Speaking from personal experience, I wish I'd never needed state aid; offering it to anyone who asks for it, and giving it to those who may or may not need it saved my life. Make your own decisions on the topic.
Orphanages are inefficient. They require 24/7 care and sleeping facilities . It makes MUCH more economic sense to simply provide daycare for 8 hours so mom can work and then have them take the kid home.. where they're functionally doing the orphanages job for free.
The bolded portion, is it just made up or do you have something specific in mind?
I can help here.
In my state (maybe it's just my county?) there is a healthcare assistance program for women below a certain income. My girlfriend applied for it because, among other things, it would pay for a doctor visit to get a prescription for anti-depressants and birth control, and pay some of their cost.You have to have a VERY low income level to get this.
She was denied because, after quitting one of her TWO jobs with legitimate medical reasons (the job was retail and required her to reach to put things on a high shelf through a whole 8 hour shift, and she has a really messed up back), the state said basically "if you hadn't quit that job, they might have offered you full time, which would have meant you wouldn't qualify. therefore we have to assume you quit in order to maintain benefits" and cut her off.
At previous points she had been denied unemployment benefits because her employer lied about firing her, and had I not been there she would have been unable to pay rent.
The bolded portion, is it just made up or do you have something specific in mind?I can help here.
In my state (maybe it's just my county?) there is a healthcare assistance program for women below a certain income. My girlfriend applied for it because, among other things, it would pay for a doctor visit to get a prescription for anti-depressants and birth control, and pay some of their cost.You have to have a VERY low income level to get this.
She was denied because, after quitting one of her TWO jobs with legitimate medical reasons (the job was retail and required her to reach to put things on a high shelf through a whole 8 hour shift, and she has a really messed up back), the state said basically "if you hadn't quit that job, they might have offered you full time, which would have meant you wouldn't qualify. therefore we have to assume you quit in order to maintain benefits" and cut her off.
At previous points she had been denied unemployment benefits because her employer lied about firing her, and had I not been there she would have been unable to pay rent.
Except that nothing you have shown demonstrates jumping through hoops.
They wouldn't be forced to "assume" she quit because of trying to remain on benefits if she demonstrated valid medical reason rather than just saying so. If you quit a job, expecting validation for that loss of income in order to receive assistance isn't expecting you to jump through hoops.
It is kind of like this:
shows up to seek assistance: I need money for medical problems a & b.
assistance: why did you quit your other job?
gf: medical problem c
assistance: can you provide some form of documentation that medical problem c is so bad you had to quit work over it?
gf: no
assistance: I'm sorry, we can't help you
Sorry, but that isn't jumping a hoop. Providing that documentation should have been good enough for them not to assume what is being argued they were saying they had to assume.
@ meatrace
Could you give the name of the program and the community it is located in?
Sorry, but that isn't jumping a hoop. Providing that documentation should have been good enough for them not to assume what is being argued they were saying they had to...
Should have been good enough? Yes. Nonetheless it was not. It could have had to do with the fact that chiropractors aren't medical doctors, so there could have been something funny with her reason for quitting not being "medical".
As for the name I'm unsure. It's Dane County Wisconsin if that helps. She's not on it anymore, and it's been a while, and she has a proper job and proper insurance now.
The point is more that if they stop benefits in order to perform an investigation, she's left in the lurch.
And that now you're moving goalposts. You doubted whether people who needed or deserved assistance were ever denied it. My gf needed it. She was kicked off of it. It doesn't matter what YOU define jumping through a hoop to be, I've given you an example of what you sought.
I've found government aid very hard to get.
When I got out of the Army, I was unable to collect unemployment. I had to immediately look for a job, and blew through my savings while doing so.
Later on, I lost my job and needed to get food stamps to avoid starving. I barely managed to qualify, but they kept me fed for about a year.
Then the government found out I was still in college. The worker told me that if I quit college (and sent a letter of proof to them), I could stay on the program, otherwise I was getting cut. I got cut.
They would rather have me stuck on food stamps forever than pay temporarily for me to eat while I was using the GI Bill to go to college.
Michigan's great.
Sorry, but that isn't jumping a hoop. Providing that documentation should have been good enough for them not to assume what is being argued they were saying they had to...Should have been good enough? Yes. Nonetheless it was not. It could have had to do with the fact that chiropractors aren't medical doctors, so there could have been something funny with her reason for quitting not being "medical".
As for the name I'm unsure. It's Dane County Wisconsin if that helps. She's not on it anymore, and it's been a while, and she has a proper job and proper insurance now.
The point is more that if they stop benefits in order to perform an investigation, she's left in the lurch.
And that now you're moving goalposts. You doubted whether people who needed or deserved assistance were ever denied it. My gf needed it. She was kicked off of it. It doesn't matter what YOU define jumping through a hoop to be, I've given you an example of what you sought.
Factually incorrect. I didn't move a goal post.
I never said those who needed were never denied it. That statement is a second one incorrectly attributed to me.
The statement I questioned was this: "It's already hard enough for those who legitimately need help to get it."
...and no, you have done nothing to show otherwise.
About this:
Was documentation given?
If so, was it a chiropractor as referenced in this "It could have had to do with the fact that chiropractors aren't medical doctors, so there could have been something funny with her reason for quitting not being "medical".?
Sorry, but actual medical documentation as a reason to quit a job isn't asking too much or jumping through a hoop.
Don't try that it's all relative garbage (a hoop to you isn't a hoop to me) either. You haven't given me an example of what I sought.
This is what I sought:
It's already hard enough for those who legitimately need help to get it
The bolded portion, is it just made up or do you have something specific in mind?
An example was given except that nothing has been demonstrated to show that the requirements are too hard.
You're moving the goalpost because he never said too hard.
He said hard enough.
My presumption was that ANY denial of care for someone who needs it is "hard enough".
What exactly would be "hard enough" for you?
She sought health coverage under a program designed to provide it to women in her precise position. She was denied it. She had a medical excuse. She was also denied unemployment for this same reason, or rather it was suspended until an investigation could take place. But when you're living paycheck to paycheck ANY delay means all sorts of bad things.
In my OTHER example I gave, an employer lied to unemployment to prevent her from getting benefits. In that specific case she was let go because the business was sold out from under her. She worked a late shift the night before, came home and slept and went back in for a morning shift the next day. When she showed up the boss said "yeah you don't have to work today, or ever again, we're closed". Like a week before xmas. Then he lied saying that he had offered her a full time job or some nonsense and she'd turned it down.
The whole system screeches to a halt to make sure that the few hundred smackers they're doling out is going to someone who needs it, all because some dipshit doesn't want to pay UI for the dozen employees he let go a week before xmas.
You're moving the goalpost because he never said too hard.
He said hard enough.
My presumption was that ANY denial of care for someone who needs it is "hard enough".What exactly would be "hard enough" for you?
She sought health coverage under a program designed to provide it to women in her precise position. She was denied it. She had a medical excuse. She was also denied unemployment for this same reason, or rather it was suspended until an investigation could take place. But when you're living paycheck to paycheck ANY delay means all sorts of bad things.In my OTHER example I gave, an employer lied to unemployment to prevent her from getting benefits. In that specific case she was let go because the business was sold out from under her. She worked a late shift the night before, came home and slept and went back in for a morning shift the next day. When she showed up the boss said "yeah you don't have to work today, or ever again, we're closed". Like a week before xmas. Then he lied saying that he had offered her a full time job or some nonsense and she'd turned it down.
The whole system screeches to a halt to make sure that the few hundred smackers they're doling out is going to someone who needs it, all because some d#+~*!$ doesn't want to pay UI for the dozen employees he let go a week before xmas.
I'm not moving any goalpost.
thejeff stated it was already hard enough.
I asked if he was just randomly making something up or if he could be specific.
My interpretation of your response was that it was not merely stating it is hard enough but that you believe it is too hard.
Was I correct or incorrect in my interpreation?
