Quote: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.
Protecting the public health is not charity. Paying to rear children because their parents choose not too is charity. That's the difference. And you really do go down the rabbit hole with the "health care shouldn't be denied" bit. As I said earlier, there are many things far more important to a child on a daily basis that you could just as easily say government should be paying for, but the truth is that it simply isn't my or the public's responsibility and I resent being made to pay for other people's mistakes or bad behaviors. It merely encourages more of the same. If you want more of something then subsidize it, if you want less then tax it. But we can't make the poor pitiful poor who make these mistakes pay for them, instead we subsidize and get more of it.
Quote:Protecting the public health is not charity. Paying to rear children because their parents choose not too is charity. That's the difference. And you really do go down the rabbit hole with the "health care shouldn't be denied" bit. As I said earlier, there are many things far more important to a child on a daily basis that you could just as easily say government should be paying for, but the truth is that it simply isn't my or the public's responsibility and I resent being made to pay for other people's mistakes or bad behaviors. It merely encourages more of the same. If you want more of something then subsidize it, if you want less then tax it. But we can't make the poor pitiful poor who make these mistakes pay for them, instead we subsidize and get more of it.
So if the parent or guardian can't pay for the vaccination you want to be mandatory then what?
How do you think government protecting the public health isn't charity? Any time something is paid for by a non benefiting third party it's charity by definition. You want to forcefully vaccinate all children but you don't want to guarantee them healthcare outside of that? Think about, you just created a situation where the parents not the final authority of the child and the government now dictates the treatment children receive at the cost of the parent. I can't think of a worse system to create.
imagine government choosing which house you'll live in and then telling you pay for it.
I just don't see how you can advocate government force in one aspect and then tell me I'm going down a rabbit hole for saying if we are going to have forced participation the least we can do is guarantee access for children.
I'm not in support of rearing children on the government dole I said one way or another we should and can guarantee children have access to medical treatment, food, shelter and water. All of those are addressed differently but that's not rearing children it's just making sure the most vulnerable among us are not left helpless.
Quote:So if the parent or guardian can't pay for the vaccination you want to be mandatory then what?
Mandatory vaccination programs to protect the public fall under the General Welfare clause the same as having a military, it protects against an existential threat to the entire population. The community benefit to the entire nation is well known.
Quote:Mandatory vaccination programs to protect the public fall under the General Welfare clause the same as having a military, it protects against an existential threat to the entire population. The community benefit to the entire nation is well known.
So you do support government paying for medical treatments.
Quote:So you do support government paying for medical treatments.
As defined by the Constitution. Individual care is charity, not an existential threat.
Quote:As defined by the Constitution. Individual care is charity, not an existential threat.
Now wait a minute, I could loosely build an argument any sickness in society is an existential threat. The qualifier you're attempting to use is pretty broad. I think we both agree we'd prefer a system where government is completely unassociated with medical treatment. However, the reality is we have forced participation in government, we also have forced participation in the medical system, that said the least we should do is ensure children are taken care of.
Quote:Now wait a minute, I could loosely build an argument any sickness in society is an existential threat. The qualifier you're attempting to use is pretty broad. I think we both agree we'd prefer a system where government is completely unassociated with medical treatment. However, the reality is we have forced participation in government, we also have forced participation in the medical system, that said the least we should do is ensure children are taken care of.
Infectious diseases capable of epidemic proportions are much different than primary care. Cancer treatment, diabetes, hyperlipademia, a headache, a cold or many other illnesses; it's not contagious or a danger to anyone who doesn't have it, therefore it's tough to make the case that society should be on the hook for the costs of treatment. They simply aren't a danger to the entire populous the way Polio, Spanish Flu, or the other diseases we vaccinate for are. We all want the very best for everyone, but for me to have to deny my family the best to pay for the care of someone else isn't reasonable.
Quote:Infectious diseases capable of epidemic proportions are much different than primary care. Cancer treatment, diabetes, hyperlipademia, a headache, a cold or many other illnesses; it's not contagious or a danger to anyone who doesn't have it, therefore it's tough to make the case that society should be on the hook for the costs of treatment. They simply aren't a danger to the entire populous the way Polio, Spanish Flu, or the other diseases we vaccinate for are. We all want the very best for everyone, but for me to have to deny my family the best to pay for the care of someone else isn't reasonable.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I'm just saying IF we are going to have a forced participatory system (which is what we have now) then I think we should make sure children across the board are taken care of. How exactly that would work I'd leave for people smarter than myself.
Now when it comes to adults I have a completely different view point, one more in line with we are each responsible for our own. But children, they're dependents you can't expect dependents to bear the responsibility of independents.