Big Families & Medicaid (CC)

[Pencil Pusher]

Would y'all mind if I repost this from the Quiverfull conversation? I'd like to have a spin-off conversation, if that wouldn't bother anyone too much.

Btw, I really appreciate everybody's input & variety of views. Dh & I have been reading them & discussing a lot over the last couple of days, & I think getting some clarity on how we feel about it, which I guess is a start?

Anyway, here goes:

I've been thinking about this [big families/quiverfull families using Medicaid & saying "God's provided"] a lot since you posted it. Well, before, too, because it *is* an issue. Whether or not it's a common one like you've indicated, it underscores the importance of the question.

IF this is the right way to go, to what extent? If the mother's life is in danger w/ ea pg, to ME, that seems like an exception. If a family can't afford to feed the dc they've got...well...that SEEMS like a legitimate exception, too.

Except. A tiny, tiny part of me asks: If something is right, is it only right as long as we can afford it? Would we say abortion was acceptable if a very poor family found themselves unexpectedly pg?

Not that bc is NECESSARILY the same, but the principle applies, kwim? I guess I'm looking for a guideline, & then I have to work out the what-if's.

I'm pg w/ #4 right now. Dh & I have always wanted app. 4, MAYBE more. But we JUST had #3, & dh has just started seminary. He has had a harder time finding a good enough job to support us & work w/ his sch schedule. We're at the pt that we've spent our savings & can't afford to leave before Aug even if we wanted to: student housing is way cheaper than anything else.

So I'm IMMEDIATELY pg in the midst of this. Do you have any idea how embarrassed I feel? I tell strangers at the grocery store what a surprise this one is. I feel like the only way I can justify this baby is to assure anyone who looks at me that we DID use bc. So it's not really our fault.

I can't imagine walking around w/ the burden of "blame" in this situation. When I imagine that bc might not be acceptable (for me if no one else), the main thing that bothers me is what other people would think. ESPECIALLY given our current financial situation, which I hope is temporary. But...who can say for sure? You know?

I do care what other people think. The more $ I have, the less I care, because of the "responisibility" aspect. The truth is, I should be more concerned about God's opinion than that of others. But that really begs the question of gov't aid: is accepting it a means of God helping or is it an avenue of escape from trusting him?

Everyone around me (it seems) is making ends meet here at seminary by accepting whatever gov't aid they can get, & I'm the ONLY one who sees a problem w/ it. They all talk about learning humility thr the experience.

On the one hand, what do I know? On the other hand, that doesn't sound like humility. That sounds like letting someone else put you through school. But then, I had another friend whose dh went to law school via the same means. Why did that seem okay? Is that different?

I don't know, but I did want to say that I think the question you've raised is valid, & I would LOVE to have an answer. No, I'd love to have THE answer!

Here's a link to the original thread, if it makes a difference: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=69866&postcount=100

[Jean in Newcastle]

I've had questions along the same line. My dh would say that he would not plan a pregnancy without having some financial security first - and yes, he does believe in planning pregnancies. He believes that is part of being prudent and wise - along the lines of what is recommended in Proverbs.

But - if your pregnancy is a surprise, then I would say, the Lord over-ruled your plans! And He'll provide! But I would also be willing to cut as many corners as I could to be as frugal as I could.

BTW, I don't have a problem accepting a helping hand (or bag of groceries) if I'm in need. I figure that I am accepting grace. But I do have a hard time if the giver is the government. I would rather accept loans, or help from private sources. Why? Because I don't like the idea of a nanny state that believes it is responsible for taking care of me. I've been pretty poor at times. I've lived off of food bank food (private source) in seminary and it is not designed to be your sole source of food! I have worked multiple jobs and my dh is now working 2 jobs. I've been unemployed for over 6 months and have written home for money. I was pounding the pavement everyday during this time too. I did not accept unemployment even though I was "entitled" to it. But all of those times I was single (except for my dh's two job situation). I'm really not sure I would stick to these convictions with a family to provide for. So, I'm not dogmatic on this at all and would never tell anyone else that this is "the right way to go".

Having said that, I have received money or groceries just in the "nick of time". I can testify to God's faithfulness.

[astrid]

I have not read much of the original quiver thread. I hadn't thought much about it at all, having a small family myself. But having just opened a bill for $965.23 for dd's much-needed MRI on her knee, the one I put off for weeks, even though we've got health insurance (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) and beat myself up royally for putting it off because of finances, the one which revealed a badly damaged cartilage, I cannot even begin to fathom how people with large families handle medical bills.

[Tutor]

We have four children and do not have insurance (yet, we're working on it but it's expensive). Our children are healthy and cared for. We will not use gov't insurance. Period. We think it is wrong and won't use it. If federally funded health care passes and is mandated, we don't know what we are going to do. Civil disobedience, I suppose. We can't in good conscience participate.

These children that God provided us with are our responsibility and we should take care of them, not the state. If something happens where we are unable to take care of our children's health needs (major illness or disaster, loss of a job with resulting financial difficulties), we will approach the church with our need. That is the job of the church. When we are able, we help others. When we are in need, we are helped. I believe (and have experienced first-hand) that God provides, through miraculous circumstances sometimes, for every need that we have. Usually, this is through the provision of a job for which we get paid and can purchase what we require. Sometimes it is through strangers showing up on our doorstep with money or groceries (this has happened to us). God provides... through His people and His creation.

That said, I would not try to become pregnant if we did not have the means to pay for the pregnancy care and delivery and other baby needs, but if I became pregnant, I know that God would provide and would scour my finances and talk to my church and my friends to see if that provision is right in front of my face. :) BTW, we use NFP and abstinence as forms of birth control... to address that aspect of your question.

I don't mean this to sound snarky, but how would one afford birth control if they can't afford health care? At least, any of the more controversial forms?

[Maria from IN]

I can't answer about the quiverfull, but I sure can respond about the state assistance and higher education part.

My ex has not worked in over 4 years. I never got support from him, and I never asked for it. I couldn't depend on him when we were married, so I don't want to now...and no, that's not husband-bashing, that's just simple fact. I stopped being angry about that a long time ago.

Long story short, I lost my factory job a year ago while I was also going to school full time. I now have one semester left of college, and I'm looking at two more years (if I play my cards right!). In August, I applied for state aid for my son and me. I really didn't care about my medical concerns, but I wanted my son to be covered. I need to continue my education because I believe in helping my son through college, since I know his father is too busy enjoying the benefits of learned helplessness. I need a good job to do that. If I went out and worked for minimum wage, I wouldn't even be able to pay my bills, let alone save for college, so I continue to go to school. Hopefully after my Masters degree I will be in a much better place financially.

I don't qualify for anything because I have too many assets, but my son qualifies for food stamps and Medicaid. I'm incredibly thankful for it, but ashamed that I need it all the same. I know that in three years I will no longer have a need for it since I will have a better job, but if I quit school now and get a minimum wage job I may have to count on state benefits for the rest of my life--or at least until my son is grown.

Ironically enough, the social worker told me that if I worked 20 hours a week I would also qualify for food stamps. I said, "Gee, I could afford groceries if I worked 20 hours a week!"

Irony sucks.

[Pencil Pusher]

I've had questions along the same line. My dh would say that he would not plan a pregnancy without having some financial security first - and yes, he does believe in planning pregnancies. He believes that is part of being prudent and wise - along the lines of what is recommended in Proverbs.

But - if your pregnancy is a surprise, then I would say, the Lord over-ruled your plans! And He'll provide! But I would also be willing to cut as many corners as I could to be as frugal as I could.

BTW, I don't have a problem accepting a helping hand (or bag of groceries) if I'm in need. I figure that I am accepting grace. But I do have a hard time if the giver is the government. I would rather accept loans, or help from private sources. Why? Because I don't like the idea of a nanny state that believes it is responsible for taking care of me. I've been pretty poor at times. I've lived off of food bank food (private source) in seminary and it is not designed to be your sole source of food! I have worked multiple jobs and my dh is now working 2 jobs. I've been unemployed for over 6 months and have written home for money. I was pounding the pavement everyday during this time too. I did not accept unemployment even though I was "entitled" to it. But all of those times I was single (except for my dh's two job situation). I'm really not sure I would stick to these convictions with a family to provide for. So, I'm not dogmatic on this at all and would never tell anyone else that this is "the right way to go".

Having said that, I have received money or groceries just in the "nick of time". I can testify to God's faithfulness.

Sorry, I think I must have cut too much from the original post--I'm talking about the idea of foregoing bc for religious reasons, still sort-of the quiverfull idea. Iow, how do such convictions relate to issues of poverty/financial need?

[Tracey in TX]

Would y'all mind if I repost this from the Quiverfull conversation? I'd like to have a spin-off conversation, if that wouldn't bother anyone too much.

Btw, I really appreciate everybody's input & variety of views. Dh & I have been reading them & discussing a lot over the last couple of days, & I think getting some clarity on how we feel about it, which I guess is a start?

Anyway, here goes:

I've been thinking about this [big families/quiverfull families using Medicaid & saying "God's provided"] a lot since you posted it. Well, before, too, because it *is* an issue. Whether or not it's a common one like you've indicated, it underscores the importance of the question.

IF this is the right way to go, to what extent? If the mother's life is in danger w/ ea pg, to ME, that seems like an exception. If a family can't afford to feed the dc they've got...well...that SEEMS like a legitimate exception, too.

Except. A tiny, tiny part of me asks: If something is right, is it only right as long as we can afford it? Would we say abortion was acceptable if a very poor family found themselves unexpectedly pg?

Not that bc is NECESSARILY the same, but the principle applies, kwim? I guess I'm looking for a guideline, & then I have to work out the what-if's.

I'm pg w/ #4 right now. Dh & I have always wanted app. 4, MAYBE more. But we JUST had #3, & dh has just started seminary. He has had a harder time finding a good enough job to support us & work w/ his sch schedule. We're at the pt that we've spent our savings & can't afford to leave before Aug even if we wanted to: student housing is way cheaper than anything else.

So I'm IMMEDIATELY pg in the midst of this. Do you have any idea how embarrassed I feel? I tell strangers at the grocery store what a surprise this one is. I feel like the only way I can justify this baby is to assure anyone who looks at me that we DID use bc. So it's not really our fault.

I can't imagine walking around w/ the burden of "blame" in this situation. When I imagine that bc might not be acceptable (for me if no one else), the main thing that bothers me is what other people would think. ESPECIALLY given our current financial situation, which I hope is temporary. But...who can say for sure? You know?

I do care what other people think. The more $ I have, the less I care, because of the "responisibility" aspect. The truth is, I should be more concerned about God's opinion than that of others. But that really begs the question of gov't aid: is accepting it a means of God helping or is it an avenue of escape from trusting him?

Everyone around me (it seems) is making ends meet here at seminary by accepting whatever gov't aid they can get, & I'm the ONLY one who sees a problem w/ it. They all talk about learning humility thr the experience.

On the one hand, what do I know? On the other hand, that doesn't sound like humility. That sounds like letting someone else put you through school. But then, I had another friend whose dh went to law school via the same means. Why did that seem okay? Is that different?

I don't know, but I did want to say that I think the question you've raised is valid, & I would LOVE to have an answer. No, I'd love to have THE answer!

Here's a link to the original thread, if it makes a difference: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=69866&postcount=100
I missed the original topic, so not sure what the overall thought process is regarding it. Here's my thought process anyway:

We live in consumer-driver society, not a communist one-size-fits-all government. Therefore, we are not obligated to provide equal assets to everyone. Not everyone adds the same value to this money-driven society, so each person theoretically gets what they earn. We all have times where we're down and out, and a hand should be given to help lift fellow man , but not permanently sustain him. God helps those who help themselves. You can't offer handouts to a perma-couch potato IMO.
Regarding the unexpected pregnancy: our triplets were the "surprise" pregnancy. We were finished at 2 dc. LOL God was in control and we were his pawns to teach the greater good (whatever that happens to be). If we genuinely couldn't afford to feed our babes, then adoption is a viable option. Why would abortion not be acceptable under all circumstances other than finances? That seems arbitrary. Either it's always ok, or never (sans a mother's true medical necessity)

We help each other to the best of our ability, but are still obligated to take care of ourselves. The hi-def TV and Ford F-150 trucks really aren't necessary to live in the world. Yet, it seems like the people most in need of a helping hand have better TVs, more cable stations, and a rockin' car...and we are subjected to paying their Medicaid/Medicare and other extraneous expenses. (I've actually seen acquaintances with the above mentioned scenerio and it grates my last nerve.)

[nancypants]

I responded to this on the other thread. :)

[Laurie]

My feelings were hurt by someone who made a big point of lecturing me about how you get "holier" with each baby and she made specific mention of someone who has 4 children (the speaker has 5 of her own). I had already been trying to help the mom with 4 dc by giving her hand-me-down clothes, shoes, and baby furnishings from my own dc (and with "only" 2, our stuff was in great condition). Well, after hearing about how the woman with more dc is supposedly holier than me because she's got more kids, it really grated on me when I'd hear how the daddy just got a new tatoo ($200), an Xbox, etc.! They've got money for tatoos and video game systems, but they're "poor" and get formula, etc. from WIC?! From then on, I started donating our stuff to a legitimate charity instead.

FWIW, I agree completely that finances should be a consideration in determining family size. But it's not just about money. If you've got all that you can personally handle with two children, then it's totally responsible and not at all sinful to say, "I'm done." (And I did!) I guess I'm big on personal responsibility. I believe it's my dh's and my responibility to raise/provide for the children that we bring into the world...we don't expect "a village" to raise our dc.

[astrid]

but since I've already got my first negative rep, I figure in for a buck, in for a quarter. So here goes. And please, this is not meant as a personal attack on anyone. I have no way of knowing anyone's personal situations with regard to health care, food stamps, etc. It's just my own personal opinion about the GENERAL QUESTION. Again, I do not mean this as a slam, a personal attack, or a condemnation of those who are on Medicaid or have large families. You asked for opinions, so here's mine, for what little it's worth :o :

Medicaid is funded by taxpayers all over the nation. I'm glad it's there for folks who need it, and I definitely think it's a necessity. The inequality of our health care system is staggering to me.

I personally view pregnancy as a personal choice because it can be prevented. Leukemia, for instance, is not so much a personal choice. Pregnancy is. Maybe not spiritually for some, but basically, we have the technology, and it's readily available to everyone.

So if a person knows that they are on, or will have to rely on Medicaid, and they continue to consciously make the decision to continue to get pregnant, I would personally see that person in a bit of a selfish light. *I* want a baby, and *I* KNOW I can't afford it, but *I'm* going to have one anyway. Because *I* want one, and *I* believe I'm entitled to one, and Medicaid is the "Lord Providing." See, I'd tend to view Medicaid as "The Taxpayers Providing."

IMHO.

[astrid]

We help each other to the best of our ability, but are still obligated to take care of ourselves. The hi-def TV and Ford F-150 trucks really aren't necessary to live in the world. Yet, it seems like the people most in need of a helping hand have better TVs, more cable stations, and a rockin' car...and we are subjected to paying their Medicaid/Medicare and other extraneous expenses. (I've actually seen acquaintances with the above mentioned scenerio and it grates my last nerve.)

Oh yeah, baby. You're singin' my tune. I TOTALLY AGREE.

[Kim in Appalachia]

Aubrey,

I will start off by saying that I have never used any type of gov't assistance, and I am more in favor of a free market for health care. I just believe it to be better economics, but....

It is NOT Biblically wrong to accept gov't assistance. Gov't health care does not go against any of the Lord's commands. It would not be "wrong" (from a scriptural point of view) to accept food stamps, housing assistance, WIC, welfare, or disability.

Should you have more children if you can't pay for the delivery? Do you know how many medical things most people can not afford. Giving birth to a child is an inexpensive one. Private insurance is made to pay for over indulgent choices, such as problems relating to lung cancer, or heart problems (I realize not all heart problems are due to our over eating culture), it even has to pay for fertility treatments in some states. All of this makes the insurance way over priced for most people. And if you are self employed it can be a nightmare. You can have a decent income and still not be able to afford health insurance, or even begin to afford to pay for any major health care need or emergency.

