Health care should not be free for Children or Adults

Dr Harvey, thank you for your well positions arguments and for the opportunity to address each, this debate has been informative and engaging. Let me start off by clearly defining my position to the initial question. YES, the government (you, I and all productive tax payers) have a moral responsibility to ensure that the children born in this free nation are provided health care. The SChip program does exactly that. We are in agreement that there are abuses of the system and that there are parent's who clearly should do more to to provide for the children they create, however we must address the reality that S-CHIP IS about children's health. If we were arguing about welfare or workman's comp or entitlement programs for capable adults, we would likely find each other on the same side of the fence cheering each other on, however, this is a debate about S-Chip. I believe it may be helpful to fully explain the added expenditures that result from having children. As a 21 year old, without children, you seem to be having trouble fully perceiving the struggles experienced by uneducated parents, who work hard like you but also have children they are responsible for. Before having children, I had no clue of exactly how expensive they can be. Most of the parents of SChip children, were completely unaware of those expenses prior to having them. Here is link to an example of the expense needs of a single child: http://www.bankrate.com... If you calculate the cost for a single year for 1 child, not including health insurance or education, you will note that it costs just over $11,000 per child per year. Now apply that number to parents who make $60,000 per year in California, who qualify for SChip. In order to qualify for SChip, making $60K the family must consist of 4 children taking the 300% of poverty level into account. Parents making $60K in California who qualify for Schip, are clearly not able to spend $44K on child expenses, after taxes, their take home is a little over $47K, and with rent costs that we discussed in round 2, they are only left with $27K to feed, clothe, provide transportation and pay for the expenses that come along with living in a home and owning a car for 6 people. At this point it should be getting clear to you that $60K, while being a comfortable living for a 21 year old living in a studio apartment, doesn't really afford parents with 4 children the ability to pay $200+ per month for family HDHP, let alone save money in a Medical Savings Account. Money is spent on food, shelter and transportation, there is little left for much else. At this point, most proponents of the abolishment of SChip make a statement that you brought up in round 1; "Don't have Sex" or more accurately, if you can't afford them, don't have children. This is a very good point. People who cannot afford to provide for the well being of children, should think before creating them. Unfortunately, they don't, and part of the cost of living in 'the home of the brave and free' is dealing with the unfortunate results created by people who abuse that freedom, or who are not smart enough to behave themselves sexually. The only alternative is an incredible reduction in freedom, to the point of forcing stupid people to absolve from sex, which is not what either of us are willing to do. I will reintroduce the concept viewing SChip as a form of payment for services that, you and I and all productive taxpayers receive for living in a very comfortable, free, empathetic society. We support the rights of uneducated people to have freedom and reproduce, because we realize that freedom of EVERY citizen is what ensures freedom for us as individuals. As a result of this, I will be called on to help the children of the people who fix my car, wait my tables, clean the public toilets I use, vacuum the office I work in and provide all the entry level service positions that I utilize to ensure my standard of living. I understand that the people who provide those services for me, cannot afford to provide health care for their children, but have just as much right to enjoy life as I do. I understand that my unwillingness to pay them enough money in salary to provide health care for their children, will result in either unhealthy children, or my requirement of an SChip program to meet that need. You said: "We need to consider what we are doing by offering so many social programs." I fully agree with you, but contend that SChip is not one of the social programs that should be abolished, based completely on the recipients of the program. Children. In conclusion, as a libertarian, I am all for personal accountability, however that belief is countered with empathy for the human race and with an eye for the reality that some people will never be personally accountable. That reality forces me to either allow them to flounder and suffer, or to support them. In the case of capable adults, I am all for tough love and tough entitlement rules, but in the case of their children, I argue that we have a responsibility to care for the innocent. Thank you