Parents, not society, should care for kids
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Published June 13, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Gov. Bill Ritter touted his health-care reforms as the "building blocks" of a larger plan when he signed them into law ("Ritter signs 11 'building blocks' of health agenda," June 4). That larger plan is socialized medicine.
The principle underlying these new laws is Karl Marx's dictum, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Colorado taxpayers (the able) are now forced to fund expanded Medicaid benefits for children of less wealthy parents (the needy). Colorado health insurance buyers (the able) are now forced to fund a hearing aid benefit for children (the needy).
Colorado does not need more creeping socialism. Children are the sole responsibility of the parents who chose to bear them, not society as a whole. If unable to provide for them, parents should rely on voluntary charity, not forced welfare. If Ritter wants real reform, let him begin with those free-market principles.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
June 13, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
SanctuaryCity writes:
Agree. Not only did I raise my kids, my tax dollars are used to fund the damn illegals. Those people can't take care of themself let alone there kids. They should be neutered. It's not my responsiblity.
June 13, 2008
8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Denise writes:
No, actually, you don't include a photo of a cute Hispanic kid if you want more money for these programs. What sells is if you search carefully for a white kid with light hair. It doesn't matter if the vast majority of the poor kids are from a culture where girls start birthing in their mid-teens and over half the youth drop out before graduating high school. Someone might get the idea that this is what logically happens as a consequence.
June 13, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Diana, you must be joking! The "poor" rely on everyone else to pony up for their irresponsible breeding habits!
You actually want "parents" (loosley) to care for their OWN kids??? Politicians like Bill Ritter will give them freebees from cradle to grave so why should they worry??
Now, how did that happen?? She's pregnant again!!
June 13, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
If those kids were so stupid as to choose to have poor or uneducated or irresponsible parents, then they have no one to blame but themselves, and they deserve what the get (or don't get).
June 13, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
If there is anything worth taxing citizens for one of them would be education.
I support taxation for infrastructure, education for minor’s and defense. I would even add new taxes for healthcare but only for the elderly and disabled.
That being said, the disabled must truly be disabled and the elderly must have contributed to infrastructure, education and defense throughout their working careers.
It is my opinion that we are spending too much on the education SYSTEM. The money isn’t going to the right places and the results have left much to be desired.
We don’t need to throw more money at the situation. We need to better spend the funds.
Those that don’t see the point of having an educated populous are short sighted. I’d suggest a trip to Haiti.
June 13, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Fred, that's very fiscally responsible. I bet Bush has driven you crazy for the 7 1/2 years.
If you folks aren't willing to pay a small portion of tax dollars toward health care then you have no complaint's when your private health insurance continues going through the roof. Between your wanting to be the "big bad conservative" and your "I've got mine" ideals, your probably going to end up paying more to the insurance company's than you would have paid in taxes to get these kids insured.
The cost of selfishness can be very expense.
June 13, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Hold your horses...Left!
I do not support universal health care in any way, shape or form for those that are able to provide it for themselves.
I would simply pay back seniors who have carried the country on their backs for their generation. I would support the elderly who have earned it and the disabled who are unable to earn healthcare.
My generosity ends right about there. I’m sick of paying off student loans while my tax dollars pay for the less fortunate to get hirer education. As stated, I’ll pay for your education while you’re a minor because I believe in the benefits of an educated populous.
But the free ride stops there.
Want a nice house and yard? Pay for the education.
Want healthcare buy it. Pay for the education and buy it.
I’ve got no sympathy for the able bodied leaches of our society.
And that’s were the kids come in. The United States of America promotes reckless breeding with its tax structure.
We are responsible for allowing and encouraging breeding regardless of ability to care for your offspring.
I say we need to CUT funding that promotes breeding not add to it.
June 13, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
dianahsieh writes:
I'm the author of the letter above. I'm delighted that it's already spawned so much debate. (I might jump in later today, if I have some spare time.)
The arguments for free market medicine are more complex than can be offered in a letter to the editor. So I encourage anyone who wishes to read more on the topic to visit the web site of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM), a Colorado-based group fighting for free market reforms in medicine at <http://www.westandfirm.org/>. FIRM's blog <http://www.westandfirm.org/blog> is also updated regularly.
