Readers’ Responses to Our Question (86)

A moral government meets the basic needs of its people: food, shelter, healthcare, and employment.

A superior government would remove sickness and death. The only government that can accomplish that is God’s Kingdom. Under that government, there will be no more doctors, hospitals, or disease of any kind. “No resident will say” ‘I am sick’.” (Isaiah 33:24)

Mr. Mark and Henry James,

Yup!!! Reading and comprehension lapse. Blood pressure was up a little due to work related issues.

The war in Iraq is costing the American tax payer 10 billions dollars a month....how much health care would that pay for?

A woman went to see her psychiatrist. "I'm realy concerned," she said. "Yesterday, I found my daughter and the little boy next door together, naked, examining each others bodies and giggling." The psychiatrist smiled. "There's nothing to worry about," she said, "It's not unusual." "Well, I dont know," said the woman, "It bothers me. It bothers my daughter's husband,too."

Mr Mark

I thought your satire was quite clearly satire. I think Gaby just had a momentary reading lapse.

And yes, that Ole Dr Elliott is something, ain't he? I think he wins the prize for lack of clarity here. Others like Cal and Colson are much more uninformed and illogical, but boy is Willis dense. I guess it's cuz his IQ is over 200, and you and I are only around 180.

"Is health care for children a parental responsibility or a moral imperative for society?"

This is a question? In the richest society in the history of the world, this is a QUESTION?????

No wonder it's on the superstition page.

THE 2000-YR-OLD QUESTION ANSWERED
Re: Six Hundred Threescore and Six (Rev. 13:15-18/KJV)
CHRISTIANITY, compared to all other beliefs, unbelief, religions, etc., in the world explains MARK, NAME, NUMBER, and IMAGE.
ShareHopeInPromise-Ministry.org/Blog

"Did you take the patient's temperature, nurse?" "No,doctor. Is it missing?"

Gaby -

You missed my point entirely.

Maybe I was being cryptic. Gads! Could it be that reading Willis Elliot is influencing my writing? Is my writing devolving into incoherence?

Question,

Har, Har!!!

Since my liberation, everything makes sense. No more superstitions, no more Catholic/Christian locks on Heaven (if there is one), no more "pwtfft"s, no more prophets/"god-profits" and no more hallucination-based theologies/religions!!!!

With respect to the topic, current monetary support of global religions and their superstitions should end with said savings being used for universal health care for all global citizens.

Correction, it should have said "......have ever been without it."

The health insurance is the main reason I stay at the job I have. The pay is mediocre, but the benefits are good. And I do have a few co-workers that I actually enjoy hanging out with away from the office.

My daughter is almost 18. If she's a student, I can carry her on my insurance until she's 21. I'm not sure what we're going to do when we can no longer carry her on my insurance. She certainly doesn't make enough to buy her own, and her employer doesn't offer a group plan for his full-time employees, much less part-timers. Even if he did, there's no way she would make enough working part-time and going to school full-time to pay for it - and the student health centers at most colleges aren't good for anything more serious than a hang-nail. Some colleges offer health insurance, but if it's anything like when I was in school, it's expensive to buy, and the coverage is minimal. I guess if she gets pregnant, she can qualify for SCHIP (only joking, don't worry).

Merry Meet, Lepi!

Yes, I know! But I didn't want to go into too much detail.

You know, I wonder what percentage of opponents for health insurance have ever been with it.

I consider myself very lucky to never not have insurance. And luckier yet, that I have enough money to cover my eye and dental care since neither of those are covered under the plan.

No wonder I see so many Americans with broken or missing teeth, they just can't afford to go. Pretty pitiful if you ask me.

Gaby:

Actually, restaurants don't even pay minimum wage to wait staff. Servers are expected to garner a certain percentage of their income from tips, and that is used to legally pay them below minimum wage. My daughter is a waitress, and her paycheck is paltry. She works her ass off to make sure that her customers tip well, otherwise she doesn't make enough to justify burning the gas to go to work.

Hah!

I knew this would open up a can of worms!

Mr. Mark, a house and a car are generally insured and can be replaced. A human life cannot!

Nicole, while I agree with you that employers should be mandated to offer some kind of health insurance, many do not or can not because of financial restraints.

Most convenience stores, movie rentals places, fast food restaurants, even regular and upscale restaurants, movie theaters, etc. do not only pay their employees minimum or just above minimum wages, they also do not provide health insurance in any way, shape or form.

American insurance companies will reject any application when there is a pre-existing condition, or even when their physical isn't up to the companies standard.

Not everyone has the opportunity to get a quality education, especially post high school to be eligible for those higher ranked jobs that carry benefits.

Are all these people throwaways when it comes to health insurance? Who does have a responsibility to see they don't fall through the cracks? If not society, then who?

Ah, in this so very Christian country nobody wants to be their brothers keeper when it affects their own pocket books.

Primarily it's the parents responsibility. You have kids now it's your job to take care of them. And just because the government will offer this healthcare do you really believe the people who need will take it? Think about when they give free immunizations so kids can get into school every year. Yet year after year after year, parents don't get these kids their shots and they miss school days and weeks at a time for nothing.

Then think about how much the government is already in your business can you imagine what type of questions they will ask you once they dish out FREE/Subsidized Insurance? Then think about whose going to pay for it. Do you realize that everyone who currently doesn't have healthcare for their kids probably also has a problem with feeding their kids. So are they on a the Welfare system or the WIC system? So now all of these people will be pulling more and more money from tax payers who actually work for a living to provide the basics for their children. If you work then your employer should offer you some type of health care. If it's no more than just regular check ups and immunizations for the kids. But what about when Little Johnny or Jane gets sick. Is the prescription going to be covered. A child with Asthma has about 3-4 prescriptions regularly when each one can cost $150.00 or more and who is going to pay for that. It's not just about health care it's also about preventitive health care. So are these Government appointed doctors going to serve us like our "government appointed attorneys" in the judicial system? If so, we are really up the creek and our children will not be better off.

1.) Just make it mandatory for employers to provide a basic health insurance plan similar to the Worker's Comp, program. or STD (Short-Term Disability). That way it's left up to the employers and not subsidized by the federal govt.

2.) Government should not have a health care plan similar to a welfare or wic program. It would get way out of control and people who don't even qualify will get the benefits at the cost of the tax payers who are already being taxed too high. Just like the get over on the welfare system they will do the same with that.

3.) Why is this question on this ON FAITH forum? Seems to me as if people are trying to throw their political views out there while people are heading to the polls.

Here's an idea: let's make people carry insurance to cover everything in life that we consider a societal issue.

For example, every town has their own police and fire departments. These departments are paid through taxes. But why should they be paid through taxes? If our health is a personal issue, why not police and fire protections as well? After all, I'm 52, and I've never had a fire in my house, nor have the police ever visited my house, yet I pay taxes to cover my fellow citizens who do have fires in their homes. I pay taxes to pay for the police who show up to quell a domestic disturbance, even though I've never had on at my house. Why?

Let people buy insurance for such things. If your house catches fire and burns down, you get reimbursed for the cost of the home by your home owner's policy. But maybe you should carry insurance to pay for the fire department as well. After all, it was YOUR house that burned down, not mine. The fire department should send you a big hefty bill to cover their efforts to save your home. That bill will by necessity carry surcharges to account for medical treatment that fire fighters may have to receive in the future for injuries they sustained and physical conditions they developed fighting the fire at your home.

Same with the police. If you get pulled over for speeding, you not only get a speeding ticket, you get a bill to pay the police officer's salary, the gas used and the maintenance on his motorcycle for the hour in which you were ticketed. Why should my taxes pay for such things? I don't speed. You should carry insurance to pay the costs you made the police department incur to run the department.

After all, if health care/insurance is a personal responsibility that can suffer no aid from government distribution of taxes, why should the fire and police departments be any different?

And while we're at it, let's extend that thinking to the funding of illegal wars. I don't support bush's illegal war, so why should my tax dollars? Let those who support the war pay for it. It's easy. Simply assess a $10,000 surcharge on anyone who supports bush and his war. All you'd have to do is check the voter registration records. If you checked the "Republic" box, you pay the tax for you and everyone else living under your roof. Family of four: $40,000.

Hey, I like thinking about assessing and distributing taxes like a RWer. It's fun and easy. And it costs me nothing!

I have mulled this issue over long enough now.

Suppose the Government mandated that all employed people carry health insurance administered by a private insurance carrier and partially subsidized by employers and the government in proportional shares. There could be a catastrophic level of insurance and several levels of buy-up in 5% increments up to 95% of total coverage. The catastrophic level would insure the basic needs such as immunizations, emergency care, needed surgery and hospital expenses. Buy-ups, depending on level of coverage could include cancer screenings, dental and vision insurance and specialized care such as provided by physical therpists, chiroprators, etc.

The American populace is large enough to spread the risk insurance companies carry over a large cross section of individuals. Liability would stay acceptable,premiums would be kept at an affordable level and the potential underwriting gain for insurers would still be profitable.

Sound doable?

I have mulled this issue over long enough now.

