[FoRK] Fwd: Hey, big spender...
geege4 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 28 08:04:18 PDT 2008
Obama isn't for universal health care. He's for more affordable health
care. Universal Health Care will enrich the insurance companies at
taxpayers' expense. Obama's plan focuses on prevention, education and
finding ways to provide drugs less expensively.
On to another "spending" topic: social services. For those of you who
don't know, I work for a private NFP social service agency. We were part of
the privatization of child welfare services in Florida - indeed, we wrote
the plan. While under the state, not one child in the dependency (child
welfare) system was placed into a premanent situation. Once privatized, the
system began to work. The system is changing, with more emphasis on
prevention and education for entire families and less effort put toward
removing kids, putting them in foster care and then having them adopted, a
trauma from which most never recover.
Across all our programs, like financial aid and counseling, we're finding
better ways to measure results. Private funding agencies like United Way
are finding better ways to determine which results to look for.
I think there's an outdated perception of social services as being the
taxpayer-funded means by which the government enables poverty. If you knew
that with very little money you could actually change the direction of
lives, you might consider social services a good investment. Down the road
(and it would be a long road, no doubt) you'd see a country that benefits
from less investment in law enforcement, prisons, welfare .... you get the
Once you get the gist, you get the vision. Once you get the vision, you get
In summation: Some programs never worked because they were never funded at
the level they needed. The argument was always "Why throw more money at a
losing proposition?" That's the kind of thiking that brought us No Child
Left Behind while cutting funding for early learning.
I want someone in power who has the smarts to maximize our return on social
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Stephen Williams wrote:
> Good explanation of your numbers. But the initial question is: Are we
>> agreeing to commit to solving the problem regardless of its size? (Your
>> assumption apparently.)
> A safe assumption, I'd say. "Universal health care" has been THE defining
> issue of the Democratic party since at least 1992. They're not going to
> miss this opportunity to take a shot at it, and I have no doubt they
> wouldn't flinch at increasing the overall budget as necessary to accomplish
> it, and figure out how to *actually* pay for it later.
> In fact, I'm willing to take some action on propositions around this. You
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK