# Republicans don't give a CHIP about children's health care **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 27, 2017, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986 "2017-10-27T12:29:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/161 "2017-10-28T18:29:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok, does “So I’m told,” in these words you wrote refer to the immediately prior sentences? Who told you that my church’s teachings guide my behavior _with respect to the formation of social policy?_ I’ve already told you: according to the priests I encountered as a kid, Jesus. > [@](#): > > Every leftist fuckhead that said prohibiting abortion would establish a theocracy. I kinda doubt that. If it makes you feel better, I’m a leftist fuckhead that doesn’t think prohibiting abortion would establish a theocracy. It would create a culture in which women are forced to bear children against their will so a bunch of superstitious thugs can tell themselves they’re in with a mythical being, though. > [@](#): > > Sorry. You don’t get to haphazardly apply Church teachings when they suit you. Secular policy must be justified apart from any references to a Flying Spaghetti Monster. That lesson has already been established. I don’t apply Church teachings, haphazardly or otherwise. I belong to no church, and base my political decisions on desired and predicted results. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/162 "2017-10-28T18:32:41Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Thank you for illustrating my point. “Some of us” are less interested in seeing other human beings – especially our own citizens, particularly children born into circumstances not of their own making, of one of the wealthiest nations on the planet – suffer needlessly in order to ensure that we can personally expand our own wealth well beyond that needed to provide the basic necessities they lack. You demonstrate that you are considerably more self-oriented and uninterested in finding common ground with your fellow Americans on a topic that seems to be pretty low-hanging fruit. Yeah, you know, the “think of the children!” variety. If we can judge the morality of a parent by how he treats his children, can we not assess the morality of a society by how it treats its children? > > If this nation which ranks second in the world in GDP doesn’t have the resources to ensure that its own children are universally provided access to health care, let alone fed, clothed, housed and educated, we are doing something very wrong. Of the misallocating or squandering our resources type of wrong. What if I contend that by growing our economy we will ultimately continue to raise the standard of living for everyone, just as the standard of living for even our poorest now is still dramatically better than it was for our poorest in 1917? I am, in other words, thinking of the children, but not myopically focused on short term fixes like you are. What if I believe that your short term fixes are actually worse for the outcome of the most people over the most time? What if my beliefs are correct? What do you are your tapeworms think of that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/163 "2017-10-28T18:34:01Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Stupid phone posting. But I am not Catholic, so for me the Pop is just some guy. I agree with some of what he says and not other things. And I am Catholic, but don’t expect the Pope to serve as a sovereign of this country. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/164 "2017-10-28T18:37:02Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I’ve already told you: according to the priests I encountered as a kid, Jesus. Is it possible that as a kid, you misunderstood the precise nature of what they we telling you? Or maybe those priests were talking about other people, not me, specifically? Did they know me? > [@](#): > > I don’t apply Church teachings, haphazardly or otherwise. I belong to no church, and base my political decisions on desired and predicted results. Then we agree. No religious guidance is relevant to establish social policy. Why are you urging me to violate that wise guidance? Because you thought it would help you get what you want? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/165 "2017-10-28T18:37:17Z")
> [@AI\_Proofreader](#): > > \*cough > [@](#): > > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare… Newsflash - providing welfare is absolutely NOT the same as promoting welfare. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/166 "2017-10-28T18:40:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not really. It’s perfectly possible to imagine a secular, atheistic affirmation of the need to protect human life in the womb, and more so not even necessary to imagine it: there are pro-life atheists. Who are a fringe of a fringe. The reality is that I have seen what happens when all abortions are banned. Even the health of the mother is disregarded many times. Getting back to the children, (that some pointed out already, many on the right are really pro birth, not pro life as this issue painfully shows…) As pointed before even the World Health Organization can tell you why most developed and civilized nations think that there are secular and economical reasons to have healthy children. [https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/83/10/777.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjV2IvL85PXAhXmApoKHTSmBYIQFgghMAk&usg=AOvVaw0K\_\_K9vfsm4b2EUlLiwvMA](https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/83/10/777.