Having children does cost money, but those who choose to have few or none for "economic" reasons, tend to waste more money on themselves. (the point being that it is not more people or children that cause more waste, but our culture)

All of this is to say that it is a middle class snobbery that says those who accept govt' assistance are irresponsible. We all make a lot of irresponsible choices, but often have the "cushion" to protect us, while others who have no cushion are made to suffer the consequences. (And I won't go off about all of the "assistance" large businesses receive, or the cuts and assistance we all "indirectly" receive)

OK, I kind of just spouted off a bit. :) I feel strongly about this, can you tell. :rolleyes: I've watched people let their kids suffer because they don't want to use the help available. I''ve seen people let themselves suffer a lot, because they feel it is "wrong" to accept any help form the govt. As Christians we are called to obey the Lord, worship him and submit to the gov't He has placed us under. (unless, of course, we are told to disobey His commands). We do not get to choose which type of gov't or culture we live in, we are placed in the one He chooses. If I was a slave in Rome, I would take the bread the Senate gave out in order to prevent revolts. I would not starve, or let my children starve. If I lived in Russia, Cuba, France, Italy, Germany, etc... I would work within their system unless it directly opposed scripture.

As far as using the system to get through school, I personally feel that is a loop hole that should be closed, but if it is not, it is not biblically wrong. (As long as you are not lying to receive assistance).

Again, I personally think a truer free market system, with less gov't welfare would be better. I vote that way, but that is not the way it is now. And because it is not that way the whole thing is structured to hurt those in need the most. For that reason, people in real need have to do what ever they can to survive.

I will shut up now.:o

Kim

whose dh works hard to serve those in need in Appalachia

[Jami]

And need to be held to standards in 1 Timothy for those who will be shepherds, that if they cannot adequately provide for their family (in general, perhaps not in particular, short-term circumstances) then they are not ready to shepherd other families in ministry. My humble opinion here. If finances are not available for families to attend seminary (speaking generally, not meaning to personally question your situation Aubrey), then is that perhaps not a reason to think it's not a wise choice? Is debt or relying on the government more "okay" than not pursuing ministry or temporarily limiting or spacing children?

The Apostle Paul does counsel men not to marry in Corinthians because of the "present crisis", which would have been extreme persecution, famine, etc. While this was an extreme situation, I think principles can be extrapolated. That if there is danger, an inability to provide physically for family needs, extreme spiritual battle, then delaying marriage (or starting or adding to a family) may be both wise and prudent.

I think choosing to avoid children out of fear that God won't provide or that he doesn't want our best is obviously sin. But setting aside having a larger family or spacing children for a time because God has another call (dangerous missions?) or to be faithful to obey by having a well-managed home for the sake of the gospel seems to have Biblical support.

Jami

[nancypants]

And need to be held to standards in 1 Timothy for those who will be shepherds, that if they cannot adequately provide for their family (in general, perhaps not in particular, short-term circumstances) then they are not ready to shepherd other families in ministry. My humble opinion here. If finances are not available for families to attend seminary (speaking generally, not meaning to personally question your situation Aubrey), then is that perhaps not a reason to think it's not a wise choice? Is debt or relying on the government more "okay" than not pursuing ministry or temporarily limiting or spacing children?

The Apostle Paul does counsel men not to marry in Corinthians because of the "present crisis", which would have been extreme persecution, famine, etc. While this was an extreme situation, I think principles can be extrapolated. That if there is danger, an inability to provide physically for family needs, extreme spiritual battle, then delaying marriage (or starting or adding to a family) may be both wise and prudent.

I think choosing to avoid children out of fear that God won't provide or that he doesn't want our best is obviously sin. But setting aside having a larger family or spacing children for a time because God has another call (dangerous missions?) or to be faithful to obey by having a well-managed home for the sake of the gospel seems to have Biblical support.

Jami

I couldn't agree more Jami! On the topic of seminary though, I do think that part of this could be solved if more churches would sponsor ministers and future ministers to go through seminary... and possibly to have more freely accessible forms of seminary available online. Having just paid off (thanks to a wonderful housing market) what we had always considered to be a lifetime of school debt from seminary, I believe that the amount pastors have to pay out of pocket for school, knowing that they are in one of the lower paid professions, generally speaking, is indicative of a real problem.

[Jami]

You're right, Nan. The cost of seminary seems to necessitate some graduate school type loans or the wife to work full-time to put the husband through, which is how most of my friends did it. LOL. They were all pregnant by May of the last year, my SIL included! I know that Southern in Louisville offers discounts to students who are members of a SBC. I'm not sure Covenant offers the same "deal" to PCA members.

I'm not sure what a good solution is.... It does seem to be unreconcilable with 1 Timothy to rely on gov't aid (not necessarily student loans) while becoming ministers of the gospel.

[Ria]

So if a person knows that they are on, or will have to rely on Medicaid, and they continue to consciously make the decision to continue to get pregnant, I would personally see that person in a bit of a selfish light. *I* want a baby, and *I* KNOW I can't afford it, but *I'm* going to have one anyway. Because *I* want one, and *I* believe I'm entitled to one, and Medicaid is the "Lord Providing." See, I'd tend to view Medicaid as "The Taxpayers Providing."

IMHO.

I totally agree with Molly's Mom. Medicaid is not meant to support people who have child after child knowing that they can't afford to raise the children. I've had friends whose children are on Medicaid - these are kids with life-threatening illnesses and Medicaid was their only hope for care. IMO, chosing to have innumerable children without being able to afford to raise them is irresponsible.

Ria

[Laura Corin]

I totally agree with Molly's Mom. Medicaid is not meant to support people who have child after child knowing that they can't afford to raise the children. I've had friends whose children are on Medicaid - these are kids with life-threatening illnesses and Medicaid was their only hope for care. IMO, choosing to have innumerable children without being able to afford to raise them is irresponsible.

Ria

Can I extend this to college? I asked a (middle class, educated) friend who does not limit her family what she intended to do about university education for her eight children. She said that she expected them all to get aid because of the family size and income. We pay taxes in the US and we might send our kids to college there. The money for her children's education is not 'free', it comes from other people's taxes, or the fees others pay for the education of their own children. She has chosen to use other people's money to support her children's college expenses.

I have no problem with people having any number of children if they can support them. Nor do I have a problem with subsidising the health and education of children whose parents are so lost that they are not able to limit their families. Choosing to have as many children as come, and expecting someone else to pick up the bill, does not feel right to me.

Laura

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Can I extend this to college? I asked a (middle class, educated) friend who does not limit her family what she intended to do about university education for her eight children. She said that she expected them all to get aid because of the family size and income. We pay taxes in the US and we might send our kids to college there. The money for her children's education is not 'free', it comes from other people's taxes, or the fees others pay for the education of their own children. She has chosen to use other people's money to support her children's college expenses.

In our case, we do limit because (among other things) of how many we can afford to care for reasonably, but the extra money that schools contribute to our kids' education comes from the endowment of the schools themselves, not the government. Unless you count federally subsidized loans. (Which I usually don't, though I haven't really thought that through fully.) And it's based on income and family size.

Although this year, I think ds might qualify for a Pell grant. I guess I haven't fully thought that one through, either. :)

Just another perspective.

[Cathy in IL]

I would not be able to care for my son without medical assistance. Every fever of 101 or more costs a minimum of $3000. He has been admitted to the hospital about 20-25 times and had 3 surgeries. He has MRIs at least twice a year. Eight specialists follow him, and they each see him every 3-6 months. He has 10 daily medications and four that we use as needed. With a child like him I think most families would need some kind of assistance.

I do think it is wrong for families to abuse the system though. I have seen homes where they depend on public aid and yet have the big screen plasma TV, Nintendo 3, and all sorts of extras. In one particular house they didn't even have adequate clothes for the children or lightbulbs in the light fixtures, but they spent the welfare check on all the extras.

[Laura Corin]

In our case, we do limit because (among other things) of how many we can afford to care for reasonably, but the extra money that schools contribute to our kids' education comes from the endowment of the schools themselves, not the government. Unless you count federally subsidized loans. (Which I usually don't, though I haven't really thought that through fully.) And it's based on income and family size.

Although this year, I think ds might qualify for a Pell grant. I guess I haven't fully thought that one through, either. :)

Just another perspective.

Pell grants, I believe, are tax-based and dependent on income and number of children. So, for a given income, parents who choose to have more children will get more in grants.

Universities give needs-based grants to people who have large families/low incomes. This money does indeed come from endowments, but those endowments would be used to give grants to others/reduce fees across the board/improve facilities if they were not used for large families. In that sense, the fees of other students subsidise those from large families.

I'd like to continue to stress that I have no problem with people who have large families that they can afford to support, nor with subsidising those accidentally in need, but I am affronted by the idea of people deliberately deciding to live out of my pocket, whether for educational or medical fees.

Laura

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that the big abusive bucks go to a few exploitative and criminal doctors.

We have had lots of news stories about MediCaid fraud by doctors who prescribe surgeries that their patients don't need, and sometimes do and sometimes don't do it but charge the government. And when I was a kid, my friend-who-was-on-welfare's mother recommended her dentist to my mom for my first appointment. Standard of care for children then was two cleanings and one set of x-rays per year. Anyway, she took me to him, and his standard was 4 cleanings with 4 sets of x-rays per year. AND, he wanted her to authorize $900 worth of fillings, caps, and orthodontia (I was 6; normal start time for orthodontia then was about age 12). This was 1963; 900 was a ton of money, and he offered a 10% discount if she agreed to it that day. She didn't, and took me for a second opinion, and I ended up with one filling and an agreement to watch a slightly deformed baby tooth in case it developed a cavity. That was all.

I agree that it was hard to visit my friend who was on welfare and see that she had a color TV and we didn't. But we owned our home, and she was renting. And she never saw her father or her stepfather. And we had two cars. I learned about trade off then even though I was very young. I don't envy people on welfare at all. They live a hard, hard life. Even if they make bad choices, they still live a hard, hard life.

And I cheer whenever the government prosecutes some doctor who scams the system like that.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Pell grants, I believe, are tax-based and dependent on income and number of children. So, for a given income, parents who choose to have more children will get more in grants.

Universities give needs-based grants to people who have large families/low incomes. This money does indeed come from endowments, but those endowments would be used to give grants to others/reduce fees across the board/improve facilities if they were not used for large families. In that sense, the fees of other students subsidise those from large families.

I'd like to continue to stress that I have no problem with people who have large families that they can afford to support, nor with subsidising those accidentally in need, but I am affronted by the idea of people deliberately deciding to live out of my pocket, whether for educational or medical fees.

Laura

Hmm. Well, would it be wrong for you, personally, to accept a Pell grant if you qualified for one? (Again, we've never been in this position, and probably never will again -- it's a year-long anomaly -- so I've never thought of accepting a Pell grant as welfare before.)

As for the endowments, the schools' boards of trustees decide which percentage of funds to set aside for helping individual students. I know that family size is factored in, sure. (Mine, btw, isn't very large. Two planned kids and a surprise.) But on a lower middle class income, I can't afford ds's college costs, and never could have saved for it. Yet they invited him to apply for both admission and merit AND need-based financial aid -- a good chunk of their endowment over four years. Multiply that by several schools for both dd and ds. Should we have said, "We can never afford to repay this. We think perhaps you should not offer to subsidize their education, but instead use your money to reduce overall costs"? I'm inclined to accept the charity. And try to pay it forward in whatever way we can.

To look at it another way, the state school that we could afford is also subsidized by people paying WAY more taxes than I do.

I know VERY well that what we took was charity. But it was charity freely offered by specific people, or perhaps a group of trustees, and in a couple of cases it was money set aside by a donor for charity or scholarships, however we want to look at it, for kids with need. And it was very definitely based on income except for the largest part of ds's college, which is merit-based.

We didn't have more kids in order to qualify for tax credits or health care or free higher ed. But for the three we have, they do benefit for the tax credits and subsidized higher education. Maybe the difference is that unlike the woman you mentioned, I don't feel entitled to this charity. I feel grateful.

Edited: BTW, I absolutely concur with this statement: I'd like to continue to stress that I have no problem with people who have large families that they can afford to support, nor with subsidising those accidentally in need, but I am affronted by the idea of people deliberately deciding to live out of my pocket, whether for educational or medical fees. Though I'm now wondering if I fall within that group.

[Laura Corin]

You are helping me to find my way to where my beliefs lie. As with many things, I don't think that there are absolutes.

To the extent that I can formulate a rule of thumb, I think that people should attempt to have the number of children they think they can afford to support in the lifestyle they expect to achieve. Accidents will happen and plans will go awry. I firmly believe that there should be a safety net for those circumstances - whether governmental or charitable.

If I were to find myself unexpectedly unable to put my child through college, I would have no problem applying for a grant. We would have done our best and would be thankful for the help, just as you are. Similarly, I am a firm supporter of my own country's national health service - for all its faults - but I also deplore those who (by regular binge drinking, for example) deliberately take action that will leave the rest of us to pay for their unnecessary health costs. It's about responsibility.

Best wishes - and please do realise that I am talking about issues in general, and not making any kind of attack on you personally,

Laura

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

For us, it was even more complicated. The intention is for the kids to pay for their own education, either earning scholarships, getting loans, or working their way through a college they could afford. We've watched too many of our friends' children squander too much money with no appreciation of where it came from. On an enlisted salary, there wasn't extra for school savings. So not paying for the schooling wasn't unexpected. But we never "expected" any federal monies to come our way out of the taxpayer till, except, as I said, perhaps in the way of subsidized interest on loans. (I think it's more of a guarantee of repayment more than anything these days. 9% isn't exactly "subsidized" IMO.)

From individual schools, though, we figured they, as private institutions, set their own policies for need-based aid. And we do avail ourselves of those policies.

(BTW, thanks for reading this as "discussion" and not "confrontation." That's lovely in a contentious world!)

[Laura Corin]

From individual schools, though, we figured they, as private institutions, set their own policies for need-based aid. And we do avail ourselves of those policies.

(BTW, thanks for reading this as "discussion" and not "confrontation." That's lovely in a contentious world!)

All but one of the universities in Britain are public (and that one largely takes overseas students). Although I've researched US colleges (my boys have dual nationality) I suspect I still have a taxation-based view of this. I tend to think of money given by a university to one set of students as money not available to another, rather than seeing the process as a choice by the trustees, the details of which are really not my business.

When Mrs Thatcher reduced taxes and tried to cut back on public spending, she expected that charitable giving would rise in the UK to the kinds of levels common in the US. It never did - the culture didn't change.

Laura

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

All but one of the universities in Britain are public (and that one largely takes overseas students). Although I've researched US colleges (my boys have dual nationality) I suspect I still have a taxation-based view of this. I tend to think of money given by a university to one set of students as money not available to another, rather than seeing the process as a choice by the trustees, the details of which are really not my business.

When Mrs Thatcher reduced taxes and tried to cut back on public spending, she expected that charitable giving would rise in the UK to the kinds of levels common in the US. It never did - the culture didn't change.

Laura

You know, I suspected we were having two separate conversations, somehow, but I wasn't sure what the disconnect was. Now I get it!

Yeah, state schools here would be your public institutions, but it's VERY complicated where the money comes from. Mostly state, some federal, even some private monies set aside for various scholarships and endowments. And in TN, there's lottery money available now if one attends in state. And there's a whole 'nother thread! (Kelli in TN, for example, won't take lottery aid because of her beliefs about who is then paying for her child's education -- read: the poorest in the state tend to play the lottery most.)

I think most colleges and universities are private institutions. (Though I might be off in my reckoning.)

[Volty]

You do what you want but -just so you know- we're a happy, growing, loving household and we're looking to adopt.

[Janna]

To be perfectly frank, without being trite, I think this issue isn't one we as a human race can answer because we aren't the judge and jury.

