healthcare as a right: heresy or gospel?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Are you trying to culminate Communism to fascism? I know of no Communist countries that were considered fascist. Most early fascist countries were Socialist, as in Italy and Germany.

But fascism has morphed a bit, while some of the basic tenants are the same. The same could be said about conservatism, the GOP's would cringe at the neo-con agenda, so things so morph over 60 years, many times less.

The fascism to which I refer is the busting of unions and giving the right to draft legislation to the corps, which is evident with mandatory seat belts and auto insurance.

Let's look at some communist countries of the last 50 years. Take, for example, North Korea. I strongly doubt there are any unions there. My guess is that workers' rights are at the absolute bottom of their interests. You can tell by how many of them are starving. And there aren't any corporations in a communist system because there is no motive to form one.

Thus, in a communist system like North Korea, the state is THE ONLY corporation. It's a monopoly. It tells you what you get and what you don't. Check out a picture of Kim Jong Il - that cat ain't starving, nor did he starve when between 1 million and 3.5 million North Koreans starved.

By the way, there is national health care there. I don't think that it can be argued that the North Koreans get anything better than in the US. Even Amnesty International thinks North Kore has the worst human rights record in the world.

We can also look at Cuba. Let us examine Cuba in the realm of "union busting." There is only one trade union, the Confederación de Trabajadores Cubanos (CTC). It's state run and membership is mandatory if you want a job. Apparently, you gotta sign a contract swearing allegiance to the Communist Party. There have been a few attempts to unionize, but any labor activist can expect to be imprisoned.

So there is no "union busting" in Cuba. There's an outright ban on even creating one. That's why workers in the cane fields can't strike.

And in terms of availability of essentials, there exists a black market for them in Cuba. It's kinda like the black market for drugs in the US, only it's for things like food ad clothing and medical products. And as for Cuban healthcare, google "Dr. Hilda Molina" for some eye openers on how healthcare for the peasants is shitty, but those with the cash get top notch care for anywhere in the world.

Quote

Virtually all of the industrialized world has some form of Socialized medicine, that is, except for the richest one.

Well, the State of California is only spending $36.2 billion for health and human services in 2007. Of this, $35.1 billion is for Medi-Cal, the state insurer for the poor. This $36.2 billion is only 27.5 percent of the California budget, ranking second only to K-12 education spending.

The US Health and Human Services budget fro 2007 is a mere pittance of $698 billion - of which 84.1% is directed towards Medicare and Medicaid. I haven't included county funding in this.

I think it's difficult to say that the US has no form of socialized medicine when its Federal budget provides more dollars for socialized medicine than was the GDP of the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, etc. $698 billion would rank 16 in the world GDP.

It's fairly safe to say that your argument that we do not have some form of socialized medicine in the US is kaput. It's just that you don't think we do enough to satisfy you.

To satisfy yourself, go to some town and insure everyone there. Get some friends to do the same thing in other towns. If you can't do everything you'd like to do because you don't have the money for it, then I'd like to give you a laurel and hearty handshake in welcoming you to the real world.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quit using EXTREME examples; let's start talking about the family earning 25k/yr orthe college kid trying to get an education to contribute post grad. These are the people who need medical care who can;t afford it.

I had insurance with a wife and 2 kids making 25k/year. My older sister put herself through college on scholarships and part-time jobs, and had insurance.

I would hazard a guess and say that the majority of full time jobs provide some sort of medical coverage.

Quote

And I walked 120 miles to school in 43 feet of snow, how does this matter?

You're the one that framed the question - don't get pissed just because you don't like the answer.

Quote

I would hazard a guess and say that the majority of full time jobs provide some sort of medical coverage.

Did you read about the guy at work who paid 500/mo as a premium co-pay? It was at a reputable company too. It was as if he had no coverage at all, but technically they provided it.

How about unemployed people? There's Cobra I guess. Either way, especially if you have kids, you're fucked.

And? I pay $500 EVERY TWO WEEKS - plus copays and deductibles.

Unemployed? You go to the emergency room for life threatening injuries/illnesses.

