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.
So which charities are you specifically referring to? Have you inspected their books? How do you know that they can't cover the cost of treatment?
Again I have in mind a few charities right now that could do so - I won't name them because I don't want to bring them directly into a political discussion - however if you want to PM me and have a child in mind who needs help - I will be happy to provide that information if it is going to do actual good - rather then just further a political debate.
I'm know of a few,but what about follow up visits? Cost of labwork?
They simply don't have the funds to cover EVERYTHING.
Let's not forget,if the parents still work,they aren't eligible for Medicaid and SSI.
Thses are the in betweeners,that what I call them.
Make too much to qualify for Medicaid,make too little to cover their healthcare needs.
No one thinks that a child should be denied that kind of help - we disagree that the government should be the instruments of doing it. I can think of a handful of private charities, right off the bat , whom could help that girl.
But liberals only think government is the answer - because it allows them to control everything.
The difference between a liberal and conservative is this:
A liberal wants to help the girl with leukemia by confiscating money from people at gunpoint(think i am exagerrating? - try not paying your taxes and see who pays you a little visit - I can promise you that they will be armed).
A conservative believes that people acting out of their own free will, coming together to pool time, money, resourses, talents, and compassion - can effectively help those who are in need.
Now which is more compassionate? (a) The liberal taking money at gunpoint and redistributing it or (b) the conservative who donates, volunteers, and supports private charities that do the work such as helping a girl with leukemia in a much more effective and efficient manner without eroding liberty?
If you chose option B- congratulations you are correct.
Now go do the right thing and vote for Mitt Romney on Tuesday.
May God bless this little girl and my God bless America.
When it comes down to it, Harrier, I don't believe that private charities alone can handle that kind of case load. That's the crux of our disagreement.
Private charities definitely have advantages over govt. programs--a more relational approach, for example. But it's naive to assume that private individuals and charities simply have millions lying around waiting to help people's medical bills. I know I don't have 500k in my account, and neither do most people.
Another crux is a basic beef I have with conservatives: They only scream that taxes are "theft" when those taxes are used to help their fellow citizens, but it's perfectly fine to use those taxes when starting wars overseas--which actually kill people and destroy lives. And then they have the audacity to claim that they're "pro-life". Whatever. Even when I was a conservative, it never occurred to me to complain about my taxes being used to help someone--let alone a child--get well.
Are there charities that could help? Certainly a few. Can they do as extensive a job as the government in ensuring that no one is turned away? Not likely.
Would you be willing to face the father and tell him his daughter doesn't have the right to a long and healthy life?
What if this man paid his taxes,worked all his life,gave to charities,and most important,had insurance that turned him down?
What's the point of having insurance if they aren't going to pay when you get sick?
I wonder if I'm better off dropping my health insurance that costs 400 a month and saving it for a rainy day?
Do you realize that most insurance had lifetime caps usually between $1-5 million to prevent the insurance company from taking too big of a loss on a single contract of which they may collect $80 a month for a child? Do you also realize that while medical costs as a whole have dropped the last 2 years health insurance has averaged just under a double digit increase in each of the last 2 years while they prepare to have more high loss cases such as this?
Fact is the family had an alternative method of payment, ie the medicare we all subsidize through our payroll taxes, this idea that the kid would have died without treatment is either bull**** or the father had never taken the time to research his options for his child. AS a parent of a severely disabled kid both of them **** me off, they are using this child to further their agenda while ignoring the fact that there were other options.
When it comes down to it, Harrier, I don't believe that private charities alone can handle that kind of case load. That's the crux of our disagreement.
Private charities definitely have advantages over govt. programs--a more relational approach, for example. But it's naive to assume that private individuals and charities simply have millions lying around waiting to help people. I know I don't have 500k in my account, and neither do most people.
Another crux is a basic beef I have with conservatives: They only scream that taxes are "theft" when those taxes are used to help their fellow citizens, but it's perfectly fine to use those taxes when starting wars overseas--which actually kill people and destroy lives. Even when I was a conservative, it never occurred to me to complain about my taxes being used to help someone--let alone a child--get well.
Are there charities that could help? Certainly a few. Can they do as extensive a job as the government in ensuring that no one is turned away? Not likely.
Here are the facts. Total charitable donations - All donations-religion, arts, education etc. 290 billion, which is impressive, but would not even cover the amount paid for by the fed in medicaid costs alone. That does not include what the states pay, and this girl was still not covered.
Life ain't fair, and nobody "deserves" an equal opportunity.
This is the kind of socialism Oblamo has been feeding America since entering politics.
Thankfully BO will be standing on Pennsylvania avenue with his thumb out on Wedsnday morning with red- rimmed, tear stained eyes as Romney balls up Obamocare and scores two in the waste basket with it.
Disagree. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity. What is not guaranteed is an equal result.
When it comes down to it, Harrier, I don't believe that private charities alone can handle that kind of case load. That's the crux of our disagreement.
Private charities definitely have advantages over govt. programs--a more relational approach, for example. But it's naive to assume that private individuals and charities simply have millions lying around waiting to help people's medical bills. I know I don't have 500k in my account, and neither do most people.
Another crux is a basic beef I have with conservatives: They only scream that taxes are "theft" when those taxes are used to help their fellow citizens, but it's perfectly fine to use those taxes when starting wars overseas--which actually kill people and destroy lives. And then they have the audacity to claim that they're "pro-life". Whatever. Even when I was a conservative, it never occurred to me to complain about my taxes being used to help someone--let alone a child--get well.
Are there charities that could help? Certainly a few. Can they do as extensive a job as the government in ensuring that no one is turned away? Not likely.
what even more bizzare is how the same people who see goverment provided healthcare as immoral , oftern refer to themselves as christians
what even more bizzare is how the same people who see goverment provided healthcare as immoral , oftern refer to themselves as christians
Oh, believe me, I've had several Christians try to make the Biblical case that using tax money to help others is actually sinful because it violates the "Thou Shalt Not Steal" commandment, yet bang the war drums when it's convenient while self righteously harping about the government's responsibility to protect the "sanctity of human life". Please.
Oh, believe me, I've had several Christians try to make the Biblical case that using tax money to help others is actually sinful because it violates the "Thou Shalt Not Steal" commandment, yet bang the war drums when it's convenient while self righteously harping about the government's responsibility to protect the "sanctity of human life". Please.
american christians ( mainly protestants ) have managed what most outside the usa would seem impossible , they,ve managed to potray the teachings of jesus christ as being at one with that of milton freidman , you have to admire the audacity nesscessery for such revisionism
american christians ( mainly protestants ) have managed what most outside the usa would seem impossible , they,ve managed to potray the teachings of jesus christ as being at one with that of milton freidman , you have to admire the audacity nesscessery for such revisionism
hence why I don't pay attention to most American Christians. Evangelicals overseas see things like UHC as a no brainer. Overseas it's a given that a Christian would want everyone to have access to health care without having to go bankrupt. American Christians are the only ones who actually think that it's okay that people have to choose between death and financial ruin when it comes to health care. Amazing.
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.