As for readings, I particularly recommend:
Moral Health Care vs. "Universal Health Care"
Lin Zinser (JD) and Paul Hsieh (MD)
The Objective Standard
<http://tinyurl.com/25zffu>
Health Care is Not a Right
Leonard Peikoff (Ph.D)
<http://www.westandfirm.org/Peikoff-01...
I can be found at my blog NoodleFood:
<http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog>
Happy arguing!
June 13, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
dianahsieh writes:
Yikes, the links were screwed up due to my addition of brackets. Here they are again:
FIRM: http://www.westandfirm.org/
FIRM's blog: http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/
Moral Health Care vs. "Universal Health Care": http://tinyurl.com/25zffu
Health Care is Not a Right: http://www.westandfirm.org/Peikoff-01...
My blog NoodleFood: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
June 13, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Fred, I was being sarcastic. I know your position on this stuff quite well.
No comments on the 2nd paragraph? If you don't allow a portion of your taxes to be used to provide health insurance to the poor then your probably going to pay more than your share in increased premium. What you guys don't understand is that your already paying for the uninsured. Why not split it up and pay less?
June 13, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Jimminy, no it's not and that is simply the type of exaggeration I call you guy's on all the time.
This is what you either don't understand or refuse to admit. If it were not for medicade the cost for private insurance would be greatly increased over what it is today.
This was a mistake on my part jimminy:
"If you don't allow a portion of your taxes to be used to provide health insurance to the poor........"
I should have said uninsured as opposed to poor. However, I believe the theory still apply's. If you don't, then start a writing campaign and see if you can get medicaid taken off the tax rolls. I really wish they would for about a year. I'm not worried about the people who would need medical help because, as conservatives have stated in here, they would not be turned away. What I like to see is the conservatives having to pay twice as much on their health insurance premiums which would result in those folks recieving true "free" medical care.
June 13, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Left,
Sorry for not addressing the rest of your post. I guess I assumed it wasn’t directed at me considering the tone. “big bad conservatives” in no way identifies me.
But to your point, I’d say fix the problem of my rates being raised because of the uninsured rather then forcing me to pay for the uninsured.
In other words….the laws that force medical facilities to treat those that choose not to insure themselves yet are able too and can’t afford to pay outright for the treatment need to be changed.
The laws that allow a non citizen to get treatment (have babies) while forever strapping single mothers that are citizens with the bill is insane.
I’ve seen it first hand.
I see the barbarism involved in refusing health care too. I’m not exactly sure what the answer is, but the fact remains, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Just because I’m being robbed blind by insurance companies because of the uninsured doesn’t mean I should just go ahead and pick up their premiums for them. Rather, I should be relieved of the burden of paying for the uninsured.
BTW: I rather enjoy our discussions. I’ve venture to say that we both have the countries best interest in mind while forming our opinions.
June 13, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
"Health Care is Not a Right", written by a doctor no less. That's hilarious. Someone's gotta pay for the doc's mortgage, golf tee times, Lexus, we owe him, so start paying his exhorbitant rates now! No insurance and no money? Too bad, drop dead and reduce the surplus population. No leftist socialism for him, why it's much better to fill out paperwork for 2,000 insurance companies (each wanting their profitable take), than to fill out any paperwork for the guvmint.
June 13, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
nonayerbsns writes:
"Children are the sole responsibility of the parents who chose to bear them, not society as a whole."
On the one hand, true. On the other hand, what is society? A group of people born and raised by other people (usually, thier parents) all living together in one world. So, if you think 'society' shouldn't accept responsibility for each child, then 'society' as it is, would be disbanded and we would live amongst the trees and never interact.
June 13, 2008
5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
The same group who wants to outlaw abortion, save the poor innocent child, are the same that don't want their tax dollars going to help the children get medical care. Life begins at conception but the caring ends at birth...
June 13, 2008
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
titancain writes:
"Give me back my tax dollars that pay for YOUR childrens education."
Who paid for yours? I beleive that I am paying now via taxes for the education that I got as a kid.
June 13, 2008
8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Fred, I agree with you on the illegals but then again I also agree with Bush's way of handling them. Make it easy for them to get work visa's, citizenship whatever just get them on the tax rolls, one problem solved.
June 13, 2008
10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
Not only is money being spent on childrens health and education when it could returned to the taxpayers, but if they grow to healthy educated adulthood they want higher wages and use more of our precious gasoline.
June 13, 2008
10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
People
It's about $$$$$$$$$$ and funding and grants. Public schools, chartered schools, clinics, every type of institution you can think of even these people juice the system , but the illegals come knowing the ropes on how to do it. I once heard that Edward Kennedy had a web site that walks them through, maybe ,so. (??) And who are the new needy ?
June 14, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
Sweetpickle-
So you didn't want your school funded growing up, and you don't want higher wages now that you're an adult, right?
June 14, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a lot older than Karl Marx. In certain ways, it's part of the foundation of any human society. And, a very similar concept was practiced by the early Christian Church, according to the book of the Acts of the Apostles.
It's darn better than "I've got mine, you drop dead."
June 14, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
peterpi nailed it on the head. We live in a society, not on individual islands. As an adult, I feel some responsibility for all the children of this state (they need protection), as adults cared for and protected me when I was young. In other words, I've come to the conclusion that life in this society isn't all about me. I am willing to pay taxes toward this effort. If the children are healthier, we are all healthier.
June 14, 2008
5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Titancain, it makes me laugh when I think about you paying for the Iraq war too.
Almost feel sorry for you...not.
June 14, 2008
11:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
Peterpi: I've got mine. Go get your own. The desire to live one's own life, without being chained to every person on the planet who has some unmet need, does not amount to a wish for them all to die. And the early christian church is hardly a respectable source of wisdom.
Anderson: what you "feel" does not constitute a rational justification. Why save just the children of this state? Are they better than the children of New Jersey? Of Bangladesh? What about your responsibility for the welfare of Indonesian kids? The problem isn't that *you're* willing to pay to take care of them -- it's that you're willing to force others to join you against their will.
June 16, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Why does the Rocky Mountain News continue to publish so many letters from Dr. Hsieh and his wife? Their entire philosophy is rooted in the works of the fiction writer Ayn Rand and the fictional characters in her novels.
The "Moral" Healthcare paper the RMN allows these people to keep pimping out here can be found on such Objectivist sites that also put out papers on the "profound morality" of ending World War II by incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians.
I don't care how these Social Darwinists try to dress up their loony philosophy, its based on the totally delusional view that the sole pursuit of money is a virtue, while any sort of altruism is despicable.
Would the Rocky Mountain News allow so much media space to Scientologists, another group of fanatical ideologists whose beliefs are solely based on the writings of a fiction author?
June 16, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
infidel91: "The problem isn't that *you're* willing to pay to take care of them -- it's that you're willing to force others to join you against their will."
That is how you see the problem. What I view as the problem is you people apparently want to turn this country's health care system into that of a third world hellhole that, to accommodate the millions of people who can't afford health insurance, relies on endless charities to dole out medical treatment.
Why should WE have to conform to YOUR inefficient and ineffective "voluntary charity" proposals to handle the mass demand for access to quality health care in this country?
June 16, 2008
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Infidel asks hypothetically why save just the children of this state, and not everyone in the world. The answer is pretty simple: we are both members of this state. I am not a resident of New Jersey, and the children of New Jersey are not at issue here.
He also relies on the rhetorical claim that he is being "forced" (oh my!) to comply with others wishes. I addressed this before: we live in a democratic society, not on islands. We don't all get to choose what we want or don't want. By using his logic, I might argue that I am "forced" to use public highways, "forced" to pay taxes to fund schools, "forced" to call the police if someone trespassing on my property (rather than just shooting them dead), and "forced" to pay taxes to fund military operations to defend someone else's business interests. Such arguments are completely disingenuous.
June 16, 2008
3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Well, Anderson, what you have to understand is that these people hold to the view that democracy is mob rule by the unwashed, less worthy masses. They rarely admit it with any sort of candor, though.
In fact, they make a lot of noise about individual rights and the rugged individual spirit, but at heart, they are Social Darwinists who believe in winner-takes-the-spoils and the rest be damned.