Universal coverage for pregnant women and children = 9 days of DOD spending

[HM2VikingRN]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/02/immoral_lack_of_care.php

but even if schip is fully funded, millions of children will still be excluded from health care coverage.

up until now, medicaid and the schip program have made great strides in providing children with health insurance. but even with their successes, one out of every nine of our children is still without health insurance and millions more are underinsured. as congress considers reauthorization of schip this year, we have a unique opportunity to take the next logical, achievable and moral step that would guarantee comprehensive health and mental health care to all children and pregnant women. we at the children's defense fund propose a plan whereby children’s health coverage under medicaid and schip would be consolidated into a single program. this will include a guaranteed, comprehensive benefits package nationwide for children whose family incomes are at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (topping at about $62,000 a year for a family of four).

under the proposal, children currently enrolled in medicaid, schip and means-tested federal programs like school lunch and food stamps would be enrolled automatically, with an opportunity for parents to opt out. uninsured children could also be automatically enrolled when they are born, enter school or get a social security card, again with the opportunity to opt out.

...

another element of the proposal would substantially increase reimbursements to health care providers so children can actually get health services when they need them. and there would be no additional cost to states for child coverage expansion or enhanced benefits.

health coverage can be provided to every child in america in 2007. the funding necessary to expand coverage to all children and pregnant women would be the equivalent to just nine days of defense department spending in 2007, and three months of the tax cuts to the richest one percent of americans this year.

which is of the greater moral value? 20,000 plus in tax cuts for dick cheney and his family or health care for poor children in your community?

[Cosper123]

As opposed to a proposed scheme that would 'force' me to contribute to the health care of deadbeats that don't choose to get their own. (NO, I didn't say that meant everybody not on health insurance now, just the majority, anecotal evidence aside.)

When the political goal of such reforms is to encourage dependence upon gov't, isn't that ALSO contributing to the campaigns of political candidates that wish to pay for their votes with MY dollars?

~faith,

Timothy.

You are forced to contribute? I must somehow of misunderstood social contract theory. I do believe you have a choice to leave if you are not happy with how your "uncle daddy" or whatever you call it is mistreating you.

Anyhow, I don't see how children are deadbeats. I mean I guess you could come to that conclusion, given your false analogy of slavory to universal health care. But before you throw out any more logical fallacies please consider this: The entire point of the OP was to highlight health care for prego women and children.

Who does this benifit? children. Should people be allowed to go willy-nilly with it? No...of course not. But instead of working on solutions to this issue, you would just deny it outright, and completely villify, demonize, and belittle the very idea with colorful fasle analogies about slavory

Extended from that....consider this about universal health care in general...the poor are covered...and the ones who REALLY suffer are lower and mid middle-class. Should we want them to bear some personal responsibility? Of course...but to expect them to do it alone with health costs being what they are...versus what these people make...is insane.

And yeah...your 648 dollars taken out by your "uncle daddy" would have netted you a great retirement. Good luck spending that though in some backwater country with no foundation, general infrastructure, or reliable health care to speak of. Oh yes, and in this world where your taxes didn't go to support the necessary evil government, you probably wouldn't have a job where you'd be making enough to be taxed nearly that much either. There's a bit of a trade off that goes with those taxes, and it doesn't all go to welfare programs and illegal aliens spitting out babies on your porch, in spite of what you may beleive.

Like I said earlier, preventative care is much cheaper than the acute care we are having to provide ANYHOW when things are much worse and expensive.

I must ask, why sign with "faith" in each post? Mind if I ask which religion here, if that is in fact what you are referring to? I am not aware of a God that condones such selfish behavior, who would not support us treating our brothers and sisters in their time of need. I imagine my Lord would prefer that I work towards plugging the loopholes rather than denying all.

But, maybe that's just me. Or him.....

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

But instead of working on solutions to this issue, you would just deny it outright, and completely villify, demonize, and belittle the very idea with colorful fasle analogies about slavery.

The comparson between (historical) slavery and (currently proposed gov't coerced) slavery is not a false dichotomy at all. Read on:

"I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. . . I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse."

- John C. Calhoun.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slavery_a_Positive_Good

The import of this argument: better to be provided for by the 'superintending care' of a master then be left to the vagaries of being poor. It is important to note, however, that this goal, to substitute being poor by the superintending care of a master, was made during the SAME speech that Sen. Calhoun declared, "(Slavery) is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good."

How many times have I heard that universal healthcare is a 'positive good', for the same exact reason . . . better to have a superintending master (in the form of gov't) then to be left to the vagaries of being poor.

Sigh. Same arguments, different generation.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

You are forced to contribute? I must somehow of misunderstood social contract theory. I do believe you have a choice to leave if you are not happy with how your "uncle daddy" or whatever you call it is mistreating you.

In THIS case, instead of leaving at the prospect of the creation of evil in the name of compassion, I instead choose to combat such destructive ideas, in the defense of the liberty my country has long stood to uphold.

As far as misunderstanding 'social contract theory', OUR social contract theory involves the concept of limited, enumerated powers of gov't. You did indeed misunderstand our 'social contract' if you thought it meant that the gov't holds all rights and merely gives some to you, at its leisure.

Our social contract was expressed in limiting the government from doing the very thing you propose.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Simplepleasures]

I must ask, why sign with "faith" in each post? Mind if I ask which religion here, if that is in fact what you are referring to? I am not aware of a God that condones such selfish behavior, who would not support us treating our brothers and sisters in their time of need. I imagine my Lord would prefer that I work towards plugging the loopholes rather than denying all.

But, maybe that's just me. Or him.....

No its not you, its the segment of society that has somehow twisted religous teachings for their own good, never mind all the teachings of Christ about our responsiblities to the poor.I almost starting quoting a bunch of bible passages about this but thought I would use this instead- "It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf ". Walter Lippmann

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

I must ask, why sign with "faith" in each post? Mind if I ask which religion here, if that is in fact what you are referring to? I am not aware of a God that condones such selfish behavior, who would not support us treating our brothers and sisters in their time of need. I imagine my Lord would prefer that I work towards plugging the loopholes rather than denying all.

But, maybe that's just me. Or him.....

Coerced confiscation of wages is NOT charity. How well you contrive to spend MY money is not a mark or measure of how charitable YOU are.

Charity is how you choose to spend YOUR money, not everybody elses.

I reject completely the notion that being entitled to the fruits of my labor is 'selfish'. It is the essense of freedom. Otherwise, you are just somebody's slave.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

No its not you, its the segment of society that has somehow twisted religous teachings for their own good, never mind all the teachings of Christ about our responsiblities to the poor.I almost starting quoting a bunch of bible passages about this but thought I would use this instead- "It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf ". Walter Lippmann

Any Bible quote you could summon up about the concept of charity is not at issue - AT ALL - to the power of a confiscatory gov't.

Your taxes will not be considered 'charity', by ANY definition, to any source.

Jesus did indeed give remarkable quotes about charity. He also said to give to Ceasar what is his. The two thoughts were not intended to be in tandem. You cannot satisfy the New Testament call to charity by simply being a good taxpayer. That misses the point entirely.

To illustrate this point, Jesus made a remarkable comment about JUST such an exercise. Many during his day were counting their contributions to support their elderly as part of their tithes. Jesus railed against that concept. If you ask, I'll find the quote.

How I choose to be charitable is between myself and God. It has nothing to do with gov't. Indeed, helping people to avoid the consequences of their decisions is neither charitable, nor compassionate.

I conceive the concept of charity as an effort to enable others to become better people. I do NOT conceive such concepts along the lines of enabling co-dependent behaviors. I disagree with the gov't managing MY charitable contributions precisely because the gov't, by long experience, has proven itself incapable of making such distinctions.

However, if you REALLY want to bring religion into this, doesn't the so-called 'separation of Church and state' prohibit the religious rewards of charitable giving, as a gov't exercise? Mind you, that 'separation' farce is not MY principle, but I suspect that it is yours.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Simplepleasures]

give no bounties: make equal laws: secure life and prosperity and you will not need to give alms. ralph waldo emerson

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

give no bounties: make equal laws: secure life and prosperity and you will not need to give alms. ralph waldo emerson

and thank god that the united states of america has done more to promote this concept, throughout the world, with the prosperity that comes with its enlightened ideas of capitalism, than any force in the history of the world.

i actually sleep well at night knowing this (or rather, during the day - night worker, don't you know).

we discussed this in a recent thread. over the last 40 yrs, thanks to a wave of capitalist ideas that repudiated social communism, the number of deaths related to starvation has decreased worldwide by almost 2 billion over that 40 yr span. that did not come from gov't mandated socialism. it came by repudiating such mandates, and throwing off tyranny rather than embracing it.

there's a reason why 'eat, there are starving children in china' doesn't carry the weight it did 40 yrs ago. that reason: capitalism.

have you thanked milton friedman today?

