You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks our tax system is well run and the money well spent. I don't think anyone is arguing against you guys on that.
But my point is, under the current health care system we have, SCHIP is a good program that provides insurance to kids who don't have ANY other options, thus giving them access to health care (yes, the best health care possible. Any kid who comes into our hospital gets the same treatment whether they have insurance, SCHIP, Medicaid, or nothing - we give away more than $30 million in uncompensated care annually).
No one is proposing a new federal program. They're proposing an expansion of an already-existing federal program that is administered and allocated at the STATE level (to argue against your earlier point, Maddy).
In this economy, you can't argue that offering health insurance to 4 million kids who otherwise wouldn't have it is bad. So if your assertion is that the system is broke, I say if you want to fix it, you don't start by refusing coverage from kids. You overhaul the system and by extension, SCHIP goes away.
Sure the program could fail, the money can be misspent, etc. But for now, you have to play the hand your dealt and this is the system we have. So there are few choices. They come up with new funding to expand the program for these uninsured kids, or you just leave it as is and millions of kids don't have insurance and get their health care from emergency departments (which only serves to further stressithe healthcare system and costi us millions and millions anyway) or you overhaul the system (which I imagine is going to take quite a while).
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks our tax system is well run and the money well spent. I don't think anyone is arguing against you guys on that.
But my point is, under the current health care system we have, SCHIP is a good program that provides insurance to kids who don't have ANY other options, thus giving them access to health care (yes, the best health care possible. Any kid who comes into our hospital gets the same treatment whether they have insurance, SCHIP, Medicaid, or nothing - we give away more than $30 million in uncompensated care annually).
No one is proposing a new federal program. They're proposing an expansion of an already-existing federal program that is administered and allocated at the STATE level (to argue against your earlier point, Maddy).
In this economy, you can't argue that offering health insurance to 4 million kids who otherwise wouldn't have it is bad. So if your assertion is that the system is broke, I say if you want to fix it, you don't start by refusing coverage from kids. You overhaul the system and by extension, SCHIP goes away.
Sure the program could fail, the money can be misspent, etc. But for now, you have to play the hand your dealt and this is the system we have. So there are few choices. They come up with new funding to expand the program for these uninsured kids, or you just leave it as is and millions of kids don't have insurance and get their health care from emergency departments (which only serves to further stressithe healthcare system and costi us millions and millions anyway) or you overhaul the system (which I imagine is going to take quite a while).
I don't think you understand most peoples problem with the program. It's not THAT the program exists as much as HOW the program is run and funded. I agree children need medical care, that is not the point, the point is that with the econmy in the crapper, all the problems facing the country, raising taxes on ANYTHING is a bad idea and in this case, just plain wrong.
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks our tax system is well run and the money well spent. I don't think anyone is arguing against you guys on that.
But my point is, under the current health care system we have, SCHIP is a good program that provides insurance to kids who don't have ANY other options, thus giving them access to health care (yes, the best health care possible. Any kid who comes into our hospital gets the same treatment whether they have insurance, SCHIP, Medicaid, or nothing - we give away more than $30 million in uncompensated care annually).
No one is proposing a new federal program. They're proposing an expansion of an already-existing federal program that is administered and allocated at the STATE level (to argue against your earlier point, Maddy).
In this economy, you can't argue that offering health insurance to 4 million kids who otherwise wouldn't have it is bad. So if your assertion is that the system is broke, I say if you want to fix it, you don't start by refusing coverage from kids. You overhaul the system and by extension, SCHIP goes away.
Sure the program could fail, the money can be misspent, etc. But for now, you have to play the hand your dealt and this is the system we have. So there are few choices. They come up with new funding to expand the program for these uninsured kids, or you just leave it as is and millions of kids don't have insurance and get their health care from emergency departments (which only serves to further stressithe healthcare system and costi us millions and millions anyway) or you overhaul the system (which I imagine is going to take quite a while).
I don't think you understand most peoples problem with the program. It's not THAT the program exists as much as HOW the program is run and funded. I agree children need medical care, that is not the point, the point is that with the econmy in the crapper, all the problems facing the country, raising taxes on ANYTHING is a bad idea and in this case, just plain wrong.
Au contraire...I understand your point. You just don't understand mine. They need new funding to expand the program. If you don't kids don't get health insurance. So, to Laker's point, if you don't want to raise tobacco taxes, or taxes at all, where's the money coming from? I await your funding proposal, Sen. Freak!
