Cancer patients budget victims
In his effort to cut costs, Gov. LePage has released a proposal that includes overwhelming cuts to Medicaid which would deprive hardworking Mainers of cancer screenings and treatments that could save their lives.
More than one in five cancer patients in Maine rely on Medicaid for access to vital treatments and services. Many of these people ended up on Medicaid because they lost their health insurance after being diagnosed with cancer — some became too sick to work, others had to use all of their savings on treatments.
Instead of providing these people with a critical safety net, the governor’s proposal would kick many of them off Medicaid. For others, it would severely limit their coverage. For example, cancer patients would be limited to five hospital stays and 15 outpatient visits per year — which I can assure you, as a cancer survivor, does not even begin to cover the vast needs of someone with cancer.
I urge the members of the Appropriations and Health and Human Services Committees to reject the governor’s proposal, because cuts to balance the state budget should never fall on the backs of cancer patients.
Marianne Moore
Calais
Clean works
When I read the Dec. 15 op-ed, “State can’t afford welfare for politicians,” by Reps. David Johnson and Doug Damon, I was saddened and dismayed to see that two recipients of Maine Clean Election Funds were calling the program “welfare for politicians” and attempting to dismantle what I consider to be a light in the darkness of political funding practices.
In 2006 I ran for the state House of Representatives. I was a retired teacher with limited resources and was thrilled to apply for and receive Clean Elections funds for my campaign. At that time, I needed to get 50 $5 checks from 50 registered voters in the district. That meant that I had to go out to all six towns and meet face to face with people.
Before I was running I was getting to know the towns and meeting the people I was hoping would vote for me. These would be the very people I would be beholden to if elected, not some business or corporation from another district or area.
After receiving the funding I began campaigning in earnest “the old-fashioned“ way, without the worry of begging for money to compete with my opponent. My energies went into meeting citizens, finding out their concerns, researching policy and legislation, not asking strangers for money. I felt part of a democratic process.
I am proud to be from a state with the wisdom to have a process to make it possible to elect authentic citizen legislators. Please don’t “fix” something that works and is good for the citizens of Maine.
Donna M. Gilbert
Winterport
Wants, not needs
In reference to a recent letter to the editor regarding welfare ( “Single mom smear,” Dec. 21), it seems the writer is or must have been on welfare at some point in time, because she doesn’t get the point. The point is that if you really need the benefits, you would spend the money wisely.
Buying lobster is not a necessity but a luxury. The money spent on that one meal could be more wisely spent on things like bread, spaghetti, meats, milk, etc. for several meals instead. The money spent on luxury items such as toys, etc. could be spent on clothes or food instead.
Those of us who aren’t on welfare and can’t afford things go without. Lots of people on welfare don’t know what going without means because a lot of them live better than those of us who work. The luxuries some of the welfare recipients get are paid for by some of us who can’t afford them for ourselves!
The letter does not represent all welfare recipients, but a lot of them. Some really do need the benefits, but some don’t.
Colette Pelletier
St. John Plantation
Through the cracks
We need to give help to those who really need it. A lot of people who have worked hard all their lives are refused help because they have to many assets. Well I’m one such person.
This MaineCare program is a joke. People who need help can’t get it while others live high on the hog from it.
Too many people don’t get off their butts to get a job. Before I lost my job in May to MS, I worked a full-time job and a couple part-time jobs to keep clothes on my growing kids and food on the table. Now that I need help we can’t get it.
My wife works two full-time jobs now that I’m unemployed. Social Security disability is another joke. I’ve been denied and they tell me that I will be able to go back to work in August. There is no cure for MS. Something needs to be done with the state’s MaineCare program and the people who abuse it.
Boyd Fortier
Jackman
Mission accomplished
I am so grateful our troops are coming home from Iraq! They have given all in a very difficult war. For the military to end the mission with little fanfare is OK — it’s not a failure as portrayed by saying, “There was no ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner. No victory parade down the center of this capital scarred and rearranged.”
It is not our American way. We did our job. Yes, war leaves terrible scars. Defending ourselves and the oppressed does leave lives “rearranged.” We give, not having to have “crowds of those cheering and grateful for liberation.” A nation that stands for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” continues to shout, with Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death,” to all the world.
