Please vote for Democrats, for my kid’s sake

[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.

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.

The OP and you are making value propositions, which is a rather cynical way of looking at things. I tried to steer away from it because it's wrong but you keep bring it back. So tell me, should the United States government spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the healthcare of a child? Yes, you propose. What about 5 million? 50 million? What price do people who think the way you do assign to the life of a child?

With regards to your claim of strawman, it's not. If you take the mentality that you are entitled to the money of others, then that's the underlying principle of an all encompassing welfare state. This is very different than a group of people coming together and willingly contribute their money to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, I didn't attack government organized healthcare, just the concept that someone is entitled to the money of others for the purpose of paying for health care. It's very different for people to voluntarily get together and decide that this is an important thing for the group to levy taxes and pay for.

I'll also point out that police and firefighter services are not universal and is not guaranteed even if you've paid for it through taxes. I brought these up as they are what people are familiar with in terms of socially organized and funded programs, not to say whether or not healthcare is more or less important. We can as a society vote and decide that healthcare should be funded by the government, but it's irrational to think that people are entitled to the money of others to pay for healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The OP and you are making value propositions, which is a rather cynical way of looking at things. I tried to steer away from it because it's wrong but you keep bring it back. So tell me, should the United States government spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the healthcare of a child? Yes, you propose. What about 5 million? 50 million? What price do people who think the way you do assign to the life of a child?

With regards to your claim of strawman, it's not. If you take the mentality that you are entitled to the money of others, then that's the underlying principle of an all encompassing welfare state. This is very different than a group of people coming together and willingly contribute their money to others.

Cynical, huh? I’m not being cynical pp. this is my life. This is real. This is something that is happening to my child. You are defending against a straw man by inserting other straw men. In what fantasy world does one child’s healthcare cost 50 million dollars? And I hate to break it to you, but yes, it can cost 5 million dollars to treat certain conditions and yes, insurance should pay for that.

You are actually inserting a whole new problem into the equation—- done properly, insurance is not super profitable if you actually pay for everyone ‘s illnesses. To top it off, costs are out of control. Until that is corrected, people are getting sick. Do they deserve treatment or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, I didn't attack government organized healthcare, just the concept that someone is entitled to the money of others for the purpose of paying for health care. It's very different for people to voluntarily get together and decide that this is an important thing for the group to levy taxes and pay for.

I'll also point out that police and firefighter services are not universal and is not guaranteed even if you've paid for it through taxes. I brought these up as they are what people are familiar with in terms of socially organized and funded programs, not to say whether or not healthcare is more or less important. We can as a society vote and decide that healthcare should be funded by the government, but it's irrational to think that people are entitled to the money of others to pay for healthcare.

Pp, this is falling apart. We already voted for a President who passed a healthcare law. That law protects people who have pre existing conditions. Now, lawmakers who want to repeal that law in its entirety are asking you to vote for them. Will you do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, I didn't attack government organized healthcare, just the concept that someone is entitled to the money of others for the purpose of paying for health care. It's very different for people to voluntarily get together and decide that this is an important thing for the group to levy taxes and pay for.

I'll also point out that police and firefighter services are not universal and is not guaranteed even if you've paid for it through taxes. I brought these up as they are what people are familiar with in terms of socially organized and funded programs, not to say whether or not healthcare is more or less important. We can as a society vote and decide that healthcare should be funded by the government, but it's irrational to think that people are entitled to the money of others to pay for healthcare.

Pp, this is falling apart. We already voted for a President who passed a healthcare law. That law protects people who have pre existing conditions. Now, lawmakers who want to repeal that law in its entirety are asking you to vote for them. Will you do it?

Yes I would vote to cover pre-existing conditions, because this is an area where the government can help protect against some cases of catastrophic loss. It makes good sense. But whether I would vote one way or the other is beside the point. Again my attack is on the mentality that somehow people are entitled to have their pre-existing conditions covered, or that healthcare costs being paid for by the labor of others is an entitlement. This way of thinking is immoral.

[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.

Wolves don't kill their wounded nor do lions, they feed them until a wounded one gets well or dies ..if a humpback whale is injured and can't surface to take a breath of air, other whales elevate him to the surface....
Even animals know that they have to help each other to survive...unlike some upright walking specimens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, I didn't attack government organized healthcare, just the concept that someone is entitled to the money of others for the purpose of paying for health care. It's very different for people to voluntarily get together and decide that this is an important thing for the group to levy taxes and pay for.

I'll also point out that police and firefighter services are not universal and is not guaranteed even if you've paid for it through taxes. I brought these up as they are what people are familiar with in terms of socially organized and funded programs, not to say whether or not healthcare is more or less important. We can as a society vote and decide that healthcare should be funded by the government, but it's irrational to think that people are entitled to the money of others to pay for healthcare.

Those are the same thing!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, I didn't attack government organized healthcare, just the concept that someone is entitled to the money of others for the purpose of paying for health care. It's very different for people to voluntarily get together and decide that this is an important thing for the group to levy taxes and pay for.

I'll also point out that police and firefighter services are not universal and is not guaranteed even if you've paid for it through taxes. I brought these up as they are what people are familiar with in terms of socially organized and funded programs, not to say whether or not healthcare is more or less important. We can as a society vote and decide that healthcare should be funded by the government, but it's irrational to think that people are entitled to the money of others to pay for healthcare.

Pp, this is falling apart. We already voted for a President who passed a healthcare law. That law protects people who have pre existing conditions. Now, lawmakers who want to repeal that law in its entirety are asking you to vote for them. Will you do it?

Yes I would vote to cover pre-existing conditions, because this is an area where the government can help protect against some cases of catastrophic loss. It makes good sense. But whether I would vote one way or the other is beside the point. Again my attack is on the mentality that somehow people are entitled to have their pre-existing conditions covered, or that healthcare costs being paid for by the labor of others is an entitlement. This way of thinking is immoral.

So are you saying you plan on voting Democratic across the board? I don’t really care about your thoughts on anyone’s “mentality” and I don’t think anyone else here does either. Your version of morality is confused at best.

[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.

Wolves don't kill their wounded nor do lions, they feed them until a wounded one gets well or dies ..if a humpback whale is injured and can't surface to take a breath of air, other whales elevate him to the surface....
Even animals know that they have to help each other to survive...unlike some upright walking specimens.

Exactly.

PP, you seem to oppose the idea of living collectively as a society. As such, you're welcome to become a hermit and live completely self-sufficiently. Until then, grow up and accept the fact that human beings--and most animals--attempt to construct societies that have symbiotic relationships built into them. Creatures across the animal kingdom have long recognized the mutual benefit of living together, including collectively protecting the more vulnerable among them. This dynamic is among the most foundational of animal behavior (and I include homo sapiens in that).

But again -- if you'd like to reject society, you're welcome to live as a hermit in the woods. Of course, if someone robs your log cabin, don't go calling the police -- the rest of us shouldn't spend our money on police protection to help you solve personal problems, right?

[Anonymous]

So many of my friends are on Go Fund Me, begging for money to help them pay their medical bills. I will be voting for the Democrats this election!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. Did you have insurance before she got sick? If not, why not? Should you be allowed to wreck your car then force a company to pay for the repairs after the fact?

[Anonymous]

ACA saved my sister OP. I am with you. Unfortunately, too many Americans are too stupid to know/vote for their own best interest.

[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.

Venezuela - DRINK!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. Did you have insurance before she got sick? If not, why not? Should you be allowed to wreck your car then force a company to pay for the repairs after the fact?

OP. I absolutely had insurance, and I am grateful that my insurance paid for my daughter’s treatment. I wonder why you thought I didn’t? The post would have been entirely different in that case. And also, do you actually believe that people with chronic health conditions should not be able to change or buy new insurance policies? Should my daughter’s illness follow her for the rest of her life, taking her entire paycheck?

Although your post brings up a lot of interesting questions. What if my insurance didn’t cover my daughter’s treatment, which is actually still in an experimental stage, but has been so successful the insurance approved it (thank God). Her treatment has been successful. What if the insurance refused to pay?

This is something that happens. I know a young man who married a woman in her early 20’s. She was diagnosed with a brain tumors that typically only affects children up to a certain age. Because she was over 18, her insurance refused to pay for brain surgery to remove the tumor. He raised go fund me money to pay for her. Again, should insurance companies have the right to refuse treatment that doctors want to do? This is essentially the type of “death panels” Republicans have always warned about, except a non elected private company deciding who will live.

Another question- what if I had no insurance, and did not qualify for children’s health insurance program (chips)(I don’t really know how qualifications for chips works))? Should my daughter have her health ruined because I had no insurance? Is a human child with an illness the equivalent of a wrecked car, in your opinion? What would you do, put all the sick kids with no insurance in a junkyard? Maybe we can just put them in a home for sickly children who are useless. Similar to a hospital, just with no medical care. It’s a really interesting analogy you pose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. Did you have insurance before she got sick? If not, why not? Should you be allowed to wreck your car then force a company to pay for the repairs after the fact?

Hello there, Mr. Internet Douchebag. Thanks for making my day more interesting!