On Aug 18, 12:42�pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 17, 4:09�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 17 aug., 18:27, ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 17, 11:39�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:18�pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:00�pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Did everybody see the endless news coverage of the free medical expo in L.A.?
Thousands and thousands of people lined up for treatments. Many of them did
have insurance, but their benefits are so crappy that they can't afford to get
the treatments. No, Witless, they weren't looking for plastic surgery or
liposuction. But they did need everything except urgent care.
Now here's your question, Witless. I hope you have your dancing shoes on.
How do you reconcile the republicans' insistence that America has "the best
health care system in the world" with the reality of the deluge in L.A.?
�1/3 of the nations welfare losers are in Ca. � Health care system is
fine for hardworking successful people.
Your claim is that 1/3 of all people on assistance are in CA? I find
that hard to believe. I'm not calling you a liar. I'd just like to see
some backup on this whopper. LoL.
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/web...es/034662.html
ScottW
It is a program for temporary assistance,
"The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was
created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996. States and Tribes have broad flexibility
to develop and implement TANF programs that meet the following goals:"
The federal welfare program (TANF) is "temporary" limiting the number
of months of lifetime benefit to 60.
California has not incorporated those limits and will provide
unlimited benefts to people with children.
The consequence is 1/3 of all welfare recipients now reside in Ca.
Considering that Califormia
has taken one of the worst hits in
our recent economic meltdown, it is NOY unexpected
that they would temoporarily have the greatest need for temporary
assisitance
programs.
If you read the reference, you'd see the latest data upon which the
comment is based is 2008.
So this time your link is outdated instead of just merely biased. One
of these days you'll get it right.