XPost: alt.politics, alt.politics.clinton, alt.rush-limbaugh   
   From: okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com   
      
   Interesting post.  Let's see if you get any detailed response.   
      
   "Lifsabsurd"  wrote in message   
   news:102uv1intasj150@corp.supernews.com...   
   > At first, I thought to ignore your post, since the only good choice of   
   > response would require a long post.  But, I decided to respond with that   
   > long post.  I understand that very few will read anything that requires an   
   > attention span longer than the length of an average inter-commercial TV   
   > segment, but that's OK.   
   >   
   > 1. First of all, we could solve this problem of uninsured children very   
   > quickly by just murdering *all* unborn babies.  No children, no problem.   
   > That would doubtless make you and other Demoncraps much happier, snce you   
   > are the Party of Murderers.   
   >   
   > 2. Your statistics are interesting.  Here are mine:   
   >   
   > There are no children anywhere in America who do not have 100% perfect   
   > health coverage.   
   >   
   > The only question now is whose statistics are correct, since both are   
   > offered without any serious attempt at attribution ("a Florida study"   
   ????),   
   > much less proof, and neither is the slightest   
   > bit credible.   
   >   
   > 3. As a practical matter, correlations between variables such as health   
   > coverage and school attendance are meaningless in causal terms unless one   
   > factors out all other potential variables.  Did the studies whose results   
   > are cited below do that?  [I assume these numbers were based on advocacy   
   > research   
   > studies and not just plucked from the air.]   
   >   
   > For example, could it be that most children without health coverage are   
   > under the control of a   
   > dumbass parent who doesn't value education or health care, either one?   
   > Would that produce a   
   > correlation between lack of health coverage and lack of school attendance?   
   > And, if it is true that children without coverage are more likely to have   
   > delayed care and less likely to have a regular source of care, is that too   
   > because the parent (notice I didn't use the plural) is irresponsible and   
   > incompetent, and not able to tend to her child properly?  One might   
   > wonder then, why she was so stupid as to get pregnant in the first place   
   > under adverse   
   > circumstances.  Doesn't she know about contraception?  But, of course, the   
   > answer to that question is self-evident. Stupid is as stupid does.   
   >   
   > In any case, is the more important correlation to consider here the one   
   > between having a stupid,   
   > irresponsible asshole for a parent and having lack of proper parental   
   > support for a   
   > child?  Is that the causal relationship that explains coincidental   
   > correlations that you cite?  If so, then one might just want to quit   
   > disparaging so-called   
   > "family values" as your crowd loves to do.  Two parents might usually be   
   > better than one.   
   >   
   > 4. Do you as a bonfide socialist believe that it would be much better for   
   > the commune to raise the child and take care of it?  After all, you   
   > implicitly blame   
   > the government now (not the individual) for not taking care of children   
   > properly.  So, to be fair, as you would wish, we should take all authority   
   > over children away from individuals and give it to government.  Right?   
   > Women can just have the children and hand them over to Uncle Joe.  Then   
   all   
   > would be treated equally and have universal health coverage as they do in   
   > Cuba (of course, the medical care would not be as advanced, but we would   
   > accomplish the goal of socialists, i.e., to make everyone suffer equally).   
   > And women could be just as irresponsible as they are today but with   
   > no hint of blame.  Right?   
   >   
   > 5. I see the problem somewhat differently.  Even if your numbers are   
   > correct, they are *not* an indictment of the government.  They are not an   
   > indictment of conservatives.  They *are* instead an indictment of   
   > irresponsible   
   > individuals, and a lot of them, both male and female, who want to hand off   
   > their problems to me, to taxpayers, to the govenrment.  Tell me, genius,   
   if   
   > more than half of the people of a society live in constant dependence on   
   the   
   > other half, then how is the government of that society going to improve   
   the   
   > society by forcing the productive half to give more to the non-productive?   
   > Why don't we just take money, or goods, or services, or captial itself   
   from   
   > the productive people who generate these things and   
   > destroy such assets outright?   
   >   
   > 6. Your simple offering up of the data below is interesting.  There is   
   > little to no analysis or comment associated with it.  Can we assume that   
   > when you read the   
   > numbers   
   > you find them unacceptable?  On what basis?  For example, if indeed only 8   
   > to 26% of   
   > children   
   > are uninsured, what does that mean?  Is that good or bad?  How do you   
   know?   
   > To what should we compare it?  Historical levels of insurance?  Insurance   
   in   
   > other countries?  Are those fair comparisons, or is that like comparing   
   > apples to oranges?  Is this percentage of uninsured actually **the best   
   one   
   > can do given a country which is now made up of a large percentage of   
   > incompetent and dependent people**?  How do you know the answer to that   
   last   
   > question?   
   >   
   > Or, should we just look at the numbers and conclude that they are bad   
   > because   
   > they *should* all be zero.  Come on now, admit it.  You believe they   
   should   
   > all be zero.  You cannot accept the unfairness of the world.  You cannot   
   > endure the idea that a single child should be without insurance,   
   > or that a single child should have less insurance than another.  It is   
   > intolerably   
   > unfair, right?  EVERYONE SHOULD BE EQUAL!  Isn't that the real basis on   
   > which you present these data without analysis?  They are automatically   
   > interpretable by you as being bad because they are not perfect and some   
   > children are not being made equal to others, right?   
   >   
   > I think that is exactly the way you look   
   > at things.  I think you are a radical egalitarian, i.e., you want to make   
   > everyone equal.  The only problem with this irrational, emotional way of   
   > looking at facts is that it is naive.  The remedies you would propose to   
   > correct the problems are not feasible.   
   > Despite the phrase in our Declaration of Independence, all people are NOT   
   > created equal with   
   > respect to all sorts of factors.  And, no matter how much you deplore the   
   > unfairness of the world, it IS unfair, and you and all the socialists in   
   the   
   > world will never significantly change it.  In fact, your feeble attempts   
   at   
   > social engineering will only make it worse for the majority of people.   
   >   
   > Women like you are, frankly, stupid.  You are ruled by emotion and not by   
   > rationality.  And you have never learned to accept the world for what it   
   is.   
   > You are over 55 years old and you  have never grown up.  You ideas are not   
   > simply   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)