I gave my proposal to come up with the money at the top of this page. It would generate a LOT more money than a tax on tabacco and would also put less strain on us. It's actually a LOT better fix and the children have the money for their insurance... Plus the money could be provided a lot faster than waiting on us to spend millions of dollars on smokes...
Number one, my opinion on athletes is this. If they "LOVE" the game as much as they say they do, then would play for smaller amounts of money. When they start with the "I'm not playing until I get X million is bullshit. I'm not disagreeing that they bang their bodies up but it is by choice. Celebs are notorious for being on commercials for fundraisers, this and that. No, I have no facts here but I highly doubt they would do it for free and if they really cared so much, they should donate some of their fortunes and not just miniscule amounts.
My next comment is on tobacco tax. What gives the government the right to say "Hey, we are going to tax this because we want more money and want to regulate it". I don't understand how we let this happen. Same thing with Alcohol. I can understand an age limit but deciding to tax it more than any other product is outragous. Same thing goes for gas. Everybody wants to tax it because everyone wants their share.
My next problem is income tax. Not every state has it but a lot do like NJ. So, you bust your ass each year making what you make and I'll tell you that I don't even make $70k. Then they tax you for busting your ass. The harder you work, the more they tax you. Bonuses are worse. They tax almost 50% of the bonus. Then property tax. When you buy a car or a bike you pay tax once and you own it. Why do you need to keep paying tax on something you own? That brings me to cars. I bought myself and 2001 Audi S4 in 2000. If I got myself an all decked out A4 I would not have to pay luxury tax but because I got an S4 I did. What is this luxury tax all about? That's a bunch of bullshit too. So I can have something nice but you are not just going to charge me more for it you are gonna tax it higher too. Ugh..................................................................................................
Now I am not against paying taxes but I think a lot of what is taxed is wrong. One more example is renting a car in NJ. They tag on a $3 a day homeland security tax. What does renting a car have anything to do with homeland security? Paying taxes to towns and they state are ok with me. Police assistance, plowing, supporting schools, etc... are taxes that are needed but when they decide to tax tobacco and air and water and ever **** thing else is when I start to get mad and wonder what gives them the right to do this. I almost feel like stocking up on cigars (more than I already have) and not buying for like 10 years just so they loose this new tax. In reality, I could cut my cigar smoking back and not give as many away and I can smoke for the next 5 years without having to buy anything except maybe some distilled water.
Sorry for the rant but this *** gets to me. How much more can they tax us before it is more beneficial NOT to work than to go to work.
As far as athletes go, in my opinion, you're solely to blame for this. Ok, not actually you, but "you" the fan. Who the hell wouldn't take that money? And if you knew you could hold out and get another $5 million and even further set you and your family up for life, you wouldn't? Yeah right.
The owners pay them that much, and I'd say they're to blame, but we let them. Quit going to games. Don't buy another jersey. You'll see salaries come down drastically.
I have never owned a Jersey and I have not been to a game in years and the last game I went to was because we got free tickets. I don't mind going to every now and then but I would never spend the kind of money that others pay. Plus, I'm not a huge sports fan. I do however like seeing the women play soccer with their pony tails bouncing up and down but that is a completely different story :-)
I gave my proposal to come up with the money at the top of this page. It would generate a LOT more money than a tax on tabacco and would also put less strain on us. It's actually a LOT better fix and the children have the money for their insurance... Plus the money could be provided a lot faster than waiting on us to spend millions of dollars on smokes...
I would also like to add that this is the kind of reaction these bleeding hearts want to get out of us. They want to spout off crap about how "It's for the poor children!" so hopefully emotion will over-ride reason and logic. If you really take a minute to step back and look at this, there are MUCH better ways to get the money without raising taxes and putting more of a burden on anyone.
Could fund anything we wanted with the pissed away money we spend on "friendly countries" , that could care less about the USA
I definately think that we need to take care of ourselves before we can take care of anybody else. I don't see those countries that we have given billions to offering to give us anything. My solution is a little harsh but I think we should close our borders and forget about other peoples wars. If they want to blow themselves up, that is their free will. Now, don't get me wrong I don;t want to see people get killed especially when it comes to religion but as you pointed out these people could care less about us except when they need something from us. They would be perfectly content taking our money and resources and then seeing us fry as they become stronger. If they would start paying us back the money that we have lent them then there would be no need for these types of programs, at least for the next few years minimum. On the other hand, if Drs bills weren't so outragous then healthcare wouldn't be as much of an issue.
