Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 15, 2007, to urge the United States Congress to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for the State of Michigan. Note: This has become a controversial issue because the Medicaid add-on program intended to provide health coverage to the children of the "working poor" is increasingly being used to pay health expenses of adults who are above the poverty line, and the proposed renewal would potentially greatly expand such practices

Click here to view bill details.

 More middle class welfare.

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege for only those who can afford it. Every civilized country views it as such, and we should too.

The US Congress passed the s-chip bill, and President Obama signed it. Elections have results.

 It's a "right," huh? What if no one wants to provide it to you? Will you force the doctor to operate at gunpoint? Will you force the nurse's aid to empty your bedpan with the threat that Luca Brasi will break her daughter's kneecaps if she doesn't?

That's the funny thing about so called "positive rights" like this - you can't have it unless some other person is willing to provide it for you. Your right to free speech or free exercise of religion doesn't require anyone to do anthing thing - it just prohibits them from interfering with you.

What you really mean is that you want the power to make someone care for you, or to make someone pay for another person to care for you. That's a dirty thing to want, so you hide it behind high-minded terms like "right."

Here's the reality: As a society we are unwilling to step over the bodies of ailing individuals who could be cured but can't afford it. And so we've created programs like Medicaid. It's not a "right," it's a form of welfare, and one that has a democratic concensus behind it. As for the durability of that consensus, don't push it, you socialists, with misguided talk of a "right" to health care. A democratic consensus in favor can turn into a democratic consensus against, so watch your step, and restrain your Bolshie ambitions.

There is nothing misguided about having a right to medical care. There is something very misguided about denying it to people because of their financial status. I would say more than misguided, but selfish. Your right in your statement that as a society we are unwilling to step over individuals who could be cured but cannot afford it. But we are unwilling because it is wrong, plain and simple. If our tax dollars can be used to fund wars we don't support, your tax dollars can be used to fund healthcare we all need, whether you support it or not.

You can be arrogant in your attitude towards medicaid, try that same attitude filing your taxes. Pick out something you don't like, I'm sure you'll find something, and withhold a portion of your taxes. See how that works out.

Conservatives are always trying find the moral justification for being selfish.

We force people to drive the speed limit. We force people to pay taxes. We force people to obey laws. That's reality. We do it because it's for the common good. National healthcare is for the common good. We all benefit when we're all healthy.

 

 so, as long as there is a benefit, you see nothing wrong in using force?

how much force will you use to assure that everyone gets medical care?

how much force will you use to assure that the person inside the woman making the choice gets better medical care than a pair of scissors to the back of the neck and a vacuum tube in the skull?

are you prepared to use DEADLY FORCE?

My advice to you cajun is to never have an abortion. You seem hung up on it. Don't do it.

I really don't think deadly force will be needed to make people pay their taxes. Unless of course, you anarchist revolt. That didn't work out too well the last time for a certain section of the country that was determined to deny people their rights.

 let's see... washington used deadly force in the whiskey rebellion.

lincoln used deadly force in the 'GREAT UNPLEASANTNESS'.

kennedy used deadly force at kent state.

clinton used deadly force at waco and ruby ridge.

i'm sure that you have no compunction against using deadly force to get your way.

even if you won't admit it to the public.

 let's see..

the confederates had negroes as sargeant majors in 1863. it took the union army till 1963 to promote a negro to sargeant major.

the confederates respected and upheld the citizenship of free blacks, as well as free slaves, the union can make no such commentary even today.

washington PROMISED slaves freedom if they fought in the militias and the continental army. the confederates DELIVERED citizenship to any slave that enlisted.

more runaway slaves were returned to slavery by the UNION ARMY than the confederate army. in fact, the confederate army NEVER CAPTURED ANY SLAVES, THEY OFFERED THEM ENLISTMENTS AND FREEDOM.

the 'GREAT UNPLEASANTNESS' wasn't about freedom of the slaves, it was about FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

just a few facts your schools don't teach.

jmangan:

There is nothing misguided about having a right to medical care. There is something very misguided about denying it to people because of their financial status. I would say more than misguided, but selfish. Your right in your statement that as a society we are unwilling to step over individuals who could be cured but cannot afford it. But we are unwilling because it is wrong, plain and simple. If our tax dollars can be used to fund wars we don't support, your tax dollars can be used to fund healthcare we all need, whether you support it or not.

