I wouldn’t normally just publish a press release here, but in this case, 1) it’s an important issue, the Republican squashing of the SCHIP bill to reauthorize a health insurance program for poor children, 2) it’s about Michele Bachmann, a truly contemptible creature of the far right wing, and 3) my son Alaric has been working with Americans Against Escalation in Iraq on turning out the opposition to Bachmann — so it’s a good cause, a wretched villain, and a little family connection.
The story is that Cruella deVille Michele Bachmann was one of the conservative drones who voted to let poor children suffer; worse, she afterwards tried to claim that she was actually a supporter of SCHIP, that the bill would have benefitted the wealthy so she really wasn’t trying to hurt poor kids, and that her critics should “bring it on”. The Star Tribune editorialized against her position, and there have been vigils outside her office to try and persuade her to change her vote and override the president’s veto.
The argument that this bill would have advantaged the already rich means Michele Bachmann has joined the ranks of the repellent Republicans who gleefully attack children.
The press release is below the fold.
Michele Bachmann tells Children’s Health Care Advocates to “Bring it On,” Minnesota’s Working Families Outraged Over Vote Against SCHIP, Call on Bachmann to Reverse Course and Vote to Override Veto
Constituents Ramp up Pressure and Question Congresswoman’s Priorities and Values, Blast Bachmann for Putting Billions for Iraq Ahead of Children’s Health
St. Cloud, MN — Nearly 10 million kids and thousands in Minnesota were just one step away from receiving the basic health coverage they need following last week’s passage in both the U.S. House and Senate of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act — critical legislation that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for 6.6 million kids and provide coverage to nearly 4 million more low income children. Unfortunately, President Bush, after spending half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, vetoed the reauthorization of this critical program for the nation’s children, putting at risk healthcare for 10 million children including thousands right here in Minnesota.
Without apology or question, Rep. Bachmann put loyalty to President Bush ahead of Minnesota’s families by voting against the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Minnesotans held an Oct. 3 candlelight vigil at Rep. Bachmann’s Waite Park office imploring her to stand with Minnesotans against the President’s backwards priorities that sacrifice the health of children for a failed policy in Iraq. Bachmann called in to Jason Lewis’s KTLK radio show to answer their concerns that very day, responding “If they want to take this fight on, I say ‘Bring it On!'” Bachmann again showed how out of touch she is, falsely claiming that “We’re talking about rich people in Minnesota.” In reality, the bill provides for working class Minnesota families who simply can’t afford insurance for their kids.
“After spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq, President Bush chose to deny healthcare funding for millions of children in need, thousands right here at home, with one stroke of his veto pen,” said Amy Bodnar, of SEIU MN State Council. “The fact is, for what we spend in just one week in Iraq, 800,000 children could get health insurance for an entire year. This is a question of priorities, and President Bush and Rep. Bachmann have theirs all mixed up: billions for Iraq and a veto for children’s healthcare. Rep. Bachmann needs to stand up for Minnesota’s families by voting to override the President’s shameful veto of this critical legislation to provide health care for thousands of kids in Minnesota and expanding that care to thousands more in desperate need.”
State representative Larry Hosch, (DFL-St. Joseph) blasted Bachmann for her unflinching loyalty to the President on this important piece of legislation: “Half the Republican delegation in Minnesota voted for this bill, so this is not a partisan issue. It’s an issue of where our priorities are. Health care for children cannot be a partisan issue.”“And the argument that this is a fiscally irresponsible bill is hogwash,” continued Rep. Hosch. “This is the first time that Congress in many years has provided a bill with an actual funding mechanism involved — it’s not putting us into further deficit, it’s paying for our commitments both today and tomorrow, and it’s paying for one of our most important commitments, and that’s insuring our children. We know that access to healthcare for our children is an investment. We save money in the long run.”
Rev. Donald Schultz harshly criticized Bachmann’s stance against SCHIP at the vigil, as well: “I’m here because my faith tells me that God stands decisively with the hurting and the vulnerable, the weakest among our midst. Michele Bachmann claims she cares about Minnesota families and family values. But her vote against the SCHIP bill sends a pretty sorry message to Minnesota families — a message that it’s more important to protect President Bush’s irresponsible policies than it is to protect our children. Why would Michele Bachmann vote against this bill? Do you suppose she’s afraid that some undeserving infant or toddler will sneak through into the public trough? Or do you suppose it could be more ammunition for their war on the middle class — the one war of this Republican administration that is going very, very well.”
If you’re in the St Cloud/Twin Cities area and want to help with the resistance to the Iraq war or get information on how to oppose Bachmann on this issue, email Chase Goldring or call 612-465-8803. There is going to be another vigil outside Bachmann’s office on the 16th — I’ll post details as they come up.
OK- so we’re atheists and all- but we can still believe that some people get sent to hell right?
The only effective emotional appeal against atheism I’ve ever come across is that you don’t get to gloat when your dead to all those who got it wrong, and you can’t expect any sense of universal justice.
Of course as an emotional appeal it has no bearing on any actual truth, but there it is.
we can still believe that some people get sent to hell right? No, they just get found dead on the floor, hog-tied in fetish wear with a dildo up their butt.
I have been following a couple of threads on the Topix forums and you wouldn’t believe the type of comments against the SCHIP bill that you see there. They really so view this as a handout to the rich and middle cass. I also saw comment of the type that indicates that if parents can’t afford kids, they shouldn’t have them. I don’t think I’ve seen a bigger disconnect from reality that what I have observe than on those forums.
Good ol’ Republicans. They’ll fight like hell to make sure you get born out the birth canal for which they’ve laid claim but, then, you’re on your own. Someone needs to ask Bachmann and her ilk about the quality of that much ballyhooed Life that they so treasure.
OMG– how does a person like that get elected in MN? I can understand how she might get elected down here in MS, but in MN? I thought y’all were so much better educated up there! I read her (detailed) biography on Wikipedia and even if it’s only half accurate, she’s a wingnut nightmare, although I could possibly agree with her church that the Pope is the Antichrist. Forget trying to change her mind; just figure out how to defeat her in 2008.
I like the argument about the families making $80,000 shouldn’t be eligible because in their minds it costs the same to live in New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago as it does to live in Fargo or Salt Lake City.
There’s also the way that a lot of the whining is done by the geriatric Fox watchers, maybe we should cut down on Medicare too since we wouldn’t want to have them suffer through getting government funded health care any longer than they have to. It just isn’t humane to make them go through that every time they get sick or need pills. [/snark]
Don’t you know that Ms Bachmann goes to the Wisconsin Senod Lutheran Church, which preaches that the “papists” are the anti-Christ and will go to hell? And the majority of her constituents in St. Cloud are devout Catholics. Go figure.
My Rep didn’t vote on the bill, so I called her office to see how she’d do on the veto. Her Legislative Aide said “she likes the program, not the funding thread”. So how would she vote? Uphold the veto. I railed at her, and said, what, she’d rather have a total loss than a partial success? She can’t imagine future modification (which they do ALL the time. Read some bill texts – too many are just “change ‘A’ to ‘B'”)? And I also threw in her face some of the pathetic fluff my rep DOES sponsor – frickin respect-my-flag thought crime crap.
So, theeeen, three days later…I felt kind of bad on Sunday, when I picked up the paper, and on the front page was the news that Representative JoAnn Davis had died from breast cancer.
So does that mean 66% of 434 (vice 435) Reps need vote AYE?
Remind me never to piss *you* off, True Bob!
Yep, I was all fired up when I dialed her office – because she completely toes the shrubco line, plus I was bummed about some news wrt my creaky old car (we call it the Screaming Metal Deathtrap). What a coincidence.
So I didn’t know who this despicable lady was, googled her up. Interestingly, first page of results include a youtube video:
YouTube – Michele Bachmann doesn’t believe in global warming
I was defending SCHIP on the Chicago Trib board. The main arguements against it are the 80K salary and the 25 year old children. Myself and others countered it by pointing out that 80K doesn’t go as far as it used to (especially with multiple children) and that adult children in college can still be supported by their parents past age 25. If they go through PHD or other higher degree, they make more money. So a little investment now for a big pay off later.
I guess it’s true, liberals would rather put up with a few freeloaders to help many people. Conservatives would rather hamper many people to keep money away from a few freeloaders.
Bush just doesn’t like things that help everyone. He just likes things that help his friends.
