Back to fundraising…are there schools/systems where all fundraising profits must be split between schools? Does the wrapping paper/candy profit from goods sold by one school need to be split by additional schools? Surely this isn’t a national PTA rule?
It sure didn’t happen in our schools. Fundraising monies went to my schools, Campbell’s Labels/Boxtops for Education went to my schools only. At the high school, different sports parents took turns manning the football concessions booth, so that the money raised would go to different sports teams at that school. The candy bars my neighbor sold for the theatre department raised money for that theatre department at that school. And this is the way it should be!
It must not be that easy to live on the amount provided by food stamps or the government would reduce benefits. Like anyone else, even those on food stamps have the right to purchase name brand items, even if more expensive. Perhaps that mom had a coupon for the juice or maybe that was her one splurge for her family and everything else was store brand. Do we really want the government to become the food police and make it more even difficult for poor families? Food stamps already can’t be used for things like toilet paper.
There are always going to be people who take advantage of the system. IMHO, food stamps recipients who buy name brands over store brand juice is a pretty minimal problem, compared to other aspects of government spending. However, requiring a nutrition and shopping program or at least some information, would be very helpful to poor families. There are lots of non-food stamp recipients who get the benefit of other government money and are not subject to having their shopping habits examined.
Breast feeding should be encouraged, but, as others have said, working moms have a very hard time keeping up full time breast feeding. Women who work in low paying job have very structured break times. They don’t have an office where they can close the door and pump. They likely can’t afford an efficient pump in the first place. Once I went back to work, you would have seen formula in my shopping cart for the sitter to use, even though I still nursed my babies when I was home.
Personal responsibility is important and absolutely should be encouraged. I am not sure that most of us on CC can truly understand how such relentless, grinding poverty can impact someone’s psyche and willingness to not give in to despair or always make good choices.
As to fund raising, at our schools it was just for the school.
The Ed Fund raised money to fund grant applications. But the money was actually given to the Board of Ed, not directly to the teacher, and the BOE gave out the money. Not sure an outside entity in a district with a high level of corruption could avoid that issue.
In our district, there is an achievement gap, measured by testing, among schools. While high compared to the rest of the state, one middle school tends to have a higher percentage of kids at the higher achievement levels. The district has explained it by socio-economic differences. It has nothing to do with the level of involvement of parents. It likely has something to do with the educational level attained by parents. One side of town is more likely to have parents who have a high level of education while the other, even though most have college degrees, have more working class families. The resources are mostly the same and the higher performing school is actually in an older, more crowded building. I don’t think one can discount the economic factors when comparing achievement gaps.
@mom2and It’s always easier to spend more than less. Setting the food stamp amount is a matter of public policy, with the goal to set it high enough so that a dull but slightly undisciplined person can still make it but low enough that recipients aren’t having a party on the public dime. I don’t begrudge someone for buying a “name” brand. Sometimes there is a big difference in quality. On the other hand, I do see people making purchases that are ridiculous (and no, I do not say anything to them!). And I think soft drinks and potato chips just need to be taken off of the eligible items list and instead be treated like tobacco.
I mentioned earlier that I think home ec should be required. Our high school students need to be taught to cook from scratch and to shop.
Then I have some very clear opinions about how the lifestyle choices of middle and upper income sedentary people who indulge in high fat diets, frequent alcohol consumption, and smoking are driving up my health costs. Perhaps we should examine their shopping carts and limit their access to health insurance because some of them aren’t making wise choices.
I don’t know where you live, but here in the US insurance companies already boost their premiums for people who smoke, drink excessively, have high cholesterol, or are overweight. I am confident that the insurance company actuaries know how not to lose money Besides, for most middle and upper income people either they or their employers are paying the premiums, not the government. I don’t see how anyone has any right to deny someone health insurance that they are paying for themselves, either directly or as imputed wages.
If you’re talking about Medicaid or Obamacare subsidies, then the middle and upper class aren’t eligible for them but they do pay for them, as they also pay for most government programs including the deductibility of insurance (if you can even count that). If you’re talking about Medicare, then you should remember that the Medicare tax is a percentage of income with no cap, so higher income people pay much more into the system than lower income people.
If you’re going to do a person-by-person cost accounting, if anything higher income people, sedentary or otherwise, are due a rebate, so there’s no basis for limiting their access to health care.
For life insurance perhaps, but not for company-sponsored health plans. The cost of health care is spread out over the well and the not-so-well so we all pay more for health care for those that do not take care of themselves. We just changed plans and no questions on health. Plus, even with life insurance, the rate is set at the time and if the person then eats poorly, the rates don’t change. For individual health plans, that might be the case, however.
