Any politically conservative psychiatrists?
Started by tennreb
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
generally conservative. not exclusively.
I personally am not, but I know several.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
*Representing the vast, right wing conspiracy here....*
why's that?
To the OP:
Did u mean socially conservative or fiscally conservative, or both? I'm actually a psychologist in training, but psychology is also very overly represented with democrats and libertarians. If you are a staunch republican, I would be interested in hearing your views on healthcare and stem cell research in particular. 🙂
Did u mean socially conservative or fiscally conservative, or both? I'm actually a psychologist in training, but psychology is also very overly represented with democrats and libertarians. If you are a staunch republican, I would be interested in hearing your views on healthcare and stem cell research in particular. 🙂
Speaking ridiculously broadly, conservative principles theoretically tend to assume that individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions and behave in a rational manner, such that bad outcomes are linked to bad choices, and externalities are less at play.
Psychiatry is a specialty in which a deficiency of that personal agency is intimately linked to the actual pathology and developmental levels we see.
So, it shouldn't be surprising that there is a deficiency of self-described conservatives in a field where patients are so much less able to participate in rational behavior.
As for libertarianism, it's the Pabst Blue Ribbon of politics: its the choice of white people who know how to read a book and don't like being told what to do. Like PBR, it's of course just a fad that will never catch on the general populace 🙄
Psychiatry is a specialty in which a deficiency of that personal agency is intimately linked to the actual pathology and developmental levels we see.
So, it shouldn't be surprising that there is a deficiency of self-described conservatives in a field where patients are so much less able to participate in rational behavior.
As for libertarianism, it's the Pabst Blue Ribbon of politics: its the choice of white people who know how to read a book and don't like being told what to do. Like PBR, it's of course just a fad that will never catch on the general populace 🙄
Yes, fiscally, my views would be rather similar to a Republicans, though I'm wondering what Barry Goldwater would think about how his whole limited/small government ideal has been bastardized beyond much recognition after the past 7 years. (Disclaimer: I voted for Bush. Twice.) Socially is a separate manner entirely.
Obligatory preamble because this is the internet: WARNING TO PREVENT A FLAMEWAR- I DO NOT PRESUPPOSE TO BE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, YOU YOURSELF, OR ANY ONE ELSE'S PRECISE POLITICAL BELIEFS. THIS IS THE INTERNET, AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK IN GENERALITIES. I AM NOT AIMING TO OFFEND.
Socially, Republicans are, well, conservative. I usually construe this as wanting to legislate morality. The problem with this is clear- you are legislating a certain subset of the population's morality as LAW (eg, abortion, same sex marriage, etc), and I personally do not feel it is the governments business to make these decisions; it ought to be up to the individual. If these actions do not infringe on your own personal liberty, they ought to be allowed- this has nothing to do with forcing you to like it.
As such, given these urges to legislate morality in any form, I feel that this does not display the sort of TOLERANT acceptance that typical psychiatric patients need for their therapy. Again, I'm not speaking about anyone in specific, and I'm not saying this is how every registered Republican thinks, believes, or behaves in practice, but I am saying that Republicans do desire to make laws about the ways that people should legally be allowed to behave. Laws that may make some of my, and some of your patients, well, lawbreakers. Laws that as a libertarian I find foolish and repressive, not only to me or my patients, but to all Americans.
Obligatory preamble because this is the internet: WARNING TO PREVENT A FLAMEWAR- I DO NOT PRESUPPOSE TO BE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, YOU YOURSELF, OR ANY ONE ELSE'S PRECISE POLITICAL BELIEFS. THIS IS THE INTERNET, AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK IN GENERALITIES. I AM NOT AIMING TO OFFEND.
Socially, Republicans are, well, conservative. I usually construe this as wanting to legislate morality. The problem with this is clear- you are legislating a certain subset of the population's morality as LAW (eg, abortion, same sex marriage, etc), and I personally do not feel it is the governments business to make these decisions; it ought to be up to the individual. If these actions do not infringe on your own personal liberty, they ought to be allowed- this has nothing to do with forcing you to like it.
As such, given these urges to legislate morality in any form, I feel that this does not display the sort of TOLERANT acceptance that typical psychiatric patients need for their therapy. Again, I'm not speaking about anyone in specific, and I'm not saying this is how every registered Republican thinks, believes, or behaves in practice, but I am saying that Republicans do desire to make laws about the ways that people should legally be allowed to behave. Laws that may make some of my, and some of your patients, well, lawbreakers. Laws that as a libertarian I find foolish and repressive, not only to me or my patients, but to all Americans.
Conservativism IMHO has some kinks that are at odds with each other.
