TexasCHLforum.com

So I was reading Neal's "Nuze" today and I ran across an argument I hadn't quite put together myself.

Neal wrote an article about healthcare here: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boortz- ... 96817.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Following that, the letter to the editor below was published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

"POLITICAL RIGHTS

Clearly, Boortz will give up some of his 'rights'

I was startled and immensely delighted to read Neal Boortz's column ("Moochers need free-market dose," Opinion, Nov. 14). Startled at his novel definition of a "right" as excluding anything that involves a second of someone else's labor or skills.

I am delighted that he has voluntarily given up his right to bear arms -- unless he mines the ore, forges the steel and makes the guns himself in his backyard. After all, he cannot lay claims to the skill of the workers at the Colt factory, can he? Even then, I am not sure he has that right, unless he designs the gun and its firing mechanism. Oh, and he also has to figure out the laws of thermodynamics that govern explosions -- all by himself, without the help of his science teacher.

Obviously, this also means Miranda rights are also kaput for all except lawyers. Right to freedom from illegal search and seizure? Forget it. Where do I get off demanding the time of a cop to protect me from a break-in? "Clearly I nailed this 'right to health care thing,' '' he says. Clearly.

Suresh Krishnamoorthy, Marietta"

Failing as it does to make a logical argument, it presents a great counter-argument that was not illustrated to me until now (real face-palm moment for me).

If we have a "right" to health care that the gov'ment is responsible to provide for, do we all get free guns and ammo too?

The grand canyon running through his logic is that most gun owners are willing to pay their own money for their guns, most people exercising their right to freedom of the press are willing to pay for their own printing or other costs, most churches are willing to collect money from their members to pay for their needs.

The right to healthcare should be the same. If you're willing to pay for your healthcare, the government should butt out.

I would love to see a cogent and detailed explanation of the constitutional right to healthcare. Haven't seen it so far from any advocates for a public option.

The truth of the matter is that we all have an equal right of access to healthcare. What we don't have is a right to compel someone else to pay for it. But there is no law that forbids access. One of the most important lessons of which I was reminded by joining this forum is that rights are inherent except where laws hem them in. Rights are not permitted, they are inherent. Laws exist to delimit rights in ways that are supposed to promote the common good while having the minimum impact on those rights. For instance, we may have an inherent right to carry a firearm in the town square, but a law might exist to forbid someone in the town square from discharging that firearm into the air at midnight on New Year's Eve.

But access to healthcare is not the same thing as being able to pay for it. We also all have an equal right of access to the sun's tanning rays and the air we breathe; but if I want to use a tanning bed or patronize and oxygen bar, I'm going to have to pay for it. The reason tanning beds and oxygen bars are not free is because another party to the transaction exists, and that party cannot be required to provide their service without charge. The service provider has made a significant investment in becoming able to provide their service, and they have a right to charge for their services so that they may both recoup their investment and earn a living. But even though sunlight and air are absolute requirements for a healthy life, and even though we all have a right of access to sunlight and oxygen, there is nothing inherent in that right which can compel another party to provide it to you. So if you want to get a tan and breath clean air, go hunting or something. Just don't expect John Q. Taxpayer to support it.

In fact, on a side note, one of the most troubling things to me is a recent trend in healthcare toward forcing healthcare providers to render services for which they have strong conscientious objection — for instance, pro-life pharmacists being forced to dispense the RU486 abortion pill; or similarly pro-life doctors and nurses being penalized for refusing to participate in abortions. Actually, that is one of the powerful arguments against a public option if that public option requires all taxpayers to pay for abortions. One can argue all one wants that abortion is a right (I would disagree, but that is a separate issue), but there is no way one can justify compelling me to pay for someone else's abortion if I object on religious and moral grounds because that violates my 1st Amendment rights. Similarly, there is no way one can justify compelling a doctor/nurse/pharmacist into participating in an abortion to which they have a significant moral or religious objection because that violates their 1st Amendment rights.

Rights are not something we buy. They simply are. We do not pay a tax for the right of free speech. We do not pay a tax (in free states) for the right to keep and bear arms. We do not pay a tax for the right to attend or not attend the house of worship of our own choosing. What we do pay for is a theater with a stage, which is a service provided by a theater owner, from which we can speak. We pay for guns and ammunition, which is a service provided by a gun store owner. We pay tithes and donations so that our churches have funds with which to operate because those are the spiritual requirements of that individual church or denomination. But none of those costs is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I would love to see a cogent and detailed explanation of the constitutional right to healthcare. Haven't seen it so far from any advocates for a public option.

The truth of the matter is that we all have an equal right of access to healthcare. What we don't have is a right to compel someone else to pay for it. But there is no law that forbids access. One of the most important lessons of which I was reminded by joining this forum is that rights are inherent except where laws hem them in. Rights are not permitted, they are inherent. Laws exist to delimit rights in ways that are supposed to promote the common good while having the minimum impact on those rights. For instance, we may have an inherent right to carry a firearm in the town square, but a law might exist to forbid someone in the town square from discharging that firearm into the air at midnight on New Year's Eve.

But access to healthcare is not the same thing as being able to pay for it. We also all have an equal right of access to the sun's tanning rays and the air we breathe; but if I want to use a tanning bed or patronize and oxygen bar, I'm going to have to pay for it. The reason tanning beds and oxygen bars are not free is because another party to the transaction exists, and that party cannot be required to provide their service without charge. The service provider has made a significant investment in becoming able to provide their service, and they have a right to charge for their services so that they may both recoup their investment and earn a living. But even though sunlight and air are absolute requirements for a healthy life, and even though we all have a right of access to sunlight and oxygen, there is nothing inherent in that right which can compel another party to provide it to you. So if you want to get a tan and breath clean air, go hunting or something. Just don't expect John Q. Taxpayer to support it.

In fact, on a side note, one of the most troubling things to me is a recent trend in healthcare toward forcing healthcare providers to render services for which they have strong conscientious objection — for instance, pro-life pharmacists being forced to dispense the RU486 abortion pill; or similarly pro-life doctors and nurses being penalized for refusing to participate in abortions. Actually, that is one of the powerful arguments against a public option if that public option requires all taxpayers to pay for abortions. One can argue all one wants that abortion is a right (I would disagree, but that is a separate issue), but there is no way one can justify compelling me to pay for someone else's abortion if I object on religious and moral grounds because that violates my 1st Amendment rights. Similarly, there is no way one can justify compelling a doctor/nurse/pharmacist into participating in an abortion to which they have a significant moral or religious objection because that violates their 1st Amendment rights.

Rights are not something we buy. They simply are. We do not pay a tax for the right of free speech. We do not pay a tax (in free states) for the right to keep and bear arms. We do not pay a tax for the right to attend or not attend the house of worship of our own choosing. What we do pay for is a theater with a stage, which is a service provided by a theater owner, from which we can speak. We pay for guns and ammunition, which is a service provided by a gun store owner. We pay tithes and donations so that our churches have funds with which to operate because those are the spiritual requirements of that individual church or denomination. But none of those costs is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

Very well said.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I would love to see a cogent and detailed explanation of the constitutional right to healthcare. Haven't seen it so far from any advocates for a public option.

Rights are not something we buy. They simply are. We do not pay a tax for the right of free speech. We do not pay a tax (in free states) for the right to keep and bear arms. We do not pay a tax for the right to attend or not attend the house of worship of our own choosing. What we do pay for is a theater with a stage, which is a service provided by a theater owner, from which we can speak. We pay for guns and ammunition, which is a service provided by a gun store owner. We pay tithes and donations so that our churches have funds with which to operate because those are the spiritual requirements of that individual church or denomination. But none of those costs is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

How is access to healthcare different from education? I see no constitutional right to a free education, yet all children have access to it regardless of their ability to pay. In fact, they are required by law to attend school.

When the children become adults they can obtain a free (or reduced cost) education at a state-funded college or university. Under certain conditions their education and living expenses are paid for by the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and low-interest student loans.

All taxpayers contribute to the cost of public education whether they use it or not. I do not have children, yet I am paying taxes to build schools and pay teachers to educate the children who live across the street. This cost is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

Even though education is not a constitutional right should access to it be limited to only those who can pay?