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjV2IvL85PXAhXmApoKHTSmBYIQFgghMAk&usg=AOvVaw0K__K9vfsm4b2EUlLiwvMA) > [@](#): > > Abstract > > This paper argues that investing in children’s health is a sound economic decision for governments to take,\*\* even if the moral justifications for such programmes are not considered. \*\*The paper also outlines dimensions that are often neglected when > public investment decisions are taken. > > The conclusion that can be drawn from the literature studying the relationship between > children’s health and the economy is that children’s health is a potentially valuable economic investment. > > The literature shows that making greater investments in children’s health results in better educated and more productive adults, sets in motion favourable demographic changes, and shows that safeguarding health during childhood is more important than at any other age because > poor health during children’s early years is likely to permanently impair them over the course of their life. > > In addition, the literature confirms that more attention should be paid to poor health as a mechanism for the intergenerational transmission of poverty. > Children born into poor families have poorer health as children, receive lower investments in human capital, and have poorer > health as adults. As a result, they will earn lower wages as adults, which will affect the next generation of children who will thus > be born into poorer families. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/167 "2017-10-28T18:45:53Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Newsflash - providing welfare is absolutely NOT the same as promoting welfare. They’re using the Humpty-Dumpty Rule, which allows them to assign any meaning to any word. This is how, for example, “empty barrel,” becomes racist. It’s a liberal rule. You can invoke once you get six tapeworms. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/168 "2017-10-28T18:54:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because your ilk use them as weapons. You cherry-pick guidance when it suits you and screech like frightened geese when faith is used to advance a policy you don’t like. > > But that’s not the principal reason. The principal reason is: because those teachings are not intended to be applied piecemeal. People wring their hands at the Church’s rejection of birth control, not understanding that the Church also teaches that sex is reserved to a marital act and in that context alone does the rule exist. See, this is an example of why your religion is relevant, and yet, not, at the same time. If you make a claim to follow a religion, then that means that you folow it’s rules, it’s guidance, ti’s princples. If you do not follow those, then you are a hypocri that is abusing religion for your own personal gain. Virtue signalling to others that you follow a code of morals, while not actually doing so. Now, the part that secularists like ourselves reject is when _your_ religion tells _us_ how to live our lives. That’s great that you guys have a rule about sex and marriage and birth control and all that, and if you want to follow that, great, good on you for following your churches teachings. It is only when you want to foist your rules upon those who do not believe in you theology that there is pushback on your beliefs. We are not picking and choosing, we are being consistent, and simply waiting for you to be as well. We secularists have plenty of reason to favor children’s health over tax cuts for the wealthy, and even though I would think that the secularist side of you should agree with that, the religious side that you claim to follow should make that more clear. So, don’t apply them piecemeal. Apply them wholly to your life. Apply them wholly to your actions, and the way that you interact with others. Follow the teachings of the man you claim to hold in high regard. But, yeah, don’t apply them to others who do not share your opinion on god. You are the only one to be judged, because it is a standard that you have chosen for yourself to be judged by. To then complain that you are judged by the standard that you chose to be judged by is not “cherry-pick[ing] guidance when it suits you and screech[ing] like frightened geese”, it is asking you to practice what you preach. > [@](#): > > Not really. It’s perfectly possible to imagine a secular, atheistic affirmation of the need to protect human life in the womb, and more so not even necessary to imagine it: there are pro-life atheists. And it is perfectly possible to imagine a secular, atheistic affirmation of the need to protect human life as an infant, a toddler, a child, even as a teen. And what is more, it would also be in line with the teaching of your church. I kinda get when secular and religious principles are seemingly at odds, and you have to choose one or the other, but this satisfies both practical and pragmatic principles of maintaining a healthy population that can be educated, enter the work force, and contribute to the economy, and follow in Jesus’s teachings to love your neighbor. You should be thrilled at such a no-brainer. The church and the state, both agreeing on something. > [@](#): > > No. It’s policy you don’t want, so it’s swept away as theocratic, your supposed interest in religiously based social policy a mere wisp of a memory now that we pick something you disfavor. Keep your theology off my biology! Actually, it is a policy that you don’t want, so you attempted to sweep it away as simply a liberal fantasy, the you tried to make the case that it was unconstitutional, when you realized that was a pointless line of argument, you tried to distract with a complaint that judges are called for in the constitution. When you realized that wasn’t working, well, here we are, not talking about the congress critters who are cutting health care for poor children in order to offer a tax cut to the wealthy. You cannot defend them directly, so this is your defense. Distraction. Sadly, (for you) it doesn’t really work. Your distraction cannot keep people from reading the OP, where the problem is laid out, and