For more on Michele Bachmann, check out:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com
What’s the problem? It’s just another entitlement program that didn’t exist prior to 1997. Just another government scheme which will distort the health care industry even further than it has been distorted by all the prior entitlements.
What’s the problem? It’s just another entitlement program that didn’t exist prior to 1997. Just another government scheme which will distort the health care industry even further than it has been distorted by all the prior entitlements.
Actually, 2/3 of 432–there are three vacant seats at the moment.
Actually, Brian, deciding how to spend money that we’re going to end up spending anyway, one way or another, is what this bill is about. You want to take care of these kids now? Or end up paying more in hospital bills later? Part of the health care problem in this country is that who gets care is initially decided by insurance companies through companies, and only insuring the healthiest populations. Of course, they should–they are businesses. But in order to make sure everyone get care and not die in the street, there are laws forcing hospitals to care for the indigent without funding it–unfunded mandate anyone? And who uses the ED as their GP? Those people who can’t afford health insurance and have no access to a physician: the working poor who make too much for Medicaid, and not enough to buy their own insurance. After having served on a board at a hospital for fifteen years whose main goal was to streamline systems, and to develop systems that saved money, our biggest challenge was how to serve those vulnerable populations and not go bankrupt. It becomes a “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” to use an ironic saying. Add the cuts in Medicare, with its abysmally low reimbursements, and the growing populations of Medicare patients, and it’s going to grow even more challenging.
We’re headed for, take a big breath, socialized medicine no matter what anyone says. Privatization screwed us, and now we are trying to recover.
Oh, well. I’m glad I quit that job. It was hard, and I did my time. I hope whoever followed is more successful than we were.
And worse, it may actually prevent quite a few impoverished children from dying in agony from treatable but expensive diseases. Which makes people like Brian Macker sad, apparently.
A little more detail: I think I’ve seen Macker’s posts elsewhere; if I remember correctly, he’s basically a relic of the Gilded Age who drinks deeply of the Libertarian-party kool-aid and is about as open to things like evidence and logic as the guy I met on the ferry last night who was trying to convince me that “chemtrails” were causing global warming. Appealing to compassion is a fool’s errand.
If I misremember and his humanity is more than skin-deep after all, I apologize for this and the above comment. :/
PS: has anyone done an “anti-welfare” bingo thing like the “rape apologist” bingo piece that was linked here a while back? If so, link plz.
Pedant alert!
It’s ‘Cruella de Vil’, not ‘de Ville’.
Those are your religious beliefs fellows and not mine. Why should I have to pay for your faith based initiatives? Why should I have to pay for your religious acolytes to hand out money promoting your belief in big government?
The giving of money to supporters to hand out to potential converts by forced extraction from non-believers is a very old tactic in the ideological wars. Islam did it, the ancient Romans did it, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, and so on.
It doesn’t show you have any more compassion that others. It just shows that you are willing to violate others rights in order to support your beliefs.
I guess i’m one of those jerks that is against this, but I’m a liberal. I cannot in my own mind, reconcile myself making under 25 grand a year, and paying for the health insurance for children whose parents make two to three times as much as me. If they want to amend this legislation to only include children whose familes live at or below the poverty line, I’ll agree. but I refuse to pay higher taxes to support the middle class, when I barely make enough money to qualify as middle class myself.
I do not have children because I realize how expensive they are. Why should I be punished for making a repsonsible decision? Why should other, more irrepsonsible people benefit off of my money when they make more per year than I do? It’s absolutely infuriating.
Oh and there is a long tradition in the Christian and those horrible “Free Market” belief systems of promoting true charity. Just because you guys are ignorant of it doesn’t mean I’m anti-charity. As a matter of fact I’m pro-charity.
There is also a long history of ideologues criticizing their opponents of being immoral beings. Defaming them to the point where common knowledge diverges completely from truth. You don’t even know me and yet you make outrageous claims about my beliefs and innermost attitudes. Shame on you.
This lesson I think is illustrated best by Roderick Long talking about the defamation of another fellow who was against compulsory schemes like yours. I’ve edited it so you don’t know who Long is referring to:
Here’s the interesting part. Read it all and carefully. Perhaps twice.:
I modified the above slightly to remove certain information highlighted with italics and ellipsis. This particular individual has been so vilified by socialist, Marxists and their ilk that you wouldn’t even know what was in his actual writings based on his current reputation.
Long continues:
I bet your fellow ideologues kept this from you because it’s always and forever important to demonize one’s opponents.
Just because I don’t agree with your approach to charity doesn’t mean I’m uncharitable. I actually believe what you think is charity isn’t charity at all. That’s why I call it an entitlement, which it is. As such it disrupts certain long term feedback mechanisms that maintain charity in this world. By doing things your way an environment is set up where true charity suffers. Something the mystery author understood well as did some Christian advocates of charity.
Now I will expect the usual responses colored by the same ahistoric interpretations of past events colored by ideological filters. I don’t fault you your ignorance. You’ve been duped by ideologues. Everyone has a belief system and most hold theirs contrary to evidence and rational theory. However, now that you have been given a glimpse of the reality I would hope you temper your sanctimonious defamations just a little. I know it’s hard but please try.
Many of you don’t operate according to principles of honest intellectual exploration. I understand that. What I don’t understand is how you can live with yourselves afterwards.
The author Long is defending is Herbert Spencer. Someone I was lied to about throughout my years in public school, and college. Probably because this is a subject, the defamation of Herbert Spencer, upon which both Christian Fundamentalists and Marxists can agree.
Yes, I do want to violate your right of watching people die for preventable reasons. Why? Because those people have the right to live. My rights end where yours begin, and vice versa.
All people have the right to live. All people have the right to have health insurance. Not only those that happen to be rich enough to buy one from a private company.
Yes, I do want to violate your right of watching people die for preventable reasons. Why? Because those people have the right to live. My rights end where yours begin, and vice versa.
All people have the right to live. All people have the right to have health insurance. Not only those that happen to be rich enough to buy one from a private company.
Move to France, then.
Long? What Long? Who is Long? Never heard or read of him. Spencer? I have read of that one, but only in history-of-science books about the origin of the theory of evolution. Why should I care if Spencer was or was not an asshole?
Move to France, then.
Long? What Long? Who is Long? Never heard or read of him. Spencer? I have read of that one, but only in history-of-science books about the origin of the theory of evolution. Why should I care if Spencer was or was not an asshole?
I quite agree. Any children who are making $25k+ can take care of themselves.
People that tell others to relocate to other countries have clearly never attempted to do it themselves. The sad thing is that I actually speak french, but still can’t move there, because they are very stingy with work visas. As are most of the other western european countries.
And you can wail and moan about the poor middle class children all you want. If this bill were revised to ONLY help those in poverty, I wouldn’t make a peep. It was poorly written to begin with, so I refuse to support it.
The plan would also cover individuals who have insurance available to them through their employer, but choose not to use it.
An emotional appeal to “what about the children” plays better to the “Focus on the Family” than reasonable people. Show me why my taxes on my $30k income should pay for health insurance for somebody’s kids who’s family income is $80k, and I’ll listen.
Calling nay sayers evil and heartless seems less reasonable.
jenni,
It is possible that someone makes $80,000 a year and has a child with a condition or disease that makes the child uninsurable or the insurance so expensive they simply could not afford it-at least if the rest of the family wanted to eat. The condition could easily be so expensive they could not afford the medical bills.
The parents of such a child might have been able to provide health care/insurance but circumstances beyond their control over made it impossible.
My point is it may not be as clear cut as you think.
That next to the last sentence should read:
The parents of such a child might have been able to provide health care/insurance but circumstances beyond their control made it impossible.
Sorry.
I don’t break laws, why should I be forced to pay for the police and prison system? Don’t penalize me for my responsible decisions. My house has never caught on fire, why should I be forced to pay for the fire department? I don’t have kids and I’m tired of paying for the school system too. It’s all about me, dontcha know, promote the general welfare? Fuck that!
I do support all kinds of social programs-when they benefit EVERY person that needs it–not just children.
Obviously, exceptions should be made for people in extreme circumstances, such as those with adequate incomes, but with uninsurable children.
But this bill’s loopholes DO allow people with decent incomes to take advantage of the system and obtain free health care for their children. Until those loopholes are closed, I cannot agree with it.
I don’t break laws, why should I be forced to pay for the police and prison system?
The police power is explicitly assigned to the States by the constitution. Practically, the security of the people could not be assured in a free and open society without government provision (despite Somalia’s best efforts). Health insurance, on the contrary, functions best with the free market, and the government amply provides a safety net for the situation Nadeen describes (at least in MN).
Excessive coverage for those who choose not to use their insurance, and thus ask me to pay for it, is a different situation entirely.
Health insurance, on the contrary, functions best with the free market
Yes, it’s working *so* well. That’s why the Canadians can buy drugs from US companies and can afford to sell them back to us at about half the price. The Canadian government has negotiated a fair price, we are fair game for being gouged (and we are).
Excessive coverage for those who choose not to use their insurance, and thus ask me to pay for it, is a different situation entirely.
What do you mean by excessive coverage? I’m sorry but I don’t understand where you are going with this. If someone doesn’t get sick, they don’t need to use the insurance. It’s like Medicare, which you are paying for.
You do realize that if you ever had a major health issue and this country was like every other country in the first world you wouldn’t have to worry about losing your house if you couldn’t work, don’t you? It’s also insurance for *you*.
yes, but it isn’t insurance for “me*, as I am not a child, and have no intention on either having one, or becoming one in the future.
“you wouldn’t have to worry about losing your house if you couldn’t work, don’t you?”
And if I drive home tonight, fall asleep, and run into someone causing a fatality, they could sue me for everything I have as well. Which is why I pay for liability coverage on my automobile in excess of government requirements. I could take the dem approach and ask the government to pay for it, but that doesn’t square with my view of responsible living.
1) I’m not in the business of promoting stupidity – if you want to kill people for an easily avoidable mistake, and are willing to pay for it, then have at it, I guess. Some health care is caused by the failings of the sick, but lots isn’t – if you go poor on the basis of things you can’t control, there isn’t much incentive not to do stupid things promising the same penalties, because you have nothing to lose. Lots of people with nothing to lose tends to be bad for the long term stability of a nation.
2) I don’t now how well the free market is working – we pay significantly more than most other countries, and while we have good quality, the coverage is poor and not improving, and have little in terms of a public health care system. Job mobility is distorted because the only way to get affordable health insurance is to have a job that covers it, and companies are trying to extricate themselves (from insurance without increasing pay, making it likely that coverage will worsen rather than improve. Medicare’s overhead is significantly lower than the insurance companies (ref?), and while I have to figure that part of that is an unfunded hospital mandate, the insurance overhead is at least part of the reason for our high costs. We don’t have much in the way of preventative care, so people tend to consume too much of expensive care because the cheap stuff (which could functionally replace it) doesn’t exist.
3) The system is distorted because someone has to pay for care to indigents. It would seem that something that keeps the poor from consuming expensive (and limited) resources while at the same time making both the lives of the poor and the finances of the gov’t better (or the hospitals, which would be more relevant) would minimize the distortion present in the health care market, and would be a good thing. (Resources would be consumed and paid for as needed, rather than as wanted and as currently).
Okay, Jenni, Tuck, Brian – if you don’t want to pay for SCHIP, stop smoking. This program is going to be financed by an increase in tobacco taxes. And, Jenni – tell us how much federal taxes you pay on your dinky $25K. Tell us if you get the earned income tax credit. Tell us whether you received financial aid going to college (I paid for that). When you complain about what the government does for others, stop and see if you have been getting something from those of us paying taxes. AND STOP YOUR WHINING.
My point was just that children don’t have to be expensive. I wasn’t trying to say “love it or leave it” or suchlike. But, in fact, I have basically moved to France to do my PhD thesis here in Paris. :-) On the other hand, I’m already an EU citizen…
Evidence? Because the only halfway First World country that has a free market and nothing but a free market for health insurance, the USA, is an incredible embarrassment in that respect. You poor folks pay more than any Old European and get less if anything back, and the big companies have started complaining about this stupid situation.
BTW, it’s not just Canada. In Europe, too, the governments negotiate prices with the pharma companies. Again the USA are an exception — the place where the government does not exist to help you.
My point was just that children don’t have to be expensive. I wasn’t trying to say “love it or leave it” or suchlike. But, in fact, I have basically moved to France to do my PhD thesis here in Paris. :-) On the other hand, I’m already an EU citizen…
Evidence? Because the only halfway First World country that has a free market and nothing but a free market for health insurance, the USA, is an incredible embarrassment in that respect. You poor folks pay more than any Old European and get less if anything back, and the big companies have started complaining about this stupid situation.
BTW, it’s not just Canada. In Europe, too, the governments negotiate prices with the pharma companies. Again the USA are an exception — the place where the government does not exist to help you.
Why is anyone under the impression that health care is currently handled by a “free market”? It’s incredibly regulated, restricted, subsidized, etc. It’s lightyears away from free.
In a truly free market, there is no use of force for coercion, and all exchanges are purely voluntary. Whether or not you want a free market in health care is a completely orthogonal issue to the factual question of what the term means and how it should be applied. Please do not blame our present health care failures on some false notion of what a free market is (or would be if it were allowed to exist…).
Incredible embarassment in that respect?
This is always a difficult argument because “health care” is such a general term. I don’t know any american who complains about this health care system. The care is of a high quality, it is relatively easy to get an appointment, and the bulk of major medical breakthroughs occur in the U.S. On the contrary, I have acquaitences in the U.K. and Canada who deplore the long waits and bureaucratic nightmare.
As for cost, it is largely driven up because of lack of market controls- that is, due to a perverse system of employer (and not consumer) incentives to provide health care, keeping costs down loses priority to restricting employee mobility. Even Hillary has come around to this camp, preferring individual to employer sponsered plans.
Tuck, you still haven’t answered my question. What was the point that you were trying to make about the under use of health care?
“you wouldn’t have to worry about losing your house if you couldn’t work, don’t you?”
And if I drive home tonight, fall asleep, and run into someone causing a fatality, they could sue me for everything I have as well.
Well, then you wouldn’t be behaving responsibly, would you? Besides, are you sure that your insurance would cover your neglect? You could take a taxi, call a friend, or stay in a hotel in that type of situation. They would find a loop hole, don’t be naive.
On the contrary, I have acquaitences in the U.K. and Canada who deplore the long waits and bureaucratic nightmare.
Doesn’t everybody have friends etc. in those far off lands who can’t get health care? That argument is very tired, especially to those of us who know better. If they need the care urgently, they get it. Period. If you need chemo, you get it. In the US, if you are one of the 20% who is uninsured you either run up huge debts or you don’t get it. You do realize that the uninsured get charged more than the amounts that get billed to the insurance companies, don’t you? Fair’s fair, the poor deserve it, don’t they? As for appointments with doctors, the parents of the kids who need SCHIP probably ***don’t have*** a regular pediatrician. What part of that don’t you people ever seem to understand? That’s why god created emergency rooms.
BTW, I don’t care what Hillary (I guess we are on a first name basis with her these days) does or doesn’t believe in. Group think is for the people who aren’t really conservatives and just call themselves that because they have embraced Fox Conservatism as almost a cult. Her opinions are hers. If you think that private companies want to keep paying more and more for less health insurance for their companies that’s up to you but I hope that you work in an industry where your job won’t move to a country that not only has cheaper labor but the company doesn’t have to shell out big bucks for insurance or you may be in for a big surprise one of these days.
By excessive, I meant that someone who has coverage available to them, and chooses not to use it should not have availble to them additional coverage from the government for free. That is excessive.
I believe there should be a safety net of publically funded health insurance, and believe that it should be provided by use of a private voucher. The problems you point out in our current system are created by lack of market choice, not too much choice. Provide similar tax incentives to individuals as to companies, and most of the problems with the current system will dissipate.
PS- I’m constantly irritated by arguing a libertarian position and being lumped in with fox news, bush, or fundies. I detest those groups as much as I do paternalism; and assume your socialist position does not necessarily mean Lenin is your idol.
Probably a waste of time, but some ?s for Mr. Macker @#22 & 24:
What religion are you talking about? Are you incapable of seeing anything in any but religious terms? So you have to create a religion where none may exist?
What rights of yours are being violated? The right to cheaper cigarettes? And certainly Christianity has never violated anyone’s rights to support their beliefs (snort!) And certainly Christianity has never, how did you put it, been guilty of giving money to supporters to hand out to potential converts (snort!)
What “free market” system espouses charity?
You’re assuming that prior responders are ignorant of the Christian tradition of charity. What do you know of them personally? Nothing? Now who is demonizing their opponents of being ignorant, and by extension, immoral?
What is “true charity”? I infer from your remarks that it’s charity only if it’s voluntary. Otherwise, it’s extortion? Where does that leave people or groups of whom you disapprove? Do they have less of a need because you disapprove of them?
I’m not a historian, so please tell us why government got into the charity/extortion business anyway? Marxist theory? Or maybe the needs swamped the resources and willingness of your “long term feedback mechanisms”?
What relevance do your overly lengthy quotes have, other than to show that you agree with Herbert Spencer? Couldn’t you have said that in one line?
What “long term feedback mechanisms” are you talking about? The Christian church? Are churches the only acceptable mechanism for dispensing charity? Why? And what strings come attached to that charity?
Finally, what “reality” are you talking about? What “honest intellectual exploration” are you talking about? The judgments of Azkyroth above seem spot on to me.
Probably a waste of time, but some ?s for Mr. Macker @#22 & 24:
What religion are you talking about? Are you incapable of seeing anything in any but religious terms? So you have to create a religion where none may exist?
What rights of yours are being violated? The right to cheaper cigarettes? And certainly Christianity has never violated anyone’s rights to support their beliefs (snort!) And certainly Christianity has never, how did you put it, been guilty of giving money to supporters to hand out to potential converts (snort!)
What “free market” system espouses charity?
You’re assuming that prior responders are ignorant of the Christian tradition of charity. What do you know of them personally? Nothing? Now who is demonizing their opponents of being ignorant, and by extension, immoral?
What is “true charity”? I infer from your remarks that it’s charity only if it’s voluntary. Otherwise, it’s extortion? Where does that leave people or groups of whom you disapprove? Do they have less of a need because you disapprove of them?
I’m not a historian, so please tell us why government got into the charity/extortion business anyway? Marxist theory? Or maybe the needs swamped the resources and willingness of your “long term feedback mechanisms”?
What relevance do your overly lengthy quotes have, other than to show that you agree with Herbert Spencer? Couldn’t you have said that in one line?
What “long term feedback mechanisms” are you talking about? The Christian church? Are churches the only acceptable mechanism for dispensing charity? Why? And what strings come attached to that charity?
Finally, what “reality” are you talking about? What “honest intellectual exploration” are you talking about? The judgments of Azkyroth above seem spot on to me.
Great we’ll be sending someone over to collect one of your kidneys, part of your liver, and some bone marrow. Wouldn’t want you sitting around watching people die for preventable reasons. You’re violating their rights dude! At least according to your idiotic preconception of rights.
David M,
You poor folks pay more than any Old European and get less if anything back,
No, we “poor folks” pay more and we get more.
BTW, it’s not just Canada. In Europe, too, the governments negotiate prices with the pharma companies. Again the USA are an exception — the place where the government does not exist to help you.
U.S. health insurers obviously also negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies. Drugs tend to be cheaper in Europe because their prices are regulated. Americans effectively subsidize drug prices for Europeans, and the U.S. drug industry is far superior to the European one at creating and producing new drugs.
Mena,
If they need the care urgently, they get it. Period. If you need chemo, you get it. In the US, if you are one of the 20% who is uninsured you either run up huge debts or you don’t get it.
They don’t necessarily get it. The Canadian and British health care systems suffer from rationing and waiting lists for both urgent and non-urgent care.
And medical bills are a relatively small contributor to personal bankruptcy in both the U.S. Most of the debt arising from health problems is due to lost income.
I’m constantly amazed at people who yell and scream at such a small amount of the national budget going to help people get one or two doctor’s visits a year when they don’t make a peep at the huge amounts of subsidies and tax breaks heaped upon corporations. I’d much rather see my tax money helping the kid down the street than Monsanto, thanks very much.
Sorry Jason but no. My husband is Canadian and I have seen their system as well as ours first hand. I have never had a problem when I was there and went to the doctor. My mother-in-law was able to get her melanoma taken care of right away and her uncle got his prostate treatment without a wait, plus his family didn’t have any huge expenses at the end when he was in a hospice. They have clinics everywhere. Try again.
Tuck:
I didn’t lump you in with Fox heads because you are arguing a libertarian position (which I really don’t have a problem with) but “Hillary”? You sounded a bit like one. By the way, are you trying to be insulting by saying that I have a socialist view point? That also sounds a bit Fox-ish.
Whitney,
Since when is it evil to be ignorant? Demonization means that you are making someone else out to be evil not uninformed.
I didn’t assume they were ignorant, I deduced it.
Why shouldn’t I view the beliefs expressed with regard to big government as any different from religious faith? The same strategy is being used, “Believe what I believe or you are evil”.
“What “free market” system espouses charity?”
All of them, and by definition non-free market systems can’t practice charity. Taking someone else’s money by coercion and handing it to the needy isn’t charity.
Your question about why government got into the charity business is a little over-broad isn’t it. Which government and when?
In the US what happened was the Government screwed with the money supply and then the market disrupting the economy and generating first a bubble and then the Great Depression. Then it crowded out private charity during the Great Depression with government programs.
The point of the quotes was to show that Herbert Spencer was not the demon the left makes him out to be. Haven’t you ever heard of “Social Darwinism”? It standard fair to have to sit through some class where Herbert Spencer is trotted out as someone who wanted people to die in the streets, usually when discussing “Robber Barons”, Hitler, or eugenics.
You sure are full of questions. You’ve got like 7 more. I know the answers but you seem awfully unqualified to agree with Azkyroth, who seems unqualified to agree with himself. It’s really amazing how many people come to conclusions without examining any details.
I won’t answer but comment on one of those last questions. If you don’t understand why demonization is counter to honest intellectual exploration well I really can’t help you.
You did understand the theme of the post was demonization right?
Carlie,
I’m amazed at how some people assume they know what other people make a peep about.
Most of the other comments on this thread are of the same caliber.
Mena,
Sorry Jason but no. My husband is Canadian and I have seen their system as well as ours first hand. I have never had a problem when I was there and went to the doctor.
You are aware this is scienceblogs, right? First rule: Anecdotes and personal experiences are not a substitute for scientific data. Whatever your personal experiences may have been, there is abundant evidence that waiting lists for treatment and other forms of rationing are common in the Canadian health care system. That is why the role of private, for-profit health insurance in Canada is growing. I can give you some references if you like. And this applies not just to “elective” forms of health care, but also to important, and sometimes life-saving ones, such as heart surgery and cancer treatment.
Dead thread but: Have any of those who are against the bill made any comments that indicate that they recognize that it’s being payed for by an increase on taxes on tobacco sales and elucidating why they nonetheless object to it? Because I’ve been looking for it and can’t find it.
Stephanie,
Why should I care how it’s funded other than if it is volunarily funded? I’d see nothing wrong with it if it was privately funded. I’m against corporate bailouts on principle also. There are a whole slew of economic and business issues where we are doing the wrong thing now and have been for a long time.
Poor people are going to be really screwed when inflation spirals out of control over the next 10-15 years. The legacy of the Greenspan credit expansion (as was the in term internet boom/bust and recession, plus the housing bubble, trade deficit, low savings rate, and rise in commodity prices).
The problem I have with these programs is they always tend to grow into monsters, get sidetracked by special interests, become feeding troughts for politicians, and add one more drop to the bucket of overspending. That bucket was filled mostly with drops that expanded later.
I also don’t find credible any of the other non-arguments made here like, “Well we wasted tons on X so why not a little more on Y”.
“And, Jenni – tell us how much federal taxes you pay on your dinky $25K. Tell us if you get the earned income tax credit. Tell us whether you received financial aid going to college (I paid for that). When you complain about what the government does for others, stop and see if you have been getting something from those of us paying taxes. AND STOP YOUR WHINING.”
Please don’t presume to know whether or not I’ve benefited from your tax money. I’ll have you know that in SC, you have to make much less than 25,000 to qualify for earned income tax credit. My parents made too much money for me to qualify for financial aid in college. I took out students loans, which I am now paying back.
Maybe this line of thinking is simply a southern thing, but you need to learn some manners. I am within my rights to disagree with a specific tax without being accused of whining.
Jenni:
As has been pointed out before on scienceblogs – while you may have the right to complain about a specific tax, that doesn’t mean that when you exercise that right you aren’t whining.