| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 124626 | 2012-05-07 20:01:00 | Beneficiaries to receive free contraceptives. | tut (12033) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1274188 | 2012-05-09 03:21:00 | However, the government should not give the DPB for any kids that have been conceived while the contraceptives are being offered. This way, the bludgers won't make money out of it, while the genuinely poor will get the benefit free contraceptives will bring. So kids, that don't ask to be born, possibly suffer more because of no allocated DPB, and lack of presumed forsight of their creators. Next they could be immediately immersed within child welfare (CYF), increasing burden on NZ MSD, adoption and justice agencies. Is there a benefit with free contraceptives? How did we all hit planet earth? |
kahawai chaser (3545) | ||
| 1274189 | 2012-05-09 03:36:00 | All of you presume the women in question first have a child while without income or partners support and then apply for the DPB. Naturally they all get so much money they can holiday overseas, have flash cars and generally have a lovely time. Naturally none of you have been in that situation and it's always I know someone who knows someone who. Crap. The DPB came about to help women left in the lurch and currently not working to not starve or become homeless. It does not pay loads of money contrary to popular fantasies. You should just be so glad that you or loved ones haven't had the need to be in a similar situation., |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1274190 | 2012-05-09 03:45:00 | Naturally none of you have .... Its ludicrous of you to make these assumptions, And its a weak device to support your position even in the event no one passing comment has any life experience as you suggest. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1274191 | 2012-05-09 04:31:00 | Fair point, but the beneficiaries who keep having kids are the irresponsible ones or the bludgers. Is it really a good idea for young children to have these kinds of people as parents? So kids, that don't ask to be born, possibly suffer more because of no allocated DPB, and lack of presumed forsight of their creators. Next they could be immediately immersed within child welfare (CYF), increasing burden on NZ MSD, adoption and justice agencies. Is there a benefit with free contraceptives? How did we all hit planet earth? |
Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1274192 | 2012-05-09 06:28:00 | They punch out more kids one after the other. The fathers being the ones that come home with the mother from the pub. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 1274193 | 2012-05-09 06:37:00 | Perhaps they need to do away with the welfare system altogether. Seems to to one ****up after the other and nothing has been done to enforce those who can get handouts from the government. I bet there are generations of families that have never worked a day in their lives. | QW. (15883) | ||
| 1274194 | 2012-05-09 07:25:00 | Exactly, that's the point, it doesn't matter if they were on it before or after they find out they're pregnant, and granted a lot of woman do get left in the lurch. However, the current status quo is that it's easy enough to go and have more kids and get more money. It's a win-win situation, you get to boink, you get paid lots, and you get to stay at home with your family without having to work. So if you take away the incentive to stay at home on the benefit, perhaps you'll be pushing more people in to poverty, but playing devils advocate, they'll all die off eventually right? ;) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1274195 | 2012-05-09 07:45:00 | How about this? We offer an increase of $5/week for all beneficaries aged from 16 to 50 who go ahead and have the 100% optional, reversible contraception. It could be paid as a lump sum which would then act as quite a carrot to get the shiftless proportion of them to make the move. This would be paid upon receipt of a report from their GP detailing placement of the devicde, and its working lifespan. I would happily contribute more to beneficiaries who can demonstrate sufficient personal responsibility to get themselves 'fixed'. It would still be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for more and more kids, simply coz they are too useless to take care of it themselves. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1274196 | 2012-05-09 08:03:00 | I suggest we just dissolve the DPB. Put em into the system as unemployed but seeking work. if they are dumb enough to make their situation worse then let them deal with the consequences. If more support is required then let it be services not money. No one under 18 should receive a cent under any circumstances, Throw them into a boarding house and make em go to school. Otherwise let the family support their offspring. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1274197 | 2012-05-09 08:08:00 | No one under 16 should receive a cent under any circumstances FTFY. Anyone under 18 should still be eligible for student allowance/loan ;) |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||