~faith,

timothy.

[Simplepleasures]

And thank GOD that the United States of America has done more to promote this concept, throughout the world, with the prosperity that comes with its enlightened ideas of Capitalism, than any force in the history of the world.

I actually sleep well at night knowing this (or rather, during the day - night worker, don't you know).

We discussed this in a recent thread. Over the last 40 yrs, thanks to a wave of capitalist ideas that repudiated social communism, the number of deaths related to starvation has decreased by almost 2 billion. THAT did not come from gov't mandated socialism. It came by repudiating such mandates, and throwing off tyranny rather than embracing it.

~faith,

Timothy.

Yeah I thought you would like that one, BUT your ideas of equal laws and mine will probably be lightyears away from each other.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Yeah I thought you would like that one, BUT your ideas of equal laws and mine will probably be lightyears away from each other.

Because MY ideas of equal laws promote equal opportunity and not equal outcomes.

Go back to the concept of slavery: everybody ruled by the 'master' had the equality of outcome. I do not wish to be ruled by a 'master', whether he bears a whip or a sliderule at the local gov't office. I will not trade my opportunity for a fair share in a dismal outcome.

Indeed, our very concept of gov't is the notion that WE are the masters of gov't, not the other way around. Those ideas are protected ONLY when we steadfastly refuse to give the gov't the power of life and death over us.

He who stands in total control of the edifaces of your wellbeing - he controls YOU. HE is your master.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

A PP (Cosper123) argued that social contract theory argues in favor of universal healthcare. This is not so. OUR social contract is derived from two principle sources. The first is the declaration of Independence which dissolved the bonds of our previous 'social contract', with the British Monarchy. The second is the Constitution of the United States, which created our own social contract, with each other.

That being the case, our social contract is bound to the Constitution. That document created our 'social contract' in an agreement that limits the action of government. Government, in fact, has no power but specific, enumerated powers.

The creation of universal healthcare is not an enumerated power. For the government to implement it would be to violate our social contract.

That the government routinely ignores its obligations under such a social contract has no bearing on the original contact itself.

For example, from Lysander Spooner, 1846, from his book, the UnConstitutionality of Slavery:

"The practice of the government, under the constitution, has not altered the legal meaning of the instrument. It means now what it did before it was ratified, when it was first offered to the people for their adoption or rejection. One of the advantages of a written constitution is, that it enables the people to see what its character is before they adopt it; and another is, that it enables them to see after they have adopted it, whether the government adheres to it, or departs from it. Both these advantages, each of which is indispensable to liberty, would be entirely forfeited, if the legal meaning of a written constitution were one thing when the instrument was offered to the people for their adoption, and could then be made another thing by the government after the people had adopted it.

It is of no consequence, therefore, what meaning the government have placed upon the instrument; but only what meaning they were bound to place upon it from the beginning.

The only question, then, to be decided, is, what was the meaning of the constitution, as a legal instrument, when it was first drawn up, and presented to the people, and before it was adopted by them?"

(It is not merely coincidental that this abolitionist argument applies equally well against the concept of universal healthcare.)

A simple question: name the enumerated power of government that allows for the creation of universal healthcare? If you cannot point to that specific authorization (you cannot; it's not there) in our 'social contract' (the Constitution), then to enact universal healthcare is a violation of that contract (and it would be).

Social Contract theory, as it applies to the U.S., deprives the government of powers necessary to confiscate funds from its citizens for the purposes of supporting a national healthcare system (in effect for the gov't to create and sanction slavery). It is simply not an enumerated power that the government is authorized to tax into being. As such, it would be a violation of social contract theory as such a theory could be applied to the United States.

"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave." - Lysander Spooner.

~faith,

Timothy.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

One hole in the argument about government and charity. I can make a very strong argument that most of the social insurance programs are a reflection and operational extension of religious teachings about caring for the poor and the sick. Each of these interventions (in the US) have been enacted through the legislative process and the consent of the governed. This neither coercive or slavery.

Jim Wallis makes the point that there are over 3000 verses in the bible about caring for the sick and the poor and not one about tax cuts for the rich.

I personally think that the "religious"/antitax/antigovernment crowd are putting mammon and his values ahead of their professed religious faith and duty and that is perhaps the saddest distortion of all.