Debates
05 Feb 09
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe key is spending tax dollars responsibly and not spending what you don't have. Now if you can force the good ole US of A to do that then you have your answer. I would say that spending money for such causes is responsible, but getting them to do it is another thing altogether. They would rather pass "stimulus packages" which have next to nothing to do with stimulating the economy than they would helping those in medical need. Law makers would rather cheat on their taxes than help those in medical need. The list goes on and on so what you wind up with is a counrty that is basically bankrupt and falling further and further into debt as it takes on more and more governmental programs. So if the government goes belly up from all this spending with universal health care as part of the equation are you OK with that?
What is the "responsible approach" to the problem that 7 million children of working parents have no health care? How is addressing this problem as the present Congress and President have done "irresponsible"?
07 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI await a proposal for you that is a solution rather than the partisan whining you seem to be addicted to. I note that you miserably failed to answer the question addressed to you (no surprise).
The key is spending tax dollars responsibly and not spending what you don't have. Now if you can force the good ole US of A to do that then you have your answer. I would say that spending money for such causes is responsible, but getting them to do it is another thing altogether. They would rather pass "stimulus packages" which have next to nothing to do w ...[text shortened]... om all this spending with universal health care as part of the equation are you OK with that?
Most modern countries have been able to provide universal health coverage without going "belly up".
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderApparently a hot topic, given the large number of posts.
Yesterday before signing a bill that provided health insurance for 4 million children who were presently uninsured, President Obama said this:
In a decent society, there are certain obligations that are not subject to tradeoffs or negotiation – health care for our children is one of those obligations.
http://www.boston.com/news/pol ...[text shortened]...
Perhaps some of those who worship "free markets" could tell us why he is wrong.
Whose obligation is it to provide for children? Is his statement an indictment of our society prior to the advent of medicaid?
The argument cannot be whether or not to care for children, but rather who ought to do it. Far too many responsibilities and rights of individuals and parents are now in the hands of the government.
Some may already have argued that parents don't always do the right or best thing. Does the government always do the right or best thing, and when they screw up, do they take the blame?
The truth about the CHIPS program is in the details, and many already insured and cared for children are included, so this thing is a stepping stone to total Socialization of the medical system, and ultimately of the entire free Society of America. It is Marxism on the march.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderLots of people go to a local clinic or primary physician and pay for the service out of pocket. Medical care isn't "free"! It is paid for either by the individual, or by an insurer who is paid by the insured or by his employer.
That matters NOW why exactly?
Maybe the government should seize the kids of all those who can't afford health insurance for them. Or mandate abortions for any pregnant woman who doesn't have private health insurance.
BTW, you don't understand the program. The parents aren't on any "government aid before having kids"; if th ...[text shortened]... The parents have some income (they aren't "poor"😉 and thus don't qualify for Medicaid.
When the government does it, the bill is passed on to some unknown sugar daddy, the taxpayer. But who cares. There are always "the rich" a class most of us don't know, and resent, and so billing them for what rightfully is an obligation of the parents is acceptable to most.
How about holding back on that HI Def TV, or blue ray player, or drive a used car, and pay for your insurance or health care instead of expecting somebody else to pay for it.
It is as simple as that. Americans and people in general all over the world have bought into the notion that it is all right for government to reach into other people's pockets to pay their bills.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere are other options to the one of expecting others to pay for what you need. We have been conditioned to think we can dispose of all our income on wants, and someone else will care for the needs.
What is the incentive to make responsible choices if no options are given?
People unfortunately often make poor decisions prioritizing necessities and desires. Often it's the Hummer that prevents them from affording health care.
The problem is that the government is as broke as we are, perhaps even more so, and so it hasn't the ability to provide endless demands for additional services and necessities we fail to provide for ourselves. There isn't any free lunch.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is a difference between providing a safety net for some that fall through the cracks, and taking over the entire system of personal responsibility.
Since when is it considered an "irresponsible" choice for working families to have children?
What is the point of having a society if it doesn't provide protection to its most vulnerable members?
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe "richest country in the world" is $10 billion in debt. The wealth spoken of is the personal wealth of individuals, not of the nation.
Don't you think it's pretty stupid to argue that people in one of the richest countries in the world should not have children because they supposedly can't afford it?
There is no morality in claiming a right to the wealth of others based on the needs of another.
That is the same as saying because I'm hungry, and I see you leaving the grocery store with three cart loads of food, I have the right to wait for you to load up, pull a gun and steal your Hummer and the food. After all I'm hungry, and you have more than you need.
Asking the government to do the stealing for you makes no difference in the morality.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBogus! It is cheaper because it is "free"? It isn't free, the costs are not seen by the user, nor are they properly accounted for.
But what is the point of making the health of poor children the responsibility of the parents and not government? Who gains anything from this? It can't be society, because universal health care is cheaper.
Everywhere Universal Health care is the policy, there are severe shortages, long waits, rationing, and outright denial of services.
No competition always results in higher costs. Always results in shortages. It is economic reality.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderIf health care should be free, then why not food, housing and clothing? They cost a lot of money too. And so no one is left out, why not free broadband, cable tv, and a flat screen and blu ray player for all working families?
It's staggering to see how bankrupt the ideas of the right wing are. Rather than concede that society should make sure that children have decent health care, they prefer to attack workers who, unfortunately, don't have a high enough income to afford the skyrocketing costs of health care in the US. "Let 'em eat cake" is alive and well though fortunately it is rejected by the majority of American voters.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think anyone is arguing people should give up their children. Perhaps they should have made better decisions in the past, but they are where they are.
The argument I am making is contained in the thread title. Please read it carefully.
I have never heard it seriously argued that working families should have to give up their children if they can't afford health insurance. I must admit to being stunned by such a concept. It is below heartless.
However, besides your appare ...[text shortened]... en in the first place?
Please SPECIFICALLY address the question just posed.
There are lots of options. Work harder, work smarter, shop better, lose the luxuries.
The point is that the children are their responsibility, not that of society in general, or more specifically the wealthy and upper middle class who will be the ones paying for the additional services and entitlements being created.
It is one thing to protect endangered children in specific troubling situations, and another to completely absolve parents of responsibility with a permanent entitlement that will not go away, and will undoubtedly expand.
