Anyone else believe in universal coverage for kids?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sanctamaria17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, but since I don’t live in the States, I guess its up to you guys. 🤷
Indeed…I’m sure you have no such regressive taxes where you live. :rolleyes:

If you have a VAT of 17.5%, is that not a regressive tax?

If done right, a sales tax will hit the wealthy more than the poor. This can be done by not taxing certain goods (e.g. food) or by giving everyone a tax “prebate” that would cover taxes up to a certain income level. This is what is done in the Fair Tax. I don’t know if it has a snowball’s chance of passing, as there is a lot of debate about whether it is as great an idea as some think it is. But, it is not regressive in the way it is structured.
 
Er. Sales tax is a tax on what you buy. Those on lower salaries spend a higher proportion of their salary than those on higher salaries. Therefore, they are taxed proportionately more: i.e. sales tax is a regressive taxation.

I hasten to add that this is not a point of view. This is accepted basic principle of economic theory.

psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html

Hey, but since I don’t live in the States, I guess its up to you guys. 🤷
I do understand this principle of taxation and made that comment in an off-hand manner as I really do not think it pertains directly to this thread. I still think it is better to tax people on consumption rather than earnings, no matter what proportion of people’s income is going towards taxes but that is an entirely different subject. I hope my main point was understood. I think I need to clarify, so here I go.

In the argument over whether we “need” socialized healthcare for children in the US, many argue that poor children are not recieving health care. That is simply not true. Families who are not considered to be living in poverty do qualify for free health care for their children and for pregnant mothers. I understand the idea of a safety net for those who are unable to afford, but we already have one in place. There is always room for improvement, but there is no need to socialize healthcare for children when those whose parents can not afford it have it freely available to them. If the parents don’t realize that assistance is available we could work on outreach. Sadly there is no way to provide for every child (even in a socialized system) since it is up to the PARENTS to assure the child gets regular check-ups and recieves propmt medical attention.
 
I am really amazed at this conversation. I am amazed that people would not want to have coverage for all children. Or provide universal coverage for those that are not insured…

Not free healthcare for everyone. It is these children that will bring in our future…

There is no perfect situation with regards to health care… No country has it 100% correct… but we need to try to deal with our insurance companies… I do believe they are out of control.

I would think that if you are pro-life you would be a champion for underpriveledged children and trying to set up programs to help these children.
I would think that if you are pro-life you would want to see our taxes paying for programs so that the moms can improve their lives so they could improve their childrens lives…

I am not saying that every child will be wealthy or middle class… but there is so much room to improve their lives… There is no need to have hungry children… no need to have uneducated children and no reason that children do not need to have to medical treatment or well baby checkups…for preventitive care.
 
Er. Sales tax is a tax on what you buy. Those on lower salaries spend a higher proportion of their salary than those on higher salaries. Therefore, they are taxed proportionately more: i.e. sales tax is a regressive taxation.

I hasten to add that this is not a point of view. This is accepted basic principle of economic theory.

psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html

Hey, but since I don’t live in the States, I guess its up to you guys. 🤷
Except most need items are exempt so it serves the poor well.
 
I am really amazed at this conversation. I am amazed that people would not want to have coverage for all children. Or provide universal coverage for those that are not insured…

Not free healthcare for everyone. It is these children that will bring in our future…

There is no perfect situation with regards to health care… No country has it 100% correct… but we need to try to deal with our insurance companies… I do believe they are out of control.

I would think that if you are pro-life you would be a champion for underpriveledged children and trying to set up programs to help these children.
I would think that if you are pro-life you would want to see our taxes paying for programs so that the moms can improve their lives so they could improve their childrens lives…

I am not saying that every child will be wealthy or middle class… but there is so much room to improve their lives… There is no need to have hungry children… no need to have uneducated children and no reason that children do not need to have to medical treatment or well baby checkups…for preventitive care.
Yet, it still all boils down to if and how the parents take advantage of any and all options for their children. Every child CAN be covered, however, if the parent chooses NOT to bring their child to the doctor there is a problem. And believe me, having taught in a school with plenty of teens who were brought here illegally by their parents, those illegal parents are EXTREMELY hesitant to step anywhere near where they may be found out by authorities. But yes, there is plenty of money via taxes and donations to ensure each child receives health care. But again, if that was the only problem associated with health, the solution wouldn’t be so hotly debated.

It goes way beyond health care providers. It goes to the cost of food, types of food donated, etc. When processed food is more expensive than fresh food, we may begin to have better health. If cities, suburbs, and outlying rural areas of cities began investing in quality public transportation (NY and DC are the only two cities I know of that do a great job with their public transportation systems) then maybe their would be less air pollution, thus decreasing asthma and other resperatory illnesses and increasing health because people would at least have to walk a little each day. If schools made physical education mandatory (and not just p.e. classes that only involve sports that require skills that many do not possess) maybe our children would be healthier.

Maybe if people opted for the necessities before the wants (hand-me-downs vs. name brands just purchased at the store) they would have more money to care for their families properly. It is extremely difficult to legislate lifestyles and lifestyle changes. We must, ultimately, acknowledge that we all have this thing called FREE WILL and must realize that our neighbor may just use that free will not in the best interest of their own health and sanity.
 
I am really amazed at this conversation. I am amazed that people would not want to have coverage for all children. Or provide universal coverage for those that are not insured…

I would think that if you are pro-life you would be a champion for underpriveledged children and trying to set up programs to help these children.
I would think that if you are pro-life you would want to see our taxes paying for programs so that the moms can improve their lives so they could improve their childrens lives…

QUOTE]

I am very much pro-life and I do consider myself a champion for underpriveleged children. Insinuating that people who do not agree with you don’t because they do not believe in socialized healthcare for them is ridiculous and insulting.

I pointed out that there is a free healthcare system set up by our government for the very vulnerable and those who can not afford medical care. Even those who are not living in poverty have free healthcare available to their children and access to programs like WIC that provide education and healthy food. In my state, a family of four has to make over $39,220 a year to NOT qualify for WIC. A family of four has to make over $3534 to NOT qualify for free children’s/prgnancy medical and then the subsidized insurance program will help those who make less than $4,417.50. I realize that there are different programs in every state, but I do see how anyone can argue that poor children do not have access to health care or healthy food options when the income requirements are so liberal. Basically you have to be above 200% of the federal poverty level to NOT qualify for free medical care for your children.
 
I haven’t read all the answers, but I really don’t have time. Forgive me if I am repeating what others have said.

First of all, almost every uninsured child is eligible for Medicaid; the income levels are higher than most other social services.

Secondly, yes, I think the medical system is rigged so that this is simply something we have to accept.
  1. Doctors have to charge the amount they charge Medicaid if they accept Medicaid patients, which means that there is no way to work with a doctor financially if he accepts Medicaid patients.
  2. Because judges do not throw out frivoluous lawsuits, and because so many cases are cheaper to resolve than to defend, costs have skyrocketed. I don’t have a problem with people suing for a legitimate cause, but those who sue just because they can are destroying the system.
  3. The government approves certain things, like whether an area can get another MRI machine. As a result, the free market does not work in the normal way when it comes to medical care, and costs for certain procedures and treatments are very high.
  4. Medicines need to be tested to the FDA’s standards. These testing costs are borne by our citizens alone—they are not passed along to those who use the drugs in other countries. Since the cost is something like $20M, meds also are very expensive.
Because this is not the fault of patients but of the government, I do believe that we need to offer medical aid to those in need.
 
Indeed…I’m sure you have no such regressive taxes where you live. :rolleyes:
I don’t really know why you roll your eyes. I never suggested that the UK, or even my new home was exempt from a value added or sales tax. I added the comment “It’s up to you guys” because the topic is about welfare (and as a tangent, tax) in the US. But I see that you have decided to interpret my post as some indictment of America. It isn’t.
If you have a VAT of 17.5%, is that not a regressive tax?
Yes, it certainly is.

In order to avoid going off-topic, I’ll open a thread on the very interesting matter of the FairTax proposal.
 
I am really amazed at this conversation. I am amazed that people would not want to have coverage for all children. Or provide universal coverage for those that are not insured…

Not free healthcare for everyone. It is these children that will bring in our future…

There is no perfect situation with regards to health care… No country has it 100% correct… but we need to try to deal with our insurance companies… I do believe they are out of control.