Suppose the Government mandated that all employed people carry health insurance administered by a private insurance carrier and partially subsidized by employers and the government in proportional shares. There could be a catastrophic level of insurance and several levels of buy-up in 5% increments up to 95% of total coverage. The catastrophic level would insure the basic needs such as immunizations, emergency care, needed surgery and hospital expenses. Buy-ups, depending on level of coverage could include cancer screenings, dental and vision insurance and specialized care such as provided by physical therpists, chiroprators, etc.

The American populace is large enough to spread the risk insurance companies carry over a large cross section of individuals. Liability would stay acceptable,premiums would be kept at an affordable level and the potential underwriting gain for insurers would still be profitable.

Sound doable?

Concerned the Christian now Liberated

It seems to me as if you have been Battered, Beaten and are now Brain Dead as a result of your so called Liberation.

A scotsman was seriously ill in hospital and his last request was for the bagpipes to be played. They were.He recovered; the other patients died.

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED..It being one freeing self from an religious grouping be no easy task,more so if one the victim of such brainwashing,religious abuse,as from birth.That then one try set matters right in the freeing of others.Yet having been a victim,with an balance of understanding that not raising,more conflict. There being first agreement that people willing ready for change,as example ISLAM in opposition to CHRISTIANITY,christianity has been challanged over centuries,its power still strong,yet it no longer dictates as controls govt policy,peoples lifes,as to its great influence in past having. We are in an situation that Islam must also be challanged,that the bonds be loosened,that there being much more freedom of thought,as individual development as to ones relationship with Allah, as being named,Jehovah,The Almighty as be, God. That progress made there must be more balance of respect betwixt nations as peoples,as a just use of international law,which is somewhat lacking as now practiced.As with common sense all must look to a future where, all peoples, all nations being worthy of respect.There can be division in sport such be healthy,it being human nature to compete,that the winner being worthy of respect. Yet within our Spiritual Development,as continue our journey unto Spiritual Enlightenment,let it be we are as one,in the praise of creation .

Question,

Indeed, I have been liberated from the Three B's i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in orthodox Catholicism. Many contemporary NT exegetes have set me free.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

And I now see how so many of us have also been Bred, Born and Brainwashed in various religions. Of these religions, the koranic Brainwashing in Islam is significantly dangerous to the well being of the world.

To be succinct:

"Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?"

TO: Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Are you sure you have been liberated? Your views seem to suggest otherwise.

I believe that health care is an issue needed to be recognized. In my opinion I think that every one needs and should have health care. Children especially. Nowadays kids are becoming more likely to get disease such as the Staff infection that is going around on Long Island for example. Its necessary for parents to offer health care, if they can. If not the government should contribute somewhat to the society's problem. But not contribute all the money. We are in this war for a reason, and our government is trying our hardest to protect us. You don't see any country not spending money on weapons and an army like us. Our government is deffinetly trying to help its people.
Getting back to my point, the government should not give the needy all the money they need or else it won't spread to everyone. They should give a little money, as much as they can. It's tough for a large country to please everyone's needs and I think they are doing a pretty good job.

I believe that health care is an issue needed to be recognized. In my opinion I think that every one needs and should have health care. Children especially. Nowadays kids are becoming more likely to get disease such as the Staff infection that is going around on Long Island for example. Its necessary for parents to offer health care, if they can. If not the government should contribute somewhat to the society's problem. But not contribute all the money. We are in this war for a reason, and our government is trying our hardest to protect us. You don't see any country not spending money on weapons and an army like us. Our government is deffinetly trying to help its people.
Getting back to my point, the government should not give the needy all the money they need or else it won't spread to everyone. They should give a little money, as much as they can. It's tough for a large country to please everyone's needs and I think they are doing a pretty good job.

Randy: you're right about the ER. only problem is that the extraordinary cost of treating a cold in the ER instead of the doc's office is being passed on by the hospitals to the insurers to be paid by - guess who? - you. coverage would enable a parent to get his kids well visits, and have all sorts of conditions treated before they warrant ER care, and in the end, cost all of us less. my favorite model at the moment is something along the lines of Romney's and Hillary II (which this time around is just Romney x50, while Romney is now being a chicken about imposing his own plan on other states to keep some lobby happy). you require everyone to buy private health insurance and subsidize the truly poor, which brings down the cost of insurance for everyone, reducing the subsidy, well, you get the idea.

Many workplaces do not have health insurance. Many others are cutting health benefits to their employees. Private health insurance plans are extremely expensive, and will often refuse coverage of people with "pre-existing conditions". In some cases, these "pre-existing conditions" amounted to a minor medical procedure, but the family was turned down anyway.

The question is that "does the State have an interest in making sure that the next generation will grow up to become healthy, productive members of society?" Yes, it does. Therefore, health care for children should be provided by the Government if the parent is unable to do so. I think that Starhawk said it best in her piece. Health care for children should be a moral imperative because you are saving the lives of people who may someday save yours. We are safeguarding the health of future doctors, nurses, EMTs, firefighters, police, military, etc. To not cover children's health care is, as Ben Franklin would say, "penny wise and pound foolish."

Where is this figure about uninsured children or children not covered by medical care coming from?

Every person in this country, legal or illegal can walk into any ER in any hospital and be seen. There is absolutely no one without medical care. Certainly there are those without health insurance. Certainly there are those without automobiles. Certainly there are those without a 3 bedroom home with 2 baths.

however, there are also those who choose to no purchase insurance because they would rather have a larger home, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, etcs. than purchase insurance. Should I pay for my family and be less well off and pay for someone who chooses to by a case of cigarettes a week. Carton of cigarettes costs about $30.00. 30 x 52 / 12 = $130.00. I can buy anyone a basic health insurance plan for $130.00 per month. Give up the booze and drugs and you have yourself a nice family plan.

I will agree to "universal health plans" when we go back to commodities and quit giving money away to those that can and should be working. Feed the poor children and let the rest of those who refuse to work starve. The we can afford universal coverage.

This question is as bogus as they come. A diversion with a pre-determined answer.

The real, HONEST question to be asked of Americans is this:

is healthcare the RIGHT of every American, or is healthcare a BENEFIT of being an American?

Health Care is certainly the responsibility of the parents - but we live in a complex world. Putting food on the table is equally the responsibility of parents - but they don't have to out every day and shoot the cow, nor do they harvest their own wheat. The interdependencies of our culture dictate that all of us need work together to secure the blessing of liberty for all.
Ohg.
http://thefireside.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/on-heath-care/

Henry:

I was wondering when someone would reference Swift's solution to child poverty...no wonder I love you.

Recently a 4 yr old was killed by a baseball strike to his chest in FL. Our son was fortunate to survive commotio cordis. Tragically, Cayden Huels did not and our hearts go out to his family. Baseball is a beautiful game but we have to protect our young players hearts (www.homeofsafeheart.com). We give them helmets and cups...why not heart protectors. Also, portable AED's should be placed at local youth parks (www.cardiacscience.com).

Please protect young players hearts.

Tad Buff

If one to make inroads on HEALTHCARE then one must start with all political parties.Reminding they be put into power to serve the people,not that practised at present.Where being Political cunning as deceit be rampant,one aim, purpose, remaining in political power.Where once it the COLD WAR it now being TERRORISM the excuse used to strip people bare of all rights,the original intention of democracy being the government as servants of the people.Through political deceit cunning the people having been made servants of the government.Where Terrorism ever more used as an cover to hide the appalling state of domestic matters,be that healthcare, education, etc, etc, It being time that democracy,in the true sense, practised,that such be returned,unto the people.

Is health care for children a parental responsibility or a moral imperative for society?

This is a difficult problem to answer--the problem of healthcare in general--by framing it as a parental responsibility versus a moral imperative of society. The way the problem is framed reminds me of multiple choice questions in school which would often frustrate me because the answer would often be a little bit of A, a good deal of B, but we should most certainly not leave out C, and D looks interesting too.

Unlike in school I will not put down the pen and resign myself to failure but reframe the whole problem as I see fit regardless of the consequences. The way my mind is set at the moment I believe the best approach would be akin to architects at the turn of the 20th century ushering in modern architecture with clear lines, fields of forces and a healthy grasp of motion.

Properly speaking--and paradoxically--we should approach American society with respect to this problem organically--as in plant life--but then again consider dominant organizations such as religion, the military, the educational system and the healthcare system as fields of forces or levels or structural aspects in a building and see how they relate to one another with respect to the problem.

With this approach in mind we can see that traditionally speaking religion and the military as well have little in common with what we envision as a universal healthcare system (which has much more in common with universal education and science) and therefore we can hardly even speak of a parental responsibility let alone social moral imperative coming from this quarter. The best that religion and the military have been able to achieve historically is an emphasis on morality, physical fitness, hygiene, nutrition--and this really, to reflect on it, is no small achievement. Parental responsibility and social imperative virtually one traditionally?

But it seems with the advancement of society, especially universal education, science, and the increased contact between religions, races, ethnic groups, etc. as in America (we are concentrating on America)--coupled with the belief in individuality--we have lost all traditional cohesion and have at best the military as the foundation of society...Furthermore it seems to promote social cohesion we have all sorts of economic indulgences, so we have on one hand the military and sports and the cult of the body and on the other an increasingly obese populace.

