Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (2055)	3/11/2002 7:31:10 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I'd need to know much more to decide the merits of the AZ healthcare plan. I know OR has a good one for the poorest; it was launched by the physician-turned-governor, John Kitzhaber. The AZ approach was interesting to me for two reasons. One is that they are trying to make provisions for the tier of people between the poorest, who get help now, and the middle class insured. Any system that contains an incentive to be among the poorest is a poor idea. The other reason it was interesting was that it was using the programs for the poorest and letting the next tier buy into them. I had not heard of that approach before. I've long felt that given the twin tools of simple survival - food & medical care - that most poor people would not become institutionally addicted to anti-poverty programs, but could springboard higher from that life-sustaining foundation beneath them. And the turnover rates within existing social programs support that notion. Your approach seems very pragmatic and sensible to me, at least short term. Certainly, temporary assistance to the poor to get them back on their feet is more viable and acceptable than life-long support by the state. I am not as sanguine as you that government assistance can be kept temporary. I think that the risk of shifting from an insurance paradigm to an entitlement paradigm is too great and that an entitlement paradigm is eventually fatal. c) whether provided a means of independent living (AFDC) or collective living (missions, shelters, jails & prisons, etc), we'll foot the bill; Yes, either way we foot the bill. And I don't mind footing the bill all that much. Like you, I'd prefer to foot the bill in the most constructive way. In my mind, doing so in a way that encourages an entitlement mentality is not a good idea. So, from your list, I'd prefer missions, shelters, and other charitable approaches. I can remember when "the world doesn't owe you a living" was the culture. That changed during my lifetime because it was thought that receiving charity was hard on self esteem and discouraged self improvement. Just last week, Laura Bush, in her speech at the UN, included food and medical care among life, liberty, etc. on her list of human rights. I think that we all have an obligation to help our fellows, but it should be through charity, not entitlement. IMO, entitlement is not sustainable long term. The message we convey is very important. When a poor woman contemplates producing a child, the message should not be "you poor dear, here's some medical insurance" but something closer to "what the hell is the matter with you having a child when you can barely take care of yourself." But if they can't access justice, the poor should be granted bread and medicine. Unless we choose the option of letting them die. Letting them die is not the only alternative to government programs. Karen