I would think that if you are pro-life you would be a champion for underpriveledged children and trying to set up programs to help these children.
I would think that if you are pro-life you would want to see our taxes paying for programs so that the moms can improve their lives so they could improve their childrens lives…

I am not saying that every child will be wealthy or middle class… but there is so much room to improve their lives… There is no need to have hungry children… no need to have uneducated children and no reason that children do not need to have to medical treatment or well baby checkups…for preventitive care.
I totally believe that people should help those in need. I just think that in an ideal world (which I know does not exist!), the help would be *voluntary *and not government-mandated.

I think that charity is what we ourselves choose to do, and we may choose to do different things. One person may devote a lot of time to teaching people how to eat better. Another may devote time to building up a business and hiring people with no experience and helping them that way, as well as by monetary contributions to charities. Another may volunteer in a hospital so as to free up resources. Etc…

The problem is that when taxes get to a certain level, people have to work more. One could not live a completely self-sufficient life because they would need to pay land taxes, for example. The more the government pays for, the more taxes we have to pay, and the more we have to work to feed ourselves.

Additionally, the government is incredibly inefficient. Medicaid and Medicare frauds costs us millions each year, and there are also the costs of administering the program. And the charitable means of helping fade away as the government takes over an area.

But the government has set up the rules, and so we are forced to accept the reality in which we live, and not try to act as tho the ideal were the real.
 
I am a little disappointed that no one has taken this approach, but allow me to describe a health care plan for children that is both catholic(universal) and Catholic (in accordance with the fullness of the Church established by Christ on earth).

First, every child is born to two loving parents who are formally committed to each other in a way that is exclusive and permanent (married). These parents lovingly embrace the basic responsibility to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care for the children that result from their loving commitment to each other. They do this even if it means sacrificing some of their own needs and wants.

Second, if the parents are unable or unwilling to meet the minimum responsibilities of parenthood, the grandparents, godparents, siblings, aunts and uncles step in to help. They are presumably closest to the situation and best able to assess the needs of the children.

Third, if the efforts of the extended family are insufficient to meet basic needs, larger community has an obligation to help, starting with friends and neighbors, the Church, and private charitable organizations.

Fourth, if, and only if, the need is even greater than these can provide, the responsibility falls to government which derives its funds by coercively taking (taxing) from all citizens in a way that is just and equitable. This should be done according to the principle of proximity, starting with local government, then state, and finally the national government.
 
One of the biggest distortions of biblical principles I have seen is the current use of various Bible verses such as “whatsoever you do to least of my brethren…” and so forth.

Without exception in the Bible, the moral mandate and imperative is divinely and spiritually imposed NOT upon the “state” or “Caesar” or some civil group but to either the individual or the Jews or other similar non-secular.

The common principle that “a text taken out of context is a pretext.” holds here.

It is an invalid use of the theological principles for this primary reason:

Anyone who is steeped in scripture and theology, if intellectually honest, MUST admit that these mandates are primarily individual and that MUCH more is to be gained when individuals and groups act on the example of Mother Teresa.

If one takes out the “full consent of the will” in FAITH from a charitable or good work, you remove a substantial, if not majority, of the spiritual benefit to be gained by it. When the state takes wealth from one group beyond their own full consent IN FAITH and then distributes this wealth and incurs debt apart from the will of even many more, then there is little or NO benefit to the Body of Christ and his Church.

On the other hand, if an individual or any moral community does some good work it absolutely DOES benefit the body of Christ in a much more profoundly powerful way than any secular power ever could.

Remember, if the Sodom and Gomorrah “states” helped the poor they would still have been destroyed by their sin. However, if only one good man resided there they would have been saved.

Moreover, as governments grow, private charitable giving tends to wither and dry up.

People wanting health care and insurance for all is fine and compassionate. Additionally, believing that the state should implement control over the health care system can be a valid secular position. However, to use the Bible to justify it is a pretext and approaches the profane IMHO.

My assertions are especially true of modern representative republics where the represented are a mix of Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheist, agnostics, Buddhists, etc.

Even theocracies such as Iran and the Vatican have some residents that are not of the established religion of the state.

Jesus said we will always have the poor. When one analyzes why he said this, you quickly realize that one cannot build any orderly construct of any human society that provides for the greatest human and spiritual potential without the risk of failure on every level. Without the possibility of failure there can be no possibility of success. Without the possibility of destitution, there can be no possibility of prosperity. Without the possibility of damnation, there can be no possibility of salvation.

