On the Right, Public Healthcare for Children is a Socialist Plot

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
By Paul Krugman, The New York Times. Posted August 27, 2007.

Conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American.​

Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.

They'd have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren't available, many families would pay for private schools instead.

So let's end this un-American system and make education what it should be -- a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn't have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America's education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.

O.K., in case you're wondering, I haven't lost my mind, I'm drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled "The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door," is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Such an expansion, says Heritage, will "displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage."

And Rudy Giuliani's call for "free-market solutions, not socialist models" was about health care, not education.

But thinking about how we'd react if they said the same things about education helps dispel the fog of obfuscation right-wingers use to obscure the true nature of their position on children's health.

The truth is that there's no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It's just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children's medical bills "welfare," with all the negative connotations that go with that term.

And conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American.

Here's what I mean: The great majority of Americans believe that everyone is entitled to a chance to make the most of his or her life. Even conservatives usually claim to believe that. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, the former chairman of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers, contrasts the position of liberals, who he says believe in equality of outcomes, with that of conservatives, who he says believe that the goal of policy should be "to give everyone the same shot and not be surprised or concerned when outcomes differ wildly."

But a child who doesn't receive adequate health care, like a child who doesn't receive an adequate education, doesn't have the same shot - he or she doesn't have the same chances in life as children who get both these things.

And insurance is crucial to receiving adequate health care. President Bush may think that lacking insurance is no problem - "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room" - but the reality is that the nine million children in America who don't have health insurance often have unmet medical or dental needs, don't have a regular place for medical care, and frequently have to delay care because of cost.

Now, the public understands the importance of health insurance, even if Mr. Bush doesn't. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an amazing 94 percent of the public regards the fact that many children in America lack health insurance as either a "serious" or a "very serious" problem.

So how can conservatives defend the indefensible, and oppose giving children the health care they need? By trying the old welfare queen in her Cadillac strategy (albeit without the racial innuendo that made it so effective when Reagan used it). That is, to divert public sympathy from people who really need help, they're trying to change the subject to the supposedly undeserving recipients of government aid. Hence the emphasis on the evils of "middle-class welfare."

Proponents of an expansion of children's health care have, as they should, responded to this strategy with facts and figures. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that S-chip expansion would, in fact, primarily benefit those who need it most: the great majority of children receiving coverage under an expanded program would otherwise have been uninsured.

But the more fundamental response should be, so what?

We offer free education, and don't worry about middle-class families getting benefits they don't need, because that's the only way to ensure that every child gets an education - and giving every child a fair chance is the American way. And we should guarantee health care to every child, for the same reason.
 
I agree and I'll go beyond that and say every citizen should be entitled to health care at public expense. Take the profit out of health care, nationalize the hospital system, and pay the Dr.s a fair salary. Eliminate the Insurance and HMO corporations and allow the rich to seek private medical care as needed. This overhaul of our health care system is sorely needed, and hopefully will be addressed by the next administration. There will be fierce opposition by the afore mentioned corporate lobbyists, but the people (Remember them) must rise up and demand this!
 
This is the only thing in their entire article that I agree with:

So let's end this un-American system and make education what it should be -- a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn't have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America's education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.

There's no question that our K-12 government monopolized school systems are in utter failure. So, we might as well turn our privately run medical system over to the government in its entirety so they can ruin that too. :roll:

Vi
 
This is the only thing in their entire article that I agree with:

So let's end this un-American system and make education what it should be -- a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn't have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America's education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.

There's no question that our K-12 government monopolized school systems are in utter failure. So, we might as well turn our privately run medical system over to the government in its entirety so they can ruin that too. :roll:

Vi
Baarrrffff! Sorry, but thats the only comment I have to this post.
 
Tell ya what, Med ... You come up with the constitutional authority for the federal government to take over our entire medical system and I'll buy into your ideas. Short of that, I'll stick to the pillar of liberty ... and that's constitutional governance. So, have at it big guy.

Vi
 
Tell ya what, Med ... You come up with the constitutional authority for the federal government to take over our entire medical system and I'll buy into your ideas. Short of that, I'll stick to the pillar of liberty ... and that's constitutional governance. So, have at it big guy.

Vi
Why is it you are always asking me to constitutionalize all my arguements while you refuse to see the transgressions made by the Bush regime. For one, check out my signature then tell me the wiretapping is not unconstitutional. Tell me the war powers act is not unconstitutional. As Dank says, your arguements hold no water, I'm more inclined to call them bullshit.
 
here you go Vi.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Enough Said.
 
Dank, for a guy who criticizes Walter Williams, I find it quite amusing that you go ahead and post the genius Paul Krugman of the NYT and Princeton.
Mr Krugman has been WRONG almost 100% since about 1993.
Very interesting.
Krugman has quite the tawdry and sordid past, and is woefully inaccurate.

Krugman Truth Squad: Donald Luskin on Paul Krugman, the 2000 Presidential Election, and TimesSelect on NRO Financial

Donald Luskin on Paul Krugman, Damocles, and Imminent Threats on NRO Financial
Krugman Brings His Brand of Bad Economics to GQ | NewsBusters.org

Krugman's editor at the NYT had to sanction this socialist loon for making things up!
 
Dank, for a guy who criticizes Walter Williams, I find it quite amusing that you go ahead and post the genius Paul Krugman of the NYT and Princeton.
Mr Krugman has been WRONG almost 100% since about 1993.
Very interesting.
Krugman has quite the tawdry and sordid past, and is woefully inaccurate.

Krugman Truth Squad: Donald Luskin on Paul Krugman, the 2000 Presidential Election, and TimesSelect on NRO Financial

Donald Luskin on Paul Krugman, Damocles, and Imminent Threats on NRO Financial
Krugman Brings His Brand of Bad Economics to GQ | NewsBusters.org

Krugman's editor at the NYT had to sanction this socialist loon for making things up!
Wavels, where have you been hiding, at a skinhead retreat I suppose, well pull that head back out and welcome back. I've missed your prurient comments, they don't make any sense but they usually make me laugh, you right wing nazi you. Been lighting any crosses up lately?~LOL~
 
Wrong in who's opinion?
RightWingers? Please, the republicans have been wrong since 1994, they got voted out of office.
 
I couldn't imagine living in a country that does not offer health care and education to everyone. In Canada it is our right to have medical care. At the expense of us tax payers of course. It is called the Ontario Health Insurance Plan OHIP. All we have is a Health card we show at the doctors, specialist, hospital stays, sugeries etc. It is all paid for. They don't pay for ambulance rides though.
 
here you go Vi.


Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Enough Said.

Sorry, Dank ... but its not "enough said." Read what you posted again. The founders thought out every word before they wrote our liberty documents. Do you see what I've highlighted in red above? It says PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. Big difference between PROVIDE and PROMOTE don't you think?

Now take your liberal talking points and impress someone who hasn't studied the founding documents. Don't try foisting that crap off on me. You should know better by now anyway.

Vi
 
just exactally does permote the general welfare mean to you Vi. Please explain.

Provide = Giving.

Like in providing the citizens, through excise taxes and tariffs, a sound military, as the protection of the citizen's rights is one of the FEW legitimate functions of government.

Promote = Encourage.

In other words ... federal government, stay the fuck out of the way and let the people enjoy their freedom and liberty through individual exchange of ideas, goods, services and charity.

Vi
 
PROMOTE: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of; to launch; to further. I believe contribute is the key word along with launch. Right out of Mirriam Webster ya old koot! The government is there to contribute to the general welfare and launch programs that would accomplish this task. Sounds pretty simple to this old country boy. And once they get it launched, they further it along,~LOL~.
 
Sorry Dankster and Med ... no "ownership" involved here at all.

PROMOTE: "to contribute to the growth or prosperity of"

Please explain how the extraction of taxes, from the labor of the citizens, contributes to the growth and prosperity of those individual citizens.

The government CAN contribute to the growth and prosperity of the citizens by making sure the citizens rights are not violated by another. And that violation would include extracting taxes by force from one citizen in order to give to another citizen. Theft is theft and theft is always immoral, EVEN IF A LAW IS PASSED TO MAKE IT LEGAL.

Vi
 
Sorry Dankster and Med ... no "ownership" involved here at all.

PROMOTE: "to contribute to the growth or prosperity of"

Please explain how the extraction of taxes, from the labor of the citizens, contributes to the growth and prosperity of those individual citizens.

The government CAN contribute to the growth and prosperity of the citizens by making sure the citizens rights are not violated by another. And that violation would include extracting taxes by force from one citizen in order to give to another citizen. Theft is theft and theft is always immoral, EVEN IF A LAW IS PASSED TO MAKE IT LEGAL.

Vi
Well, being well versed in the nature of theft. explain the value of your exhorbitant commissions, and how they contribute to society, you parsimonious slut. ~LOL~.
 
Well, being well versed in the nature of theft. explain the value of your exhorbitant commissions, and how they contribute to society, you parsimonious slut. ~LOL~.

Like all members of the loonie left, at least those who have one or two brain cells left after being traumatized through the lobotomy given by our government monopolized school systems, you are doing nothing here but trying to shift the basis of the argument.

Now, if you want to start a thread about real estate commissions, start one. But if you want to comment in this thread, debate the issue, which is the difference between "provide" and "promote" as it pertains to constitutional powers of the federal government.

Thanks ...

Vi

PS: Dankdude ... you are welcome to comment as well.

Damn, will 7x, Wavels and I ever complete your educations? <Sheesh!>
 
Like all members of the loonie left, at least those who have one or two brain cells left after being traumatized through the lobotomy given by our government monopolized school systems, you are doing nothing here but trying to shift the basis of the argument.

Now, if you want to start a thread about real estate commissions, start one. But if you want to comment in this thread, debate the issue, which is the difference between "provide" and "promote" as it pertains to constitutional powers of the federal government.

Thanks ...

Vi

PS: Dankdude ... you are welcome to comment as well.

Damn, will 7x, Wavels and I ever complete your educations? <Sheesh!>
You are the one that brought theft into this thread. I find that interesting as, in my humble estimation, that is basically the nature of your "job", to add to the price of a home 6%, which on a 400,000 home is what, 24,000 fucking dollars, pure fucking theft. No Job that takes a week or two is justified in paying that amount, hence it is outright theft from both the buyer and seller. Theft is what it is. Period.
 
Back
Top