Or, if you were a Neo-Com, I guess you'd cry about how the gov't should be providing this for everyone.

Your assignments for today:

1. Find my quote from Robert Heinlein about bread and circuses. Compare the decline of the Roman Empire to the current 'entitlement generation'.

2. Read your military entry contract and find the section that guarantees you VA benefits if you do not complete a military career and retire.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

a Hobson's choice of the best 2 out of 3, at the sacrifice of the 3rd.

And that's where individual values fall in to things. I personally choose to get better healthcare that is more available, and I pay more to get it for myself and my family. Others may choose to pay less for healthcare to get lesser quality care that is available when needed. Still others may opt for cheap but high quality care that requires a long time to get an appointment.

My choices and priorities are different from those of others. I've got less money and time for other things I want to do because I place a higher value on the security of knowing I've got the best healthcare I can afford. I could afford less healthcare if I worked less and had more leisure time, but I choose to work more and spend less on other things.

It means that nationalized healthcare may actually SAVE ME MONEY because there's a great chance that I'd spend less on it than now. The bitch of it is that it would not be what I want, and I'd be forced to buy something that I would never pay for on the private market in my circumstances.

This means that I am getting less for my money, which is what most people would be getting, too. I rarely ever trust the motives of people spending other people's money for other people. It can never be as good and effificient as people spending their own money on themselves.

Unconscionable? I think unbargained for exchanges are unconscionable - where the costs and benefits are so lopsided that it is unfair and where the is an absence of any meaningful choice.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

>Hah. No private policeman costs $1000 / hour.

>Not having food will kill you and your little girl too.

Correct. We have the WIC to protect against that.

We take kids away from parents who don't feed them. If healthcare were a right, we would take kids away from parents who didn't provide for them.

There was a time that modern healthcare was unavailable. And there will be healthcare in the future that seems "essential" when it arrives but is unavailable today. Whose job is it to decide what is essential and what is not? Seems troubling to leave parental responsibility beholden to medical technology.

Quote

>Transport and electricity, or lack thereof also variously cause death.

I have lived without utility electricity for months on end. Didn't kill me! And millions of people in the US live without a car, so that's not going to fly. Not even sure what that has to do with healthcare.

Don't play dumb, people's lives sometimes depend on electricity and those who don't get it die. In the US and worldwide deaths are caused by heat waves, and exacerbated by power outages. Electricity and air conditioners directly result in fewer deaths. The economic and physiological causation is unmistakable.

Likewise shelter. People who don't shelter their kids get their kids taken away too, but the state does not guarantee shelter (leaving a few places like SF aside...) There is no universal right to shelter. It can get expensive, but what constitutes the basics is not decided by or uniformly standardized or guaranteed by anybody.

edit err..that didn't quite come out right...

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quit using EXTREME examples; let's start talking about the family earning 25k/yr orthe college kid trying to get an education to contribute post grad. These are the people who need medical care who can;t afford it.

Actually, that crowd eschews health care premiums, even modest ones, when they are offerred. For the most part the typical 25 year old does not see health insurance as something worth spending money on. Most of them, if given the money to buy it, would spend the cash elsewhere. So a government enforced mandatory universal program of coverage basically becomes telling people how to spend their money.

The amount of money is what makes such a program tough for a lot of advocates of personal choice to swallow. If it were $20 or $30 per month to support emergency services or something like that, it might be more palatable. But being forced to turn over several hundred dollars worth of the value of my labor each month to support a mandatory health care program in not acceptable. Then throw in the fact that I also would be in the group helping to pay for those that can't, and my part of the bill becomes well over $1000 per month.

Too much. I want to choose whether or not i participate and at what level.

Quote

For the most part the typical 25 year old does not see health insurance as something worth spending money on. Most of them, if given the money to buy it, would spend the cash elsewhere. So a government enforced mandatory universal program of coverage basically becomes telling people how to spend their money.

And most 10 year olds, if given the money for an education would spend the money on PS3 games, so your point doesn't address the issue, just another diversion.

