Obama signs kids' health insurance bill ($32.8 billion)

#126
#126
truefan said:
Totally agree with this statement;however, there are still too many children who aren't getting proper healthcare because their parents can't afford it. I have seen it first hand.
Click to expand...
I don't buy that kids aren't getting healthcare. Regardless, giving it away simply means we're going to be caring for more and more of them over time. We've proven that this model doesn't work.

I like the feel good of helping the kids, but not at the expense of the next 5 generations paying for more and more of them and doing so in as inefficient a manner as possible.
 
#127
#127
VolByBirth said:
That doesn't make sense. Typically children without health care are from poorer areas. The local community and churches are usually funded by it's members of the community -- doesn't seem as though they'd have much in their coffers to dole out.
Click to expand...

Right, after government is out of the way $$$$$$$ for charity!

What do you know, it would be voluntary....
 
#128
#128
truefan said:
Totally agree with this statement;however, there are still too many children who aren't getting proper healthcare because their parents can't afford it. I have seen it first hand.
Click to expand...

but the solution isn't a Federal Government Program. It should be a state issue.
 
#133
#133
BigPapaVol said:
I don't buy that kids aren't getting healthcare. Regardless, giving it away simply means we're going to be caring for more and more of them over time. We've proven that this model doesn't work.

I like the feel good of helping the kids, but not at the expense of the next 5 generations paying for more and more of them and doing so in as inefficient a manner as possible.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you buying it??? Also, you obviously are a very conservative thinker, but don't downgrade those that disagree with you by positing hasty generalizations on them (ie. calling them socialists, trying to dissect their real motives, etc)..

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that too much emphasis is put on one's own income/how much money that have in their pocket and NOT on quality of life/happiness, including your own..

Isn't that what really matters? The way people talk on here you would think that the 1990's were miserable and that all of you all were poor because of all the social programs....

And to go further, I imagine you and most everyone else on this board voted for Bush in 2004. Yet, the government grew exponentially during his time in office! So, in the end, is it that the Government should grow if what is at stake is national security, etc but should not grow if it involves social programs to help lower income families?? the reason I bring that up is because the talk thus far has been mostly on "big government or small government" but that doesn't suffice when you look at how much larger our government got under Bush.
 
#134
#134
WPAINE said:
Why aren't you buying it??? Also, you obviously are a very conservative thinker, but don't downgrade those that disagree with you by positing hasty generalizations on them (ie. calling them socialists, trying to dissect their real motives, etc)..

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that too much emphasis is put on one's own income/how much money that have in their pocket and NOT on quality of life/happiness, including your own..

Isn't that what really matters? The way people talk on here you would think that the 1990's were miserable and that all of you all were poor because of all the social programs....

And to go further, I imagine you and most everyone else on this board voted for Bush in 2004. Yet, the government grew exponentially during his time in office! So, in the end, is it that the Government should grow if what is at stake is national security, etc but should not grow if it involves social programs to help lower income families?? the reason I bring that up is because the talk thus far has been mostly on "big government or small government" but that doesn't suffice when you look at how much larger our government got under Bush.
Click to expand...

Kids get healthcare, period. Who did I call a socialist? I called federal healthcare a disastrous social program. It is, regardless of my political bent.

WTF dies Bysh have to do with this being atrocious policy? Bush was an idiot. This policy is idiocy. So what? Free stuff has proven disastrous in this country.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#135
#135
MG1968 said:
name one government run social program that is both efficient and effective.

oh, and I forgot to add another requirement. Six, the parents are naturalized US citizens with verifiable work histories.
Click to expand...

What variables make a program effective and efficient???? That is like saying that your Mom and Pap store down the road is better because it is more effective and efficient than say Wal-Mart.... (I am not trying to start a debate about the issue of Wal-Mart taking over the world or anything, but my point is that I don't know what the point of your post was).... Certainly Medicare and Medicaid have helped a lot of people over their time....

I agree with the Conservative view point that things would be much better if the Government were left out, but that is giving a very positive outlook on individual people, and that is where the big difference lies..I don't think people go to a store and check and make sure they are buying American products over China, and I don't think the CEO's of major corporations stay up late at night worrying about how they are going to raise enough money to open up an orphanage or something.... I'm not placing value judgments on them, just saying that this is why I believe in a bigger government, because I quite frankly don't trust that it will get resolved by the people....

We have the same end goal: i.e. make sure every child has healthcare. We just have different ways of getting there. I trust a government that is unable to abandon the people's viewpoints too drastically (because of elections) than I do people... I imagine you and other conservatives have a much more positive outlook on people than I do...
 
#136
#136
BigPapaVol said:
Kids get healthcare, period. Who did I call a socialist? I called federal healthcare a disastrous social program. It is, regardless of my political bent.

WTF dies Bysh have to do with this being atrocious policy? Bush was an idiot. This policy is idiocy. So what? Free stuff has proven disastrous in this country.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


He doesn't have anything to do with this policy, I never said he did??? I DID say that the gov't def. got bigger under his administration despite the fact that most of the Republican Party believes in smaller government.... So maybe I misread and it wasn't one of your posts but there were posts on here that mentioned the need for small government etc and I just find it hard since these same people probably also voted for Bush... So I wanted to clarify what actually should be smaller - i.e. social programs, and what was acceptable for a government to get bigger - i.e. national security....
 
#137
#137
WPAINE said:
He doesn't have anything to do with this policy, I never said he did??? I DID say that the gov't def. got bigger under his administration despite the fact that most of the Republican Party believes in smaller government.... So maybe I misread and it wasn't one of your posts but there were posts on here that mentioned the need for small government etc and I just find it hard since these same people probably also voted for Bush... So I wanted to clarify what actually should be smaller - i.e. social programs, and what was acceptable for a government to get bigger - i.e. national security....
Click to expand...

I voted for Bush but he did nothing but I expected of him. Regardless, I would have voted for Ferraro over that idiot Kerry.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#138
#138
BigPapaVol said:
Kids get healthcare, period. Who did I call a socialist? I called federal healthcare a disastrous social program. It is, regardless of my political bent.

WTF dies Bysh have to do with this being atrocious policy? Bush was an idiot. This policy is idiocy. So what? Free stuff has proven disastrous in this country.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And most social welfare programs are not "Free"... That is a clever way to make your point sound more appealing... There are certain qualifications, restrictions etc that go along with social welfare programs (unless you know of one that doesn't?)... Granted, I'm sure there are people that have found ways around then, just like there are CEO's that have found ways around taxes....
 
#139
#139
BigPapaVol said:
I voted for Bush but he did nothing but I expected of him. Regardless, I would have voted for Ferraro over that idiot Kerry.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Ok, I can't argue with you there... I'll tell you what, in four years from now if Obama has not lived up to what I expected out of him then I will come on this board and say so....We should all live above party lines for sure..
 
#140
#140
WPAINE said:
And most social welfare programs are not "Free"... That is a clever way to make your point sound more appealing... There are certain qualifications, restrictions etc that go along with social welfare programs (unless you know of one that doesn't?)... Granted, I'm sure there are people that have found ways around then, just like there are CEO's that have found ways around taxes....
Click to expand...
then you don't know dick about the federal housing assistance program or welfare in general.

It's not clever. Free crap is free crap. Tax dodging us at least keeping earned money. Trying to equate the two us ridiculous. One is purely inefficient frictional expense, or leeching, the other is limiting an individual's tax burden.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#141
#141
WPAINE said:
What variables make a program effective and efficient???? That is like saying that your Mom and Pap store down the road is better because it is more effective and efficient than say Wal-Mart.... (I am not trying to start a debate about the issue of Wal-Mart taking over the world or anything, but my point is that I don't know what the point of your post was).... Certainly Medicare and Medicaid have helped a lot of people over their time....

I agree with the Conservative view point that things would be much better if the Government were left out, but that is giving a very positive outlook on individual people, and that is where the big difference lies..I don't think people go to a store and check and make sure they are buying American products over China, and I don't think the CEO's of major corporations stay up late at night worrying about how they are going to raise enough money to open up an orphanage or something.... I'm not placing value judgments on them, just saying that this is why I believe in a bigger government, because I quite frankly don't trust that it will get resolved by the people....

We have the same end goal: i.e. make sure every child has healthcare. We just have different ways of getting there. I trust a government that is unable to abandon the people's viewpoints too drastically (because of elections) than I do people... I imagine you and other conservatives have a much more positive outlook on people than I do...
Click to expand...

nice non-answer, complete with a dig at wal mart and CEOs of large corporations. Efficient means at least 80% of tax dollars going into a program are used to actually provide the care or service. Right now, the efficiency level is probably closer to 20%. If you can find some way to insure these kids that doesn't involve the money being first sent to Washington, I might be able to jump on board, since this is, first and foremost, a state issue.

The only things I trust the government to do are those things outlined in the Constitution. Healthcare for kids isn't in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
#142
#142
truefan said:
Totally agree with this statement;however, there are still too many children who aren't getting proper healthcare because their parents can't afford it. I have seen it first hand.
Click to expand...

These parents you have seen first hand. Did they smoke? Drink? Have cable? Have cell phones? Did the kids have cell phones?

Many people that "can't afford" just have screwed up priorities and put too many things ahead of taking care of the children they brought into the world. Without a major problem (surgery, ICU, etc.) healthcare is not that expensive.
 
