The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[ChunksJR]

The parens patriae doctrine has its roots in English COMMON LAW. In feudal times various obligations and powers, collectively referred to as the "royal prerogative," were reserved to the king. The king exercised these functions in his role of father of the country.

Ahhh..thank god for the revolution.

parens patriae
(paa-rens pat-tree-eye) n. ...Under this doctrine, in a divorce action or a guardianship application the court retains jurisdiction until the child is 18 years old, and a judge may change custody, child support or other rulings affecting the child's well-being, no matter what the parents may have agreed or the court previously decided.

I know that some people don't appreciate the attention to detail...so it's highlighted above, and I'd agree...to an extent, and very cautiously.

Anyway, we do regulate society. Laws and policies were implemented because we, the society, needed them. Food laws, property laws, intellectual property laws, etc. exist because we need them.

With the above idea, I'd be interested to know how you feel about the Patriot Law...talking about society and need to "protect it"

please explain your last comment because it isn't making sense to me at the moment.

It sounds like you've got an idea that the society exists much as a human exists...if there was a human who decided that things must go the way he decrys, than that person would be called a king/queen. Which is a monarchy. Now, I could see if you'd call the direction of this country going towards the control of a few, equally distributed, weathy people - which would imply an oligarchy...but this "society" guy seems scary.

Also, your wife sounds lovely. I think I would like her.

Probably...you both seem to think I'm full of steam and just like to argue

 

[Son of a Grunt]

Our citizenship is a contract; the government offers its services and its protections and we pay consideration through our taxes and societal obligations.

That is refered to as the feudal system.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

I know that some people don't appreciate the attention to detail...

DAYYYUUM POT!! It is time you met kettle.

Go sit on the toilet and read if this helps you concentrate better:

In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized.

Why do you think we have juvenile and family courts? Why do you think the state possesses the jurisdiction to terminate parental rights? Why do you think the courts have the authority to determine custody?

 

[Nose]

I think that most people that are against UHC are against if for the same reason I am: Government's job is to take care of people who CANNOT take care of themselves, not people who WILL NOT take care of themselves. We are all created equal, but if you don't want to work at it, you will quickly fall behind. Those of us who work at it don't want to pull along those who don't want to work at it. I am, however, happy to help those who cannot work at it.

Quagmire, you miss the distinction between the Government's responsibility to look after a child and the government's attempts to raise a child. ("It takes a village, and such")

There is not anything that the government does (DMV and IRS are prime examples) which could not be done better in the private sector in a true free market.

The problem with UHC is not as much the concept, which we could argue until the cows come home.

The problem is that in practice, it will be awful. It will be designed by congress, which is bought and paid for by whatever special interest group you want to name. It will not be the best plan, it will be the plan that lawmakers can agree on. It will be run by political appointees and it will guarantee ambulance chasers, like John Edwards, to continue to milk the system at your expense and mine.

Canada is now experiencing a problem where people are (oh my goodness, eh?) going to private doctors and paying them directly to avoid the government's system. (Ref) The government paid doctors are sending patients to private hospitals to get care.

 

[ChunksJR]

Why do you think we have juvenile and family courts? Why do you think the state possesses the jurisdiction to terminate parental rights? Why do you think the courts have the authority to determine custody?

[/quote]

If I could get away with bringing my laptop into the head with me, I WOULDN'T be reading your post.

Anywho...I am getting into territory that I'm not 100% sure of whereas I know you are...but follow my reasoning.

Courts recently have shown their spite of law and dictating their own agenda...so I don't trust them. CA 9th Court of Appeals anyone???? But I do trust them more than a lot of the "representatives" of our other fine citie's/state's/national interests...

Either way, I hope that I would have to demonstrate the lack of concern/care for my child BEFORE the courts would take my kid away...and that'd have to be proven...as I would have to be proven guilty, as opposed to having to prove my innocence regarding my kids. If this isn't the case, than things have become a lot more scary than I even thought of.

I just don't think courts when I think government, but maybe I should...

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

I won't ask about the laptop and head. Just doesn't seem right.

Yes, you should think of courts as being part of the government.

Each jurisdiction will be different. Just about every time a complaint is made against you in regards to your children, the state will become involved. If the state is concerned that the child is in danger then they may temporarily remove your child while simultaneously investigating. If you send your child dirty to school, the state may step in. I vaguely remember talk about a child that had lice or dandruff. Seriously, for the benefit of the children, I would prefer we err on the side of caution and remove them from your home if we have legitimate cause to believe you are harming them. At the same time, the state is overburdened so in many instances, it may take multiple complaints before the state takes a situation seriously.

Nose, please elaborate on this distinction. Truth is, there are situations in which people should not be allowed to procreate. (Tangentially- is procreation a right?) But they do and the children are stuck in a situation in which they are unable to fend for themselves and when they try, the burden is usually too great and the reprecussions too severe for their young shoulders. If there weren't such vermin then the government wouldn't have to establish laws governing how our children are reared. In general, you can spank and punish your kids but don't think we should condone you beating your child with a telephone or forcing them to drink bleach. If you mean that the government shouldn't require that parents to take parenting classes, counseling, and find employment to care for their children, then what do you propose as an alternative. There comes a point when just "looking after a child" does nothing to address the needs of the child. Should the government only look on when a child arrives to school with no lunch money or no food and sits through the school day without food? Should the government only look on when a nine year old child arrives to class with a round, extended belly (real case from when I was in high school- a nine year was pregnant, raped by a neighbor, and no one knew it until her belly stuck out- she didn't know what was happening to her)?