And 25 year olds usually don't make enough money to pay for their own medical coverage anyway, but the elders who make good money do, and the idea is that when teh 25 yo is 45 and the elders who formerly paid for his medical can get paid back by that 45 yo paying for him. It's a matter of paying fwd / paying back. Some will never pay as much as they use and some will pay more than they use, but the point is for the richest country in the world to provide basic health coverage for its people.

Quote

The amount of money is what makes such a program tough for a lot of advocates of personal choice to swallow.

I have a personal choice that I never wanted to get into Iraq. I didn;t want them to spend my money on killing 665k people, 300 billion, 2700 us lives. This personal choice rhetoric is so overused, it's tiring. Anything to avoid answer the question of humanity: How can the richest country in the world deny its citizens basic medical coverage?

Quote

If it were $20 or $30 per month to support emergency services or something like that, it might be more palatable. But being forced to turn over several hundred dollars worth of the value of my labor each month to support a mandatory health care program in not acceptable.

Don't worry, we haven't been in the black since just after Andrew jackson in the early 1830's, so it isn;t your money. I laughed when Bush gave back that money as he took office in 2001, saying that the gov shouldn't hold our money. We have been a debtor nation for 170 years. Bush inherited 5.5 trillion, so for him to say teh gov is holding our money is shit.

As for you paying with your labor, don't worry, your fascist gov won't make you. Wouldn;t it be ironic if some guy w/o health coverage saved your life one day? He would risk his life for you, but you won't give your labor for him. Understand how we have our greedy attitudes now?

Quote

Then throw in the fact that I also would be in the group helping to pay for those that can't, and my part of the bill becomes well over $1000 per month.

You would see little changes to your paycheck. Your employer would pay more taxes, but no insurance premium.

Quote

Too much. I want to choose whether or not i participate and at what level.

I see, so fuck your fellow man, fellow families,etc? I understand.

[billvon 3,119]

>No liposuction, gastric bypass, Lasix, megabuck prescriptions,
>plastic surgery, or any of that stuff. If they can't pay they get stapled up
>like Frankentein.

Agreed. You draw the line between emergent care and optional medical procedures. The grossly fat woman who gets rolled into the ER because she can't walk any more gets 15 minutes with a dietician (and a walker) if she can't pay. The guy who comes in with massive injuries from a motor vehicle accident gets the surgery to save his spinal cord and his brain; plastic surgery to make his face look better waits until he talks to his insurance company. Or he looks like Frankenstein until he gets better medical coverage.

As others have pointed out, that becomes a very emotional line to draw. But since we are effectively drawing it now, it doesn't seem unreasonable to make an attempt to define it a bit better.

[billvon 3,119]

>We take kids away from parents who don't feed them.

Your're missing the point. Before we do that, we help them feed their kids (through programs like WIC.) That's because we believe that children should not starve to death. I am glad I live in a society that believes that, even if it costs me more in taxes.

>Whose job is it to decide what is essential and what is not?

The people paying for the care. If it's publically funded, we decide. If they pay, they decide.

>Seems troubling to leave parental responsibility beholden to medical technology.

That will always be true. What parents can do to save their kids (or improve their lives) depends on what medical technology is available.

[Jaden 0]

I think everyone should receive care when needed; and in emergency situations they do. In many cases, not all, government provided welfare encourages capable people to give up. Why work when food, housing and healthcare are provided? Resources are often overused by people that live off the government instead of adding to the economy.

I don’t think that those of us that choose to work and support ourselves should have to sacrifice quality healthcare so that everyone receives equal benefits. Insurance is expensive for everyone and we need reform but I don't think fully socialized healthcare is the answer.

Quote

There is an enormously large category of people who "fall between the cracks" in the US and are simply uninsured, in a way matched by no other prosperous industrialized nation.

There are many different plans available for these people if they choose coverage.

[shropshire 0]

At the very least, survival based healthcare should be free at the point of delivery and paid for out of central government funds, for all civilised countries.

If a country is prepared to spend my tax pounds/yen/dollars/euros etc... on slaughtering peoples from other countries it had better be prepared to save it's own citizens in their time of need.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,119]

>I think everyone should receive care when needed; and
>in emergency situations they do.