There are just too many if's and too many variables with accepting Medicaid as you all have already proven. I personally don't feel comfortable deciding who it's OK for and who it's not OK for, you know what I mean? That just seems like a dangerous road. Who am I to decide whether family A has a situation where it's "OK" and family B is abusing it and shouldn't use it? Again, I know it sounds trite, but I think only the Good Lord and his sovereignty is the only one who can determine a man's heart - which is where this issue would lie.

I don't mean this answer to take away from our ability as free-thinking, responsible, intelligent people to think about this or other hard issues. I just caution in being the judge and jury over another family's choices.

It's kind of like deciding who is worth giving money/food to. All too often I hear people say not to give to homeless people, or the beggars on the street because they will turn around and spend the money on cigs, or drugs/alcohol etc. Personally, I need to be responsible for my own actions and not predetermine what I think someone else will do, regardless of the probability of it. My responsibility is to give. I don't think God is going to be disappointed in me for doing what Jesus teaches - the whole "Do unto others...", taking care of the widows and elderly, the Good Samaritan, among countless others - even if the receiver took advantage. That's between the receiver and God, kwim?

And I don't believe that God helps those that help themselves. He is in the business of helping us because we can't help ourselves. If we could help ourselves, we wouldn't need a Savior.

I sincerely hope this is read in the spirit it was intended. Not to be holier than thou (as that would defeat the purpose of the post) at all. Just pointing out my comfort level is all.

[Laura Corin]

You do what you want but -just so you know- we're a happy, growing, loving household and we're looking to adopt.

Once a child has been born, it needs to be looked after. Either the state will look after it (my taxes) or an individual family will take it in (usually much preferable). If an adoptive family needs help with medical bills or university fees, I have no problem with contributing to that.

Laura

[Laura Corin]

There are just too many if's and too many variables with accepting Medicaid as you all have already proven. I personally don't feel comfortable deciding who it's OK for and who it's not OK for, you know what I mean?

I'm not prepared to deprive a family of whatever they are entitled to, nor push for a change in the law to do so. As you say, there are too many variables and, in any case, these are real children with real needs, however much I disapprove of their parents.

I do, however, retain the right to say that choosing to have more children than you can reasonably support is irresponsible.

Laura

[Karen in CO]

I do care what other people think. The more $ I have, the less I care, because of the "responisibility" aspect. The truth is, I should be more concerned about God's opinion than that of others. But that really begs the question of gov't aid: is accepting it a means of God helping or is it an avenue of escape from trusting him?

Everyone around me (it seems) is making ends meet here at seminary by accepting whatever gov't aid they can get, & I'm the ONLY one who sees a problem w/ it. They all talk about learning humility thr the experience.

On the one hand, what do I know? On the other hand, that doesn't sound like humility. That sounds like letting someone else put you through school. But then, I had another friend whose dh went to law school via the same means. Why did that seem okay? Is that different?

[/URL]

First a little about me - my third was conceived while I was on birth control - actually all three for mine were. With each pregnancy, I spent the first 6 months in shock. I wasn't planning these small people. Obviously, they were planning me. I work full-time and so does my husband and we have health care that costs us a good portion of our salary. I am also an atheist. You and I have very different lives.

BUT - we are both mothers so we do have some common ground. One thing that I can see from what you have said is that you and your husband strongly feel that seminary is the right place for him to be. You have been struggling financially in a way that is humbling.

I know that the people who get and don't deserve "programs" get lots of news. I know many that get them and do deserve them. Our nation is not a nanny state. We have through various cultural changes over time become a nation that is controlled by businesses. Our school systems have seemed to actively work against families and morals that we see as significant. We talk big about providing for families, but what we could do to provide for families it to make it so that a family can survive above poverty without both parents working.

Don't feel like you are a burden because you were blessed with a child. I call my children surprises instead of accidents.

You did not set out to take money from me to support your lifestyle. You are blessed to be in a wealthy country. Your husbands future job may take him to a large mega-church and you will have tons of money and benefits. You may also end up in a poor parish or a far away place where there is not healthcare or safety or running water. Either way, I am sure that your family can get through this and having completed this task will probably help you in the future - open your heart to the real problems of working people unable to make ends meet and allow you to appreciate the benefits of living a country that has so much to offer its citizens.

There are a lot of things wrong with our health car system and our education system and our country's view of families. Hug your children tightly. Be thankful that they are here in a safe, secure country with so much to offer them.

It's late. I'm not even sure what I have added to the discussion. Love your children - even the surprises. They will have plenty of opportunities to embarrass you, don't start apologizing for them before they are born. Appreciate the country we are in - it has some safety nets for people that try to help correct the imbalances in it. It is not perfect, but those imperfections will not be fixed as long as people don't step up and create a better system. Your family will contribute to the wealth of the country when it is able. Consider it a charitable debt. Keep track of the cost of items the government is providing. When you are able, use that figure as where you should start helping others to payback your debt of charity.

When I needed help financially, I was at my bottom. I never forgot how that felt. Now I try to help others in need. The first time I got to be the one to help instead of the one needing help - it was wonderful.

[Mama Bear]

I would not be able to care for my son without medical assistance. Every fever of 101 or more costs a minimum of $3000. He has been admitted to the hospital about 20-25 times and had 3 surgeries. He has MRIs at least twice a year. Eight specialists follow him, and they each see him every 3-6 months. He has 10 daily medications and four that we use as needed. With a child like him I think most families would need some kind of assistance.

I do think it is wrong for families to abuse the system though. I have seen homes where they depend on public aid and yet have the big screen plasma TV, Nintendo 3, and all sorts of extras. In one particular house they didn't even have adequate clothes for the children or lightbulbs in the light fixtures, but they spent the welfare check on all the extras.


I'm close on your heels, Cathy. Also identifying with another poster (Maria?) who said that she's grateful for it but hates it.

My kids would be hurting w/out state coverage. Meds alone are nearly $500/mo. in this household and I know that's low compared to some families' needs. Yikes.

The original question? We had three of our kids with help, knowing that our taxes would contribute to the base on a far greater scale than we were using (kwim?). I don't know that it's actually going ot work out that way, but I've personally been paying taxes for nearly 25 yrs, so I kind of pat myself on the head a little when it seems so overwhelming and awful.

Sigh.

I think when you're a student all bets are off. If you can do it without "help" yay for you. But that won't be true for most families. If God's leading or earning potential are directing you, go for it, sucking it up as much as humanly possible as you go and being grateful for what you've got and giving back when you're done and you can.

But I don't think it makes for a good plan. Oopsies happen though -- three of my five were pleasant surprises, two of those with perfectly adequate bc.

(See me throwing up my hands? ;) )

[lynn]

I would not have a problem using gov't resources for much needed temporary situation. I do have an issue with people, even in my own family, that expect it and feel entitled because of their own choices in life. You should not have to explain your pregnancy to anyone and overlook any comments that are just plain rude. You may make yourself ill letting it all get to you. Accepting any needed assistance or help graciously when you need it then giving back to others when you can will teach a multitude to your children.

[Holly IN]

And need to be held to standards in 1 Timothy for those who will be shepherds, that if they cannot adequately provide for their family (in general, perhaps not in particular, short-term circumstances) then they are not ready to shepherd other families in ministry. My humble opinion here. If finances are not available for families to attend seminary (speaking generally, not meaning to personally question your situation Aubrey), then is that perhaps not a reason to think it's not a wise choice? Is debt or relying on the government more "okay" than not pursuing ministry or temporarily limiting or spacing children?

The Apostle Paul does counsel men not to marry in Corinthians because of the "present crisis", which would have been extreme persecution, famine, etc. While this was an extreme situation, I think principles can be extrapolated. That if there is danger, an inability to provide physically for family needs, extreme spiritual battle, then delaying marriage (or starting or adding to a family) may be both wise and prudent.

I think choosing to avoid children out of fear that God won't provide or that he doesn't want our best is obviously sin. But setting aside having a larger family or spacing children for a time because God has another call (dangerous missions?) or to be faithful to obey by having a well-managed home for the sake of the gospel seems to have Biblical support.