If I were incorrect, then you gave an answer that might or might not be correct but cannot be determined due to the vagueness of the description: need a real low income to qualify, two jobs (if the one didn't go full time) may or may not have let her still be on it but it was not stated when she went on and when she lost relative to obtaining the two jobs and losing the one (other than stating she lost it due to quitting one...) Basically, it amounts to she used to qualify but doesn't anymore so it is appropriately hard.
If I were correct, then you moved the goal post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that wasn't the case. She used to qualify, and she continued to qualify, but they used the logic "if you had not quit, you may have been given a promotion so that you wouldn't have needed it"
Look, I mean you can nitpick as much as you want, but clearly you're going to refuse to believe anything I say since you already have decided what the truth is: bad things only happen to bad people.
Frankly I'm not terribly interested in digging up physical documentation to prove to some dude on a messageboard that I'm not lying about something that happened to me, so, you go ahead and keep disbelieving me.
It isn't always easy to get on government aid. The truth is some people that don't deserve it get on (and stay on) and some people who do deserve it aren't given it. The cracks go both ways, so to speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you spend more money to stop someone gaming the system then they receive in benefits I would rather have them game the system. Also screw disability bring back the state run mental hospitals please. Other question is would you want the cheaters as your coworkers?
Another thing in the state of Wisconsin that Scott "John Doe" Walker signed into law: You don't get unemployment for the first week.
So, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, you might be forced to fall behind. You don't get that money tacked on the second week either, you just forfeit a week's unemployment. I'm really not sure what the point of that legislation is.
My girlfriend was working as a temp. Full time, but there would generally be a week between assignments, if she was lucky that "off week" she'd get like 2 days pay somewhere.
Technically she qualified for unemployment, technically she could file on each of those weeks, but because each time she was off between temp assignments was a new period of unemployment, she wouldn't get the first (only) paycheck. So there was no point in filing.
But that wasn't the case. She used to qualify, and she continued to qualify, but they used the logic "if you had not quit, you may have been given a promotion so that you wouldn't have needed it"
Look, I mean you can nitpick as much as you want, but clearly you're going to refuse to believe anything I say since you already have decided what the truth is: bad things only happen to bad people.
Frankly I'm not terribly interested in digging up physical documentation to prove to some dude on a messageboard that I'm not lying about something that happened to me, so, you go ahead and keep disbelieving me.
It isn't always easy to get on government aid. The truth is some people that don't deserve it get on (and stay on) and some people who do deserve it aren't given it. The cracks go both ways, so to speak.
1. You never answered which was the correct interpretation.
2. When stating that "you already have decided what the truth is: bad things only happen to bad people." you are making a lying jackass out of yourself because I do not believe that and have done nothing to lead to that conclusion, and have made explicit statements to point away from that.
3. That wasn't the case? I didn't state what the case was, I stated that you had not been clear as to the order of things and still haven't been.
For instance, did she both qualify for and receive aid while working two jobs, quit one, then get removed after they found out she quit or did she work two , quit one, qualify and receive aid to only later lose aid after they found she had quit the other job. I stated I didn't know what their "low income" cut-off point was and that I don't know what her income was with two jobs or what it would have been if she had become full-time at the one she quit to compare it to what their cut-off point is (which I don't know).
I think I now know from what was stated in the post responded to (timeline order of events) but I am still a little unsure. But, I didn't have a clue at the time of making my prior post. I was saying I don't know if it is a or b or c. I was saying the previous posts left me unsure as to how it happened.
4. If you don't want to dig up specific information (such as numbers and names of programs) that is OK by me. But, thejeff is the one who made the original comment. I asked him if he was making it up or if he had something specific in mind. I think it is unfair to complain about being asked for specific information when responding to a question (asked of someone else) that was asking for specifics.
4. Disbelieving you? I don't know what I'm supposed to believe or disbelieve. I mention uncertainty on interpretation of statements and do not receive clarification.
Another thing in the state of Wisconsin that Scott "John Doe" Walker signed into law: You don't get unemployment for the first week.
So, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, you might be forced to fall behind. You don't get that money tacked on the second week either, you just forfeit a week's unemployment. I'm really not sure what the point of that legislation is.
My girlfriend was working as a temp. Full time, but there would generally be a week between assignments, if she was lucky that "off week" she'd get like 2 days pay somewhere.
