Personally I believe that a lot of the problems faced by teachers in our public schools is that parents are no longer stressing to their children that they need to get a good and solid education in order to be able to provide for themselves and their future families after they get out of high school. I think part of the reason for the change by parents is caused by the fact that there are too many govt programs (ie welfare) that permit people to subsist even if they don't work. I believe that in the name of compassion, not only do we do an injustice to those that receive the compassion, we move towards undermining and weakening our society. Maybe you and I wouldn't give up our jobs to be able to merely subsist, but how many people working to get by would continue to work if they could get by off of the govt welfare system? I think a lot. Such would create significant cost burdens on the govt and ultimately on those continuing to work. Such is the cause of my concerns about the direction we seem to be going with health care reform. It's not a lack of compassion. Not at all. It's due to how I think that compassion will ultimately hurt this country.

 

 

Sorry for the long post everyone, but I cannot explain my opinions and the logic behind them in simple two or three line posts.

 

So in regards to the bold, do you sacrifice an individual child in the name of greater potential long-term good for the country?

So in regards to the bold, do you sacrifice an individual child in the name of greater potential long-term good for the country?

 

Am I allowed to answer this question?

Am I allowed to answer this question?

 

Not for LN but for you? Sure.

Not for LN but for you? Sure.

 

In the long term view, the country's well being is far more important than one life. Simple cost-benefit analysis.

In the long term view, the country's well being is far more important than one life. Simple cost-benefit analysis.

 

 

"Simple cost benefit analysis" is great when we're talking about expense reports or cutting travel or cutting payroll.

 

It doesn't fly when we're talking about the life of a child who through no fault of their own was born to a set of irresponsible people.

 

You're OK with sacrificing that child's life?

So in regards to the bold, do you sacrifice an individual child in the name of greater potential long-term good for the country?

 

 

Obviously that's a very tough question and one that isn't easily answered. If the child dies, it would be terrible. Then again, to force society to pay for the care of children that their parents have failed to provide will be very harmful to the country I believe.

 

I'd probably remove such child from his/her family and then provide the needed help. If we are going to pay for the child's care that the parent has failed to provide, then we should terminate the parental rights and do what we can to make sure the child is properly raised and educated. If the child has to become a ward of the state, even though I don't have much confidence in a lot of govt institutions, in most cases I'd hope the state could do a better job raising the child than his or her parents have done.

 

And I do realize that all needy children are not needy because of the parents being drug using, dead beats. Unfortunately the question becomes when is the burden of providing relief so great on society that it brings down society and there is no society left at all to provide relief and services to any one?

Obviously that's a very tough question and one that isn't easily answered.

 

I agree.

 

I'd probably remove such child from his/her family and then provide the needed help.

 

Funded by you and me.

 

If we are going to pay for the child's care that the parent has failed to provide, then we should terminate the parental rights and do what we can to make sure the child is properly raised and educated.

 

Dangerous slippery slope.

"Simple cost benefit analysis" is great when we're talking about expense reports or cutting travel or cutting payroll.

 

It doesn't fly when we're talking about the life of a child who through no fault of their own was born to a set of irresponsible people.

 

You're OK with sacrificing that child's life?

 

Why should the government be responsible for the actions of irresponsible people?

 

Religious organizations and private citizens if they are so inclined should step in. The government should not.

 

You seem to be under the impression that I believe the government should compassionate, I do not believe that. The government should be pragmatic and practical. Unless there is something amazingly special about this child other than the fact that it is an innocent life, then the government should not get involved.

Why should the government be responsible for the actions of irresponsible people?

 

Religious organizations and private citizens if they are so inclined should step in. The government should not.

 

You seem to be under the impression that I believe the government should compassionate, I do not believe that. The government should be pragmatic and practical. Unless there is something amazingly special about this child other than the fact that it is an innocent life, then the government should not get involved.

 

 

I argue that there is a healthy percentage of good parents out there who are unable to provide for their children in the way you seem to deem "fit" due to circumstances that are not neglect.

Why should the government be responsible for the actions of irresponsible people?

 

Religious organizations and private citizens if they are so inclined should step in. The government should not.

 

You seem to be under the impression that I believe the government should compassionate, I do not believe that. The government should be pragmatic and practical. Unless there is something amazingly special about this child other than the fact that it is an innocent life, then the government should not get involved.

 

 

So you're against social security for your parents?

Isn't that the craziness of the town hall meetings being held? How can you ask people to support the reform legislation when there are 5 different plans being floated?

 

On the other hand, I think you can be opposed to the reform legislation on the simple grounds that you have no idea what the actual law may be and until there is a definite plan that you can study and understand, you are opposed to the legislation moving forward. Unless of course you trust and believe that our elected officials in Congress will do the smart thing on their own. I'm not willing to place that trust in them, because I know that, as a taxpayer, I will be burdened with their decision. I'm sorry but I think I fund enough welfare programs as it is. Perhaps if we were to eliminate other welfare programs I might be more willing to fund someone's health care needs.

 

There are far too many posts in this thread that are valid to quote but this is the one I choose. I believe this reform is somewhat intentionally misleading to single out congressmen that vote against it. I realize I have made your post cheap compared to what it said by saying this. This legislation is so vague (intentionally I might add) that it should be shot down on that alone.

 

It is a form of welfare, but a form that we will pay for far beyond what welfare is today,

 

To me we are offering welfare to those that dont feel healthcare is a major concern. Please enlighten me on other viewpoints.

So you're against social security for your parents?

 

The fact that social security is a simple transfer payment bothers me.

 

If it took money of mine and put it away for my own use later I wouldn't mind it AS much. Even so I don't like the idea at all.

This legislation is so vague (intentionally I might add) that it should be shot down on that alone.

 

It is a form of welfare, but a form that we will pay for far beyond what welfare is today,

 

To me we are offering welfare to those that dont feel healthcare is a major concern. Please enlighten me on other viewpoints.

 

1. How is it vague? There are 5 different proposals. I doubt any of them are vague.

 

2. SO you think people who are undersinsured or uninsured "don't think healthcare is a major concern?" That's quite an accusation with nothing to back it up.

The fact that social security is a simple transfer payment bothers me.

 

If it took money of mine and put it away for my own use later I wouldn't mind it AS much. Even so I don't like the idea at all.

 

So you're going to tell your parents to forgo SS and you'll take care of them? Or is their church going to take care of them?

So you're going to tell your parents to forgo SS and you'll take care of them? Or is their church going to take care of them?

 

 

While I would never presume to tell them what to do, from my own personal beliefs I would rather they not. In regards to that though; my father has actually been smart enough to save on his own for his retirement, as he was self-employed he had no choice, which he is in the midst of right now and my mother has been doing the same. When the time comes, if they need assistance my brother and I will do everything that we can to help them out if anything gets out of hand cost-wise.