Debates
05 Feb 09
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by generalissimoPregnancy, delivery, child daycare , child health care... etc are all free if you don't have enough money... free is very affordable.
they shouldn't do that, however let's be realistic here, if you can't afford to have children don't have them.
05 Feb 09
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.
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderLets all eat cake and go bankrupt together. mmm cake.
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.
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree that we have to take care of the kids... its a no brainer. However, it is too easy to work the system. If I would not have married my wife, I could have saved 30 grand by having her get on medicaid when our kids were born. Single women/moms are welled cared for.
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.
I hope when the government takes over our healthcare they can control the costs better.
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't understand why asking people to make responsible choices is a bankrupt idea. It doesn't matter how much health insurance costs, there will always be some who can't afford it. I guess everyone should be able to do whatever they want to just because they want to. Is that the argument you are making?
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.
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderGo read Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech called The New Nationalism. It was the launch of his Bullmoose progressive party challenge to both conservatism and the Woodrow Wilson brand of what Democrats advocated at the time. TR's Fair Deal gave rise to his cousin FDR's New Deal.
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.
To see how conservative right wingers continue to operate, even after almost 2500 years, study Thucydides vs. Pericles of Athens. Thucydides was a prominent politician of ancient Athens and the leader for a number of years of the powerful conservative faction. In 444 BC, the conservative and the democratic parties confronted each other in a fierce battle. The leader of the conservatives, Thucydides accused Pericles, the leader of the democrats, of profligacy, criticizing the way Pericles spent money. But Pericles was a great, charismatic orator and the public applauded his stance and ostracized Thucydides.
While in Athens, Thucydides is also said to have accused Pericles' personal friend, Anaxagoras, of atheism and sympathy for the Persians. Thucydides, as representative of landed, old money interests, used the potential threat from Persia, for the Persians were foreigners, as a means for instilling fear in the public and gaining votes among citizens who felt only the conservatives could protect them and their property from foreign invaders.
Not much has changed since.
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by dryhumpThe argument I am making is contained in the thread title. Please read it carefully.
I don't understand why asking people to make responsible choices is a bankrupt idea. It doesn't matter how much health insurance costs, there will always be some who can't afford it. I guess everyone should be able to do whatever they want to just because they want to. Is that the argument you are making?
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 apparent moral indignation that someone who isn't wealthy might choose to have children, I would ask you a rather simple question: What happens NOW? Should we refuse to give health care to children NOW if their parents can't afford it because IYO the parents shouldn't have had children in the first place?
Please SPECIFICALLY address the question just posed.
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderIndeed. So we save them medically but mortgage their future by letting government spend more than it has. Interesting.
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.
05 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThats because it is only the now that matters... also it feels good to help people. We can deal with that other stuff later.
Indeed. So we save them medically but mortgage their future by letting government spend more than it has. Interesting.
05 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyActually the bill was 100% funded by an increase in the excise tax on tobacco.
Indeed. So we save them medically but mortgage their future by letting government spend more than it has. Interesting.
But I guess in your opinion it would be better to let them die of health problems than to actually raise taxes.
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWhich is a terrible way to fund it. Smokers are losing their numbers and soon everyone else will have to pick up the slack. They should just tax everyone and not discriminate.
Actually the bill was 100% funded by an increase in the excise tax on tobacco.
But I guess in your opinion it would be better to let them die of health problems than to actually raise taxes.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by dryhumpThat's not exactly true, and I can tell you've never been in this situation. You may get a quick look and shoved out, but you don't get 'care'. One's level of 'care' is directly related to their ability to pay.
Anybody in the country can walk into an emergency room and get care. They can't be denied.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by dryhumpIt never stops being the patient's responsibility. The patient does not get a free ride. The patient gets billed, goes to collections when they can't pay or has any state payout seized, etc. You really haven't been down this road, have you....
Probably not, but it really is the parent's responsibility. I would like to see some stats on how many of the parents whose children are covered by this program have ever had health insurance that wasn't provided by the government.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by dryhumpWhat if you were able to but have been priced out of it? Lost a job? Lost a spouse? What about the inevitable dynamic of life, where change is constant?
If health insurance is indeed a basic need, as you and the president seem to feel, than it is irresposible to have children if you can't provide it for them.
06 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by lepomisYa bitch if it's not paid for, ya bitch if it is paid for.
Which is a terrible way to fund it. Smokers are losing their numbers and soon everyone else will have to pick up the slack. They should just tax everyone and not discriminate.
It's not an optimal way to raise revenue, but it's politically popular and they wanted to get this bill done quickly. Might as well get some cash out of smokers before they start gumming up the health care system.