As you can tell, this is a somewhat sore subject for me since I just reviewed our company’s benefit costs for this year. All this stuff is very complicated and there are HR people who make this their full time job and even they can’t always get it right.
I’m not going to pretend to be an expert. Here’s what I know for 100% sure - if your company is just getting started or is doing a clean slate re-pricing, then insurers will (if you let them) look at things like tobacco, alcohol use, and % overweight to set pricing. You don’t have to go this route, but my company is unusual since our workforce is very young and skews heavily towards single, very well educated, high SES males who are as healthy as oxen. So we go out of our way to get a policy that was rated on physical condition since we pass with flying colors and can pay much less (technically we self-insure and only carry excess coverage for the group).
If your company is established and is switching policies then the new insurer will most likely just use prior claims experience and simple demographics. That’s probably why mom2and’s company answered “no questions on health” … the new insurer probably just analyzed a complete download of the full medical history of all their employees for the last few years Much more invasive stuff since they could even rate on the % of hangnails treated if they wanted to.
For the individual market, I’m again 100% sure that there are some policies in 2015 that upcharge for things like being overweight (I know this because I’ve seen the policy of a friend of mine who wanted to “borrow” our benefits coordinator). Some do, some don’t. I think Obamacare requires that people have access to policies that only charge based on age/sex/zip code/tobacco use, and actually limits the % upcharge that insurers can impose for tobacco use. Of course, the vast majority of people don’t have policies issued under this requirement.
All I can tell you is that I'm 100% sure that my friend was upcharged for being overweight. This was a policy by one of the nation's leading health insurers.
No idea why my friend’s experience is different. I’ll tell him he should apply for a refund and/or eat more salads Of course, since Obamacare made his premiums shoot up by over 50%, I’ll be sure to email him rather than speak in person and risk getting punched when I tell him all about the blessings that the ACA has bestowed upon him
Maybe he still believes the promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan”
I really, really hope this doesn’t veer this into political territory, but as a quantitativist I feel duty-bound to point out that there’s an unspoken assumption of causality here, when in fact there’s only correlation (not to mention that healthcare premiums were rising pretty incredibly fast before Obamacare, too).
That’s all. I’m saying exactly nothing else on this topic on this thread.
I’d say there’s pretty good evidence for causality and not just correlation in my friend’s case. Here’s why he wanted to “borrow” our benefits coordinator. He’s always had a very good individual policy. When Obamacare first started taking effect for him (2011?), he received word from his insurer that his premiums were going up by 50%. As you may remember, there was a really big stink in the national media about this, and with the election coming up the states were eventually allowed to grant 1 or 2 year exemptions from this provision of Obamacare. His gigantic premium increase notices were then promptly rescinded and his premium then only went up by the usual 5-10% or so. After the exemptions expired, his premiums then shot up by 50%.
Pretty strong evidence if you ask me, though I’m sure true believers can explain it all away. BTW - I’m not saying my friend is the “usual” person at all, or that this happened to more than just a few million people. Like most any public policy, the ACA had winners and losers. My friend happened to be one of the losers, that’s all. :((
My sister is an ACA winner. Doesn’t qualify for medicaid but is so low income that her subsidies limit her monthly payment to… about $1 per month. She’d be without insurance otherwise. ACA winner indeed.
I also breast fed with no employer support and used some formula. But what about the diet pills? Also in your cart? I don’t think those moms were breastfeeding.
No there weren’t coupons being used. If they can make a little splurge work in their budget, fine, but then why are so many people saying that no one could possibly feed their family on that amount or that kids were ravenously hungry on Mondays?
No doubt they use previous health claims in setting rates. I didn’t argue that. But if I have had no claims, the insurance company has no knowledge of whether or not I smoke. I work for a small company and there have been a couple of years with rather large claims and our rates then went up. When we had a couple of years with more typical levels of claims, we were able to get lower rates with a new company.
As for your friend, Al, some people had pre-ACA policies that were not worth very much. They were happy to be paying so little, but would not have been happy if they get sick. The cost of their policies went up because of required coverage, but if they get sick, they will be happier. People I know with individual policies before the ACA had times when their policy costs went way up or when they were forced to switch companies.
Besides, for most middle and upper income people either they or their employers are paying the premiums, not the government. I don’t see how anyone has any right to deny someone health insurance that they are paying for themselves, either directly or as imputed wages.