated, which include the usual screening & lease signing procedures.
In short, many of these programs require people to either be in a state where they can't work, or are already working (or actively looking for it) in order to qualify. This notion that all of the people sourced in the NHSDA article are just laying around at home watching "Jerry Springer", and are using all the funds to get some weed or cocaine is absolute bullshit. I've already made the suggestion that perhaps we should adjust the law so that it only looks at those who are on government assistance and have a past criminal record that is drug related. The OP obviously ignored this since finding a real solution is not his goal... he just needs to tell the whole world of LPSG just how much better he is.
Furthermore, this is now the second original thread as well as the 38th post starinvestor has made in the last 1-2 weeks where he is either attacking a board member or launching veiled character assassinations at those who are or even try to remotely speak up for the poor or working class in this nation. How many times do we have to be subjected to a fury of "holier than thou" nonsense from a money grubbing, corporate shrill who trashes the board, let is totally dependent on its existence to vent out his frustrations with his own financial & societal failures, and constantly take jabs at those with more left leaning mentalities? My GOD, when does the bullshit stop?
First off, the figures they calculated are based on people raging from ages twelve to 64. It never differentiates these people from those who just live someplace (like a teenager for obvious reasons) from someone who is actually the head of household. In fact, you can't even find the terms "head of household", "parent" or even "adult" in this article. There's an obvious difference between someone who is living with another that may have a drug problem versus someone who runs an entire household and/or family regardless if they are receiving some form of government assistance.
The article also goes by a very vague (if not explained whatsoever) definition of "assisted family". The US Department of Labor defines it to be a family is classified as an assisted family if it reported receiving at least one of the following six types of public assistance: supplementary security income (SSI), welfare, medicaid, food stamps, government housing subsidies, or public housing.
SSI is a program where the beneficiary eligible must be aged 65 or older, blind or disabled, or has a person living with them who is also disabled. Welfare is government aid intended to help those with little to no income, including the working poor, and primarily aims at people who are disabled and/or have children to take care of. To qualify for food stamps, all people over the age of 18 must register to work and be willing to participate on a work/study training program.
As for Medicaid, you simply can't be eligible for it based on income. In fact there are many people who are poor, with incomes below the poverty level, who do not meet Medicaid requirements because they do not fit within the designated eligibility groups. These include but are not limited to:
- Pregnant women and children under 6 with income at or significantly below the federal poverty level.
- Children ages 6 to 19 qualify with a family income at or below the federal poverty level.
- Adults who take care of children under age 18.
- Individuals who receive Supplemental Security Income
- Teenagers up to age 21 who are living on their own
- People who are over 65, blind or disabled
On top of this, since the stipulations for Medicaid differ from state to state it becomes much more difficult to pinpoint exactly who qualifies. The person who may be able to qualify in Massachusetts may not be able to do so in Florida. Requirements for public housing are even more complicated, which include the usual screening & lease signing procedures.
In short, many of these programs require people to either be in a state where they can't work, or are already working (or actively looking for it) in order to qualify. This notion that all of the people sourced in the NHSDA article are just laying around at home watching "Jerry Springer", and are using all the funds to get some weed or cocaine is absolute bullshit. I've already made the suggestion that perhaps we should adjust the law so that it only looks at those who are on government assistance and have a past criminal record that is drug related. The OP obviously ignored this since finding a real solution is not his goal... he just needs to tell the whole world of LPSG just how much better he is.
Furthermore, this is now the second original thread as well as the 38th post starinvestor has made in the last 1-2 weeks where he is either attacking a board member or launching veiled character assassinations at those who are or even try to remotely speak up for the poor or working class in this nation. How many times do we have to be subjected to a fury of "holier than thou" nonsense from a money grubbing, corporate shrill who trashes the board, let is totally dependent on its existence to vent out his frustrations with his own financial & societal failures, and constantly take jabs at those with more left leaning mentalities? My GOD, when does the bullshit stop?
Last edited: