Poverty and Health Care

[Traveler]

In the year 1960 the most complete censes was conducted by the United States of America. At that time and according to the censes; if just 2% of the gross national product of the USA was transferred to the poor then poverty would cease to exist in the USA. The intellectuals and scholars debated the various aspects of this concept but by the late 60’s that idea had caught on with political “liberals”.

The idea was considered noble and opposition was soon labeled as cruel heartless conservatives while proponents called themselves compassionate liberals willing to care for the poor. Think of it – just 2% was all that was needed to end poverty.

The political initiative was given the name of “The Great Society”. But it did not work and fell a little short. So it was argued that the idea was good but the money required was underestimated. Thus with just a little more money we could still eliminate poverty in the USA according to plan. Then a little more was added again. After a while it became obvious that we could not eliminate all facets of poverty but we did have an “obligation” to help the poor and that ending The Great Society would be “mean” spirited and hurt the poor.

The reason that I am writing this post is to make a point. The point is: If the concept of The Great Society had worked there would be no talk of a need today for “Health Care Reform” for the sake of the poor. There would be no reason to assist the poor with health care because there would be no poor to help. The only reason that health care is even on the table is because of the total and complete failure of The Great Society as political and economic experiment. By the fact that we are considering “Health Care Reform” that does not seek any vestment from the poor proves that we have learned nothing from the continuing failures of the entitlement granted by the failure of such concepts that defined the something for nothing of The Great Society.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Traveler, even if Nixon had not dismantled the Great Society programs, what does this have to do with people not having adequate health insurance coverage? Even those above the poverty level may work for a small business that has no health plan or else have a preexisting condition, that health care plans will point to, in order to disallow needed health care.

[Maxel]

Moksha:

The moral of the story is that throwing money at the poor won't fix their problems. It hasn't when America has tried it in the past, and it won't in this latest incarnation of nationalized healthcare. However, many of us haven't learned the lessons the past has to teach us.

[tefor]

Unfortunately, throwing money at the poor seems to be a lot easier than spending time with them to help them work out their challenges; that way, people can let the government take care of them and forget they exist.

When families (immediate or extended) and communities are unable or unwilling to help out the less fortunate, the government tends to step in to fill the void.

[Maxel]

Big Government has always been the adversary's response to the family and community. Thanks for pointing that out, tefor.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Maxel

Moksha:

The moral of the story is that throwing money at the poor won't fix their problems.

Man, is this ever a tired cliché. John D. Rockefeller used to throw dimes at street urchins. That is the closest this cliché has come to being real. Social programs aimed at the poor have made their existence more bearable and has perhaps stemmed the tide of rebellion at the time when the stability of society may have been undermined by rampant poverty.

It hasn't when America has tried it in the past, and it won't in this latest incarnation of nationalized health care.

Neither of us is old enough to remember the tenor of American life prior to the enactment of Social Security, but those were hellish times.

However, many of us haven't learned the lessons the past has to teach us.

Wish people could have learned the lesson of the Vietnam War before we became entangled in Iraq. As far as health care goes, I an hoping enough have learned the lesson of Abel's death in being their brother's keeper, as well as the lesson of being like the Good Samaritan.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Moksha

Neither of us is old enough to remember the tenor of American life prior to the enactment of Social Security, but those were hellish times.

Liberals can't have it both ways. Either it worked (in which case, why are you asking me for more money?) or it didn't (in which case, why are you asking me for more money?).

[jadams_4040]

Originally Posted by Traveler

In the year 1960 the most complete censes was conducted by the United States of America. At that time and according to the censes; if just 2% of the gross national product of the USA was transferred to the poor then poverty would cease to exist in the USA. The intellectuals and scholars debated the various aspects of this concept but by the late 60’s that idea had caught on with political “liberals”.

The idea was considered noble and opposition was soon labeled as cruel heartless conservatives while proponents called themselves compassionate liberals willing to care for the poor. Think of it – just 2% was all that was needed to end poverty.

The political initiative was given the name of “The Great Society”. But it did not work and fell a little short. So it was argued that the idea was good but the money required was underestimated. Thus with just a little more money we could still eliminate poverty in the USA according to plan. Then a little more was added again. After a while it became obvious that we could not eliminate all facets of poverty but we did have an “obligation” to help the poor and that ending The Great Society would be “mean” spirited and hurt the poor.

The reason that I am writing this post is to make a point. The point is: If the concept of The Great Society had worked there would be no talk of a need today for “Health Care Reform” for the sake of the poor. There would be no reason to assist the poor with health care because there would be no poor to help. The only reason that health care is even on the table is because of the total and complete failure of The Great Society as political and economic experiment. By the fact that we are considering “Health Care Reform” that does not seek any vestment from the poor proves that we have learned nothing from the continuing failures of the entitlement granted by the failure of such concepts that defined the something for nothing of The Great Society.

The Traveler

It also proves that the "haves" for the most part refuse to help or have sympathy and compassion for the "have nots". even if the "have nots" are hard working patriotic honest and stallworth american citizens.

[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by jadams_4040

It also proves that the "haves" for the most part refuse to help or have sympathy and compassion for the "have nots". even if the "have nots" are hard working patriotic honest and stallworth american citizens.

Evidence? Sources? Total baloney....as usual. Who are the haves? How did they become the haves? Who are the have-nots? How did they become the have-nots? Who decides?

[bytor2112]

Social programs aimed at the poor have made their existence more bearable and has perhaps stemmed the tide of rebellion at the time when the stability of society may have been undermined by rampant poverty.

It has also been a trap for many....generations. The point is not whether we should help the needy....of course we should. The question is how much should we help? And when is enough.....enough? If we are to provide a social welfare network for those who are truly up against it....let's do it on a grand scale. Rather than a ridiculously small check and an apartment to live in for a few years, I would rather see the needy helped "out" of there bad situation, rather than just given the ability to barely stay afloat. Much could be achieved if DC would stop wasting tax dollars and act responsibly with our money. The reason I am opposed to health care reform is that the government screws up everything it touches and it will not serve the needs of the people.....and we are broke!!!

Simple economics folks. A finite amount of tax revenue cannot service the existing debt, much less take on the crushing burden of an even bigger debt.....a debt that will never disappear.