September 27, 2007

Take From The Poor, Give To The Middle Class

Investors Business Daily looks at the S-CHIP expansion and recognizes the political dangers for Republicans opposing it. Any vote against expanding health insurance coverage to children will prompt critics to paint the GOP as the party of Fagins, taking medical attention away from poor sick kids. However, in this case, the kids aren't poor, although that's where the funding will originate:

As passed by the House, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, will create a major new middle-class entitlement even as we face looming national bankruptcy from our $50.5 trillion (yes, you read that number right) in planned spending under Social Security and Medicare.

Today, some 6.6 million kids are covered under SCHIP, at a cost of about $25 billion over five years. The new bill raises that to 9 million kids covered, at a cost of $60 billion. It pays for it with a 61-cent hike in the tobacco tax.

Sounds good, except that tax will hit the poor hardest. And those it helps are not poor. Under the new bill, families earning $83,000 a year could be eligible. If this bill were targeted at the poor, President Bush and the Republicans wouldn't oppose it. But it isn't. It's a new, radically expanded middle-class entitlement.

That, by the way, includes families like the Siravos of New Jersey, profiled recently by Bloomberg News. The Siravos earn $56,000 a year, own their own home and drive two used cars. They also pay $9,000 a year to send their only child to a private school.

Yes, things are a bit tight for the Siravos, as with many American families. But should the working poor subsidize health care for the Siravos and other middle-class families?

The tobacco tax represents a couple of problems to this program. First, as almost everyone recognizes, tobacco taxes are regressive. Because smoking tends to be more prevalent among lower economic strata, the funds raised for the S-CHIP expansion will come in large part from people already in the program. Not only that, but since taxes tend to act as a disincentive, the taxes will not produce the revenue projected by Congress based on current sales figures. And the people who quit will most likely come from middle- and upper-income brackets, according to the Cato Institute. This tax will therefore become even more regressive.

Next we have the problem with existing entitlement programs. Both Social Security and Medicare will start running up red ink in the next decade or less. Both will need serious reform to keep them from gobbling up more and more of the nation's GDP, and some of that reform will likely require means testing. Instead of applying that sensible approach to this entitlement -- more accurately, keeping means-testing in place -- we're about to expand it to cover kids in families making over $83,000 a year.

Many of the children this expansion covers already have private insurance, with better coverage. They do not need government assistance. For those without coverage in families making over $40,000, one has to wonder why the families have not made choices which include health insurance, and why those choices should be subsidized -- encouraged, even -- with funds disproportionately taken from the working poor.

The only explanation is that S-CHIP serves as a Trojan horse for nationalized health insurance. It's a particularly cynical method of forcing out private insurers by pushing government-controlled coverage onto children. It deserves a presidential veto, despite the inevitable demonization it will produce.

The Republicans have an alternative that uses tax incentives to level the playing field between those who get tax-sheltered employer-based insurance and those who have to pay for it directly. That approach may not be perfect, but it keeps entitlements from expanding when they should be contracting, and it provides assistance to the middle class without making the poor pay for it. That has to make more sense than this S-CHIP expansion.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/13836

Comments (105)

Posted by John Wilson | September 27, 2007 7:26 AM

If you accept the numbers that Dick Morris used in an article about Hillary's health care proposal a few days ago, of 45 million uninsured people, 1/3d are illegal aliens, 1/3 are already eligible for Medicaid but don't apply, the remaining third of 45 million are the question. 15 million out of 300 million represents 5% of the population which IMHO just isnt enough to upend the system.

Is there anyway to stop this runaway train with any rational arguments or are we going to just pay and pay and pay, until some dope from a federal agency tells us its time to die?

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 7:30 AM

Nothing whatsoever justifies the notion that one person should be made to pay the doctor bills of another person's children. Doing so holds one person -- the taxpayer -- responsible for the consequences of another person -- the parents -- actions, the action of bringing a child into this world, an action in which the taxpayer does not participate, an action he is not consulted about and does not have any control over. Holding one person responsible for another person’s actions is the very essence of injustice.

The only people that can be held morally responsible for the care of a child are the parents. It is they, and they alone, who make the decision to bring him into this world, and consequently it is they, and they alone, who must be held accountable for his care. Parents who irresponsibly have children they cannot afford to support have committed a crime against the child; if the parents cannot properly take care of the child, the state should step in, take such children away, and put them up for adoption.

But nothing on earth justifies the insane notion that the taxpayers should be sentenced to having an unlimited amount of their money confiscated to support the children that the irrational, the lazy, the foolish, the stupid, the ignorant, the shiftless, the never-do-wells, those who have never done a decent days work and those who never intend to, choose to bring into this world.

There is no right to live at another man's expense. There is no right to seize another man's money to pay for any aspect of your life, including your decision to have children. The demand that others pay for any aspect of your life is the demand that they labor for your benefit -- which is nothing less than the demand that they be your slave.

That demand was rotten and evil when the whites demanded it of the blacks in America in the 19th century and it is just as rotten and evil today when people demand it of the upper income taxpayers. True, it is only part-time slavery, since federal, state, local, excise and property taxes take only about 60% of my income. But if those 19th century plantation owning whites had only forced the blacks to work for their benefit 4 days out of 7, it would hardly have been any less evil. And true, the 40% of my income left to me allows me to live comfortably. But if the whites had provided their black slaves with comfortable homes, good clothing and good meals, that, too, would have hardly made their enslavement of the blacks any less evil.

Nothing justifies the notion that some men must be forced to live a portion of their lives laboring to benefit others. NOTHING.

Posted by Eugene Podrazik | September 27, 2007 7:36 AM

A comment on tobacco taxes. If taxing entities were really interested in taxing a foul habit to extinction, they would jack up taxes to $20 per pack of cigarettes.

However, tobacco taxes are calculated to maximize revenue. Just high enough to squeeze all the tax dollars without discourging smoking to the point that tax revenues will actually fall. (Or, by encouraging a competing black market.)

Further, there is another silver lining in this cloud. Smoking usually kills the smoker at about the age of 60 (most likely a heart attack). Therefore, no medicare or social security obligations; after these individuals spent their working lifetimes paying into those systems.

This whole SCHIP expansion is pure smoke and mirrors. There is no serious effort to be fisically prudent. This is socialized medicine by salami tatics.

Posted by Lamont P | September 27, 2007 7:58 AM

The country can't afford this program. The deficit is already out of control and the Dollar is in the tank.

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 8:02 AM

The figures used re: the $83,000 are a lie. NY State asked the adminisitration to be able to use that figure in their state due to the high cost of living and they were denied. End of story. Republicans are using this to mislead the American people about the SCHIP program.

Micheal Smith -- You are an ass. I'm sorry that everyone can't work for corporate America, but there are a lot of hardworking people who work for companies that don't provide health care. There are also a lot of people who have pre-existing health conditions which insurance companies refuse to cover. But, I hope that Republican candidates for office use your little diatribe as their campaign speech and reveal for everyone the true nature of the Republican party.

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 8:22 AM

Captain, it doesn't matter who the money is taken from to pay for this insanity. The poor do not possess a superior right to their money versus the non-poor - there can be no such thing as a right possessed by some but denied to others. An injustice is an injustice no matter how it is financed. And forcing some to bear the consequences of the actions of others is pure injustice, any way you cut it.

Posted by Diffus | September 27, 2007 8:35 AM

Teresa, just so we understand you: You believe that it is both morally correct and constitutionally appropriate for the government to take from you, by force if necessary, that which you have earned and which you could use to provide for yourself and your family, and give it to someone who has not earned it and whom the government believes is more deserving than you?

When the government, under the guise of providing for its citizens takes from those citizens that which they could use to provide for themselves, how are the interests of those who have been relieved of their earnings better served?

If someone works for an employer who does not provide health insurance, why can he not exercise his freedom to choose and find an employer whose benefit program is more closely tailored to his needs?

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 8:40 AM

Teresa, calling me an ass doesn't refute a single word of my argument. You don't have a right to exist at my expense. I am not your slave. Your were not born with some sort of god-given right to free goods and services that others are perpetually sentenced to labor to pay for.

If you advocate government programs that seize my money for purposes of providing you benefits, you are simply a looter whose moral status is no better than any armed robber.

In fact, your moral status is lower than that of the armed robber. The armed robber can at least take credit for the fact that he is willing to do his own dirty work -- he is willing to take the risk that I, too, might be armed and might fight back. And he doesn't try to convince me that his actions are moral. But you and all your whining liberal welfare-worshippers don't have the guts to do your own stealing -- so instead you get the government to do it for you, knowing full well that I cannot fight back against the government. That makes you a coward in addition to being a looter.

And I have no doubt that you looters outnumber we producers -- and sooner or later the imbalance will reach a tipping point. Sooner or later we producers will get sick of being suckers for the likes of you -- and when we give up and quit producing, the whole rotten structure will collapse right on your head.

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 8:52 AM

Diffus and Micheal Smith -- Are you planning on pulling a social security check? Because you are forcing me to pay for your retirement per your argument. Are you riding on public roads in your state? Because I am paying taxes to provide for those roads and I want my money back. Do you think people who have no children should have to pay local taxes to pay for public school? After all, why should they have to pay for other people's children to go to school?

We live in a collective society in which we pool resources to cover things that society considers a "good." And, I hate to tell, you but most sane people consider providing poor children with health care a "good."

Diffus -- people should find another job that has health care? Oh, ok. I guess that means you want more illegal immigration since there will no one left to work at Walmart, the gas station, the grocery store, restaurants, etc... And few people will be able to work for a small business since most of them can't afford to offer health insurance to employees.

Posted by theblacksheepwasright | September 27, 2007 8:53 AM

Teresa.. eloquent

Nonetheless.. Can you provide a verifiable, non-partisan, unbiased link to ascertion?

I'll be waiting..

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 9:03 AM

theblacksheepwasright -- Which assertion do you want a link to? That sane people want to insure poor kids?

Read David Broder this morning (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) who lists all the different REPUBLICAN senators and governors that want this program renewed.

Posted by John Wilson | September 27, 2007 9:05 AM

Pass out the valiums. This discussion is hooking way left here. Don't use the poor children as a hammer. The whole concept is a trojan horse to hijack the money spent on medical care to federal control.

Posted by rbj | September 27, 2007 9:05 AM

No, Teresa, we live in a free society. You want a collective society, go to North Korea. I am not 100% sold on public schools. And as for the roads, well if you want farmers to get their product to your table, then you'll pay up.

We aren't where I'd like society to be libertarian-wise, but that doesn't mean that we should have even greater state control.

Posted by Anon | September 27, 2007 9:07 AM

what's gonna happen is this:
1. W will veto the program and will be demonized in Time and Newsweek (poss. US News, though they might take on a more neutral tone to pick up the anti-demonization readers)
2. he will be demonized by Pelosi and Reid, which will have people looking twice a W, since both of them are noted to be dictatorial and overdramatic themselves
3. more stories about couples who pay into SCHIP and have benefits (like being able to pay for private school) will come out
4. people will be (and already are) questioning how much should families make to gain assistance (what Teresa and co. are not telling is that there IS an ability for states to increase their financial requirements; the new number being bounced around is 71,000)
5. there will be enough heat on W to captitulate to the Dems, just not to the tune of 30 bil (more like 20 bil.) by near Nov.

mind you, this is just a guess. Most people will forget about this by mid-October

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 9:12 AM

RBJ -- I don't want a collective society, but there are things that people can not pay for as individuals that as a society we want. Like national defense, or roads (which even you admit take everyone to pay for), or social security, or schools.

John Wilson -- Why don't you write to Orrin Hatch & Chuck Grassley and tell them what liberal patsies they are to cosponsor this bill.

Posted by BoWowBoy | September 27, 2007 9:18 AM

By not choosing conservative candidates for elective office ......... the Republican Party has created this mess.

When will a conservative stand up and say ...........we are not for the federal government paying for health care ........let the states pay for their citizens health care if they want to.

This is not very easy medicine to to take ......and the person making the statement will be viscerated in the press ..........but .........is this not a conservative principle.

When will the Republican Party get back to conservative principles ...........??

Posted by Diffus | September 27, 2007 9:23 AM

Teresa, the difference between public roads and Social Security should be obvious to even you: Taking money from me to finance public roads benefits everyone; taking money from me and giving it to you benefits only you.

As a matter of fact, because a Social Security check would represent money forcibly taken from others, I do not plan receiving any. My retirement is my responsibility, not yours.

You fail to understand the nature of free choice and a market economy. If an employer can't hire enough workers because it doesn't offer health-care benefits, it will provide those benefits or go out of business. There are plenty of alternatives for small businesses. My own company is self insured, and I used to work for a PEO that bundled hundreds of small businesses and provided health-care benefits to their employees.

You insist that I have an obligation to support you, that you have a valid claim against my earnings, and that it is morally right for the government to enforce that claim. By what reasoning, under whose authority, do you claim such a right? Why would my claim to your earnings not be equally valid?

Posted by rbj | September 27, 2007 9:24 AM

Teresa, first you argue that we are a collective society, now you say you don't want one. Which is it?

National defense is an historical function of government. Funding for roads is a necessary evil, people and goods and services need to be able to move about. A person's retirement (which really is a 20th century concept anyhow) or healthcare is up to that person. We only started tieing healthcare to work during WWII when business couldn't raise wages, so they added a benefit. It might actually do good to divorce the two, and heve people be resposible for their health once again.

Put it another way: Do you want Newt Gingrich in charge of your healthcare?

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 9:33 AM

In the 1960s, two government health care programs were started: Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for those “living below the poverty line”. These programs had the following effects:

1) Millions of people were instantly relived of all financial responsibility for their health care. The result was an increase in demand. Any way you cut it, when you relieve people of the responsibility for paying for something, they will consume more of it.

2) Furthermore, when you relieve them of responsibility for paying, they lose all incentive to shop for the best values for their health care dollars -- after all, it’s not their dollars being spent.

3) The increase in demand produced an immediate increase in prices of health care goods and services.

In a free market, an increase in prices results in an increase in profits, which in turn cause producers to increase their capacity. It also attracts new suppliers to the market, resulting in more competition. Eventually, supply catches up with demand and prices fall back to their previous levels, or may go even lower due to the increase in the number of suppliers.

4) But with Medicare and Medicaid, we no longer had a free market in health care. We have a largely government-run market.

The government’s response to the increase in prices was to hit physicians and hospitals with vast new paperwork requirements designed to track and control costs. There are now over 120,000 pages of Medicare rules for a doctor to follow, and physicians that accept Medicare patients now spend slightly over 1 full day per week doing nothing but paperwork.

So at the same time government increased demand for health care goods and services, their new regulations restricted the supply. The result was an entirely predictable increase in prices of virtually all health care goods and services. Supply and demand rules.

5) The increased demand and restricted supply also destroyed any need for competition between physicians and hospitals. There is no need to compete when you have more customers than you can handle. So the incentive for improving quality and efficiency was significantly reduced.

6) Enter the HMOs and the insurance companies. In 1973, Congress created the HMO and forced businesses to offer them to their employees. HMOs sounded like a great deal -- it sounded like the middle class could now get free coverage just like the poor and the elderly were getting. Previously, during WWII, the government had imposed wage controls prohibiting businesses from offering higher wages to compete for employees. Businesses resorted to offering health insurance to their employees instead, and the tax laws encouraged this. Millions upon millions accepted these benefits.

When you choose to give up responsibility for paying for healthcare, when you agree to shift that to an HMO or an insurance company, don’t complain when they, who now have to pay, attempt to police the claims to keep their costs under control. He who pays has the right to do that -- and that is the right you surrendered to get “free” healthcare.

The situation has been worsened by states that have passed laws limiting competition between insurance companies -- limiting competition!! -- and at the same time forcing the insurance companies to offer policies that cover more and more routing medical expenses.

What do you think would happen to your automobile insurance premium if the insurance companies were forced to offer only policies with no deductibles and only policies that cover not only accidents, but tune-ups, oil changes, new tires, new lights and gasoline as well? The premiums would go through the roof and you’d find insurance companies trying to get you to delay maintenance and defer any “unnecessary” work. Well, that is what has happened to health insurance policies.

And what do you think would happen to the price of your automobile insurance if the insurance companies were forced to sell policies to those who have just had an accident? They'd skyrocket -- and yet that is precisely the insanity being proposed for health insurance by the demand that it cover pre-existing conditions.

7) Government, faced with ever-increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid, reacted in the 1980s by imposing price controls. The government decided to pay only $X for setting a broken bone, $Y dollars for treating strep throat, etc -- the government introduced a huge schedule of fixed reimbursements per procedure. Now physicians and hospitals were put in a squeeze -- and soon were forced to began the time-consuming process of having to lobby government for price increases on a procedure-by-procedure basis. This resulted in more paperwork and less time for patients, i.e. it represents a further restriction in supply.

8) To prevent cheating and fraud, ever more paper work was demanded. Review boards were established to “keep an eye” on doctors and make sure they do their jobs. Still more forms to fill out, still less time for patients, still more restrictions on supply. Prices keep going up.

9) Each new increase in prices caused by these programs becomes an excuse to expand them. Soon those living just above the poverty line complain that they also deserve “free medicine” so the Medicaid program is expanded to cover up to 150% of the poverty line. (There are proposals now to expand it to 300% of the poverty line.) This produces another large increase in demand. Prices go even higher.

Plus people are retiring much faster than they are dying, so the number of people on Medicare is constantly rising. More demand again. Prices go even higher.

This is how we got to the present situation. Government has ruined the healthcare market in America -- and now politicians propose to use its screwed-up condition to impose still more programs that will fuel demand while restricting supply. Faced with a fire that they created, they propose to put it out with gasoline.

What we need to end this nightmare is a free market in health care, just like the free market that has produced falling prices, improving quality and vast increases in new products in the mostly unregulated markets for consumer electronics, food and clothing -- just to name a few.

