Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

link: http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=52588

you called it claudio, you will be getting derision from the message board. medicaid exists as a social service for those who need medical care but cannot afford it (such as sauron and waldorf). when you gave into your selfish desires to have a baby NOW NOW NOW, you took support from someone who really needed it. choosing a career path that does not allow you to have everything you want NOW NOW NOW does not entitle you to taking away from others truly in need.

it's obviously too late for you, so whatever, i won't even argue with you about it. but for others who are thinking of taking something they want NOW NOW NOW even though they have not made sufficient preparations or put in the required work, please rethink what it means when you feel like you should have a baby. a lot of girls feel like they should have babies even before they are married, but that doesn't mean they are ready. a lot of married couples feel like they should have babies before they have made the basic preparations, but that doesn't mean they are ready.

in reading my initial response i realize i was a little bit harsh. obviously this is a topic i feel pretty strongly about, though i definitely should have left out some of the more angry comments. however i choose to keep my original response as it stands since the main intent of my post is still the same.

claudio has never liked me anyway, so no big loss i suppose.

bismark wrote:in reading my initial response i realize i was a little bit harsh. obviously this is a topic i feel pretty strongly about, though i definitely should have left out some of the more angry comments. however i choose to keep my original response as it stands since the main intent of my post is still the same.

claudio has never liked me anyway, so no big loss i suppose.

Ah, the ol' "apologize in advance without modifying anything I said so I can still have the public satisfaction of being a jerk, but disclaim any of the responsibility later" move.

I wouldn't mind discussing the issue itself, but I can't convince myself that I'd be able to without subjecting myself to unfounded personal attacks, and that just doesn't appear to be my cup of tea today.

Foreman wrote:Ah, the ol' "apologize in advance without modifying anything I said so I can still have the public satisfaction of being a jerk, but disclaim any of the responsibility later" move.

I wouldn't mind discussing the issue itself, but I can't convince myself that I'd be able to without subjecting myself to unfounded personal attacks, and that just doesn't appear to be my cup of tea today.

the younger brother comes to the rescue... almost. have it your way. i was quite impassioned while reading the response this morning, and my initial post reflects that. i'm not ashamed of it, though, as i said, i realize it was harsh. i tend to get a bit upset when i feel like someone is using my money improperly (pointless wars.. stupid bailouts.. unneeded medical procedures..).

bismark wrote:

Foreman wrote:Ah, the ol' "apologize in advance without modifying anything I said so I can still have the public satisfaction of being a jerk, but disclaim any of the responsibility later" move.

I wouldn't mind discussing the issue itself, but I can't convince myself that I'd be able to without subjecting myself to unfounded personal attacks, and that just doesn't appear to be my cup of tea today.

the younger brother comes to the rescue... almost. have it your way. i was quite impassioned while reading the response this morning, and my initial post reflects that. i'm not ashamed of it, though, as i said, i realize it was harsh. i tend to get a bit upset when i feel like someone is using my money improperly (pointless wars.. stupid bailouts.. unneeded medical procedures..).

Then talk about the programs and use. Provide some figures, some examples, some citations, some suggestions. Say something constructive on what should change (and how) instead of just railing. Really, I don't care what your opinions are, so long as they're well-reasoned and intelligently expressed--and I do believe those criteria can be met, even if our conclusions are different.

And it's not just that it's my brother (though it does affect it, yes... we are talking about my niece's existence, after all). For one, despite your singling out, nearly everyone said the same thing ("try your best, but put the Lord's will first"), and you also completely dismissed someone's explicitly expressed and carefully considered personal revelation (in this case, being a relative does make a difference; I know all about their situation and approach, while you don't. So I can verify some things personally.) as selfishness and self-delusion. Anyone of us who has served a mission or been bible-bashed should know that--while spiritual impressions are not infallible--that's still a jerk move, coming from anyone.

I've said similar things about respecting opinions multiple times on this forum, in different situations. I hope everyone's realized by now that making it personal doesn't aid the discussion in any way, it just makes people less inclined to listen to what you message you're actually trying to get across. If you actually feel strongly about it, the best way to influence people is to express your points clearly and logically, rather than jumping down their throats.

Foreman wrote:you also completely dismissed someone's explicitly expressed and carefully considered personal revelation ... as selfishness and self-delusion. Anyone of us who has served a mission or been bible-bashed should know that--while spiritual impressions are not infallible--that's still a jerk move, coming from anyone.

if we had to respect every decision because it was based on "personal revelation," then we would have a lot more socially inept RMs getting married to innocent 18 year old freshman because "i prayed about it and you are the one"... and honestly, if that's all that is happening, i don't really care. but saying you decided to take money not meant for you because of "personal revelation" is like saying its ok to go rob a bank in order to have money to pay for a baby. and to me that is wrong and rather upsetting. medicaid exists to support the underprivileged and impoverished to receive the sick-care that they need. having a healthy population is certainly in the interest of us as a society. it does not exist as to give out loans to upper middle class people who currently don't have the money to support personal decisions. whether or not its based on "personal revelation," it is still socially irresponsible.

bismark, you're not being edgy or clever. You're being a dick.

Cut out the ridiculous logical fallacies and personal attacks if you want to be taken seriously.

it does not exist as to give out loans to upper middle class people who currently don't have the money to support personal decisions

Upper middle class? Seriously? Most of us students make jack and support ourselves. Just because someone's white and educated doesn't mean they're prosperous or rely on their parents. Most of us in our early 20's are poor as hell. Maybe you've got a different perspective.

Unless of course, you're trolling. In which case, congrats, you got me.

Cognoscente wrote:bismark, you're not being edgy or clever. You're being a dick. Cut out the ridiculous logical fallacies and personal attacks if you want to be taken seriously.

ah good one, you got me there.

Cognoscente wrote:Upper middle class?

lets take an example we are familiar with: graduated from a private school and currently in medical school (an investment that is expected to have extremely high returns in about 10 years). anyone calling that impoverished is the troll here. is someone in that position currently lacking in liquid assets? sure. but thats a personal decision to be in that situation, not one created by injury or catastrophe.

speaking more generally, we seem to have a much too high sense of entitlement. do you want a baby but think you need government support to have it? how about you ask yourselves these questions:

-do you have a car? how much are you paying each month on insurance, gas, maintenance, and loan payments? can you move closer to campus/work and bike there to save money? is the convenience of a car more important to you than a baby?
-do you own a tv? do you pay for cable or satellite? is watching lost more important to you than having a baby?
-do you own a laptop? do you pay for internet? can you get all of the use of the internet that you need at school/work/library? is being able to post on the 100 hour board message board any time of day more important to you than a baby?
etc
etc

as someone who could be called a liberal on some topics, i support government welfare. but along with that support comes strong feelings towards those who misuse it. the government does give money out to help us have children, its called tax breaks for dependents.

bismark wrote:

Foreman wrote:you also completely dismissed someone's explicitly expressed and carefully considered personal revelation ... as selfishness and self-delusion. Anyone of us who has served a mission or been bible-bashed should know that--while spiritual impressions are not infallible--that's still a jerk move, coming from anyone.

if we had to respect every decision because it was based on "personal revelation," then we would have a lot more socially inept RMs getting married to innocent 18 year old freshman because "i prayed about it and you are the one"...

Since when does respecting a decision or thought based off personal revelation mean that it has to be accepted? What I mean is that in your example the innocent freshman girl, upon hearing the inept RM's proposal, has to decide if she wants to pursue a relationship to see if she comes to feel the same thing, or to not pursue a relationship. She can accept that it came as genuine personal revelation to the RM, but even if legitimate and she regards it as so, she has her own decision to make and her own personal revelation to receive.

The same holds true in the situation with Medicaid. I actually have a friend who is almost in the same position as Claudio is. My friend is married and is in the accounting program, and is at a point where he cannot work because the program is so demanding that, from what I understand, the professors and coursework discourage a job to be able to get all the course work done. He's now expecting a baby soon too in the coming months and though his wife works a small job, it is not enough to pay the bills, so they have to be on medicaid, food stamps and all that jazz.

Claudio may be in the same type of boat, he may not. The point is, according to what he said in the Board Response and to what Foreman backed up, is that there has been careful consideration, there has been approach to the decision to get on medicaid.
Now going off what Claudio said in another post about the money he'll be making until he graduates from med school, which if I recall isn't that much to live off on. Which will continue until he graduates in seven plus years or so. An awfully long time to wait to start a family.

So honestly, I don't think that Claudio is misusing the system. And as we don't know his full situation, we cannot really say otherwise. So bismark, I know you don't like people that misuse the system, but unless you have Claudio's bank statement and credit/debit purchases spanning the last few months, then you should be content with what Claudio and Foreman have said in that it was not a trivial decision.

Nor should he have to account to you with a personal checklist of all the saving that he did before deciding to go on medicaid.

It's a personal decision that really has nothing to do with you. Even if he were abusing the system, or whatever, the system is built that way and there's not much that you can do to change it. So raising a holler here isn't going to do much good.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:Since when does respecting a decision or thought based off personal revelation mean that it has to be accepted? What I mean is that in your example the innocent freshman girl, upon hearing the inept RM's proposal, has to decide if she wants to pursue a relationship to see if she comes to feel the same thing, or to not pursue a relationship. She can accept that it came as genuine personal revelation to the RM, but even if legitimate and she regards it as so, she has her own decision to make and her own personal revelation to receive.

i don't quite get what you are saying.. are you trying to say that a freshman girl should even entertain the thought of going on a date with any random dude that comes up and says he has had a revelation? i sure as heck hope my daughters are never that dumb.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:The same holds true in the situation with Medicaid. I actually have a friend who is almost in the same position as Claudio is. My friend is married and is in the accounting program, and is at a point where he cannot work because the program is so demanding that, from what I understand, the professors and coursework discourage a job to be able to get all the course work done. He's now expecting a baby soon too in the coming months and though his wife works a small job, it is not enough to pay the bills, so they have to be on medicaid, food stamps and all that jazz.

sounds like he should have waited to have a baby. seriously, if you want a baby now, don't choose a lifestyle that will preclude you from being able to raise it. i feel no sympathy for him, i learned about condoms all the way back in seventh grade health class.

here is a good litmus test for revelation: does it align with accepted canonical scripture and doctrine? then its acceptable. if someone can point to me where stealing to raise your family aligns with doctrine, i would love to hear it. yup, i said stealing, because thats what this "troll" thinks needlessly using welfare money is.

I'm just wondering how the creepy-dude-claiming-to-have-personal-revelation-on-behalf-of-someone-else is parallel to a-man-and-a-woman-claiming-to-have-personal-revelation-on-behalf-of-their-own-family? True personal revelation should be respected, yes. And though I understand (even if I'm not sure I agree with) your ethical argument, I gotta think of Nephi killing Laban. Killing isn't ethical, doctrinal, and so on. But Nephi got personal revelation from the Lord, and he followed through. It can happen.

bismark wrote:

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:Since when does respecting a decision or thought based off personal revelation mean that it has to be accepted? What I mean is that in your example the innocent freshman girl, upon hearing the inept RM's proposal, has to decide if she wants to pursue a relationship to see if she comes to feel the same thing, or to not pursue a relationship. She can accept that it came as genuine personal revelation to the RM, but even if legitimate and she regards it as so, she has her own decision to make and her own personal revelation to receive.

i don't quite get what you are saying.. are you trying to say that a freshman girl should even entertain the thought of going on a date with any random dude that comes up and says he has had a revelation? i sure as heck hope my daughters are never that dumb.

One, it's not important. It's some silly metaphor or whatever that you made that I tried to parallel. Two, if a random dude came up to any girl saying that he had a revelation that they would marry, I would expect the girl to laugh hard and loud. And walk away.

krebscout wrote:I'm just wondering how the creepy-dude-claiming-to-have-personal-revelation-on-behalf-of-someone-else is parallel to a-man-and-a-woman-claiming-to-have-personal-revelation-on-behalf-of-their-own-family? True personal revelation should be respected, yes.

i think saying the creepy dude shouldn't be having revelation on behalf of someone else is a euphemism for saying he is just plain wrong, thats not revelation the Lord would be giving out.

krebscout wrote:I gotta think of Nephi killing Laban. Killing isn't ethical, doctrinal, and so on. But Nephi got personal revelation from the Lord, and he followed through.

the old testament (occurring at the same time nephi was chopping off heads) has plenty of examples of the Lord commanding to take the life of others for the sake of the house of israel. there was precedence especially given it was the same dispensation and under the same mosaic law.

Okay, I don't disagree with any of that, but I also don't see my points discredited in the context of the Medicaid discussion.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:One, it's not important. It's some silly metaphor or whatever that you made that I tried to parallel.

i guess i dont see whats so silly about it. i dont think anyone feels strange about question such a strange "revelation." but if we can question that revelation, why not other revelations that seem to contradict doctrine? where do we draw the line? it's not just about having revelations for other people, since we would summarily reject a guy claiming to have personal revelation that alcohol is fine for him to drink.

and as far as medicaid is concerned, taking that money certainly effects other people: the single mom with a broken leg and no health insurance, the young couple with an accidental pregnancy and a baby with handicaps, etc, etc, all who might not have get access to the care that they really needed.

bismark wrote:the young couple with an accidental pregnancy and a baby with handicaps

bismark wrote:i feel no sympathy for him, i learned about condoms all the way back in seventh grade health class.

This seems to me a contradiction. Why should one have more pity for a person who chooses not to use preventative measures than not? I don't get it.

Also, I think it's funny that Coggers calling you a 4-letter word was apparently the magic key to get you talking about the issue (which is all I wanted in the first place).

Foreman wrote:

bismark wrote:the young couple with an accidental pregnancy and a baby with handicaps

bismark wrote:i feel no sympathy for him, i learned about condoms all the way back in seventh grade health class.

This seems to me a contradiction. Why should one have more pity for a person who chooses not to use preventative measures than not? I don't get it.

i was under the assumption that accidental == not trying to get pregnant == using preventative measures. then there is a big difference between "oh crap the condom broke what are we going to do now?" and "so what if we are too poor, damn the torpedoes! full speed ahead!"

bismark wrote:

Foreman wrote:

bismark wrote:the young couple with an accidental pregnancy and a baby with handicaps

bismark wrote:i feel no sympathy for him, i learned about condoms all the way back in seventh grade health class.

This seems to me a contradiction. Why should one have more pity for a person who chooses not to use preventative measures than not? I don't get it.

i was under the assumption that accidental == not trying to get pregnant == using preventative measures. then there is a big difference between "oh crap the condom broke what are we going to do now?" and "so what if we are too poor, damn the torpedoes! full speed ahead!"

Well, condoms are easy to get for free, so that bit of clarification does help. But still, I bet "accidental" births are more prevalent among those not taking precautions (young teens, etc.) than actual bona fide birth control malfunctions.

However, it doesn't make the determination any easier. All a person has to say is "oops" and they get benefits? This is one reason, I figure, that the government program is set up by income level rather than intent; intent can be faked. And if the program is dictated by income level--for everyone--then who (besides, apparently, you) gets to make the moral call on its use? Equal treatment sucks sometimes, but that's how the system works.

bismark wrote:

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:One, it's not important. It's some silly metaphor or whatever that you made that I tried to parallel.

i guess i dont see whats so silly about it. i dont think anyone feels strange about question such a strange "revelation." but if we can question that revelation, why not other revelations that seem to contradict doctrine? where do we draw the line? it's not just about having revelations for other people, since we would summarily reject a guy claiming to have personal revelation that alcohol is fine for him to drink.

and as far as medicaid is concerned, taking that money certainly effects other people: the single mom with a broken leg and no health insurance, the young couple with an accidental pregnancy and a baby with handicaps, etc, etc, all who might not have get access to the care that they really needed.

But here's the difference, alcohol is strictly against the spoken word of the prophets and doctrines of the church, whereas accepting or applying for medicaid is not stealing, and if it were to qualify as such, then it would be the government who is doing the stealing, not Claudio and others that receive assistance.

As for the rest, Foreman has said it, medicaid is based off income and financial need rather than some beaurucrat determining the morality of receiving assistance for each applicant.

Foreman wrote:And if the program is dictated by income level--for everyone--then who (besides, apparently, you) gets to make the moral call on its use? Equal treatment sucks sometimes, but that's how the system works.

an now we get to the real issue here: i will always remember the #1 rule i was given at my first tech support job: "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." sure, the money is accessible to just about everyone who can show they don't make a ton of money, but does that mean they should take advantage of it whenever possible? a person has to make that moral call for themselves, and it seems to me that the doctrine of the gospel pretty clearly points us in the direction of not taking this money unless absolutely needed. however when people needlessly take the money and try to justify it, that is no longer just a personal issue: 1) they are taking money from someone else who is truly in need and 2) they are starting down a path of dependance and debt, two epidemics that brought us to this current economic atmosphere. both are clearly against the gospel and are not socially responsible.