Now it would be nice if the educational system could weld different religions, races, ethnic groups, etc. in such a way to preserve the health of the citizenry--prevent the health of the citizenry being maintained only by a regression into the military, the cult of the body, individuality (parental responsibility), and respective religious traditions, but if the educational system cannot do so--continues to make empty nurture over nature promises, continues to promote merely multiculturalism--then we can hardly expect a universal healthcare system to arise within society. Organically speaking society becomes like a plant with too many stressors and strives to only root itself more firmly. Architecturally speaking, society collapses potential fields of forces into elementary levels.

The goal obviously is to have the educational system provide a sound foundation against all which might corrupt health--then perhaps we can have a universal healthcare system. Some examples of corruption: overeating; drugs; smoking; lack of emphasis on science; greed which all too often infects doctors, insurance companies, etc. But if the educational system cannot do so, we can hardly blame society for doing what it can do (regressing to base structures and approaches).

In fact if I were the educational system I would be very worried. In fact the danger seems greatest to both the very religious and all on the left who believe in nurture over nature (certain extremes of left and right in other words). It seems through science, an increased grasp of biology, genetics, etc. we have the potential to leap to universal health to the point we create superintelligent humans and therefore make universal education unnecessary, a structure of society, a field of force, which can safely be collapsed.

And interestingly this development seems both right and left wing in that science drives the change (left wing trend if we take science opposed to the right wing of religion) but it will be the military, spending toward the military, which will make the breakthrough (like with the internet). All talk of whether what we have here is parental responsibility versus public moral imperative will dissolve into a politics where we realize the wildest dreams of left--eradication of poverty to the point of communist society--but this realization will be driven by a passion of the right, the libertarian drive: the desire to increase the capability of the individual, to have a society of caliber individuals by which higher social fields of force are realized--to the point where we begin to speak of developments in society in terms of neural net paralleling and growing out of developments in the human brain.

We live in a futuristic world already, far beyond any parent responsibility or moral imperative of society. The question is whether we will make it a parental responsibility and moral imperative of society.

Is health care for children a parental responsibility or a moral imperative for society?

This is a difficult problem to answer--the problem of healthcare in general--by framing it as a parental responsibility versus a moral imperative of society. The way the problem is framed reminds me of multiple choice questions in school which would often frustrate me because the answer would often be a little bit of A, a good deal of B, but we should most certainly not leave out C, and D looks interesting too.

Unlike in school I will not put down the pen and resign myself to failure but reframe the whole problem as I see fit regardless of the consequences. The way my mind is set at the moment I believe the best approach would be akin to architects at the turn of the 20th century ushering in modern architecture with clear lines, fields of forces and a healthy grasp of motion.

Properly speaking--and paradoxically--we should approach American society with respect to this problem organically--as in plant life--but then again consider dominant organizations such as religion, the military, the educational system and the healthcare system as fields of forces or levels or structural aspects in a building and see how they relate to one another with respect to the problem.

With this approach in mind we can see that traditionally speaking religion and the military as well have little in common with what we envision as a universal healthcare system (which has much more in common with universal education and science) and therefore we can hardly even speak of a parental responsibility let alone social moral imperative coming from this quarter. The best that religion and the military have been able to achieve historically is an emphasis on morality, physical fitness, hygiene, nutrition--and this really, to reflect on it, is no small achievement. Parental responsibility and social imperative virtually one traditionally?

But it seems with the advancement of society, especially universal education, science, and the increased contact between religions, races, ethnic groups, etc. as in America (we are concentrating on America)--coupled with the belief in individuality--we have lost all traditional cohesion and have at best the military as the foundation of society...Furthermore it seems to promote social cohesion we have all sorts of economic indulgences, so we have on one hand the military and sports and the cult of the body and on the other an increasingly obese populace.

Now it would be nice if the educational system could weld different religions, races, ethnic groups, etc. in such a way to preserve the health of the citizenry--prevent the health of the citizenry being maintained only by a regression into the military, the cult of the body, individuality (parental responsibility), and respective religious traditions, but if the educational system cannot do so--continues to make empty nurture over nature promises, continues to promote merely multiculturalism--then we can hardly expect a universal healthcare system to arise within society. Organically speaking society becomes like a plant with too many stressors and strives to only root itself more firmly. Architecturally speaking, society collapses potential fields of forces into elementary levels.

The goal obviously is to have the educational system provide a sound foundation against all which might corrupt health--then perhaps we can have a universal healthcare system. Some examples of corruption: overeating; drugs; smoking; lack of emphasis on science; greed which all too often infects doctors, insurance companies, etc. But if the educational system cannot do so, we can hardly blame society for doing what it can do (regressing to base structures and approaches).