E.g. conservatives supposedly want less government, but at the same time social conservatives want more government when it comes to "morals".
Conservativism is supposed to be about using ideas that work and keeping onto them yet Reagan cut taxes in a very bold & experimental manner. Not very conservative if you ask me. Not saying he's wrong but Reagan did do something that was a new idea.
Every generation, the liberal vs conservative movement redefines itself. Take a look at Pat Buchanon, an old school conservative vs the newer neo-cons.
I consider myself a moderate--only because I got views that go on either side depending on the issue. (I drive a Prius, want a clean environment yet I also want less taxes & reduced government & more personal responsbility & strongly support the military. So what the heck does that make me?)
In general I have noticed more liberals vs conservatives in the medical workplace but I'm biased. I'm working in a blue state.
E.g. conservatives supposedly want less government, but at the same time social conservatives want more government when it comes to "morals".
Conservativism is supposed to be about using ideas that work and keeping onto them yet Reagan cut taxes in a very bold & experimental manner. Not very conservative if you ask me. Not saying he's wrong but Reagan did do something that was a new idea.
Every generation, the liberal vs conservative movement redefines itself. Take a look at Pat Buchanon, an old school conservative vs the newer neo-cons.
I consider myself a moderate--only because I got views that go on either side depending on the issue. (I drive a Prius, want a clean environment yet I also want less taxes & reduced government & more personal responsbility & strongly support the military. So what the heck does that make me?)
In general I have noticed more liberals vs conservatives in the medical workplace but I'm biased. I'm working in a blue state.
No major party wants my vote....at least that is how it seems when I look at the platforms and listen to the speeches. 🙁 McCain is a Republican in name only, and the Democrats aren't that much different...which will offer a bad and worse choice for the elections.
I think what is challenging is the misnomer of Republican = Conservative across the board. Unfortunately a small minority (hard-line / extreme right) seem to speak for the vast majority who seem to be more moderate.
I thought Ron Paul had the best platform for conservatives in health care, but the average American didn't support his platform. It's a shame, because I think he could have done some good work in the areas of healthcare and gov't reform...and was the only horse in the race that actually would have done some good in regard to healthcare.
I think what is challenging is the misnomer of Republican = Conservative across the board. Unfortunately a small minority (hard-line / extreme right) seem to speak for the vast majority who seem to be more moderate.
I thought Ron Paul had the best platform for conservatives in health care, but the average American didn't support his platform. It's a shame, because I think he could have done some good work in the areas of healthcare and gov't reform...and was the only horse in the race that actually would have done some good in regard to healthcare.
That pretty much sums up my political viewpoint as well. I think that makes us "centrists." At least that's what I tell people. Currently I'm registered as an independent.
no one wants my vote either, im a hippie and a future doctor. go figure. i dont think i will EVER fit with any one single party's views. i like the chinese food menu style, some from column A, some from column B...
i thought by default that doctors are republican and conservative. i get looks of horror when i tell people at school that i might vote democratic for this election, its apparently blasphemous to them. not like it even matters since i am in a perpetual blue state anyway.
i agree with erg923, i am truly curious to hear my conservative colleagues views on stem cell research, though.
peace and love!
While this is true, neither party has a monopoly over inconsistencies or hypocrisy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably blinded by their own biases.
Remember, today, much of the legislation restricting freedom is strongly supported by the dem side- campaign finance, speech codes in public universities, restrictions on unhealthy food, restrictions on smoking, economic freedoms etc.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I just find it very difficult to believe that one could work compassionately with people who live at the margins of society without having at least some streak of bleeding heart liberal in their soul...
Sorry. Can't help it. Think I was born this way...
Sorry. Can't help it. Think I was born this way...
Yes, and if you continue "Drifting still further to the Left of Center" you'll either end up in the Pacific Ocean or thinking like Ted Kennedy, depending on your point of view. 😛
My political views are half with the conservative party and half in the democratic camp. I basically feel like a political orphan and end up feeling like I constantly vote for "the lesser of two evils." 🙁 However, I don't feel that being conservative is necessarily at odds with psychiatry. I think it's unfortunate that most people assume conservatives are not compassionate people because they don't feel the government should fund social programs. The conservative folks in psychiatry that I know just feel that mental health programs and treatment should come from the community and kept in the private sector. Admittedly, I don't fully agree with this, but I can see their point of view.
Funny thing is, is that the older I get, the more liberal I'm becoming on certain issues and the more conservative I'm becoming on other issues. 😕
Funny thing is, is that the older I get, the more liberal I'm becoming on certain issues and the more conservative I'm becoming on other issues. 😕
Why? conservatives who are religious (Christian, Jews, Muslims) are very big into giving charity, shelter and food, through their churches and temples.
