quote: As a result of the new law--an effort to keep illegal immigrants from finding their way onto the Medicaid rolls--consumer advocates warn that many vulnerable Americans could lose or be denied Medicaid coverage.
Especially at risk, they say, are seniors in nursing homes, the severely disabled, children in foster care, the homeless, African-Americans and Native Americans born outside of hospitals and Hurricane Katrina evacuees who have lost personal records.
quote: Gov. Rod Blagojevich is concerned about the new federal regulations and "raised the issue today with the Illinois congressional delegation," said spokeswoman Christine Glunz on Tuesday. If states don't meet the law's requirements, the government will cut off financial support for Medicaid.
quote: What happens next is uncertain. Government guidelines issued earlier this month indicate that current Medicaid recipients will get some time to obtain documents, but it's not clear yet how long that will be.
I just find this appalling. Basically, my take on this is that our law-makers rushed to get some kind of anti-illegal-immigration law in place and didn't even bother to check whether the net they cast would drown our own citizens.
Leaving aside the issue of whether we should be much concerned with the problem of illegal aliens obtaiing Medicaid, shouldn't our first concern be to ensure that we don't screw over the most vulnerable people among us?
C'mon...cutting off benefits to a blind mentally retarded man because he can't prove he's a citizen?
Cutting off funding to a State if tries to continue giving Medicaid to a person it can't prove is a citizen, but everyone knows the person IS a citizen?
And, are the savings from this program just going to be eaten up in the costs of new bureaucracy?
I sent a copy of the article to my representatives in the House & Senate, and to Mike Levitt, the Secretary of HHS.
The law goes into effect Saturday -- with a "grace period" of unknown duration.
I submit that this law should not go into effect at all, or at least not until it is fixed to allow some way to continue giving benefits to long-time recipients who, for a list of various reasons, can't provide the prescribed proof of citizenship.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arizona passed a similar law several years ago. While I'm sure there will be problems, the measure is probably necessary. If social programs (and voting, in the case of Arizona) are meant for citizens, why shouldn't people applying for such things be required to provide proof of citizenship? Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that it hasn't been required before now. I wonder what Illinois will require as documentation of citizenship.
I was a little confused by the examples listed in the Tribune article - the blind man had his state ID stolen and yet the state has no record of issuing him such a thing? The woman with alzheimer's had (at one time) a driver's license yet can't be issued any sort of state ID (even though she has a SS card)?
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your topic title is certainly one way of looking at it Bob. Another might be "Law of consequences--or massive illegal immigration can have negative impacts."
I'm not saying that's my position (which would be closer to the middle ground), but there are other ways to look at it.
Edit: Sometimes I wish I could look at people's motivations. Are the people doing it primarily trying to actually save medicare and benefit older & disabled Americans, or are they just trying to appear tough on illegal immigration this election year?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should be noted that merely getting a job requires proof of legal residency or citizenship. I can't start work in September without the documents this program requires.
The requirement itself doesn't strike me as problematic. Rather, the process for handling lost documentation does. There absolutely needs to be a way to handle situations like this other than toss the people to the wolves.
quote:I was a little confused by the examples listed in the Tribune article - the blind man had his state ID stolen and yet the state has no record of issuing him such a thing? The woman with alzheimer's had (at one time) a driver's license yet can't be issued any sort of state ID (even though she has a SS card)?
Sounds like a serious underlying problem with our ID procedures. No one should become an unperson simply because they don't have their "papers."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sounds like a serious underlying problem with our ID procedures. No one should become an unperson simply because they don't have their "papers."
EDIT: I copied that so I could agree with you, Dag.
On another note:
What doesn't surprise me about this is that people who are the most vulnerable in our society weren't really considered when this law was crafted. People in Congress probably figured the same as what some here are saying -- how it even possible that a life-long US citizen couldn't find some way to prove it?
But there are people who will not be able to. They weren't born in hospitals, or they are mentally challenged and can't assist their over-worked case worker to find out where they were born or when. Or they are 97 years old suffering from Alzheimers and have no living relatives.
That's what I meant by law of unintended consequences. By trying to get tough on illegal immigrants, the people who crafted this law forgot about how this program is a vital lifeline for people who have nothing. And they didn't bother to put in any provisions. So, last minute, there's an indeterminate reprieve giving them "more time" to do what they already can't do -- get their documents in order.
Anyway, here's some things I've learned to look for every time the government "cracks down" on programs for the poor:
1) The fix costs more than the money they save.
2) The big losers are always people who weren't scamming anyone, but fell into a category that the people crafting the rules didn't consider.
3) Waste, fraud and abuse continue anyway.
This article cited a report that showed that while there aren't sufficient identification requirements in Medicaid, there wasn't a lot of abuse of the program by illegal aliens.
So, in other words, this wasn't something we had to do a rush job on. We didn't have to "solve" the "problem" immediately. We could've taken our time, researched it, figured out what would work best for states, give them time to implement is slowly and figure out where the glitches were.
Instead, the law was passed in February, and the drop dead date is July 4th weekend.
It's mean. It's spiteful. It creates a REAL problem by solving a fake problem.
I see nothing good about this at all.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: So, in other words, this wasn't something we had to do a rush job on. We didn't have to "solve" the "problem" immediately. We could've taken our time, researched it, figured out what would work best for states, give them time to implement is slowly and figure out where the glitches were.
I didn't know you were an idealist Bob It'd be cool if we did actually pass laws like that. Instead it seems like it's always done the bad way. Hastily pass a law to quick-fix some high visibility problem and then iron out the myraid of problems it creates later- or don't iron them out.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FairTax would fix this problem. They'd be paying the highest tax rate in the country. So who cares if the blind, old etc among them want Medicare?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Sounds like a serious underlying problem with our ID procedures. No one should become an unperson simply because they don't have their "papers."
Ver ah your papers her Dagonee? Ve have our vays of extracting information... weeeery convincing vays...
So would it benefit us to keep closer track of people in some way un-related to a standard issue id? Say microchips, fingerprints, retinal scans, or Dna profiles? In all seriousness, I wonder if a database of citizenry would be better than nothing but a social security number; one that anyone can claim is theirs, and often do. Do you think that the future will see a national database of DNA profiles for all citizens, functioning as verifiable ID wherever we go? Part of me says why not, it would make things much easier. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, technology opens up all sorts of wonderful possibilities.
Or...we could learn to not sweat the small stuff. There are advantages to having everyone positively identified, but they come at a cost both in dollars and in potential for abuse.
Abuse of aid programs is annoying. It eats up a few percent of the overall cost of the programs.
Abuse of identification programs holding data on every single citizen could be a disaster.
We don't really need a multi-billion dollar solution to a problem that is costing a few million.
Ultimately, though, we'll have some sort of stricter ID provisions in place because of the law enforcement aspect of it. If they had DNA profiles for everyone in the US, solving crimes would become pretty easy (unless criminals started wearing biohazard suits.
Or...just burning down things when they finished...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something along the lines of proof of residency for a fairly lengthy period plus statements from people who are citizens that to the best of their knowledge the person is a citizen might be acceptable. Say, 12 years or 80% of one's life provably in residence in the US, whichever one is shorter.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to post here. I feel somewhat responsible for sending the article to Bob, knowing he'd react with appropriate indignation and outrage.
Progress Center for Independent Living - which has my partner Diane as an executive director - is a plaintiff in the litigation referenced in the article.
Looks like this was the brainchild of a couple of Republicans Congress Reps from Georgia. I'm struck that Congress could devote a whole day to the "urgent" business of a flag-burning amendment, but couldn't find the time to figure out how to allow for cases in which people who are entitled to services end up having them denied to them.
There are uglier elements to both the right and the left - I've gone on record in regard to some of my beefs with what passes for the "left" these days. The ugly element of the "right" seems to fall into this pattern of draconian solutions which hurt people who are already vulnerable. I've seen it in the states, when both Missouri and Florida (both Republican administrations) enacted Medicaid changes that resulted in the cancellation of funding for nutritional supplements used by children and adults with various disabilities who use feeding tubes. (the irony should be obvious regarding Florida) Luckily, in Florida, anyway, some outraged medical people raised enough of a stink that the regs are on hold - for now.
My impression is that a lot of "pro-life" people are only "pro-life" when it comes to abortion and will forgive almost any assault on the lives of ill, old, disabled and poor people if it's done by politicians who pay lip service to being anti-abortion.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people without records have dark skin, and are thus not really Americans in the same way Ann Coulter and the Minute Men are.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Social welfare is the duty of the state", since we are in the buisness of talking in sound bites. I could point out the many advantages of such programs as public schooling and healthcare, but I find myself disinclined to do so.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um.. why don't we just eliminate the social programs in general and return the business of charity to those who WANT to give to charity?
And there lies the crux of Christian Conservative hypocrisy. It's *OK* to demand displays of Christian symbols on government propterty. It's *OK* to take conservative Christian principles regarding sexual behavior and make them law.
But it's *not* OK to "force" Christian notions of charity on anyone through public policy.
And when the charities run out of money because the Ken Lays of the world have other plans for what they've made? What then? I guess we just let them die in the streets, since they'll be arrested for resting on privately owned land.
But at least maybe someone will give them a Christian burial.
posted
sndrake: I am an atheist, not a christian. I am indifferent to christian symbols on gov't property. As a bisexual, I am obviously against using christian dogma to limit the rights of people like me.
When people steal charitable contributions we put them in prison. That is fraud.
Pelegius: It is the duty of the state to protect us from force and fraud. The more Duties you give the state the more you take away from individual freedom in favor of having your life controlled by the will of the masses. Which is fine and dandy till you hold an unpopular position.
posted
The rights of the individual are the foundation of the state, and anytime the state puts other goals ahead of this the state forgets its duty. Foremost of these rights is the right to life, second is liberty and property is third. Healthcare ensures the right to life and is thus inherently of concern to the state.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Many people without records have dark skin, and are thus not really Americans in the same way Ann Coulter and the Minute Men are.
It's racist to asume that people with dark skin are incapable of having their papers and records in order. I'm a huge fan of Ann coulter and and a supporter of the Minutemen, and I have never hear or read anything by either party that is more racist than this statment.
If you mean that illegal aliens don't have the needed records and that those of us who support only legal immmigration are racist, then you do a disservice to your cause by resorting to name-calling. Name-calling is the first resort of people who can't use the facts and reason to support thier cause.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: The rights of the individual are the foundation of the state, and anytime the state puts other goals ahead of this the state forgets its duty.
Without delving too deeply into it, the foundation of this state was not individual rights. There had to be ammendments to grant them.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelegius: By that reasoning would you enforce a program of forced organ donation? After all, someone elses right to life is more important than your rights to that extra kidney of yours. And do you really need more than one eye if someone else can't see?
Since property rights don't matter next to other people's needs, why don't we sieze all private property and MAKE DAMN SURE that everyone has enough (healthy, vegitarian) food, a nice hybrid car, health care and a place to live (with central heat and air so they don't freeze or swelter.)
You surrender your rights, your autonomy to the state. You become a cog in a grand machine. You are no longer an individual. Your argument leads to slavery to serve someone elses Need.
Instead, let the goverment simply protect us from those who would harm us. People will still give to charity. The poor will still be taken care of. And the rights of individuals will be retained. And the institutionalized fraud of government social programs will end.
I realize I'm fighting a losing battle. Both sides of the aisle have discovered how easy it is to buy votes with tax payer money. Their only argument is "Oh yeah? I can GIVE AWAY MORE!!!!!!"
But I guess I'm like Mal. I just don't know when to lay down arms.
posted
And not to turn this into a health care thread, but golly. Have you ever had to deal with the offices of USCIS (formerly INS), Social Security, or even just the DMV? Why in the name of Mike would you want to have to do that just to see a doctor? Shudder.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel, worse. Many of those without id also happen to be poor, minorities, and--Democrats.
Note that the Voting Rights law that has been renewed every time it came up for renewal for 30 plus years, has not been renewed this time.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
This law was not passed in order to reduce the cost of the Medicaid system. Nor was it part of a government re-engineering effort that would see these functions transferred to charities.
If that was the secret intent of the bill's sponsors and those who voted on it, then I'm even more upset. That would mean that they cynically hid their intentions behind a current hot-button issue and took advantage of a window of opportunity without any real thought of how some living breathing human beings might fare day-to-day afterwards.