You can be arrogant in your attitude towards medicaid, try that same attitude filing your taxes. Pick out something you don't like, I'm sure you'll find something, and withhold a portion of your taxes. See how that works out.

Conservatives are always trying find the moral justification for being selfish.

We force people to drive the speed limit. We force people to pay taxes. We force people to obey laws. That's reality. We do it because it's for the common good. National healthcare is for the common good. We all benefit when we're all healthy.

 

So, I point out the inherent contradictions and implicit implications of your claim of a "right to health care" - perhaps a bit colorfully and less gently than I should - and you resort to name-calling and insults, plus changing the subject, without engaging any of the valid points I made. I am not a "conservative" reactionary, I'm a thoughtful classical liberal who shares your desire to have The Good Society.

Yes I do think that those contradictions and coercive implications make you misguided, but I don't question your good will. Are you willing to grant me the presumption of goodwill and engage the points I raise, or are you just the flip-side of that Louisiana person? (For my part I will respond by reining back the "operate at gunpoint" and 'ugly thing to want' rhetoric.)

 why don't you CHOOSE to give that advise to the woman contemplating killing the person growing inside her?

instead you advise her to go ahead and commit murder.

doesn't that make you an accomplice?

You should write your own history book. Just make it up as you go. Try to keep the War for Independence seperate from the Civil War though. Remember the " four score and seven years" in-between.

Didn't know there was a difference between a free black and a free slave.

I really don't think the Confederate army had to capture slaves. The plantations were full of them.

That was mighty nice of them to offer those slaves their freedom if they would fight to keep their race enslaved.

 

 

 

 a FREE BLACK was born free, and was NEVER A SLAVE. there were several thousand of them in louisiana while the french and spanish held control of new orleans. one such person was Norbert Rillieux, the inventor of the process for the purification of sugar among other things. college educated at the loyola university of new orleans.

a FREED black was a person who WAS a slave but either EARNED, OR BOUGHT his freedom. this is obviously another fact your school never taught you. one such person was marie laveau. society belle and self professed voodoo queen. she died and left her fortune to the new orleans catholic school system. (private school as opposed to PUBLIC SCHOOL).

see what you learn?

 just listing the examples of the type of equality and respect the black man has had under the YANKEE influence.

you guys don't exactly have a stellar record of civil rights and equality when you REALLY look back on it, now DO YOU?

 i hate to admit it, johnnie, but you are right.

it's NOT a right, it's a privelege. one that the government need not supply.

while yes, it WOULD BE NICE if the government COULD supply healthcare to everyone, there are more important things that government has to do.

"j" and his syncophants only want the 'filthy rich" taxed till they aren't rich anymore. that serves no one. as their RICHES are limited.

they think that the money supplied by the 'filthy rich" is unlimited, as long as the power to tax is unlimited.

they seek neither freedom nor rights, only power. their motto: POWER TO THE PEOPLE shows just such thinking.

no talk of rights or freedom. only the power to take what isn't theirs.

i'm all for liberal spending with surplus money, but as of now, there are no surplusses, and won't be for quite a while.

i see you as a champion of the frugality of government so that there may BE surplusses with which to provide healthcare to those in need of it, not as a thief.

i see "j" as nothing more than a common thief, willing to use force to get what isn't rightfully his.

Johnnie:

So, I point out the inherent contradictions and implicit implications of your claim of a "right to health care" - perhaps a bit colorfully and less gently than I should - and you resort to name-calling and insults, plus changing the subject, without engaging any of the valid points I made. I am not a "conservative" reactionary, I'm a thoughtful classical liberal who shares your desire to have The Good Society.

Yes I do think that those contradictions and coercive implications make you misguided, but I don't question your good will. Are you willing to grant me the presumption of goodwill and engage the points I raise, or are you just the flip-side of that Louisiana person? (For my part I will respond by reining back the "operate at gunpoint" and 'ugly thing to want' rhetoric.)

I struggle to see where I insulted you or called you a name. I said you were being selfish and arrogant, which I think you were.You call it being colorful and less gentle.

Because you see inherent contradictions and coercive implications doesn't mean they are there. That is your opinion. I don't agree with it. That's what this forum is for.

I have engaged the points you raised, or at least as I see them. That is, you see universal healthcare as a favor to the less fortunate, something we need to do because of the norms of society. I see it as an obligation to fulfill our nations promise to it's citizens in the Declaration of Independence; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. None of these rights are possible without health.

