A Letter that was in the Letters to the Editor Today

[forrestkc]

Then how in the world did we ever survive as a nation until the program was established in the 1960s? In addition, it was supposed to be the beginning of the war on poverty, which has still not been won, so I think we should cut our losses and pull out of it. That seems to be the liberal solution.

Life expectancies were lower and the elderly made up the largest demographic in America living in poverty. What a great world it would be to back to that huh.

Everything done in the public sector is not bad and Medicare is certainly not a bad idea considering the alternative.

[hepatocyte]

So you're saying people are so generous as to donate enough money to provide health care to everyone that needs it?

His way would work if people were willing to give money.

"If people didn't have such a huge chunk taken out of their checks to be redistributed, they would have a lot more to give to charity."

- Yea...because people are just so charitable these days.

Well, it would help if we got the government out of health care entirely, so costs could come down. You'd be surprised how generous people would be, if they could be.

Again, would doing it the way Jesus said not work?

Read my reply.

How generous? How about giving everything in your possession to church? How many people are willing to do that?

How many are willing to give half? A third? A quarter?

How many are willing to give their money for STD treatment and AIDS anti-retrovirals?

How many will actually give alms to those that are ostracized by society? Prostitutes that are living in sin?

[hepatocyte]

Then how in the world did we ever survive as a nation until the program was established in the 1960s? In addition, it was supposed to be the beginning of the war on poverty, which has still not been won, so I think we should cut our losses and pull out of it. That seems to be the liberal solution.

Life expectancies were lower and the elderly made up the largest demographic in America living in poverty. What a great world it would be to back to that huh.

Everything done in the public sector is not bad and Medicare is certainly not a bad idea considering the alternative.

How much lower was life expectancy in the 1960s compared to today? As for the conditions then as opposed to now, I would much rather live in 1950s America as opposed to America today with regard to the laws that were in place.

Long live segregation!

[hepatocyte]

So you're saying people are so generous as to donate enough money to provide health care to everyone that needs it?

His way would work if people were willing to give money.

"If people didn't have such a huge chunk taken out of their checks to be redistributed, they would have a lot more to give to charity."

- Yea...because people are just so charitable these days.

Well, it would help if we got the government out of health care entirely, so costs could come down. You'd be surprised how generous people would be, if they could be.

Again, would doing it the way Jesus said not work?

Read my reply.

How generous? How about giving everything in your possession to church? How many people are willing to do that?

How many are willing to give half? A third? A quarter?

How many are willing to give their money for STD treatment and AIDS anti-retrovirals?

How many will actually give alms to those that are ostracized by society? Prostitutes that are living in sin?

It is really none of your business if we decide to support those people or not. We go out and earn the money we have, and we should have the right to decide how to spend it. God decided to intrust a certain amount of wealth to each individual, and he allows us the opportunity to be generous or stingy, and blesses us accordingly.

Exactly. That's why charity will not be an alternative to providing health care using taxpayers' money.

Some needy people will inevitably be left out in the cold.

[hepatocyte]

So you're saying people are so generous as to donate enough money to provide health care to everyone that needs it?

His way would work if people were willing to give money.

"If people didn't have such a huge chunk taken out of their checks to be redistributed, they would have a lot more to give to charity."

- Yea...because people are just so charitable these days.

Well, it would help if we got the government out of health care entirely, so costs could come down. You'd be surprised how generous people would be, if they could be.

Again, would doing it the way Jesus said not work?

Read my reply.

How generous? How about giving everything in your possession to church? How many people are willing to do that?

How many are willing to give half? A third? A quarter?

How many are willing to give their money for STD treatment and AIDS anti-retrovirals?

How many will actually give alms to those that are ostracized by society? Prostitutes that are living in sin?

It is really none of your business if we decide to support those people or not. We go out and earn the money we have, and we should have the right to decide how to spend it. God decided to intrust a certain amount of wealth to each individual, and he allows us the opportunity to be generous or stingy, and blesses us accordingly.

Exactly. That's why charity will not be an alternative to providing health care using taxpayers' money.

Some needy people will inevitably be left out in the cold.

So what? Some needy people will be left out in the cold no matter what government initiatives are passed. That is just reality.

If needy people are just reality, then why even bother attempting to help them?

The government initiatives at least attempt to address the issue.

[hepatocyte]

If needy people are just reality, then why even bother attempting to help them?

The government initiatives at least attempt to address the issue.

As far as charities go, I am all for helping the poor, but only as much as people are willing to help on a voluntary basis. I am opposed to the government playing Robin Hood with other people's money.

When the government proposes some new welfare program, they fail to tell the public the actual cost to them personally. If the people of this country were actually told the amount it will cost them in additional taxes, and they still want a particular program, more power to them, but that is not how liberals do things. They simply ask a question like in a recent poll stating that a certain percentage of children are currently being helped by the government. Should we help the rest that are not insured? Of course, an overwhelming majority said yes, but if you asked them instead, the governement wants to take x number of dollars more out of your paycheck to insure the rest, do you support that plan, I would imagine the numbers would change drastically. That is the strategy I would use to kill any additional welfare spending and turn public opinion against it.

So you don't mind paying taxes to fix the highway on the other side of the state, but you have a problem with having your taxes help the poor?

We're not talking about fiscal accountability - I agree that the efficacy of a welfare program should be made transparent to the public. We're talking about the idea of using taxpayer money to provide health care for those who can't afford it.

"If you asked them instead, the governement wants to take x number of dollars more out of your paycheck to insure the rest, do you support that plan, I would imagine the numbers would change drastically."

- That's great if they want to play the ostrich game and pretend that there are no needy people out there.

"turn public opinion against it."

- Turn the public against helping the needy???

[nebula]

The Civilian Conservation Corps was probably the best program created by the government to give money to those in need - by giving them a job.

In the Torah, alms and "hand-puts" were for those who were incapable of working (i.e. the blind, lame, widows, orphans). Of course, such distribution went out from the Temple and not the Palace. Also, the poor could obtain food through gleaning. Those with fields were required to leave the edges of the field and anything that fell off the cart for the poor to gather. The key here is that private citizens had the means to provide without crimping their business, and the poor had to work for their food (as opposed to hand-outs). This, IMHO, is the greatest problem with Government programs - too many people get used to free handouts without doing anything, and this is not healthy to either society or the person.

That being said, I myself receive free health care through NIH for my rheumatoid arthritis - but I do give back by allowing myself to be utilized in research and studies whenever possible. In this way my condition and treatment is benefiting others in some small way.

[hepatocyte]

Can another conservative join this thread, please? I have said all I wanted to say.

Tell me if I'm a crazy "liberal" or not. (I don't consider myself liberal, but I most certainly feel like one on WB.)

[hepatocyte]

The Civilian Conservation Corps was probably the best program created by the government to give money to those in need - by giving them a job.

In the Torah, alms and "hand-puts" were for those who were incapable of working (i.e. the blind, lame, widows, orphans). Of course, such distribution went out from the Temple and not the Palace. Also, the poor could obtain food through gleaning. Those with fields were required to leave the edges of the field and anything that fell off the cart for the poor to gather. The key here is that private citizens had the means to provide without crimping their business, and the poor had to work for their food (as opposed to hand-outs). This, IMHO, is the greatest problem with Government programs - too many people get used to free handouts without doing anything, and this is not healthy to either society or the person.

That being said, I myself receive free health care through NIH for my rheumatoid arthritis - but I do give back by allowing myself to be utilized in research and studies whenever possible. In this way my condition and treatment is benefiting others in some small way.

Oh definitely they should work and not sit on the couch all day expecting handouts. But some people simply can't afford health care even if they do work. And I believe that's the group of people we should help.

[kat8585]

The Civilian Conservation Corps was probably the best program created by the government to give money to those in need - by giving them a job.

But do they find them a job or give them a job that is paid for with tax payer money? If it is the latter, I would be against it.