Please vote for Democrats, for my kid’s sake

[Anonymous]

Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Do you not understand how society works? We all share money/resources on so many levels, because it is more efficient and effective to do so.

On the other hand, if you think everything you have is due solely to your own ingenuity and hard work, please sit down. No one is an island. What you have is a combination of where you were born and raised, who your birth parents were, who raised you, what resources they had, sheer luck and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever hard work you may have done. Our society has individuals who were born with great advantage all the way down to people born with zero advantage and, rather, great disadvantages to overcome. So much inequity. It seems only fair that there should be some government programs that help those born, through no fault of their own, in situations of disadvatage and to help those born, through no fault of their own, with significant health challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Do you not understand how society works? We all share money/resources on so many levels, because it is more efficient and effective to do so.

On the other hand, if you think everything you have is due solely to your own ingenuity and hard work, please sit down. No one is an island. What you have is a combination of where you were born and raised, who your birth parents were, who raised you, what resources they had, sheer luck and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever hard work you may have done. Our society has individuals who were born with great advantage all the way down to people born with zero advantage and, rather, great disadvantages to overcome. So much inequity. It seems only fair that there should be some government programs that help those born, through no fault of their own, in situations of disadvatage and to help those born, through no fault of their own, with significant health challenges.

Stop putting up strawman positions that I don't hold. I benefit from the privileges of this great nation, our great state, and the wonderful people in our neighborhood, so I gladly contribute my share in taxes in support of the programs and policies that the people have voted into place. I don't think it's too much to engage in a discussion as to *HOW* we arrive at these collective decisions. The US became one of the most well developed nation in the world not because of heavy handed government enforced sharing of money. Our history is one of low taxes, limited federal powers, and deference to state/local government and closely knit communities for solutions to increasingly personal and individual problems. The opposite formula, as exemplified by the former USSR, China under strict communism, and more recently the failing country of Venezuela has shown this way of thinking to be unsustainable and is a cause for widespread suffering and death of people living under it. I understand the intention is good: we all want to improve the lives and happiness of people in the US and the rest of the world, but the socialist idea that someone is entitled to the money of others under the guise of the greater good is not the way to get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Op here. So, why don’t you apply your mentality to my example. Should my 7 year old not receive treatment when my insurance kicks her off because I don’t have $100,000 sitting around? Should the insurance company be allowed to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Do you not understand how society works? We all share money/resources on so many levels, because it is more efficient and effective to do so.

On the other hand, if you think everything you have is due solely to your own ingenuity and hard work, please sit down. No one is an island. What you have is a combination of where you were born and raised, who your birth parents were, who raised you, what resources they had, sheer luck and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever hard work you may have done. Our society has individuals who were born with great advantage all the way down to people born with zero advantage and, rather, great disadvantages to overcome. So much inequity. It seems only fair that there should be some government programs that help those born, through no fault of their own, in situations of disadvatage and to help those born, through no fault of their own, with significant health challenges.

Stop putting up strawman positions that I don't hold. I benefit from the privileges of this great nation, our great state, and the wonderful people in our neighborhood, so I gladly contribute my share in taxes in support of the programs and policies that the people have voted into place. I don't think it's too much to engage in a discussion as to *HOW* we arrive at these collective decisions. The US became one of the most well developed nation in the world not because of heavy handed government enforced sharing of money. Our history is one of low taxes, limited federal powers, and deference to state/local government and closely knit communities for solutions to increasingly personal and individual problems. The opposite formula, as exemplified by the former USSR, China under strict communism, and more recently the failing country of Venezuela has shown this way of thinking to be unsustainable and is a cause for widespread suffering and death of people living under it. I understand the intention is good: we all want to improve the lives and happiness of people in the US and the rest of the world, but the socialist idea that someone is entitled to the money of others under the guise of the greater good is not the way to get there.

America didn't become great because it condemned its less fortunate to a life of death and misery. That's what you're advocating for....or do you know see the logical conclusions of your position?

We have all of European history pre-WW1 to see what happens when a landed artistocracy that owns all the wealth and does not redistribute. Famine. Disease. War. Poverty. Infant mortality. Stifling lack of mobility and freedom. In all but name economic slavery.
The United States was formed IN REACTION to such oppressiveness. Because people wanted a bit of land for themselves, their own money, a way to make it for themselves, their own churches. But to get to that, we need meaningful and affordable healthcare. Telling a middle class person that they will need to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to save their child's life is not tenable. And that's not the type of America the vast majority of us want to live in.

No man is an island. We stand on the shoulders of others - family, community, and strangers.

[Anonymous]

Republicans stomp on the most vulnerable in our society, yet think they’re Christian. Horrible!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Op here. So, why don’t you apply your mentality to my example. Should my 7 year old not receive treatment when my insurance kicks her off because I don’t have $100,000 sitting around? Should the insurance company be allowed to do that?

I'm sorry OP, I can't speak to your situation, it's not my place to talk about something so personal to you and a situation that I would not wish onto anyone. Hypothetically speaking, insurance is just that, insurance: the insurer accepts premium payments in return for paying out for loss that is unforeseen. If an insurance company is asked to pay for an event that has already occurred in the past before premiums were being paid, then that's no longer insurance. By all means I believe we should have discussions whether our society should have programs protecting against cases of potential catastrophic loss, but that discussion should not be cast in the light that insurance companies are evil or that anyone who wants to limit the scope and size of such a program is evil. Our desire for the wellbeing of the people we love is and hold on as much as possible to our material possessions are strong, but it cannot overcome the individual freedom of others through. If a majority of us locally agree that this is something our society needs to spend money on, like we do for fire fighters, police officers, and etc, then that's all good! I am just pointing out that the entitlement mentality is not a good way to justify these types of programs, and what works here in VA may not work well in TX, just as fire fighters and police officers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Because we live in a society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Op here. So, why don’t you apply your mentality to my example. Should my 7 year old not receive treatment when my insurance kicks her off because I don’t have $100,000 sitting around? Should the insurance company be allowed to do that?

I'm sorry OP, I can't speak to your situation, it's not my place to talk about something so personal to you and a situation that I would not wish onto anyone. Hypothetically speaking, insurance is just that, insurance: the insurer accepts premium payments in return for paying out for loss that is unforeseen. If an insurance company is asked to pay for an event that has already occurred in the past before premiums were being paid, then that's no longer insurance. By all means I believe we should have discussions whether our society should have programs protecting against cases of potential catastrophic loss, but that discussion should not be cast in the light that insurance companies are evil or that anyone who wants to limit the scope and size of such a program is evil. Our desire for the wellbeing of the people we love is and hold on as much as possible to our material possessions are strong, but it cannot overcome the individual freedom of others through. If a majority of us locally agree that this is something our society needs to spend money on, like we do for fire fighters, police officers, and etc, then that's all good! I am just pointing out that the entitlement mentality is not a good way to justify these types of programs, and what works here in VA may not work well in TX, just as fire fighters and police officers.

Actually, pp, you can and should speak to my situation because I am asking you to and I made the choice to put this information out because I specifically want people like yourself to discuss it.

So tell me, should my daughter receive treatment or not? Should my insurance company be allowed to kick her off for a pre existing condition or not? It’s a really simple question and I’m not interested in letting you slip out of answering it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Do you not understand how society works? We all share money/resources on so many levels, because it is more efficient and effective to do so.

On the other hand, if you think everything you have is due solely to your own ingenuity and hard work, please sit down. No one is an island. What you have is a combination of where you were born and raised, who your birth parents were, who raised you, what resources they had, sheer luck and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever hard work you may have done. Our society has individuals who were born with great advantage all the way down to people born with zero advantage and, rather, great disadvantages to overcome. So much inequity. It seems only fair that there should be some government programs that help those born, through no fault of their own, in situations of disadvatage and to help those born, through no fault of their own, with significant health challenges.

Stop putting up strawman positions that I don't hold. I benefit from the privileges of this great nation, our great state, and the wonderful people in our neighborhood, so I gladly contribute my share in taxes in support of the programs and policies that the people have voted into place. I don't think it's too much to engage in a discussion as to *HOW* we arrive at these collective decisions. The US became one of the most well developed nation in the world not because of heavy handed government enforced sharing of money. Our history is one of low taxes, limited federal powers, and deference to state/local government and closely knit communities for solutions to increasingly personal and individual problems. The opposite formula, as exemplified by the former USSR, China under strict communism, and more recently the failing country of Venezuela has shown this way of thinking to be unsustainable and is a cause for widespread suffering and death of people living under it. I understand the intention is good: we all want to improve the lives and happiness of people in the US and the rest of the world, but the socialist idea that someone is entitled to the money of others under the guise of the greater good is not the way to get there.