In fact if I were the educational system I would be very worried. In fact the danger seems greatest to both the very religious and all on the left who believe in nurture over nature (certain extremes of left and right in other words). It seems through science, an increased grasp of biology, genetics, etc. we have the potential to leap to universal health to the point we create superintelligent humans and therefore make universal education unnecessary, a structure of society, a field of force, which can safely be collapsed.

And interestingly this development seems both right and left wing in that science drives the change (left wing trend if we take science opposed to the right wing of religion) but it will be the military, spending toward the military, which will make the breakthrough (like with the internet). All talk of whether what we have here is parental responsibility versus public moral imperative will dissolve into a politics where we realize the wildest dreams of left--eradication of poverty to the point of communist society--but this realization will be driven by a passion of the right, the libertarian drive: the desire to increase the capability of the individual, to have a society of caliber individuals by which higher social fields of force are realized--to the point where we begin to speak of developments in society in terms of neural net paralleling and growing out of developments in the human brain.

We live in a futuristic world already, far beyond any parent responsibility or moral imperative of society. The question is whether we will make it a parental responsibility and moral imperative of society.

testing

Isn't the need for health care as basic as the need for food and shelter? Children do not ask to be born, so it goes without saying that they need to be provided with health care. The future of every nation depends on the nature of the care they provide their children.

The three health care systems I have known are in India, Germany and for the past seven years in Australia. The poorest of the poor are given free medical care in government hospitals in India, a country extremely poor compared to the US. The quality of care may not be much, but nobody is sent away because they cannot pay for the services.

*** SPARING THE ROD *** SPOILING THE CHILD *** Nothing that a good spanking wont cure,however there being the perverted,where a spanking,but raising excitement arousing to sexual pleasure.

Doctor Ralph:

I feel sick.

What's your phone number?

Ayn Rand was right. Faith and force go together. Her essay " Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World" in the book "Philosophy Who Needs It" explains why for those with active minds.

Ayn Rand was right. Faith and force go together. Her essay " Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World" in the book "Philosophy Who Needs It" explains why for those with active minds.

Ayn Rand was right. Faith and force go together. Her essay " Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World" in the book "Philosophy Who Needs It" explains why for those with active minds.

VICTORIA...the troubled times for humanity also coincides with a greater knowledge in spiritual development.Another step up jacobs ladder,as it indeed being an long long ladder.The essence of creation being powerful it having to be greatly diluted in understanding as experience.The brain in an ongoing state of development as it having been for millions of years.(before such stage) There had to be creation of the human form,with brain as heart thus be enabled, knowing through experience as understanding the very essence of creation.It be no problem for humans to receive understanding as experience beyond capability of the brain,but in happening the result be fatal. For many there frustration at the slow progress, the wealthier nations as people used to instant satisfaction,money buying all,yet with spiritual development this not the case,the poorest as the richest being equal.All own a spiritual account, as with material account, one can only withdraw as gaining interest on which having accumulated. The blessing be those having a healthy spiritual account,only use the profits to benefit the all.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Again you failed to finish your commentary. To wit: "we really do all fall short of the glory (or the ideal)".

I am sure you wanted to add. Just look at my warmongering religion, founded by an illiterate, hallucinating, womanizing, "death to the infidels" Arab named Mohammed.

Well, as a matter of law, it is a parental responsibility, but some parents do a better job (because of better resources, better education, better motivation) in "delivering" health care to their children than other parents do.

Good health, especially for children, is highly desirable. To the extent that "health care" promotes good health in children, it's also desirable. How do we get from health care for children being desirable, being a laudable "want" or "need," to health care for children being a "moral imperative"? Seems to me that the latter phrase is just a vague way of suggesting that someone -- society in general? the government? -- has an obligation or duty to provide "health care" for children or at least to help pay for it?

These United States, as the richest nation-state in the history of the planet, can certainly come up with at least one way to pay for decent health care for children -- especially preventive / wellness care and nutrition, etc. But I'm skeptical that a government-funded, single payer system would be the most efficient way to "deliver" that health care to children. The goal should be good health, healthy habits, and and healthy lifestyles for children and adults. We can afford to pursue and achieve that goal. But focusing on health insurance and "health care" is not necessarily the most efficient way to achieve "good health."

One of the main problems with the current U.S. health insurance "system" is that no one with employer-provided health insurance has any way of knowing in advance of treatment what it's going to cost, and it's virtually impossible to "shop around" for care on the basis of cost. Hospitals and doctors themselves either don't know or won't say what the charges will be. When insurers pay the charges and employers or the government pay the insurance premiums, all the incentives favor out-of-control costs. Those of us who have and can afford high-deductible policies and health savings accounts are not significantly better off, because although we have an incentive to buy the best health care services that we can per dollar, we still can't get pricing information in advance. The providers themselves claim not to know what services cost. I found this out when my wife was bitten by a bat inside our house and she had to get the series of rabies shots plus rabies immune globulin. No one could or would tell us the cost in advance.

