Bill Bradley on Children

R

Rich Lucibella

Staff
I heard on NPR yesterday that Bradley has stated that he would require all parents to maintain health insurance on their children. Those who could not afford it would be eligible for subsidies.

A noble goal, Bill, worthy of a Rhodes Scholar. :) Not surprising, the Devil's in the Details. What shall we do with "non-compliant" parents? Fine them? Jail them? Rermove their children from the home and let the State raise them? Neuter them? Kill them?

Once again the Brittle Left proves it's intolerance is equal or greater than the Religious Right. They just worhip different God's and Bibles. In Bill's case, God is the State, and his bible is the USC.
Rich
 
Ugh. After Clinton and now Bradley I'm beginning to think that, during their tenure in England, Rhodes Scholars are regularly brainwashed in British concepts of elitism, social welfare, and, of course, gun prohibition. Much more of this, and July 4, 1776, will have happened for nothing.
 
Rich:

Confirmed. I heard it this morning. The "penalty" portion of his plan "will be determined later".

Remember folks, "Patriotism" as a theme has been replaced by "It's for the children". (But in reality, "it's for the POWER".)

'Scuse me, I gotta go PUKE...
 
Mandatory liability car insurance has proven to be a good and useful tool to protect the public (me, you) from idiot drivers. How is this different? Not making a statement either way, just asking a question. Seems that it actually does protect children (unlike "gun control" laws). I'd certainly rather see parents spend money on health ins for their kids than on booze and smokes and carousing. Penalties for failing to have car ins include tickets (crim charge), revocation of license (to drive). Those same penalties would be a good start. What's the problem? Is it your freedom to choose? If so, that only holds weight to the extent the balancing of interests weighs in it's favor. For example, sure I hate having to carry car insurance, becuase I'm a safe driver and have NEVER caused an accident which was my fault. However, I and most everyone else, too, am glad that the law is in place when I'm rear-ended by morons (as I have been at least three times in the last 10 years).

[I have hunkered down and donned the flame suit. Let the flaming commence!]

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited September 29, 1999).]
 
Personally, I have a philosphical problem with insurance companies in that I do not like them making policy on how I live my life by their sponsering or backing (or by arguing against) legislation.

This stems from a belief that money should not be the reason why things are or aren't done...and face it, insurance companies exist to make money, not out of altruism, and that is why they are for or against certain legislation.

Now what does this statement of my personal beliefs have to do with the original post or any of the following posts?

I would rather have no middleman, such as an insurance company, or consortium of insurance companies, between me and a state mandated national health system. One more hand in the cookie jar and all that.

I like the idea of free, basic medical care sponsored by the government. Probably one of the finest tenants of good government is how they provide for the common good, and I think basic medical care is right up there along with sanitation services and building/maintaining transporatation.

Still, I am curious how "non-compliant" parents would be disciplined.

Duncan
 
Comparing this to car insurance ... hmmm, Ok then, why do I, living in a state with mandatory car insurance, wind up even being offered "uninsured motorist" coverage? ... even if I've offered to sign a statement indicating that I'll never travel outside of my state, it still is a good idea that I carry this coverage. Why? Not because of foreign nationals coming over the boarder from the south (altho that *is* one reason) but mainly because there are people in California that just plain don't carry car insurance.

And you don't find out about them until the accident happens. Sure, they aren't supposed to be able to renew thier registration (de facto confiscation?) but, you can go to an agent, purchase the minimums, get your proof, register, and then not pay the next premium. What good is that?

Nah, I think this is just a way to get a nationalized health care system in place through the back door.
 
Agree with TR. Passing a law that merely criminalizes another segment of the population and punishes them severely is ridiculous. This is just like more gun laws. Ultimately, as some have pointed out, the problem is getting the government out of our business, not getting its nose buried deeper.

Passing a law guarantees nothing. I know a few people in my state who've been hit by uninsured drivers despite the law.
 
A bit off thread, but it involves auto insurance.
While holding a policy from an insurance company, who flood TV with stupid commercials such as submerged golf carts, I purchased a new vehicle, one Suzuki Samurai. I got a nasty letter from one of their V.P.'s stating that i should have asked for their permission, his words, to see if they would want to insure my vehicle. As I was already a policy holder, they did insure my "Sam". At double the rates I was paying. I told them that when the policy ran out, I would no longer do business with them. They told me that they would see to it that I could get no auto insurance anywhere else. What arrogance. To make a long story short, I started looking for another insurance company, told them my problem, they said no problem. Saved about $50 every 6 months, and oh yes. I canceled the arrogant S.O.B.'s and insisted on a refund for the unused portion.
I hate insurance companies. One refused me because I own firearms. Either I got rid of them, or no insurance. I still have my firearms.
Paul B.
 