I don't need to tell any of you that we don't live in an utopian society. You are very willing to admit that people don't look after their own health; so should we be shocked that there are people who don't look after and rear their own children in an appropriate manner? If their own parents aren't doing it, then who shall?

 

[ChunksJR]

I won't ask about the laptop and head. Just doesn't seem right.

Head = Navy term for bathroom.

You are very willing to admit that people don't look after their own health;

Which I don't care about since it's THEIR RIGHT not to live healthy

so should we be shocked that there are people who don't look after and rear their own children in an appropriate manner? If their own parents aren't doing it, then who shall?

Yes, we should worry about abused children, but this is a very slippery slope...as I'm sure alot of you NWerners may have a problem with the "vermin" that are raised here in the south...whose standards are you holding these children to? Yours? Who is to say which is right? Certainly not the government...and certainly not anyone besides me and my family. If there is a concern, you address it. You don't treat the parents as guilty until proven innocent, however. If you don't address it than you are just as guilty as those that do the abusing...to which there are laws against both of you...

 

[Nose]

Truth is, there are situations in which people should not be allowed to procreate.

Couldn't agree more. As the great philosopher Keanu Reeves once said "You need a license to drive a car, you need a license to buy a dog, but any butt-reaming asshole can become a father."

You are citing cases where a reasonable person would agree that a child had been put in danger. (Beatings beyond normal spankings, pregnancy, etc) I have no problem when the state steps in in these cases, I'd be pissed if they didn't. But the state cannot step in if you choose to let you child watch TV 18 hours a day. The state cannot step in if you let your child eat McDonalds 24/7. The state cannot run itself, why do you think it could raise a child?

Children will be left behind. Throughout history, they have been left behind by parents, teachers, churches, and the all-powerful state. It is not good, but it will never change, no matter how hard you try. (Besides, as Judge Smales said with such elan, "The world needs ditch diggers too, you know.")

I would rather the state do a better job of PROTECTING those that need it then trying to raise all children to the same level.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

That's messed up. I had a good long response to the both of you but when I tried to submit it, I was told that I didn't have posting privileges.

Tell the truth, is it because I'm female, a liberal, or a lawyer?

 

[MasterBates]

You, madame, are the Trifecta of Evil.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Master, would you feel better if I issued a formal apology on behalf of all women and lawyers?

 

[MasterBates]

If it came with a $140K check, it would be a start.

 

[Spekkio]

I think that most people that are against UHC are against if for the same reason I am: Government's job is to take care of people who CANNOT take care of themselves, not people who WILL NOT take care of themselves. We are all created equal, but if you don't want to work at it, you will quickly fall behind. Those of us who work at it don't want to pull along those who don't want to work at it. I am, however, happy to help those who cannot work at it.

What do you mean by "will not take care of himself?" Do you mean someone who participates in high-risk activities such as drinking, smoking, and eating fatty foods all the time? If so, you already are paying for these people who are insured under your health plan. Granted, they pay higher premiums, but do you really think that their premiums are going to pay the entire bill for that chemotherapy?

If you mean people who do not work, that is such an extremely small percentage of our society that it won't even matter. Your healthcare would still be cheaper and more comprehensive under a well conceived single-payer system, even with the occassional leeches.

I'm quite baffled by people's stances that they should not pay for another's health care when that is exactly what insurance serves to have you do. It banks on the fact that the majority of people insured will not need care so that it can afford to pay for those who do, all while making a healthy profit.

The problem is that in practice, it will be awful. It will be designed by congress, which is bought and paid for by whatever special interest group you want to name. It will not be the best plan, it will be the plan that lawmakers can agree on. It will be run by political appointees and it will guarantee ambulance chasers, like John Edwards, to continue to milk the system at your expense and mine.

I fully agree there. The inability of Congress to take action one way or another has a lot to do with why our health care is a mess in the first place.

IRT community/socialist parenting:

I've heard quite a few stories from my parents and grandparents about how their neighbors had disciplined them [read: gave them a whooping] while growing up. Assuming that they weren't lying, there certainly is a tradition of community child rearing in the past. Unfortunately, that role seems to be shifting from the community to the government. Instead of Mrs. Jones next door making sure that children don't do something they shouldn't, we have laws, which aren't enforced and don't work, while the community turns a blind eye saying "well, that's not my child." And if they do step in, the parents usually go after them.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

DAYYYUUM POT!! It is time you met kettle.

Go sit on the toilet and read if this helps you concentrate better:

In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized.

Why do you think we have juvenile and family courts? Why do you think the state possesses the jurisdiction to terminate parental rights? Why do you think the courts have the authority to determine custody?

Crap, we are living in a communist nation if a judge can just terminate
(theoretically) God given parental rights. There is not way on earth that such a law is moral. Parents are the first and primary caregivers of their children and no law can change that. Granted there are some cases when the community must intervene to save the life of a child ; however, this doesn't relieve the parents of there duties.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Yes, the state terminates parental rights. It can be at the parents' request or without the parent's consent.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/groundterminall.pdf


Master, you had me in your corner right up until the last moment. How about a chicken dinner, two apologies, and a free download?