And how is this different than if all of you were covered by the same health insurance company? Who do you think would be paying for their hospital bills and doctor bills?
Huh? Everybody who paid in through their premiums would be paying, of course. This is very different from the situation where only some people (taxpayers) have to pay for the actions of others (non-taxpayers) who have not contributed. The issue is that when people make decisions (either deliberately, or through recklessness/negligence/irresponsibility) that result in predictable consequences that they cannot afford, should they be bailed out by being given money taken away from another group of people.
Huh? Welfare recipients don’t pay taxes? Even accepting the (erroneous) assumption that this is true, that doesn’t mean that welfare recipients have never been productive taxpayers. If I spent two decades having my pay checked skimmed to fund social programs like welfare, I wouldn’t consider taxpayer money too sacred to use if I found myself struggling at the bottom of Maslow’s triangle. That’s what it is there for.
Not unlike insurance.
Or that they won’t become productive taxpayers in the future. I think I paid more federal income tax last year than I received in cash benefits the entire time I was on welfare. Guess I’m even now, eh?
If you take welfare as a whole, there are some people who pay in more than they receive, and others who receive more than they pay in. Yes, like insurance. Should those who pay in more than they receive have to pay more because someone takes an action that they know will, or is very likely to, lead to increased welfare payments?
To continue with the insurance analogy - there are many exclusions of coverage to handle situations where the insured has done something that unreasonably increases the likelihood of loss. So, for example, to quote from my home insurance:
So it is clear - act unreasonably, and I’m not covered.
Hence the argument is similar - if a person on welfare deliberately or neglectfully does something to increase their dependence on the state, should they be eligible for increased hand-outs at the expense of others?
Let’s compare apples to apples. If you’re covered by insurance and get pregnant, most policies cover you. Bing. It’s not considered “neglect” to get pregnant. Other policy holders will end up footing the bill for your choice.
How is that different?
Julie
Well, one significant difference is that policy holders (usually) voluntarily take out insurance with their particular company, taking into account what is covered under the policy they choose, and what isn’t. You can even choose not to be covered, if you wish. However, nobody can opt out of income and payroll taxes. So the policy holders footing the bill do so by choice, the net-contributors to welfare are forced to do so.
by aramone:
This question is moot. It’s like asking should people who get away with cheating on their tax returns be held accountable for their actions. Um, sure they shoud. How are you going to hold someone accountable, though, if they get away with cheating?
How do you prove that someone one cent away from homelessness is not that way because of a sick, masochistic wish to sleep on cold smelly concrete? You can’t, not realisitically. How do you prove that an unintended pregnancy was the result of laziness rather than faulty contraception? Again, you can’t. I guess if you want to hire psychiatrists and investigators to make sure everyone who receives welfare genuinely deserves it, you could. But who’s going to pay for that? Is it worth the expense?
I swear people will think of any measure to strain out the gnats, but will let whole herds of buffalos go through with nary a blink!
by aramone:
If taxes bother a person enough, they don’t have to pay them, you know. They can always move. Just like a landlord doesn’t force his tenants to pay rent, the government is not forcing you to pay taxes. This was covered in my 5th grade social studies class.
When I keep hearing this hackeneyed marlarkey about exortion, being forced at gun point, and stealing, I just want to start singing my favorite Justin Timberlake song. Cry Me a River.
sorry, your name is amarone, not aramone. My bad.
I don’t think that the question is moot, because there can rarely be anything wrong with trying to define our goals. By the way, if you check my recent posts in this thread carefully, you will see that I have been trying to define the point of argument, not push any particular position. Yes, in doing so I will have given away some of my own views, but I suspect not as much as some may think.
As in many things, we should: be clear about what we would like to achieve and why. Then assess what is reasonably possible and worthwhile, and go for that - I agree that some goals are unobtainable or not cost-effective. At the risk of side-tracking into another analogy: most of us would like to have a legal system that never convicts an innocent person. However, we know that is not possible, so we “do the best we can”. We tolerate the imprisonment of some innocent people because to avoid that would lead to many, many guilty people going free.
However, if you think that someone should be denied extra welfare if they got pregnant while on welfare, it would not be too hard to police that - a simple cross-check of dates would handle it.
Rats - you posted that while I was composing a similar inversion of your name! Apology accepted.
Yes, that is a significant difference, and it’s a flaw in the insurance analogy. The analogy wasn’t mine. I was just trying to tidy it up a little. 
Julie
Congratulations. 99% effective, you say? A 99% success rate isn’t so great. Is that per year? Then after ten years you have a 9.6% chance of getting pregnant.
Those are some friends you’ve got there.
Meaning that they’re intentional? Who exactly are you accusing of what, here?
Of course, if one’s finances are poor, birth control might be expensive-the Pill ain’t cheap.
Of course, if one’s finances are poor, birth control might be expensive-the Pill ain’t cheap.
That’s when Planned Parenthood is your best friend; they operate on a sliding-scale fee system. And at least here in Chicago, they used to have bowls full of condoms on the front desk, free for the taking (given, that was a while ago; I haven’t set foot in there in years).
Besides, even at the full price of $30-some or so for a month’s supply, the expense of birth control pills pales in comparison to that of raising a child.
Which is part of why it’s so completely outrageous that a lot of insurance companies still don’t cover birth control pills. Heck, the gov’t has an interest in cheaply available birth control too, not that they seem to see that.
But I suppose that’s a different debate.
Are you being sarcastic, or am I missing something here? Where do you move to avoid all taxes?
Also, some women have problems with the pill. And then there are those who are strict Catholics, and their beliefs forbid them from using anything but natural family planning. It’s a stance that I, as a lapsed Catholic, strongly disagree with, but there are those who wish to follow the church’s teachings on this.