Now Jerry expressed some great wisdom over here
"Running away from them and calling people who are concerned about them stupid is why the Democratic party is struggling right now..." -- G2ASo I guess we just have to all agree to "What is right" and "What is wrong"... Now I took a shot over here regarding how to end poverty. Maybe we can take a few minutes and solve:
"I would characterize it a different way. They aren't running away from the issues, but rather the "solutions" they themselves have created for these problems. Calling other people stupid for actually wanting to solve the problems rather than continuing Democrat failures is defensive politically, and indefensible rationally. If their defensiveness seems excessive, consider that their scam has just been exposed, and they have a great (and very reasonable) fear that Trump may just succeed where they have failed. Imagine what would happen to the Democrat Party if Trump succeeded even marginally at making life "better" in the urban cores?" Jerry
"I think there are plenty people on both sides who talk better than they listen. :-)" G2A
"The problem with your constant "both sides do it" argument is that it gets us nowhere. If we can successful boil something down to a right way and a wrong way, then one side or the other must be closer to the right and the other side closer to the wrong." Jerry
- Providing good paying jobs for all legal citizens (ie can afford housing, food, healthcare, etc)
- While keeping the price of consumer goods globally competitive
- And ensuring that unscrupulous people do not harm other citizens or the environment.
73 comments:
Stupidity isn't quite the issue. A reason for that is that the problems themselves aren't all that difficult and don't require a high level of intellect either to understand them or solve them. We know how insurance works. We know the benefits in cost and coverage that come with increasing the size of the insurance pool. There are about a million possible solutions which address these issues quite satisfactorily. The problem isn't with what we know and what we understand, the problem is finding the consensus on one solution are political system requires to go forward.
--Hiram
Hiram is correct. Finding a solution or solutions is not difficult. What is difficult is to define the problem. For example, if you say that the problem is "providing good paying jobs for all legal citizens," you have a problem with no rational solution, so long as it is GOVERNMENT doing the "providing." Government cannot provide something to one person that it does not first take from another in some fashion, so the net result must be zero or less. Likewise, government cannot quote keep the price of consumer goods globally competitive." Only free market competition, subject only to the minimum of necessary regulations and taxation, can accomplish that.
In short, if the problem is properly stated as "creating a robust economy in which all legal citizens fully participate," then the obvious first step in the solution is for government to quit trying to solve it. I was highly encouraged to hear Pres. Trump say the intention was to reduce federal regulation by 75%. I don't know whether that was just the opening number in a negotiation, and uninformed exaggeration, or a number backed up by some transition staff report, but I was both surprised and yet willing to believe that number. I have heard various estimates of the total cost of government regulation. Some have said it is over $1 trillion, but I believe it is higher than that, and surely it is not all justified by any reasonable cost-benefit analysis.
It sounds as if there is some question about what is right and what is wrong? I believe it is simple: Right is what accomplishes the objective and Wrong either does not or perhaps even makes the problem worse. The current liberal "solution" to "end poverty" is not working and is arguably making the problem worse. Those continuing to defend that solution and unwilling to try anything else are wrong. Calling them stupid for failing to recognize that simple reality would also be accurate, but not particularly helpful.
Unfortunately the Conservative ideas have failed in the past, that is why we have the failed Liberal policies... That is unless you want to claim that the Great Depression, the poverty and the other huge swings were just historical occurrences that won't come back for some reason.
One more note, back then the government stimulated growth by buying HUGE tracts of land and selling them to citizens at bargain prices. Not a good option today in our city non-agriculture centered world.
So how should we do things differently?
What is difficult is to define the problem.
And that leads us to why we don't have universal care. Too many people are defining the problem in too many ways, and there is no way to limit that. So often I listen to health care debates that seem to be about anything but health care. In a non consensus based system of government, those elements could be winnowed down. But in our system, they remain on the table effectively driving health care reform into the ditch.
"Unfortunately the Conservative ideas have failed in the past, that is why we have the failed Liberal policies..."
There isn't anything conservative, or liberal for that matter, about large insurance pools. And really, they work just fine. Do you really have much trouble with your car or homeowner's insurance? The problem is that health insurance is much more complicated and those complications are allowed to disrupt attempts to reach a consensus.