Posted by Pam | September 27, 2007 9:36 AM

CIGARETTE SALES DIP WITH TAX HIKE / Citing stockpiling, some say it's too early to tell whether people are quitting
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4389394

The amount of cigarette's sold has been declining yearly, yet the left wants to fund a program based on this item...

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 9:41 AM

Diffus -- First of all, I would get nothing out of the SCHIP program. My family has insurance and makes too much money to qualify for it. However, I worked at DSS for ten years with poor and working poor families and see the impact of not having health insurance on them. Many families are working multiple jobs, but because they are having to cobble together part-time work they do not qualify for health insurance.

If you stop to think about it, what is more expensive? Providing preventative care to kids or waiting until they have to go to the ER and are unable to pay the bill. Which is then paid by the rest of us anyway in the form of higher medical bills and increased premiums. You are going to be paying these costs no matter what. Why not do it in a way that actually makes sense and may keep costs down in the long run.

RBJ -- I made a mistake by saying "collective society" in the first post. What I meant is that we don't live in some sort of Hobbesian jungle in which it is every man for himself. We -- as a country -- decide that we want certain things paid for such as defense, roads, schools etc that have to be paid for in a collective manner. Not all things, but some things.

Polls show that healthcare is the number one concern of Americans after the war in Iraq. Everyone has seen healthcare costs go through the roof and many people have seen their insurance benefits shrink over the years. If you really think this is a winning issue for the GOP, then go for it guys. Really. Go for it.

Posted by Rovin | September 27, 2007 9:41 AM

What I fail to see here, (so far) is the exclusion of the fact that we already have a
Social Safety Net that covers over 90% of those who do not have coverage.

Michael Smith will never convince the Teresa's of this world that it is NOT the principal function of the government to provide another bureaucracy that is nothing short of a re-distribution of wealth...Socialism/Communism.

What our dear friends on the left continue to refuse to realize is that two of the "grand experiments" in social welfare are failing because of the dependency on the government and is going broke. While this monsterous debt burden will be on the backs of the next generation, the left intends to add another in the guise of this expanded SCHIP that was designed to protect POOR CHILDREN ONLY!

Only a fool would advocate another "Grand Experiment" promoted by the democratic party by transfering medical health care into their power hungry hands.

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 9:48 AM

Teresa:

I am not a looter and insofar as I can control it, I don't plan to accept anything looted from others against their will.

I am opposed to "public education" in the same way and for the same reasons that I am opposed to all the other welfare schemes. You say that people can't pay for the education of their children. I say if they cannot properly care for a child, they've no business bringing it into this world.

Proper care includes educating them. Nothing on earth justifies the notion that people should be allowed to have children and then push the financial burden for their care to their neighbors. It is a blatant injustice to hold one man accountable for the consequences of another man's actions. And nothing can justify an injustice.

And now I want you to answer the question posed by Diffus: if you have a right to his money, why doesn't he have a right to yours? What makes you special, what gives you certain rights denied to us? Why are some anointed with the right to steal while others are sentenced to the role of sacrificial lamb?

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 9:56 AM

Teresa said:

If you stop to think about it, what is more expensive? Providing preventative care to kids or waiting until they have to go to the ER and are unable to pay the bill. Which is then paid by the rest of us anyway in the form of higher medical bills and increased premiums. You are going to be paying these costs no matter what. Why not do it in a way that actually makes sense and may keep costs down in the long run.


Nonsense. If you think another taxpayer-funded government health care plan is going to ultimately reduce my costs, you are either delusional, a fool or downright dishonest. How many ways and on what scale must government welfare progrms fail before you realize that you cannot get something for nothing?

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 10:00 AM

Terresa, you rationale about the ER proves the above poster comments you want to throw gasoline on a fire to put out the fire. Insanity is defined doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting a different result. You already stated we have a problem with ER, your solution do the same thing to fix it, goverment intervention, which is insanity.

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 10:06 AM

Micheal -- If you bothered to actually read my post, you will see that I said my family is not eligible for Schip so I fail to see how I am "looting" your money.

Did you go to public school? If so, I hope that you have paid back all the money that your deadbeat parents owe the government for providing you with an education. Are you driving on a road today, because unless you are in SC I want my money back from you that you looted to pay for it. And I hope that you'll send us photos of you burning your social security checks when you retire. Because I'm guessing that I'm a lot younger than you and I don't want to pay for your lazy butt to sit around and play golf all day while I'm working.

Does any of that sound the least bit unreasonable to you? Why don't you go outside and caress your Ron Paul signs. I'm not going to argue with you any more over this.

Posted by syn | September 27, 2007 10:06 AM

Teresa's use of emotional blackmail to get what she thinks is for the GOOD OF THE CHILDREN is as tired and hagged as is Hillary Clinton's 'it takes a village to raise one child' sisterhood.

As a woman I am sick to death of the way my gender uses emotional blackmail to further castrate my personal liberty and freedom. The irony is that the sisterhood demands choice for abortion yet wants to deny the right for me to choose my own health care needs.

I am woman heard me roar keep your filthy government hands off my private and personal health care.

I am so ashamed I was once a feminist for I now recognize the wreck and ruin I caused by believing in such a vicious ideology.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 10:15 AM


Teresa,

We did it your way back in the Dark Ages. You had Lord and Ladies who dished out the welfare and subsidies to the peasants workers, who paid dearly for these benefits from the crops they produced. It was such a great time in our Western Civilization. Oh how my soul longs for such glorious times, when the government so loved the people that it took such good care of them. If you believe that times have changed and government is some sort of tool totally dedicated to good and never can be corrupted by greed and money you are living in a different reality.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 10:20 AM

Notwithstanding the philosophical debate going on between Michael Smith and Teresa, etc., I think the baseline issue is that the societal consensus is that we are willing to pay for health care for poor children. Writ large, when we pay for health care that those people would not and could not have otherwise had, there is a very long term societal benefit. Such a safety net is farsighted and generally good policy.

But when you start buying health care for people who have discretionary income, those dollars are not actually buying health care. They are, in a transitive sense, buying houses, cars, and other consumer goods. This is not as offensive to modern sensibilities as it might have been fifty years ago, because our standard of living has gone so far up, and is now beginning to contract, creating a combination of high expectations, and a burgeoning sense of scarcity in light of those high standards.

With that in mind, I favor the improvement of our medical "infrastructure" and regulatory framework, preferably by a mixed public-private group on which doctors, and not just the insurance and pharma industries, are strongly represented. We have a decent system in need of some structural changes, but subsidizing the mortgage and car payments of the middle class isn't going to help.

Posted by NoDonkey | September 27, 2007 10:20 AM

"If you think another taxpayer-funded government health care plan is going to ultimately reduce my costs . . ."

Democrat Party pols who know absolutely nothing about providing health care continually argue that their programs will "reduce administrative costs".

Laughable. Especially when the feds drive the burden of health data collection through their Medicare/Medicaid requirements, along with the defensive medicine the Democrat's buddies, the trial lawyers force on the system.

Posted by Diffus | September 27, 2007 10:28 AM

Teresa, your argument that we as a society have decided to pay for health care and retirement for some, and that makes it okay, recognizes that taking my earnings and giving it to others is legal, but it fails to address whether it's right. Bsaically, you are contending that if you can get 50% plus 1 to agree, you have the right to take my earnings and my property for your benefit.

Let's say that a community consists of three people. One of them is rich; two are not. The two approach the one and, under the threat of violence, take some of his money from him. Is that legal? Is it right?

Now, assume the same three men have incorporated their community as a city under the laws of the state they live in. In a general election, all three are elected to the city council. The two decide that they want some of the one's money, so they enact legislation that taxes the one and transfers that money to them. Is it legal? Is it right?

There is no moral difference between taking money from one individual for the direct benefit of other individuals whether the takers act individually or use the powers of the government to do it for them. We as a society may acquiesce in the forcible extraction of wealth from some for the benefit of others, and that may make it legal, but it doesn't make it right.

Why is providing YOU with the means to feed, cloth and provide health care for YOUR children MY responsibility?

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 10:29 AM

I should add that another danger of subsidizing the property-owning middle class is that you forestall the correction of the screwiness in the housing market. If people who can't afford hyperinflated (or just plain inflated) markets take their earning and spending power elsewhere (where they'll do more good), then the real estate market has a chance to stabilize. And because that boosts/shores up moderately priced markets while tugging down inflated ones, that's good for the middle class.

Posted by FedUp | September 27, 2007 10:33 AM

RBJ... I'd rather have Newt in charge of my HealthCare than Hillary(give me all your money) Clinton!

Posted by Jaylord | September 27, 2007 10:37 AM

The Republicans can actually use this to their advantage if they have the courage. SCHIP also covers "kids" up to 25. Imagine the following commercial, a loose parody of the AFLAC commercial featuring the guy with his arm in a cast and the duck paying all his bills, even the paying for the Chinese food being delivered:

Two guys sitting in a filthy living room on a ratty couch playing a violent video game, pizza boxes and beer bottles lying everywhere. The guys are obviously in their early twenties, scraggly facial hair, bad tatoos, unkempt hair and dirty concert teeshirts.