I agree there; you essentially guarantee emergency services. That does not mean you have to guarantee elective medical services.

>. . . but I don't think socialized healthcare is the answer.

The scheme you talked about above _is_ socialized healthcare to a degree. Some level of care is guaranteed by the medical system and/or the government.

I think one of the strengths of the US is that we don't follow any one economic/political system exclusively; we use a hybrid of many systems. Sometimes we operate as a pure democracy, where people vote on referendums; sometimes we elect representatives and have them decide. In terms of socialism, sometimes we use a socialistic approach to basic services (including air traffic control, the CDC, police and fire departments, roads) and sometimes we use a capitalistic approach (electricity, water, phone service, mail, advanced healthcare.) That's a strength, not a weakness.

In this case, I think a socialized system for emergency care, with a capitalist system for higher-level healthcare, could work well. This has often been described as a "two-tier" system. It guarantees emergency care for everyone, but does not require the government (and thus the taxpayers) to pay for facelifts and liposuction.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Healthcare is not a "RIGHT"

If we look at rights guaranteed to citizens, they are basically "The citizen has the RIGHT to be free of government intervention in these particular areas."

A right is NOT about goods or services to be supplied to the citizen.

Whether the government should provide goods or services to the citizens is up for debate. But goods and services are not rights.

Rights define the extent to which the government cannot fuck with you.


Make no mistake about it: healthcare is expensive, even in the UK. It is NOT free, even if it appears to be. It takes money, time and effort to give doctors the extensive training they need, to develop medicines & new surgical techniques, build hospitals, etc.

Even if healthcare in a country is totally socialized, it is NOT free, and can never be free. The government is not Santa Claus.

And whatever the government gives to the people, it first must take from the people.

To simply demand that it be free is to be like a little spoiled child who refuses to understand why his parents won't buy him a pony.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,119]

>To simply demand that it be free is to be like a little spoiled child
>who refuses to understand why his parents won't buy him a pony.

Perhaps, but we already have these ponies:

the Center for Disease Control
Air Traffic Control
Police
Fire departments
National parks

That being the case, a smart little kid asks for ponies that a) benefit everyone and b) are affordable. Hence the debate over what level of universal healthcare is affordable.

[shropshire 0]

Correct, it's far from free in the U.K ... but the NHS mandate is that it should be free at the point of delivery.

As a nation, we pay a lot for our health service and I for one am proud of it and prepared to help foot the bill. The NHS does have problems at the moment - poor ( too much) managment being one. Private Finance Initiative hospitals another but mostly our f**King suposidly Socialist Government selling our nations treasures

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

There are plenty of things in this world where there approaches a true "commons" for which everyone receives roughly the same type of benefit.

The CDC is a good example. While some may point to some diseases as not affecting everyone (i.e., cervical cancer is by nature limited to women) they are useful when it comes to many other forms of control for disease that can benefit everyone. Air traffic control also is effective in managing airspace, which is public. It doesn't matter if you are a 777 or a 182, they try to make sure that no two objects will occupy the same space at the same time.

Healthcare, however, is different. Healthcare rules are like military rules in that reasonable minds can clearly differ on priorities. There was great debate about war in Iraq that continues with even greater fervor. Even reasonable minds could differ on it. Reasonable minds may STILL differ. Debate continues, even though the military is there for the common benefit.

It's the same with healthcare. One person may argue that a priority is getting a person back to a functional level in society while another may reasonably argue that subjective appearance is not a "health" issue for which the government should be responsive. The debate over priorities will continue, but once people get used to a gravy train, their demands will increase.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

At the very least, survival based healthcare should be free at the point of delivery and paid for out of central government funds, for all civilised countries.

That's what I meant when I said that this way of thinking is presumed for all other industrialized countries, yet foreign in the US, which is why so many Americans are uninsured. I'll bet most Europeans, for example, who researched the figures, would be shocked at how many American citizens "fall through the cracks" and simply have no health insurance at all.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If a country is prepared to spend my tax pounds/yen/dollars/euros etc... on slaughtering peoples from other countries it had better be prepared to save it's own citizens in their time of need.