I don't want to argue this point, I'll just agree to disagree with you Luko. Despite my youth I've already learned arguing about politics really doesn't get anyone anywhere. You're going to believe its a good program no matter what I say. I'm going to believe that even if it is an unbelievably great program its unconstitutional and shouldn't be within the rights of our federal government to form such a program with my money.
I'm kind of a hard liner so I'll just state my opinion and walk away. It should not be my responsibilty to provide health care or any other form of welfare to anyone who can't afford it. Maybe I'm an insensitive @$$hole but half the problem with this country is that we are defying darwinism daily. We modeled our country after Greek and Roman city-states. Many of whom believed in natural selection to the point that they would take infants out into the woods and let them die if they were deemed unfit. I'm not advocating we kill babies or that we let kids die of the flu because their parents can't afford insurance. What I am saying is that we devote way too much attention in this country to protecting people from themselves and making it easier for people to obtain things that ARE NOT a right. We have a Bill of Rights, go read it. A house is not a right, health insurance is not a right, a job is not a right, the oppurtunity to obtain these things by fair and just means is the right. So by giving it to those who could not obtain it by fair and just means you are taking away my rights.
It's not "children under 30." In PA, and I believe in most, if not every other state in the nation, it's kids under age 19.
currently yes. but they want to expand it to "kids" under thirty living in our out of the home with parents that make less than 75k a year.
that is a problem to me.
i am a "kid" according to that. I have my own health insurance. why wouldnt I (and others like me) just dump the insurance i already have when i can get it for free. that is problem we face. not only that but it is a back door entrance to get people hooked on government programs so that the government can get more and more power. there will be no way to stop it because who is gunna win on a platform of taking away "free health care" ?
its the next phase in the bankruptcy of the US. it is also the exact opposite of what the US was based on.
one more thing. Health care is not a right. It cannot be a right. All "rights" are things that do not infringe on others. free health care is not a right because someone has to pay for it. Your right to life, to own property, to speak freely, etc... does not cost anyone anything. Universal health care will cos everyone something.
I actually I lie I do want to continue with my point. You really want to solve the healthcare issue. Make it more affordable. You know how you do that? Easy. Limit liability. There should be a concrete method of determining what a life is worth. Actuaries should be deciding what a persons right arm is worth based fairly upon Stats and math, not upon a lawyer in a courtroom persuading a jury that one mans arm is worth $10,000. While another jury decides that they don't like this doctor that cost this man his arm so we're going to stick it to him and award $10 million and end up spending thousands in our tax dollars on the appeal process.
I don't want to argue this point, I'll just agree to disagree with you Luko. Despite my youth I've already learned arguing about politics really doesn't get anyone anywhere. You're going to believe its a good program no matter what I say. I'm going to believe that even if it is an unbelievably great program its unconstitutional and shouldn't be within the rights of our federal government to form such a program with my money.
I'm kind of a hard liner so I'll just state my opinion and walk away. It should not be my responsibilty to provide health care or any other form of welfare to anyone who can't afford it. Maybe I'm an insensitive @$$hole but half the problem with this country is that we are defying darwinism daily. We modeled our country after Greek and Roman city-states. Many of whom believed in natural selection to the point that they would take infants out into the woods and let them die if they were deemed unfit. I'm not advocating we kill babies or that we let kids die of the flu because their parents can't afford insurance. What I am saying is that we devote way too much attention in this country to protecting people from themselves and making it easier for people to obtain things that ARE NOT a right. We have a Bill of Rights, go read it. A house is not a right, health insurance is not a right, a job is not a right, the oppurtunity to obtain these things by fair and just means is the right. So by giving it to those who could not obtain it by fair and just means you are taking away my rights.
Ok, off the politics/taxes point here. I've met tons of families here at our hospital who've benefitted from things like SCHIP and medicaid.
Sometimes, beneficiaries of social welfare programs are undeserving slugs who do nothing but drain society.
On the other hand, if you drove up to Pgh, I could introduce you to 10 families in 10 minutes who are in unfortunate situations through no fault of their own. If you ever found yourself in their shoes and through some circumstance, had just lost your job (or were forced to quit your job because your 3-year-old child developed liver cancer and needed you at his side constantly) you'd be glad for a program like that.