Technically she qualified for unemployment, technically she could file on each of those weeks, but because each time she was off between temp assignments was a new period of unemployment, she wouldn't get the first (only) paycheck. So there was no point in filing.
FAQ regarding State of Wisconsin DWD (Department of Workforce Development) Unemployment Insurance
What is the waiting week?
The waiting week is the first week of an individual’s benefit year for which the individual is otherwise eligible for regular benefits. UI benefits are not paid for the waiting week.
...
When does the waiting week go into effect?
The waiting week goes into effect with all benefit years starting as of January 1, 2012.
How many waiting weeks are possible in a year?
A claimant will have to serve one waiting week per benefit year.
If my employer lays me off several times a year, will I need to serve a waiting week each time I’m laid off?
No. The waiting week is served the first week of a benefit year you would otherwise be eligible for benefits. Only one waiting week is served per benefit year.
So, should I wait to file my claim until the waiting week is over?
DO NOT WAIT to file your claim. The department is not able to count a waiting week as served until you file your claim. If you are not filing claims, you are not serving your waiting week.
Damn that Scott "John Doe" Walker!
*sigh*
*sigh*
I hate that she missed some money previously, but at least it can be minimized/eliminated in the future.
These facts get support because they are true. It is not this b@$**$~+ you are trying to fly that we are hostile to the poor. I grew up poor with poor friends and spent a good chunk of my life working in an environment containing a lot of poor people and spending a whole lot of time with them.
People have been giving corroboration of what they personally see and experience. That is solid corroboration. Try reading.
This is the only other thing you said in this thread. It is outwardly hostile. You don't present any evidence but just insist that things happen constantly, and how dare anyone suggest maybe they don't quite so much as people think. When you then come upon the mere suggestion that government aid isn't always easy to get, you demand specific examples.
So I'm going to have to demand documented evidence of people gaming the system. Names, dates, social security numbers, documented proof of them receiving benefits, references to the laws in which they ought not have gotten said benefits, eyewitness reports, yadda yadda.
I gave you a specific example and you're demanding a level of personal information I'm not comfortable giving. The point of my ANECDOTE was just that, it's not so easy to get benefits when any little thing can get you kicked off. Even if we were to agree that that level of rigor in following up on people claiming for such benefits were appropriate (we probably don't), people in a situation of need who are delayed benefits for the sake of an investigation are needlessly imperiled because some other people abuse the system.
*sigh*I hate that she missed some money previously, but at least it can be minimized/eliminated in the future.
Not really. The next time she needs to file unemployment she'll lose a week of benefits, since it will be a new benefit year.
These facts get support because they are true. It is not this b@$**$~+ you are trying to fly that we are hostile to the poor. I grew up poor with poor friends and spent a good chunk of my life working in an environment containing a lot of poor people and spending a whole lot of time with them.
People have been giving corroboration of what they personally see and experience. That is solid corroboration. Try reading.
This is the only other thing you said in this thread. It is outwardly hostile. You don't present any evidence but just insist that things happen constantly, and how dare anyone suggest maybe they don't quite so much as people think. When you then come upon the mere suggestion that government aid isn't always easy to get, you demand specific examples.
So I'm going to have to demand documented evidence of people gaming the system. Names, dates, social security numbers, documented proof of them receiving benefits, references to the laws in which they ought not have gotten said benefits, eyewitness reports, yadda yadda.
I gave you a specific example and you're demanding a level of personal information I'm not comfortable giving. The point of my ANECDOTE was just that, it's not so easy to get benefits when any little thing can get you kicked off. Even if we were to agree that that level of rigor in following up on people claiming for such benefits were appropriate (we probably don't), people in a situation of need who are delayed benefits for the sake of an investigation are needlessly imperiled because some other people abuse the system.
It is not the only thing I said. I gave personal corroboration prior:
"I personally know a guy who lives with his girlfriend but they won't get married in order to keep him off the books. She has low income housing (and he pays half the rent, he makes around 55G+ per year) but they wouldn't qualify if that were known. They get an enormous discount they don't deserve."
It was in this post
It is explicit: she is on the low income lease, he is not (pays half) and he has a good income. That is explicitly mooching. No more evidence is required.
My personal corroboration was repeatedly supported by others' personal corroboration. This was in response to the OP asking this question:
"So enlighten me. If you know one of these ill-favored unicorns, how exactly does one make a life-long career of 'mooching' from one's government? Presumably lying or exaggeration is involved, or maybe there's a loophole in the law? In any case, what exactly does one have to do or say or be?"
Although no one (maybe one somewhere in there) has mentioned people living completely off the government, they have been repeatedly giving examples of people mooching off the government.
A response to those examples came in this post
"I will say that if you have a determined enough belief, any belief, you'll find "facts" to support it. These tales get support because culturally, America is extremely hostile to it's poor."
That is very "hostile" when stated in the context of individuals posting their personal observations and saying such tales are created because we are hostile to the poor.
But, I am accused of being hostile for calling it out and accused of that being the only thing said when earlier I gave information the OP was asking for.
Of course, I was accused of being that person refusing to believe what another might say without proof if it contradicts me by the poster who posted factually incorrect information I dug up in 5 seconds.
In other words I am repeatedly falsely accused of moving goal posts, not saying stuff, saying stuff I didn't say, and accused of being hostile to the poor and I am the one being hostile in this thread.
This is ridiculous.
In my OTHER example I gave, an employer lied to unemployment to prevent her from getting benefits. In that specific case she was let go because the business was sold out from under her. She worked a late shift the night before, came home and slept and went back in for a morning shift the next day. When she showed up the boss said "yeah you don't have to work today, or ever again, we're closed". Like a week before xmas. Then he lied saying that he had offered her a full time job or some nonsense and she'd turned it down.
ive encountered this before.
Why is no more evidence required when the anecdote is about a moocher, but when I give my anecdote it needs to be examined under a fine tooth comb?
Yes, if the assertion is that there are just loads of people gaming the system, or that it's so rampant and blatant, then anecdotal evidence won't suffice.
There are a lot of things that are sort of accepted facts in certain circles, like that the government wants to take our guns, or teen pregnancy is at an all time high, or there are all these welfare queens. I'd need some pretty strong evidence to believe any of those things, and the anecdotes of people on an internet messageboard doesn't suffice.
I know how a lot of this starts, and it doesn't require calling you a liar to disbelieve them.
to qualify for low income housing...
"In general, the family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live."
median income of portsmouth virginia can be found here
"The median income for a household in the city was $36,742."
The male residing in the household is a WG12 step 5 US government worker.
That puts him well over $25 per hour, over $50G per year.
Boom, there you go.
But, the OP didn't ask for such specifics, it asked for examples of mooching.
thejeff made vague comment that it is difficult enough as is (which is difficult to determine regarding thousands of differing forms of government assistance) so I asked for specifics.
One asked for an example of mooching. Those were given. One stated that a certain criteria existed. That requires specifics.
That is very simple reasoning.
These facts get support because they are true. It is not this b@$**$~+ you are trying to fly that we are hostile to the poor. I grew up poor with poor friends and spent a good chunk of my life working in an environment containing a lot of poor people and spending a whole lot of time with them.
People have been giving corroboration of what they personally see and experience. That is solid corroboration. Try reading.
This is the only other thing you said in this thread. It is outwardly hostile. You don't present any evidence but just insist that things happen constantly, and how dare anyone suggest maybe they don't quite so much as people think. When you then come upon the mere suggestion that government aid isn't always easy to get, you demand specific examples.
So I'm going to have to demand documented evidence of people gaming the system. Names, dates, social security numbers, documented proof of them receiving benefits, references to the laws in which they ought not have gotten said benefits, eyewitness reports, yadda yadda.
I gave you a specific example and you're demanding a level of personal information I'm not comfortable giving. The point of my ANECDOTE was just that, it's not so easy to get benefits when any little thing can get you kicked off. Even if we were to agree that that level of rigor in following up on people claiming for such benefits were appropriate (we probably don't), people in a situation of need who are delayed benefits for the sake of an investigation are needlessly imperiled because some other people abuse the system.
