Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Wallowers here only - celebrators start another post

You obviously don't know what it is, then.

In 1789, when the Preamble was written, the word "Welfare" meant The quote is the primary definition of welfare from Dictionary.Com. It's from the Old English "wel faran" meaning "the condition of being or doing well." There is no fundamental right for a person to be healthy. A government which tries to guarantee that its citizens will always be healthy will go broke because people will always get sick and eventually die. Not health care program will ever change that.

The care you received for your hand injury in Germany was paid for. Not by you, of course, but someone had to cough up the dough. And you admit that some people abuse the system in other countries and would do it here, but you also imply that it's somehow better if a government-run system is abused.

And I never wrote that people should only receive health care if they pay taxes. You're putting words in my mouth and I prefer that you not do so.

Virginia, who pays three-fourths of his/her income for health insurance? I have never heard of anyone who does that, so if you can find some evidence please let me know. If it's true, maybe it will change some minds.

Yes, it is quite different. You made a misstatement when you claimed that for-profit insurance boards base their bonuses on whether or not an applicant's claim is paid or denied. The bonuses are paid on the profits of the company. If a company continually rejects claims that another company would pay while charging similar premiums, the first company's customers will take their business to the second insurer. A government board has no competition and won't pay claims based on a policy of retaining customers because they don't have to.

This also means that the government-run board has absolutely no incentive to improve its service record or change to better serve its customers. If you don't believe that, you can look at the performance reviews for any state-run agency in any US state and find that the majority of people working in those agencies just want the paycheck. There are some absolutely outstanding folks in state-sponsored agencies, but they're in the minority. And the best ones usually leave for the private sector, both for better pay and for the chance to do something meaningful without battling all the red tape in the state agency.

One more point about health care. Just because a person has insurance, that does not mean that said person has access to health care. An insurance card won't get you the time of day at a hospital that's closed because it ran out of money and couldn't pay its employees, or at a shuttered doctor's office which is closed because the doctor couldn't make a living doing what he or she did before.

And you've made the assumption that your final suggestion will be universally rejected by the "wallowers." I don't know why. I think that's an idea worth discussing. In fact, I would go even one step farther and make education a combined state/county responsibility. There's no way someone in Florida can determine the best education standards for third graders in Wyoming, or someone in Washington determine those standards for the whole country. I would insist that teachers teach the subject matter in their courses, beginning with the earliest grade the child attends. And I'd eliminate both the Federal Department of Education and all of the teachers' unions and allow the states and local school boards determine who is hired, who is retained, who is promoted, and where the kids can go. I'd also allow the students who refuse to do their work to fail entire grade levels and require that parents be involved in their children's education. And I'd stop rewarding women and men (especially men) for making babies and leaving them for others to raise.

The soapbox is open for business.