Guy One: (stops playing and shakes hand) Dude! I've been playing for three days straight and my hand really hurts! Time to go to the doctor.

Guy Two: But dude! You haven't had a job since you dropped out of college. How you gonna afford a doctor?

Guy One: No sweat dude! Hillary and the gang's got my back. They passed that SCHIP thingy and now I get free health care. Who needs a job when Hillary's taking care of you? (Takes a big swig of beer and belches out) Thanks Hillary!

Guy Two: (Also takes a big swig of beer and belches out) Yeah, thanks Hillary!

Both laugh and start playing the video game again...


But there's no way anybody on the right has the stones or imagination to come up with something like this. [:-(]

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 10:53 AM

Diffus -- Your argument is just silly. We live in the real world in which people combine money all the time to pay for things.

Do you really want a country with no roads, no army, no postal service, no schools, no internet (developed by the government) etc... What society has ever existed that is like that?

Posted by Rovin | September 27, 2007 10:56 AM

Jaylord,

Absolutely Pricless!

Copied, linked, and credited at my site soon, (with your permission)

Posted by Jaylord | September 27, 2007 10:59 AM

Rovin,
you most definitely have my permission. Spread it out wherever you can. I'd love to see Republicans and Conservatives finally use some courage and humor in their advertisements.

Jay

Posted by Lamont P | September 27, 2007 11:07 AM

It doesn't matter at what income level the program kicks in - there is no money for any coverage unless the funds are borrowed. We can't keep borrowing money and printing devalued dollars to pay for social programs.

Posted by MarkT | September 27, 2007 11:13 AM

> I say if they cannot properly care for a child,
> they've no business bringing it into this world.

This sounds great in theory. Good luck enforcing this in the real world! Do you want the government to enforce it? Fines or jail time for violators?

> It is a blatant injustice to hold one man
> accountable for the consequences of another man's
> actions.

Does the poor child count as a 'man'? Is it an injustice for the poor child to suffer from their parent's bad decision to have children they cannot afford?

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 11:15 AM

Teresa said:

Micheal -- If you bothered to actually read my post, you will see that I said my family is not eligible for Schip so I fail to see how I am "looting" your money.

Then you are a looter-advocate, an accomplice who supports the efforts of those doing the looting.


More Teresa:

Did you go to public school? If so, I hope that you have paid back all the money that your deadbeat parents owe the government for providing you with an education.

Here you reveal the basic, fallacious premise of liberalism as well as your ignorance. The government didn't provide me with an education. The taxpayers did. GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING. It only transfers wealth while taking a big cut to pay the salaries of all the parasites and bureaucrats who administer the program.

My family paid property taxes the entire time I was in school (as well as before and after). Those property taxes went for the public education system Given the inherent inefficiencies created by government-run schools, I'm sure my parents paid more than what an equivalent education would have cost had we a free market in education, so neither they nor I owe the government anything.

Such a system for financing public education retains a modicum of fairness when the only people who are taxed are those putting children into public schools. It is completely unjust, however, when it is applied to those who have never had and will never have children in those schools.


More Teresa:

Are you driving on a road today, because unless you are in SC I want my money back from you that you looted to pay for it.

I pay taxes on every gallon of gasoline I buy to pay for roads. I pay many tens of thousands of dollars in taxes to the federal government, a portion of which comes back to my state to pay for roads. My tax bill is three times what the national average is, so if anything, I am paying for the roads for you.

But I'll be perfectly happy to have all road taxes repealed and then have all roads privately built and operated as toll roads -- they work quite well. I am completely comfortable with paying for my own existence -- I want nothing from you except for you to leave me alone and support your own life by your own effort.


More Teresa:

And I hope that you'll send us photos of you burning your social security checks when you retire. Because I'm guessing that I'm a lot younger than you and I don't want to pay for your lazy butt to sit around and play golf all day while I'm working.

I'd be perfectly happy to simply be given a refund of all the Social Security taxes I've paid and then forget the monthly check. I certainly don't want your money. I only want my money.


More Teresa:

Does any of that sound the least bit unreasonable to you? Why don't you go outside and caress your Ron Paul signs. I'm not going to argue with you any more over this.

You haven't argued with me at all. You've done nothing but reveal that you don't understand how things work and who is paying for what. You live in liberal fantasy land where government creates limitless benefits out of thin air, where the only thing stopping the Democrats from spreading all of this free, universal wealth and prosperity are mean old Republicans who seek to stop the spreading of cost-free benefits just because we want to see old people starve, poor people suffering from disease and ignorant, uneducated children roaming the streets looking for food.

You haven’t the faintest clue that poor people ate and old people retired and went to the doctor and children got a good education long before the welfare state was created. And when the country goes bankrupt and the system collapses, I wonder what you’ll say to the millions of children whose future you destroyed so that Democratic politicians could buy enough votes to win the next election?

Posted by Diffus | September 27, 2007 11:16 AM

Why is my argument silly? Saying so doesn't make it so. Why is it silly to request that you provide a moral justification for taking my earnings from me, thereby depriving me and my family of the ability to benefit from them, and using it to benefit you and your family?

You continue to conflate the services provided by the government that benefit all with those that benefit individuals. When the government takes money from me and uses it to defend this country, you benefit, and I do, too. Same with roads, the postal service. Public schools are, IMHO, at least arguable in that regard.

Do you really want to live in a country where your earnings can be confiscated because someone somewhere else has decided that someone else needs it more than you do?

Teresa, you've used the words "silly" and "ass." You've distorted our words and misrepresented our writings. You've brought roads, the military, and the internet into a discussion about welfare. What you haven't done is what Michael and I have, which address your opponents' questions in a courteous and rational manner. Is the best you can come up with is name-calling, distortion, and appeals to emotion?

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 11:25 AM

Well, the bill just passed the Senate 69-30, so I guess y'all need to send some angry letters out to your Republican senators who voted for it.

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 11:27 AM

And don't forget the 49 Republicans in the house who voted for it yesterday.

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 11:37 AM

MarkT said:

I say if they cannot properly care for a child, they've no business bringing it into this world.

This sounds great in theory. Good luck enforcing this in the real world! Do you want the government to enforce it? Fines or jail time for violators?

In the first place, if parents knew up front that they are responsible for 100% of the child's care, and can't push it off on the taxpayer, most people would be far more responsible about having children.

However, if parents irresponsibly create children they are unable to properly support, the children should be removed by the state and put up for adoption. And the parent's assets, such as may exist, should be seized and used to support the child until an adoption can be arranged.


It is a blatant injustice to hold one man
accountable for the consequences of another man's actions.

Does the poor child count as a 'man'? Is it an injustice for the poor child to suffer from their parent's bad decision to have children they cannot afford?

Yes, it is an injustice. A parent that knowingly and deliberately creates a child it cannot support has committed a crime against that child. The child didn't ask to be borne -- that was the parent’s decision, and they have no right to create a child they cannot provide for. That is why the state must step in to arrange an adoption.

The demand for adoption far exceeds the supply, so I don't foresee a problem handling it this way. In any event, there is no justification for creating a system which encourages precisely this sort of irresponsible parenting then pushes the consequences of that irresponsibility off on the taxpayers.

Posted by Diffus | September 27, 2007 11:41 AM

Politicians acquiescing in legalized looting to enhance their chances of being reelected, especially when the guy wielding the veto pen provides them with political cover?

Who'd've thunk it?

Posted by onlineanalyst | September 27, 2007 11:44 AM

While S-CHIP was designed to provide health insurance for truly indigent children, the expanded program currently being decided in Congress is a recipe for economic disaster with quality health care and economic freedom as the resultant sacrifice.

In a commentary for the WSJ not long ago, Karl Rove offered a number of solutions based on market principles to address the health-care issue and at the same time meet the needs of the middle and working class.

He observes: "Liberals see the concerns of families as a failure of private insurance, and want the U.S. to move toward a government-run, single-payer model. This is a recipe for making problems worse. Socialized medicine inevitably leads to poor quality, inefficiency, rising taxes and rationing. The waiting lines and poor care that cause people from other countries to come here for treatment are not the answer.

"Government can help poorer and older Americans get quality health care without sacrificing what everyone wants--the ability to choose their own doctor and health coverage that meets their family's particular needs. What reforms will do that?"


Rove answers the question with a number of specifics.

Posted by Ajay | September 27, 2007 11:49 AM

Like roads and public schools, isn't is possible that providing for health care in some instances (i.e., poor children) benefits everyone - less crime, more productive employees, etc. While I'm not in any way in favor of SCHIP, I think, Michael, you go too far.

If someone could weigh in without tearing me to pieces, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 12:00 PM

Teresa said:

Polls show that healthcare is the number one concern of Americans after the war in Iraq. Everyone has seen healthcare costs go through the roof and many people have seen their insurance benefits shrink over the years. If you really think this is a winning issue for the GOP, then go for it guys. Really. Go for it.