your distraction cannot prevent people from continuing to discuss this and other actions that the party of “family values” does that harm those families. It just gives everyone chance to pick on you, and not feel bad about it in the slightest, because you come into the pit and threadshit (which is fine for the pit, I’m not judging), and so there you are, trying to pretend that there isn’t shit oozing down your inner thigh, and daring anyone to challenge you. I don’t mind. It gives a chance for me to point out in depth and in detail your many levels of hypocrisy. Your many levels of dishonest rhetoric. Your continued attempts at painting liberals as hypocrites because they don’t all march in lockstep, when you don’t even follow the principles your yourself claim to believe. These conversations also give any readers more ammunition against those of your ilk, gish galloping about with your distractions and lies. People are often confused and confounded by someone making all the false claims that you have made in such a short period of time, and are not sure how to respond. By acting as a foil, you give people practice for when they get in these conversations elsewhere on the 'net, or even with acquaintances, friends or family. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/169 "2017-10-28T18:58:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is it possible that as a kid, you misunderstood the precise nature of what they we telling you? Or maybe those priests were talking about other people, not me, specifically? Did they know me? I’ll take their expertise in scripture over yours. I didn’t ask if they knew you personally, sorry. > [@](#): > > Then we agree. No religious guidance is relevant to establish social policy. No, we don’t agree. We aren’t talking about the basis for establishing social policy, we’re talking about your hypocrisy for not supporting that policy. The basis for establishing that policy exists independent of you, me, or our opinions. I had two cousins, both with Cystic Fibrosis. We could establish a decent health care system to preserve their lives to the best of our ability, but instead we went with not doing so in order to give you, personally, a chance to get a hit of grace. But you lack the ability to take care of both girls’ needs. Which member of my family would you have die, Nicole or Leanne? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/170 "2017-10-28T19:00:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What if I contend that by growing our economy we will ultimately continue to raise the standard of living for everyone, just as the standard of living for even our poorest now is still dramatically better than it was for our poorest in 1917? Then make that argument. Make the argument that the sacrifice that you are asking of these children by trading their healthcare to provide this tax cut to the wealthy will ultimately make these children better off. The problem is, you cannot do that, because you know that tax cuts for the wealthy are not going to improve the economy. So you just have to distract. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/171 "2017-10-28T19:03:16Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/172 "2017-10-28T19:13:32Z")
Wow, around the bend Bricker. What the hell? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/173 "2017-10-28T19:17:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sorry. You don’t get to haphazardly apply Church teachings when they suit you. Tee hee. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/174 "2017-10-28T19:19:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They’re using the Humpty-Dumpty Rule, which allows them to assign any meaning to any word. This is how, for example, “empty barrel,” becomes racist. It’s a liberal rule. You can invoke once you get six tapeworms. You are really clueless about the only one supporting you here uh? Bigot X10. (and more to the point, bigoted against Hispanics that AFAIK Bricker is also a descendant of) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19946509&postcount=54](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19946509&postcount=54) And remember about the fringe of a fringe? He is also an atheist that does not care that religion is imposing draconian rules via the Republicans. Tapeworms in the head. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/175 "2017-10-28T19:28:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Getting back to the children, (that some pointed out already, many on the right are really pro birth, not pro life as this issue painfully shows…) As pointed before even the World Health Organization can tell you why most developed and civilized nations think that there are secular and economical reasons to have healthy children. > > > [@](#): > > > > This paper argues that investing in children’s health is a sound economic decision for governments to take, even if the moral justifications for such programmes are not considered. The paper also outlines dimensions that are often neglected when public investment decisions are taken. “Sound economic decision”? You seem to think that **Bricker** and other right-wingo sickos have utilitarian values. Despite their pretense of steering toward economic prosperity(\*), for them _ **America is just a giant morality play.** _ Poor children deserve their diseases because they lacked the Christian ethos to be born to rich parents. Many of them think the Final Judgement is coming soon; they want to be able to stand before Saint Peter and testify that they did the Lord’s work by inflicting suffering and thereby testing the moral values of other human beings. (\* - Sickly children help the economy by forcing up the price of medical services thereby inflating GDP? Is that it? I dunno. I’ll admit to not fully understanding the economic “theories” of the quintessential quartet of right-wing intellects — **Paul Ryan** , **Clothahump** , **Ann Coulter** and **Bricker**.) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/176 "2017-10-28T19:29:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What if I contend that by growing our economy we will ultimately continue to raise the standard of living for everyone, just as the standard of living for even our poorest now is still dramatically better than it was for our poorest in 1917? Don’t mean to double reply to this, but why do you think that the standards for the poor are higher than they were in 1917? Is it because of the economy, or is it becuase of programs like CHIP? If we get rid of CHIP, and WIC, and SNAP, and TANF, and Section 8, and the other 27 programs that you would like to see cut in order for the wealthy get their tax cut, if you take all of that away, do you think that their standard of living will still be higher than it was in 1917? The reason that our poorest are dramatically better off is because of the gov’t programs that you so despise, not because of improvements in the economy. Poor people without jobs are not going to do any better, no matter how wealthy other people are, unless some of that wealth is redistributed to them, in the very programs that you want to cut. We will always have the poor. That is a given. Unless we have a drastic change in the way everything works, or drop capitalism altogether, there will always be those who are less fortunate. Giving a tax cut to the wealthy will not eliminate the poor. Giving a tax cut to the wealthy will not improve the standard of living for the poor. Only actually giving resources to the poor will increase the standard of living for the poor. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/177 "2017-10-28T19:31:35Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > (\* - Sickly children help the economy by forcing up the price of medical services thereby inflating GDP? Is that it? I dunno. I’ll admit to not fully understanding the economic “theories” of the quintessential quartet of right-wing intellects — **Paul Ryan** , **Clothahump** , **Ann Coulter** and **Bricker**.) He’s highly invested in a company that makes caskets sized for children. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/178 "2017-10-28T19:37:28Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > (\* - Sickly children help the economy by forcing up the price of medical services thereby inflating GDP? Is that it? I dunno. I’ll admit to not fully understanding the economic “theories” of the quintessential quartet of right-wing intellects — **Paul Ryan** , **Clothahump** , **Ann Coulter** and **Bricker**.) Which of these things(and I do mean _things_) is not like the others? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > We will always have the poor. That is a given. Unless we have a drastic change in the way everything works, or drop capitalism altogether, there will always be those who are less fortunate. Giving a tax cut to the wealthy will not eliminate the poor. **Giving a tax cut to the wealthy will not improve the standard of living for the poor.** Only actually giving resources to the poor will increase the standard of living for the poor. You miss **Bricker’s** point. He doesn’t _want_ to improve the living standard of the poor if it means he can’t upgrade the leather in his next Mercedes or Porche. Or have a bigger house with rooms he’ll never use. Or more importantly, a gated community so he’s further isolated from those he considers beneath him. He’s tired of scraping the poor off his shoes. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/179 "2017-10-28T19:40:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What if I contend that by growing our economy we will ultimately continue to raise the standard of living for everyone, just as the standard of living for even our poorest now is still dramatically better than it was for our poorest in 1917? Maybe not for [everyone](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html) though. 1917, huh? So, pre-New Deal? I can’t imagine why that might be true. What if the rise in standard of living in the last 100 years can be attributed to social policies that spreads the result of economic growth to all of its citizens as opposed to a wealthy few? > [@](#): > > I am, in other words, thinking of the children, but not myopically focused on short term fixes like you are. What if I believe that your short term fixes are actually worse for the outcome of the most people over the most time? Providing for the health, education, and well-being of American children is a short-term fix? A society that doesn’t benefit from the well-being of its children is a society that will eventually die out from lack of human capital and productivity. > [@](#): > > What if my beliefs are correct? What if your beliefs are incorrect? What are the ramifications of redirecting our nation’s resources to increase wealth for a select few at the expense of the well-being of the next generation of workers and thinkers? > [@](#): > > What do you are your tapeworms think of that? What do lawyers know about tapeworms? Oh right. To know thyself is the beginning of wisdom. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986/180 "2017-10-28T19:46:06Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > “Sound economic decision”? You seem to think that **Bricker** and other right-wingo sickos have utilitarian values. I can hope anyhow, after all he **did** claim to seek information. But I also do think that you are likely to be right. No matter, I post to educate others, not the ones that _thought_ that they were fighting monsters like Bricker who ended up in reality becoming the monsters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-dont-give-a-chip-about-childrens-health-care/799986.md?page=10)