Who thinks the Mass HealthCare plan is anti-Childfree?

[RB TexLa]

Poll question: Who thinks the Mass HealthCare plan is anti-Childfree?

[Atman]

1. Gee, a little bias showing through in your choices there, eh?

:eyes:

[RB TexLa]

47. most of the polls here have a good bit of bias

I wasn't paid to actually get real poll numbers on it.

:)

[AlamoDemoc]

2. I think Gov. Romney should tour Roxbury and Dorchester

neighborhood and tell residences there to afford his Health care

[sandnsea]

12. It's free to low-income people

Families and singles.

[smoogatz]

3. Uh, if everyone buys in it lowers everyone's cost, not just those w/ kids

But don't let that inconvenient fact get in your way.

[Llewlladdwr]

4. I for one am getting really tired...

of the "childfree" expecting my kids to support them through their retirement.

[RB TexLa]

5. No one but myself will support me in my retirement n/t

[Telly Savalas]

7. Those green pieces of paper you've stashed in the bank

are useless unless you've got living human beings willing to accept them for goods and services.

[RB TexLa]

9. I doubt I will outlive all other human beings n/t

[Llewlladdwr]

10. For which you should be thanking us "breeders".

N/T

[Llewlladdwr]

8. You're not going to be accepting either Social Security or Medicare?

Bravo to you!

[lavenderdiva]

16. I would just like to point out that while I am childless

every year my property taxes help pay for those schools and colleges everyone else's children attend. My taxes also help fund CHIPS programs, so that someone else's children may obtain low-cost/free healthcare. I've been paying into the system for years. While I am not expecting anyone to help subsidize my retirement, I would also like some recognition for what I have contributed to 'the system'.

[Llewlladdwr]

17. The problem is....

that whether you 'expect' it or not it's mine and other's children who will be making it possible for you to live comfortably after retirement. The one thing you're not providing are the warm bodies necessary to keep 'the system' going. While I recognize your monetary contributions I resent statements like those in the OP that make it sound like the "childfree" are doing us "breeders" a favor rather than the other way around.

[lavenderdiva]

18. I really don't think whether I choose to have children,

or whether I cannot have children because of a medical issue, or that my husband/partner chooses not to have children, or that my husband/partner cannot have children because of a medical issue, has any bearing on this discussion. Yes, I guess I can sort of see your point, that the 'next generation' helps fund Social Security/Medicare. However, I (and my husband/partner), am a part of that 'next generation' for those now collecting Social Security. We have been subsidizing those now collecting SS throughout our working life, by weekly deductions taken from our paychecks. That has nothing to do with whether we have children or not. It sounds like you are saying we should be made to feel guilty for our collecting it during our retirement. Are you suggesting that only those who are able to have children be able to collect it? What about stay-at-home mothers, who, while they have actually birthed someone of the 'next generation', and while their contributions to the next generation are certainly significant, have never monetarily contributed to the system? Should they be barred from collecting SS as well?

[Llewlladdwr]

21. What I'm suggesting...

is that those who remain childless, whether by choice or by chance, owe a great deal to those who become parents. A stay at home mom is making a much more valuable contribution to society than merely tossing in money, she's providing the people needed to keep the system viable. I'm not saying that the childless are evil, but those who are childless by choice are certainly a burden for those of us who do have children. It's not just about who funds Social Security and Medicare, but about who'll be around to produce the goods and services you'll need to survive.

[lavenderdiva]

23. I can see your point, not that I agree with it,

however, for your point to be valid, one would have to assume that all of the stay-at-home mom's children contribute monetarily to the system, in the future, via outside paying work, thus providing for her future retirement. What if some of her children also choose to become stay-at-home parents, or God forbid, 'child-free'? It would seem that this stay-at-home mom is a sort of parallel, by your reasoning, to those who are childless. However, she has contributed nothing monetarily to the system, and I have. My funds are supporting those who now collect Social Security. You state that the stay-at-home mom's contribution is greater, even though she herself, has monetarily contributed nothing to the system. Yet, upon her 'retirement', she may like to collect Social Security and Medicare one day. By virtue of the fact that she has birthed someone of the 'next generation', should she have no compunction against collecting those benefits?

