Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 2003 the State of Missouri paid for 33,436 Medicaid births, according to Total Medicaid Births - Kaiser State Health Facts. In Georgia it was 67,637, in New York it was 102,340. Nationwide the figure was 1,495,266.
It's bad enough that my tax dollars are going to pay for people to have children who cannot AFFORD to have children; cannot afford to raise children, feed children or educate children properly, but now the government wants me to pay for UNINSURED people to have children too?
Most insurance companies will not pay to have a face lift. They will not pay to have breast implants because they say that this is an ELECTIVE PROCEDURE. In other words, it is matter of CHOICE and is not required to continue the health and wellness of the person.
CAN YOU TELL ME ANY PROCEDURE THAT IS MORE ELECTIVE than having a baby? Is there ANYONE out there who honestly believes that people MUST have babies in order to remain healthy and well?
In a world that is grossly overpopulated by more than 6.5 billion people, some of them starving for lack of food, dying of exposure, disease and forced to drink putrid water, HOW DARE anyone ask me to finance someone who intends to have a child but cannot pay for it themselves.
How Dare They.
I will NEVER support this legislation, and if there is ANY opportunity to opt out of the system if/when it is put into effect, I wll do so IMMEDIATELY and lobby everybody I know to do the same.
How Dare They.
20yrsinBranson
In principle, I agree with you. People shouldn't have children if they cannot pay for them. Maybe they should slip gov't mandated birth control into this health care bill. I'm all for putting it in the water supply - folks who want babies would have to possess the discipline (and the cash) to drink only bottled water.
Realistically, we both know that folks are going to continue to procreate and in this country, we don't let babies die. So, we will both continue to "finance someone who intends to have a child but cannot pay for it themselves." Whether we like it or not....
Do you have a problem with your tax dollars paying for the war machine that has killed tens of thousands of innocent children in Iraq?
I have a problem with my tax dollars paying for a war machine that has killed thousands of American soldiers unnecessarily. Iraqi children are not my concern.
What part of "if you like your plan, keep your plan and if you like your doctor, keep your doctor" don't people understand?
I don't have a "plan" and I don't have a "doctor" and I don't want one. From what I have heard (right or wrong) everybody is going to have to have both. I don't want them. Nothing to do with it. As a citizen of this country am I going to have that option? Or am I going to be FORCED AGAINST MY WILL to participate in a program I do not endorse or agree with?
So...what do you propose? Using your tax dollars to pay for abortions? It's cheaper.
Or, would you just let the innocent babies die from neglect?
No, I would slap a lien against *any* property that the parents own, and I would attach their bank accounts and I would garnish their wage and make them PAY for it themselves. Even if it takes 30 years. Not force other people to pay for it.
Sorry son, procreation is what life is all about. I suggest you pay for an elective vasectomy if you feel so strongy, it's all you can do.
I am not a "son". I am a 54 year old childfree woman who has been paying taxes every single year of my life since I was 17 years old to support worthless, deadbeat welfare mothers who don't have the decency to pop a birth control pill in their mouths every morning.
And. For your information. Procreation is NOT what life is all about. Sorry. I'm not buying that breeder script.
And I don't have to have a vasectomy, or any other sterilization procedure, because I am a responsible human being who does not get pregnant - not now - not ever.
In principle, I agree with you. People shouldn't have children if they cannot pay for them. Maybe they should slip gov't mandated birth control into this health care bill. I'm all for putting it in the water supply - folks who want babies would have to possess the discipline (and the cash) to drink only bottled water.
Realistically, we both know that folks are going to continue to procreate and in this country, we don't let babies die. So, we will both continue to "finance someone who intends to have a child but cannot pay for it themselves." Whether we like it or not....
It's still elective. If a woman gets pregnant she should be required by law to pay for it herself. If they aren't going to pay for face lifts and boob jobs, then they have no right to pay for something that is not MEDICALLY NECESSARY.
You're kidding us, right? With so many problems in our current health care system, you're opposed to reform because of childbirth!
I brought this up on another thread, so please forgive me for repeating myself, but the most serious problem facing our current health care system is its link to traditional employment. A huge portion of our nation, people who work at all economic levels, do not have access to employer-provided insurance. This is insanity!
What happens to you when you are down-sized right out of your benefit-laden job, your Cobra runs out, and no other insurance company will touch you with a ten-foot-pole?
Meanwhile, we have a bunch of people at town hall meetings, shrieking about Socialism and "death squads" without any understanding of how tenuous their access to health care really is.
And what you fail to realize is that it will become even more tenuous because what do you think these companies are going to do when an affordable health care option becomes available...that's right, they will stop providing coverage for their employees. The govt. sponsored option might be cheaper than private insurance but it won't be cheaper than a company subsidized version that MOST Americans currently enjoy. You liberals are living in la la land and are not thinking practically. We need reform but we can do that without resorting to public option
I don't have a "plan" and I don't have a "doctor" and I don't want one. From what I have heard (right or wrong) everybody is going to have to have both. I don't want them. Nothing to do with it. As a citizen of this country am I going to have that option? Or am I going to be FORCED AGAINST MY WILL to participate in a program I do not endorse or agree with?
20yrsinBranson
May I ask if you are financially prepared to pay a bill for a hospitalization/surgery/treatment that could cost easily $10,000 to $100,000 or more?
After all, I'm sure you wouldn't expect anybody else to pay for your either. Right?
What part of "if you like your plan, keep your plan and if you like your doctor, keep your doctor" don't people understand?
I think its the part of your pay to keep your plan and then pay extra without a choice via high taxes. So a normal person who doesnt want Obama's plan and wants to keep his plan will be forced to pay more for heatlhcare of himself and now everyone else.
Hmmmm I think that could be the issue here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