There's a right way to do things. This ain't it. If there's a consensus that government ought to get out of the health-care insurance/provider business, then let's sit down, in the open, and figure out how the charities can pick up the slack. That discussion didn't happen, and yet this problem is going to just be dumped on the states and the charities anyway.
That's nothing to cheer about.
That's not reform. Or, if it does end up in reform, it'll be after much suffering and a vast disconnect between the law and the reform later.
For example, this move didn't lower my taxes. Did it lower yours?
If we save a bunch of money on Medicaid, do those savings end up somewhere good, or is that just part of the next appropriation that Congress will overbudget?
This is not a reform bill.
It is, however, a law that has unintended consequences, as I said in the first post. The stated purpose had nothing to do with kicking off retarded people, old ladies in nursing homes suffering from Alzheimer's disease, and so forth. They pictured greedy illegal aliens, of sound mind and body, rushing over the border in order to get at our excellent health care.
What a crock!
They even have data that this isn't really a big problem.
And even if it is, I still have the suspicion that the cost at the state level is going to eat up whatever "savings" there are from filtering out the small percentage of benefits currently going to illegal aliens.
It's just a burden that burns money through friction.
Nothing here to cheer about at all.
In the meantime, come Saturday (barring reprieves and the lawsuit sndrake mentioned), the most vulnerable people in our population are put at real risk. What will the nursing homes do with that woman who can't pay? What happens to the man with mental challenges? What happens to all the people like them.
Do they just get sick and die? Do we shift the burden of caring for them to our already strapped emergency rooms? Do we hope that charities suddenly find the resources to take on full time care for these folks?
Where's the planning? Where's the forethought? Where's the compassion? Where's the conservatism even? This is just wasteful and nasty.
I know people tired a few years ago of hearing actions being called "mean-spirited" but if ever that epithet applied to a law this is it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
We're on two different arguments. You're arguing "How should we redistribute other people's money?" and I'm aruging "SHOULD we redistribute other people's money?"
Like I said, mine is an argument lost long ago when it was decided that people and their property belong to the state to dispose of as they will.
But I'm going to keep bring it up. Maybe some day, if enough people do it, the debate will be reopened on a national level and this road to hell will stop being paved with good intentions.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest. I think you are totally ignoring my point, which is that IF we want to do what you say, this isn't the way to do it.
I see you as thinking this law is a good thing, when it does none of the things you want, and destroys some things that it supposedly left in place.
I can understand your point. And I would welcome open public debate of that issue. Do you think that happened in this case? Did this law arise from concern over government's role in society?
Of course not.
I would think you would be just as upset about this law as I am. But rather than even address the here and now, you choose to tilt at windmills.
I understand you point. Would you at least take a stab at acknowledging that there might be a point related to this particular law?
You are talking about something years down the road, if ever. I'm talking about people losing their safety net this coming Saturday. And there aren't charities lining up to take up the slack. Is that of no concern?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, there have been, throughout the history of this country, many settlers of English, Irish, Dutch or German descent without papers. However, I cannot find it with in myself to attempt to reason with a para-military group, not least becouse the history of people who tried to reason with para-militaries is one primarily of corpses.
BaoQingTian, while it is not legaly binding, the Decleration of Independence was a clear expresion of intent for an aspiring country.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob: My point is there shouldn't be a government managed/funded safetynet.
Governments do really really stupid things *ALL* the time. They squander money because, Hey, we can just squeeze more out of the tax payers. Or borrow it from our children.
The average person works till June each year to support our bloated, wasteful, boneheaded government.
YOUR guy won't always be elected and even if he is he won't always agree with you for how things should be done. The more power you give an out of touch, professional politician (ie: anyone in office) the more evil/stupid things they will do... because they CAN.
Maybe, if you don't like the way they do things, you should support cutting their funding, removing some of their power and voting Libertarian. (at least until they actually get into power and turn into the monsters they were fighting. The republicans have shown that Animal Farm was a documentery)
posted
Then why did they not use the concepts that you believe exist in the Declaration of Independence in the Constitution, which is in fact the foundation of this country? They were obviously familiar with both documents. The DofI was a statement of grievences against a repressive government- not an attempt to define an American government.
I don't interpret the concepts the same as you either. I would define the government's role as to not oppress its citizen's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- not to in fact give it's citizens life, liberty, and whatever makes them happy.
Now I don't have a problem with welfare, Medicade, etc but what you say makes me nervous. Following your logic to the end would give the government power, authority, and responsibility over every aspect of our lives. That honestly scares me.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Becouse the Constitution, which is binding, must, by nature only establish concrete rights. However, the abstract right of "pursuit of hapiness" was cited by Earl Warren, writing for the Court in a unanimous statement, in the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel: actually, the constitution is a leash on government. The notion that it "establishes rights" was one of the arguments against the bill of rights.
"If we enumerate these, it might be interpreted to mean those are all the rights you have."
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Mig, there have been, throughout the history of this country, many settlers of English, Irish, Dutch or German descent without papers. However, I cannot find it with in myself to attempt to reason with a para-military group, not least becouse the history of people who tried to reason with para-militaries is one primarily of corpses.
I don't think you're getting the point. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. As it happens I'm an immigrant too. Just because you disagree with people on this issue, doesn't justify resorting to calling people you disagree with racisits. If you don't want to talk to members of the Minutemen, fine don't, but why resort to calling people racists just because they disagree with you. You're on a Hatrack forum and not meeting with Minutemen. Try to be open-minded and avoid knee-jerk reactions to people you disagree with.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea of the nation-state is inherently racist, as is the concept of nations in general.
"There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration." Yes, one we call legal, another illegal. That is all there is to it. The law is not the highest good, to claim thus is an egregious fallacy and reminiscent of Inspector Javert, humanity is the highest good.
"but why resort to calling people racists just because they disagree with you. " Only when they disagree with me by saying that one "race" or one nation is superior to another.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelegius, I think you are equating the concept of nation and race. Although you may be etymologically correct, by legal imigration I mean imigration between soveriegn states. If the idea of states and state soverienty is racist, then every country on Earth is a racist state. Mexico doesn't have open borders, at least not in terms of people wanting to get in, so by your reasoning that makes Mexico just as racist as any other country out there. If whether to obey the law is only subjective, then please don't call the cops next time you're the victim of a crime because then you'd be no better than Inspector Javert.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets try another view of unintentioned consequences.
Right now several million immigrants, legal and illegal, are in our country. Many of them visit back to their home countries.
When they return home they bring with them American products, and American money, but more importantly--American Ideas.
We are exporting ideals to these countries, and some of these ideals are making changes. I am not refering to consumerism, or baseball. I am thinking about the American expectations that our government should be free from corruption, and responsive to our needs. That the government should represent all the people, not just the wealthy. That corruption in the police should be the rarity, not the usual.
Sure, these things may not be perfectly true in the US, but the expectation of them is.
These immigrants are virally spreading Democracy, and responsive government, throughout the world. It is a great export product for the US. It is what the Neo-Cons hoped Iraq would be able to do.
I know many illegal immigrants. None that I know of go home. It's not exactly a sure bet to get back in this country. Many are scared to even do interstate travel. Many call home, so I could see an export of ideas there, but usually it's just how's the family etc.
I fail to see how everything you mentioned could not be better achieved by legal immigration.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, the concepts of nation and race are inherently linked, the concepts of nation and state are not.
I never said that "whether to obey the law is only subjective." I did say that the law is not the highest good. Laws once stated that schools should be segregated by skin colour, surely they did not then stand on the highest level of moral goodness. Ghandi broke the Law becouse he believed it was wrong, and in doing so he righted wrongs, although he found out too late that there are wrongs that he could not right. But we, we who are six billion times stronger than one man, can.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, all the articles I've read and news I've seen discuss those that do go home, if not annually, then periodically, or after obtaining enough capital to start their own business at home. I do not believe this happens with all the immigrants, but it does do so with many.
Secondly, no where in my statement do I say that this is an Illegal Immigrant only system. In fact, I state "Legal and Illegal".
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you post some links if you have any? If not it's cool...I've seen tons of stuff that I can't go back and find later.
I'm just speaking anecdotally from the many immigrants I do know that aren't here legally, I'm aware that's not a stastical sampling by any means. I admit, I'd be very surprised if 'many' illegal immigrants go home regularly, although those here legally I would entirely expect it. I'm just saying that all the illegal immigrants I know do not head home at anywhere near a regular basis, most not since they got here.
I know you said legal and illegal, but I hesitate lumping them together because their situations are vastly different.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I get your point. Really I do. What I think you aren't acknowledging is the fact that there are people, real people, who will suffer if the change from "how things are now" to "what we want them to be like."
Eliminating government programs is only part of the solution (if one hates the fact that government is paying for this stuff).
Here's what I care about:
1) There are people who need help 2) The current situation has them using help from the government, paid for from taxes. 3) When that ends, there is nothing organized to take its place. 4) The end of this particular government program doesn't come with a cut in taxes.
What that means is that depending on where these people live, and who knows about them, they either or will or will not get help from local charities. The gap created by the sudden removal of the government program isn't magically filled by the loving souls who give their money gladly to help their fellow humans. They don't know where to give the money and who the needy people are.
That is not to say that charities couldn't or wouldn't eventually pick up the slack, but it's not going to happen by today with a running start from February.
If government creates a crack, it should at least try to ensure that it knows who is slipping through that crack.
And, another problem I have relates to point #4 above. Without a cut in taxes commensurate with the "savings" generated by cutting this funding, people who might otherwise give to charity are less likely to do so. It's not a dollar-for-dollar thing, I realize, but if the charitable folks of this country are suddenly going to have to ramp up their giving, part of what we'll need is for many more people to give a little. If they are sitting there resenting the payments they still have to make to government for these "social welfare" programs, then they are less likely to give, or likely to give less. Either way, it means that the gap isn't filled.
I understand your point, really I do. I just don't think that the long-term goal you state supercedes the needs that were being taken care of and will not be in a few weeks (depending on when HHS finally lowers the boom).
By persisting in repeating your same point, I'm getting a picture of you being unconcerned for real people so that your sense of what government should do is brought forward. If nothing else, it makes me think that the Libertarian platform would be a disaster for the most vulnerable people in this country. I think it's worse than the callous disregard that the GOP showed in this case. By not thinking it through, they left a gap that some needy folks will be hurt by. Your way, we would just cut those folks adrift and ignore the problem because, well...it's not our problem.
I will never vote Libertarian if that's an aspect of their world view.
I personally can tolerate a bit of government inefficiency because, ultimately, I don't see other options that would do the same job MORE efficiently. You don't care about that, you just say the "that's not my job" and wouldn't be concerned about it after that.
At least that's the picture you seem to be painting.
Anyway, that's the understanding I've come away from this conversation with.
I think there are horrible historical precedents for societies that ran that way. Where the poor were poor because of their own ineptitude, or God's judgment, or whatever, and too darn bad. Instead of helping hand, they had the option of slavery or debtor's prison. There are societies that work this way today. The National Geographic had a good article recently on the sale of children as a means of debtor families meeting their obligations.
I'd rather not see America devolve into a society of the "haves" and the "desperate." I don't think the Libertarian "platform" offers much reassurance on this score.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a conservative - heck, as an American - I wish America was a place where we didn't need government assistance. Not because everyone is rich, but because voluntary giving keeps people from starving.
As a Christian, I feel a responsibility for the poor. Too many Christians demonize the poor for being lazy and stupid and morally weak. Sure there are some, but I'd bet there are just as many people who aren't poor who fit those characteristics.
Part of me agrees with Pix, because I hate to see my money being taken and spent recklessly. But you know, I agree with Bob too. Americans seem somewhat self-centered, so support might be scarce.
I guess in the end, I support some kind of safety net. I don't think we should be providing a especially nice level of living (especially for those who won't look for a job), but I feel it's our responsibility to do something. Granted, I have serious issues with the way things are done - but as Bob said, inefficiency is better than nothing.
I think I have to be a very mixed up conservative Republican.
One thing to consider is that taking my money at the threat of imprisonment to redistribute is a very strong form of enforcing morals on others. I hear a lot of people on "the left" saying that the government has no right to push morals. <shrug> Which is it?
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It'd be cool if we did actually pass laws like that. Instead it seems like it's always done the bad way. Hastily pass a law to quick-fix some high visibility problem and then iron out the myraid of problems it creates later- or don't iron them out.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