WildBill wrote: How is access to healthcare different from education? I see no constitutional right to a free education, yet all children have access to it regardless of their ability to pay. In fact, they are required by law to attend school.

When the children become adults they can obtain a free (or reduced cost) education at a state-funded college or university. Under certain conditions their education and living expenses are paid for by the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and low-interest student loans.

All taxpayers contribute to the cost of public education whether they use it or not. I do not have children, yet I am paying taxes to build schools and pay teachers to educate the children who live across the street. This cost is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

Even though education is not a constitutional right should access to it be limited to only those who can pay?

You make a good point, and in fact I think taxpayers should revolt against the oppressive government who confiscates your income in order to provide a government-sponsored education to other people's children. This is just as unconstitutional as paying for health insurance or anything else.

The argument they always make is that an educated electorate is necessary for "democracy" to function. Next they are going to say that a healthy electorate is necessary for "democracy" to function. Then maybe they are going to say that a prosperous electorate is necessary, and that an equal and fair (that is, everyone has the same stuff) electorate is necessary, and a disarmed electorate, and a <fill in the blank> electorate is necessary for "democracy" to function, all of which is built upon the precedent we foolishly allowed to stand with public education.

We are in the middle of the slippery slope. It will end in socialism, communism (or a new version thereof), and then... well the thing that happens to all communist/socialist nations eventually, which begins with the letter "R".

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I would love to see a cogent and detailed explanation of the constitutional right to healthcare. Haven't seen it so far from any advocates for a public option.

Rights are not something we buy. They simply are. We do not pay a tax for the right of free speech. We do not pay a tax (in free states) for the right to keep and bear arms. We do not pay a tax for the right to attend or not attend the house of worship of our own choosing. What we do pay for is a theater with a stage, which is a service provided by a theater owner, from which we can speak. We pay for guns and ammunition, which is a service provided by a gun store owner. We pay tithes and donations so that our churches have funds with which to operate because those are the spiritual requirements of that individual church or denomination. But none of those costs is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

How is access to healthcare different from education? I see no constitutional right to a free education, yet all children have access to it regardless of their ability to pay. In fact, they are required by law to attend school.

When the children become adults they can obtain a free (or reduced cost) education at a state-funded college or university. Under certain conditions their education and living expenses are paid for by the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and low-interest student loans.

All taxpayers contribute to the cost of public education whether they use it or not. I do not have children, yet I am paying taxes to build schools and pay teachers to educate the children who live across the street. This cost is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

Even though education is not a constitutional right should access to it be limited to only those who can pay?

Careful, next thing you know you're giong to start talking about "social contracts in a civilized society" and all that.

mr.72 wrote:

WildBill wrote: How is access to healthcare different from education? I see no constitutional right to a free education, yet all children have access to it regardless of their ability to pay. In fact, they are required by law to attend school.

When the children become adults they can obtain a free (or reduced cost) education at a state-funded college or university. Under certain conditions their education and living expenses are paid for by the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and low-interest student loans.

All taxpayers contribute to the cost of public education whether they use it or not. I do not have children, yet I am paying taxes to build schools and pay teachers to educate the children who live across the street. This cost is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

Even though education is not a constitutional right should access to it be limited to only those who can pay?

You make a good point, and in fact I think taxpayers should revolt against the oppressive government who confiscates your income in order to provide a government-sponsored education to other people's children. This is just as unconstitutional as paying for health insurance or anything else.

The argument they always make is that an educated electorate is necessary for "democracy" to function. Next they are going to say that a healthy electorate is necessary for "democracy" to function. Then maybe they are going to say that a prosperous electorate is necessary, and that an equal and fair (that is, everyone has the same stuff) electorate is necessary, and a disarmed electorate, and a <fill in the blank> electorate is necessary for "democracy" to function, all of which is built upon the precedent we foolishly allowed to stand with public education.

We are in the middle of the slippery slope. It will end in socialism, communism (or a new version thereof), and then... well the thing that happens to all communist/socialist nations eventually, which begins with the letter "R".

You're right, its much better in India where the rich go to school, and the poor don't.
Public education was a Hallmark of US democracy going for centuries at this point. Our forebears took pride in creating a country where every man could get an education, unlike where they came from.

