welfare is deforming children

[NghtRppr]

I was recently talking to someone that works for a state Medicaid office and this is what I learned:

The way Medicaid works is that you get more money for having low birth weight children and because of that, a lot of women are intentionally smoking during pregnancy to cash in on the system even more so. Also, if you have a special needs child, the government gives you lifetime assistance, not just until the child grows up. So, instead of aborting children that would lead a life of suffering or place too large of a burden on the parents, these people are thinking "cha-ching!" whenever they find out their children could be at risk. We are encouraging deformities.

If these parents on welfare were forced to be responsible for their choices, they would think twice about giving birth to a child that's going to be codependent for the rest of his or her life. Instead, they are intentionally putting themselves at risk because not only is it not their burden, they actually benefit from it. There are other scams as well. Instead of getting married, these parasites just cohabitate so the money they receive isn't diminished by income from the spouse.

Also, instead of giving parents of special needs children 24/7 assistance, if you don't work and don't go to school, you only get 8 hours a day of assistance, enough to sleep and that's it. So time and time again these parents are complaining that "I got other kids to take care of too" and in most cases these children were born after the special needs child. That means that these people are counting on the government to take care of their children instead of thinking "Hey, this special needs child is going to take a lot of work, we better not have anymore". When the parasites realize that they can actually get more from working or going to school it's like an alien concept to them and they get what one observer calls a "deer in the headlights" look.

[1713441337]

1713441337

[1713441337]

1713441337

[1713441337]

1713441337

[SgtSpike]

Wow, that's sad.

It's also why liberals are wrong.  So wrong.  Liberals think they are helping people, but really, they're only hindering them.  Give someone money, and they'll become dependent on it, not independent as the liberals would so like to proclaim.  Give someone money for having a deformed baby, and surprise surprise, people will find a way to "cheat the system".

And those mothers are so morally messed up as well.  But I wish the US wouldn't give them the means to screw up other people's lives for the sake of making themselves a few more dollars.

Liberals, take note!  This is what happens with your worldview and policies!

[kiba]

Citation needed.

[NghtRppr]

Citation needed.

https://www.cms.gov/HealthCareFinancingReview/downloads/04-05winterpg105.pdf

[Shortline]

I was recently talking to someone that works for a state Medicaid office and this is what I learned:

The way Medicaid works is that you get more money for having low birth weight children and because of that, a lot of women are intentionally smoking during pregnancy to cash in on the system even more so.

So yeah I looked through the first page of your lmgtfy and I couldn't find anything about this statement.

There's no data to back up what this guy was saying?

[NghtRppr]

I was recently talking to someone that works for a state Medicaid office and this is what I learned:

The way Medicaid works is that you get more money for having low birth weight children and because of that, a lot of women are intentionally smoking during pregnancy to cash in on the system even more so.

So yeah I looked through the first page of your lmgtfy and I couldn't find anything about this statement.

There's no data to back up what this guy was saying?

What exactly are you questioning? Their intentions? Only those women know their true intentions but it's more likely than not that they are gaming the system. Are you questioning that you get more money for low birth weight babies?

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10026.html

Please be more specific about what you want to know. Also, try looking around the web first since it's probably faster than waiting for me to do it for you.

[kiba]

Please be more specific about what you want to know. Also, try looking around the web first since it's probably faster than waiting for me to do it for you.

You said it is true so you better provide the bacon for your evidence.

[NghtRppr]

Please be more specific about what you want to know. Also, try looking around the web first since it's probably faster than waiting for me to do it for you.

You said it is true so you better provide the bacon for your evidence.

Which I'm more than willing to do. I was just pointing out that it might be quicker for you to use Google yourself instead of waiting for me to do it for you. I don't have some magical access to data that you don't. The burden of proof is on me and I never claimed otherwise.

Did you have some objection to the link I provided? Let's try to keep this conversation constructive.

[Shortline]

Hell yeah, constructive is what we do, right?

A bit unclear on my part, I looked through the first page of results couldn't find anything to back up the latter half of your statement.

...a lot of women are intentionally smoking during pregnancy to cash in on the system even more so.

I can't find any valid data to back that statement up I'm going to have to call it an anecdote and thereby not fitting material to discard an entire political philosophy.

[Tukotih]

If I were president, I would make smoking during pregnancy a criminal offense.
Seriously, smoking during pregnancy? What kind of fucked up mothers do we have on this planet?

[AllYourBase]

If I were president, I would make smoking during pregnancy a criminal offense.
Seriously, smoking during pregnancy? What kind of fucked up mothers do we have on this planet?

