Reply to Please vote for Democrats, for my kid’s sake

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Please vote for Democrats, for my kid’s sake "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics