# Leave this kid alone! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2007, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214 "2007-10-10T15:26:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/41 "2007-10-11T00:29:54Z")
[QUOTE=Zebra] Scrutinize them because they qualified for a government program that Bush wants to cut. [/QUOTE] No. Scrutinize the qualifications and leave 12-year-old kids out of it. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/42 "2007-10-11T00:42:01Z")
[QUOTE=Zebra] Scrutinize them because they qualified for a government program that Bush wants to cut. [/QUOTE] And here it is, the big lie. I was waiting for it. Bush does not want to cut SCHIP, in fact he has proposed continuing to funding it with inflationary increases each year. But since being honest and saying “Well, here’'s a program that helped people like the Frosts, and George W. Bush wants to continue funding it for people like the Frosts” wouldn’t raise outrage with the base, so the Dems are trying to sell “OMG! BUSH HATES TEH CHILDREN!” instead. Bush vetoed a large increase to the SCHIP program which would have expanded it from a program designed to help the needy to one that would have been nothing more than another bloated entitlement program for middle and upper middle class families, people who should in no way be receiving charity from the government. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/43 "2007-10-11T01:03:56Z")
> [@](#): > > America’s broken health insurance system > By [Michelle Malkin](http://michellemalkin.com/2004/08/27/americas-broken-health-insurance-system/) • August 27, 2004 07:29 AM > > Paul Krugman has a column in today’s New York Times decrying America’s health care system. He supports–surprise!–a single payer approach. > > I have commented before on the problems with central planning in health care. I certainly am not convinced that a government-run system is the answer, but I do agree with Krugman that there are serious problems with our health insurance system, particularly in the market for individually-purchased (non-group) coverage. > > After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland’s individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that “choice” wasn’t much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own. > > We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness. > > With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured. And I bet they didn’t have four kids, either. [Sadly, No!](http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7460.html) nails the dismount. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/44 "2007-10-11T01:10:57Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] And here it is, the big lie. I was waiting for it. Bush does not want to cut SCHIP, in fact he has proposed continuing to funding it with inflationary increases each year. But since being honest and saying “Well, here’'s a program that helped people like the Frosts, and George W. Bush wants to continue funding it for people like the Frosts” wouldn’t raise outrage with the base, so the Dems are trying to sell “OMG! BUSH HATES TEH CHILDREN!” instead. Bush vetoed a large increase to the SCHIP program which would have expanded it from a program designed to help the needy to one that would have been nothing more than another bloated entitlement program for middle and upper middle class families, people who should in no way be receiving charity from the government. [/QUOTE] This is what is wrong with the expansion of SCHIP. It is a noble thing indeed to help the children of poor families. My son is on SCHIP, and it is a good program. But what is being proposed is an expansion of the financial qualifications for inclusion, which naturally lends itself to abuses. Do you want to help poor kids, or do you want to allow for the possibility that by subsidizing some people’s kids you’re actually subsidizing some guy’s car payments on his Lexus? As it is, right now in Pennsylvania a family of three qualifies at $33,200, with an upper subsidized limit of $39,010 ([cite](http://www.ins.state.pa.us/ins/cwp/view.asp?a=1279&q=527103)) That said, what do you propose the upper limit should be? $50,000? $60,000? And who is going to pay for it, exactly? This looks like it has an eye on universal healthcare. If universal healthcare is the aim, at least be honest about it rather than trying to backdoor it on the backs of children. Can’t we be upfront about things for a change? I’d support universal healthcare given a few provisions (such as potentially repudiating Social Security to pay for it), but I won’t support de facto sneaking past the gate legislation. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/45 "2007-10-11T01:19:56Z")
They TRIED to get insurance. They were rejected by three different companies for pre-existing conditions. The house was bought for $55,000 when the neighborhood was less safe than it currently is. Even now, it’s only worth around $250,000, which isn’t exactly high-end in today’s market. The boy has a SCHOLARSHIP to that expensive private school, and the girl’s school is well-known for being very liberal about financial aid. (Now former) Republican [John Cole](http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827) of Balloon Juice has an article right now that goes over all of this: > [@John Cole](#): > > If you look through this family’s dossier, it appears they are doing everything Republicans say they should be doing- hell, their story is almost what you would consider a checklist for good, red-blooded American Republican voters: they own their own business, they pay their taxes, they are still in a committed relationship and are raising their kids, they eschewed public education and are doing what they have to do to get them into Private schools, they are part of the American dream of home ownership that Republicans have been pointing to in the past two administrations as proof of the health of the economy, and so on. > > In short, they are a white, lower-middle-class, committed family, who is doing EVERYTHING the GOP Kultur Kops would have you believe people should be doing. They aren’t gay. They aren’t divorced. They didn’t abort their children. They aren’t drug addicts or welfare queens. They are property owners, entrepeneurs, taxpayers, and hard-working Americans. I bet nine times out of ten in past elections, if you handed this resume to a pollster, they would think you were discussing the prototypical Republican voter. Hell, the only thing missing from this equation is membership to a church and an irrational fear of Muslims and you HAVE the prototypical Bush voter […] > > I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their misfortune. > > I’m registering Independent tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/46 "2007-10-11T01:42:17Z")
> [@Airman Doors USAF](#): > > This is what is wrong with the expansion of SCHIP. It is a noble thing indeed to help the children of poor families. My son is on SCHIP, and it is a good program. But what is being proposed is an expansion of the financial qualifications for inclusion, which naturally lends itself to abuses. Do you want to help poor kids, or do you want to allow for the possibility that by subsidizing some people’s kids you’re actually subsidizing some guy’s car payments on his Lexus? As it is, right now in Pennsylvania a family of three qualifies at $33,200, with an upper subsidized limit of $39,010 (cite) That said, what do you propose the upper limit should be? $50,000? $60,000? And who is going to pay for it, exactly? Well, the question, in many cases like those of the Frosts, is whether you want to spend SOME money on the working poor and the lower middle class NOW, or whether you’d prefer them to bankrupt themselves paying medical bills and THEN end up spending MORE money on them when they’re so far in the hole that they’ll never climb out. There are plenty of people in this country who appear to be getting by OK, and who actually ARE getting by OK, as long as they can continue to juggle all their payments and not get hit with a large unexpected whack in the wallet. And not all of these people are simply gamblers who decide to live without health insurance because they expect to have everything paid for. As has already been pointed out, this family was rejected by three different health insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions. While it might make good financial sense for an insurance company to refuse such folks, the standards by which we define appropriate health care should be a little more forgiving. Given that this discussion is about the economics of medical care, it’s interesting that none of the morons screaming about “bloated entitlement programs” and making “payments on the Lexus” can even grasp the concept of prophylaxis. Even conservatives, in making their arguments, point out that there are programs in place to hep the destitute. Well, isn’t it possible that we might end up with a better society, and perhaps even save some money in the long run, if we give people some help BEFORE they go all the way down the drain. I’d prefer that the government help a family like the Frosts now, rather than AFTER they’ve lost their house and business to a massive health care bill. Because if that happens, they’ll probably be on “bloated entitlement programs” for the rest of their lives. Helping them now allows them to remain more self-sufficient in the long run. > [@Airman Doors USAF](#): > > This looks like it has an eye on universal healthcare. If universal healthcare is the aim, at least be honest about it rather than trying to backdoor it on the backs of children. Can’t we be upfront about things for a change? I’d support universal healthcare given a few provisions (such as potentially repudiating Social Security to pay for it), but I won’t support de facto sneaking past the gate legislation. Cutting off your nose just to spite your face never struck me as a very productive worldview. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/47 "2007-10-11T02:00:12Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] Given that this discussion is about the economics of medical care, it’s interesting that none of the morons screaming about “bloated entitlement programs” and making “payments on the Lexus” can even grasp the concept of prophylaxis. [/QUOTE] I know what you’re saying. I simply disagree over the details. Thanks for the name calling, by the way. You’re 100% class. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/48 "2007-10-11T02:02:07Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] I know what you’re saying. I simply disagree over the details. [/QUOTE] yea, I noticed that. You’re deserving, others are not. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/49 "2007-10-11T02:06:42Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] I know what you’re saying. I simply disagree over the details. Thanks for the name calling, by the way. You’re 100% class. [/QUOTE] Well, if anyone who characterizes the recipients of these programs with rhetoric like “making payments on his Lexus” implies that it’s ME who lacks class, i’ll take that as a compliment. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/50 "2007-10-11T02:09:16Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] Well, if anyone who characterizes the recipients of these programs with rhetoric like “making payments on his Lexus” implies that it’s ME who lacks class, i’ll take that as a compliment. [/QUOTE] Were that I said that. Ah, never mind. It’s not worth the effort to clarify something that requires no clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/51 "2007-10-11T02:18:38Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] Well, the question, in many cases like those of the Frosts, is whether you want to spend SOME money on the working poor and the lower middle class NOW, or whether you’d prefer them to bankrupt themselves paying medical bills and THEN end up spending MORE money on them when they’re so far in the hole that they’ll never climb out. There are plenty of people in this country who appear to be getting by OK, and who actually ARE getting by OK, as long as they can continue to juggle all their payments and not get hit with a large unexpected whack in the wallet. And not all of these people are simply gamblers who decide to live without health insurance because they expect to have everything paid for. As has already been pointed out, this family was rejected by three different health insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions. While it might make good financial sense for an insurance company to refuse such folks, the standards by which we define appropriate health care should be a little more forgiving. Given that this discussion is about the economics of medical care, it’s interesting that none of the morons screaming about “bloated entitlement programs” and making “payments on the Lexus” can even grasp the concept of prophylaxis. Even conservatives, in making their arguments, point out that there are programs in place to hep the destitute. Well, isn’t it possible that we might end up with a better society, and perhaps even save some money in the long run, if we give people some help BEFORE they go all the way down the drain. I’d prefer that the government help a family like the Frosts now, rather than AFTER they’ve lost their house and business to a massive health care bill. Because if that happens, they’ll probably be on “bloated entitlement programs” for the rest of their lives. Helping them now allows them to remain more self-sufficient in the long run.Cutting off your nose just to spite your face never struck me as a very productive worldview. [/QUOTE] Ummm…You did happen to notice that the Frosts DID qualify for the MCHIP plan, they DID utilize the plan and it DID pay for their children’s medical costs, didn’t you? So…what’s you point again? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/52 "2007-10-11T02:18:44Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] Were that I said that. Ah, never mind. It’s not worth the effort to clarify something that requires no clarification. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but the very use of the term, even if you’re just holding out the possibility of what _might_ happen, poisons the well of discussion about this issue. It’s such an stupid and hackneyed cliche that thinking people should eschew it altogether, and that people who use it mark themselves as not being thinking people. Why not just talk, as you were originally doing, about the problem of defining where the line between some help and no help should be drawn, rather than implying that the whole thing is inevitably going to descend into some sort of car payment program for wealthy liberals? I know it’s hard to give up some of these idiotic catchphrases, but i’m holding out hope for you. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/53 "2007-10-11T02:29:08Z")
A 12 year old testifies in support of a government program, and has made himself “part of the public debate” and “fair game.” His home address is publicly posted. They sic private detectives on his family to try to prove they weren’t really eligable. This, of course, is perfectly ok. Contrast this with how shocked and outraged everyone was when General Petreus, a grown man who has quite clear ties with the White House PR campaign, is called a mean name by [MoveOn.Org](http://MoveOn.Org). We had to have a bipartisan resolution condemning that. But no outrage from the Republican side of the aisle over smearing a 12 year old for HIS testimony. That’s the political climate we live in. Sometimes I wish we had a barfing face smiley. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/54 "2007-10-11T02:29:49Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] Sorry, but the very use of the term, even if you’re just holding out the possibility of what _might_ happen, poisons the well of discussion about this issue. It’s such an stupid and hackneyed cliche that thinking people should eschew it altogether, and that people who use it mark themselves as not being thinking people. [/quote] I don’t think that by pointing out that expanding SCHIP to cover people who could use the money saved to their own ends is poisoning the well. I think SCHIP should be reserved for those who actually need it, rather than those who see the opportunity to save some money. I think it’s a legitimate concern. I’m not real keen on the concept of fairness as posited by the political process nowadays, but even so this is not an unreasonable objection. > [@](#): > > Why not just talk, as you were originally doing, about the problem of defining where the line between some help and no help should be drawn, rather than implying that the whole thing is inevitably going to descend into some sort of car payment program for wealthy liberals? I know it’s hard to give up some of these idiotic catchphrases, but i’m holding out hope for you. Where did I say anything about liberals, or even conservatives for that matter? I speak my own mind, I draw my own conclusions, and while you are free to disagree with my thoughts I do resent the implication that I draw my talking points from the barking head brigade. I wouldn’t trust most of them to lead a child to the toilet. If they had any capabilities whatsoever, they would be making policy instead of engaging in personal attacks on people they don’t even care about in the pursuit of ratings. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/55 "2007-10-11T02:47:10Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] I don’t think that by pointing out that expanding SCHIP to cover people who could use the money saved to their own ends is poisoning the well. I think SCHIP should be reserved for those who actually need it, rather than those who see the opportunity to save some money. I think it’s a legitimate concern. I’m not real keen on the concept of fairness as posited by the political process nowadays, but even so this is not an unreasonable objection. [/quote] I never said it was. In fact, if you’ll look at my posts in this thread, it’s exactly the issue i’ve been trying to deal with. But if you don’t see the rhetorical difference between expressing concern that the money “should be reserved for those who actually need it, rather than those who see the opportunity to save some money,” and complaining that people might use it for “making payments on [the] Lexus,” then i probably can’t elucidate it for you. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/56 "2007-10-11T02:49:17Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Ummm…You did happen to notice that the Frosts DID qualify for the MCHIP plan, they DID utilize the plan and it DID pay for their children’s medical costs, didn’t you? So…what’s you point again? [/QUOTE] Yes, i did notice that. My point was that it’s a good example of the good that a program like SCHIP can do, and i’ve seen nothing that convinces me that the expanded program under consideration wouldn’t do similar amounts of good, despite the bleating of some people about the perils of imminent socialism. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/57 "2007-10-11T04:04:26Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] Delving into the parents’ economic situation is fair game, but leave the kids out of it. [/QUOTE] What about lying about it? Or at least knowingly leaving out highly material facts? Is that fair game? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/58 "2007-10-11T06:27:08Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] Yes, i did notice that. My point was that it’s a good example of the good that a program like SCHIP can do, and i’ve seen nothing that convinces me that the expanded program under consideration wouldn’t do similar amounts of good, despite the bleating of some people about the perils of imminent socialism. [/QUOTE] Well, “good” is a pretty subjective term, I think what we’re talking about is more along the lines of government’s proper role. If the MCHIP program was expanded to include higher income middle class families, I personally would likely qualify (or at least my kids would). Undoubtedly, if that happened and I enrolled in the program, and, God forbid, one of my kids became ill or injured, the MCHIP insurance would do a lot of “good” in paying for his treatment. Right now, however, my kids are covered by the health insurance that I pay for, and if one of them happened to become ill or injured, it would do a lot of “good” in paying for his treatment. The only real difference here is who pays for it. Currently, I am paying for my insurance, which is right and just as I can afford it. Expand the program and you (collective you) would be paying for it, and I’d have an extra $5K in my pocket each year to pay for vacations or cars or jewelery or whatever. Why the hell should other people pay for something that I am quite capable of paying for myself? Justify that for me if you please. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/59 "2007-10-11T06:43:17Z")
Wow, I agree with Bush on something other than immigration. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214/60 "2007-10-11T09:57:31Z")
Can I point out that we’re talking about kids here? When it comes to health insurance, kids lack agency. If we raise the eligibility maxima for SCHIP: [ul] [li]Some kids would now be insured whose parents couldn’t have otherwise afforded insurance.[/li][li]Some kids would now be insured whose parents could have afforded insurance, but didn’t realize it because their search for private insurance didn’t lead them to an existing affordable solution.[/li][li]Some kids would now be insured because their parents could have afforded insurance, but (a la Michelle Malkin) came to the conclusion that the insurance they could afford would cover so little that they might as well do without.[/li][li]Some kids would now be insured whose parents could have afforded insurance, but simply decided not to buy it, out of hardheartedness, miserliness, stupidity, or whatever.[/li][li]Some kids would be covered by SCHIP whose parents were already buying private insurance. In some cases, that might be a fairly minor budget item for the parents, and in others it might be barely tenable. In these cases, the government would be paying to meet an already-met need, as the downside of meeting the unmet needs in the other bullets.[/li][/ul] There’s an argument for making adults take care of their own health insurance needs. I happen to disagree with it, for reasons that are a whole separate debate. But I’m not sure which of the circumstances justifies leaving the _kids_ unprotected, when they are in no position to protect themselves. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leave-this-kid-alone/422214.md?page=4)