If I understand the key figures, we have helped. That is what Americans do. From the Dec. 16 BDN: “the Americans did not leave modern schools or big factories behind them. Instead, they left thousands of widows and orphans,” and “Iraq: Key figures” included increased Iraqi security forces, increased electricity, cell phones, potable water, sewerage. Someone is grateful for these! Americans have freed this oppressed country to pursue continued growth.
Thank you America, for protecting us here, by going there, and defending the oppressed. “There is [indeed] no greater love than a man lay down his life for his brother.”
Jane and Tom Zimmerman
Smyrna
Colette, excellent letter, could not have said it better myself, nice to see some of us think alike
Colette: Thanks for riding in on your high horse…that must have taken some real courage to bash people with nothing more than vague statements and anecdotes. Whew.
Jan and Tom: Yup, they sure should be grateful that we blasted the Hell out of Iraq for a decade, killing upwards of hundreds of thousands and spending a trillion taxpayer (well, borrowed really), dollars to do so all to benefit Bush’s ego, a handful of neocon Nazis, and the wealthy elite in America. Yup, sure do feel all proud and grateful…let’s all proudly sing the Start Spangled Banner before we do the same thing to another country…that will make us all feel better the next time we re-enact September 1,1939 and invade a nation under the guise of self-defense…Yeah, because Iraq was REALLY a danger.
Jane and Tom, I sympathize with and applaud your sentiments. There is no doubt in my mind that the young soldiers believed they were sacrificing for a good cause. But Uncle Drinky, I agree with you. I am sick of this BS.
And after the sacrifices, both lives and money, made in Afghanistan, China just signed a deal allowing them to explore for oil.
Another reason not to buy any Chinese crap. Buy American.
In case you didn’t know our troops were guarding a road and access to a Chinese copper mine. At least they were a year and a half ago.
We gqave the Chinese $17.4 million this year for social and economic development. Guess where we got the money? We borrowed it from the Chinese! Lol. I have to laugh, or it makes me sick. I don’t know why we just don’t put a bouncy ball tent on the floor of Congress.
——————————
It has to drive you just plain nuts sometimes. It makes no sense.
Jan and Tom, wasn’t it all worth it to see Bush with his codpiece on the deck of an aircraft carrier beneath a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished?”
If you vote for one of the lying lunatics the Republicans are offering this year (Gingrich, Perry, Romney, you pick your favorite) you can probably have a reprise for another trillion dollars and a few hundred thousand dead Muslims with a war against Iran. Let’s fight until the last enlistee dies.
Colette – Define “lots”.
Colette: Speaking as someone who has been on food stamps in the past, I have this one question for you…Assuming that I budget well enough that the food stamp alottment I am given is enough to provide for me and my family for the entire month, who are you to tell me what I can and can’t spend it on?
Are you for real? It’s partly my money your spending and I and others who contribute have every right to tell you the limitations of how and what you may spend it on. If you don’t like the thought of rules then may I suggest a second or third job and then nobody will try and tell you where to spend your money!
Yes well I’m sick and tired of paying for the roads, bridges and public services that you use and I don’t. In my mind that makes you the Welfare Queen.
I tell you what, let’s vote and see which type of welfare people would rather pay for. Cash and food stamp handouts or road repairs. Wait a minute we did that already…
My sentiments exactly on the invasion of Iraq and anywhere else the government chooses to spend MY money foolishly.
A second minimum wage job would still leave you time to sleep. A third minimum wage job is unworkable AMC, no time for sleep. In 1961 JFK signed a bill raising the minimum wage to $1.25 an hour. If the wages were even remotely keeping pace with inflation, today’s minimum should be around $12 an hour, not the current b$7.50. This would also mean that the jobs that pay above the minimum would also be higher and my small business and everyone else’s would prosper. Instead, the money that used to go towards the wages keeping pace with inflation is being concentrated in a couple of hundred safes. Which would explain how the top 1% have seen their piles explode by 300% in the last 20 years alone, while the wages of the working man are stuck in the early 90’s. The 6 Walton heirs now have more wealth than the bottom 96 million Americans. How long do you see this continuing before the shooting starts. Just like every single time in recorded history. Buy American, pay your fair share in taxes, and stay to hell out of ChinaMart while there is still one American left with a decent job.
