Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Farmers would beg to differ. The unemployment rate in the rural communities around those farms is quite low, its in the cities, where the illegals aren't taking jobs, where unemployment is high.
Again, as I said, the tax dollars they spend more then outweighs any tax payer burden.
And I like paying 25% less on my groceries each week, don't you?
Little children and adults costing millions at hospitals to the tax payer don't create any tax revenue, just uses it. And, like my previous post, I don't think we should suddenly throw them in the street. But the question is, how do you pay for it.
Yet you basically argue that if the child was illegal, the cost for the same treatment is offset by what illegals contribute. What "tax" money do illegals spend? You claim that illegals collectively cover the $500 million dollars the state spends (actual dollar spending) on illegals is "covered". Illegals don't have the state/city/federal taxes that citizens have. If they come so cheap then their standard of living must be low. They also send money back to their country. How is it that citizens that pay tax, property tax and spend their after-taxed money, collectively, does not cover the care of the child? You give the impression that if the child was illegal the cost is offset by the contributions that illegals make to the state and somehow outweigh the contributions that citizens make.
I have known families who knowingly had children with severe genetic conditions...that cost tax payers millions of dollars....in medical, education, social security benefits, group home and activity center payments...one family had three children with Fragile X syndrome. Easily detected by amniotic fluid testing. And because that is genetic, the Mother knew she was a carrier.
If you have issues with this child...where do you draw the line? Are you the one who should be the "king" and decide which babies should be aborted? Or if born, which ones should have medical treatment and which ones should be placed in a corner? Or should we just do genetic testing on all fertile teens...and decide who should be allowed to breed and who should have surgery to prevent pregnancies which may end up with genetic problems? And where do we draw the line? Down Syndrome children? Live or die?
See...it is nor so simple...which is why we save them all.
Yes...I always find the conservative viewpoint on pro life very interesting...since those are the same folks who scream the loudest when it comes to providing social programs, Medicaid, Social Security, Special Education, services to people with disabilities....the very children they wanted born....they don't want to pay the social cost of these children, who will need extensive programs and government funding for the rest of their lives. They seem to think that the family unit can bear the burden...what they also don't realize...is that birth of a child with a disabilty, puts a huge strain on a marriage...I won't quote statistics...as everyone with a different agenda can find a different number...
I know this much...when a baby is born with a condition, there is a continuum of severity..and we cannot always predict the outcome. And...quality of life varies based on value judgements...most parents, don't understand the issues of taking care of a severely multiply impaired child. And doctors can't quantify "quality of life". So...again...we save them all. Should we reserve medical care for only the ones who can afford it? I would be okay with that...
Yes...I always find the conservative viewpoint on pro life very interesting...since those are the same folks who scream the loudest when it comes to providing social programs, Medicaid, Social Security, Special Education, services to people with disabilities....the very children they wanted born....they don't want to pay the social cost of these children, who will need extensive programs and government funding for the rest of their lives. They seem to think that the family unit can bear the burden...what they also don't realize...is that birth of a child with a disabilty, puts a huge strain on a marriage...I won't quote statistics...as everyone with a different agenda can find a different number...
I know this much...when a baby is born with a condition, there is a continuum of severity..and we cannot always predict the outcome. And...quality of life varies based on value judgements...most parents, don't understand the issues of taking care of a severely multiply impaired child. And doctors can't quantify "quality of life". So...again...we save them all. Should we reserve medical care for only the ones who can afford it? I would be okay with that...
You're trying to compare apples to oranges in this post and have created quite the strawman.
As a pro life conservative, I have no problem paying "social costs" of these children, (and by "these children" I am referring to the ones you say conservatives scream about...which is NOT the same as the one in this particular story), IF the parents are willing to get up off of their backsides and try to do a bit of providing for themselves. Using babies to up your welfare paycheck is not something I'm going to support.
That is not even remotely the same as what is going on here. This child has severe issues that NO ONE can afford on their own...well, maybe Trump or someone but the average American can not. But this is not the same thing as a jobless person continually popping out children with different fathers. It's not even close. I don't advocate killing them, there is such a thing as adoption.