We often do not understand God’s ways because he knows infinitely more than us. But we do have scripture and we do have intellect. Neither should be insulted by these politicians throwing these verses around like they know what they mean.
 
…You just keep on talking that “evils of socialism” line, while the rest of the industrialised world look after those in need of medical care.

Heaven knows what dire consequences lie in wait if the US government started using tax money to feed the poor, or cure them of diseases. A frightful thought.
Heaven knows – and so does Canada. If you want to find out what happens when 46% of your income is confiscated to be ladled out to the favourites of the government so they can keep their cushy American lifestyles, just move up here.

EXAMPLE: In June I was diagnosed with a “serious heart problem.” I was told that I would have an angiogram “sometime” – in the summer “everyone’s on vacation” so never mind. A month later I called up the cardiologist and raised cain because I had heard nothing, and found that they had “forgotten” to even mention the angiogram to anybody!

Currently there is an 8 month waiting list for an MRI in Ontario. When I was at the audiologist last week, a patient was told that either he could go on the indefinite waiting list for an MRI or “go to Buffalo and pay $2,000.” [shrug].

Last year 90 critically ill or seriously premature babies were born in the USA because there was not ONE SINGLE CRITICAL CARE NURSERY SLOT IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF CANADA. This included a set of quintuplets whose mother was airlifted by special helicopter to Michigan.

And last night there were so few ambulances and EMT in Toronto that when a call came in of a man with no vital signs, an ambulance that already had a critically ill patient on board was diverted to the scene, and one EMT stayed in the ambulance and the other tried without success to resucitate the patient.

And guess what? “Universal Health Care” doesn’t cover anything but catastrophic care, even if you can get it, and a very large percentage of Canadians have no family doctors because the doctors move to the States where they can make a living. (In Quebec there was such a shortage of Emergency Room doctors that they were considering sending bailiffs to forcibly march doctors to emergency rooms who had already put in a full day’s work.)

If you want to know how wonderful it is to live under socialism, it’s just north of you. Come on up.

P.S. You cannot have a “right” to something that you cannot produce for yourself without the assumption that you are entitled to enslave another for your benefit. Always ask yourself the question “at whose expense?” when you are demanding “free” this and that for yourself or someone else. There is no “free.” SOMEBODY has to pay.
 
Congratulations Skip! You managed to stuggle your way through an undergraduate degree from the worlds 177th best university.
I guess when you don’t have an argument, hypocrisy and ad homs are all that’s left.
 
My husband and I hav three little children. We are not considered “poor” but we do qualify for free health care for our children, (including pregnancy medical) provided by DSHS in our state. We also qualify for WIC.

We also pay WAY less in taxes than what we recieve back every year at tax time, so I am not sure how you justify your comment. In my state we have sales tax, but as far as I am concerned that is more fair to the poor and the “rich” (yes, we seem to pretend in this thread that there is only one or the otherr)
Just out of idle curiosity, why did you not plan ahead before having children that other people would be forced at gunpoint to support? Did you think somehow that you are entitled to the product of the labour of others, even if the others do not want you to have it and would like to keep what they earn so they could, for example, support their elderly parents instead of your children?

You cannot claim entitlement to things that must be produced by other people without claiming that de facto if not de juris you are justified in owning slaves.
 
Just out of idle curiosity, why did you not plan ahead before having children that other people would be forced at gunpoint to support? Did you think somehow that you are entitled to the product of the labour of others, even if the others do not want you to have it and would like to keep what they earn so they could, for example, support their elderly parents instead of your children?

You cannot claim entitlement to things that must be produced by other people without claiming that de facto if not de juris you are justified in owning slaves.
I don’t know the reason rmbrulotte is in the financial situation she is in (i.e. how she came to have three children, why she is in the financial range where she qualifies for aid) but your post is rather presumptuous. I didn’t see anything she said that showed an attitude of “entitlement.”

I have four children, and we have been through some tough times. We only used some services available to us (free shots for the kids), but if necessary, I would have made use of food banks, government programs…pretty much anything to make sure my kids are fed and safe.

When we had our children, money wasn’t a problem. So when you wag your finger and ask “why did you not plan ahead before having children,” it shows a little bit of ignorance on your part. We all need to plan, save and take responsibility for our decisions and actions, but planning and saving doesn’t always work out.
 
Heaven knows – and so does Canada. If you want to find out what happens when 46% of your income is confiscated to be ladled out to the favourites of the government so they can keep their cushy American lifestyles, just move up here.

EXAMPLE: In June I was diagnosed with a “serious heart problem.” I was told that I would have an angiogram “sometime” – in the summer “everyone’s on vacation” so never mind. A month later I called up the cardiologist and raised cain because I had heard nothing, and found that they had “forgotten” to even mention the angiogram to anybody!

Currently there is an 8 month waiting list for an MRI in Ontario. When I was at the audiologist last week, a patient was told that either he could go on the indefinite waiting list for an MRI or “go to Buffalo and pay $2,000.” [shrug].

Last year 90 critically ill or seriously premature babies were born in the USA because there was not ONE SINGLE CRITICAL CARE NURSERY SLOT IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF CANADA. This included a set of quintuplets whose mother was airlifted by special helicopter to Michigan.

And last night there were so few ambulances and EMT in Toronto that when a call came in of a man with no vital signs, an ambulance that already had a critically ill patient on board was diverted to the scene, and one EMT stayed in the ambulance and the other tried without success to resucitate the patient.

And guess what? “Universal Health Care” doesn’t cover anything but catastrophic care, even if you can get it, and a very large percentage of Canadians have no family doctors because the doctors move to the States where they can make a living. (In Quebec there was such a shortage of Emergency Room doctors that they were considering sending bailiffs to forcibly march doctors to emergency rooms who had already put in a full day’s work.)

If you want to know how wonderful it is to live under socialism, it’s just north of you. Come on up.

P.S. You cannot have a “right” to something that you cannot produce for yourself without the assumption that you are entitled to enslave another for your benefit. Always ask yourself the question “at whose expense?” when you are demanding “free” this and that for yourself or someone else. There is no “free.” SOMEBODY has to pay.
Quite a rant. Perhaps Canada should also look to France or Scandinavia then. Try and get a health system that works. The American system is obviously not the answer.
 
Quite a rant. Perhaps Canada should also look to France or Scandinavia then. Try and get a health system that works. The American system is obviously not the answer.
Scandinavian systems don’t interest me much…same old socialized medicine. However, reading up on the French system, it does sound interesting:
boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/
…the French share Americans’ distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as “socialized medicine.” Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation’s public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
…

But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
…
Nor do France’s doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
…
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation’s already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
I’m not sure how it would be implemented in the US, but it certainly sounds like they have a better mix of public/private than the other countries who favor socialized medicine.
 
Quite a rant. Perhaps Canada should also look to France or Scandinavia then. Try and get a health system that works. The American system is obviously not the answer.
If you mean the American system where 40% of children are born to unmarried mothers, the majority of adults are overweight, 25% of adults smoke after 44 years of government warnings, the majority of public school students in large cities cannot read at grade level, and the abuse of dangerous and sometimes illegal substances is considered a normal part of growing up, I agree with you.

That is a lot of stress to put on any system and it is caused by choices that are foolish, immoral, and even criminal.

How about a system of health insurance that is more like auto insurance? You pay rates based on the individual risks you choose to take, and you pay it yourself. Eliminate government subsidies for bad choices and the tax preference for employer purchased insurance compared to insurance purchased by the individual. The one protection I would provide in a free market is that your rates could not be determined by factors the individual cannot control, like genetics.

People who are poor would get a sliding subsidy to purchase insurance that they shop for themselves. They pick the plan best for themselves and are more responsible to manage their own behavior that contributes to good health. People with a lot of bad habits would find insurance to be very expensive, but they would also have the option of changing that behavior rather than having everyone else subsidize it.

An increase in personal responsibility could save a lot of scarce resources and still promote Catholic values.
 
How about a system of health insurance that is more like auto insurance? You pay rates based on the individual risks you choose to take, and you pay it yourself. Eliminate government subsidies for bad choices and the tax preference for employer purchased insurance compared to insurance purchased by the individual.
But how to you look after kids who don’t really have choice as to whether their poor parents smoke around them, or feed them junk food every day?

In geneal though, that’s a slipperly slope. Should we rule out excercises like running which are great for your heart but bad for you knees?

Skiing?

Working too hard? Stressful jobs, etc etc. the list would be endless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top