If you start down the "I have mine and the rest of the world be damned" then you'll get Mexico and Mexico's violence. Thats not how life works in Western society.

TAM, once again, very well put and good food for thought! Thank you for sharing.

frazzled wrote: You're right, its much better in India where the rich go to school, and the poor don't.

In the USA, everyone pays for education whether they use it or not. So maybe in India, they would be better off if even the poor who did not have children to send to school had to pay tuition just like the "rich". That's the system we have here.

Your property taxes in large part in Texas amount to tuition for government schools, and you are forced to pay it whether you require the service of education from the government school or not. For the $8K annually I pay for public school (which I do not use), I could easily send both of my kids to private school. And in fact my neighbor who also pays approximately the same amount in school taxes as I do has no children in school, so certainly if you take my taxes and his taxes together, we could send even more than just my children to private school.

So in the USA, the rich and poor alike have to pay for school. Only those who are "more rich" have the means to get a quality education for their children.

I am sure that in China the state provides school, and they approve the content of said education as well. And we know of schools in Communist former USSR. Are you really trying to suggest that socialized, state-run school, which everyone is forced to pay for whether they use it or not, is a better system than giving back our money and allowing us all to select private schools of our choice?

Public education was a Hallmark of US democracy going for centuries at this point. Our forebears took pride in creating a country where every man could get an education, unlike where they came from.

Not exactly "centuries". Century-and-a-half maybe. Which "forebears" are you talking about? Education was the responsibility of parents at the time of our country's founding. And we don't have a "Democracy", it is a Constitutional Republic. Right there, the fruit of our fine public education.

If you start down the "I have mine and the rest of the world be damned" then you'll get Mexico and Mexico's violence. Thats not how life works in Western society.

No, what we have now is the "I don't have mine and neither do you have yours, whether you wanted to buy it or not".

Again you seem to think school is free. It is not free. You and I all pay for it, by the force of government. If I decide that since I educate my children at home that I do not want to pay for public school tuition, I will most certainly wind up in jail. This is not freedom, and it can't be considered "free" by any standard.

In the USA, everyone pays for education whether they use it or not. So maybe in India, they would be better off if even the poor who did not have children to send to school had to pay tuition just like the "rich". That's the system we have here.
****You say its like it’s a bad thing. Would you rather only the rich have to pay-I’d bet that’s not your argument.

Your property taxes in large part in Texas amount to tuition for government schools, and you are forced to pay it whether you require the service of education from the government school or not. For the $8K annually I pay for public school (which I do not use), I could easily send both of my kids to private school. And in fact my neighbor who also pays approximately the same amount in school taxes as I do has no children in school, so certainly if you take my taxes and his taxes together, we could send even more than just my children to private school.
****Again, that’s the point. Everyone pays. Everyone has the opportunity to go to school. In Somalia they do as you suggest. How’s that working for them?



I am sure that in China the state provides school, and they approve the content of said education as well. And we know of schools in Communist former USSR. Are you really trying to suggest that socialized, state-run school, which everyone is forced to pay for whether they use it or not, is a better system than giving back our money and allowing us all to select private schools of our choice?
***Chinese and Russian school children score better on standardized science and math tests, but that’s probably not what you are getting at. Every economist and business person who will go on record supports a strong universal school system as a key competitive factor.
Public education was a Hallmark of US democracy going for centuries at this point. Our forebears took pride in creating a country where every man could get an education, unlike where they came from.


Not exactly "centuries". Century-and-a-half maybe.
***Century and a half is centuries by the way…
Which "forebears" are you talking about? Education was the responsibility of parents at the time of our country's founding.
***yes back when men were men and slaves were killed if they got uppity. But there was also public education in several locales at the time and public education became an institution in the US in late 1800s. We did something no other nation on earth did-we promised EVERYONE, rich or poor, an education. We did that because all those immigrants that came over, came from systems you would espouse. They saw the tyranny of rich only education.


