I had so hoped that having glimpsed some areas of agreement, we might go on. I'm sorry about the confusion on my part here, and I'll try to address at least some of your questions.
I have no trouble at all understanding the notion of "unmarried." I also understand the word "married" quite well. The word "family" is one that is familiar to me too.
Mike, quoting from Hennessey:
OBAMA: There are 50 million Americans without health insurance
45.7 million of the inhabitants of the U.S. are uninsured. From that figure..
6.4 million are a Medicare undercount
9.3 million are not U.S. citizens
10.1 million earn over threetimes the poverty level
5.0 million are childless adults between the ages of 18-34
That leaves 10.6 million uninsured, who will still receive treatment in cases of emergencies. http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/
How to lie without lying....lesson number 1
Actually, you will note that it is Mr. Hennessey for whom the notion of marriage seems to have evaporated. This is curious for such a stellar representative of the 'Family Values Party," but it makes a certain kind of sense.
Mr. Hennessy manages to steer his way around the whole notion of families by speaking of "childless adults." He has, therefore, managed to characterize fifty million people as either childless adults or as some sort of unidentified but not quite worth specifying other category.
While there may in fact be a category of unmarried 18-34 year olds, Mr. Hennessey has not mentioned them. He has only given the impression that he has mentioned them by using that phrase "Childless Adults." And this seems to be the category that I suspect is most likely to be the one describing the mentally disabled folks wandering between short term addresses, the street and hospitals, slipped in without actually naming them. You'll notice he never does actually bring them up, does he. You have to have a fixed address to collect your check, you know; no address, not government check.
Another place where the word "married' doesn't come up is among the 10.1 million who earn three times above poverty level. The way Mr. Hennessey portrays this, none of these folks are married or have children, either. They simply appear to be single folks trying to bilk the system.
But if in fact they were single folk making three times poverty level, he would be able to say so, as he did when he announced his 5.3 "single childless" folks above — the ones that I think may actually be psychologically impaired. And he hasn't said so. I suspect that the problem in not with my failure to understand, Mike, I suspect that many of these freeloaders may actually be children and dependents of families of four or more members. There are a lot of these folks who get healthcare assistance and who are trapped on welfare because they can't get a job that will pay for the health care of ill children on what the parent or parents can earn. It's one of those little catch 22 situations that's created by the way the system's been created. If the health care was available to everyone, then the families in this case could look for better jobs. I've knows several of these situations. They're very sad. They're very tough on the families involved. Mr. Hennessey hasn't apparently heard about anything like this. At any rate, he seems content to give his readers the impression that all his examples of this category are single and a playing the system. If he doesn't know better, he should have been given a guided tour of the reality of the system on the ground level.
The number of people who need additional help from the taxpayers is at this point unknown.
When you are given the job of turning the sick folks away, Mike, who are you going to choose? How would you be able to tell? Medical ethics seems to have a pretty good answer — if somebody needs care, you supply it. That's the standard you've always depended on. Perhaps you know better, and you'd have the doctors change the standard. Would that be to one that could potentially exclude your family?
Your assumption that people who can't pay for health care, at least a good number, are doing so because they don't want to work really needs to be proven to me. I don't see it as more than a fantasy. Even bank robbers work. Even panhandlers work; and pretty hard, at that. It's not a job I'd want, I'll tell you.
Why is it that there should be a plan dictating that those who work furnish insurance for those who don't[?]...
Because in the end it's cheaper than not doing so, and it preserves the quality of the medical system. A lot of the expense in the medical system comes from misuse of facilities, and from not maintaining the overall health of the population. Proper medical attention to prevention of heart and lung related illnesses due to environmental factors and to smoking would massively cut the need for much of the more expensive care. There are other reasons. How much do you think it costs to treat folks for smog related and particulate related lung illnesses from say, coal fired electricity plants every year?
If the environmental degradation caused by a lot of our industrialization is killing off a lot of our population and making them ill, why should they pay for their illnesses, to follow up on your metaphor; those companies should, and they should make the changes necessary to correct their manufacturing processes to -prevent the damage from continuing. Given a chance, almost all people are giving people. Certainly we are.
Simply because we have given millions in our charitable efforts doesn't mean that it's enough to undo the damage done by a few, who refuse to take responsibility for what they've done to the land and the people in it.
And by the way, much as I would like a socialized health care plan, because I think it would be cheaper and more effective, President Obama's is not one. The consumers gets to pick his health insurance company, and while it looks like the prices will be lower than what we're paying now, they'll still not be as low as in a single payer system.
That's all I can say for now.
All my best, Bob Kaven