--Hiram
"The problem is that health insurance is much more complicated "
Only because government has intervened so heavily in the health insurance market. And that was true even before Obamacare. I think it is more correct to say that government has decided that health insurance is somehow different than auto or home insurance, and that somehow having health insurance gets you health CARE. On an effectiveness scale, the old government mandate that anybody, insured or not, could get health care at an emergency room was better. Obamacare was supposed to eliminate that problem and has actually made it worse. Therefore Obamacare is a Wrong solution. Like Will Rogers says, it is when Congress feels it must "do something" that it goes wrong. Sometimes the right thing is to do nothing at all.
Only because government has intervened so heavily in the health insurance market.
When I said health insurance was complicated, the complications I was referring to have to do with the open ended nature of health care. The liability for an insurance company is limited to the value of the car. If the car is totaled, that's all the company will pay. We don't total people. The technology related to cars is also relatively limited. There are only so many ways to smooth out a dent. In the health care field, diagnoses can be much more difficult, and various conditions have a variety of treatment options with different costs. I could go on, but the fact is health insurance is complicated for reasons that have nothing to do with the government. But application of basic insurance principles can go a long way to addressing these problems, and really for most people, health insurance works just fine despite the fact that there is such a thing as government.
Is health insurance different? If your car is damaged in a wreck, is there a limitation on the amount of money you would spend to repair it? If someone close to you contracted a life threatening medical condition, is there a limit on the amount of money you would spend to cure it? If your answer is yes to both, then I would say you do believe the two forms of insurance are the same.
--Hiram
somehow having health insurance gets you health CARE
People seem confused about this. Insurance is about money, not care. Generally speaking the claims adjuster for your car insurance doesn't do the actual work on the car. Similarly, your health insurance guy generally doesn't perform brain surgery.
Concerning emergency room care, that places the burden of paying for health care on hospitals doctors, people like that, which I guess they pass on to you in various forms. Republicans seem to believe health care is free. I assure you it isn't. Somebody always pays for it, and the person who does is the one least adept at shifting costs. Do you think that's you?
--Hiram
We have a president now who despite being a billionaire, hasn't paid income taxes in decades. That's because he hires lobbyists who create loopholes in the tax code, and because he hires tax advisers who show him how to exploit those loopholes.
Do you have lobbyists on your payroll to create loopholes that benefit you? Do you have advisers who show you perfectly legal ways to avoid paying taxes? My guess is that you don't, which is why you pay more in income taxes than Donald Trump. And also why you have in the past and will continue to pay more for the cost of uninsured health care.
--Hiram
I assure you that there ARE limitations on the total amount health insurers will cover. One thing Obamacare did was supposedly to prohibit that "lifetime cap" and thus the cost of insurance goes up, equally without limits. What's really crazy is that government insurance, like Medicare, not only has a cap but will not allow you to pay for additional care once that limit is reached! Sorry, you hit your limit, please die now. Not only that, but Medicare and Medicaid put limitations on the fee to be charged for any given item of care, thus resulting in many unnecessary procedures being done just so the doctor can make expenses. Government price controls don't work.
"Republicans seem to believe health care is free." Quite the contrary. Democrats seem to believe that health care can be delivered to more people, of higher quality and for less cost, simply by passing Obamacare. Their stated preferred alternative, single-payer universal coverage, was not politically palatable and is even less realistic. Certainly it can be done. All government has to do is mandate that health care providers offer their goods and services to anyone that asks at no charge. It's not like we were requiring them to pick cotton, after all. But Democrats have this idea....
There are many limits with car insurance... They are clearly stated on your policy and you pay more if they are higher, or if the deductible is less...
For some reason people think that everyone should have a low deductible plan with no upper limit and it should be cheap. And that there is some way to make this cost effective???
I don't understand.
Again... We do not have a healthcare or health insurance problem!!! We have an income problem... MANY people can not afford the policy we think they should have.
"So I guess we just have to all agree to "What is right" and "What is wrong"... Now I took a shot over here regarding how to end poverty. Maybe we can take a few minutes and solve:
Providing good paying jobs for all legal citizens (ie can afford housing, food, healthcare, etc)
While keeping the price of consumer goods globally competitive
And ensuring that unscrupulous people do not harm other citizens or the environment."
Focus people !!! :-)
Jerry, I think you still owe me a source regarding your opinion that government is a major driver of healthcare costs...