All of this talk about "for the children" brings to mind the movie "The Killing Fields" One scene when the hero was in the detention camp sticks in my mind every time I hear "for the children". As he was walking by a building that was obviously a classroom for children , a child walked up to the blackboard, upon which was drawn four stick figures, two large (parents) and two small (children). The child at the instigation of the teacher drew an X through the two large stick figures. The symbolism here is that parents are not important to socialism. I kind of wonder if our schools aren't doing the same thing.

As far as Insurance companies, they are all $cumb@g$ in my book. I too have been rearended by non insured drivers, and I ended up paying for it when they up my premiums every six months even though I am listed as a good driver. Simple insurance is necessary, but when the govt starts social engineering such as no fault insurance it hits us in the pocketbook. Honest people pay for the bums. If they start mandating health insurance for children look out, everyones wallet will be lighter as we have to pay for the irresponsible in society.

I still rankle over the money stolen from me to pay for out pitiful education system because I own property, while others are able to escape the tax and have children that I pay for.

Rant Rant...

Geoff Ross

------------------
Damn!...I need more practice!
Pi$$ off the left, register to vote.


[This message has been edited by K80Geoff (edited September 29, 1999).]
 
Futo Inu,

Freedom is the right to choose and suffer the consequences, good or bad.

You can't legislate self-discipline, accountablity, and responsibility.

In a truly free society the only punishments doled out would be AFTER the infraction, not pre-emptive such as what is proposed with this and 90% of all other legislation that is passed.

This also applies to auto insurance.


------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

www.quixtar.com
referal #2005932




[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited September 29, 1999).]
 
John-
You warm my heart with your definition of freedom.

Futo-
You make good points. Children should never be allowed to suffer. Unfortunately, they do. While we can hope and try to reduce this, at what cost? Shall we next require parents to show proof of economic means for a college education before procreation? Psych testing before having children?

When we seek to make the world perfectly safe, there is simply no end to the involvement we will ask of Government.
Rich
 
Ya know....
This sounds like de facto enforced birth, population and race control.
If you can't afford to give your kids what the gov't decrees, then you will be in violation, the kids taken from you and later when you might be able to afford it, the gov't will then garnish your finances to pay for the time the gov't covered the bills.

Note the operative: What the gov't decrees...."stroke of the pen, law of the land"

Considering the various forms of gov't take 50+% of our earnings, I hardly think they have the right or authority to dictate how we spend what we have left. The gov't wants it, then they should pay...lets stop giving money away to every frigging other country. (Today Clinton proposed covering the debt to the World Bank of some 3rd world countries)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!



[This message has been edited by DC (edited September 30, 1999).]
 
I recently read of a doctor who quit taking Medicare/Medicaid and quit dealing with insurance companies. He was able to cut his fees in half while maintaining the same income for his practice. If any of the leftists actually cared about anybody except themselves they would acknowledge that their plans cause more harm than good.

Mandatory auto insurance doesn't stop uninsured drivers from driving, just as mandatory driver's licenses don't stop bad drivers from driving. Most insurance is a bad gamble for the insured, hence the profitability of the insurance business. Many folks will pay for car repairs out of their own pocket even if they are insured because it is cheaper than having their rates raised.

John, Rich, DC, all excellent posts.

------------------
"...the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation."
Prof. Frank H. Knight
 
Rich, and all;

I read about the Bradley plan in the paper, got a somewhat different take than you have, although basis is the same.

All kids would be insured, by law, all right. All under the SAME group policy, which currently exists and insures some quantity of government employees. Basic cost would be $1200 per year per child, and somehow I was supposed to believe that the overall procedure would include complete elimination of Medicaid (I thought they did more than just kids, don't believe it anyhow).

So, you've just lost any choice as to policy coverage, price shopping, etc, and get to support another gov't boondoggle. They also claim, laughingly (aren't we all just silly?) that of course "no one would go to jail" for violations. Trust me!

Finally (I love this one), it will cost the taxpayer a mere $65 billion. STOP! Don't even ask, I read it several times and the answer to the obvious question was NOT there. That being, of course, whether that figure is for a week, a year, a century, or what. Guess it doesn't matter, though, as Bradley (without comment from the media) asserted that the budget surplus will pay for it easily. You remember the budget surplus, right? The one we taxpayers can't get back as it's being saved for debt elimination and shoring up Social Security? Ain't even seen a nickel of it yet and Bradley jumps in wanting to spend $65 big ones, I choose to assume per week.
 
Some other problems that I see in this.

Having to have another National ID card for your children.

What about those people in our society who would rather pay cash?

What about those people in our society who, for religious and other reasons, do not use convention medical care?



------------------
Peace...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top