For children in poor, working-poor, and lower-middle class economic strata, generalized poverty and ignorance are barriers to good health care that are just as serious as the lack of insurance. I wonder whether general cash payments by the federal government to poor households (call it welfare, call it a negative income tax or the Earned Income Tax Credit on steroids), keyed to household income, wouldn't be a better way to deal with poor families' problems of ALL kinds -- housing, energy use, health care -- than some sort of targeted federal government health care program for children.

caesar, well- every point you are makings very sensible and good.
we really do all fall short of the glory (or the ideal)

peace

sorry for being so brusque

Medical care in the Third Worlds realm

If your sick pay the clinic and receive care,
If you are unable to pay then receive a minimum amount of attention, after which one borrows money for the necessary care or go home and get well on your own or die.
If surgery is needed some doctors will operate for very little money. What costs most in these procedures is the anesthesia, this forces some people to go under the knife wide awake.
Its rough out there people, be thankful for the medical care you have.

VICTORIA....I thought best in getting adults to find common ground,as united in responsability where children given the much needed support.At present division between humanity but draining resources,the example of course recent events in IRAQ,IRAN,as per'aps the soon to be IRAN should, they continuing to manouvering towards having an nuclear bomb,it be leaving no other alternative than military action.The wastage of resources as precious life, in ongoing conflicts nation agin nation be staggering,should be humanity use such resources towards healthcare in building not as present,a worldwide trail death as destruction. The USA is the worlds leading democracy,such be great responsability upon the USA and deserving of respect,holding such position, no easy task. Yet of late ( past decade ) it being concern the behaviour of USA. Abandonment of international law in the middle east,where debate be replaced by military power.An Palestinian state still not created,such should have been completed at least a decade past,failure of western nations to deal with this matter be appalling,that shame us all. VICTORIA.humanity worked together better in days we be living in caves,as when we just discovered fire,looking back, per'haps we learning from it. Though these days the male rather aggresive unto the female,she having no rights then whatever we do not wish see a return to such behaviour,more so the next USA president could be a Woman.

Parallax
My objection is that there seems to be no way of discussing this issue without entering the realm of politics. Everyone, even George W. Bush, will agree that as a society we have a responsibility to care for sick children. However, there are many different views on the role of the federal government and of various tax-supported institutions in providing for that basic human need. Those specifics are a political, not moral or religious, discussion. Should it be the province of religious charities, local and county health authorities, or a distant federal bureaucracy? Many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are distrustful of the ability of the federal government to make wise choices for individual families, and would like to see families being better empowered to make their own choices.

I am not trying to advocate for one point of view or another, only to remind everyone here that the issue is not all black and white.

"Why is this question being posted on a religious blog? What in the world does an imaginary sky-daddy have to do with whether the state or parents determine a child's fate? Is there any religion that would take the position that it's okay to let children die from preventable illnesses when the community can do something to help?"

Agreed, seems like an odd topic. Unless you're one of those who thinks that moral issues can't be considered outside of a religious framework.

Christian Scientists among others will eschew medical care, preferring prayer. Is this child abuse? The right to practice one's religion without interference? But that's a whole 'nother topic.

Government should be involved in the health of the members of its society. No one questions tax-funded government involvement in maintenance and repair of public infrastructure, and yet when it comes to the "biological infrastructure" of society we suddenly view it as the individual's responsibility. Go figure.

John Q,Denzel Washington.

A down-on-his luck father,whose insurance wont cover his son's heart transplant,takes the hospital's emergency room hostage until the doctors agree to perform the operation.

I advise you to view this movie.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

If it were not for your warmongering religion, we could easily afford universay health insurance for all of our citizens.

Ready for that Five Step Program to deprogram your Islamic brainwashing????

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

If were not for your warmongering religion, we could easily afford universal health care for all children.

Ready for that Five Step program to deprogram your Islamic brainwashing???

sorry to disagree ceasar- but a sick child is a pretty concrete issue

One must look at it as an situation,not fixed in concrete,wherupon we become as prisoners, in an world of our own making,with viewpoints beliefs ideas as belong in the dark ages.We accepting of material development,as such with the spiritual we must allow,give room in growth,as experience as to be balanced within capable understanding. That there no God,no central power of creation be as to the extreme,as all,whom from birth be as ever brainwashed with religious Mumbo Jumbo. One goes not to an restaurant for an meal which ends by one only eating the menu,the menu but an guide,as an signpost to the traveller."Humanity" be one family.Thus,all have the moral duty,ever defending,as care for the weak,each generation to grow,free in thought, being free from fear.

hermit- id really like to hear more of your firsthand experience living in canada and how your healthcare works for you all up there-

peace

By the way, welcome to the Washington Post's "On Politics," self-righteous edition.

"Is health care for children a parental responsibility or a moral imperative for society?"
Well, Duh. It is both.

Time to warm up A. Hermit's Canadian cave yet once again:

The current status of the very expensive War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained so far. (besides fighting the civil war in Bahgdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.) Our nukes pointed at Mecca and Tehran probably are also playing a role.

3. Libya has become almost civil.

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords. Or we could move everyone out and give the land back to the original owners, the Hittites?. Any Hittitians out there??

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or were punished.

12. Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. And as someone just pointed out, the USSR was tamed apparent via bankrupting the system by requiring them to build so many atomic weapons and delivery systems. Hmmm, how exactly did we require them to build atomic bombs?

Ensuring the health of our society's children is without a doubt a moral concern. The real question we should be asking is "Does the U.S. Constitution allow the Federal Government to provide this welfare?"

I thought the Fed was limited to the task of providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.

If we as a society don't find another way to address welfare issues and begin to limit the Fed, we'll wake up one day to 75% tax rates.

A Hermit:
My point stands as well, for almost the same reasoning TJ brings up…

Our government is currently in a state of anarchy. It is out of control. It is dodging the framework of the constitution to make a pointless power play on the sovereign territory of distant countries. It continues to fight a pointless war in spite of popular upheaval and piles of body bags…

I am sure you are a generous person, I am sure you’ve slipped a panhandler or two (does Canada have panhandlers?) a few pesos, drachmas, lire, doubloons, whatever you Canadians call your colorful currency*… anyway… Is there some point, say after the tenth or twelfth “Hey buddy, can you spare a shilling?” that you might notice that he’s just using it to buy more maple flavored beer, and then you realize that your hard earned francs are being literally pissed away? Does this change your tidy, polite, charming, and charitable nature at all? Do you INCREASE the amount of money that he is mismanaging?

I have seen on several threads, and hear from the left side of our pathetic two-party system, the same screed: “We’re providing health care to the Iraqi’s but not our own children”

That is specious. An in my opinion, the very reason I am reluctant to just bend over the chair and hike the tax rate even more is exactly because this government is not qualified, not trustworthy, not accountable enough to fess up to egregious errors and tens of thousands of deaths in the sand, and therefore has to date proven itself completely unqualified and unworthy to manage my dollars or even the lives of our existing sons and daughters. What kind of fool would willingly pour more and more money into this business model, this management structure?

* The author knows more about the great white north than he pretends… the author is bored and feels like having a little fun to lighten up the seriousness of the topic.

A Hermit opines: "But my point stands. Taxation is a necessary part of any functioning society; it surely makes sense to use those dollars for something like health care, and not for those other things, doesn't it?"

No, it doesn't make any fiscal sense at all. It makes sense to spend most every dollar the government collects on our national debt. When that debt is paid off, then let's discuss this again. At that time then I'd agree with you.

Despite the fact that I utterly despise socialism, I'd be willing to support nationalized health care for all CITIZENS iff we are in the black instead of the red.

Fair enough Cleve; But my point stands. Taxation is a necessary part of any functioning society; it surely makes sense to use those dollars for something like health care, and not for those other things, doesn't it?

I hope your son is well.

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit.

I don’t pay “ 45% tax”
Income tax is only the tip of the iceberg down here, dear frosty friend ….

We pay many, many taxes. Fees, surtaxes, social security, gas tax, sales tax, property tax, license and registration, state safety inspections, emissions tests, sin taxes, fed income tax, state income tax, and up until a few months ago I had to pay the city I worked their own income tax.
You add all these up it comes to about 45% of my gross, which is not rare at all.

About my country invading others, I completely agree with you… I’ve got a son in the Army (against my advice) and really don’t want to lose him for such an obscene campaign as the one in Iraq.
I have no problem with Canada or it’s medical system…. What I do have a problem with is constant, ridiculous use of hard earned money being frittered away by a runaway, and unaccountable federal government. It is exactly because I haven’t been able to trust the feds to use my hard earned dollars wisely that I am reluctant to hand over any more, for any reason….

cleve whines: "“Refuse to share” Do you not pay taxes? My personal ‘sharing’ amounts to about 45% of my gross income… and very much of it gets pssd away on things I would never, ever, ever choose to support… How much more should I share?"

WOW! Who's your accountant?! I live in 'Soviet Canuckistan" whe