What Reagan did was not a new idea at all.....he copied the idea from John Kennedy, who slashed taxes to jump start the economy. I believe he even credited Kennedy with the idea.
I agree on the constant redefinition of liberal and conservative through the generations. I think it is unfortunate that the far right has taken it upon itself to define what most people today think is "liberal" and "conservative." And I blame the Democratic Party for not challenging the far right for defining these terms. Both terms, in their purest forms, are solid political philosophies....look up the definitions, and then look at how talk radio refers to these terms...no simlarity at all.
It isn't that I'm not compassionate and I don't want good for all people, it is that I don't feel like I should have to pay more for others to use/abuse the system. I think those struggling in our society need some services, but the current system is broken, bleeding money, and is much too costly.
It is frustrating to see an endless cycle of poverty and problems, and then hand over another check to the gov't to feed the broken system. It isn't up to the government to fix the woes of every citizen, though they can be part of the solution. I want to help those who need some extra help, but they need to meet me halfway; the current system encourages lifelong membership and dependence on the system.
Most of America are victims of sound bites and rhetoric. Things like "Universal Healthcare" and "illegal immigrant amnesty/path to citizenship" are not solutions, but instead are knee jerk reactions and "feel good" ideas that lack realistic merits. I don't think liberals or conservatives as a whole hold the solution to our problems; I think we need to address each need as it comes.
Unfortunately our presidential elections become a vote for the less of two evils, instead of a process that brings about the best option for our country. I may actually support my first democratic ever...not because I believe in his policies (I disagree wtih 80% of his platform), but because he is the lesser of two evils....and at least seems like he wants to the best for the country, which is more than I can say about the other candidates.
If laws are not based on moral values, what are they based on? Laws by their nature impose one set of values over another. Otherwise we'd have anarchy.
One can tolerate an action insofar as it represents an illness to be treated but intolerant of that illness/disorder as an acceptable way of life.
hmm... making laws about the way people should legally behave... that wouldn't be good.
To answer the original post. YES, I'm a conservative ... and will start residency in psychiatry this July.
Now, I'm more of a philosophical conservative than a "Republican" ... I have major issues with both parties. But a couple random examples of why I'm a conservative and why I don't think that conflicts with my interest in psychiatry:
(1) As a conservative, I care deeply about the marginalized in our society. I may not accept the standard "liberal" solutions to each problem -- this is because just saying, "okay, I'm wealthy so I'll just pay taxes towards a failing solution because it alleviates my guilt about societal problems" doesn't satisfy me. I'd rather we have solutions that work ... and although I'm VERY wary of the idea that private enterprise and religious organizations are perfect solutions, I certainly think that they have a role to play, along with government.
(2) I believe, just like nearly all reasonable people, that certain acts are contrary to justice and should be illegal. Now, it doesn't matter what your position is on the legality of medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, child marriage, polygamy, job discrimination based upon race ... I'm sure nearly everyone here is in favor of legislating against at least one of those behaviors. This has very little to do with a non-judgmental stance towards patients and towards others in general. If in order to be a psychiatrist you had to be so non-judgmental that you didn't hold anything to be wrong(!) and didn't believe there should be laws against any type of behavior, well who could be a psychiatrist?
There are other reasons, but the bottom line is this: it's easy to show that being a "conservative" means being rigid, judgmental, lacking compassion, etc., and therefore a poor psychiatrist. But if you really want to understand how one could be a conservative and a psychiatrist, please don't just accept the liberal definition of conservative 🙂. Some of us conservatives are not so mean, you'll find.
Definitely hear you, OPD. I'd add that besides the needing a bleeding heart to want to do psych at all, you'd need (at least some) liberal beliefs on government intervention to be able to practice in the field without major cognitive dissonance. Without government intervention, only a tiny fraction of the psych population would have treatment. "Private enterprise solutions" and "charity based help" are meaningless soundbites when one's talking about severe mental illness.
On a related note, do you guys find that shrinks with different political beliefs tend to segregate into different practice types? I picture ACT psychiatrists being die-hard leftists, cash-only private practioners being super-conservative, and everyone else in the middle. Based on no evidence or experience at all, of course. 🙂
True. Forgot about that....
Compassion & political views can differ greatly. For example an ex girlfriend of mine was strongly pro-life & a religious conservative, & she honestly believed unborn fetuses were just as much living human beings as babies. I didn't agree with her fully, but that was real compassion on her part. (I'm of the opinion that late term abortion is where abortion has to be banned, 0but that's a different & complex argument).