This is a confession that you are not concerned about doing the right thing, the moral thing or the just thing -- you are concerned about doing the thing that will help the Democrats win the next election.

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 12:10 PM

Micheal says: This is a confession that you are not concerned about doing the right thing, the moral thing or the just thing -- you are concerned about doing the thing that will help the Democrats win the next election.

--------------------------

No, Micheal, in this case there is happily a connection between what I think is the right thing to do as well as what the country thinks is the right thing to do. Sometimes it just works out that way. :)

Posted by Diffus | September 27, 2007 12:14 PM

Ajay, if we all agree on the desirability of the outcome, does the means used to achieve the outcome matter? Is it appropriate to use the power of the state to do for others what would be a crime if they did it for themselves? Does the end of (arguably) benefitting everyone justify the means of forcibly taking the means to do so?

Consider William Graham Sumner's essay, "The Forgotten Man," the first paragraph of which is:

"The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a re-adjustment of all interests and rights. They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion - that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man."

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 12:18 PM

Micheal also writes: The demand for adoption far exceeds the supply, so I don't foresee a problem handling it this way.

--------------------------

I worked in child abuse investigations and foster care for ten years and that is just a flat out lie. Google is actually your friend. If you used it, you would find that:

"Based on current AFCARS estimates released January 2000, there are approximately 520,000 children currently in foster care in the United States. Of these, 117,000 are eligible for adoption."http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

Yes, there is a demand for healthy, white infants. I had a lot of children who were free for adoption that ranged from ages 3-16 that had been waiting for years to be adopted. But if they are non-white, been sexually abused, exposed to drugs during pregnancy, have siblings also eligible for adoption, have medical problems or are just not babies -- no body wanted them.

So great plan, Micheal. Let's not provide them with health insurance -- let's make the government run orphanages and pay foster parents to care for them. I'm sure that will be a lot cheaper.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 12:20 PM

Michael:

It is impossible draw the line between legitimate government spending and "looting" as sharply as you would like to.

As to what is appropriate spending, I don't mean to say there is no right and wrong apart from what the legislature does (obviously). but the distinction is made by majority rule (via proxy representation). That method of making spending decisions was laid out unambiguously at our founding as a nation.

So, given that the legitimacy of spending does not turn on a dime (no pun intended), and there is a mechanism in place for drawing those lines, your grousing is hard to take seriously. You have native productivity as an individual, but to actualize that into dollars, food on the table, etc. takes a very complex system involving infrastructure, economic supports, regulation, police power, etc, all demanding constant tending and funding and policy-making.

SCHIP is one part of that calculus, and though I favor the line being drawn more tightly for eligibility, your argument against baseline entitlements as a whole has little traction, moral, practical, or otherwise, in our universe.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 12:28 PM

To summarize the argument.

Taking money from somebody else is morally wrong, either by force or by cunning.
Welfare is the act of the government taking money from somebody else and giving it to other people.
--------------------------------------------------
Thus the government taking money from somebody else to give to another person is morally wrong.

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 12:34 PM

Ajay, if you wish to help the children of the poor with your own money, or with money you can raise from others that also wish to help, obviously you should not be stopped. That is the function of charity and it's a valuable function in a free society.

But what justifies the idea that you, or anyone else, should decide which expenditures of my money are, or are not, "to my benefit"? What justifies the notion that someone else is entitled to make that determination for me and initiate the use of force to insure my compliance?

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 12:34 PM

Diffus,

So, opposing any appropriation of individual wealth for any common good, you oppose all taxation?

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 12:36 PM

Michael,

But what justifies the idea that you, or anyone else, should decide which expenditures of my money are, or are not, "to my benefit"?

So you disagree with Article I of the Constitution?

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 12:38 PM

Teresa said:

No, Micheal, in this case there is happily a connection between what I think is the right thing to do as well as what the country thinks is the right thing to do. Sometimes it just works out that way. :)

If that were the case, you'd be giving us all the wonderful justifications that prove it is the right thing to do. You've provided no such justifications.

Posted by I R A Darth Aggie | September 27, 2007 12:49 PM

Are you planning on pulling a social security check?

Yes. But that's because I have a job and I'm paying into the system.

Are you riding on public roads in your state?

Yes. And in order to do so, I purchase automotive fuel, which is taxed to support the roads.

Do you think people who have no children should have to pay local taxes to pay for public school? After all, why should they have to pay for other people's children to go to school?

Yes, I do and I don't even have children. Because I want your ungrateful little whelps to have the opportunity to become educated and grow up to be successful, wealthy, productive tax-paying citizens.

Work on your arguments and come back when you think you've got better ones.

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 12:52 PM

Teresa wrote:

Yes, there is a demand for healthy, white infants. I had a lot of children who were free for adoption that ranged from ages 3-16 that had been waiting for years to be adopted. But if they are non-white, been sexually abused, exposed to drugs during pregnancy, have siblings also eligible for adoption, have medical problems or are just not babies -- no body wanted them.

Let's see here. We've got parents that take drugs while they are pregnant, sexually abuse their children, produce additional siblings when they can't support the children they already have, neglect their children to the extent that they develop medical problems -- and you propose to leave such children with such parents and, in fact, establish ever-more programs to permit such drug-taking, sexually-abusing, irresponsible and neglectful parents to have ever-more children.

That must be what you call liberal compassion. The very programs you push create such children, and your response is to advocate even more of these programs, so that even more of these children will be brought into existence to be sexually abused, neglected, exposed to drugs and gangs and generally turned into the same type of people as their parents.

I ask again: how many times and on what scale must liberal welfare programs fail before you stop advocating more of them?

Posted by Conrad | September 27, 2007 12:55 PM

Reading all the comments I see we are only talking about half the reasons for the high cost of health insurance here. I can think of two others associated with people that have the coverage.

When I was young my dad did not like doctors so we did not go to the doctor unless it was a real emergency. Today I see people with insurance going to see the doctor for the most mundane reasons. People cut their fingers and have the flu so they go to the emergency room to get treatment and the HMO pays for most of it. The list of un-necessary reasons go on and on. This not being able to care for oneself for the most minor injuries or sicknesses contributes to the high cost of insurance.

Television is constantly telling people to see their doctor just to check out the new medication on the block. What is this?

Another reason for the high cost of insurance is the instances where people practically on their death bed are taken to the hospital for major surgury (where the doctors know) the patient is too weak to handle the surgury, and the patient dies shortly after they are taken off the life support equipment.

Many people come to the end of their lives with ailments, some natural and many from their own abuses in life. With our current system of public heathcare, major operations are performed at the expense of the public, and the patient dies anyway because they are too old and their bodies are too worn out to survive the operation.

I am not against some form of basic public healthcare and I think our country can afford it. But we have to use some common sense in how that healthcare is administed.

We have to look at how our system is set up and do a major overhaul. We can first start with getting the government out of setting the quota on how many doctors are allowed into medical school. Secondly we need to look at what medical treatment the government should pay for.

Example: If a child breaks a leg in several places and the family does not have insurance then the government should pay the cost to treat this. It makes sense because it will restore the child to live a productive life.

On the other hand, if a person is at the end of their life and is faced with a failing organ, is it necessary to have the public pay for an operation that will not improve the quality of life for that person, and may also set that person up to need permanent care from others, until the end of their life?

I think there are so many abuses with the current system that need to be fixed, that talking about expanding coverage without eliminating the waste is insane.

Politicians that talk about making this system universal without correcting the fraud, waste, and abuse in the current system are doing us an injustice. They are out of touch with reality.

My opinion, is we have the means already to provide medical coverage to the uninsured, and at the same time reduce the cost from the present amount, if we cut out the fraud, waste, and abuse.

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 12:56 PM

Micheal said:

If that were the case, you'd be giving us all the wonderful justifications that prove it is the right thing to do. You've provided no such justifications.

---------------------

Well... I guess I thought the benefits were pretty obvious, but here's just a few:

1) Children who get prevenative care cost the government less money in the end because doctors are able to catch problems before they become more serious.

2)Healthy children do better in school and miss less days of school. Having a better educated populace makes our country better.

3)Parents don't have to take off time from work to care for healthy children. Productivity goes up.

4)Healthy children don't pass communicable diseases like TB to the general population.

5)Preventative care can avoid children developing life threatening diseases and diseases which cause them pain.


Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 12:57 PM

biwah wrote:

SCHIP is one part of that calculus, and though I favor the line being drawn more tightly for eligibility, your argument against baseline entitlements as a whole has little traction, moral, practical, or otherwise, in our universe.

Translation: Since we have the majority on our side, we can dispense with such concerns as what is or is not moral or just. We need not answer any arguments against our position, no matter how logical those arguments may be, we need not offer any justifications for our theft because we own the playing field and can loot you at will.

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 1:00 PM

biwah, the founding fathers of America risked "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" to fight a war against the most powerful nation on earth because they objected to taxation. Don't try to tell me that they intended to establish a tax funded welfare state run by an all-powerful federal government.