America didn't become great because it condemned its less fortunate to a life of death and misery. That's what you're advocating for....or do you know see the logical conclusions of your position?

We have all of European history pre-WW1 to see what happens when a landed artistocracy that owns all the wealth and does not redistribute. Famine. Disease. War. Poverty. Infant mortality. Stifling lack of mobility and freedom. In all but name economic slavery.
The United States was formed IN REACTION to such oppressiveness. Because people wanted a bit of land for themselves, their own money, a way to make it for themselves, their own churches. But to get to that, we need meaningful and affordable healthcare. Telling a middle class person that they will need to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to save their child's life is not tenable. And that's not the type of America the vast majority of us want to live in.

No man is an island. We stand on the shoulders of others - family, community, and strangers.

Lack of a massive social welfare state is condemning the less fortunate to a life of death and misery? Evidence is clearly opposite of this proposal. The US, having one of the smaller collection of social programs, is one of the strongest nations in the world. Those nations that tried to establish large social welfare states such as USSR, Communist China, and Venezuela exactly condemned the people living under those regimes to a life of death and misery. Even Scandinavian countries have been hailed for their more recent economic/financial improvements, with a reduction to their social programs being cited as one of the main causes for those improvements. I am not saying there should be NO social programs, but there should be a balance, and the answer to every personal problem isn't more government programs, especially more federal government programs. We all want good things for ourselves and other people, lets please not devolve into name calling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Op here. So, why don’t you apply your mentality to my example. Should my 7 year old not receive treatment when my insurance kicks her off because I don’t have $100,000 sitting around? Should the insurance company be allowed to do that?

I'm sorry OP, I can't speak to your situation, it's not my place to talk about something so personal to you and a situation that I would not wish onto anyone. Hypothetically speaking, insurance is just that, insurance: the insurer accepts premium payments in return for paying out for loss that is unforeseen. If an insurance company is asked to pay for an event that has already occurred in the past before premiums were being paid, then that's no longer insurance. By all means I believe we should have discussions whether our society should have programs protecting against cases of potential catastrophic loss, but that discussion should not be cast in the light that insurance companies are evil or that anyone who wants to limit the scope and size of such a program is evil. Our desire for the wellbeing of the people we love is and hold on as much as possible to our material possessions are strong, but it cannot overcome the individual freedom of others through. If a majority of us locally agree that this is something our society needs to spend money on, like we do for fire fighters, police officers, and etc, then that's all good! I am just pointing out that the entitlement mentality is not a good way to justify these types of programs, and what works here in VA may not work well in TX, just as fire fighters and police officers.

Actually, pp, you can and should speak to my situation because I am asking you to and I made the choice to put this information out because I specifically want people like yourself to discuss it.

So tell me, should my daughter receive treatment or not? Should my insurance company be allowed to kick her off for a pre existing condition or not? It’s a really simple question and I’m not interested in letting you slip out of answering it.

Clearly you did not read my previous response so I am not going to write any more to you specifically. I do wish you and your loved ones all the best, hope that your situation improves, and that you receive all the help you need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Do you not understand how society works? We all share money/resources on so many levels, because it is more efficient and effective to do so.

On the other hand, if you think everything you have is due solely to your own ingenuity and hard work, please sit down. No one is an island. What you have is a combination of where you were born and raised, who your birth parents were, who raised you, what resources they had, sheer luck and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever hard work you may have done. Our society has individuals who were born with great advantage all the way down to people born with zero advantage and, rather, great disadvantages to overcome. So much inequity. It seems only fair that there should be some government programs that help those born, through no fault of their own, in situations of disadvatage and to help those born, through no fault of their own, with significant health challenges.