She spent her weekends helping Mexican immigrants learn to speak English--why? Because she believed in compassion. She went to church because she felt it did help her to become a more giving person. She used to be a nanny to 3 children who's parents did little to care for them. She had to spend a lot of her own money to make sure those 3 kids got proper care. Most of her good acts were due to a self identity that was strongly tied to a social conservative belief.
Compare that to a lot of liberals I've seen who would never have done any of the above, and IMHO had their liberal notions because it was the "fasionable" trend. Of course there are liberals who would do selfless acts out of their beliefs.
People are highly variable & so too are their politics.
Oh yes! Of course. I was just talking about conservativism because that seemed to be the topic at that point. Liberals & Dems have their fair share of contradictions.
They're are a lot of private psychiatrists who run cash only practices (though they may assist patients in applying for out-of-network benefits). These psychiatrists aren't treating those who live at "the margins of society".
I am politically conservative, though I don't practice much psychiatry any more.
Well, what's your definition of..."compassion..." reallly.
My heart if fully coagulated, thank you. But, I still do what I can for hard luck schizophrenics when I see them. I'm less sympathetic toward other groups, however. It's just my nature. I enjoy working with those who choose to try to make a turn-around. That's what one of my moonlighting jobs involves.
I guess I just don't like societal parasites.
Bioshock, anyone?
So basically, 80% of this forum likes to call itself "conservative"...
Any substance abuser that I detect wants to make a change, I'll do everything in my power to help them. Campral, AA, NA, what have you.
Any substance abuser who shows up high, and pretty much gives me the impression that they have no desire to change & are in the hospital because they spent all their welfare money on cocaine and now want to live in the STCF because they got no money to buy food--I'll do everything in my power to help them-- boundary limits, no drugs of abuse for treatment, the talk that they can't get better unless they want to get better themselves, how they're wasting welfare money that's meant to help people buy purchasing cocaine & fueling the black market & crime, referral to NA, etc....
In some people's judgements the latter makes me a hard hearted person without compassion, and in those same people's minds, giving this guy a prescription of benzos & percocets is the "compassionate" thing to do.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Do you include suboxone in "drugs of abuse for treatment"? This is getting somewhat off-topic, but I currently treat about 10 opioid dependent patients with suboxone and have found it very effective.
Has that talk ever had any benefit in the therapeutic relationship? My only therapy training has been in motivational interviewing, and that sounds about as far from the MI evidence base as anything I could imagine...
I haven't found any evidenced based medicine showing that this helps.
However anectdotally I have found this to work in some patients. I don't go on a rant when I tell this data to patients. I say it respectfully. I had one malingerer who was faking psychotic sx and I gave the speech to her and she said she didn't know that a stay in the hospital for 3 days costed the system about $4500, & that the hospital needs to be reserved for true cases where people really need that level of help. and after my discussion with her she recanted all her symptoms and we discharged her. (She was not psychotic after our discussion).
I also had one substance abuser where I gave the speech and she started to feel very bad about her abuse and mentioned she wasn't thinking about the harm it was causing to other people. The discussion seemed to motivate her very strongly to cleaning up her life and on a countertransference level that made me feel very good because she was young and only recently started getting into heroine. I felt like I might've actually saved her. She's been doing well so far and its been 2 years. She actually did tell me that our discussion was the big thing that turned on the lightbulb so to speak.
The above 2 cases are why I still consider this type of approach. I would have dropped it if I had no success with it. I also do not advocate going into a patient's room, guns blazing (not literally) and start yelling to the patient about how they're a loser and to get out of the ward. I have actually seen doctors do this. I also do not try this on every single patient. Only if I get an intuitive sense that the patient might be willing to listen.
Another approach I've used is the HBO Atlantic City prostitute speech. Atlantic City is in the areas serviced where my program is. When I get young women who are recent drug abusers, I ask them if they've seen the documentary and ask them "do you want that to be your future? It could be if you get addicted to drugs". Don't know if this is happening in your area but in AC ,a lot of young women got into prostitution because of their drug abuse. I have found that to have some beneficial effect as well.
I haven't done this but considered it-- the Malcolm X chapter where he discussed his past as a drug dealer & pimp & how he had an actual brain washing technique to turn a woman into a prostitute. He would get them addicted to drugs first among other things, be very nice to them, give drugs cheap, and when the person got addicted, start pimping them around (slapping, yelling) and then slowly introduce lesser levels of intimacy & gradually increase it to higher levels (intercourse). I have though considered it. If a young woman saw that some of their drug dealers pretty much are doing the same thing, it might infuriate them enough to go clean. A problem though is giving out this data might give some male drug abusers and antisocial patients who make it into mental health services some "ideas".