Posted by Everett | September 27, 2007 1:01 PM

"who lists all the different REPUBLICAN senators and governors that want this program renewed. "

The president wants to renew it. He wants to expand it. Just not as much as the proposal.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 27, 2007 1:04 PM

Have any of you dudes read the Constitution lately? Does talk about roads and such...but I didn't see anything about schools, medical bills etc.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 1:15 PM

Terresa

You stated

Well... I guess I thought the benefits were pretty obvious, but here's just a few: 1) Children who get prevenative care cost the government less money in the end because doctors are able to catch problems before they become more serious.

2)Healthy children do better in school and miss less days of school. Having a better educated populace makes our country better.

3)Parents don't have to take off time from work to care for healthy children. Productivity goes up.
4)Healthy children don't pass communicable diseases like TB to the general population.

5)Preventative care can avoid children developing life threatening diseases and diseases which cause them pain.


1. It is not the governments responsibility to pay for preventive healthcare. If the government wasn’t paying healthcare costs to begin with it wouldn’t be an issue

2. Again why should the government provide such care, a better-educated country makes a better country. I do not think so, a country with correct moral values is a strong country, intelligence has never made or broke a country it has been its moral fiber. Good moral values lead to an educated populace. I guess we were not a strong country until welfare. Maybe our greatness came before welfare and we have since been on a downhill spiral.

3. So a parent should give up the moral responsibility of the care of their children to the state?

4. Sex passes such diseases not healthcare

5. Refer to 1.

Posted by bio mom | September 27, 2007 1:15 PM

The veto will be sustained only in the Senate, not the House, so this argument will continue.

I favor having only a safety net for the poorest. Everyone else should buy their own health care insurance. It certainly should not be the responsibility of the employers. Strange system that. They don't pay for our food, buy our cars, or provide us with our postage stamps or educate our children. Why did it become their responsibility to provide our health care?

As for the politics, it goes without saying that when you promise the populace the moon they will love you for it and then want more. That ultimately leads to socialism, which leads to stagnant economies, which leads to....Nicholas Sarkozy elected as president of France!!

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 1:15 PM

Teresa wrote:

1) Children who get prevenative care cost the government less money in the end because doctors are able to catch problems before they become more serious.

If this were true, health care costs should have gone down after the implementation of SCHIP. They have not. They've gone up.

And you cannot justify stealing $1,000 of my money on the grounds that doing so will not make it necessary for you to steal $5,000 of it later.

2)Healthy children do better in school and miss less days of school. Having a better educated populace makes our country better.

Which argues that parents should take their kids to doctors. It doesn't justify making it my responsibility instead.


3)Parents don't have to take off time from work to care for healthy children. Productivity goes up.

That might be an argument to convince an employer to offer health benefits to his employees. It doesn't justify pushing that responsibility on me.

4)Healthy children don't pass communicable diseases like TB to the general population.

Government action against communicable disease is justified to prevent its spread. That only argues for forcing parents to keep their children healthy, it doesn't justify shifting the burden to me.

5)Preventative care can avoid children developing life threatening diseases and diseases which cause them pain.

Teresa, you've provided reasons why parents should take care of their children. You've provided no justification for shifting that responsibility to me.

I don't care what wonderful things a robber proposes to do with the proceeds of a robbery, it doesn't justify the taking of another person's property or money.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 1:18 PM

Terresa

To win you must prove the government is not taking something away and giving it to another individual. Without proving, that you must concede it is immoral because it is just another form of robbery and theft. We are not arguing healthcare is not vital, we are saying that your means of providing it is immoral.

Posted by nandrews3 | September 27, 2007 1:21 PM

... The founding fathers of America risked "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" to fight a war against the most powerful nation on earth because they objected to taxation.

Well, there's a claim you don't see every day.

In real-world history, the colonists were objecting to "taxation without representation." I'm sure, though, everything would have been different if Michael Smith had been there to talk about being looted, and so on.

Nice work on this thread, Teresa -- I admire your spirited comments.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 27, 2007 1:27 PM

Mike Smith is spot on. Delmonte talked me out of considering a vote for Hildabeast. But all you guys whining for socialism-lite is making me want to puke. Maybe I’ll reconsider a vote for the foul Beast after all.

Mike, Ever think about making this immoral system come falling down FASTER!! A little "Shrug"? How 'bout voting for the Hildabeast and all the other slimy Dhimmicrats. Then do whatever it takes to get as much money as you can out the Welfare / Medical systems. Help it to come crashing down. That would probably mean waiting in a lot of hellacious lines though...can you imagine? Lines for welfare checks…and lines to see the saw bones. Maybe get used to the idea of doing some calisthenics while waiting?

I'm already stashing my "money" (not talking about Federal Reserve Notes) and ammo.

What’s next…"they" going to force me to work?

The socialist’s stated goal is to LOWER your standard of living. You guys are living too high on the hog…accept it.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 1:31 PM

Teresa

A moral model would look something like this.

Person a wants to give to organization x to provide help for other people.

Person b wants to give to the government to provide help for other people.

Person c does not want to give to an organization or government but wants to help the person directly.

Person d does not want to give at all.

What makes this moral is that nobody was involuntarily forced to give what he or she earned to somebody else.

Posted by Conrad | September 27, 2007 1:33 PM

Micheal,

We have a seriuos problem in our country with our youth growing up with drug abuse and no direction because in my opinion we have failed in providing enough leadership.

The government has taken on the responsibility to provide programs ( because the government in it's fictional role) considers our youth as an asset.

People used to get involved directly in the community to provide leadership for the youth - but for the most part that is long gone. The ones that do seem to be fighting a losing cause.

There are too many people in our society that live in gated communities, isolated from the rest of the community, away from the storm brewing outside their gates, living a good quality life, forgetting that their wealth came from a business climate set up by the same government, dealing with the problems caused by their neglect of the community.

I grew up in a two parent family and my mom stayed home. She had a full time job taking care of five children.

We have created the mess we have in the streets because so many people decided that both parents can work and obtain more wealth, while they gave away their parental responsibilites to someone else, or just let their children run wild. And who do you think picked up the slack dealing with the problems? The government.

Money is not the issue here. It is lack of leadership training in our youth. If we don't do it who will?

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 1:46 PM

bio mom said:
I favor having only a safety net for the poorest.

That is what Reagan said. Here is the problem with that.

If a man making $20,000 a year is entitled to take $100 from me to pay for his child's health care, why isn't he entitled to take $101? Or $110? Or $1,000? Or all of my money?

And if a man making $20,000 a year is entitled to a cut of my earnings, why isn't a man who makes $20,001 also entitled to a cut? Why the one and not the other?

And if a man making $20,000 a year is entitled to take money from me to pay his child's doctor bills, why isn't he entitled to take money from me to pay for his college education at Harvard?

The fact of the matter is, once you concede the principle, you are defeated. Once you agree that taxpayers must fund food stamps to keep the poor from starving (not that they actually would, but that is always the claim), then you have to agree to public housing to keep them from freezing, then you have to agree to public transportation so they can get around, then you have to agree to free medical care, then you have to agree to free dental care and eye exams, then you have to agree to free medical care for their children, then you have to agree to.......whatever is the latest liberal looting plan to buy votes and win elections.

Conservatives have always conceded the principle that some small amount of looting is justified -- and hoped they could control the amount. They have failed. Reagan failed. Federal spending on these welfare programs doubled during his eight years in office.

There will never be enough spending for the liberals. Once you let them into your wallet, no matter how small the amount or how worthy the cause may sound, they will never cease their efforts to expand the looting and plunder to higher and higher levels. It is happening all around you every day -- and it won't stop as long as you concede their basic premise.

You cannot stop a cannibal by agreeing that it is okay for him to take a small bite out of your hide. He’ll keep on coming back until he gets all of you.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 27, 2007 1:49 PM

Give it up, Mike. You'll just have to start over again with Conrad (who either didn't read your comments...or doesn't understand them...). Guys like Conrad will never believe that many of his cherished Government Programs directly contributed to the very same problems he bemoans...especially those problems with the "yooots".

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 1:54 PM

nandrews3 wrote:

In real-world history, the colonists were objecting to "taxation without representation."

Why do you think they wanted representation? So they could vote for still more taxation? So they could vote to keep the taxation that led to the Boston Tea Party? So they could vote to keep the Intolerable Acts in Place? So they could insure a continuation of the hated Stamp Act?

Posted by Michael Smith | September 27, 2007 2:06 PM

swabjockey05, yes, wouldn't "Shrugging" be wonderful? My problem is my children have to somehow navigate the coming mess. If I could get them to safety somewhere, I'd join you in voting for Clinton and then I'd campaign like hell to take this welfare state to its logical conclusion.

But how do you do that knowing what it will mean for your own children?

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 2:11 PM

Michael,
the founding fathers of America risked "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" to fight a war against the most powerful nation on earth because they objected to taxation. Don't try to tell me that they intended to establish a tax funded welfare state run by an all-powerful federal government.

You are shifting the subject. The founding fathers didn't weigh in on any of this specifically - they created a system that they thought would be up to the task of making such decisions in the future. Your comment at 1:54 shows your real point of view - that you believe yourself to be right, whether about the founding fathers or the appropriateness of one expense versus another - no more and no less.

Translation: Since we have the majority on our side, we can dispense with such concerns as what is or is not moral or just.

That's a pretty weak straw argument, since I specifically disavowed that view in my comment. I was just noting that you declared yourself the arbiter of the many decisions that need to be made in our society concerning what is or is not a legitimate and beneficial expenditure - and that the Constitution provides us a with a body of representatives who are that arbiter (subject to checks and balances etc. "Michael Smith" does not appear in Article I.

And if you were able to make money in your life, fantastic - but you didn't get there without a thousand different forms of public support and largesse.

Posted by Conrad | September 27, 2007 2:20 PM

swabjockey05, whereswaldo,Micheal, have you considered why America, Canada, and the countries of Europe are not third world countries? Is there possibly a reason for this, like the benefits we get from our governments verses third world governments having none for their people?

It is true from a constitutional aspect that the federal government needs to be kept in check. But the constritution was our datum point as a growing nation. Many benefits have come to the people from the federal government getting involved to solve problems at the state level.

Example: The Safe Drinking Water Act passed by Congress in 1974. Did you know that in the 1900s 100,000 people per year were dying from drinking water. And by 2002 only 2 perple per year were dying?

This is only one of many benefits we the people have recieved by federal involvement - and expansion of powers not given it by the 10th amendment.

Our constritution is a living document and as such is evolving. There is only one thing that is constant in life - and that is change. If you are trying to live back in 1776 - you would not have the wealth,properity, and quality of life you enjoy today.

One man is an island and cannot get much done. The money you have today came from the sweat and blood of the ones before you that put their sweat equity in laying the foundation for future generations. What have you done to keep up the tradition?

Money is not the important issue here - it is our quality of life as a nation.

When you talk about your money - remember your money would not be possible, if the people molding this fiction we call government, did not put their equity in to create this tool, to create the commerce to bring that wealth to you. You would be sitting next to a tree with your spear waiting for the next meal to walk by.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 27, 2007 2:22 PM

wow.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 2:26 PM

wow indeed. it's known as civilization.

Posted by flenser | September 27, 2007 2:39 PM

Theresa

Why don't you write to Orrin Hatch & Chuck Grassley and tell them what liberal patsies they are to cosponsor this bill.

Actually, they are the patsies of business interests, which a have a keen interest in offloading the cost of medical insurance to the government/taxpayer.

Ayn Rand would be spinning in her grave. But she seems never to have met many actual businessmen. As a group they are pretty statist.


Posted by nandrews3 | September 27, 2007 2:41 PM

Why do you think they wanted representation? So they could vote for still more taxation? So they could vote to keep the taxation that led to the Boston Tea Party? ...

What the colonists objected to was the levying of taxes upon them without their consent. Before the Stamp Act, ministers and Parliament had basically allowed the colonial assemblies to exercise power over taxes and spending. It wasn't taxes per se, but the effort to reassert power from London, that sparked what became the Revolution.

My real point is just that your brand of extremist libertarianism has nothing to do with what the colonists fought for, or what the Constitutional Convention drafted, or what the Founding Fathers intended. If you want to argue that taxing equals stealing, and so on, you can make your case. And you can surely cite others, like Ayn Rand, who have also argued this in the past. But that's where your arguments come from. They don't come from the founding of our nation.

Biwah, with patience and good grace, has pointed to the real-world circumstances that your arguments fail to acknowledge. My point is that they also lack the historical basis that you claim for them.

Posted by flenser | September 27, 2007 2:41 PM

In real-world history, the colonists were objecting to "taxation without representation."

There were not big fans of representation without taxation either, as I recall.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 2:45 PM

Wow, I never knew man did not have an economy before government started printing money and so by virtue it is the governments. You still have not disproved the two premises and conclusion just changing the subject. To repeat

Taking money from an individual involuntary is theft and morally wrong
The government welfare system is taking money away involuntarily and giving it to other people. Thus, government welfare is wrong.

It is a valid logical argument. Unless you can disprove the two premises, you must accept the conclusion to be true. Is the government not involuntarily taking money away to give to other people, or is taking money from somebody and giving it somebody else not theft?

The argument would look like this

p takes money involuntarily away and gives it to q. Taking money from somebody involuntarily is theft. Theft is immoral.
Thus p taking money from q is immoral.

Go study history the US government being the repository of US currency is a relative new thing. We were a great country before the govt. ever started printing money and giving it to other people. That does not make a civilization.

Posted by flenser | September 27, 2007 2:51 PM

Taking money from an individual involuntary is theft and morally wrong
The government welfare system is taking money away involuntarily and giving it to other people. Thus, government welfare is wrong.

According to this argument, taxation is morally wrong, period. Welfare does not even factor into it.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 2:54 PM

We do not argue against taxation, we are arguing against the redistribution of wealth to different people, two different things. This form of taxation (wealth redistribution) did not happen before FDR’s and LBJs great society experiments. Therefore, if it was the Founding Father’s goal to rebel and then tax the new Americans to give to the other Americans they failed to act on that idea. It appears they had different ideas than you on how to tax, there was no involuntary income tax, and then what the proper use of those taxes were. Poor founders if they only knew that govt. provided healthcare made a stronger country we could have been 5 times as great as we are now and had a lot less sexually transmitted diseases.

Posted by Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF | September 27, 2007 2:55 PM

Here's a little something I got from a state rep. Long, but she hits a few of the pointS being discussed here.

Tonight, the House will be voting to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP was originally created to grant healthcare to children from low income, working families. While I have been a long time supporter of this program, I will be voting against the bill for a number of reasons that I would like to share with you.

First, the bill we are considering today expands the program to families making $82,000 a year whose children already have private health insurance, or could afford to purchase it. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that approximately two million additional children will be covered under the CHIP program, nearly half of whom already have private health insurance. This expansion is expected to cause millions of families to drop their children’s private health insurance and switch to receive federally-funded coverage. The massive shift, also called "crowd-out," will drive healthcare costs up as there will be less competition between private insurers, and will place an enormous financial burden on the federal government to pay for the healthcare of millions of new children. This truly is the first step toward socialized medicine. And you know no federal program like this one once started, never stops.

To pay for this massive increase in federal coverage – low estimates show the total to be $35 billion in new spending over five years, but the true costs are unknown -- the Democratic leadership proposes raising tobacco taxes. The problem with using tobacco taxes as a revenue source is that tobacco revenues have been on the decline for years. In order for the CHIP expansion in this bill to be sustainable, the country would have to come up with 22 million new smokers in the next 10 years!

The bill is also a lot of smoke and mirrors. Democrats are saying this bill meets budget requirements, but to meet their bottom line, they cut funding for the program in five years by claiming that five million children will magically go off the program. You know this will not happen and is an effort to hide the true cost of the program.

Democrats have also promised to have full transparency and said there would be no earmarks in the bill yet there are earmarks in this legislation that have been carefully hidden.

The bill would also eliminate the citizenship test for individuals to become eligible for CHIP. It would simply require that they present a Social Security number which doesn’t prevent someone from using a fake Social Security number to receive benefits.

The CHIP program originated with a Republican Congress so Republicans support it. But the intention was to make sure that children who didn’t qualify for other benefits and children who couldn’t afford insurance were covered. We tried as Republicans to require that we cover these needy children before you cover anyone else. But Democrats took this language out of the final bill so they could cover adults and people who came here illegally before they can cover the kids who the program was intended to cover.

I’m going to vote against this bill. The President is going to veto it. This is going to force Congress to work together in a bipartisan fashion to get needy children the healthcare they deserve and were intended to have under this program.

Sincerely,

Kay Granger


Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 2:55 PM

whereswaldo,

ah, back in the day, when government wealth went toward buying (or otherwise obtaining) new land - and giving it away to citizens.

now that's an entitlement I'd like to see make a comeback.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 2:55 PM

Welfare not taxation trying to mix up the words is a logical fallacy of equivocation.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 2:59 PM

biwah

Your argument does not change the fact it was morally wrong. If the government took to buy to give to somebody else it was still wrong.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 3:06 PM

whereswaldo,

Is anything right?

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 3:44 PM

I know what would be right, government takes your property so they can give it to a corporation, and since the corporation will generate more taxes than you, it would help more needy people.

Same principle you advocate have the goverment take from p (you) to give to to help the needy. The only difference it will cost you.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 3:49 PM

stupid mouse, side button. Oh well sorry for the poor grammar, but I think you get the point. What is the difference between eminent domain used to give land to a corporation, and welfare. It follows the same formula that is why liberals on the Supreme Court had no problem in ruling Kyoto the way they did. So, when they come for your property don't come crying to me.

Government takes from individual involuntarily and gives it to somebody else.

What is morally right is when somebody has a choice and is not coerced by another entity.

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 3:52 PM

Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF -- ...First, the bill we are considering today expands the program to families making $82,000 a year

-----------------------

Again, this is not true. The bill does not do this. One state (NY) asked for a waiver to allow families at this income level to recieve SCHIP. They were denied the waiver. This is a red herring meant to derail the bill.

