Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Welfare vs Universal Healthcare... What's the difference?

We are all putting money into a pot and then letting the government decide who needs it most in both situations. Why is one more favorable than the other? The point of universal health care would be to provide care to those who couldn't afford it otherwise right? I am just trying to figure out what the difference is? And no, I do not have an aim or objective with this post... I am really trying to sort it out. Why does one have this negative "people are abusing it" response but the other does not? Is it because groceries etc are easier to come by than medical care?

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 1:53 PM on Jun. 25, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (11)
  • only some people have being one.......get a grip, shut up and move on

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:03 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • What does that mean? Why can't you help shed light on the subject without being like that about it? That makes me think that the two are as similar as they seem...

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:08 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • I really don't understand the difference either...

    Answer by VeronicaLee at 2:09 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • •Universal healthcare would result in a number of moral, economic, and cultural benefits. It is not a welfare policy for the uninsured; rather, it is a policy whose benefits would accrue to all Americans. For example, universal healthcare would save money, improve our health, and create a society with more equal opportunity. These are things all Americans can enjoy. •There are many services that are provided by the government that can be seen as "handouts." Corporate welfare (e.g. the subsidization of oil companies by the government through tax breaks and direct subsidies) might be a government handout, depending on one's political perspective.

    Answer by SabrinaLC at 2:16 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • Thanks for the link Sabrina. While you posted that I had been doing a google search myself....

    This article says medicaid and medicare cuts are what will fund UHC:

    I'll check out your article next....

    Answer by VeronicaLee at 2:24 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • I don't think there would be so much negativity concerning welfare if there weren't so many people abusing it. Welfare was supposed to be a temporary assistance program for people who found themselves on the skids and needed a little help, but somewhere along the way it was turned into a lifestyle. I personally know of people who can't afford to feed the kids they already have but continue to birth more because the welfare system will pay for them. I also know of people who cash in their food stamps to buy drugs and alcohol. It's very prevalent and tarnishes those individuals who truly only need/want temporary assistance. The idea of universal health care, since it doesn't exist for us yet, is still enwrapped with the promise of hope, not the negative connotations of reality. That's just my observation though.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:40 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • It's just one more thing that tax payers get to pay even more for. Thanks Obama.

    Answer by lilbit022009 at 3:21 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • In the end, there is no difference, neither better than the other.

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 3:31 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • "It's just one more thing that tax payers get to pay even more for. Thanks Obama."

    Did you watch the 60 minute special on this (was it last night?) He was saying something like, the money is already in the system to pay for UHC. I guess by cutting off some of the services of those already on medicaid/medicare. The impression I got was he plans on cutting a lot off the care that our elderly get to pay for new participants in the universal health care system. Seems like BS that "the money is already there to pay for it".

    Honestly though, after watching the show, I don't feel any better about my understanding of what his plan truly means to our children and our elderly that are in the medicaid/medicare system already.


    Answer by VeronicaLee at 4:47 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • When everyone is receiving foodstamps and welfare, finally no one will be complaining about who is abusing it. The foodstamp program began not as a temporary benefit, but as a benefit to combat food insufficiency and malnutrition in poverty stricken areas such as the Appalachians. It was not a program that was to be limited by time and it was provided to a population that the Gov. knew was in a hopeless situation financially. It was much easier to provide support to these people than it would have been to revitalize the stricken areas and provide better educational opportunities. Why? Because there was no corporate interest in the local industry, such as coal mining, to provide more jobs or higher wages, which would result in lost profits. When the foodstamp program was launched, people purchased coupons that permitted them to then purchase certain grocery items for very little. The problem was that poor people couldn't

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:16 PM on Jun. 25, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.