Jami
I agree with this Jami.

My beef with the whole system of gov't assistance is: Weekly I see people in front of me doling out food stamps then when I go out to my vehicle, I see them putting groceries in a much nicer, much newer vehicle (I am talking fancy!!!) vs. my vehicle which is nice but OLD and breaking down on me several times a year.

Another situation...At my parents church, they have a food pantry. The secretary said on the food pantry days people come in with very nice clothes and jewelry as well as full of smoke from smoking, to get food from the charity of food pantry. Also when I drive by on those food pantry days...vehicles are very new and nice (talking expensive here). I know what vehicles are brand new since my dad works for auto company. He is a designer/managerial position (not auto worker) so he has taught us about vehicles growing up.

I see these situations more often than not. I have a part time job to get food on the table. We probably can get food stamps but we prefer not take money from other people. I know it is taxpayer but it is THIER money not mine for the taking. That is the way I look at it. It is the CHURCH that is supposed to help the community. But here in this country the State has become the church. :(

Just my thoughts on this matter. Also number of kids have no bearing on me in regards to gov't assistance. I find that the larger the family the more resilient they are in helping themselves than smaller families. I am considered a small family (would love to have more kids but tube is blocked) but we have become more resilient in finding ways to cut cost and save money.

These are my opinions. If you are on gov't assistance then that is fine. Personally I can't do it. If you truly are in need of help that is fine. If you can afford an x-box, nice expensive car, or whatever else then do you really need help? (I am not asking anybody on this list) ok? I am asking this outloud to state my point in what I am seeing in my neck of woods.

I do not have a problem with those that really really need the help.

I really do not like posting on this controversial topics. Final warning...these are my opinions not an accusation. :)

I didn't read all of the replies. Just the 1st two pages. So if you feel like I am attacking I am not. :)

Blessings-

Holly

[Cadam]

To me state aid is acceptable in the short term. Frankly your family will pay way more into the system than it will take out. We had to use WIC, state health care for the kids and Food Stamps for about 9 months. I hated being in that office and dealing with government workers who looked at me like I was starving my kids because they are thin (no amount of food can overcome those genetics!). I did it because it was the best way for me to help my family and feed my kids. Daycare for an infant and preschooler would have taken my whole paycheck if I worked. My monthly payments to the IRS were higher than the benefits I received, and while the airlines were bailed out no one wrote my husband a check when his 3 biggest clients canceled their contracts after 9-11.

Government aid is not a long term solution and should not be the main plan for supporting a family imho but for a short term situation I think it is fine. In utopia the church would take care of all of this, sponsoring seminary students, helping out families in need and in general being the social services agency.... However at this time it doesn't exist and that is a whole other topic anyway.

[Susan in TX]

So if a person knows that they are on, or will have to rely on Medicaid, and they continue to consciously make the decision to continue to get pregnant, I would personally see that person in a bit of a selfish light. *I* want a baby, and *I* KNOW I can't afford it, but *I'm* going to have one anyway. Because *I* want one, and *I* believe I'm entitled to one, and Medicaid is the "Lord Providing." See, I'd tend to view Medicaid as "The Taxpayers Providing."
IMHO.

But why is it wrong to let the tax payers provide for medicaid but okay to let the tax payers pay for public education? I may use medicaid for my children but my children will also be tax payers some day and they will shoulder the tax burden of supporting a very large population of seniors. Why is it okay that tax payers pay for social security and medicare but it's not okay for tax payers to support the medical care of those children who will one day be the means of that support?

Susan in TX

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But why is it wrong to let the tax payers provide for medicaid but okay to let the tax payers pay for public education? I may use medicaid for my children but my children will also be tax payers some day and they will shoulder the tax burden of supporting a very large population of seniors. Why is it okay that tax payers pay for social security and medicare but it's not okay for tax payers to support the medical care of those children who will one day be the means of that support?

Susan in TX

What is the intention of public school? So that those who find themselves suddenly, through difficult circumstances of life, unable to homeschool or send their children to private school will have a safety net and an adequate (but not spectacular) education?

No. It is the intention of the public school system to provide a quality education to every citizen that is eligible. It is funded thusly. (Now, does it meet its goals? Debatable. I don't think it does, overall, so I use it only when necessary.)

What is the intention of medicare and public assistance? So that those who find themselves suddenly, through difficult circumstances of life, unable to obtain medical care or feed themselves will have a safety net and adequate-for-sustaining-life (but not spectacular) medical care and nutrition?

Yes. It is the intention of public assistance and medicare to provide the basic life necessities and basic medical care to citizens who find themselves unable to provide them for themselves, either temporarily or long term. It was never conceived (sorry) to be the "plan" for someone's life and family.

I'm thrilled to help with care for those who find themselves in need. I'm less thrilled to help care for those who *plan* their lives based on that safety net of care.

[Susan in TX]

Yes. It is the intention of public assistance and medicare to provide the basic life necessities and basic medical care to citizens who find themselves unable to provide them for themselves, either temporarily or long term. It was never conceived (sorry) to be the "plan" for someone's life and family.


Actually, medicare is for all senior citizens and it is the "plan" that most have for paying for their medical care in old age. *Medicaid* is for those with low incomes who do not have health insurance for whatever reason. Many states also have "Supplementary Children's Health Insurance" that covers those who have a decent income. It's not just for the poor and indigent.

Also, anyone who accepts tax credits (Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credit etc.) is also getting government aid or a reduced tax burden at other's expense. I just don't see a difference between one form of government aid and another. And even the poorest of the poor still pay some form of taxes, even if it is just sales tax.

Also, I don't view government assistance as a "plan" for my life. I take advantage of the programs that are available to me but if the law changed and those programs were no longer available then we would manage without them. The way my dh sees it is that we "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" and if Ceasar wants to render unto us than there is nothing wrong with that.

Susan in TX

[Sunny]

So many good thoughts on this thread. I tend to stand on the side that relying on God is not the same thing as relying on the Govt handouts. So, I won't sing with the choir on this part.

However, being a CC thread, I'm going to just throw out the idea that comes from scripture that if one believes in their heart it is wrong, we are all to stand by and support rather than condemn. (Rom. 14) It is hard to convince someone that doing something that is contrary to what their heart tells them is wrong is "ok". On the other hand, it is possible to teach and therefore give evidence that what they believe is right may be wrong. THat is called growth, sanctification, in our Christian walk.
I'm not saying that one or the other here is the "right or wrong" way. It is an issue of the heart, maybe?
And, how do we judge one's heart? By their actions. Their fruit. However, God only knows the real truth.
I think this is a great topic in order to get us to wrestle with what we believe and why, but I don't think the answer will be the same for everyone.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Actually, medicare is for all senior citizens and it is the "plan" that most have for paying for their medical care in old age. *Medicaid* is for those with low incomes who do not have health insurance for whatever reason. Many states also have "Supplementary Children's Health Insurance" that covers those who have a decent income. It's not just for the poor and indigent.


Susan in TX

While I was typing, I knew I was saying the wrong thing. Thanks for the correction.

[ereks mom]

...if a person knows that they are on, or will have to rely on Medicaid, and they continue to consciously make the decision to continue to get pregnant, I would personally see that person in a bit of a selfish light. *I* want a baby, and *I* KNOW I can't afford it, but *I'm* going to have one anyway. Because *I* want one, and *I* believe I'm entitled to one, and Medicaid is the "Lord Providing." See, I'd tend to view Medicaid as "The Taxpayers Providing."



I have to say "Amen" to that.

[Pencil Pusher]

And need to be held to standards in 1 Timothy for those who will be shepherds, that if they cannot adequately provide for their family (in general, perhaps not in particular, short-term circumstances) then they are not ready to shepherd other families in ministry. My humble opinion here. If finances are not available for families to attend seminary (speaking generally, not meaning to personally question your situation Aubrey), then is that perhaps not a reason to think it's not a wise choice? Is debt or relying on the government more "okay" than not pursuing ministry or temporarily limiting or spacing children?