For some reason people think that everyone should have a low deductible plan with no upper limit and it should be cheap. And that there is some way to make this cost effective???
I think what both parties favor is universal access to affordable health care. They disagree about what that means, but the goals are roughly the same.
I would argue that we shouldn't all have to agree on the terms we set to achieve our goals, but our system requires that we do. That's why we have limited health care, and countries that don't operate according a consensnue system do. It's a political problem, not a policy problem.
This isn't the only instance of where our country is breaking down. The inability to fill Scalia's court vacancy was a serious sign that our government is in an advanced state of collapse. And obviously the election of a seriously disturbed man as president of the United States is the clearest evidence at all.
--Hiram
As a general rule, moving from the simple to the complicated, is just about always a move from inexpensive to expensive, easy to more difficult to past. Whenever I hear a politician talking about more choices, I know he also talking about more expense, and a reduction in the political support necessary to get anything in our consensus based governmental system. One thing politicians should not be allowed to do by voters is to take both sides of an issue by imposing the impossible precondition on their support. A politician who says he will vote for a proposition, when snowballs freeze in hell with refrigeration paid for by the Little Sisters of the Poor, doesn't support that policy; he opposes it.
--Hiram
"universal access to affordable health care."
Yes that is a pretty vague wish that I think most people can support.
The vagueness is intentional. The key word in our discourse is "access". When people are talking about that, they are Republican critics of Obamacare. That's not inherent in the word itself, but in the way it's used.
The way I see it, the health care burden is out there, and it must be paid for. It's just a question of who gets the bill. Donald Trump, a man who has a billion dollars, but who pays no income taxes, says you should pay the bill. Is he right?
--Hiram
"I think what both parties favor is universal access to affordable health care."
I think that is close to correct. The difference is that conservatives believe people should be able to CHOOSE their flavor of that, and liberals believe government should choose it AND provide it to everybody.
"For some reason people think that everyone should have a low deductible plan with no upper limit and it should be cheap." You apparently believe that such thinking is incorrect, and you are right to believe that. It isn't possible and probably not even desirable, but the reason people think such is because politicians have repeatedly and forever told them that such magic is possible, if only we vote for THEM. Unfortunately, as Reagan said, "Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." And he should have added, "And that won't be enough."
The whole concept of limited government and individual freedom is stood on its head when we talk about what "we want everybody to have." You should be entitled to all of the health care that you personally can afford, and that a provider is willing to give for that price, augmented by whatever personal or collective charity might choose to contribute. If you choose insurance against a catastrophic cost, you should get what you pay for. "We" should have no part whatsoever in that exchange, certainly not as unwilling participants in the cost, nor in ways that would make it more expensive for you.
Yes we know the Conservative mantra...
If you can not afford healthcare and no private party is willing to pay your bills... You should be allowed to die in the street...
If you are wealthy, you should have access to unlimited healthcare...
Apparently people were dying on the street for years, until Obamacare came along? It's a great political tear-jerking canard, but like most liberal pronouncements is not reflective of any known reality. We already had a law that said anybody could get care in an emergency room. We had charity hospitals. We have Christian cost-sharing organizations. Some folks believe that if the government doesn't do something, it doesn't get done, when the truth is often the opposite. To err is human, but to really gum things up requires government.
And what is your objection? If you have a moral objection to people "dying in the street" then why isn't it =your= obligation to use =your= money to prevent that? Why should I not have the same freedom?
"The whole concept of limited government and individual freedom is stood on its head when we talk about what "we want everybody to have." You should be entitled to all of the health care that you personally can afford, and that a provider is willing to give for that price, augmented by whatever personal or collective charity might choose to contribute. If you choose insurance against a catastrophic cost, you should get what you pay for. "We" should have no part whatsoever in that exchange, certainly not as unwilling participants in the cost, nor in ways that would make it more expensive for you."
Then we can no longer call ourselves civilized. It's the same old survival of the fittest...but that's not what human civilization, and certainly Christian civilization, is supposed to be about.
Joel
Apparently people were dying on the street for years, until Obamacare came along?
It really isn't a question of dying on the street, exactly. Obamacare wasn't about health care as such, it's about paying for health care. Just like auto insurance isn't about car repairs, it's about paying for car repairs.