Again you seem to think school is free. It is not free. You and I all pay for it, by the force of government. If I decide that since I educate my children at home that I do not want to pay for public school tuition, I will most certainly wind up in jail. This is not freedom, and it can't be considered "free" by any standard.
***And again you act like this is a bad thing. No competitive nation on earth has systems without public education. Even India is moving in that direction as quickly as it can afford.

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I would love to see a cogent and detailed explanation of the constitutional right to healthcare. Haven't seen it so far from any advocates for a public option.

Rights are not something we buy. They simply are. We do not pay a tax for the right of free speech. We do not pay a tax (in free states) for the right to keep and bear arms. We do not pay a tax for the right to attend or not attend the house of worship of our own choosing. What we do pay for is a theater with a stage, which is a service provided by a theater owner, from which we can speak. We pay for guns and ammunition, which is a service provided by a gun store owner. We pay tithes and donations so that our churches have funds with which to operate because those are the spiritual requirements of that individual church or denomination. But none of those costs is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

How is access to healthcare different from education? I see no constitutional right to a free education, yet all children have access to it regardless of their ability to pay. In fact, they are required by law to attend school.

When the children become adults they can obtain a free (or reduced cost) education at a state-funded college or university. Under certain conditions their education and living expenses are paid for by the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and low-interest student loans.

All taxpayers contribute to the cost of public education whether they use it or not. I do not have children, yet I am paying taxes to build schools and pay teachers to educate the children who live across the street. This cost is a legal requirement which ALL taxpayers are required to cover so that individual taxpayers may selectively exercise them.

Even though education is not a constitutional right should access to it be limited to only those who can pay?

WildBill, I am only addressing the issue of whether or not healthcare is a right, in the context of whether or not rights are something we pay for. I think you make the argument for public education the same way you make one for having fire and police departments. They are public services, paid for by taxation or fees, which the people impose on themselves through the agency of their elected representatives. But they are not a right. You don't have a right to an education. What you do have is a right to pursue an education if you want to. How do I know this? Because not only are you required to pay the taxes, but if a student plays hookey enough, there will be legal consequences to him or her too. It's not a right when you are punished by law for refusing to exercise it.

In the case of healthcare "reform," couching it as a right is not an argument for government provided healthcare. If it were, there would be equally powerful arguments for government financial support of my church, government financial support of my gun habit, and government financial support of my right to speak and peaceably assemble.

But the point is that the arguments for or against the socialization of healthcare or education are not valid if they are couched in terms of their being "rights."

Mr. 72 wrote:No, what we have now is the "I don't have mine and neither do you have yours, whether you wanted to buy it or not".

Again you seem to think school is free. It is not free. You and I all pay for it, by the force of government. If I decide that since I educate my children at home that I do not want to pay for public school tuition, I will most certainly wind up in jail. This is not freedom, and it can't be considered "free" by any standard.

It seems to me that the flip side of your argument would be for all fire and police services to be privatized too, and then citizens could choose to pay or not to pay for a subscription service. The problem with that is that if you are paying for a fire service subscription, and I am not; and your house catches fire because you smoke in bed; and your burning house catches my house on fire before your fire service can arrive to put it out, then you are liable for burning down my house, and we are going to have to deal with that, you and I.... ...but in the meantime, I have no house, through no fault of my own. So it seems to me the better argument to say that there is a genuine public safety issue here, and that it is reasonable to assess taxes on property owners across the board to pay for a fire service that is common to all.

I am generally not in favor of increasing taxes to fund government provided social services which are not constitutionally mandated — which covers public education, fire departments, police agencies, AND healthcare (the topic of this thread) — unless there is 1) a provable benefit to the community for doing so; 2) the community is getting its money's worth once said service is rendered; and 3) the majority of the community have demonstrated a willingness to pay those taxes through the political process, whether you are calling that process a "democracy" or a "constitutional republic." Again, with regard to this thread, there are better and more powerful arguments against socializing healthcare than there are in favor of doing so, and it has nothing to do with rights, except perhaps the rights of the taxpayer.

So for me, the problem isn't the idea public education per se, because in its purest context, I think you can make a rational argument that an educated society is better off than one that is not, and so a measurable common good derives from it. No, the problem is that what passes for public education in many cities isn't worth a bucket of pig droppings. Instead, the taxpayers, whether or not they have children, are getting cheated by both the education providers, and by those parents of students who don't give a rip about their kids' educations, and who view public schools as nothing more than a government baby sitting service where they can park their kids while they go about their day. THAT's what's wrong with public education. It's not educating half of the students in the system, and simply throwing more money at the problem isn't going to make it better... ...only more expensive.

The Annoyed Man wrote: So for me, the problem isn't the idea public education per se, because in its purest context, I think you can make a rational argument that an educated society is better off than one that is not, and so a measurable common good derives from it. No, the problem is that what passes for public education in many cities isn't worth a bucket of pig droppings. Instead, the taxpayers, whether or not they have children, are getting cheated by both the education providers, and by those parents of students who don't give a rip about their kids' educations, and who view public schools as nothing more than a government baby sitting service where they can park their kids while they go about their day. THAT's what's wrong with public education. It's not educating half of the students in the system, and simply throwing more money at the problem isn't going to make it better... ...only more expensive.

But THAT, in some translated sense, is the eventual outcome of ALL government-funded, government-run agencies including our own military, fire departments, police, the USPS, welfare, DPS, the highway dept. you name it. My 16-year-old went to DPS yesterday to get her learner's permit and she was flatly shocked to witness how slow, incompetent, and inefficient the operation at the DPS was.

It remains that some services such as fire departments and police are not practically providable by private business on the scale that is necessary. Truly the police and fire departments, as you point out, as well as things like EMS etc. serve the common good and we are willing to accept their inherent inefficiency and ineffectiveness in some areas as a tradeoff to providing the service to all citizens. However, such does not have to be the case for education, any more than it does for health care.

The reality is that if I need to have an investigation conducted, I hire a private investigator and don't depend on the police. And if you have the means, you will also take it upon yourself to defend against fire and not rely fully on the fire department either. And in the same way, those of us who can will provide private education to our children and desire to purchase our own health insurance since education and health are of primary importance to us and worthwhile things to voluntarily spend money on.

What I am mostly against is a deliberate, earmarked tax which is extracted in order to create a government agency to do something that is already being done effectively and at lower cost by the private sector. This is true not only for health care but also for schools. You will have a hard time finding a private school that is not better in every measurable way (besides, maybe, sports) than even the best public school. But per student, we (as taxpayers) pay more for the inferior public school system than you would for the superior private school, and yet you have to pay for it even if you do not use it. This is where we are headed with health care. The government plan will be required for us all to pay for it, and it will cost more than our private plans cost now, and it will be far and away inferior to any private plan. And even if we don't use it, we'll have to pay for it, in addition to the functional private plan, just like with school now.

What I am mostly against is a deliberate, earmarked tax which is extracted in order to create a government agency to do something that is already being done effectively and at lower cost by the private sector. This is true not only for health care but also for schools. You will have a hard time finding a private school that is not better in every measurable way (besides, maybe, sports) than even the best public school. But per student, we (as taxpayers) pay more for the inferior public school system than you would for the superior private school, and yet you have to pay for it even if you do not use it. This is where we are headed with health care. The government plan will be required for us all to pay for it, and it will cost more than our private plans cost now, and it will be far and away inferior to any private plan. And even if we don't use it, we'll have to pay for it, in addition to the functional private plan, just like with school now.

Thats the problem, its done better in private schools for people who have the money to send their children to private schools. Many do not.

At least in theory, we all benefit when children are educated. It does seem one-sided when a childless person or a child in private school pays into the system. It would be impossible to calulate but I think we do benefit from having the masses educated. Less educated people cost society in all sorts of ways, poor choices on their part, like stealing your mower, and cost in all the programs that pick up their slack.

So in theory, will we all benefit from having the masses gain affordable/free/ reduced healthcare? Seems even less clear than the education example. Under/non-insured cost us at the clinics and county hospitals already. Again, we pick up the slack.

There needs to be some balance between getting what you earn vs some safety net so the have-nots don't pull the rest of us down. I've worked in social programs for years and on a good day its 50/50 if a person's situation is based on bad luck or poor choices. I don't see give away programs helping anymore than exclusive programs. It will be a tough balance to find a cure that won't kill us.