Healthcare is a privilege or a right?

[Storm]

Me, I think statements like "would you let a baby die?" Are just too much.

Why? That's what's happening.

I mean, speaking religiously, God lets babies die, does he not? Why aren't you petitioning to pay for healthcare for those in Africa whose babies are dying? What about the entire world? You don't care about African babies just because they don't live near you? What kind of monster are you???!!!

See, that's why I don't worship your God.

As for me, I do what I can with what I have, which isn't much.

When I was in jr. high school I moved from one state to the other. Part of the culture of my new locale was a abhorrance of competition, commendation and of failure of any kind. In P.E. We didn't keep score. If you keep score, someone will win and someone will lose, and that would make the losers feel bad. So to eliminate the bad feelings, we just eliminated the game. No point in getting good at basketball if you can't lose no matter what. I wasn't good at basketball, but I remember thinking this was ridiculous. This same thing applied to sports, grades, and plays and everything. I feel it's this same appeal to the emotions that is used to argue for ANYTHING socialized. "What about the babies?" Everybody loves babies. They're so cuuute. I love babies. I have a baby. He is CUTE. And I would be ruined if he died. I still think we should keep score. Sometimes basketball feels bad. But if you don't keep score, nobody wants to play anymore.

And that's what it comes down to for you, isn't it? Winning. Who cares if losing means I die, so long as you win!

 

[Revoltingest]

And that's what it comes down to for you, isn't it? Winning. Who cares if losing means I die, so long as you win!

What I see in his post is that if we grant without cost "rights" like health care, food, housing & other things which citizens previously
had to work for, it is analogous to granting success without competition. We will lose the desire to strive & succeed by our own hand.
There will be a societal cost to either path: guaranteed health care or individually purchased health care....no perfect solutions.

 

[Kathryn]

All over America due to the fact they must go to an emergency room to see a doctor. This means problems are not found to late.

But wait a damn minute. Every state in the US has a federally funded program to cover uninsured children with state/federally provided health insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/schip.asp


The program was designed with the intent to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

Those whose families make more than the max allowed by Medicaid can be covered by the SCHIP programs at little to no cost.

The largest growing group of uninsured children are those in families in the income category of 200 PERCENT of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, this means their income exceeds %44,000. Now this isn't wealthy by any means, but it does mean that someone in the family has a job. The vast majority of these families would qualify for SCHIP insurance for their children.

States may design their SCHIP programs as an independent program separate from Medicaid (separate child health programs), use SCHIP funds to expand their Medicaid program (SCHIP Medicaid expansion programs), or combine these approaches (SCHIP combination programs). States receive enhanced federal funds for their SCHIP programs at a rate above the regular Medicaid match.

By February 1999, 47 states had set up SCHIP programs, but it took effort to get children enrolled.

In the wake of PresidentObama's inauguration and the Democrats' increased majorities in both houses of Congress, legislative leaders moved quickly to break the political stalemate over SCHIP expansion. On January 14, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2 on a vote of 290-138. The bill authorized spending an added $32.8 billion to expand the health coverage program to include about 4 million more children, including coverage of legal immigrants with no waiting period for the first time. A cigarette tax increase of 62 cents—bringing the total tax on a pack of cigarettes to $1.01—an increase of tax on chewing tobacco from $0.195/lb. to $0.50/lb.—as well as tax increases on other tobacco products will fund the program's expansion. On January 29, the Senate passed the house bill by a 66-32 margin, with two amendments. The House accepted the amended version on a vote of 290 to 135, and President Obama signed the bill into law as Pub.L. 111-3 on February 4, 2009.

On February 4, 2009, President Obama signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009, expanding the healthcare program to an additional 4 million children and pregnant women, including for the first time legal immigrants without a waiting period.


Like I said - the programs are out there. Getting the parents to enroll the kids is a huge part of the challenge.

And I'm sorry, but if you're not at the poverty level, or in a modest income level (the two income levels provided for by MediCAID and SCHIPS) then you need to pay for your own medical insurance - this may require sacrifice on your part, and you may have to drive an older car or live in a smaller house, but it's a responsibility that shouldn't be shoved off on other people.

 

[Storm]

What I see in his post is that if we grant without cost "rights" like health care, food, housing & other things which citizens previously
had to work for, it is analogous to granting success without competition. We will lose the desire to strive & succeed by our own hand.
There will be a societal cost to either path: guaranteed health care or individually purchased health care....no perfect solutions.

We already provide food stamps and government housing, and I don't see any "cost" to either of those. To say nothing of other basic needs like education, and protection by police and firefighters.

Everyone's basic needs should be met. How does doing so harm society?

 

[Kathryn]

Unfortunately, I don't have any data about how many mothers are just irresponsible sluts who don't love their kids, and I doubt that you do, either. In the absence of such data, I guess everybody is free to make whatever uncharitable assumptions he wants.

No, I don't know what the percentage is of irresponsible sluts in Alabama, but I'm sure they exist, as they do just about everywhere.

My point however, as I illustrated in my NUMEROUS posts (and sources) is that the state and federal programs are THERE IN ALABAMA - but the mothers and parents actually have to go SIGN UP FOR THEM AND THEN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF THEIR CHILDREN.

I know - I know - that ****** some people off. I can't help it. It ****** me off too, when babies die because their mothers smoked, drank, had venereal diseases, never went to the doctor even though it would have been free or nearly free.

It really, really ****** me off, but there's not a lot I can do about it other than volunteer my time to educational programs for low income women, which I do - however, I live in Texas, so I do that here, because the health and welfare of women and children is important enough for me to donate time and energy toward on a regular basis.

By the way, Storm - you claimed I brushed Smoke's information aside. How so? I've spent the past hour or more researching state and federal programs that are available to women and children in Alabama. Then I responded thoughtfully and thoroughly with sources (from government program sites - not right wing ******** sights). How is that brushing him off? That's more time than most people around here will spend researching the topic.

And I may for that matter also donate more time to the cause of women's health and healthy children than most people do too - but I don't know, I hope not.

 

[Storm]

By the way, Storm - you claimed I brushed Smoke's information aside. How so? I've spent the past hour or more researching state and federal programs that are available to women and children in Alabama. How is that brushing him off? That's more time than most people around here will spend researching the topic.

Yes, you spent a great deal of time and effort in explaining why his data didn't count. You always do.

 

[Kathryn]

Unlike some people, I insist on being objective in my search for truth through a load of ********.

 

[Storm]

Unlike some people, I insist on being objective in my search for truth through a load of ********.

Of course you do, dear. That's why, when confronted with the very statistics you demanded, you fell back on economic bigotry to defend your position. Because you're so very objective.

 

[Kathryn]

Of course you do, dear. That's why, when confronted with the very statistics you demanded, you fell back on economic bigotry to defend your position. Because you're so very objective.

Wow, did you even READ the full article that Smoke presented as proof that babies are being denied medical care because their parents can't pay for it (which was the question I posed and asked for a source for)?

If you had read the article, you would see that infant mortality rates in Alabama are highest among women who do not have health insurance, and consequently do not have regular prenatal care.

This does NOT mean that they were refused care at any medical facilities. In fact, I can assure you that if they had SOUGHT care at a hospital, they would have received information on how to apply for either Medicaid or SCHIPS, or other state or private programs. Hospitals and doctors, after all, want to get paid - and the funds are available.

This means that they did not GET care - two different scenarios.

My posts showed that there are many state and federal programs available to supplement or provide insurance to women and children in Alabama who are unable to financially afford it.

However, the women actually have to SIGN UP FOR THE PROGRAMS. And then they have to (and this is the really tricky part) actually GO to the doctor appointments, and take care of themselves and their unborn babies and newly born infants.

If they don't - infant mortality rates will rise. Actually - they are lowering in Alabama overall - which is good news. Maybe some of these state and federal programs are working.

 

[Revoltingest]

We already provide food stamps and government housing, and I don't see any "cost" to either of those. To say nothing of other basic needs like education, and protection by police and firefighters.
Everyone's basic needs should be met. How does doing so harm society?

The question is how best to meet basic needs. If everyone were given all the basics in modern life, eg, quality health care, good fresh food, nice apartment, transportation, internet access (including hardware), vacations, good clothing....our taxes would be even higher than they are. How many people would be willing to work & start companies for the benefit of those who don't work? I see these effects, eg a local HVAC company who want to hire, but even at 15%+ unemployment, can't find interested qualified workers. They & I have heard that their unemployment insurance hasn't run out yet, so they're not ready to work. I see us becoming more of a country of cattle, obsessed with a minimum level of comfort & security, but not so focused on achievement. All solutions to problems have costs, & it's wise to be cognizant of them.

Of course you do, dear. That's why, when confronted with the very statistics you demanded, you fell back on economic bigotry....you're so very objective.

Ms K is perhaps too refined to ask the obvious question.....WTF?

 

[Walkntune]

I suppose it's just my opinion that water is wet, too? When you deny life-saving care, like chemotherapy, people die. That's just facts.

Water is wet? Source please!

 

[Kathryn]

There's a huge difference between stating obvious facts, and stating pseudo facts without posting sources to back up the allegations.

Call it cutting and pasting if you want. I call it READING, RESEARCHIING and then posting the information to support my position.

I realize of course that that approach is too analytical for some people.

 

[Kathryn]

Facts are sometimes so inconvenient.

This debate reminds me of another one going on here about teen pregnancy - in which the OP posted a graph which showed that teen births were higher in states that have a more active fundamentalist Christian population. The question posed was "Does fundamentalism increase teen pregnancy rates?" (Actually, the question didn't exactly match up with the graph given, because it didn't take into consideration abortion rates AND birth rates, which would give a more complete picture of teen pregnancy, including the inconvenient FACT that abortion and teen pregnancy rates are HIGHEST in Washington DC and New York state - two bastions of liberal philosophy, practice, and programs, but that's another topic.)

