If we lived in a perfect world that would fix many problems. Too bad we live in messy reality. There may even be people who have a change in circumstance, divorce, job loss etc., that could meet their baby's needs when they were born but things change. The fact is 20% of jobs DO NOT offer insurance. The fact is that 12% of children in our country have no insurance. The fact is that the average cost of insurance for a family of four is $11,000 per year. That is a stretch for many middle class families. I would say that that is equal to or more than housing expenses for many middle class families. This is the issue. This is reality in our country today.

I am a fiscal conservative, yes. I do NOT believe in stealing people's money to take care of people who were irresponsible.

You stating that conservatives don't care about other people's children proves your ignorance, Loca. In helping others through the years (the main reason that I'm not wealthy is because I've spent a large portion of my money through the years on other people), I have NEVER found a conservative unwilling to give when presented with a need. These conservatives that you claim don't care about other peoples' children have let me use vehicles to deliver things to these families, have donated NICE furniture, food, gas, you name it. I can tell you literally hundreds of stories outlining the overwhelming generosity of the conservatives you cast as "uncaring".

When I was 20 years old, my wardrobe was probably worth $5-6,000, yet I was making $6.50 an hour. Because these conservatives you loathe did a great deal to make sure I was always well fed, well clothed, and had adequate shelter. Their personal investment in me probably had much to do with why I did not adopt the welfare mentality that has all but crippled my family.

No person ever goes away from my door hungry, Loca. But you're right, I don't care, because to you, caring means spending someone ELSE's money. Next time someone comes to my door, I'll tell 'em to step off and get their butts to the welfare office, k?

OK, this just pisses me off. Why is it that liberals do not understand what the word AVERAGE means?

Here's a hint, Loca: Average includes high end policies that cost WELL over $11,000/year! It also includes policies for many Americans that cost far less!

sorry guys i have to agree here.

the majority of the people living on the streets are there because they want to be.

the only reason that most of them are begging IS to get a bottle. they already of food and shelter if they want it. i will not give money to anyone on the street but if so moved i will buy them a hamburger or a tank of gas.

this is more accurately stated as insured by the rest of the world. cost enforced by the US drug companies.


the rest of the world has profit caps on the drug companies. if the drug companies don't make a big enough profit they cannot do research or make enough drugs.


proof. 2001 the united states ran out of flu shots. why did we run out of flu shots. because when Clinton ordered the flu shots in 2000 he told the drug companies that we would only pay so much for them.

That's not what he said.

He said he doesn't give money to the homeless because there are government programs to take care of that absolving him of personally getting involved.

Political belief replaces personal compassion.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if government programs represent a society's compassion then the tax payer is the instrument of that compassion. Since I pay >100X in taxes than the average person, I must, therefore, be 100X as compassionate. All hail me, Draginol, lord of compassion.

 

Are you planning to donate money to children in Iraq? How about children in China? Don't liberals care about children or just American children? Where do you want to draw the line?

Why not advocate health insurance for all children worldwide?

Also, have you ignored everything I've written in this thread? Conservatives are overwhelmingly the ones who pay for and run charities that are directed to helping needy children.  In addition, conservatives overwhelmingly pay the taxes that presently go to "the needy".

How exactly can you argue that conservatives don't care about children? The evidence seems to indicate that the opposite is true.  Liberals are the ones who pay lip service to compassion but don't seem to actually do anything to back it up.

That's only a fact if you include children of illegal immigrants. Do you support our taxes providing health insurance to them as well?

The question isn't what the average is. The question is how much would an insurance plan with a high deductable cost a family of 4.

As someone in the business of paying for other people's insurance in real-life (i.e. an employer), I can tell you that $11k per year figure is totally bogus. That's nearly $1k per month and we have plans that cover families of 4 that are a fraction of that. 

 

sorry draginol i have to call you on this one maybe.

your paying insurance for company employee. when you said the above did you include the group discount.

and no i don't want taxes to pay for universal health care. i go to the VA in a small town. even tho i only usually have to spend all day when i walk in it is still a long wait for someone like me who gets bored easily.

Are you conservative Gideon? And even if you are I'll rephrase, why don't conservatives care about other people's children?

Why in the hell is it my job and/or responsibility to care about the children someone else introduces to the world?  What on god's green Earth gives you or anyone else the right to try to guilt-trip me into paying for the comfort and safety of those children as you encourage the government to take more of my money in this area that in effect robs my ability to take care of the comfort and safety of my own children?!?

I care about my children deeply, and I'm ok with spending a fair amount of money to keep the world safe for my children and others in my world, but I'll be damned if I should be paying the costs for every child that is ever born in this country -- something that, by the way, helps to encourage a bunch of people from South of the Border to drag their butts up here so they can birth their children in this country and give them an 'American' birth legacy so that they can be citizens and suck up all the more resources.

Less free stuff would be a damned good start.  Less encouragement to come to this land and live off the taxes of others.

Are you planning to donate money to children in Iraq? How about children in China? Don't liberals care about children or just American children? Where do you want to draw the line?

Actually liberals (at least the movie stars and starlets) seem to care much more about people in those foreign lands than in ours back here.  They'll trash our beliefs about not spending money here, but they'll just as quickly be out demonstrating that we should be the world's police and mommies and daddies as they buy, ooops, I mean adopt, babies from foreign lands (see Jolie/Pitt, Madonna, etc.).

 

In simple answer to the question of the headline though - some liberals have created charities, it's just that those charities don't seem to be accomplishing the necessary goals and instead are working on other priorities.  For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Soros and his charities, Ted Turner and the piles of money he promised to give away, and others.

Personally, I prefer people like Ralph Nader who really does put his money where his mouth is.  I don't doubt that Mr. and Mrs. Gates are trying to do some good with their money, but I expect that there is a large layer of bureaucracy involved (and seem to recall reading complaints about that) that make obtaining money from them more difficult than perhaps it should be, and less useful than it could be.

Not that I think it's a bad idea to monitor where the money goes, or a bad idea to make sure that the money is used in the best possible manner, or that it is a bad idea to follow the proverbial teach a person to fish mantra rather than just supplying the fish.  All of that is fine and dandy, but it does make it seem that the liberals aren't trying that hard to hand away their money.

Gosh, Cacto - I had no idea you were that clueless, not to mention heartless. No offense, mind you.   

your paying insurance for company employee. when you said the above did you include the group discount.

Certainly. But how does that matter? The "fact" given was the "average" cost of insurance and the "average" person is getting insurance through their employer.

I also have a decent idea of how much a high deductable catastrophic insurance plan costs for a family of 4 and it's still not anywhere near $1k per month.

The problem we see here is the slippery slope is VERY slippery. It's not enough to just have health insurance. No, prescriptions, doctors, everything is expected to be paid for without a deductable (that's how you get to the $1k per month figure as the average).

It begs the question, are human beings responsible for themselves at all anymore?

If they were born here, they are citizens and have the same right as any other citizen.