There are 50 million uninsured Americans and 10 million uninsured children who would agree with this. The amount of tax dollars that are wasted on idiotic causes such as Iraq (which, by the way, is placing thousands more of public healthcare. I feel sorry for the soldiers who will soon be pushed aside by the VA) would had done far better good helping the people who paid those taxes. If I could get away with not having to pay anymore, I would. I for one am tired of giving to a government that cares not if I live. I personally feel that the government is systematicly killing those whom they feel are not fit. People with terminal illnesses that can be turned into a chronic illness and controled with proper healthcare have a right to those tax dollars that they paid into the system. The people whom are screaming about the abuse of universal healthcare should look only at the abuse that is caused by certian people. No one has a right to liposuction, teeth whitening, plastic surgery... but, people do have a right to have access to life saving procedures and medication. Medicaid and medicare fraud is another issue that has cost the taxpayer a tremendous cost. Overcharging, double billing and performing procedures that did not have to be performed has done more to hurt the system than the poor seeking care. You want to scream about cost, scream at the doctor who has sent healthcare into a tailspin as he drives off in his BMW for a day of golf at the country club. Scream at the pharmetcutical corporations that reap billions in tax dollars and charitable funds for research and then charge an outragous price for the life saving drug all the while pocketing the profits. It is unthinkable that some would only blame the poor who want healthcare for their families. It is shamefull that so much is wasted on the lie of promoting democracy in countries that do not wish it. The tax dollars that are given to the war profiteers to kill off third world nations would be better spent building a healthy nation of people who inturn would be better suited to contribute to society in a productive manner. Not everyone who needs public healthcare is a lazy bum as some imply. Truth is that those people are a minority while the majority would rather get back to work. Denying proper healthcare hurts the economy more in the long run as those who are ill will eventually have to apply for more public service to stay alive thus costing society a great deal more. If you were in my shoes, you'd feel the same.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[lawrocket 3]

There is not just the issue of people "falling through the cracks" uninsured. Many seek it. I can be economically beneficial.

Since 1986, EMTALA has banned patient dumping (for any hospitals receiving Medicare). That means that anybody who shows up in an emergency must be stabilized before transfer, or must be treated. The poor usually go to a county medical center for treatment.

So, the system can work as follows - let's say you're a college student with no property renting an apartment. You are uninsured, because you want beer money instead. One morning, it burns when you go pee. So you go down to the county medical center, bringing your books and laptop so you can study - you'll have lots of time to do that while you wait. 18 hours later, you are seen and given some antibiotics. You leave without paying.

Medi-Cal will try to put a lien on you, but you don't own anything. So they'll have a hard time collecting.

The system is such that for many, it's socialized by choice. Abuses such as what I gave can and DO occur regularly. Maybe it'll come back to haunt the kid in a few years with a credit check, but maybe not. Why pay for insurance when you can go someplace and get treated for free?

---

The other part that kinda blows me away is how it seems to be argued that insurance companies are so bad, and yet these same folks often argue how bad it is that so many aren't insured.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,119]

>The CDC is a good example. While some may point to
>some diseases as not affecting everyone (i.e., cervical cancer is by
> nature limited to women) they are useful when it comes to many
> other forms of control for disease that can benefit everyone.

Agreed. There is, of course, a lot of debate over what's appropriate and what isn't. Witness the recent brouhaha over the Bush administration removing an article on the CDC's website on condom effectiveness and replacing it with an article saying (basically) condoms can fail and abstinence is the only sure thing. But even though people have such disagreements, there's little doubt that it's a good thing overall.

>Healthcare rules are like military rules in that reasonable minds can
>clearly differ on priorities.

Agreed. But pretty much everyone agrees on the extremes. There is no question that the military should be used to defend the US when it is attacked. There is also no question that the military should NOT be used to take over Venezuela just to get their oil. In between, there's a lot of emotional discussion over what, exactly, the military should be used for - but all the arguing is not a good reason to disband the military (or have it privately funded.)