The Apostle Paul does counsel men not to marry in Corinthians because of the "present crisis", which would have been extreme persecution, famine, etc. While this was an extreme situation, I think principles can be extrapolated. That if there is danger, an inability to provide physically for family needs, extreme spiritual battle, then delaying marriage (or starting or adding to a family) may be both wise and prudent.

I think choosing to avoid children out of fear that God won't provide or that he doesn't want our best is obviously sin. But setting aside having a larger family or spacing children for a time because God has another call (dangerous missions?) or to be faithful to obey by having a well-managed home for the sake of the gospel seems to have Biblical support.

Jami

Jami,

I went back & reread I Tim 3:1-13 (right?) because I was so intrigued by its application to this situation. You may be right, & when dh gets in from work, I plan to discuss it w/ him.

In the meantime, though, there are a couple of things I'd like to think about (w/ you guys, if you don't mind).

First, these verses don't say that a man has to be able to provide an adequate income for his family; it says he has to rule them well & have his children in submission. Although it seems reasonable to me that a man should be able to provide for his family, that's not exactly what I see in this verse, kwim?

Second, the students I know here have little to no support from their home churches. Dh & I came from a huge, rich, mega church. He was leading a small group there, so he wasn't just an unknown pew-sitter. When he met w/ one of the pastors to ask about some level of support, he was told that their policy is not to support anyone in seminary because "we are all called to the ministry."

My point is, based on what I've seen here, if you have a pastor who attended seminary AFTER getting married, chances are high that he made one of the following sacrifices in order to achieve that position:

a) he postponed/limited children via bc
b) his wife worked outside the home (& if not combined w/ (a), then those children either attended day care, private school, or public school
c) he & his family used gov't assistance.

If he believes bc is fine, then I don't see a problem w/ a. The family across the way from me does not believe in bc, though, & uses it because the dh has at least another yr of seminary, & they already have 4 dc.

If he & his wife already planned for her to work outside the home & send their dc to day care/school, that seems fine to me, too. However, I've met women who really want to be hs'ing & can't because their dh's are in seminary.

And, of course, there's the current discussion about gov't assistance, which everyone here seems to use, no matter which of the others they're using.

I guess my point is, if these are any representation of our future pastors, they are by & large compromising core beliefs about their families in order to serve people here & abroad. Statistically, pastors have a very hard time holding their families together (whether it be divorce or children leaving the faith, etc.), & being here really helps me see why. They're sacrificing literally everything dear in order to follow this call.

Who's to blame for that? Well, ultimately, they are the ones making the choices they're making. At the same time, though, if they stopped making those choices, I imagine there would be a crisis in protestant churches.

There is one alternative that I haven't addressed, & that's that a man could theoretically hear & follow the call of God on his life before he gets married. If he finishes hs at 18 & college at 22, then he could go straight into seminary & be able to marry by 25 or so, still very reasonably young.

Think about the reprucussions of that, though. Can you imagine if all the young pastors fresh out of seminary had no. life. experience? I know y'all will agree w/ me that our dh's learn a LOT from US. LOL!

All I'm saying is that although it's harder, in many ways, I think the guys are more prepared to learn the things they need to learn when they come at this life stage, i.e having a kid or two & a few yrs of marriage under their belts. In fact, I guess since that's kind-of a requirement in I Tim, one could argue that it could be a requirement to get into seminary, lol.

Anyway, do you see what I'm getting at? Ideally, the church will do best w/ pastors whose families are not brand-spanking new, which means seminarians will typically have families. That means that it might be appropriate for them to have some kind of assistance (from the church) in pursuing those goals.

I hope this doesn't sound like a rant. I guess maybe it does. I don't mean this for my family personally--it's hard after only 1.5 semesters to think of our work here as legitimate. Why should someone else support us because WE think WE heard a call, kwim? But talking theoretically, for some of the other families...I'd like to see...well, supervision of their dc, at least. Some of them roam around here so lost, their parents working 2 jobs apiece, plus school.

Ok, I'll stop! LOL I really hope that wasn't too much!

[Pencil Pusher]

I couldn't agree more Jami! On the topic of seminary though, I do think that part of this could be solved if more churches would sponsor ministers and future ministers to go through seminary... and possibly to have more freely accessible forms of seminary available online. Having just paid off (thanks to a wonderful housing market) what we had always considered to be a lifetime of school debt from seminary, I believe that the amount pastors have to pay out of pocket for school, knowing that they are in one of the lower paid professions, generally speaking, is indicative of a real problem.

Ha! I should have just read your post first, Nan!

[Pencil Pusher]

First a little about me - my third was conceived while I was on birth control - actually all three for mine were. With each pregnancy, I spent the first 6 months in shock. I wasn't planning these small people. Obviously, they were planning me. I work full-time and so does my husband and we have health care that costs us a good portion of our salary. I am also an atheist. You and I have very different lives.

BUT - we are both mothers so we do have some common ground. One thing that I can see from what you have said is that you and your husband strongly feel that seminary is the right place for him to be. You have been struggling financially in a way that is humbling.

I know that the people who get and don't deserve "programs" get lots of news. I know many that get them and do deserve them. Our nation is not a nanny state. We have through various cultural changes over time become a nation that is controlled by businesses. Our school systems have seemed to actively work against families and morals that we see as significant. We talk big about providing for families, but what we could do to provide for families it to make it so that a family can survive above poverty without both parents working.

Don't feel like you are a burden because you were blessed with a child. I call my children surprises instead of accidents.

You did not set out to take money from me to support your lifestyle. You are blessed to be in a wealthy country. Your husbands future job may take him to a large mega-church and you will have tons of money and benefits. You may also end up in a poor parish or a far away place where there is not healthcare or safety or running water. Either way, I am sure that your family can get through this and having completed this task will probably help you in the future - open your heart to the real problems of working people unable to make ends meet and allow you to appreciate the benefits of living a country that has so much to offer its citizens.

There are a lot of things wrong with our health car system and our education system and our country's view of families. Hug your children tightly. Be thankful that they are here in a safe, secure country with so much to offer them.

It's late. I'm not even sure what I have added to the discussion. Love your children - even the surprises. They will have plenty of opportunities to embarrass you, don't start apologizing for them before they are born. Appreciate the country we are in - it has some safety nets for people that try to help correct the imbalances in it. It is not perfect, but those imperfections will not be fixed as long as people don't step up and create a better system. Your family will contribute to the wealth of the country when it is able. Consider it a charitable debt. Keep track of the cost of items the government is providing. When you are able, use that figure as where you should start helping others to payback your debt of charity.

When I needed help financially, I was at my bottom. I never forgot how that felt. Now I try to help others in need. The first time I got to be the one to help instead of the one needing help - it was wonderful.

You are so kind. It humbles me for you to see our situation like this. Maybe inspires is a better word.

I want to do what is right. I don't want to "follow God's call" at so high a cost that we abandon following Him. If that makes sense.

I see accepting gov't aid to get through seminary (but not law school, ironically!) as wrong. But when I see so many really, truly otherwise respectable people around me not only accepting it but calling it God's provision... well, I don't want to insult them. And goodness! I don't want to be the guy who drowns on the rooftop because he didn't recognize God's provision in the life boat that comes by (or the helicopter or...hm...there was something else).

It really helps me to talk through these things. Just writing out the question gave me a new way to look at it: if I believe, in general, that *relying* on credit cards is the opposite of trusting God (i.e., we tend to jump in & let MBNA or whoever "save" us at 21% instead of being patient & trusting God), then how is accepting gov't aid any different?

I've seen good arguments here both ways, but the truth is, we held out much longer because we were hoping God would come through. Going down to the office to sign up for aid, whether that's ever right or wrong, was not done in faith but desperation.

And before we gave up? Yep, we charged around a month or two of living expenses on our credit card. We've done almost everything we said we wouldn't. That's pretty embarrassing to admit on such a public forum. How would you like to hire a pastor who couldn't even trust God for a couple of months' basic living expenses? Thank goodness it wasn't a life-threatening disease--we might not have been able to "bail ourselves out." (I'm saying that tongue-in-cheek.)

Anyway, I think maybe that's why this whole topic has become so prominent in my mind. If God is calling us to give up bc, that will require a much greater level of faith than we're demonstrating right now. Dh & I have both been praying about the character issues that will need to mature if that's His call, & through that, we've seen what might be characterized as a lack of faith in regard to the gov't aid.

I'm not completely sure, but the fact that I see the possibility is pretty tell-tale, eh? So we're looking at our finances again, trying again to see if we (heh, still not God!) can make it work w/out help. Or how soon we can. Or something.

And as we've been praying this way, working on these changes, etc, an anonymous check came in the mail. You have no idea what a big deal that is for me! I had just sat here less than a week before telling my neighbor how I believed in God & all, & I knew he provided financially for others, but I had never seen it in my life. (Then I moved over in case there was something I was forgetting & was about to be stricken w/ lightning, lol.)

She smiled & said now she knew how to pray for me.

I think I'm rambling now, sorry. I can't believe I started such an awkward, controversial thread (2 of them now, I guess!), but I really have appreciated the discussion! And the relatively gentle responses.

[Jami]

Hey Aubrey,

:)

I'll work on an email so that I can be more personal and rambling in my thoughts. ;)

Look for it tomorrow sometime?

And we're probably due to have a playdate one of these days...if the weather will hold, which for us who knows!

Jami

[Cathycam]

Well my husband and I courted for 5 years....he knew immediately he wanted to marry me (the feeling was mutual) but he also felt strongly he did not have leave to marry until he could support a family. He asked me to marry him the last day of his internship (the 5 years were 4 of med school and his internship year that he had to finish to "really" be a doctor) and we were married shortly there after.

It was difficult for both of us, but the Lord grew us during that time in ways we would have missed if we had not gone through it. I think we both had plenty of life experiences during that time that made us stronger, more devout, more mature than had he ignored what he felt like was a God given responsibility just to have our wants met. Had we married we would have been better off in many ways - including financially (since I was working and out of college)....but we would have lost life experience which I feel like the Lord intended for us.

A call for all young men? I have no idea - but it was for my husband and I can't say we have any regrets.

[Virginia Dawn]

Pell grants, I believe, are tax-based and dependent on income and number of children. So, for a given income, parents who choose to have more children will get more in grants.

Universities give needs-based grants to people who have large families/low incomes. This money does indeed come from endowments, but those endowments would be used to give grants to others/reduce fees across the board/improve facilities if they were not used for large families. In that sense, the fees of other students subsidise those from large families.

I'd like to continue to stress that I have no problem with people who have large families that they can afford to support, nor with subsidising those accidentally in need, but I am affronted by the idea of people deliberately deciding to live out of my pocket, whether for educational or medical fees.

Laura

I don't see that the fees of other students subsidise those from large families. Most university grants/endowments have guidelines and strings attached. They are given for a specific reason or purpose, including but not just large family/low income. The moneys dry up if grades and other qualifying factors are not maintained. I feel no reason to turn down need-based aid offered by the college, even if it is because I have 5 kids at home and we are a one income household.

On the other hand, you could argue that the Pell Grant is a form of federal government welfare that should not be even be offered. Apparently we don't even have to worry about whether or not to take it. Because ds 17yo works and has money in savings, and we have a little money in savings too, we don't qualify, even though we have 5 kids at home and one lower middle class income.

On the original topic, I agree that having children with the thought that government assistance is there if needed is not really relying on God's provision, but on people who did not voluntarily give their money for that purpose.

[Danestress]

I agree about legistlating. But I don't think the original question was "is there a maximum family size after which medicare should refuse to aid a family by law." I hope no one would think government should do so.

I think the question was more at individual couples and whether they should limit their family size to what they believe they can support. Or whether they should continue adding to a family that they already can't support, especially if they have no prospects of being able to do so in the future.

I personally have the number of children that I believe I can raise the way *I* want to raise them. And that's an individual choice. I want my children to have music and art lessons, a decent home, and college educations. But I have no problem with someone finding those things unnecessary and choosing a larger family with fewer "perks." I also think that "man plans, God laughs" and sometimes people get little "oops" babies, which are a blessing and should be treated as such by family and society.

But as a general principal, I think medicaide should be a "safety net." I don't think it should be relied on as part of a families long term money management plan. If you are already on medicaide and have no reason to think that you are going to be able to improve your situation, I personally think the responsible thing to do is to try to limit family size. But I wouldn't want laws requiring it or punishing people who see this differently from me, because I can certainly see the other side, and having not lived in the shoes of those who are struggling without medical coverage, I don't feel able to judge them. And I'd rather just pay the taxes and know that I am part of a society that values children and their health.

[Pencil Pusher]

Well my husband and I courted for 5 years....he knew immediately he wanted to marry me (the feeling was mutual) but he also felt strongly he did not have leave to marry until he could support a family. He asked me to marry him the last day of his internship (the 5 years were 4 of med school and his internship year that he had to finish to "really" be a doctor) and we were married shortly there after.

It was difficult for both of us, but the Lord grew us during that time in ways we would have missed if we had not gone through it. I think we both had plenty of life experiences during that time that made us stronger, more devout, more mature than had he ignored what he felt like was a God given responsibility just to have our wants met. Had we married we would have been better off in many ways - including financially (since I was working and out of college)....but we would have lost life experience which I feel like the Lord intended for us.

A call for all young men? I have no idea - but it was for my husband and I can't say we have any regrets.

I've often looked back & wondered if we should have waited to get married, but the changes in our beliefs have come since then. It was the norm for our family & friends to get married & then use bc until they were ready for their 2.5 kids. We could have waited, but we wouldn't have known why.

Otoh, for us, we've grown a lot by learning to live well together. Doesn't everybody? I'd guess so. It's hard to know what would have been best since I can't go back & change it, but we will definitely tell our children to wait to get married until they can support a family!

[nancypants]

"There is one alternative that I haven't addressed, & that's that a man could theoretically hear & follow the call of God on his life before he gets married. If he finishes hs at 18 & college at 22, then he could go straight into seminary & be able to marry by 25 or so, still very reasonably young."

It's funny because this is exactly the track my husband took...except he was 17 when he graduated high school and 21 when he graduated University. He was 25 when we married. But be encouraged (I guess) because it's a rare congregation who will call a fresh faced 27 year old who just graduated Seminary as their solo senior pastor. While my husband didn't necessarily want to be thrust into that position first thing, he did have to go through being a youth minister (which was not really his area of giftedness, as much as we love kids) as that is one of the few positions such a young man will be called to. And I can tell you this, it usually isn't so great a salary that one can easily raise a family on it... though we decided to anyways -- and managed fairly well, though close to the line much of the time. We did have experiences that we learned greatly from that we wouldn't really trade if we had the chance -- even the period of unemployment where my dh had to work odd jobs and where we were essentially at the mercy of our loved ones. God brings us all through these various trying phases for His own good purposes, in order to refine us and we look back at them as invaluable experiences that prepared us for the work we are now doing.

And we were poor as church mice. LOL We learned a great deal in those years. He graduated seminary close to our first anniversary. I am extremely happy that we were able to go through seminary with no children. As much as I wanted to have babies at that time, we knew that we would not have been able to survive financially. He was working as a part time youth minister, making something around $400 a month. I was working retail, making only a couple hundred more than him per month.

As it was we we had to go into debt just to survive.

As much as I think that churches ought to sponsor people through seminary, I do realize that they are taking a big risk in doing so, as seminary is often the testing ground where many people find out that, after all, they are not called to the ministry. And most churches, whether they would come right out and say it, would like to see some kind of a return on their investment. As a pastor's wife, I can only think of that kind of thing as some kind of indentured servanthood! LOL

My gut says that the answer is probably for seminary to be something that the church OFFERS freely to potential future ministers. I don't think the ministers in the early church had any specialized training beyond being thoroughly taught by their mentors and shepherded like Timothy was by Paul.

I really do think it is wrong for seminary to be such a financial burden. We don't really need degrees and accolades in order to be ministers of the gospel. We need to be armed with the truth. We need training in the word, in how to encourage, how to teach, how to deal with divisions, how to really be a shepherd. The church should be providing these things.

Too bad it's not a perfect world! :o