Ouch, just twisted my ankle coming down off my pedastal. I'll give it rest. Just trust me when I say, my feelings on the federal government came be summed up as "necessary evil." I just feel very strongly that there are certain things we're obligated (no they are not federally protect "rights") as decent human beings to do. I think making sure our children have a home, food and health care are some of those things. WWJD!
I don't want to argue this point, I'll just agree to disagree with you Luko. Despite my youth I've already learned arguing about politics really doesn't get anyone anywhere. You're going to believe its a good program no matter what I say. I'm going to believe that even if it is an unbelievably great program its unconstitutional and shouldn't be within the rights of our federal government to form such a program with my money.
I'm kind of a hard liner so I'll just state my opinion and walk away. It should not be my responsibilty to provide health care or any other form of welfare to anyone who can't afford it. Maybe I'm an insensitive @$$hole but half the problem with this country is that we are defying darwinism daily. We modeled our country after Greek and Roman city-states. Many of whom believed in natural selection to the point that they would take infants out into the woods and let them die if they were deemed unfit. I'm not advocating we kill babies or that we let kids die of the flu because their parents can't afford insurance. What I am saying is that we devote way too much attention in this country to protecting people from themselves and making it easier for people to obtain things that ARE NOT a right. We have a Bill of Rights, go read it. A house is not a right, health insurance is not a right, a job is not a right, the oppurtunity to obtain these things by fair and just means is the right. So by giving it to those who could not obtain it by fair and just means you are taking away my rights.
Luko, I understand it's a good idea and a good program but I'm with maddy, and yes maybe I'm an Ahole too, but like Kuzi said healthcare is not a right.
Ouch, just twisted my ankle coming down off my pedastal. I'll give it rest. Just trust me when I say, my feelings on the federal government came be summed up as "necessary evil." I just feel very strongly that there are certain things we're obligated (no they are not federally protect "rights") as decent human beings to do. I think making sure our children have a home, food and health care are some of those things. WWJD!
I agree with you 100% Luko. I beleive we are obligated as well. However that obligation should not be enforced by the federal government.
I don't want to argue this point, I'll just agree to disagree with you Luko. Despite my youth I've already learned arguing about politics really doesn't get anyone anywhere. You're going to believe its a good program no matter what I say. I'm going to believe that even if it is an unbelievably great program its unconstitutional and shouldn't be within the rights of our federal government to form such a program with my money.
I'm kind of a hard liner so I'll just state my opinion and walk away. It should not be my responsibilty to provide health care or any other form of welfare to anyone who can't afford it. Maybe I'm an insensitive @$$hole but half the problem with this country is that we are defying darwinism daily. We modeled our country after Greek and Roman city-states. Many of whom believed in natural selection to the point that they would take infants out into the woods and let them die if they were deemed unfit. I'm not advocating we kill babies or that we let kids die of the flu because their parents can't afford insurance. What I am saying is that we devote way too much attention in this country to protecting people from themselves and making it easier for people to obtain things that ARE NOT a right. We have a Bill of Rights, go read it. A house is not a right, health insurance is not a right, a job is not a right, the oppurtunity to obtain these things by fair and just means is the right. So by giving it to those who could not obtain it by fair and just means you are taking away my rights.
Luko, I understand it's a good idea and a good program but I'm with maddy, and yes maybe I'm an Ahole too, but like Kuzi said healthcare is not a right.
Maybe I really am insensitive but I remember an ER doctor telling me the solution to the healthcare problem in this country is to let people die. HE didn't mean if a guy comes in with pneumonia he shouldn't be treated. He meant that more people are kept alive for days, weeks, even years, that should have died. These are the real strains on insurance.
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it (and if we're saying that, are we refering exlusively to the Bill of Rights)? Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant? Those things are within our grasp, you know. There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it (and if we're saying that, are we refering exlusively to the Bill of Rights)? Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant? Those things are within our grasp, you know. There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
IMO there is no role for the government in this. NONE. There are plenty of charities and individuals that can make this happen much more efficiently.
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it...?
if everyone has equal access to it then it IS a right by definition.
Luko:
Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant?
I AM interested in those things. I have done those things for myself and i expect everyone to work hard as well. I also dont want people to mooch off of me by federal mandate. If i give to charity (and i do) thats one thing, but a government mandate for me to buy food for people that arent as successful as myself? i have a problem with that.