 

Golly cajun, you're not being very nice. A common thief? I don't consider myself a thief at all, although I am quite common, and proud of it.

 next time you travel to new orleans, go visit the Confederate museum. it's right down the street from the D-Day museum. by the way, it's just around the block from LEE CIRCLE. a tribute to a great man who made a great sacrifice.

it's tough to FORGET history when you are surrounded by it.

and it's good to every so often run into an eyewitness to it. it helps broaden your mind.

crazycajun:

 next time you travel to new orleans, go visit the Confederate museum. it's right down the street from the D-Day museum. by the way, it's just around the block from LEE CIRCLE. a tribute to a great man who made a great sacrifice.

...

and it's good to every so often run into an eyewitness to it. it helps broaden your mind.

Do you hold seances, too?  My, my, my.  You certainly are a person of every conceivable accomplishment, aren't you?

 

 haven't held one in a while... awful fun at parties... maybe we could have you one to  see why you think like a communist. or maybe an exorcism to drive out the leftist demons that plague you.

 

 

jmangan:

Because you see inherent contradictions and coercive implications doesn't mean they are there. That is your opinion. I don't agree with it. That's what this forum is for.

I have engaged the points you raised, or at least as I see them. That is, you see universal healthcare as a favor to the less fortunate, something we need to do because of the norms of society. I see it as an obligation to fulfill our nations promise to it's citizens in the Declaration of Independence; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. None of these rights are possible without health.

 

 To repeat, the contradiction and coercive implication is that you can't have a "right" to something that is only available if some other person provides it for you.

Let's back up here. "Right" is a concept, not a thing that has an independent existance in the universe. The West developed and adopted the concept because it helps people live together in peace and to their mutual advantage. Properly construed the concept only includes that thing now call "negative rights" - the right to be left alone as long as you aren't hurting anyone else. No one has to provide me with that kind of right. I have the right to print what I want, but you have no duty to provide me with a printing press. I have a right to worship as I choose, but you have no duty to build me a church.

A so-called "right to health care" is what we call a "positive right." You can't have it unless someone gives it to you. What if they don't want to? You can trade for it - earn money and pay them to provide it - or you can force them to. That's it, those are the only choices. You can fuzz up the nature of that coercion by saying that the taxes you want to impose on me to pay for your health care are part of a "social contract," but it's coercion nevertheless. If I don't pay the taxes the penalty more than being called "selfish" by you: Men with guns will come to take me away, and if I resist they will shoot and kill me.

So, strip away all the layers and evasions, and "right to health care," "right to housing," "right to a living wage" and all the other so-called positive "rights" are simply a demand for the power to take those things from someone else (specifically, the money to buy those things). That's what a welfare state is about, and it's antithetical to the limited government our founders envisioned, which was based on the only valid definition of "rights" - the right to be left alone.

You've won, J. Mangan - true limited government was replaced by a welfare state in this country at least as far back as the New Deal. There is in fact a democratic welfare state concensus in this country. But don't try to BS me - or a public that prefers to hold the delusion that we're still living under the limited government of our founders - by coining Newspeak definitions, including the one that equates my right to be left alone with the power of 51 percent of my neighbors to take my stuff and give it to someone else.

 who was it that said that "democracy only lasts as long as it takes for the citizens to realize that they can vote themselves a piece of the treasury."

i think it was cicero.

You delude yourself johnnie. No one has a right to be left alone. We all have an obligation to take care of each other. Every religion man has invented stresses this obligation. Government is the modern day equivulant of the tribe. Sure , each of us takes from someone else. We take from the tribe, and we give to the tribe. That's the agreement.

You feel more powerful if you can say you only give to the tribe what you want to. But really, you give what you have to, because you depend on the tribe to survive.

Live in your fantasy of self reliance if you want, but know that we all have a right to support from the tribe, just as we have an obligation to give support. You will be, at sometime in your life, in both positions.

You, and cajun, are dependent on us, the rest of us.

A right to health care, a right to housing, a right to a living wage are all part of the bargain. Our founding fathers understood this, in a basic way. I don't believe they thought every man had a right to be wealthy, or even sucessful. But I do believe they thought every man in our tribe, that is, every citizen, had a right to a chance at being wealthy, or successful. And in order for that to be possible, they needed to have their basic needs met. People struggling to survive are not too concerned with their portfolios.

This bill we are talking about is for providing healthcare to children, paid for with our tax dollars. Now, I don't expect cajun to see the wisdom in that, but I do expect you to. If not the wisdom, at least the humanity.

jmangan:

You delude yourself johnnie. No one has a right to be left alone. We all have an obligation to take care of each other. Every religion man has invented stresses this obligation. Government is the modern day equivulant of the tribe. Sure , each of us takes from someone else. We take from the tribe, and we give to the tribe. That's the agreement . . .

 

 

 "A right to health care, a right to housing, a right to a living wage are all part of the bargain."

I'm not a party to that bargain, so leave me out.

"We all have an obligation to take care of each other."

No we don't. The nature of existance imposes an obligation to take of ourselves, and I believe that it's human nature to think the right thing to do is to help take care of those who can't take care of themselves. But that has nothing to do with using coercion to impose a legal obligation to take care of everyone, whether they are unable or just unwilling to take care of themselves. That is, to create a welfare state.

You see, the welfare state is incapable of making that distinction between unwilling and unable, which is why I say I'm not a party to the "bargain" you cite. When you make obtaining the basic necessities of life an "entitlement" for everyone you take away much of what makes us human, and  in addition create an unsustainable system that ultimately makes everyone much worse off. Thus, in my book you forfeit the privilege of calling on that human tendency to want to help those who can't help themselves.

Your mystical maunderings about the "tribe" and "obligation" is all just puffy words and contradictions, J, not anything real. The bottom line is what I said before - you and 51 percent of your neighbors have the power to take my stuff and give it to someone else, but there's nothing virtuous in doing that. Virtue requires choice, and you've take away mine and everyone else's by using coercion to impose your diktats.

Your statement is the epitome of selfishness. I don't advocate taking things from you, I advocate you giving, not as some favor you deem to bestow on other lower beings, but as an obligation to your fellow man. Nobody wants to take your stuff. Your obligation is to contribute to society. Nobody gets to keep everything he gets. Get real. Didn't you learn to share in kindergarten? My teacher didn't tell me I had a choice. She told me what I was supposed to do, to get along with the other kids.

The nature of existence is self preservation. But to survive, we need each other. Again I must point to the arrogance of your argument. You can't make it on your own johnnie. You need us. We need you. That doesn't make you less, or more, than anyone else.

I haven't coerced you, unless you consider paying taxes and obeying laws as coercion. Those are not dictates. In a democracy you have a say in making those rules. You also have a choice. Be a part of society, or not. But there are consequenses to not.

  If it's true isolation you want, with no obligations to your fellow man, you may want to join cajun's anarchist assosociation. He also believe's it's everyman for himself. Don't know how that would work out with two people though. He may think you got more than he did and try to take it away from you. Without any rules, if his gun was bigger than yours, you're toast.

jmangan:

Your statement is the epitome of selfishness.

<no, it was the epitome of RIGHT THINKING.>

 I don't advocate taking things from you,

<YES YOU DO. and BY FORCE IF NECESSARY. TELL ME the tax man doesn't have a gun.>

 I advocate you giving,

<i GIVE by choice. not by force. things gotten from me by force have been TAKEN.>

 not as some favor you deem to bestow on other lower beings,

<charity is never a favor bestowed on lower beings. but money taken by force is NEVER CHARITY.>

 but as an obligation to your fellow man.

<MY obligation to my fellow man is between ME and MY FELLOW MAN, the government has no business involving itself in who i give money to, and it certainly has no business TAKING IT FROM ME BY FORCE for such foolishness as this.>

 Nobody wants to take your stuff.

YOU want me to give you my money, the guy you send has a gun. i'd call that ARMED ROBBERY.>

 Your obligation is to contribute to society.

<perhaps YOUR obligation is to contribute to society. MY obligation is to raise and educate my family, to obey the law, and to leave those in peace that leave me in peace. i have no obligation to you, or anyone else, except to DO MY DUTY AS I SEE IT, not as you command it.>

 Nobody gets to keep everything he gets.

<my taxes should go to NECESSITIES. not NICETIES. frivolous spending on useless social programs has gotten us exactly where we are today. perhaps if others tended to THEIR obligations to raise and educate THEIR family, to obey the law, and leave those in peace who leave them in peace, and stood up for DOING THIER DUTY AS THEY SEE IT, there would be a lot less need for charity.>

 Get real. Didn't you learn to share in kindergarten?

<we're not in kindergarten.>

 My teacher didn't tell me I had a choice.