Suboxone? Haven't given it out yet, but I am planning on getting the suboxone training & certification in March. I would be open to giving suboxone to substance abusing patients given what I've read about it. I'm particularly impressed about how it can block the cravings but also prevent patients from getting high. However I do want to sit through the training session to get more information.
However anectdotally I have found this to work in some patients. I don't go on a rant when I tell this data to patients. I say it respectfully. I had one malingerer who was faking psychotic sx and I gave the speech to her and she said she didn't know that a stay in the hospital for 3 days costed the system about $4500, & that the hospital needs to be reserved for true cases where people really need that level of help. and after my discussion with her she recanted all her symptoms and we discharged her. (She was not psychotic after our discussion).
I also had one substance abuser where I gave the speech and she started to feel very bad about her abuse and mentioned she wasn't thinking about the harm it was causing to other people. The discussion seemed to motivate her very strongly to cleaning up her life and on a countertransference level that made me feel very good because she was young and only recently started getting into heroine. I felt like I might've actually saved her. She's been doing well so far and its been 2 years. She actually did tell me that our discussion was the big thing that turned on the lightbulb so to speak.
The above 2 cases are why I still consider this type of approach. I would have dropped it if I had no success with it. I also do not advocate going into a patient's room, guns blazing (not literally) and start yelling to the patient about how they're a loser and to get out of the ward. I have actually seen doctors do this. I also do not try this on every single patient. Only if I get an intuitive sense that the patient might be willing to listen.
Another approach I've used is the HBO Atlantic City prostitute speech. Atlantic City is in the areas serviced where my program is. When I get young women who are recent drug abusers, I ask them if they've seen the documentary and ask them "do you want that to be your future? It could be if you get addicted to drugs". Don't know if this is happening in your area but in AC ,a lot of young women got into prostitution because of their drug abuse. I have found that to have some beneficial effect as well.
I haven't done this but considered it-- the Malcolm X chapter where he discussed his past as a drug dealer & pimp & how he had an actual brain washing technique to turn a woman into a prostitute. He would get them addicted to drugs first among other things, be very nice to them, give drugs cheap, and when the person got addicted, start pimping them around (slapping, yelling) and then slowly introduce lesser levels of intimacy & gradually increase it to higher levels (intercourse). I have though considered it. If a young woman saw that some of their drug dealers pretty much are doing the same thing, it might infuriate them enough to go clean. A problem though is giving out this data might give some male drug abusers and antisocial patients who make it into mental health services some "ideas".
Suboxone? Haven't given it out yet, but I am planning on getting the suboxone training & certification in March. I would be open to giving suboxone to substance abusing patients given what I've read about it. I'm particularly impressed about how it can block the cravings but also prevent patients from getting high. However I do want to sit through the training session to get more information.
socially centrist, fiscally conservative.
Grew up in the USSR, survived the USSR collapse and the resulting major recession with parents of disappointingly high moral standards🙄 (read, poor in the new economy). Now have been living in the UK for the last few years - where I originally arrived virtually penniless, eagerly awaiting the first instalment of my very prestigious but financially modest scholarship (so no-one can say that I "just do not know how hard life can be...").
I believe most people can "make themselves" and socialism minimizes the incentive to do so. Why strive for something when you can sit on your bum all day watching The Jeremy Kyle Show (or whatever the US equivalent of a reality TV talk show) as a little financial vampire on people that work hard to support you. Now, I am (of course) talking about those that can actually work but choose not to, not about those that are prevented from working by illness or disability. So, my heart can bleed in moderation.😉 And therefore...
I do not like the US healthcare system as it is at present. I do believe that affordable and efficient healthcare should be available to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. I do not know how to achieve this without all the problems inherent in socialized medicine, though...🙁
I do not believe the government should be able to tell citizens who they marry or have sex with, nor does the government have the right to tell women whether to have abortions or not. These are personal decisions. Full stop. I suppose this makes me very liberal... Having said that, if you are a young woman who makes a career of making babies with different fathers, none sticking around for too long, then I believe the government should WITHDRAW financial support from that mother - or make it conditional on her taking appropriate steps (use contraception, get a job, etc). One is a mistake, two is ...two mistakes, I suppose..., three are abuse of the system. That way young women will soon learn to behave responsibly and stop taking a piss. I think this would make me a conservative...🙄
Grew up in the USSR, survived the USSR collapse and the resulting major recession with parents of disappointingly high moral standards🙄 (read, poor in the new economy). Now have been living in the UK for the last few years - where I originally arrived virtually penniless, eagerly awaiting the first instalment of my very prestigious but financially modest scholarship (so no-one can say that I "just do not know how hard life can be...").
I believe most people can "make themselves" and socialism minimizes the incentive to do so. Why strive for something when you can sit on your bum all day watching The Jeremy Kyle Show (or whatever the US equivalent of a reality TV talk show) as a little financial vampire on people that work hard to support you. Now, I am (of course) talking about those that can actually work but choose not to, not about those that are prevented from working by illness or disability. So, my heart can bleed in moderation.😉 And therefore...
I do not like the US healthcare system as it is at present. I do believe that affordable and efficient healthcare should be available to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. I do not know how to achieve this without all the problems inherent in socialized medicine, though...🙁
I do not believe the government should be able to tell citizens who they marry or have sex with, nor does the government have the right to tell women whether to have abortions or not. These are personal decisions. Full stop. I suppose this makes me very liberal... Having said that, if you are a young woman who makes a career of making babies with different fathers, none sticking around for too long, then I believe the government should WITHDRAW financial support from that mother - or make it conditional on her taking appropriate steps (use contraception, get a job, etc). One is a mistake, two is ...two mistakes, I suppose..., three are abuse of the system. That way young women will soon learn to behave responsibly and stop taking a piss. I think this would make me a conservative...🙄
So obviously a woman's decision to use contraception is not a personal decision since the government can basically force her to do so if they deam it necessary. Why then can't the government be involved in the other mentioned "personal decisions" if it deams necesary? Is it not simply a question of where we draw the line?
Just curious Baby Doc...under your flavor of conservative, does a man have any responsibility at all when it comes to pregnancy?
When you take away that support from the mother, don't forget you're taking away support for the child as well. Under your proposal, will you take the child away and put her/him, well, somewhere, or just cut off the child from any assistance? What is the conservative position when it comes to the child?
No, I do not think it is. As long as the the so-called personal decisions genuinely affect only the person involved (ie, gay marriage) - or, to put it crassly, as long as they do not affect my pocket (in the way of tax money), I think the government should not interfere with those decisions. A 22 year old three times mum on welfare, with no intentions of either getting a job to support those children or going back to school essentially makes me (and other taxpayers) pay for raising her kids. So, why should I pay towards supporting her and her brood without having any say regarding her irresponsible behaviour?
Disclaimer: I am a woman and a mother myself. We had our first child when we were not well off at all. I survived my first pregnancy on canned fish and baked potatoes, to make ends meet. And I know it can be hard raising a kid. But, being a working mother, I wonder why should my family pay to raise children of welfare mums that have no intention to better themselves?
A good point, which can also be used to say "why should I, a taxpaying citizen, pay for her abortion or contraceptives?" Perhaps the problem begins with the assumption that the government should be taking care of us. Perhaps the consequence of having "too many kids" is not that you should pay for them but that those kids starve under the care of their irresponsible parents. Not that I want that result, but that possibility may be a better motivator for people to take responsibility for their actions instead of assuming the government will bail them out.
My bleeding heart is with OPD and Chrismander. 😍 Private charity and faith-based programs can be wonderful, and do help fill in the gaps in our underfunded public system, but they are not the solution.
I also resent the notion that I'm suddenly going to start voting Republican when I make more money (wasn't implied here, but has been elsewhere).
As far as the self-segregation goes, I dunno, but in my personal experience, I generally enjoy working with the chronic schizophrenics on disability more than the wealthier neurotics at our private hospital.
J
1) In the ideal world, I would leave it to the couple to share the responsibility. In the real world, woman is the one most affected by both childbearing and raising children. When a couple is separated, the main burden of raising children almost invariably falls on the woman. Fathers may support the children financially, of course, and may continue their parental involvement with the kids (provided the woman actually knows who the father is), but generally the most onerous part of the job is assumed by mothers. In the real world, the man often skips the scene altogether, and it becomes kind of difficult to appeal to his responsible behaviour when he is not in the picture (and the mother does not know who he is). Now, who do you think should bear the major part of the responsibility when it comes to pregnancy?
I am not an expert in this area. My understanding is as follows. 1) Welfare reform of the 60s did more harm than good for disaffected children, by providing financial incentives to stay single, therefore effectively destroying marriage institution and two-parent families among those already at the bottom of the ladder. 2) The welfare reform of 1996 worked to an extent by removing said disincentives ( http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SNNGTND, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_44.htm , http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/reho/2004/00000002/00000003/00005648 ) 3) Despite much more developed and all inclusive welfare system in the UK, child poverty in the UK is rising (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286460).