Yes...I always find the conservative viewpoint on pro life very interesting...since those are the same folks who scream the loudest when it comes to providing social programs, Medicaid, Social Security, Special Education, services to people with disabilities....the very children they wanted born....they don't want to pay the social cost of these children, who will need extensive programs and government funding for the rest of their lives. They seem to think that the family unit can bear the burden...what they also don't realize...is that birth of a child with a disabilty, puts a huge strain on a marriage...I won't quote statistics...as everyone with a different agenda can find a different number...
I know this much...when a baby is born with a condition, there is a continuum of severity..and we cannot always predict the outcome. And...quality of life varies based on value judgements...most parents, don't understand the issues of taking care of a severely multiply impaired child. And doctors can't quantify "quality of life". So...again...we save them all. Should we reserve medical care for only the ones who can afford it? I would be okay with that...
Very good comment.
And there you have the essential contradiction in the conservative approach to health care. On the one hand, they want everyone to pay for their own health care and, on the other hand, they are not willing to let people die because they cannot afford health care.
I have known families who knowingly had children with severe genetic conditions...that cost tax payers millions of dollars....in medical, education, social security benefits, group home and activity center payments...one family had three children with Fragile X syndrome. Easily detected by amniotic fluid testing. And because that is genetic, the Mother knew she was a carrier.
If you have issues with this child...where do you draw the line? Are you the one who should be the "king" and decide which babies should be aborted? Or if born, which ones should have medical treatment and which ones should be placed in a corner? Or should we just do genetic testing on all fertile teens...and decide who should be allowed to breed and who should have surgery to prevent pregnancies which may end up with genetic problems? And where do we draw the line? Down Syndrome children? Live or die?
See...it is nor so simple...which is why we save them all.
But we're not "saving" this baby, just prolonging the inevitable.
I agree with the essence of your second paragraph - I would not like to be the person who has to make the yes or no decision.
FWIW, doctors in conjunction with parents often make the decision to let nature (god) take its course with babies born with severe mental and physical defects.
I would not consider Down's Syndrome to be a severe mental/physical defect.
And there you have the essential contradiction in the conservative approach to health care. On the one hand, they want everyone to pay for their own health care and, on the other hand, they are not willing to let people die because they cannot afford health care.
Wrong. There is nothing wrong with charity. No one says the taxpayers have to pay for it, although I, a horrible conservative, would be willing to do that for children like this. But charity, as much as dems pretend it doesn't exist, can also foot the bill.
A few times on the news, those donations pour in.
It doesn't have to be, "taxpayers pay for it or the kid dies". Good God, people.
Exactly. There is so much waste of tax dollars, but in this rare case, imo this is money well spent. I thought liberals were all about choice. This was not an easy decision for these parents, I respect their beliefs.
What's the alternative? A forced abortion? A sliding scale for medical care depending upon income?
If you think about this..... now that the child is born liberals feel taxpayer's should take care of the child, but all in the same breath they're satisfied when someone aborts. Some of the comments that came from the left about Palin's child, some even felt Sarah should have aborted. She didn't even need government money to pay for her child, yet some made it their quest to let the rest of us know Trig should not have been born. Just amazes me how the "left" can claim to love life more than others.
I feel this should be left up to charity from churches and other organizations that provide this help and the state......each state should have some kind of funding, which for the most part is called welfare, it now works for those "who qualify and those that don't."....."those that are legal and those that are illegal."
If possible they should get Health Insurance, this is where pre-existing should work, but it doesn't and ObamaCare hasn't changed this one bit. Now it's worse you can have pre-existing conditions, just don't ask for better care and by the way the price is out of your price range. Thanks to ALL those supporters of ObamaCare!!!
I'm Republican and this child is now one of the poor that Jesus speaks of......not the one that has chosen to receive more unemployment than they paid into, then stay out of work to receive 99 more weeks. Or the person who doesn't want the McDonald's job until they can find a better job....... The student that complains their student loan is to high when they made the personal decision to go into debt, but now want the rest of us to pay their bill. These are not the POOR..........
Wrong. There is nothing wrong with charity. No one says the taxpayers have to pay for it, although I, a horrible conservative, would be willing to do that for children like this. But charity, as much as dems pretend it doesn't exist, can also foot the bill.
A few times on the news, those donations pour in.
It doesn't have to be, "taxpayers pay for it or the kid dies". Good God, people.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with charity. But it is a poor substitute for a proper public health system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
