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.

---