Posted by Conrad | September 27, 2007 4:02 PM

whereswaldo, Is it morally wrong to take debt from one group of people and transfer it to another group? What do you think the federal reserve note is? We are in a debt society - there is no money backed by gold - we went off that standard in 1934, so your thinking is backward. The only real value is in real estate and labor.

The government thinks of our children as an asset. Are you against developing an asset that will benefit our country?

Children having an opportunity to get educated, get off drugs, have good health care, and a full stomach, will be assets to the growth and security of our country.

I agree there is a lot of waste in our intitlement programs. But why is this? Why do we even have entitlement programs? What is the intent of these programs? In my opinion it is not to transfer wealth (debt) from one group to another, but to provide for the continued economic strength and vitality of our nation by developing our youth to their highest potential.

What is morally wrong with this? What do you think the value is in each soldier that sacrificed his or her life so we can earn our wealth and live a quality life without facing the wrath of war coming to our country. How much is that worth to you?

Each man is not an island. If we become a nation like this - God help us.

Posted by whereswaldo | September 27, 2007 4:59 PM

Conrad lets just say you still haven't proven that theft from whatever source is morally ok. Again, when the government takes your house to give to a corporation so they generate more revenue to pay for health care don't come running and complaining.

A funny thing happened years ago, Seattle a liberal bastion if there was any, in 2004 wanted an increase to the tax on the selling of coffee, said additional funds would go for school books for the poor. Why did the citizens of Seattle not pass such tax? Because it is ok if you or another liberal person takes money from unknown x to give to y, but when it comes to your pocket book forget it. That is why liberals generally pay less taxes, give less charitable donations, and volunteer less to help the less fortunate.

Again the premise stands when p takes from q to give to y we call it theft, unless you are a liberal and p is the government. From there we take a leap of faith and excuse p because it wants to help y. There is an exception to above rule in the liberal mind when p comes for said liberal q to help y then it is not ok, which has been clearly proven from above examples.

Poor liberals in Kelo when they came for them it was all over. At least the poor in Kelo will have good school books and community health care because of the new taxable infrastructure getting built, unlike the poor in Seattle.

There is right and there is wrong and the ends does not make it right or wrong, the action stands on its own. So many evils have occurred in this world because it would help some group. When the action is immoral it is immoral nothing can make it right. I have more important things to do now, but when the government decides to take your money to help the poor, I don't want to hear you complain, and I expect you to give your house and and everything to the poor, because remember helping the poor justifies any action. You have not proved the action, q taking money from p to give to y is immoral and you can't because it is what it is. Whatever entity q is the government, me, some armed group it is wrong.

I have more important things to do now, I have children that I must go teach the evil ways of conservatism by showing them how to be compassionate to the poor and actually help them on a one on one basis. Not by stealing from others to soothe my conscious.

Posted by TyCaptains | September 27, 2007 6:06 PM

Government appropriating funds and doling them out as it sees fit is nothing new.

-- Are there some who feel we shouldn't be in Iraq doling out insane piles of cash, much of which went missing?

-- Are there some who feel the government shouldn't be funding "art"?

The question is not about giving to some subset of individuals in society; the question is about losing control of the wealth you feel you created.

As a participant of society, you have implicitly agreed to giving up "some" control over your life, and the collection of taxes represents a portion of this.

The fact is that though some crow about their willingness to "go it alone" *now*, they did not get to where they are today "alone" either. Their accomplishments do come from standing on the backs of others.

This is not to say, however, that personal accountability and accomplishments should be overlooked. The debate should lie in finding that optimal balance between helping out our fellow citizen but not cutting our own throats to do it.

All other arguments to the extreme are simply wasteful hyperbolation.

Posted by Conrad | September 27, 2007 6:32 PM

whereswaldo, the government is a fiction, it does not look at what it does as morally right or wrong - it looks at it's own interest.

I would agree with you if we were using real money backed by gold. Then the government would be taking substance from me and giving it to others without my permission.

Persons in this country - including corporations protect their interest by putting their FRNs into real estate. Why? Because that paper (FRNs) is continuously becoming worthless while real estate becomes more valuable.

Do you notice that people do not save money anymore? Why is that? Because they know it continues to lose value.

Have you read House Joint Resolution 192, June 5, 1933? That is when the policy about currency changed and we no longer have a gold backed currency.

It takes currency to run the government and taxes are collected to do this. Call it theft if you like but it is better to pay taxes to have a government that creates order than to live in anarchy.

Do I think the government at all levels take to much? You bet I do and I am not happy about it. There is too much fraud, waste, and abuse. What am I doing about it? I expose it when I see it and look to support political leaders that have the same view as me.

I believe in value creation. What does that mean to me? To me the wealth of this country is not contained in the FRN. It is in the real estate of our country, the businesses we create, and the youth that will be taking the leadership positions when we are in our rocking chairs.

We have to invest in our youth. Many of them live in poverty,are exposed to gang influence, drugs, violence, preditors, and all types of negative influence. Is it their fault? No. Fingers can be pointed in many directions for this but that will not solve the problem.

We have to do it. The government is only a tool for that.WE HAVE TO GET INVOLVED.

We did not get what we have because of our own doing. Many before us laid the foundation for you and I to obtain what we have. So in my book it is time for all us baby boomers to give back.

I am looking to elect politicians that have my point of view. It is arrogant for one to think that their success in life came from their own doing. I am not for those individuals in politics.

On the Democratic side I see too many politicians in it for their own interests using entitlements to get them in. They allow the fraud, waste, and abuse but do not do anything about it. They are the ones squandering our national resources.

I have more hope with the Republicans.

I would like to see our interstate roadway system and bridges rebuilt but how do you do that with so much corruption and again fraud, waste, and abuse in the transportation sector.

To answer your question, of course it is morally wrong to take something that belongs to one person without their permission and give it to another person.(Robinhood did that)But the government is taking back what it has already given us - worthless paper - so it is an indian giver.

Posted by Rovin | September 27, 2007 6:37 PM

-- "Are there some who feel the government shouldn't be funding "art"?"

emphatically .......YES

The debate should lie in finding that optimal balance between helping out our fellow citizen but not cutting our own throats to do it.

Does that picket fence your sittin' on feel o.k. TyCaptains. What a cop-out buch of crap.

Posted by SoldiersMom | September 27, 2007 8:32 PM

There are only two things I want the Government to do for me that I'm willing to pay taxes for; National Defense and infrastructure for growth. That's it!

God I hope Bush vetoes this POS legislation. We need to mail a tea bag to all our representatives. We fought a war of independence over this very thing and look where we are today.

Posted by burtsb | September 27, 2007 8:57 PM

Teresa , keep your stories straight . You were whining about how your family having no insurance in previous posts while you spinning for Hilary scare care. So keep the propaganda straight next time!
Socialist Queen Hilary wants crummy socialized medicine for the useful idiots like yourself !
She plans on keeping private hospitals and clinics for herself and her fellow socialist elites. Thats how it works in your Garden of Eden , Cuba.
Have you any idea what a disaster socialized medicine is ? Do you realize that half the Canadians have so called ER services while wintering in Florida or Arizona or S Texas ?
Did you know there are private hospitals in England, France , Ireland ,Switzerland for there socialized elites while the serfs wait in year long lines at the Govt run hospitals ?
I know this because I helped set up these private hospitals overseas and guess who are the patients , well, the rich, elected socialist officials, and rich media people ! Funny how CNN, ABC, NBC, all the DNC operations that you get your dose of propaganda don't mention that fact !
Are you that naive and sucked down that much
Clinton kool aid ? I suspect the answer is YES !

Posted by John Cameltoe | September 27, 2007 9:19 PM

The S-CHIP will feed hundreds of sad, gay chilren.

MUST.DO.IT.FOR.THE.CHILRUN'

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 28, 2007 3:59 AM

Nothing like a socialism-based medical bill to get the slack-jawed, cowardly and tyrant wannabe communists out from under their rocks.

Guys like Mike Smith and Waldo (ones who truly cherish their liberty and freedom) are EXACTLY the types these tyrants want under their thumbs...

Remember the long bread lines in Russia? You can't imagine how happy the filthy commies will be when they force you and your family into similar lines. The commies are so immoral and demented, that they will not mind waiting in the very same lines...as long as they have forced their will upon you by destroying YOUR freedom, they will have succeeded. The only way the cowards can achieve this is through the power of Gov.

Long live the “Gov”.

Posted by Teresa | September 28, 2007 8:47 AM

BURTSB -- Teresa , keep your stories straight . You were whining about how your family having no insurance in previous posts while you spinning for Hilary scare care. So keep the propaganda straight next time!
________________________________

Obviously you are a mental midget BurtsB. I said on a previous thread that we pay $500 a month for insurance. I also said that my uncle and aunt were self-employed and had to have family chip in to pay for their health insurance when both got cancer in the last year and were unable to pay their $10,000 premium. How is that saying we have "no insurance"?

Try actually reading a post instead of just being an ass. It might save you from embarrassing yourself.

Post a comment