Thursday, April 29, 2010
Being rich in meaningful ways.
There are some countries in which education is a right. Fancy that. Health care, too. Fantastic, isn't it? Yes, genuinely civilized countries. Imagine that. A right to an education and health care. Even if you are monetarily poor. It's still possible to be rich in meaningful ways. --Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
"Every woman, man, youth and child has the human right to education, training and information, and to other fundamental human rights dependent upon realization of the human right to education. The human right of all persons to education is explicitly set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other widely adhered to international human rights treaties and Declarations"
"The human right to education entitles every woman, man, youth and child to: The human right to free and compulsory elementary education and to readily available forms of secondary and higher education."
"My right to free speech or to own property does not give me a claim on anyone else’s time or labor or resources. But if I have a “right’’ to health care, someone else must be compelled to provide or pay for that care. Compulsion comes in different forms - higher taxes, insurance mandates, health-care rationing, intrusive regulations - but the bottom line is the same: a right to health care would leave society less free."
I don't buy your bottonline baloney for a minute. --Jim
Hellllooo..who do you think is going to be making our decisions for us, as to which doctors we can choose from..which medications will be available...or which medical procedures we can have? Also, if this new program begins to cost more than it brings in, the government has the right to begin rationing care. It is right there, in writing.
Are you telling me that health/medical care isn't rationed now, dear Anoymous? If so, you are as wrong as wrong can be. People that can afford medical care can get it. Those that can't often have to go without. Money buys the best of care. Lack of money often means premature death. Studies conducted by Harvard University show that 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't have the money to acquire necessary care. That's a form of rationing, isn't it? And what about the private insurers? They decide whether or not to pay for a treatment. In a sense, they operate death panels. They decide who lives or dies, who gets treatment and who doesn't. Often in an arbitrary manner. --Jim
There will still be 23 MILLION uninsured, even with this new healthcare. And, no, that is not rationing. There is healthcare available to the poor. There are free clinics, Medicaid, Medicare, free treatment at any ER. What I am saying is that, if the system begins to lose money, the GOVERNMENT will start picking and choosing who gets what, and also raise premiums and deductibles. Let's see how long THAT takes. I shop for insurance. I check to see what is covered. I am free to choose whichever policy I want to pay for.
What you are saying is that our welfare system is broken. That is a given. This new plan is not a fix, but another program added on to an already warped system.
First, dear anonymous, I don't consider it welfare. It's an entitlement. We Americans should be entitled to certain basic services. Such as health care and education. Welfare is a negative connotation. I favor an entitlement state, not a welfare state. You conservatives have a nasty habit of calling everything you dislike by negative names. --Jim
And I want Medicare available to every citizen. We all should be entitled to the same service regardless of income. --Jim
Also, I'd rather that the government pick and choose who gets what than a money-grubbing bureaucrat in a private insurance company. --Jim
And yes, the new plan is not a complete fix. But it's a step in the right direction. A complete fix is politically impossible at the moment because of obstructionist Republicans. Throw out the rascals and we'll get a complete fix. --Jim
" Welfare-social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in NEED."
How is that negative? YOU put a negative connotation on it.
Medicare IS an entitlement, as is Social Security, that everyone is automatically eligible for them at 65. We are entitled to them because we earned them.
Food stamps and Medicaid are also entitlements, based on need, not what has been contributed to them. These are considered "welfare" because of the NEED for them.
I do not understand the mentality that wants to hand out everything on a platter. What you end up with is a bunch of lazy, demanding do-nothings. My theory: hand-up, not hand-out. THEN you create a citizenship of responsible, proud people. You want to weaken everyone, instead of strengthen them.
You define welfare recipients as 'a bunch of lazy, demanding do-nothings.' You sound like a typical empty-headed Republican. --Jim
"You define welfare recipients as 'a bunch of lazy, demanding do-nothings.' "
Did not.
Do you really hear things backward? I wrote: "I do not understand the mentality that wants to hand out everything on a platter. What you end up with is a bunch of lazy, demanding do-nothings."
Welfare, ideally is not supposed to be how generation after generation lives, which is what happens too often. Ideally, it is supposed to be temporary help. If you provide If you provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, with no restrictions, no limits, then it will be expected and/or demanded, for infinite periods of time.
" I construe so-called welfare as an entitlement."
I'm glad I changed your mind. Welfare IS an entitlement. We are entitled to it, if we NEED it.
Post a Comment