Should we insure an additional 3 million low income children?

Question

Why or why not? Feel free to compare and contrast the cost of the war with the cost of insuring poor CHILDREN.

c'mon, cvq, don't be coy...say how you feel about it! ;) I know it is going to be VERY difficult for the GOP to say they do NOT want to insure poor children...not if they claim to be pro life. I mean, it would be just fine to let the gov't in the bedroom if it was going to save babies..why not let them in again if it is going to save babies? Isn't that NEO CONSEREVATISM? Get rid of the fiscal conservatism if it stands in the way of social conservatism?

Answer 1

Let me start by stating that there is nothing wrong with insuring low income children.

That being said, the bills currently in congress will provide insurance to children of families making in excess of 80k as well as adults without children.

I do not consider that to be low income nor do I consider adults without children as children.

Amendments to restrict eligibility down to children of families with incomes at or below 200% (41k family of 4) of the poverty line have been rejected by congress.

This is not acceptable legislation, this is nothing more than yet another step towards socialized healthcare.

Answer 2

I have my opinions, but I would be willing to listen to arguments on all sides.

Although I doubt very many libertarians would go for it. They would probably say it sounded too much like the state wanted to be people's mother.

But who knows? Labels only tell us so much.

PS I would like to see as many children insured as possible. But why do some people assume that the government solves problems such as these rather than making many of them worse? (I assumed you were talking about the proposal currently before Congress.)

I have said elsewhere on this site that I know of no strict pro-lifer (as you know, I am not one) who favors the use of the surgical or chemical methods used in abortions on already born babies either. If they did, THAT would indeed be hypocritical.

I've also noted that the issue might be turned around: that logic may compel us to question the motives of people who claim to be acting for "the children" when these same people take great pains to legislate at every turn in such a way as to decrease the chance that these children will even be born.

Flippant sophistry? That's for each reader to decide for himself or herself. Hey, it's the internet.

My real point was that I found it to be a somewhat incongruous position to take. Some might consider the legislation an example of "knee-jerk liberalism." But I also added that maybe labels are unhelpful.

There is indeed a complicated dynamic, and even conflict at times, between economic conservatism and social conservatism. But again I would say that this particular program doesn't seem to be an example of what some have called the "true conservatism." So what? Maybe it's not important. I never claimed all my comments were relevant!

Coy? Maybe. It's hard to hear the inflection of someone's "voice" in posts. I tried to make any point I had in an understated and respectful way. And I am reading up on the issue also - it's only fair to ask anyone with criticisms of a proposal to provide an alternative program. I asked my own question about it recently, but have not been able to share my posts as I used to because of the degradation of this site into an outlet for pettiness and vindictiveness rather than a venue for genuine debate. It's getting so bad I may have to block myself! :)

Here it is, for what it's worth:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmsAF7K4BqQBHOx0HNIdAPLsy6IX?qid=20070801101852AAY4ijl

Thanks for responding! Again, I admire your passion. All the best.

Answer 3

Yes, of course we should. A society is only as good as the manner in which it treats its most vulnerable, and low-income children are by no means rational actors in their plight. Further, as a practical matter of public health and health cost containment, INsuring these kids ENsures that contagious illnesses will be diagnosed and treated BEFORE they have the opportunity to spread broadly into communities and cause backups in emergency rooms for triage that should never be necessary.

I can't believe the first answerer, and those of his ilk, who react to this policy in the negative because "it's welfare". Yeah, uh-huh. That's like saying, "I don't like pharmacists because they are druggists." More concretely, why don't they ever say, "I oppose the military because they have free health care"? These people hate Americans - no two ways about it.

Answer 4

You know, it wouldn't cost that much to provide emergency services for all. There are a lot of unnecessary medical procedures going on. I don't want to pay for anyone's liposuction. I do support getting people on their feet though, a person with a hernia or meningitis has a very hard time providing their own insurance.

Answer 5

even though im for Ron Paul... i do think that we need to take better care of our poor... not everybody who is poor can go out and just find a job anytime they want to. i am former military with an honorable discharge and it was hard enough for me to find a part time entry level job while going to college.

Answer 6

The US government should not be in the insurance business of any kind. I pay taxes and do not have children of my own. It is not my responsibility to pay for insurance or health care for others.
It is the responsibility of parents to take care of their own children. If you want children to have insurance, start making their parents buy it.

Answer 7

Why just the children?

Are you so cold hearted against the low income adults? You Republican!

Answer 8

I don't know what each costs. I guess if the kids don't have money they should ask their parents to buy it for them.

Answer 9

No it is welfare. Make their parents get a second JOB!

Same for the cost of veterans health care, it is socialist medicine. The Iraq war vets will cost taxpayers many billions of dollars in socialist health care costs and receive inadequate care.

Solution? They are citizens. Pay privately. Get a J O B.

Answer 10

Yes, as they cannot insure themselves. 73% of people polled think so.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm