The Observation Deck

I drive a 9 year old SUV and I need it because I have 5 children, I can't really fit them into a compact car, and it does get about 20 mpg as it's not a fancy one, it's an old 2WD stripped down version. My vehicle is paid off and I drive very little, although I do drive to the clinic at least once a week for various doctors appointments. And if I could work I would. My husband though supports us and I would gladly pay for insurance but for my family due to our medical issues it would be about $20,000 a year. How should I pay for that when I can't work and my husband works his butt off already? I am not asking for a free ride I am saying that we need to do something because people who have preexisting medical conditions cannot get affordable care. And I pay taxes, in fact since my husband is self employed we pay a ton of taxes, I'm certainly not asking for a handout just an answer to this predicament that myself and millions of other americans are in.

Atheist/Deist social darwinism + the new religious conservatism =:

the new religious social darwinism.

get the pro-lifers into the voting bloc. but if folks get sick tell them to just go die.

George Washington didn't get dental surgery for his painful dentures: he just took Opium tinctures. it was some good shit. When he finally got old and sick, his personal friend and physician personally bled him to death. so the founding fathers must not want health insurance reform. or something. nothing in the Constitution said George Washington couldn't have his laudanum. The founding fathers didn't worry about their kids doing bad in high school and not getting into a good college.

can we get a conservative candidate to run on a platform of disbanding medicare and social security? These old voters just need rocking chairs and easy access to weed, opium, and booze until they finish being alive. Medicare keeps them alive long enough to believe the liberals want to raise their taxes, let the terrorists win, and move a bunch of blacks or gays or Irish or Puerto Ricans into the neighborhood.

nothing in the constitution about running water, indoor plumbing, household electricity, the interstate highway system. it took a lot of government oomph to get those things going in most of the country. if we can get that out of the constitution we can get additional healthcare utility out of the constitution. Let's leave the Constitution out of the debate, or what we imagine the founding fathers would have told us to do.

the fundamental nature of insurance is that people who are healthy and safe subsidize those who are unhealthy and unsafe. if it wasn't...there'd be no point in buying insurance no matter how free market it is. for some reason providers negotiate much lower rates with the insurance companies. not sure why that is. doctors can't be lowering their rates to attract more patients. I've never heard of a doctor with a shortage of patients. if folks got the insurance negotiated rate to begin with, they wouldn't need insurance most of the time. minus all the administrative costs of dealing with insurance companies. credit is so cheap for mortgages, don't see why it wouldn't be for healthcare. 30 bucks a month for cable tv. at least 12 bucks a month for the best buy credit card. 5 cans of pepsi a day. but no money for health care.

I drive a Jeep Cherokee because I can't get in and out of a low to the ground car. I have very bad hips and knees that sometimes have me so crippled up I can barely walk. Have to get to the doctor's somehow.

You never know what another's shoes feel like Will. So quit stepping on them. The only one who comes out foolish is yourself.

I swear you are the most self-centered, egotistical, sanctimontious blowhard I've seen in a while.

Oh and may your holiday reflect everything you deserve.

Oh and there is also a little phrase that goes "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Therefore, the tools to achieve those things are an implied right.

[quote="sharon kinsella"]Oh and there is also a little phrase that goes "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Therefore, the tools to achieve those things are an implied right.[/quote]

Perhaps you could tell us where in the Constitution you find that phrase?

OK Will, the words are the preamble to the Declaration, but it doesn't change the point Sharon was making.

If the supposed "richest country" on Earth cannot take care of its own people, what are we, really?

Answer me that, Will.

[quote="Grace O'Malley"]:roll: OK Will, the words are the preamble to the Declaration, but it doesn't change the point Sharon was making.

If the supposed "richest country" on Earth cannot take care of its own people, what are we, really?

Answer me that, Will.[/quote]

I would prefer to let Sharon defend her own position, just for amusement. But I presume you know that the preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not a part of the Constitution and is not the law of our land. If it were, we could not execute criminals (depriving them of life), not imprison them (depriving them of liberty), nor impose any limitations on their activity (making it illegal for them to do what ever they like, such as stealing or lynching). Incidentally, those words in the declaration are often used by conservatives in support of the concept of natural law. Are you such a conservative?

If we are the richest country on earth, it is because of the beneficiency of our land, and our history of demanding performance, to the extent of their abilities, of our citizenry. When we stop demanding performance of our citizenry, by awarding non-performance, we will see a decline in our overall performance. I fully support individual support of the handicapped, but I oppose involuntary government support, except to those who are handicapped because of government service. because such support is coerced, and is often abused.

Incidentally, despite Sharon's best efforts, my holiday was very nice, except the cheesecake was a bit undercooked. I may have to fire the pastry chef, or perhaps I'll just thrash her.

It's been the law of the land for quite some time that those having differences (the word "handicapped" is no longer in general usage) have genuine rights that are to be recognized and protected.

Additionally, it has been governmental practice for many years that those having exceptionalities be offered the means to achieve a level playing field with jobs. training, and housing opportunities.

Without governmental intervention, particularly with civil rights, slavery would still exist in our country, and people with "disabilities" might still be relegated to back rooms.

At some point, government must be an engine of human rights.

Elites in our society are great about telling people to pull their own weight, or to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but let tragedy strike in their own personal circumstances, and it's my experience that they'll look as quickly for help to the government as those not as fortunate.

The thing is, sooner or later, tragedy sadly does strike virtually all families.

Economic advantage does not isolate the haves from the unfortunate circumstances of life.

Government must provide fair protections to everyone when these sorts of things occur.

Back to the banjo.

Grace O'Malley wrote::roll: OK Will, the words are the preamble to the Declaration, but it doesn't change the point Sharon was making.

If the supposed "richest country" on Earth cannot take care of its own people, what are we, really?

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote:It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare.

We can take care of our own people, government intervention is unnecessary. Look no further than such entities as St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or even the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

I'll say this every time I discuss this topic:
I don't know anyone that says the health care and insurance system doesn't need fixing. The system needs a lot of work, but what currently sits at the Capitol Building is the wrong way to do it.

Roy Pitchford wrote:We can take care of our own people, government intervention is unnecessary. Look no further than such entities as St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or even the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Roy,

I applaud the invaluable work of the institutions you mention. The problem is that we have 30-40 million uninsured people who have no access to basic health care. No single charity or group of charities is going to be able to help that amount of people. When It comes to something so massive in scale only the government has the clout and resources to move on it.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is grate but at the end of the day they are only helping a minuscule percentage of underprivileged school children.

Do you think the interstate highway system would have been built if it was not for government intervention? Do you think polio would have been wiped out if left up to charity?

Roy, you say we can take care of everybody. How you purpose we do it with out massive government intervention? Or is your position that some people just do not get access to health care. If that is the case, fine that is your right to think that way. But come out and say so.

The government sucks. It is not perfect. But it is what we have.

These are old, old disagreements that have been around for hundreds of years- between the so-called "liberal" and "conservative" schools of thought.

We probably, therefore, won't resolve the issue of rights with this thread, but...

here's a quote from John F. Kennedy's inaugural address that might have a bearing on the discussion:

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

Back to the banjo....

[quote="Gary Rice"]These are old, old disagreements that have been around for hundreds of years- between the so-called "liberal" and "conservative" schools of thought.

We probably, therefore, won't resolve the issue of rights with this thread, but...

here's a quote from John F. Kennedy's inaugural address that might have a bearing on the discussion:

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

Back to the banjo....[/quote]

I would disagree about these disagreements. When our Constitution was promulgated, there was wide agreement that it would be a limited government (it didn't even have the ability to raise an army) and its economic power was largely limited to preventing the various states from impairing trade among each other, and dealing with other nations. And we went on for many years pretty happy to have the federal government stay out of our business. Only with the depression did we start to accept federal involvement in our business, and that acceptance did not come willingly for many years. People today don't remember that, and our teachers don't seem to have done a very good job of teaching it. Many things that are widely accepted today, from federal control of our economy to federal control of education and now federal control of health care. would have seemed unbelievable to our great grandparents, if not our grandparents.

As to whatever President Kennedy said, I would have a lot more respect for people who start these grandiose federal programs, if they would lead the way by donating their own fortunes before imposing potentially crushing costs on people of limited means, and on generations that have not yet even been born. But it seems they come into office rich and leave office even richer; many of them have not even had a job where they needed their paycheck to support their families, so how can they tell the rest of us that we have to eat a little less while we subsidize their schemes. I seem to recall that Medicare (and perhaps Medicaid, too, but I don't really remember that) were Kennedy schemes, but were not enacted before he was murdered, and were enacted in the memorial spirit. And it seems to me that medical care was affordable before these schemes came into being, and costs have soared since them, along with the national debt.

I am well aware that the fortunes of these schemers, while vast to us, would not be sufficient alone to pay for the scheme, but I would trust their motives more if they would at least make the gesture. Unfortunately, it appears that they mutter "let them eat cake" before embarking on their yacht to the private island.

I try not to use the terms liberal and conservative, because their meanings seem to change over time and with the subject. And many of the people I know agree with some of the points from each camp, and would resent someone assigning them to one camp just because of his opinion on a single issue. For instance, I favor the death penalty (aha, I'm a conservative), but I believe in markedly limited government (more libertarian, it looks; conservatives say they favor limited government. but they really want an all-controlling government that imposes their way of life on all of us), but I'm very irreligious (damned Godless liberal!).

I'm going to continue using the word handicapped, as it is universally understood, and not insulting. I'm reluctant to be lectured about political correctness, especially by someone who holds himself out as a spokesman for a discredited profession.

First, a few general thoughts:

So that we can define our parameters here: In a chat room, we express personal opinion. I, for one, would not wish to speak for anyone other than myself. I do however, defend what I believe to be the truth, and I suppose that includes defending the teaching profession from time to time.

If some would allege that profession to be discredited, I would suggest, by whom? In poll after poll, teachers continue to rate high marks for admiration. Nearly all of us have had some teacher who influenced our lives in some positive way.

The difficulty that I perceive is that some find it offensive that associations of teachers have banded together in the cause of better working conditions, salaries, and benefits. Well that's just too bad. They have that right in law. Along with that right, teachers have also helped to improve the educational conditions of students.

Want proof? Look no further than our own district.

Here in Lakewood, in a school district top-rated "Excellent" just this past year, teachers and administrators have now come together with an agreement that will insure an orderly and professional operation of our schools.

Discredited? Hardly. Honored... would be more like it.

Now for a bit of a history lesson.

When our country was formed, it was true that limited Federal government was the model sought, but that was not in the Constitution document. Rather, it was with another document called the Articles of Confederation. That was the first Federal document, and from the start, it was clear that there were times (as with national defense) that more centralized power was needed. The question, as always, was "How much?"

Within a few years, a constitutional convention was convened and the Constitution was drawn up. From the start, it met with resistance, and it was only with the addition of the first 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) that it was ratified.

The struggle of "how much federal power is good?" continues to bedevil our country. That question tore our land apart in the Civil War, and continues to be a hot topic of discussion.

Like others on this 'deck, my own personal opinions range from conservative to liberal on different topics. We are far more complex as humans than being one-dimensional characters. As a teacher, I seek knowledge and truth, and am often surprised with where they are found.

I'll simply close with the thought of old Scrooge being confronted by the "Ghost of Christmas Present"in Dickens' classic story. Scrooge is surprised by the appearance of two children with outstretched arms. The Ghost tells Scrooge to fear most, the boy representing ignorance.

A wise admonition, to be sure.

Now, for Will:

I fully agree with you that, at all times, expansion of Federal power should be seriously questioned. That Federal powers have been intrusive at times, or have been abused, or can limit or even stifle human creativity and individualism at times, I would agree.

At the same time, Federal powers have helped millions of people, and continue to do so every day.

It's a delicate and dynamic balance, to be sure.

Lastly, as to your comment about the word, "handicapped"? It's not a matter of being "politically correct". As a matter of fact I too, do not like the concept of "political correctness" either. Political thoughts, like religious thoughts, are a matter of personal belief.

It's simply that looking at people as having "differences", rather than "handicaps", lends to an attitude that I believe that you would probably support as well:

That there are no limits for anyone.

Back to the banjo...

We all have differences. To say that someone has differences doesn’t necessarily convey the intended meaning of the author and often leads to confusion. Maybe a nicer sounding word than handicapped is in order?

How about ‘gifted’? In one of the school threads, there were several posts about Grant and Lincoln having a ‘gifted’ program. I remember someone responding to a post and their words suggested (to me anyway) they thought ‘gifted’ meant the opposite of what the schools mean as gifted.

Regarding affordable health care, I think it’s more of a duty than a right. The question is how far do you go with social welfare programs?

Society has said that everyone shall chip in to pay for education up through high school but not for college. Cities provide Police and Fire protection but don’t have an officer or fire truck sitting on each street waiting for something to happen. There is Medicare and Medicaid for the poor, children and elderly. If you make too much money to be on one of these but can’t afford your own premium, you are SOL. What do we do? Obviously, we can’t ignore these people. But how far do we as a society go to perform our duty? And who should pay for health care for all? The rich? The rich got rich by working hard, making smart decisions and having a little luck along the way. Keep raising taxes on the rich and there will be no incentive for them to continue working hard.

There is something wrong when our health care system is 17% of our GDP. Doesn’t anyone smell something fishy when health care is approaching one fifth of our economy? Let's figure out the root causes and correct them. The Beast is out of control. Why does 5 stitches cost $1,000 and healing a broken arm $2,000?

My two cents, FWIW

At least Charlie is somewhat human.

Handicapped is now called disabled, differently abled. But whatever "we" in general are called we are not always able to continue earning our way. Many of did that for many years, raising children with no assistance from anyone. Now we need things we can't provide for ourselves.

A society is judged by how it treats it's weakest members. The members of that society will be treated the same.

What you may prefer Will doesn't matter. I always give permission to Grace and Gary to answer for me, they have proved their humanity.