Luko:
There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
no there doesnt. maybe people should try personal responsibility. Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
Our system isn't set up that charities and individuals could or would provide health insurance for 10 million kids. I do agree with you to a point that some social welfare systems are flops and it would be nice to go back to a time when neighbors, friends charities and private individuals gave people a hand up. But that doesn't happen too much anymore. And Bush's faith-based initiatives were a trainwreck.
BTW, thanks, Mr. Swift. I loved what you had to say in "A Modest Proposal."
I just said how we can keep the program that is providing for children that truely need assistance with healthcare and not raise taxes. It would be the most efficient way to provide the money. On the other end of the deal is that you would have to do a lot of checking into who does receive this assistance. If the parents aren't working because they are lazy, are addicted to some sort of chemical, or are just neglegting the child, then remove them from the home. If you cut out 50% of the crap we spend tax dollars on there would be MORE than enough money to keep and expand this program without one extra cent out of our pockets. Why can't you agree that would be a good solution?
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it...?
if everyone has equal access to it then it IS a right by definition.
Luko:
Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant?
I AM interested in those things. I have done those things for myself and i expect everyone to work hard as well. I also dont want people to mooch off of me by federal mandate. If i give to charity (and i do) thats one thing, but a government mandate for me to buy food for people that arent as successful as myself? i have a problem with that.
Luko:
There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
no there doesnt. maybe people should try personal responsibility. Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
If we lived in Kuzi's World, we'd need a guy like the one from Monty Python's Holy Grail who walked around saying "bring out your dead" for every street in America.
So how do kids practice personal responsibility? Or are they just unfortunate victims in your reform? Even with government programs now, charities don't do enough now to ensure that every kid in this country has a home, a full stomach and health care. What makes you think they would do it when there was no such government programs?
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it...?
if everyone has equal access to it then it IS a right by definition.
Luko:
Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant?
I AM interested in those things. I have done those things for myself and i expect everyone to work hard as well. I also dont want people to mooch off of me by federal mandate. If i give to charity (and i do) thats one thing, but a government mandate for me to buy food for people that arent as successful as myself? i have a problem with that.
Luko:
There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
no there doesnt. maybe people should try personal responsibility. Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
If we lived in Kuzi's World, we'd need a guy like the one from Monty Python's Holy Grail who walked around saying "bring out your dead" for every street in America.
So how do kids practice personal responsibility? Or are they just unfortunate victims in your reform? Even with government programs now, charities don't do enough now to ensure that every kid in this country has a home, a full stomach and health care. What makes you think they would do it when there was no such government programs?
If the government can't do it now with the BILLIONS of dollars they already take from us, then why is it ok for them to take more and more and more? There comes a point where we have to draw the line. They already take so much money of OURS and blow it on stupid crap everyday. They need to learn to take care of the important things with the money they have instead of STEALING more from us and throwing it at any problem that pops up.
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it...?
if everyone has equal access to it then it IS a right by definition.
Luko:
Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant?
I AM interested in those things. I have done those things for myself and i expect everyone to work hard as well. I also dont want people to mooch off of me by federal mandate. If i give to charity (and i do) thats one thing, but a government mandate for me to buy food for people that arent as successful as myself? i have a problem with that.
Luko:
There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
no there doesnt. maybe people should try personal responsibility. Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
If we lived in Kuzi's World, we'd need a guy like the one from Monty Python's Holy Grail who walked around saying "bring out your dead" for every street in America.
So how do kids practice personal responsibility? Or are they just unfortunate victims in your reform? Even with government programs now, charities don't do enough now to ensure that every kid in this country has a home, a full stomach and health care. What makes you think they would do it when there was no such government programs?
Like I said before we're not going to agree on this. You see it your way, we see it ours. I can flip your argument too ...
Even with charity work now, the government doesn't do enough now to ensure that every kid in this country has a home, a full stomach and health care. What makes you think they would do any better when there was more money and more beaucracy?
I agree with you 100 percent. Taxing and spending are out of control and the oversight is for *** and I would love to see drastic changes. I can think of about 1.3 million places to start other than health insurance for kids. And when they get there, they should reform it, fix it and make it more effective (or better yet come up with a new health care system that doesn't allow kids to go without). There's a difference between improving a program and saying it shouldn't exist at all.
So we both agree taxation is out of control. I guess we disagree where to draw the line. You say with the SCHIP program and say anywhere else.
Ouch, just twisted my ankle coming down off my pedastal. I'll give it rest. Just trust me when I say, my feelings on the federal government came be summed up as "necessary evil." I just feel very strongly that there are certain things we're obligated (no they are not federally protect "rights") as decent human beings to do. I think making sure our children have a home, food and health care are some of those things. WWJD!
I agree with you 100% Luko. I beleive we are obligated as well. However that obligation should not be enforced by the federal government.
I see your point Luko, but what makes children more important than everyone else? I like the idea of a unified medical program, call it socialism or what-have you but it's a good idea. Insurance companies are out of hand and if that can be put under control then I'm fine with that but the alternative would be to have a federal program. Though taxing isn't the way to pay for it. Building up our manufacturing is! Though this schip program is a socialist program just like welfare and a lot of others. And I'm fine with these programs, minus the fact that the govt (state too) pays for these by raising taxes on items and property. It's just wrong and needs to be fixed. But I say if there is a program for children then it should be for all and NO if your are illegally here then you need to leave or get citizenship and pay taxes like everyone else. I am not a fan of free-bee's and it's not a good thing as people then become lazy and un-productive. I see this happening a lot, and anyone who has a job that works on the interior of people's home/apartments knows what I'm talking about (depending on the area). This program might as well be summed up as welfare since most of these people would normally be on it in the first place. My problem isn't just with the .40 cent cigar tax it's with tax in general, it should not be used so much and for such programs that certain people think "oh, lets tax it".
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it...?
if everyone has equal access to it then it IS a right by definition.
Luko:
Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant?
I AM interested in those things. I have done those things for myself and i expect everyone to work hard as well. I also dont want people to mooch off of me by federal mandate. If i give to charity (and i do) thats one thing, but a government mandate for me to buy food for people that arent as successful as myself? i have a problem with that.
Luko:
There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
no there doesnt. maybe people should try personal responsibility. Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
If we lived in Kuzi's World, we'd need a guy like the one from Monty Python's Holy Grail who walked around saying "bring out your dead" for every street in America.
OR there would be more health care because the wasteful, slow moving, and out right ineffective government would be out of the peoples way. the people make economies work (even in health care) not the government.
example: there are more MRI machines in the state of new jersey than there are in the entire country of canada with their "superior health care"
Luko:
So how do kids practice personal responsibility? Or are they just unfortunate victims in your reform? Even with government programs now, charities don't do enough now to ensure that every kid in this country has a home, a full stomach and health care. What makes you think they would do it when there was no such government programs?
how did kids survive in the past? parents.
has any government ever solved any poverty problem? no matter what you or anyone does there will always be poor people. why drag down the rest of the people with them via taxation to help the poor? It punishes people who work hard. no government has ever taxed and spent their way out of a depression. no government has ever tax and spent poor people out of existence. It is a failed policy.
oh... my "reform" is not reform. the government does not have to do a thing. in fact the less they touch any system the better off it will be.
are you so dependent on the government that you feel that everyone needs to be as dependent as you?
I am independent. I dont want the government in my life. I dont want them to tell me how/when/where i can/cannot get health care. I dont want the 10 month waiting list to get my wife in to give birth (like canada)
what will the kids do? nothing. they will get health care because their parents are working hard... or are you treating adults like children? isnt it the parents JOB to take care of kids? the parents, not the government.
oh... my "reform" is not reform. the government does not have to do a thing. in fact the less they touch any system the better off it will be.
are you so dependent on the government that you feel that everyone needs to be as dependent as you?
I am independent. I dont want the government in my life. I dont want them to tell me how/when/where i can/cannot get health care. I dont want the 10 month waiting list to get my wife in to give birth (like canada)
what will the kids do? nothing. they will get health care because their parents are working hard... or are you treating adults like children? isnt it the parents JOB to take care of kids? the parents, not the government.
That's the way things should be kuzi. I work hard and am some'what successful. I really don't want to pick up the slack for everyone else especially if they aren't working for it. But like I mentioned their needs to be a tighter leash on insurance companies. Costs have got out of hand. And if that is something that won't happen I do think that some sort of medical reform is due. And yes parents should be more responsible and be held accountable. I don't like the Govt in my business either and I do think it has got it's hands way too much in my business.
Comments
But my point is, under the current health care system we have, SCHIP is a good program that provides insurance to kids who don't have ANY other options, thus giving them access to health care (yes, the best health care possible. Any kid who comes into our hospital gets the same treatment whether they have insurance, SCHIP, Medicaid, or nothing - we give away more than $30 million in uncompensated care annually).
No one is proposing a new federal program. They're proposing an expansion of an already-existing federal program that is administered and allocated at the STATE level (to argue against your earlier point, Maddy).
In this economy, you can't argue that offering health insurance to 4 million kids who otherwise wouldn't have it is bad. So if your assertion is that the system is broke, I say if you want to fix it, you don't start by refusing coverage from kids. You overhaul the system and by extension, SCHIP goes away.
Sure the program could fail, the money can be misspent, etc. But for now, you have to play the hand your dealt and this is the system we have. So there are few choices. They come up with new funding to expand the program for these uninsured kids, or you just leave it as is and millions of kids don't have insurance and get their health care from emergency departments (which only serves to further stressithe healthcare system and costi us millions and millions anyway) or you overhaul the system (which I imagine is going to take quite a while).
I'm kind of a hard liner so I'll just state my opinion and walk away. It should not be my responsibilty to provide health care or any other form of welfare to anyone who can't afford it. Maybe I'm an insensitive @$$hole but half the problem with this country is that we are defying darwinism daily. We modeled our country after Greek and Roman city-states. Many of whom believed in natural selection to the point that they would take infants out into the woods and let them die if they were deemed unfit. I'm not advocating we kill babies or that we let kids die of the flu because their parents can't afford insurance. What I am saying is that we devote way too much attention in this country to protecting people from themselves and making it easier for people to obtain things that ARE NOT a right. We have a Bill of Rights, go read it. A house is not a right, health insurance is not a right, a job is not a right, the oppurtunity to obtain these things by fair and just means is the right. So by giving it to those who could not obtain it by fair and just means you are taking away my rights.
that is a problem to me.
i am a "kid" according to that. I have my own health insurance. why wouldnt I (and others like me) just dump the insurance i already have when i can get it for free.
that is problem we face.
not only that but it is a back door entrance to get people hooked on government programs so that the government can get more and more power. there will be no way to stop it because who is gunna win on a platform of taking away "free health care" ?
its the next phase in the bankruptcy of the US.
it is also the exact opposite of what the US was based on.
one more thing. Health care is not a right. It cannot be a right. All "rights" are things that do not infringe on others. free health care is not a right because someone has to pay for it. Your right to life, to own property, to speak freely, etc... does not cost anyone anything. Universal health care will cos everyone something.
Sometimes, beneficiaries of social welfare programs are undeserving slugs who do nothing but drain society.
On the other hand, if you drove up to Pgh, I could introduce you to 10 families in 10 minutes who are in unfortunate situations through no fault of their own. If you ever found yourself in their shoes and through some circumstance, had just lost your job (or were forced to quit your job because your 3-year-old child developed liver cancer and needed you at his side constantly) you'd be glad for a program like that.
Ouch, just twisted my ankle coming down off my pedastal. I'll give it rest. Just trust me when I say, my feelings on the federal government came be summed up as "necessary evil." I just feel very strongly that there are certain things we're obligated (no they are not federally protect "rights") as decent human beings to do. I think making sure our children have a home, food and health care are some of those things. WWJD!
BTW, thanks, Mr. Swift. I loved what you had to say in "A Modest Proposal."
So how do kids practice personal responsibility? Or are they just unfortunate victims in your reform? Even with government programs now, charities don't do enough now to ensure that every kid in this country has a home, a full stomach and health care. What makes you think they would do it when there was no such government programs?
Even with charity work now, the government doesn't do enough now to ensure that every kid in this country has a home, a full stomach and health care. What makes you think they would do any better when there was more money and more beaucracy?
So we both agree taxation is out of control. I guess we disagree where to draw the line. You say with the SCHIP program and say anywhere else.
example: there are more MRI machines in the state of new jersey than there are in the entire country of canada with their "superior health care"
how did kids survive in the past?
parents.
has any government ever solved any poverty problem?
no matter what you or anyone does there will always be poor people. why drag down the rest of the people with them via taxation to help the poor? It punishes people who work hard. no government has ever taxed and spent their way out of a depression. no government has ever tax and spent poor people out of existence. It is a failed policy.
are you so dependent on the government that you feel that everyone needs to be as dependent as you?
I am independent. I dont want the government in my life. I dont want them to tell me how/when/where i can/cannot get health care. I dont want the 10 month waiting list to get my wife in to give birth (like canada)
what will the kids do? nothing. they will get health care because their parents are working hard... or are you treating adults like children? isnt it the parents JOB to take care of kids? the parents, not the government.