To everyone who says they have a say in how those on SNAP(food stamp) benefits spend “their” money:
OK, let’s look at this from a slightly different angle…does your pay check have an item that says “food stamps for others?” No, its rolled into your state and federal payroll taxes. That money is given to the state and fed to do with as they see fit. The argument that “you’re spending my money on food, so I have a say,” doesn’t really hold up in my opinion unless you are writing me a check directly.
All those who vote (I’m a firm believer in “if you don’t vote, then don’t complain”) are casting those votes to put into office those who you are trusting to work in your best interest. The population today is simply too large to ask every person their stance on every issue, which is why we have the form of government we do. One of the many decisions that is put before our representatives is what to do with the tax dollars they receive from all of us. Once those taxes are paid to the government, they are in a way no longer “yours”, but rather belong to the government itself. That government has decided how to determine what a household should receive in SNAP benefits, if any. That same government has decided not to put limitations on what foods can be bought with those benefits. If you don’t like either of those decisions, take it up with your representatives, and if they don’t listen, vote for someone else who will.
In the meantime, whether or not you like what a few people buy with their food stamps(I hold that it’s a minority that are buying lobster and other “luxuries”- I know that I never did), as long as they are not committing fraud either when trying to get benefits, or in using them(such as “selling” food stamp benefits for cash), they are following the rules as they exist today, so get out of their shopping cart. To say it again: if you don’t like the rules, work to get them changed, and hold others accountable to the rules as they are, not as you would like them to be.
I think that is the point of this debate: clearly the rules are too loose if people using SNAP have enough cash to buy lobster and not be hungry. SNAP isn’t meant to provide people with comfort, but the bare necessities until they can pay for themselves. And yes I vote and yes I will vote to either change the qualification threshold or place restrictions on what can be bought.
I am tired of paying for your wars.
Which cost us more as a people? Which provides more benefit?
Agreed Nate. I am sure that Colette would be one of the first people to say that Michelle Obama can’t tell her what or what not to eat.
If you qualify for food stamps, I believe that your children, if in school, qualify for free breakfast and lunch. What makes you think the tax payers should be paying to feed your children 31 meals a week during the school year?
When you depend on someone else you always give over some some power to them in exchange. Always. We borrow from China they get a say. A business borrows from a bank they get to say how you spend it. The feds send education money to the states to be dispensed to communities, don’t be surprised if both the states and the feds dictate how it is spent. The same with food stamps. Colette has as much right to an opinion as anyone else. Don’t be surprised in this day of budget cuts you don’t find more restrictions being placed on your purchases with government money some day soon.
Not always the case…and some of your examples don’t even fit the point you’re trying to make. “The feds send education money”…by definition, that money is earmarked for education, so I don’t think anyone is expecting to be able to use money given to them called “education money” for something like roads…
As far as business loans go, it depends on the type of loan…some are limited by design (mortgages for property, etc), but a general business loan can be used by that business as they see fit…in those cases, the only thing the bank cares about is “do we think the business will be able to pay this back?”
The government has rules for what can and can not be purchased with food stamps. At this point, they have chosen to err on the side of freedom of choice in how they are used. Will that change down the road? Maybe…but until it does, don’t hate on those who are following the rules just because you don’t like what the rules are…
“Will that change down the road? Maybe…” Your point.
“Don’t be surprised in this day of budget cuts you don’t find more
restrictions being placed on your purchases with government money some
day soon.” My point.
Not that far apart really.
In the meantime Collette can make her point as well.
You seem to have missed the point of my post…yes, I acknowledge that the rules may change in the future. However, the point I’m trying to get across is that despite how you or anyone else may feel about it, those receiving benefits are following the current rules set forth as far as what they can use those benefits for, whether they are buying lobster or chicken. People seem too quick to point the finger at the one receiving the benefits, when there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. If you think the system should be changed, then address that with the people who have the power to change it, don’t condemn those who are doing nothing wrong.
If you can afford luxury items, then you don’t need the food stamps. Apparently the qualification bar is too low if people are purchasing lobster. Plus, many I see using SNAP look anything but underfed…just sayin’
“Plus, many I see using SNAP look anything but underfed…just sayin'”
To safely lose weight can sometimes take years, and sometimes weight issues that started when someone was growing up carry on to later in life, despite what their eating habits are. It almost sounds by your comments that you are advocating someone needs to be malnourished before receiving benefits…just remember the old saying that you can’t judge a book by its cover…you don’t know a person’s past, nor do you know how long someone has been receiving assistance. To use someone being overweight as justification for not giving them assistance is not only discrimination, but assumes a lot about that person that you do not have nearly enough information to determine.