Stop putting up strawman positions that I don't hold. I benefit from the privileges of this great nation, our great state, and the wonderful people in our neighborhood, so I gladly contribute my share in taxes in support of the programs and policies that the people have voted into place. I don't think it's too much to engage in a discussion as to *HOW* we arrive at these collective decisions. The US became one of the most well developed nation in the world not because of heavy handed government enforced sharing of money. Our history is one of low taxes, limited federal powers, and deference to state/local government and closely knit communities for solutions to increasingly personal and individual problems. The opposite formula, as exemplified by the former USSR, China under strict communism, and more recently the failing country of Venezuela has shown this way of thinking to be unsustainable and is a cause for widespread suffering and death of people living under it. I understand the intention is good: we all want to improve the lives and happiness of people in the US and the rest of the world, but the socialist idea that someone is entitled to the money of others under the guise of the greater good is not the way to get there.

America didn't become great because it condemned its less fortunate to a life of death and misery. That's what you're advocating for....or do you know see the logical conclusions of your position?

We have all of European history pre-WW1 to see what happens when a landed artistocracy that owns all the wealth and does not redistribute. Famine. Disease. War. Poverty. Infant mortality. Stifling lack of mobility and freedom. In all but name economic slavery.
The United States was formed IN REACTION to such oppressiveness. Because people wanted a bit of land for themselves, their own money, a way to make it for themselves, their own churches. But to get to that, we need meaningful and affordable healthcare. Telling a middle class person that they will need to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to save their child's life is not tenable. And that's not the type of America the vast majority of us want to live in.

No man is an island. We stand on the shoulders of others - family, community, and strangers.

Lack of a massive social welfare state is condemning the less fortunate to a life of death and misery? Evidence is clearly opposite of this proposal. The US, having one of the smaller collection of social programs, is one of the strongest nations in the world. Those nations that tried to establish large social welfare states such as USSR, Communist China, and Venezuela exactly condemned the people living under those regimes to a life of death and misery. Even Scandinavian countries have been hailed for their more recent economic/financial improvements, with a reduction to their social programs being cited as one of the main causes for those improvements. I am not saying there should be NO social programs, but there should be a balance, and the answer to every personal problem isn't more government programs, especially more federal government programs. We all want good things for ourselves and other people, lets please not devolve into name calling.

Well then please answer the PP's and my question: should an American child die because their parents do not have hundreds of thousands in liquid assets to pay for treatment? Should insurance companies be allowed to wiggle out of paying for treatments?

What do you propose should happen?

And speaking of strawmen, no one in this thread is calling for an all-encompassing welfare state. I want people to work throughout their lives and to contribute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Op here. So, why don’t you apply your mentality to my example. Should my 7 year old not receive treatment when my insurance kicks her off because I don’t have $100,000 sitting around? Should the insurance company be allowed to do that?

I'm sorry OP, I can't speak to your situation, it's not my place to talk about something so personal to you and a situation that I would not wish onto anyone. Hypothetically speaking, insurance is just that, insurance: the insurer accepts premium payments in return for paying out for loss that is unforeseen. If an insurance company is asked to pay for an event that has already occurred in the past before premiums were being paid, then that's no longer insurance. By all means I believe we should have discussions whether our society should have programs protecting against cases of potential catastrophic loss, but that discussion should not be cast in the light that insurance companies are evil or that anyone who wants to limit the scope and size of such a program is evil. Our desire for the wellbeing of the people we love is and hold on as much as possible to our material possessions are strong, but it cannot overcome the individual freedom of others through. If a majority of us locally agree that this is something our society needs to spend money on, like we do for fire fighters, police officers, and etc, then that's all good! I am just pointing out that the entitlement mentality is not a good way to justify these types of programs, and what works here in VA may not work well in TX, just as fire fighters and police officers.

Actually, pp, you can and should speak to my situation because I am asking you to and I made the choice to put this information out because I specifically want people like yourself to discuss it.

So tell me, should my daughter receive treatment or not? Should my insurance company be allowed to kick her off for a pre existing condition or not? It’s a really simple question and I’m not interested in letting you slip out of answering it.

Clearly you did not read my previous response so I am not going to write any more to you specifically. I do wish you and your loved ones all the best, hope that your situation improves, and that you receive all the help you need.

Yup, a coward. Should have known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Op here. So, why don’t you apply your mentality to my example. Should my 7 year old not receive treatment when my insurance kicks her off because I don’t have $100,000 sitting around? Should the insurance company be allowed to do that?

I'm sorry OP, I can't speak to your situation, it's not my place to talk about something so personal to you and a situation that I would not wish onto anyone. Hypothetically speaking, insurance is just that, insurance: the insurer accepts premium payments in return for paying out for loss that is unforeseen. If an insurance company is asked to pay for an event that has already occurred in the past before premiums were being paid, then that's no longer insurance. By all means I believe we should have discussions whether our society should have programs protecting against cases of potential catastrophic loss, but that discussion should not be cast in the light that insurance companies are evil or that anyone who wants to limit the scope and size of such a program is evil. Our desire for the wellbeing of the people we love is and hold on as much as possible to our material possessions are strong, but it cannot overcome the individual freedom of others through. If a majority of us locally agree that this is something our society needs to spend money on, like we do for fire fighters, police officers, and etc, then that's all good! I am just pointing out that the entitlement mentality is not a good way to justify these types of programs, and what works here in VA may not work well in TX, just as fire fighters and police officers.

Actually, pp, you can and should speak to my situation because I am asking you to and I made the choice to put this information out because I specifically want people like yourself to discuss it.

So tell me, should my daughter receive treatment or not? Should my insurance company be allowed to kick her off for a pre existing condition or not? It’s a really simple question and I’m not interested in letting you slip out of answering it.

Clearly you did not read my previous response so I am not going to write any more to you specifically. I do wish you and your loved ones all the best, hope that your situation improves, and that you receive all the help you need.

I did read your response, pp, but I want you to be clearer. You are hiding your views behind lofty rhetoric and clarity is essential, especially when we are talking about a real person with a real life.

Don’t be ashamed to speak your truth, which is that kids without money should suffer, because “freedom.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Op here. So, why don’t you apply your mentality to my example. Should my 7 year old not receive treatment when my insurance kicks her off because I don’t have $100,000 sitting around? Should the insurance company be allowed to do that?

I'm sorry OP, I can't speak to your situation, it's not my place to talk about something so personal to you and a situation that I would not wish onto anyone. Hypothetically speaking, insurance is just that, insurance: the insurer accepts premium payments in return for paying out for loss that is unforeseen. If an insurance company is asked to pay for an event that has already occurred in the past before premiums were being paid, then that's no longer insurance. By all means I believe we should have discussions whether our society should have programs protecting against cases of potential catastrophic loss, but that discussion should not be cast in the light that insurance companies are evil or that anyone who wants to limit the scope and size of such a program is evil. Our desire for the wellbeing of the people we love is and hold on as much as possible to our material possessions are strong, but it cannot overcome the individual freedom of others through. If a majority of us locally agree that this is something our society needs to spend money on, like we do for fire fighters, police officers, and etc, then that's all good! I am just pointing out that the entitlement mentality is not a good way to justify these types of programs, and what works here in VA may not work well in TX, just as fire fighters and police officers.

Actually, pp, you can and should speak to my situation because I am asking you to and I made the choice to put this information out because I specifically want people like yourself to discuss it.

So tell me, should my daughter receive treatment or not? Should my insurance company be allowed to kick her off for a pre existing condition or not? It’s a really simple question and I’m not interested in letting you slip out of answering it.

Clearly you did not read my previous response so I am not going to write any more to you specifically. I do wish you and your loved ones all the best, hope that your situation improves, and that you receive all the help you need.

I did read your response, pp, but I want you to be clearer. You are hiding your views behind lofty rhetoric and clarity is essential, especially when we are talking about a real person with a real life.

Don’t be ashamed to speak your truth, which is that kids without money should suffer, because “freedom.”

More like kids without money should suffer because of selfishness. The PP talks about if a majority agrees it is something society needs to spend money on, then it is all good. We can safely say the majority of our society thinks healthcare is worth spending money on. To intimate that healthcare does not rise to the level of spending on police, firefighters etc. is ludicrous and, frankly, heartless. If it was someone that PP cared about, you can bet he/she would suddenly and ferociously change his/her tune. Selfish, selfish, selfish. Hollow good wishes that mean nothing, really.