Again, the reason given for quitting would have been accepted with medical documentation. That was not provided. It should have been provided to the workplace when quitting and to the assistance program when asked for.
The bolded portion, is it just made up or do you have something specific in mind?
You suggested he was lying before you asked for specifics.
I gave a specific example of how it is sometimes hard to get government assistance.
Why on earth isn't that good enough?
Again, the reason given for quitting would have been accepted with medical documentation. That was not provided. It should have been provided to the workplace when quitting and to the assistance program when asked for.
That documentation was given.
WHICH I'VE NOW SAID THREE TIMES.Why do you keep calling me a liar?
to qualify for low income housing...
"In general, the family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live."
median income of portsmouth virginia can be found here
"The median income for a household in the city was $36,742."
The male residing in the household is a WG12 step 5 US government worker.
That puts him well over $25 per hour, over $50G per year.
Boom, there you go.
But, the OP didn't ask for such specifics, it asked for examples of mooching.
thejeff made vague comment that it is difficult enough as is (which is difficult to determine regarding thousands of differing forms of government assistance) so I asked for specifics.One asked for an example of mooching. Those were given. One stated that a certain criteria existed. That requires specifics.
That is very simple reasoning.
..And that's how everyone else starved to death, but, hey, not your fault, right?
@ meatrace
How many effing times do I have to repeat that this question was asked of thejeff, not you. Also, the question requires specifics to establish an answer to. I explicitly stated that I am OK with you not giving that information because I didn't ask the question of you.
But, you chose to respond to a question requiring specifics to verify. Don't complain if your response is not regarded highly because it lacks specifics, especially after I took the time to look up the claim you made that I could and it was factually incorrect. You remember, the one about all those weeks of lost unemployment due to Scott "John Doe" Walker.
..And that's how everyone else starved to death, but, hey, not your fault, right?to qualify for low income housing...
"In general, the family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live."
median income of portsmouth virginia can be found here
"The median income for a household in the city was $36,742."
The male residing in the household is a WG12 step 5 US government worker.
That puts him well over $25 per hour, over $50G per year.
Boom, there you go.
But, the OP didn't ask for such specifics, it asked for examples of mooching.
thejeff made vague comment that it is difficult enough as is (which is difficult to determine regarding thousands of differing forms of government assistance) so I asked for specifics.One asked for an example of mooching. Those were given. One stated that a certain criteria existed. That requires specifics.
That is very simple reasoning.
WTF are you talking about?
Make a statement instead of a stupid platitude.
@ meatrace
How many effing times do I have to repeat that this question was asked of thejeff, not you. Also, the question requires specifics to establish an answer to. I explicitly stated that I am OK with you not giving that information because I didn't ask the question of you.
But, you chose to respond to a question requiring specifics to verify. Don't complain if your response is not regarded highly because it lacks specifics, especially after I took the time to look up the claim you made that I could and it was factually incorrect. You remember, the one about all those weeks of lost unemployment due to Scott "John Doe" Walker.
You asked for a specific example.
I gave it.You don't need any more information any more than I need the phone number of your "friend" to confirm what you've said on here, because this is an internet messageboard not an inquisition.
You called me a liar.
You continue to call me a liar.
Goodbye.
@ meatrace
How many effing times do I have to repeat that this question was asked of thejeff, not you. Also, the question requires specifics to establish an answer to. I explicitly stated that I am OK with you not giving that information because I didn't ask the question of you.
But, you chose to respond to a question requiring specifics to verify. Don't complain if your response is not regarded highly because it lacks specifics, especially after I took the time to look up the claim you made that I could and it was factually incorrect. You remember, the one about all those weeks of lost unemployment due to Scott "John Doe" Walker.
You asked for a specific example.
I gave it.
You don't need any more information any more than I need the phone number of your "friend" to confirm what you've said on here, because this is an internet messageboard not an inquisition.You called me a liar.
You continue to call me a liar.
Goodbye.
The specific example was regarding the ease/difficulty of obtaining government assistance. Ease and difficulty cannot be established without specifics therefore you did not give an example.