Similarly, it seems like everyone here agrees that we should always save the little girl in the car wreck regardless of whether she can pay or not, and that we should NOT pay for someone's liposuction or cosmetic rhinoplasty. In between, there will be a lot of arguing over where to draw that line. That's not a good reason (IMO) to give up on the care for the girl in the accident.

>The debate over priorities will continue, but once people get used to
>a gravy train, their demands will increase.

The slippery slope argument applies to the CDC, the police, the military etc. That's not a reason to get rid of those services. A better solution, when someone demands round-the-clock personal police protection of their business, is to say "no." Reserve the police for general protection of the populace, and tell the businessowner to pay for his own security if he wants more.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Perhaps, but we already have these ponies:

If anywhere there's certainly a case for subsidizing certain types of prophylaxis. Vaccinations for contagious diseases, control of drug abuse, etc. Things that will screw up other people if left unabated, and which can be prevented more cheaply than they can be cured.

These are examples of externalities, classic and demonstrable market failures where government interference can have positive effects for everybody.

Injuries, non contagious diseases, age-related phenomena, congenital deformities, genetic dispositions, heart disease, cosmetics etc don't pose a threat to random passersby. Why should random passersby be forced to pay to treat them?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,119]

>Injuries, non contagious diseases, age-related phenomena,
> congenital deformities, genetic dispositions, heart disease,
> cosmetics etc don't pose a threat to random passersby. Why
> should random passersby be forced to pay to treat them?

Because said random passerby would not leave a child to die. (At least 90% of the time.) Our care of such people is an extension of that set of morals.

However, I agree that free non-emergent care of things like age-related disease, birth defect repair, cosmetic surgery etc should not be part of any government-supported health care system.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

However, I agree that free non-emergent care of things like age-related disease, birth defect repair, cosmetic surgery etc should not be part of any government-supported health care system.

And it is great that there are charities that will help those in need ie; The Cancer Society, The MS fund, Jerry Lewis MD telethon... What I do find to be mind boggling is that certian companies such as Google is more willing to pay near 2 billion dollars to two guys for something as idiotic as YouTube instead of using that money for children organizations, AIDS organization, cancer groups and so on. Hats off to people like Bill Gates and others like him who are now using their wealth for the betterment of humankind.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Similarly, it seems like everyone here agrees that we should always save the little girl in the car wreck regardless of whether she can pay or not, and that we should NOT pay for someone's liposuction or cosmetic rhinoplasty. In between, there will be a lot of arguing over where to draw that line. That's not a good reason (IMO) to give up on the care for the girl in the accident.

This is the present situation. We ARE all arguing about what is in between, which is my point. The only difference I can see is that the parents who can afford to pay for the care of the girl in the accident end up paying for it. Those that can't do not. It's actually an interesting side discussion about whether that is fair.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NCclimber 0]

I'm sure Google's stockholders would be pleased if management gave away 2 Billion dollars.

It's about capitalism.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I'm sure Google's stockholders would be pleased if management gave away 2 Billion dollars.

It's about capitalism.

Uhm, they gave nearly 2 billion to two guys for a website that does basicly nothing. I'd be pissed that the money was wasted in such a fashion. I'd would be thrilled to see the money going to help children, cancer and AIDS patients instead.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure Google's stockholders would be pleased if management gave away 2 Billion dollars.

It's about capitalism.

Uhm, they gave nearly 2 billion to two guys for a website that does basicly nothing. I'd be pissed that the money was wasted in such a fashion. I'd would be thrilled to see the money going to help children, cancer and AIDS patients instead.

And if the stockholders chose to give the money to children, cancer and AIDS patients, that'd be a kind thing to do. I think charitable organizations are exactly the correct entities to look to for free or reduced-fee healthcare.

Healthcare isn't a right, though. Rights are protections that we have against abuses of power by the government. Provision of healthcare doesn't do that. People do not have a right to free housing or the right to free food. We do provide some safety nets there, as we do with healthcare because it's a good thing to do.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail