Quote:The statement is confusing I'm not following you.
He's saying that it's okay to refuse a child medical care if they can't afford it, because otherwise how can you refuse them other services if they can't afford it, I think.
Quote:There are controls in the legislation that require the insurance companies to refund premium dollars to subscribers if they don't pay out a certain percentage of those premiums as claims. But you're also right that the insurance companies are the biggest beneficiaries of the ACA. They either profit or the government bails them out.
Insurance companies were and remain the main problem with our healthcare system. ACA does some things but fix the main problem it does not.
Quote:Why should a child be refused whatever service you happen to provide to earn your living? We should pay for them to have that too.
Quote:He's saying that it's okay to refuse a child medical care if they can't afford it, because otherwise how can you refuse them other services if they can't afford it, I think.
Ok I get what he's saying now.
Flsprtsgod, I believe in protection of life and property, I believe that is the only legitimate role of government, to protect the life of innocents and the private property of citizens. That said when it comes to children I believe they fall under the umbrella of life that is to be protected. That's why we have laws specifically against child abuse, sexual assault, neglect and so on, denying a child healthcare because of the financial ability of their parents or legal guardians to pay is failing to protect the Innocent life of a dependent. I'm not advocating medical personal not be paid for their services, I'm saying I would support legislation that socialized medicine for children because they're not yet of age to be legally responsible for their own well being. Government on the other hand has no role in providing healthcare for adults, that is their responsibility as independent adults.
Also 100% socialized medicine would bankrupt any nation especially one our size with our lack of immigration control. I do however believe we can and should be able to find ways to take care of our children, if it means in that case I pay more taxes, I'd be fine with it. I'd support a system where we said "ok doctor do what you have to for this child, the bill is covered".
For the same reasons above I'm passionately anti-abortion.
Quote:Ok I get what he's saying now.
Flsprtsgod, I believe in protection of life and property, I believe that is the only legitimate role of government, to protect the life of innocents and the private property of citizens. That said when it comes to children I believe they fall under the umbrella of life that is to be protected. That's why we have laws specifically against child abuse, sexual assault, neglect and so on, denying a child healthcare because of the financial ability of their parents or legal guardians to pay is failing to protect the Innocent life of a dependent. I'm not advocating medical personal not be paid for their services, I'm saying I would support legislation that socialized medicine for children because they're not yet of age to be legally responsible for their own well being. Government on the other hand has no role in providing healthcare for adults, that is their responsibility as independent adults.
Also 100% socialized medicine would bankrupt any nation especially one our size with our lack of immigration control. I do however believe we can and should be able to find ways to take care of our children, if it means in that case I pay more taxes, I'd be fine with it. I'd support a system where we said "ok doctor do what you have to for this child, the bill is covered".
For the same reasons above I'm passionately anti-abortion.
Power and water are more important to the well being of children, so we should cover their JEA bill too. And having a house, and a car, and clothes, and surely food. Any of those things are just as, if not more important than healthcare on a daily basis. The issue is always the same, once you start paying there's no limit to what the do gooders can find for you to pay for.
Quote:Power and water are more important to the well being of children, so we should cover their JEA bill too. And having a house, and a car, and clothes, and surely food. Any of those things are just as, if not more important than healthcare on a daily basis. The issue is always the same, once you start paying there's no limit to what the do gooders can find for you to pay for.
So now people wanting good has now been lumped with intellectuals, academics and scientists as dirty dirty words.
.gif "Laughing")
Quote:Power and water are more important to the well being of children, so we should cover their JEA bill too. And having a house, and a car, and clothes, and surely food. Any of those things are just as, if not more important than healthcare on a daily basis. The issue is always the same, once you start paying there's no limit to what the do gooders can find for you to pay for.
Ah, that slippery slope again. Doing good is so dangerous. One day we save a child from disease, the next thing...
...SOCIALISM!
Wont somebody think of the children???????
Quote:So now people wanting good has now been lumped with intellectuals, academics and scientists as dirty dirty words.
C.S Lewis had wonderful words about the tyranny of the do gooders and he was dead on.
Quote:Power and water are more important to the well being of children, so we should cover their JEA bill too. And having a house, and a car, and clothes, and surely food. Any of those things are just as, if not more important than healthcare on a daily basis. The issue is always the same, once you start paying there's no limit to what the do gooders can find for you to pay for.
Those are all addressed differently but certainly you agree children should be guaranteed food water and shelter don't you? I go back to a point I've made in different discussions different levels of government play different roles. And likewise government plays a different role in the lives of children than in adults.
I can't name any society in the history of mankind that DIDNT defend and provide for their children. The child's primary care taker and authority is their parent but if that parent fails to provide or neglects to provide for the child then yes I support a system that fills the void. Now for adults I have a very different view on governments role.
Quote:Those are all addressed differently but certainly you agree children should be guaranteed food water and shelter don't you?
Guaranteed? No. The idea that government is the way for this happen is the antithesis of Libertarianism. Society can provide plenty of mechanisms for this kind of charity work without it being a government mandate.
Davy Crockett said it best: "We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
Quote:This is news! Obama has assumed the presidency of Cornell University.
He doesn't have to be the school's president for his policy to have an impact.
Quote:Guaranteed? No. The idea that government is the way for this happen is the antithesis of Libertarianism. Society can provide plenty of mechanisms for this kind of charity work without it being a government mandate.
Davy Crockett said it best: "We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
If Charity worked as well as you seem to think it does, we wouldn't have need for social programs in the first place.
Quote:Guaranteed? No. The idea that government is the way for this happen is the antithesis of Libertarianism. Society can provide plenty of mechanisms for this kind of charity work without it being a government mandate.
Davy Crockett said it best: "We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
We're all willing to compromise to a point, Libertarianism at it's core is a philosophy built on individuals being equally free and responsible for their own well being. A child who is neither free nor capable of being responsible for themselves certainly shouldn't be held accountable for the actions or inaction of their custodians. To damn a child to homelessness, hunger, sickness because their parents decisions to me is not only immoral but defaulting on the few legitimate roles of a government, protection of life.
Now we can argue how these issues should be addressed but I'm coming from the aspect that all children should be one way or another provided for until they are of age and made free and responsible for their own well being.
I never have and never will argue a child from birth should be left to circumstances they have no control over. The only legitimate role of government is to protect life and property, otherwise let's just embrace anarchism and let the chips fall where they may.
Quote:If Charity worked as well as you seem to think it does, we wouldn't have need for social programs in the first place.
I do think charities are more effective then social programs, but there is certainly a role for both of them to play in today's society. I believe if social programs where solely funded by the local communities and states instead of the bottomless pit of the federal government, they would be much more efficient.
Quote:C.S Lewis had wonderful words about the tyranny of the do gooders and he was dead on.
Quote:I do think charities are more effective then social programs, but there is certainly a role for both of them to play in today's society. I believe if social programs where solely funded by the local communities and states instead of the bottomless pit of the federal government, they would be much more efficient.
No no no. You don't understand. Doing good for society is tyranny! We must do bad!!!!! :yes:
Quote:Wont somebody think of the children???????
We can't have these little [BAD WORD REMOVED] suckin' off the public teet for 18 years. However, I'm all for the govt subsidizing a box of chiclets to every street urchin so they have an opportunity to support themselves. Surely, they could earn enough to cover ACA co-pays , a bowl of gruel and a sturdy cardboard box.*
Quote:C.S Lewis had wonderful words about the tyranny of the do gooders and he was dead on.
Do you agree with Lewis when he said
"It may be better to live under robber barons..."?
Quote:Do you agree with Lewis when he said "It may be better to live under robber barons..."?
I agree with his sentiment that tyranny for your own good can be more difficult to escape.
Quote:No no no. You don't understand. Doing good for society is tyranny! We must do bad!!!!! :yes:
Do good all you want to, I'm not stopping you. Forcing me to do good on your behalf isn't doing good no matter the outcome or, as I said, the ends justify the means.
Quote:Do good all you want to, I'm not stopping you. Forcing me to do good on your behalf isn't doing good no matter the outcome or, as I said, the ends justify the means.
You seem to only support government force when you agree with it, for example we can go back to the vaccines where you advocate forced vaccination. So I'm confused who sets the standard for when the force of government is acceptable and when it's not?
To me the only time the force of government is acceptable is to defend the life of an innocent or the private property of a citizen if we agree on that I don't see where you can justify not granting security for minors as they are the definition of innocent.
If we accept a government that forces participation why is it unacceptable to expect government to protect the most innocent when the time is needed. I'm in no way advocating government replace parents, quite contrary I fully support the parents authority which is why we disagree on forced vaccinations, but the reality is not all parents even remotely attempt to provide for their children. These children were discussing have no parental protection or guardian providing for them that's where government can play a role. No child should every be denied healthcare because of their parents or guardians ability to pay. If we're going to have a Darwinist vision of society then go all the way abolish all forms of government and institute a voluntary society.