Makin babies, gettin paid....it's the American way!

I don’t think anyone’s saying that these women (or the organisation arranging the trips) should go to the US and have their babies there. Nor has anyone suggested, in this thread, that the US is a harsh and cruel place where people are turned away at ERs daily.
My problem is your “well, this is what happens when things are free” response to the situation.
Why having to pay for emergency measures and births is wrong? Because it happens to everyone, and giving birth is a service to the community (when the birth rate is at Swedish levels, it certainly is). Adding to that, a very wise person ( ;) ) once said “those put in debt are not free”. We are all part of society, and that anyone should be put in economical bondage for getting basic emergency medical care is abhorrent to me. In fact, that anyone is refused care that will save the person’s life is also abhorrent to me, wealthy person or not.

Bmulligan, it’s human nature. People will always get in line for handouts, tax breaks, etc. People will always abuse any kind of system – look at the recent SUV tax boondoggle.

If that’s going to be your litmus test for any kind of aid or break, you’re going to want to eliminate all of them.

That is what he wants, isn’t it?

There are libertarians (neo-liberals for us Europeans) who honestly claim that there is no such thing as a society. I’m not yet sure if it’s the result of drawing libertarian ideas to their natural conclusion, but it is a thouroghly provoking thought.

Well, I can recognize the idea that society only exists by virtue of people thinking it exists.
But any libertarians coming up with the idea of a world without society would probably appreciate the lesson such a world would teach them :)

I know there are people who cheat the system, but you have to look at the entire program. There is a benefit to society for healthier babies being born - less future medical costs, better chances of success in school and life in general, etc. We need to work to make it harder to cheat the system, but I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to assist pregnant women in need.

I get sick and tired of people talking about handouts, government giveaways, etc. Living on welfare in the projects is not a life anyone aspires to. It’s a life you settle with or are forced to accept. My father has worked with public housing and associated programs for nearly 40 years and he has seen it all. He hasn’t grown cynical or given up on the purpose of the programs yet and I think most of us who only read about these issues in the paper from time to time need to do a little more research before we declare ourselves experts and render a blanket judgement on these programs.

-DavidCPA

I’ll still never understand why bleeding heart liberals thinking “helping” the needy means just giving them some money.

For reference, in this case the government paid the hospital bills of the women. It didn’t just hand them a check.

My point was that occasional fraud in Medicaid is no more a reason to get rid of it than, oh, occasional fraud in defense contracting is a reason to get rid of it.

BTW, as I pointed out in that other thread people die years early all the time because they don’t have health insurance. Try getting chemotherapy if you’re uninsured and poor.

The neo-liberal/classical liberal/libertarian view of society simply holds that so-called societal interests are usually convenient fictions meant to further a minority agenda without rational debate, and therefore deserving of great suspicion especially when they directly contravene individual interests.

This is very relevant to the health care debate. There are many who simply want to hang on to more of their paycheck, and that’s fine. There are also a lot of doubts about the ultimate sustainability of universal healthcare. This thread is a perfect illustration. The “minimum standards” will always be broadened by worst case scenarios, since egalitarianism is the foundation of democratically placed programs. No material cost benefit analyses can ever be held as a reference or decision making fodder except as a means to provide even more benefits, since democratic programs only expand by their very nature…

Therefore, it makes sense to many of us (libertarians, that is) to use systems that put the burden of the responsibility and the choice on individuals. Not because it is amusing. Not because it is fun. But because it is the only means of dealing coherently with the economic realities of medical treatment. The point of civilization and society is to ameliorate the negative penalties of natural selection; to seek to make them nonexistent is foolhardy, impossible, and ultimately can only have disastrous consequences.

Now I know you’re going to say, but it worked great in ______. Well, that’s wonderful. I’m glad you like it where you live. But I maintain that its success, such as it is, is more a function of cultural particularities and preexisting development than it is an economic categorical imperative that is universally applicable.

That’s a no-no Lizard, you can’t bring up the natural selection argument with the social engineers. I’m suprised you aren’t getting uncle tom cards played on your ass yet.

No it didn’t hand them a check, it gave them a free service. I see no difference here since one can be exchanged for the other. And comparing a handout program to a defense contract is ludicrous. Fraud in your ‘free rider’ defense budget can and should be policed out. It’s also a necessary program, to provide for the common defense. Giving people sustinence is not the government’s job, protecting the lives of it’s citizens from enemies is.

Try getting chemotherapy if you’re uninsured and poor.

Sure, I’ll apply for Medicaid. Your 18,000 deaths a year attributable to the non-insured as reason for universal heathcare is just as ridiculous. You have the right to pay for your own insurance, or your own medical service. You all like to say that people get refused heathcare, give me some testimonials-- not the google cut and paste ones. Personal ones, like your mom or uncle, cousin, friend, ex-brother-in-law’s second nephew one removed…I’m waiting.

Have you ever thought of the econimic bondage the taxpayers are put into to keep the poor shackleless? So it’s fair to put a claim on the life of one to redeem the life of another. It’s fair to force one to sacrifice for the sake of another. It’s fair to enslave one to keep another free. Your society stinks.

Silly me, I thought civlization evolved because it had nonzero, positive results for those involved.

all like to say that people get refused heathcare, give me some testimonials-- not the google cut and paste ones.

Ask Mark Asher. He’s pointed out multiple times that it’s literally impossible for him to get insurance for his diabetic son. Not “too expensive”; no one will offer it at any price.

Fraud in your ‘free rider’ defense budget can and should be policed out. It’s also a necessary program, to provide for the common defense. Giving people sustinence is not the government’s job, protecting the lives of it’s citizens from enemies is.

That looks suspiciously like an assumption, not a logical deduction.

BTW, do you have any idea how much of your tax dollar gets redirected to the poor? 10%? 50%?

Have you ever thought of the econimic bondage the taxpayers are put into to keep the poor shackleless? So it’s fair to put a claim on the life of one to redeem the life of another. It’s fair to force one to sacrifice for the sake of another. It’s fair to enslave one to keep another free. Your society stinks.[/quote]

The poor aren’t shackleless, far from it, and the economic bondage put upon taxpayers is not, dare I say, as much of a shackle as being so poor that you cannot afford proper health care. Furthermore you get a little too caught up in rhetoric for your own good. The difference between government claiming a part of your income and claiming your entire life to do with as they see fit is not as insignificant as you seem to make it.

Can we have one, just one argument where no one points out that some of us live in “socialist paradise Sweden”, please? It’s really quite annoying.

Can we have one, just one argument where no one points out that some of us live in “socialist paradise Sweden”, please? It’s really quite annoying.[/quote]

Not so long as we have people who attempt to argue using inferential slander. “Well, of COURSE you think that way. I mean, look where you live!” Etc, etc.

[quote=“Jason_McCullough1”]

Silly me, I thought civlization evolved because it had nonzero, positive results for those involved.[/quote]

The two things are not contradictory. At all.

I wasn’t even looking at you directly. If you actually read what I wrote, it seemed to me like I was trying to take the middle ground and avoid that entire line of reasoning you claim to dislike.

I wasn’t even looking at you directly. If you actually read what I wrote, it seemed to me like I was trying to take the middle ground and avoid that entire line of reasoning you claim to dislike.[/quote]

Umm, I’ll just point out that you quoted Anders, not me.

My mistake. There oughta be a law against you to posting right next to each other…Corrected.

who determines what is proper or how much is good enough, the poor? How do you determine who can and cannot really afford this proper care?

No, I get caught up in a principle for my own good. There is no difference in principle between a 1% claim on your income and slavery. It’s like being a ‘little’ bit pregnant. If I choose to give money to the poor, fine. When government and others force me to do so under penalty of incarceration, that’s slavery.

If you feel you are being enslaved, there are many other contries that an American can move too and pay no tax whatsoever.

I so did not double post.

I should save that and just tack on AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT PINKO, thus providing me with a response of equivalent quality to anything you have ever posted.

There is some difference, as I’m sure plenty of actual slaves would be happy to explain. Unless you sincerely think that something which can be broadly defined as a matter of degree does not require subcategorization for discussion to be meaningful at all…