Health care should not be free for Children or Adults

Thanks for offering this debate Dr. Harvey. The S-CHIP program was developed, not to help children of unworking parents as you suggested with the comment "The Gov't should not be providing health care to any child whose parents are capable of getting a job" S-CHIP provides health care to children of parents who do have a job, but cannot afford the high cost of providing health care for their children, due to the nature of the work that they qualify for. Many US employers are now offering part time or 1099 positions in low to entry level portions of their business, precisely because they are not required to provide health benefits to those employees. As a result there are millions of American parents who are not educated but that work 3-4 part time jobs for low wages, who are not covered by company health care plans. S-CHIP addresses this problem. Government spending IS out of control, on that we are agreed, however, there should be other areas in which we can reduce spending other than cutting health insurance for the children of the poor. Defense is a holy grail for conservatives, but perhaps it is time that we seek ways to avoid paying exorbitant fees for military contracts and require spending oversight for defense. "Here's an idea, don't have sex" While that sounds great on talk radio, it doesn't reflect reality. People enjoy sex and each other, children result. Your attempts to cut spending for the wellbeing of the children of these irresponsible people is punitive towards the children, not the sexual partners. Either way, the parent's will not be paying for the health insurance. It is the children who will benefit from S-Chip or be left without health care under your plan. "Imagine with me a hospital or doctors office that was run like the DMV" Doctor's offices for the poor ARE run like DMVs. In health care facilities where medicaid and welfare cases are the norm, you consistently find a lower standard of customer service and increased wait times. Even Veterans Administration hospitals are shoddy for people receiving care there. So its not reality to pretend that health care for the existing poor is a utopia of cleanliness and no wait time. That is simply not the case. Economics and reality dictate that the well off in society get a better experience when they receive services, whether those services are at Nordstrom's verses the dollar store, or at Cedar Sinai verses Samaritan. The wealthy pay for that with premiums in cost. Finally the question of the Governments responsibility is one that the populous answers in the united states. I believe that it is my responsibility as a productive part of society to share a portion of my income with those who provide services to me that I am unwilling to do for myself. I understand that the person who washes my car, or stocks the shelves in my department stores or delivers my paper or patches up my street or cleans out my city sewer has the right to have a family. I understand that part of my responsibility as a comfortably well to do part of this great country is to help those people provide a healthy environment to their children, because they do jobs, that cannot support that expenditure. It is a price I am willing to pay, for the services I receive every day as a person living in the USA. I would much prefer that my Government facilitate that expenditure then faith based organizations, based purely on the consistently failure of those organizations to provide true, tangible benefit to those truly in need. I believe by the end of your statement that we are in agreement in that? I would prefer to funnel money through the bureaucracy that I do know, than funnel it to churches and faithful organizations to see what happens. When they are consistently shown to provide member services and little else. your round...