I gave specifics required of mooching: only one on the lease but two staying there with the second one (not on the lease) exceeding the limit for qualification all by himself.
You are a liar.
Again, the reason given for quitting would have been accepted with medical documentation. That was not provided. It should have been provided to the workplace when quitting and to the assistance program when asked for.That documentation was given.
WHICH I'VE NOW SAID THREE TIMES.Why do you keep calling me a liar?
You do realize you stated that it was a chiropractor rather than a doctor and that was probably why it was not accepted (your words)?
You do realize you stated that it was a chiropractor rather than a doctor and that was probably why it was not accepted?Again, the reason given for quitting would have been accepted with medical documentation. That was not provided. It should have been provided to the workplace when quitting and to the assistance program when asked for.That documentation was given.
WHICH I'VE NOW SAID THREE TIMES.Why do you keep calling me a liar?
I really shouldn't feed the trolls, especially one who has decided not to believe my story based solely on the fact that it doesn't jibe with his own narrative of the world but:
If you have a back problem, a doctor will refer you to a chiropractor, despite chiropractors not being doctors. If you need a work excuse for a bad back, you'd go to your chiropractor (who has, like, x-rays of your spine and shit) who you were referred to by your doctor.
Regardless, I offered this up as a possible reason there was a problem with her benefits, not the cause stated by the program itself: they decided that she would be denied benefits based on a possible future event to which there was no evidence, ergo her getting hired on full time.
You do realize you stated that it was a chiropractor rather than a doctor and that was probably why it was not accepted?Again, the reason given for quitting would have been accepted with medical documentation. That was not provided. It should have been provided to the workplace when quitting and to the assistance program when asked for.That documentation was given.
WHICH I'VE NOW SAID THREE TIMES.Why do you keep calling me a liar?
I really shouldn't feed the trolls, especially one who has decided not to believe my story based solely on the fact that it doesn't jibe with his own narrative of the world but:
If you have a back problem, a doctor will refer you to a chiropractor, despite chiropractors not being doctors. If you need a work excuse for a bad back, you'd go to your chiropractor (who has, like, x-rays of your spine and s*@&) who you were referred to by your doctor.
Regardless, I offered this up as a possible reason there was a problem with her benefits, not the cause stated by the program itself: they decided that she would be denied benefits based on a possible future event to which there was no evidence, ergo her getting hired on full time.
You are ignoring a key fact.
She quit a job she worked. That makes the medical reason for leaving vital to meeting the qualification. Without a medical doctor telling her to quit, she doesn't have a valid medical excuse for quitting.
Second key fact
Because she didn't have a valid medical excuse (i.e. a doctor gave it...), she didn't have a valid reason for quitting. Therefore, quitting to prevent possibly becoming full time matters.
Stop ignoring these facts and it looks like nothing inappropriate, or too hard, or thoughtless, was done.
I keep explaining that the reaon that the ramifications over quitting the job were made to be relevant was because she didn't have a medical excuse for quitting the job but you keep saying that they shouldn't have judged her based upon the potential of the job to offer her full time and ignoring that the lack of medical clearance make it an issue.
|
A friend of mine moved in with his girlfriend. She was living of welfare, he had a good job. However, he kept his appartment and still payed the rent. This way, his girlfriend could keep her welfare, and they both kept the subsidy for renting. (This is in the Netherlands, by the way.)
He moved back when he dumped her.
So, they weren't sure how strong their relationship was and decided to begin living together in a way that they could easily separate if it didn't work out, which they then did.
Sounds like you present this as gaming the system or you can present it as being naturally cautious about a new relationship.
No?
A friend of mine moved in with his girlfriend. She was living of welfare, he had a good job. However, he kept his appartment and still payed the rent. This way, his girlfriend could keep her welfare, and they both kept the subsidy for renting. (This is in the Netherlands, by the way.)
He moved back when he dumped her.So, they weren't sure how strong their relationship was and decided to begin living together in a way that they could easily separate if it didn't work out, which they then did.
Sounds like you present this as gaming the system or you can present it as being naturally cautious about a new relationship.
No?