Anyway, I stated that I believed that was too simplistic an approach. I then posted data from the CDC and US Census Bureau on teen pregnancy rates by race, economic status, income level, as well as abortion rates. And I said that in order to truly understand the implications of religion on teen pregnancy rates, we had to look at the FULL picture to put things into perspective.

I said I believe that we have to look at ALL factors in order to determine what, if any, religious orientation plays in the picture of teen pregnancy.

Oh the firestorm this created! Including, of course, the throwing down of the race card and accusations that I was racist.

Which is a laugh, in case there's still the lone soul around here who doesn't know my family's racial makeup (uh, oh, there I go trying to build STREET CRED!).

Even though it is clear -and obvious - and a known fact from a wide variety of neutral and even liberal sources - that the black, and hispanic teen pregnancy rates are higher than white rates, and that Asian rates are the lowest, I was told repeatedly that this "allegation" was racist.

I'm sorry - I'm sorry that teen pregnancy rates are higher in those particular groups, and I'm sorry that white rates are higher than asian rates. But it's just the inconvenient truth.

We have to look at inconvenient truths in order to find REAL solutions.

For instance, in the state of Alabama -in spite of available programs, women are not enrolling themselves and their children in available health programs. Why is that? What's the holdup? Well, we have to look OBJECTIVELY at WHO is not getting enrolled, and then we may be able to figure out WHY.

Then, and only then, we can perhaps come up with a solution to lower the infant mortality rates in Alabama. But to throw even more state and federal money at the problem, and expect poverty-level women and children to pick it up and happily and effectively apply it to their lives just because it's THERE - is in my opinion, a naive approach. They're not taking advantage of the programs which are already available.

I want honest solutions to real problems. This requires objectivity.

 

[Kathryn]

And none of that, my friends, was cut or pasted. It came directly from my heart and my conscience. I sincerely want every child in this country protected and nurtured, but it's a very daunting task, especially when their first line of defense (their parents) so often don't step up to that basic responsibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

I want honest solutions to real problems. This requires objectivity.

"Solutions" & "objectivity" are clearly racist code words.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh, my bad - of course you're right.

 

[ninerbuff]

Not sure what this has to do with my argument?
I think if society is going to pay for healthcare then it should be funded by the very source of bad health. Government should highly tax fast food, alcohol, cigarettes,all junk food.
It should be provided through these taxes.
I think healthy foods should be more affordable.

I agree with you here. They already tax the crap out of cigarettes and though alcohol has some "good" if taken very moderately, it may also need a hike. Fast food and junk food do need to be taxed more, but that may be targeting some poorer families since a lot of junk food is cheap and more can be purchased to feed a family whose income may be limited.
Again though, we can make healthcare much more affordable. Just have to take the profit (not from the doctors, nurses, tech's etc.) but from the admin.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree with you here. They already tax the crap out of cigarettes and though alcohol has some "good" if taken very moderately, it may also need a hike. Fast food and junk food do need to be taxed more, but that may be targeting some poorer families since a lot of junk food is cheap and more can be purchased to feed a family whose income may be limited.
Again though, we can make healthcare much more affordable. Just have to take the profit (not from the doctors, nurses, tech's etc.) but from the admin.

Thank GOD for a voice of reason in a morass of misinformation - and a liberal voice at that.

See how reasonable and consistent my views are? If we are hell bent to provide publically funded healthcare, the only ethical way to do it is to increase taxes on items that erode the health of those who choose to partake of them.

While we're at it, maybe we should add something to our tax code. Maybe we should add the requirement that with our tax returns, we also include a certified letter from our doctor, stating our weight and whether or not our obesity, if present, is due to a medical condition beyond our control, or simply our unfettered desire to overeat. Then those who choose to overeat, and increase their potential and often existing health problems can pay a higher tax rate to offset the costs they will impose on others.

Where do we draw the line between where personal responsibility ends and irresponsibility begins? And why should others subsidize our irresponsible choices?

 

[Smoke]

Smoke, here is some information on programs available to women and children in the "fine" state of Alabama.

I don't know what to say to somebody who lists gathering data, formulating strategies, and creating a Women's Leadership Institute among programs that are available for sick children.

 

[Smoke]

What I see in his post is that if we grant without cost "rights" like health care, food, housing & other things which citizens previously
had to work for, it is analogous to granting success without competition. We will lose the desire to strive & succeed by our own hand.
There will be a societal cost to either path: guaranteed health care or individually purchased health care....no perfect solutions.

I agree. Nothing ****** me off like a damned shiftless lazy infant with its hand out for free medical care. If those little bums want medical care, they should get up off their lazy ***** and get to work. Baby food ads, for instance. Opportunities are out there. They have no one but themselves to blame.