Well you're welcome to try and dissuade, or even stop if you feel it's morally imperative, mothers from smoking, but do not try to drag me into it through use of government force.  Perhaps I am unconvinced by the statistics put out by government organizations regarding smoking and birth defects.  In any event, you stopping this harm does not justify forcing me to help you.

[NghtRppr]

A bit unclear on my part, I looked through the first page of results couldn't find anything to back up the latter half of your statement.

It seems that the first page returned by Google is a different one now. Here's what I was trying to point you to: https://www.cms.gov/HealthCareFinancingReview/downloads/04-05winterpg105.pdf

"Findings indicate that pregnant women with deliveries paid by Medicaid are more than twice as likely to smoke as privately insured women..."

Satisfied?

[Raulo]

"Findings indicate that pregnant women with deliveries paid by Medicaid are more than twice as likely to smoke as privately insured women..."

Satisfied?

Correlation is not causation. Medicaid women are poorer and less educated which correlated with smoking.

[compro01]

A bit unclear on my part, I looked through the first page of results couldn't find anything to back up the latter half of your statement.

It seems that the first page returned by Google is a different one now. Here's what I was trying to point you to: https://www.cms.gov/HealthCareFinancingReview/downloads/04-05winterpg105.pdf

"Findings indicate that pregnant women with deliveries paid by Medicaid are more than twice as likely to smoke as privately insured women..."

Satisfied?

people with low enough income to qualify for medicaid are more likely to smoke period, pregnant or not.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105550/among-americans-smoking-decreases-income-increases.aspx

low-income women also have higher rates of unintended pregnancies.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/05/04/index.html

[Grinder]

"Findings indicate that pregnant women with deliveries paid by Medicaid are more than twice as likely to smoke as privately insured women..."

That's because losers are more likely to smoke than those who are successful enough to afford insurance. The limit for getting benefits for low weight is 2 pounds, 10 ounces, which is less than half the lower end of normal children (6 to 9 pounds). Smoking during pregnancy only lowers the weight by 4 ounces on average.

Now that I've given you the proper facts I suppose you'll have no problem finding the sources with Google.

[NghtRppr]

The limit for getting benefits for low weight is 2 pounds, 10 ounces, which is less than half the lower end of normal children (6 to 9 pounds).

That's only the partial definition. Here's the complete definition.

low birth weight
    Defined for the SSI disabled children's program as a birth weight under 1,200 grams or under 2,000 grams and small for gestational age.

So, children can also qualify if they are up to 4 pounds 6.5 ounces.

Smoking during pregnancy only lowers the weight by 4 ounces on average.

The average person also has one testicle and one ovary. While true, it's misleading.

Now that I've given you the proper facts I suppose you'll have no problem finding the sources with Google.

I had no problem finding the source with Google. I don't see what the big problem is. Of course, it's still your job to back up your claim with evidence but it's not that hard to find public information. Anyways, here's the only website Google could find that mentions a "4 ounces on average" statistic: http://thefunkymonk.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/the-effect-of-smoking-and-the-birth-weight-of-newborns/

Your source is some guy's blog. I don't think that's very credible.

[Grinder]

Your source is some guy's blog. I don't think that's very credible.

Actually, I used this for that number: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11125982

[NghtRppr]

Actually, I used this for that number: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11125982

That's a relief. Did you want to respond to the rest of my post?

[Grinder]

Did you want to show us where it says that people on welfare start smoking or smoke more if they're pregnant?

[NghtRppr]

Did you want to show us where it says that people on welfare start smoking or smoke more if they're pregnant?

That's a red herring. The fact that they don't stop smoking while pregnant can be considered starting smoking or smoking more compared to what the average woman would be doing without Medicaid.

Conservative estimates indicate that at least one out of every ten pregnant women smoke, accounting for half a million births per year (1). However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pregnant women on Medicaid are 2.5 times more likely to smoke than pregnant women not on Medicaid (2) and a separate study found that Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to 60-70% of all pregnant smokers (3).

1. See, e.g., Markovic, R., et al., "Substance Use Measures Among Women in Early Pregnancy," American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 183:627-32 (September 2000).
2. Lipscomb LE, Johnson CH, Morrow B, Colley Gilbert B, Ahluwalia IB, Beck LF, Gaffield ME, Rogers M, Whitehead N. PRAMS 1998 Surveillance Report. Atlanta: Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000.
3. Orleans TC et al, “Helping pregnant smokers quit: meeting the challenge in the next decade,” Tobacco Control 2000;9(Suppl III):iii6-iii11.

If you want to claim that they are smoking more because they are poor rather than because they are on Medicaid. You need to back that up. There's clearly a correlation between Medicaid and smoking during pregnancy. Can you show the same correlation with poverty, with and without Medicaid?