They both kept separate residences which would alleviate fraud on that account, IMO. But, if he were paying a portion of her (subsidized) rent, she should have claimed it as income, IMO. But, I'm not sure how that income and tax stuff works in the Netherlands. Plus, that would be subleasing and that might not be allowed by the contract...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hee hee!
Great fun, guys.
Anyway, personally I've only ever known one person who has never worked, my mother's cousin who's got some kind of mental disorder. I'm not really sure what it was, but she used to see demons and, when I was little, I tried to get her to point them out in the 1st edition Monster Manual and I ended up getting grounded. No wonder I never pursued a career in psychiatry.
Do some poor people game the system? Of course they do--along with some rich people, some corporations, etc., etc.
It's America. Cheating with money is what this country was founded on.
Hee hee!
Great fun, guys.
Anyway, personally I've only ever known one person who has never worked, my mother's cousin who's got some kind of mental disorder. I'm not really sure what it was, but she used to see demons and, when I was little, I tried to get her to point them out in the 1st edition Monster Manual and I ended up getting grounded. No wonder I never pursued a career in psychiatry.
Do some poor people game the system? Of course they do--along with some rich people, some corporations, etc., etc.
It's America. Cheating with money is what this country was founded on.
[professional FHDM]BAD COMRADE ANKLEBITER! Do NOT harass family members with schizophrenia![/professional FHDM]
[professional FHDM]BAD COMRADE ANKLEBITER! Do NOT harass family members with schizophrenia![/professional FHDM]
Mom, is that you?!?
Same here. Went through this with my soon to be ex.ive encountered this before.In my OTHER example I gave, an employer lied to unemployment to prevent her from getting benefits. In that specific case she was let go because the business was sold out from under her. She worked a late shift the night before, came home and slept and went back in for a morning shift the next day. When she showed up the boss said "yeah you don't have to work today, or ever again, we're closed". Like a week before xmas. Then he lied saying that he had offered her a full time job or some nonsense and she'd turned it down.
im sorry, on both counts.
And despite all the abuse described here, there are actually many people who use the various forms of assistance in the way it's really meant to be used: A safety net to keep you from crashing all the way to the bottom and to give you a chance to get back on your feet again.
Is someone needs some help to get over a rough spot, a job loss, a medical problem, a disappeared spouse, whatever, and then maybe a couple years later starts doing better and can make it or even prosper on their own, shouldn't we try to make that easier?Sure, there's abuse of the system and minimizing that is a worthy goal, but not at the expense of making it not work for those do need help. It's already hard enough for those who legitimately need help to get it. There are a lot of hoops to jump through and if you're not familiar with the system you can fall through the cracks.
For me the point from the OP was that the abuse didn't exist, and I felt like commenting on it.
It's kinda not fun to be in line at the grocery store with your mother who works her ass off every day like a damn workaholic and she's buying hamburger, when she is also buying filet mignon for the people in front of her using food stamps. I tend to see shit like this and call shenanigans. Bullshit is bullshit, and inevitably the only defense will be that it's class warfare, or I don't have any hard proof so it's anecdotal.
Um,........tell me again how this is a class warfare issue again?
Pffft......class warfare......
Anecdotes are neat. A doctor told this story about himself at a party once.
This woman turns to him and says "Every time I take a drink of wine it burns my throat, does that mean anything?"
He replies, "You have lymphoma. You probably have a year to live. I'd recommend going to see your doctor."
She turned away from him in a mixture of shock and horror.
A week later the oncologist got a phone call. "Hello, a patient of mine came to visit me. Turns out your diagnosis was correct. You could have been a little more polite though."
Now, every time I have a drink, I'm very thankful for the lack of pain in my throat.
So, I think he was looking for anecdotal experiences; it's hard for me to prove motive, but I get the feeling he didn't think there would be any.
Gee whiz, I guess I should have started a case study on all these people. It would've been of incalculable scientific value to a thread in an off topic discussion thread on a gaming website some 15-20 years later.
Also one thing I want to know people who know people with food stamps how much food do these people throw out? I find that wasteful take public funds for something that ends up in a trashcan.
.