#143
#143
KentheOrange said:
These parents you have seen first hand. Did they smoke? Drink? Have cable? Have cell phones? Did the kids have cell phones?

Many people that "can't afford" just have screwed up priorities and put too many things ahead of taking care of the children they brought into the world. Without a major problem (surgery, ICU, etc.) healthcare is not that expensive.
Click to expand...

Not generalize by saying many people that can't afford have screwed up priorities.... You are allowing the few to represent the majority... America's average unemployment rate is roughly 4-5%... Think about that. Most everyone DOES work.... I just can't stand when people try to equate being poor with being bad parents... If you REALLY want to talk about messed up priorities, then very few of us on here have room to point fingers... Rich families neglect their children just as much as the poor...
 
#144
#144
MG1968 said:
nice non-answer, complete with a dig at wal mart and CEOs of large corporations. Efficient means at least 80% of tax dollars going into a program are used to actually provide the care or service. Right now, the efficiency level is probably closer to 20%. If you can find some way to insure these kids that doesn't involve the money being first sent to Washington, I might be able to jump on board, since this is, first and foremost, a state issue.

The only things I trust the government to do are those things outlined in the Constitution. Healthcare for kids isn't in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

What exactly does the Constitution outline? It seems pretty vague, and based on one's interpretation it could easily include healthcare for kids...

The Constitution is similar to the Bible in this way. It is an interpretative document that's meaning has changed considerably over time...
 
#145
#145
WPAINE said:
What exactly does the Constitution outline? It seems pretty vague, and based on one's interpretation it could easily include healthcare for kids...

The Constitution is similar to the Bible in this way. It is an interpretative doUMent that's meaning has changed considerably over time...
Click to expand...

"general welfare" means things that everybody benefits from. Defense, roads, interstate commerce, international treaties, and civil protection are what's outlined because they benefit the entire population whether you're rich or poor.

The Constitution is not an interpretive document. Reading crap into it is one of the problems in this country today. The politically correct interpretation has led to foreign terrorists being granted 5th amendment rights and citizens defending their property being treated as criminals. It's also led to "rights" being conferred by the judiciary that aren't anywhere to be found in the document.
 
#146
#146
MG1968 said:
"general welfare" means things that everybody benefits from. Defense, roads, interstate commerce, international treaties, and civil protection are what's outlined because they benefit the entire population whether you're rich or poor.

The Constitution is not an interpretive document. Reading crap into it is one of the problems in this country today. The politically correct interpretation has led to foreign terrorists being granted 5th amendment rights and citizens defending their property being treated as criminals. It's also led to "rights" being conferred by the judiciary that aren't anywhere to be found in the document.
Click to expand...


well the Supreme Court Justices (those appointed to interpret the Constitution) would disagree with you, buddy....The Constitution is an interpretive document. The fact that the Supreme Court exists proves this point....Agree or disagree with their decisions, but there is no possible way that you can argue that it is not interpretive..
 
#147
#147
WPAINE said:
Not generalize by saying many people that can't afford have screwed up priorities.... You are allowing the few to represent the majority... America's average unemployment rate is roughly 4-5%... Think about that. Most everyone DOES work.... I just can't stand when people try to equate being poor with being bad parents... If you REALLY want to talk about messed up priorities, then very few of us on here have room to point fingers... Rich families neglect their children just as much as the poor...
Click to expand...

My reply was a specific question asked about a specific statement.

How do you know that I am allowing a few to represent the majority? If you had any stats on that I'm sure you would have presented them. This is one area where the majority might well be representing the majority.
 
#148
#148
WPAINE said:
well the Supreme Court Justices (those appointed to interpret the Constitution) would disagree with you, buddy....The Constitution is an interpretive document. The fact that the Supreme Court exists proves this point....Agree or disagree with their decisions, but there is no possible way that you can argue that it is not interpretive..
Click to expand...
interpretive or not, the SCOTUS us not going to ever interpret anything as saying federalized healthcare is what the framers had in mind.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#149
#149
WPAINE said:
well the Supreme Court Justices (those appointed to interpret the Constitution) would disagree with you, buddy....The Constitution is an interpretive document. The fact that the Supreme Court exists proves this point....Agree or disagree with their decisions, but there is no possible way that you can argue that it is not interpretive..
Click to expand...

the Supreme Court's purpose is to interpret law passed by Congress based on the Constitution not to interpret the Constitution based on law passed by Congress.

buddy
 
#150
#150
MG1968 said:
the Supreme Court's purpose is to interpret law passed by Congress based on the Constitution not to interpret the Constitution based on law passed by Congress.

buddy
Click to expand...


Semantics. If the Constitution was not an interpretative document then there would never need to be debate over whether or not a law was constitutional or not.... There also would not be amendments. The Constitution is an ever-changing document. It was meant to be.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top