I do not feel that I 'owe a great deal' to anyone who chooses to become a parent. I, myself, as a person, not a parent, have also contributed 'a great deal' to the system. By 'merely tossing in money', my financial contributions have helped sustain the system, as it now stands. I, too, am keeping the system viable.

This argument is wholly hypothetical, and I certainly do not, in any way, shape, or form, mean to say that stay-at-home moms shouldn't collect SS or Medicare. I am only using this as an example to point out that, IMHO, I don't agree with your case of 'breeders', as you call them, and apparently yourself, receiving more consideration than those of us who monetarily contribute each and every week. My tax dollars, and Social Security deductions, have allowed people like your parents, and mine, to collect their benefits. Just like their contributions allowed their elders to collect as well.

Peace.

[Llewlladdwr]

28. I don't think you're getting my point at all.

Frankly, the money doesn't matter. If every human made the choice to remain "childfree" then in roughly a century (give or take, medicine is advancing rapidly) the whole damn "system" would stop regardless of how much anyone had provided in taxes. And in increasing discomfort I would imagine as we ran out of young to provide care for the elderly.

I certainly don't believe that having children should be mandatory. I do think it should be encouraged.

[lavenderdiva]

35. I have to say that I respectfully disagree with you.

By your example, 'if every human made the choice to remain 'childfree' then in roughly a century the whole damn system would stop'. Exactly. If everyone decided to remain childfree for a whole generation, we wouldn't need a system. We'd all be dead.

I don't think that encouraging someone to have children to help support future generations is a sufficient reason to have children. I believe someone should have children who is willing to love them and provide for them. Have children for the sake of the joy they bring to your life. Not that they will perhaps, help provide support for future generations of the elderly.

[Broken_Hero]

24. that is funny...

too funny...:)

I'm not saying that the childless are evil, but those who are childless by choice are certainly a burden for those of us who do have children.

So my wife and I are a burden cause we can't have kids??? WOW...that is so funny!!!...

So, if we are a burden, can we not pay our school bond tax, that teach kids math/science and what not? Cause you know, if i'm a burden and all...i dont' think my money would be wanted...

[Llewlladdwr]

25. What part of "by choice" was unclear?

And as far as the taxes go, hey, I pay all that too. If you can't have kids then you can't, no problem. If you choose to not have kids then you're ultimately taking more out of the system than you're putting in.

[Broken_Hero]

27. It shouldnt' matter

if they can't, or choose not to...you make it sound like, unless your a parent, you are worthless? or am i just reading to much into it?...and if they choose not to have kids, how are they taking more out of it? explain that to me...say there is a couple, no kids...they pay SS tax, and all that for 30 plus years, and then they go on SS and what not...how is that a burden? They are getting what they have been paying for, for 30 plus years? I don't see your rationale, for saying if you don't have kids, you are a burden...

[Llewlladdwr]

29. You're a burden....

because you're not providing people to keep the system going.

Look, we all pay taxes. Those of us with children take on the additional responsibility and expense of raising additional human beings who will someday be providing the food you'll be eating, your clothing, medical care, everything. Someday someone's child will be hand feeding you if you live long enough.

Do you people really not see that civilization depends on constantly creating new human beings to replace the dying?

[Broken_Hero]

32. funny, so many laughs tonight!!...

So, unless i have my wife pumping out kids, i'm a burden in your eyes? buwhwhahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!!!!!! Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. I think, we will just have to agree, to disagree, see you around...:) :hi:

[Broken_Hero]

34. Okay, sorry about the quick post,

I shouldn't respond my first thoughts...:)

I am a burden because i'm not putting forth a child to put money in the pot in the future? Is that your stance? But, what about my wife and I who are putting money in the POT NOW? Does that mean anything or not? I am providing children education now, cause i'm a sub teacher in my county, so am i a burden cause i don't have any kids? YOu would probably say "yes"...

What about the idiot couples, who have 8 kids, and have all of them up in foster care and what not? are they are burden, or are they contributing? By idiot couples, i mean men/women who can't keep it in there pants, and giveup/abandon their kids...

I am the second oldest of 12 childern, I know what it takes to raise children, and I do agree that parents have added responsiblites as parents, but to say that childfree couples are burdens, is almost laughable...