--Hiram
"Then we can no longer call ourselves civilized." Nor can we call ourselves intelligent and rational. Or even Christian. Nowhere in my Bible does it say that government is responsible for the care of the poor. Again, Joel, you seem to be of the assumption that if government does not do something it does not get done at all. Yet there is nothing in the notion of everyone paying their own way and deciding how to spend their own wealth which prohibits them from asking for or receiving help from their fellow Americans. Except, perhaps, for massive government interference and regulation.
Joel,
Maybe not only survival of the fittest, I think there is some survival of the luckiest in there too.
Be it folks like me who were blessed to be born to responsible serious hard working smart well off Parents, or that child who gets cancer when they are cute, young and meet the desires of the charitable.
"Joel, you seem to be of the assumption that if government does not do something it does not get done at all."
No. I am saying, correctly, that Conservatives are against pooling resources to help EVERYONE in the community. You don't understand what it means to be civilized.
Joel
You are saying that in your opinion Conservatives are against pooling resources for the common good. Since I am a conservative and believe in all sorts of pooling-- insurance for those who buy it, community centers for those that want to build it, roads for taxpayers to drive on, etc., even publicly-funded education-- I can say definitively you are at least over-generalizing and probably just plain wrong. And "civilized" means that everyone contributes to the common good. What you are proposing is that some are entitled to that which others contribute. That is survival of the unfittest.
The problem is that health care doesn't fit into a neat, small-minded box in the way you think those other things do.
Joel
Joel,
Then help us understand. How does forcefully taking money from Jerry to pay for Bob's health insurance help our society / common good?
I see a significant benefit for Bob, however if in our civilized liberal society we give Bob food, shelter, healthcare, etc at Jerry's expense... Is this really fair and/or civilized? Does it encourage either Jerry or Bob to work harder, learn, improve, etc to make our society better?
By the way... civilized
1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or relating to civilized people:
The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered:
The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.
Does it do anything the to solve the topics of this post...
Maybe we can take a few minutes and solve:
•Providing good paying jobs for all legal citizens (ie can afford housing, food, healthcare, etc)
•While keeping the price of consumer goods globally competitive
•And ensuring that unscrupulous people do not harm other citizens or the environment.
I do not believe we are going to solve the problem as you have stated it. The wrong way to do this has been tried for years, with government trying to provide "everything for everybody" and not recognizing that the only way to do that is to take everything from everybody and then redistribute it. The net wealth creation is zero, and that assumes a completely "frictionless" means of accomplishing that transfer. It's a marvelous perpetual motion machine.
The right way to do this is for society to expect everyone to pull their own weight to the degree possible, and for government to make certain they have the opportunity to do so, unhampered to the degree possible by the rest of us. In short, a free economy with just enough government regulation to prevent us from seriously harming one another.
The only way to create wealth is to have people working, and any government action which either penalizes people for working (like taxes or regulation) or fails to provide them incentives and opportunities to work (free welfare, failed education) subtracts from wealth production.
"The problem is that health care doesn't fit into a neat, small-minded box in the way you think those other things do."
All the more reason why government-nose-best one-size-fits-all healthcare should be eliminated in favor of letting patients and doctors do what makes the most sense for them on an individual basis.
Jerry,
I am sorry but a person making $10 / hr is not going to be able to pay for that CAT scan... Or cancer treatment...
My point is that our society / government does have role to play in this... The question is how to do it more effectively.
And unfortunately most of our laws and regulations are in place because at sometime a freeloading person / business tried to abuse our society's trust, for their gain.
You are falling for the storyline, again, that if the guy needs a CAT scan and cannot afford it, the only way he gets one is if government takes money out of your pocket and gives it to the CAT-scan operator on his behalf. That's wrong. The man is not /entitled/ to a CAT scan, even if his doctor believes it essential (i.e. not just "defensive medicine" or "bill padding"). Now, if we collectively decide that his health is of value to the economy in general, it makes some sense that we would subsidize the insurance he wants to buy, to cover such things. Or, being a charitable people, we might allow a charity hospital to give it to him. Or we could allow a certain amount of "bad debt" in medicine, which the rest of us pay for with increased premiums, or a tax write-off for medical providers. All kinds of alternatives, in other words. And if we quit putting health providers in a sealed box of government rules, somebody will find a way that a guy making $10 CAN afford a CAT scan, or something as good.
"And unfortunately most of our laws and regulations are in place because at sometime a freeloading person..." Unfortunately, most of our laws and regulations are in place because some politician found some "problem," however minuscule and easily preventable, and wrote a complex, overweening law that made the problem worse, requiring ANOTHER law or regulation to fix.
Still waiting for some source to back up this opinion / wishful thinking...
"If we quit putting health providers in a sealed box of government rules, somebody will find a way that a guy making $10 CAN afford a CAT scan, or something as good." Jerry
And I have never thought of CAT scans as "just defensive medicine"... Is that what a chemo and radiation regimen is for someone with cancer?
"If we quit putting health providers in a sealed box of government rules, somebody will find a way that a guy making $10 CAN afford a CAT scan, or something as good." Jerry
What is being asked here is for markets to be opened up. The same thing sells for different prices because it is sold in different marketplaces. AIDS drugs are sold at a much cheaper price in Africa than they are in the United States. The Premier League soccer TV package I watch isT much more expensive in Britain than it is here. There isn't anything wrong with that and upon consideration there isn't anything surprising about that either. Markets, like the products that are sold in them, also respond to the forces of supply and demand.
--Hiram
Everyone has a right to health care. Period.
Joel
An interesting quote: "... it might make more sense to seek out a cash-based center like the Premier Medical Imaging facility in Minneapolis, which offers a basic MRI for $499, than to cough up the several thousand dollars that the same procedure generally costs at a traditional hospital [following government rules]."
Joel, That was not a very inspiring argument...
So what civic responsibilities come with that right to healthcare, housing, food, etc???
What consequences should occur if people fail to fulfill the civic responsibilities?
It is usually less expensive to build a house if you choose to work as the General Contractor...
Maybe I should run down to Premier for an image... Now what should I have them image? Then what?
The next question is the hospital more expensive because of government, general contractors (Doctors), general contractor liability, multipurpose facilities, insurance costs/profits, hospitals caring for poor, bill collection, etc... Probably some of all.
Joel, if everyone has a right to health care, then doctors cannot be allowed to charge for their services, correct? To do so would impede what you claim is a "right." Unfortunately for your argument, the doctor has a right to be reimbursed for his labor, unless you are willing to re-instate slavery in this country. Is that where you are headed?
Let's try something less simplistic and more accurate: Health care consists of a package of goods and services that should be individually obtained in the free market, with minimal government regulation and interference.
"Probably some of all." No doubt. So how about we take out those cost contributors over which the hospital has control, and what is left? Government, in the form of insurance costs, billing and paperwork costs, mandates, liability...
I find it fascinating and troubling that Conservatives are always ready to find a reason why a person is not worthy and should die for lack of health care, rather than the moral and right attitude that a person is worthy because they are a person, and there is no more to say than that.
Joel
Joel,
I know there are free loaders and crooks at all income levels... And the Liberals are happy to accuse the successful folks of all manner of sins... Why do Liberals refuse to acknowledge the free loaders and crooks at lower income levels?
Remember what I asked before
Joel,
Then help us understand. How does forcefully taking money from Jerry to pay for Bob's health insurance help our society / common good?
I see a significant benefit for Bob, however if in our civilized liberal society we give Bob food, shelter, healthcare, etc at Jerry's expense... Is this really fair and/or civilized? Does it encourage either Jerry or Bob to work harder, learn, improve, etc to make our society better?
Joel,
By the way, I am still interested in an answer.
So what civic responsibilities come with that right to healthcare, housing, food, etc???
What consequences should occur if people fail to fulfill the civic responsibilities?
Bob is a person, therefore Bob has a right to health care. It's really quite simple. I question the morality of finding excuses for denying health care. It doesn't matter if you think Bob is worthy due to not living up to your or anyone else's ideals.
Joel
Now Jerry is a person who works to save, invest, pay their insurance bills, etc...
So it is okay to forcefully take money from Jerry and his kids to give it to Bob no matter what life choices Bob has made?
I never understand Liberals... You seem to think that people have rights to everything, with no equivalent social responsibilities...
The irony of course is that for your logic to work, you demand a huge social responsibility from the workers, learners, savers, investors, etc of the world in the form of huge taxes paid.