<mine did. she also told me what my true obligation was. it was a nobles oblige. a NOBLE OBLIGATION. and it was stated above.>

 She told me what I was supposed to do, to get along with the other kids.

<did she teach you to stand up for your rights and defend yourself? did she teach you to not be bullied? did she teach you that YOU were capable of being AS SUPERIOR AS YOU ARE WILLING TO WORK TO BE? did she REWARD such superiority? or did she force you to be the same?>

The nature of existence is self preservation. But to survive, we need each other.

<bull, i've done just fine without you so far, and i don't see any use for you now.>

 Again I must point to the arrogance of your argument. You can't make it on your own johnnie.

<yes he can. and he has done a fine job of it so far.>

 You need us. We need you.

<you're right about the WE NEED YOU  part. WE NEED YOU TO FOOT THE BILL FOR ALL THE SOCIAL PROGRAMS WE CAN SHOVE DOWN YOUR THROAT.> 

 That doesn't make you less, or more, than anyone else.

<i'm being taxed according to my earnings, if i earn more, i get taxed more. you don't NEED a bunch of people who live off taxes, you need a bunch of people who PAY taxes. right now you don't have that here.> 

I haven't coerced you, unless you consider paying taxes and obeying laws as coercion.

<i do consider foolish laws that throw money away frivolously to be coercion. you liberals are good at writing those.>

 Those are not dictates.

<yes they are. you just TRY avoiding paying taxes, and see if the guys with guns don't show up to take your stuff away and send you to jail.>

In a democracy you have a say in making those rules.

<and i say CUT SPENDING. REDUCE EXPENSES. LIVE LIKE THE CITIZENS YOU GOVERN LIVE.>

 You also have a choice. Be a part of society, or not. But there are consequenses to not.

<and they are far better than the consequences of having your life's earnings spent on those that WILL NOT WORK.>

  If it's true isolation you want, with no obligations to your fellow man, you may want to join cajun's anarchist assosociation.

<he would be welcome.>

 He also believe's it's everyman for himself.

<no, i believe in SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LOWER TAXES, GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY, CANDIDATE RESPONSIBILITY, AND FREEDOM FOR THE CITIZEN. if that makes me an anarchist, so be it. >

 Don't know how that would work out with two people though. He may think you got more than he did and try to take it away from you. Without any rules, if his gun was bigger than yours, you're toast.

<anarchy doesn't work like that. we leave those in peace that leave us in peace. but you just don't get that, do you?>

 

 by the way, you still haven't made a case as to why i should want to fund your charity.

you keep telling me it's my obligation. show me in the constitution where it's my obligation. show me in the law where it's my obligation. even the bible says HELP the poor. not SUPPORT the poor. it says FEED the hungry, not CONTINUALLY AND ENDLESSLY feed the hungry.

even jesus fed them ONCE and sent them on their way. he did not give them a home, nor did he pay them any gold from the state treasury, or the church treasury. he fed them, preached to them, and sent them home.

at what point does YOUR charity end?

jmangan:

There is nothing misguided about having a right to medical care.

It's not a right.

jmangan:

There is something very misguided about denying it to people because of their financial status.

So you opt to be lazy and I opt to work hard so I should support you? Not.Most

folks "financial status" is what they chose to do with their lives, ain't my problem, never was and never will be.

 

jmangan:

Conservatives are always trying find the moral justification for being selfish.

So because I want to keep what I earn I am selfish? You are delusional. Quit giving away my stuff.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. -- M. Thatcher

It's a lot easier being a conservative when you have a job.

S-chip was passed and signed into law. Elections have results. They are a demonstration of the will of the majority.

 i have a job. in fact, i provide jobs. and it's very easy being a conservative. it's even easier being a libertarian. elections DO have results. look at all the bad legislation we face here today. the will of the majority can also be looked at as MOB RULE.

with MOB RULE we get such things as LOOTING. (the taking of assets and cash from businesses without the owner's consent. some business owners consider being taxed BILLIONS unfairly to be a form of looting.)

and PILLAGING, (the taking of personal property and assets to be re-distributed to those that don't deserve them or didn't work for them.)

and LYNCHING, (the natural tendency of the MOB to vent frustrations on the leader of the government (see saddam) or the leader of the mob (see mussolini) depending on how well or poorly the looting and pillaging is going.

now, as we've seen here many times before, the will of the mob is not always whats best for michigan, but it IS always whats best for the MOB.