Unfortunately, you may not be able to access the first article from The Economist I referred to above without subscription. So, I am posting a small excerpt from it that illustrates my point. If you are interested, it is "From Welfare to Workfare", 27th July 2006 in the The Economist printed edition.
"After peaking in 1994when many states began experimenting ahead of the federal lawAmerica's welfare caseload fell by 60% over the next decade, from 5m to 2m families. Instead, welfare mothers found work, and the biggest increase by far was among those who had never been married. Their employment rate leapt from 44% in 1993 to 66% in 2000 (see chart) and the poverty rate, instead of rising sharply, dropped from 15.1% to 11.3%.
J
1) In the ideal world, I would leave it to the couple to share the responsibility. In the real world, woman is the one most affected by both childbearing and raising children. When a couple is separated, the main burden of raising children almost invariably falls on the woman. Fathers may support the children financially, of course, and may continue their parental involvement with the kids (provided the woman actually knows who the father is), but generally the most onerous part of the job is assumed by mothers. In the real world, the man often skips the scene altogether, and it becomes kind of difficult to appeal to his responsible behaviour when he is not in the picture (and the mother does not know who he is). Now, who do you think should bear the major part of the responsibility when it comes to pregnancy?
I am not an expert in this area. My understanding is as follows. 1) Welfare reform of the 60s did more harm than good for disaffected children, by providing financial incentives to stay single, therefore effectively destroying marriage institution and two-parent families among those already at the bottom of the ladder. 2) The welfare reform of 1996 worked to an extent by removing said disincentives ( http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SNNGTND, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_44.htm , http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/reho/2004/00000002/00000003/00005648 ) 3) Despite much more developed and all inclusive welfare system in the UK, child poverty in the UK is rising (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286460).
Unfortunately, you may not be able to access the first article from The Economist I referred to above without subscription. So, I am posting a small excerpt from it that illustrates my point. If you are interested, it is "From Welfare to Workfare", 27th July 2006 in the The Economist printed edition.
"After peaking in 1994when many states began experimenting ahead of the federal lawAmerica's welfare caseload fell by 60% over the next decade, from 5m to 2m families. Instead, welfare mothers found work, and the biggest increase by far was among those who had never been married. Their employment rate leapt from 44% in 1993 to 66% in 2000 (see chart) and the poverty rate, instead of rising sharply, dropped from 15.1% to 11.3%.
Although I agree with my good friend here that the welfare reform laws of 1996 did indeed play a big role in the reduction of child poverty between 1994 and 2000, it should also be pointed out that (1) the economy of the 1990's (during the Clinton (liberal?) years) was exceptionally strong, producing a net increase of 16 million jobs; (2) in the decade leading up to the welfare reform law and in the law itself, the government enacted a series of social program expansions, including child care, the child tax credit, Medicaid, the standard deduction, the personal exemption in the tax code, and the Earned income Tax Credit; and (3) unemployment by single mothers has risen since 2001, and child poverty rose four consecutive years after that (during the Bush (conservative?) years).
Welfare Reform, Success or Failure? It WorkedMarch 15, 2006 Brookings Institute
"In the real world, the man often skips the scene altogether, and it becomes kind of difficult to appeal to his responsible behaviour when he is not in the picture (and the mother does not know who he is). Now, who do you think should bear the major part of the responsibility when it comes to pregnancy?"
I would venture to guess that in most cases the mother knows who the father is (all stereotypes aside). Who should bear the responsibility for the child? Good question. I know in reality who does...all of us. Then again, I have no problem assisting such children...call me pro-life...I'm not one of these conservative people I listen to who seem to think that life begins at conception, and ends at birth.
I got some real problems with introducing socialized care, but do agree some changes must be done.
This is a BEEG problem in the inner cities. I did my ob-gyn rotation in Newark NJ. The number of welfare mothers who came into the L&D high on cocaine, heroine was common there. They'd just leave the baby there and within the next year that same L&D would have to see the same woman again who would come in again high on a number of drugs. The children would end up in the DYFS system which has several problems.
A number of patients I see in Atlantic City are on welfare & have no intention of stopping their drug use. They spend their welfare money on drugs and then have no money for food for the rest of the month, so they come into the hospital hoping to get inpatient stay which to them translates into free food, but ends up costing the system about $1500 a day.
What is the solution to all this? If anyone can give me anything that's not a Draconian tactic, I'm open to listening. Anything I can think of on my own gets into the Draconian category. In the 2nd case, only thing I can think of is to have welfare start doing random drug tests on people using it, and if positive, there has to be repercussions.