It is just like that part of Atlas Shrugged when Hank's nephew demanded and guilted Hank to give money to the nephew's preferred charity. Then the nephew asked that Hank's name not be on the donation because the nephew did not want his Liberal friends to know where the money came from.
Hank agreed but this is when he saw the irony that Liberals rely and feed on the strong moral fabric that Conservatives / Builders have... Soon after he left his wife, nephew and the other leeches behind and hooked up with that hot Dagny...
Joel, a "right" is something that one can exercise without impinging on any other person. My right to free speech can be exercised with no obligation on anyone to listen. My rights can only be reduced by government, not granted by it. Health care is not a right because I cannot get it without a doctor, pharmacist, or somebody working to give it to me. Nor can government grant me that "right" for the same reason. Liberals like to use that word "right" for everything, and almost always incorrectly.
Right - a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
Responsibility: a thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role, or legal obligation.
Jerry,
I think you are incorrect. I think being a citizen means having Rights and Responsibilities.
So if Bob does have a Right to Healthcare that is subsidized or paid for by the government, what is he responsible for?
If you have a responsibility to pay taxes as a member of of this society, what rights do you have?
Being a citizen does indeed mean you have rights and responsibilities, however, the rights you have are "inalienable"-- granted by God and to remain unhampered by government without due cause. They are not granted by government but they may be curtailed, like the old case of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or breaking windows, assaulting people and setting fires to object to our new President. We have the responsibility to not extend our "rights" beyond those reasonable limits.
Bob does not have a "right" to health care, and government has no "right" to take from you to pay for it. In fact, that it must be paid for by somebody is definitive proof that health care is not a "right."
You raise a good question. If the government can tax me for NOT buying something I neither need nor want, what rights DO I retain?
As soon as you provide a document from God that specifies those rights... And shows that she is going to enforce them... We can talk...
Until then our society / government gets to define our rights and responsibilities.
We choose to live within the borders of this society, therefore the society gets to determine the rules. Thankfully we were lucky enough to be born in or gain access to the USA. Where we have many rights and only a few responsibilities.
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,..."
Sound familiar? Government does not grant rights, it secures them (from harm). As for our responsibilities, those are also spelled out. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Show me in the Constitution where I have to pay for Bob's health care.
Our society, through our government, has interpreted "promote the general Welfare" as the members of society will pay enough in extra taxes to ensure that the poor and disabled are cared for...
That seems pretty clear given that we currently fund medicaid, welfare and other services.
The nice thing about our society is that the interpretations of these Rights and Responsibilities can and have changed over time. Maybe in 100 years we will be back to a more charity oriented and self centered interpretation like in the 1800's.
Of course the irony is that the:
Liberals swear that we are not collecting and redistributing enough...
and
Conservatives are certain that we are collecting and redistributing too much.
If health care is not a right, then you are okay with people not getting health care that they need. I can only say that I hope you never have to experience the things that you allow to happen to other people.
Joel
Joel, Thank you for being concerned.
If health care is a right, then who in their right mind would willingly become a health care provider? There would be no money in it; you would starve and not be able to afford your own health care. I am perfectly OK with people not getting the Cadillac or mansion or filet mignon they "need." I do not believe I owe them even a bicycle or a hamburger as a "right." I do believe they have the right to acquire those things by spending their own money on them, and should have the right to the /opportunity/ to acquire that wealth. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome.
Saying health care is a right is another way of saying that you WANT everybody to have it because you care. So long as you pay for what you want that is a wonderful and very humanity-affirming thing. When you demand /I/ pay for it, it is ... not.
As I said...
"Conservatives are certain that we are collecting and redistributing too much."
By the way, as long as society is paying a fair wage. There will be no shortage of healthcare personnel.
"Equality of opportunity, not of outcome."
Health care does not fit this paradigm.
Joel
Joel,
Why not?
Every American gets a free K-12 education, has access to free libraries and can pursue any career they wish. Now if they choose to work to pay for things and pay their health insurance premium seems to be up to them.
Joel, this isn't a paradigm, this is the essential of a free society.
I will never be able to convince you to be Pro-Life if you can't see that people deserve health care because they are people.
Joel
People deserve health care, along with food, clothing and shelter. The only question is who is going to pay for it? And if you don't pay enough, who will bother to provide any of those things? Remember the bare shelves on supermarkets in Russia? Do you know 20% of Venezuelans know get some of their meals from dumpsters and cannot afford toilet paper, when it is even available? You may not realize it, but you are proposing exactly that system for health care, and it won't work.
Joel,
We are Pro Life, however we expect people to meet us half way. If a person chooses to be irresponsible, slothful and just live off the efforts of their fellow Americans... They have chosen their bed and must lie in it.
Again... What do you think citizens are responsible for doing in America?
What do you want to do if they choose to ignore those responsibilities?
Just keep sending them checks from the pockets of other citizens?
And what does pro-life have to do with it? Natural childbirth is not a medical procedure (can and should be, perhaps) but abortion definitely IS a medical procedure and it is 100% fatal to one of the two people involved. Don't both "deserve health care"?
"We are Pro Life, however we expect people to meet us half way."
Then you've put conditions on mercy. Thankfully, I know a God that's very unlike most professed Christians.
"And what does pro-life have to do with it?"
That you can't connect health care and Life in your brain tells me a lot about you.
Who is the Alien?
Who is the Outcast?
Who is the hungry one barred from the Feast?
Who is the Widow, the Slave, and the Orphan?
These are our neighbors, the last and the least.
Joel
Jerry,
You are taking the Pro Life thing too specifically... He is using it as a generic term.
Joel,
You did not answer my questions. You deflected as usual.
It seems you believe that every person standing on American soil has many Rights and no Responsibilities. Even the Bible preached about the importance of working, and the evil of sloth...
Joel,
Just curious? How many homeless people do you have living in your home this winter?
Why or why not?
Some interesting Links
Enabling
Helping or Enabling
"I’ve learned that some make it, and some don’t.
I’ve learned that those who make have stopped being victims – of themselves or their circumstances or their past – by deciding to take ownership over the consequences of their prior bad decisions and by taking ownership over doing what’s necessary to become the men and women God calls them to be.
I’ve learned that those who make it have also dropped their attitude of entitlement – that God or society or others own them something – and exhibit instead an attitude of gratitude.
I’ve learned that you can help such men and women — not because they are perfect, but because they are finally dealing with their imperfections.
Finally, I’ve learned this hard, hard lesson: If someone decides to constantly remain stuck in their sin, immaturity and hurts – to continue being a victim and entitled – “helping” quickly crosses the line into “enabling” because it facilitates continued bad choices. This causes more harm than good.
I’ve learned that I need to find joy in those who decide to move forward and live truly redeemed lives, and not be consumed by grief over those who don’t. (This is a hard one.)
My prayer it this: Dear God, give us all the grace, the wisdom and the courage to understand the difference between helping and enabling.
~ Jim Wright"
"How many homeless people do you have living in your home this winter?"
None THIS Winter, but there is one resident who would be homeless except for the help he receives through the collective power of the American people (Government).
There is one other resident, my partner, who is a legal immigrant to this country, who has worked hard to advance his opportunities through education, and whose new job will take him out of the country for work on a regular basis, and who now doesn't know if he'll be allowed back in after one of his work trips because of the actions of a petulant child in the White House and his inner circle of fascists.
So, you can dispense with your lectures. You are blind to the real problems and struggles that people face because you've been part of the privileged class your entire life and you're happy to let people suffer because they don't meet your definition of 'worthy'.
Joel
Wow, project much? You have no idea to whom you are speaking, nor what their inmost thoughts may be. And I double dog dare you to get a job, or a major handout, from a poor guy. Those who are rich spend more on philanthropy and helping people than the poor do, despite, perhaps, the same attitudes and motivations. Therefore a little gratitude is an essential part of the process, as is that feeling of actually helping. Government welfare corrupts both ends of that transaction, dehumanizes it and therefore fails to actually help. All for charity, none for enabling.
As for your partner, if he is not from one of the 7 terrorist-run countries he is OK. If he is, then all he has to do is wait 90 days while this gets sorted. Really, have we all reached Peak Hissy Fit yet?
Actually, if he is a PR he doesn't even have to wait that long. Of the 109 people detained since the EO was issued, all have been allowed to go on their way.
Joel,
You can preach all you want about "other people" should be doing to help the poor and unfortunate...
The question is what are you doing?
Jerry and I write sizeable checks... And it sounds like Jerry volunteers time and effort...
Post a Comment