[Llewlladdwr]

37. Okay, real quick and then I do have to be off...

It isn't just the money. It's providing a warm body to take your place in the great machine that is our technological society. Imagine for a moment that there were no more people in the world less than 50 years old. There's a lot of things that wouldn't be getting done anymore. Then image if the youngest amongst us was 70. A whole lot less of the essential services we need are going to be being provided.

I'm just amazed at how difficult a concept this is for people to accept....anyway, good night to you too.

[RB TexLa]

38. In case you haven't noticed, many people around the world are

having babies. Hardly a rational argument.

[Broken_Hero]

39. Good night...:)

This is a point of view i have never heard of, and I thank you for showing it to us, thanks...:) :toast:

[lavenderdiva]

31. so, let me try, yet again, to understand your reasoning...

To verify what you have previously stated: If I can't have children, because of some medical reason, that is ok with you, and what I am currently contributing to the system is ok. However, if I choose not to have children, I am a burden on your version of the system, and what I am currently contributing is not ok?

'If you choose to not have kids then you're ultimately taking more out of the system than you're putting in'. Hmmmm.... I believe I stated that I 'put in' each and every week, and each and every year that my property taxes are due, I pay them. Those property taxes help fund lots of public schools and colleges that lots of children attend. Each and every week, taxes and Social Security are deducted from my paycheck. Each and every week, taxes and Social Security are deducted from my husband's paycheck. Exactly how much more do we, as childless people, have to 'put in' to satisfy you? We are paying what we owe, by law. To whom should we state why we are childless, and thus satisfy your contribution requirements? Those who are working, and earning a paycheck, with or without children, in this generation, pay into a system. Whether or not I choose to have children has absolutely no bearing on my ability to collect, at some point in the future. I have contributed to the generation that is collecting today. I am helping to support many who are childless, today. At some point in the future, I will not feel any undue conscience in collecting what I have helped support.

[Llewlladdwr]

36. And one more time. let me try to make it clear.

The childless are a burden on those with children. If you're childless because of circumstances beyond your control then I really don't think that should be held against you. If you're childless by choice then fine, whatever, just quit complaining about how unfair it is that you have to pay into an insurance program that you think benefits those with families more than you (which was pretty much the OP's point with this silly poll).

And yes, believe it or not whether or not we as a society produce a next generation does indeed have a bearing on whether or not you'll be able to collect any benefits you feel entitled to. If there's no one there to collect from you'll not be getting much. Your future welfare is very much dependent on my (and many others) choice to have children.

As childless people it's simply impossible for you to put in a 'fair' amount of money since what's really needed is personnel.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting conversation. If this thread is still around tomorrow I'll be back.

'Night all....

[Broken_Hero]

40. Interesting arguement...

I think its flawed, but thats just me...

As childless people it's simply impossible for you to put in a 'fair' amount of money since what's really needed is personnel.

Interesting view, this sentence...I am at a loss of words for this sentence...

[lavenderdiva]

26. Exactly.

:hi:

[Telly Savalas]

6. The prinicple behind any good healthcare plan is to pool risk.

Which not only makes them anti-"childfree" but anti-people-who-don't-have-cancer too.

The problem with the Romney plan isn't that it attempts to pool risk, but rather that it hobbles a bunch of shit together and then forces people to participate. Much more logical would be to have a single payer universal plan.

[sandnsea]

14. I see you're from Canada

Easy to call for the ideal when you aren't the one who can't go to a doctor when you're sick.

[sandnsea]

11. Those who aren't going to use health care???

If you fall and crack your head open, or get into a car wreck, do you have some method of notifying the EMT to just lay you on the curb since you aren't going to use health care??

[smoogatz]

30. Gotta get me one of them "I'm broke, Let me croak" bracelets. n/t

[OzarkDem]

13. None of the above

While everyone has to participate in the risk pool to make it affordable for all, this particular plan has more bugs than a flophouse mattress.

Its primary flaw is that it has no mechanism for cost containment. As health care costs rise (and they do with new research and technology), the only stop-gap built into the system is to allow insurer's to reduce the amount of coverage they provide.

The other major flaw is that it does nothing to address the massive inefficiency and waste built into the current system of private insurance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. It's not unreasonable to praise the plan for what it does do

It eliminates the uninsured. Costs may rise, but they won't rise because the uninsured don't get care until the problem is acute.

It is a realistic first step to a single-payer system. A single payer system won't work on a state-by-state piecemeal fashion anyway.

[OzarkDem]

44. As costs rise

coverage will dwindle, so people will still end up with less coverage and more out of pocket expenses. You could end up with policies that cover well visits and checkups, but not chemotherapy or, say, a heart transplant or knee replacement surgery.

From the GOP side, it sounds as though this plan was written as a boon to insurance companies, not to fix a health care access problem. Its sort of like the laws requiring all motorists to buy car insurance, only imagine if it cost $50,000 or so every time you had an accident.

[Cobalt Violet]

15. The morges in this country are fill with dead childless 20 somethings.

Just because you're healthy today doesn't mean you will be tomorrow.

[Cobalt Violet]

19. How do you know you'll never get in an accident. And I'm not talking auto.

Break your arm, leg or head. How do you know you won't get bit by a mosquito and get Lyme disease, or West Nile Virus, or Eastern Equine Encephalitis. How's your appendix? Ever have strep throat? Mono? No one plans on getting these things.

Ever been bit by a rattle snake?

[mondo joe]

20. False choice.

Everyone should have healthcare coverage because no one can reliably promise to NOT use healthcare.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Agreed. Like auto insurance.

Going without auto insurance would be an utterly stupid thing to do. That is why auto insurance is required by law.

Going without health care coverage is equally stupid, probably even more so. That is why it either needs to be required (or provided to all).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. As if even young, single people can't get cancer or suffer the effects of

an undiagnosed heart condition, develop an aneurysm, develop MS, or countless other nasty conditions, even if they're young and health-conscious.

Anyone who goes without health insurance is gambling. You may be fine for a long time, but if you lose the bet, you lose BIG.

By the way, I'm a middle-aged single, and the lack of universal coverage hurts me, too. Since I'm self-employed and considered a "pool" of one (in that stupid fiction used by insurance companies as an excuse to charge different people different rates for the same product), I pay higher premiums and get worse benefits than someone who is on a group plan.

Single people do suffer disadvantages, but universal insurance isn't one of them.

[flaminbats]

41. Who isn't going to need healthcare?

we all think this while young and healthy! But the babyboomers are still getting older, the available supply of healthcare isn't growing, and there isn't currently a population boom in this country..

We could have a growing tax base if illegals became citizens, if people remember that a real healthcare system only works when we pay for it while healthy and employed. Living in a democracy has always carried a price..we call them taxes!

[rockymountaindem]

43. Then by definition, any universal system is "anti-childfree"

It is also anti-healthy-people, because if you *never* get sick or *never* get hurt, you're paying for nothing. Oh, wait, I forgot... you're paying for the benefit of living in a society of healthy people and for the peace of mind you get from knowing you'll never be without health care should something unexpected happen.

I don't see what having kids or not has to do with this.

[Bridget Burke]

45. Although childless, I'll GLADLY pay taxes...

So the musocos can see a doctor, instead screaming in the grocery store because they've got an earache, or barfing in the restaurant.

And I'm glad to help pay for their education--in public schools. We have too many dumbasses running around as it is.

I do not regard myself as "special" because I don't have kids. ("Childfree" is so quaintly retro!) And I don't feel awed reverence toward the institution of parenthood. (But kudos to the fokls raising decent kids.)

[RB TexLa]

46. The biggest thing about the plan

If your employer offers group insurance under the Mass plan you MUST enroll in it if you make x amount over the poverty limit. You do not have the option to get individual health insurance with a higher deductible. In fact you will have to have coverage with no higher than $4,000 annual deductible. So an individual who just wants a plan to protect them from a catastrophic illness or accident would no longer be able to decline group coverage and purchase an individual plan with a $5,000, $7,500, or $10,000 deductible. They would have to purchase the more expensive (for them) group plan. If no plan is offered through your work 18-26 year olds are going to be offered a plan that according to the bill will cost around $150/month. There are in most states plans with high deductibles and limited benefits this group of people can purchase that are under $100.

Perhaps there are some that would rather these people go to the employers that don't offer health insurance. Maybe there are some who think those jobs with good insurance should "belong" to those who need the insurance, and if you aren't willing to have $400 or so a month taken out of your check than you need to work at a lesser job and let someone "supporting a family" have the better job.