There is also the fact that the cheapest foods very often result in people gaining weight due to more fat content. The healthy foods cost more.
That’s garbage. The staples are plenty cheap and healthy. My point is that if someone is overweight and buying lobsters with SNAP, something is wrong with the system.
COLETTE,
Many years ago poor and greed were never used together, but in today’s times many of the poor are very greedy.
BOYD,
The current welfare system is designed to be abused.
Corporate welfare through our income tax code costs Americans so much more than the cost to help a few lazy bums so why do REPUBLICANS NEVER WHINE ABOUT THAT.
Marrianne Moore, it is unfortunate that when these cuts are implemented, those who are the most needy will in all likelyhood be the ones to suffer. Too bad that real suffering doesn’t enter into the equasion when politicians bring out the axe and machette to trim the budget.
Jane and Tom Zimmerman: America’s ‘pre-emptive’ strike (a first for America) on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people and created millions of refugees and countless injuries, violence, corruption, instability, chaos. We had absolutely no right to invade with our ‘shock and awe’. A trillion dollars gone because the neo-con faction of republicans – led by Mr. Cheney – wanted this war. It is a nightmare that is ongoing and we can never be considered ‘victors’.
Good letters all.
Colette, buying a lobster is a good use of food stamp money for several reasons. One, lobster is highly nutritious–far more so than white-flour-based pasta. Second, lobster is a locally caught and sold Maine product. When we buy lobster, we are helping to pay lobstermen who live and work in Maine. When we buy Prince spaghetti, or store-brand spaghetti, we are sending our dollars to some huge food corporation that employs people who knows where? We are also buying a food that is kept cheaper through federal subsidies to corporate grain producers and processors. If you pair a lobster, (let’s say a pound and a quarter at $6.99/pound, that’s about $8.75) with a baked Maine potato that costs a few pennies and some fresh vegetable or fruit of your choice, you have a full meal that costs about $10 and has an economic reverberation that benefits Mainers.
Eat all the cheap pasta you want, but the effects of that will be a less healthy individual and money leaving the state of Maine. The cost will end up being more than the lobster.
You can find chicken for half that, and even less when it’s on special. You can rationalize it any way you want, but $6.99/pound for an item containing a high proportion of shell, etc, is not an efficient use of food stamp $$. The rest of us can pay for the luxury of “buying Maine”.
Commercial chicken is fed a diet that is comprised mostly of corn, a crop that receives huge subsidies from the federal government. Cheap, subsidized corn has led to cheap chicken. If the government cut the corn subsidy, then your chicken could not be so cheap. Most likely it would be more than lobster as it takes more processing. So, once again, I believe my rationalization is a good one. Keep the money in Maine, buy healthy food and improve your taste buds.
Seriously, if you want to buy your free-range, organic, local chicken, knock yourself out. But food stamps are for those who would go hungry otherwise. These folks need to maximize their food budget, not eat luxury items (and yes, the best quality food is a luxury). If they can afford to eat lobster and $10.99/pound local organic chicken, then they don’t need a handout to buy it.
It’s getting really tiresome listening to conservatives blame those receiving aid for all the problems of the state and to constantly label aid recipients greedy, dishonest and worse.
There has been only one legitimate, accurately researched study on welfare fraud and that study found only 10% of the families receiving aid were cheating. Note that the study was done by family not per person.
The high estimate for Maine families receiving any kind of aid is about 50,000. This means that approximately 5,000 families may be misusing aid or receiving it fraudulently. It is not possible for 5,000 poor Maine families to cause all the state’s financial, social, moral, ethical and cultural problems as ascribed to them by conservatives.
By focusing on a limited amount of welfare fraud conservatives are conveniently switching off any intelligent conversation about the future of Maine and what it will take to create new jobs in a changing economy.
The real question is; why are conservatives erroneously pinning our financial troubles on the poor? What is it that conservatives are trying to avoid talking about?
“What is it conservatives are trying to avoid talking about?” That’s an easy answer; REALITY.