This is a BEEG problem in the inner cities. I did my ob-gyn rotation in Newark NJ. The number of welfare mothers who came into the L&D high on cocaine, heroine was common there. They'd just leave the baby there and within the next year that same L&D would have to see the same woman again who would come in again high on a number of drugs. The children would end up in the DYFS system which has several problems.
A number of patients I see in Atlantic City are on welfare & have no intention of stopping their drug use. They spend their welfare money on drugs and then have no money for food for the rest of the month, so they come into the hospital hoping to get inpatient stay which to them translates into free food, but ends up costing the system about $1500 a day.
What is the solution to all this? If anyone can give me anything that's not a Draconian tactic, I'm open to listening. Anything I can think of on my own gets into the Draconian category. In the 2nd case, only thing I can think of is to have welfare start doing random drug tests on people using it, and if positive, there has to be repercussions.
There were a number of changes that IMHO were improvements because of the competitive play between Clinton & the then new Republican led Congress. If I remember correctly both were instrumental in getting welfare reform.
What about instead of paying women to have kids, if they paid them to get sterilized or take contraceptives. Let's say they got $2000 to get a BTL or $100 every time they got a Depo shot (with a system in place to ensure they could only get them when they were due). Obviously you couldn't force anyone, but is there anything wrong in providing a financial incentive? In my state, the state gives women Wal-Mart gift cards if they show up for their prenatal appointments. Is paying them for contraception much different?
Although I agree with my good friend here that the welfare reform laws of 1996 did indeed play a big role in the reduction of child poverty between 1994 and 2000, it should also be pointed out that (1) the economy of the 1990's (during the Clinton (liberal?) years) was exceptionally strong, producing a net increase of 16 million jobs; (2) in the decade leading up to the welfare reform law and in the law itself, the government enacted a series of social program expansions, including child care, the child tax credit, Medicaid, the standard deduction, the personal exemption in the tax code, and the Earned income Tax Credit; and (3) unemployment by single mothers has risen since 2001, and child poverty rose four consecutive years after that (during the Bush (conservative?) years).
As I said, I am not an expert in this area, but always interested and happy to learn more on the subject.
I am not talking stereotypes. I have seen not one but many kids whose mums only knew who the fathers were because the kids were of "dual heritage" (ie, mixed race). Whether we like it or not, but the mother is the one ultimately responsible for the pregnancy and its consequences. If you wish to help...get you checkbook ready. I am happy to help these children, but if they grow up in a dysfunctional household with mummy only knowing how to bang her male acquaintances and collect welfare checks, you will simply be helping to perpetuate the problem. The mother has to change her behaviour - or at least take steps towards that - then I am all for supporting the kids.
Just curious, what is your status in real life? Your profile states, "Non-student". Are you a physician? I am only asking because of your comments regarding stereotypes - I would think it was a stereotype, too, if I had not seen the mothers with the kids myself...
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I agree completely.
The best solution is pro-active measures and social change....which will take a long time to implement and really only are secondary answers to a much larger problem.
I happen to agree with the random drug testing idea, though people would be protesting that it is biased, etc.
Some organizations already do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention
Project Prevention does this, and by the way has a chapter in Atlantic City.
Several would consider this a draconian measure. Personally I'm not against it (more like neutral), though as a physician I would not reccomend it because there's some Ob-Gyn issues with this that are out of my training. There are also some controversial issues with it that I'd want to investigate before backing this up.
Politically, its never going anywhere. The right will go against this as claiming it goes against the "Culture of Life". The left will go against this claiming its genocide (despite that Project Prevention doesn't do this by race, they do it based on women who voluntarily decide to get sterilized & PP pays them money. IMHO to claim this practice is racist--is racist because the protesters imply that only African Americans are crack addicts--but so be it, we can't change the world).
But this anyways clearly defines my point. You can't fix the inner city-ghetto problems without some new tactics. No one is pursuing new tactics, and I can only think of draconian measures which would get me branded as the 21st Century Hitler. I'm sure my random urine drug testing idea of welfare recipients will get some people calling me Hitler.
There will always be poor people, there will always be underserved communities, but I'm talking the problems that will perpetuate, even increase the problem for the next generation like the situation I mentioned above.
So then, what's the solution? Don't got one.
In the meantime, at least in Newark, some women are having babies--born addicted to crack & opioids, DYFS takes up those kids, and those women keep on doing it, seeing the system as the solution. No one is telling those women to stop it.
This is why I keep saying that America has jumped the shark. The exponential population increase in this matter isn't good.
Wouldn't a good Darwinist conclude that natural selection will tackle the exponential population issue?
