Geez, if it's so bad you'd think the Republicans could at least acknowledge some truths.On Sunday, a senior Senate Republican made his case against the Democrats’ plan for a “public option” for health insurance.
He explained that the public option would "be the first steps in... destroying the best health care system the world has ever known."
Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-06-11 19:40:42)
You have 2 choices. You can either pay for someone else's abortion, or someone else's kid.Harmor wrote:
Now excuse me while I go abort a fetus.
So the government pays for the birth and the kid is given to a family that wants a child but can't have one. That limits the expense for the kid.Turquoise wrote:
You have 2 choices. You can either pay for someone else's abortion, or someone else's kid.Harmor wrote:
Now excuse me while I go abort a fetus.
The kid is going to be more expensive by a longshot.
Now, I'm not saying cost is everything, but those are the facts. Whether we have private care or socialized care, we end up paying for poor people's kids one way or another. The only difference right now is that abortion is mostly something that taxes don't pay for. I think there are some states that already do that though.
In a perfect world perhaps.FEOS wrote:
So the government pays for the birth and the kid is given to a family that wants a child but can't have one. That limits the expense for the kid.Turquoise wrote:
You have 2 choices. You can either pay for someone else's abortion, or someone else's kid.Harmor wrote:
Now excuse me while I go abort a fetus.
The kid is going to be more expensive by a longshot.
Now, I'm not saying cost is everything, but those are the facts. Whether we have private care or socialized care, we end up paying for poor people's kids one way or another. The only difference right now is that abortion is mostly something that taxes don't pay for. I think there are some states that already do that though.
All it requires is the proper legislation and oversight. That's not perfect world...it's the real one. It's just that the lawmakers would rather fight about whether or not to kill the kid before they have a chance than to give them a chance in the first place.Bertster7 wrote:
In a perfect world perhaps.FEOS wrote:
So the government pays for the birth and the kid is given to a family that wants a child but can't have one. That limits the expense for the kid.Turquoise wrote:
You have 2 choices. You can either pay for someone else's abortion, or someone else's kid.
The kid is going to be more expensive by a longshot.
Now, I'm not saying cost is everything, but those are the facts. Whether we have private care or socialized care, we end up paying for poor people's kids one way or another. The only difference right now is that abortion is mostly something that taxes don't pay for. I think there are some states that already do that though.
In the real world there is a very good chance they'll be in and out of social services for a good number of years.
Like it or not, most unwanted kids end up with social services and cost the state a lot of money. THAT is the real world, what actually happens. NOT what COULD happen given the right legislation and oversight.FEOS wrote:
All it requires is the proper legislation and oversight. That's not perfect world...it's the real one. It's just that the lawmakers would rather fight about whether or not to kill the kid before they have a chance than to give them a chance in the first place.Bertster7 wrote:
In a perfect world perhaps.FEOS wrote:
So the government pays for the birth and the kid is given to a family that wants a child but can't have one. That limits the expense for the kid.
In the real world there is a very good chance they'll be in and out of social services for a good number of years.
We don't know what would happen in the real world if the government put even a fraction of the funding they give useless programs into adoption programs...because none of them do.Bertster7 wrote:
Like it or not, most unwanted kids end up with social services and cost the state a lot of money. THAT is the real world, what actually happens. NOT what COULD happen given the right legislation and oversight.FEOS wrote:
All it requires is the proper legislation and oversight. That's not perfect world...it's the real one. It's just that the lawmakers would rather fight about whether or not to kill the kid before they have a chance than to give them a chance in the first place.Bertster7 wrote:
In a perfect world perhaps.
In the real world there is a very good chance they'll be in and out of social services for a good number of years.
The figures are out there, it's quite obvious that going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy costs loads more (apparently each one costs the taxpayer more than $4000/year). In fact the cost to the taxpayer is at least $7 billion each year (I say at least, because the $7 billion figure is from 2001, more recent studies (2006) show the cost to have risen to over $9 billion/year).
Here are some figures to support that.
Would, could - that's NOT the real world.FEOS wrote:
We don't know what would happen in the real world if the government put even a fraction of the funding they give useless programs into adoption programs...because none of them do.Bertster7 wrote:
Like it or not, most unwanted kids end up with social services and cost the state a lot of money. THAT is the real world, what actually happens. NOT what COULD happen given the right legislation and oversight.FEOS wrote:
All it requires is the proper legislation and oversight. That's not perfect world...it's the real one. It's just that the lawmakers would rather fight about whether or not to kill the kid before they have a chance than to give them a chance in the first place.
The figures are out there, it's quite obvious that going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy costs loads more (apparently each one costs the taxpayer more than $4000/year). In fact the cost to the taxpayer is at least $7 billion each year (I say at least, because the $7 billion figure is from 2001, more recent studies (2006) show the cost to have risen to over $9 billion/year).
Here are some figures to support that.
So my point stands. Anything more than is done now would be an improvement.
Yes, it is. You can't say it wouldn't work because it hasn't been tried. You can't use the amount of money spent on kids in foster care or other state-run systems as a comparison because there is nothing to compare it to.Bertster7 wrote:
Would, could - that's NOT the real world.FEOS wrote:
We don't know what would happen in the real world if the government put even a fraction of the funding they give useless programs into adoption programs...because none of them do.Bertster7 wrote:
Like it or not, most unwanted kids end up with social services and cost the state a lot of money. THAT is the real world, what actually happens. NOT what COULD happen given the right legislation and oversight.
The figures are out there, it's quite obvious that going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy costs loads more (apparently each one costs the taxpayer more than $4000/year). In fact the cost to the taxpayer is at least $7 billion each year (I say at least, because the $7 billion figure is from 2001, more recent studies (2006) show the cost to have risen to over $9 billion/year).
Here are some figures to support that.
So my point stands. Anything more than is done now would be an improvement.
No it isn't. It's a hypothetical scenario you've presented. It's not the real world because it doesn't happen and there is no precedent for it having happened.FEOS wrote:
Yes, it is. You can't say it wouldn't work because it hasn't been tried. You can't use the amount of money spent on kids in foster care or other state-run systems as a comparison because there is nothing to compare it to.Bertster7 wrote:
Would, could - that's NOT the real world.FEOS wrote:
We don't know what would happen in the real world if the government put even a fraction of the funding they give useless programs into adoption programs...because none of them do.
So my point stands. Anything more than is done now would be an improvement.
No shit it doesn't work like that. I'm not arguing that point. My point is that if the government put even a fraction of the money you've quoted into adoption programs, it would cost far less in the long run.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. It's a hypothetical scenario you've presented. It's not the real world because it doesn't happen and there is no precedent for it having happened.FEOS wrote:
Yes, it is. You can't say it wouldn't work because it hasn't been tried. You can't use the amount of money spent on kids in foster care or other state-run systems as a comparison because there is nothing to compare it to.Bertster7 wrote:
Would, could - that's NOT the real world.
I haven't said it couldn't work. Just that it DOESN'T work like that. With major reform, perhaps, it could work - though that would be completely contrary to every real world example out there.
No shit. I'm saying an excellent alternative is an adoption program instead of state-run foster care.Bertster7 wrote:
It DOES cost the taxpayer shedloads of money. This is the same the world over. What is your evidence that this doesn't have to be the case?
So you agree, that's not the real world. It's a hypothetical example you've presented. One based on insubstantial and incomplete data about the costs involved.FEOS wrote:
No shit it doesn't work like that. I'm not arguing that point. My point is that if the government put even a fraction of the money you've quoted into adoption programs, it would cost far less in the long run.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. It's a hypothetical scenario you've presented. It's not the real world because it doesn't happen and there is no precedent for it having happened.FEOS wrote:
Yes, it is. You can't say it wouldn't work because it hasn't been tried. You can't use the amount of money spent on kids in foster care or other state-run systems as a comparison because there is nothing to compare it to.
I haven't said it couldn't work. Just that it DOESN'T work like that. With major reform, perhaps, it could work - though that would be completely contrary to every real world example out there.
Where are those numbers from? By how much does the number of unwanted pregnancies each year outstrip the demand for adoptions?FEOS wrote:
No shit. I'm saying an excellent alternative is an adoption program instead of state-run foster care.Bertster7 wrote:
It DOES cost the taxpayer shedloads of money. This is the same the world over. What is your evidence that this doesn't have to be the case?
Evidence? Look at the numbers:
Cost of an uncomplicated birth: $25k
Legal costs associated with adoption: $10k
Total cost of adoption program, per kid: $35k
How much per kid, per year does the foster system cost? How about cumulative over the entire time the kid's in foster care? It far, FAR exceeds that fairly conservative estimate. Now, how many kids could be adopted out using that $7-9B? 200,000-257,000. Per year.
A quick statistics check shows that in 2005, there were 513,000 kids in foster care nation wide. Less than 200,000 adoptions occur each year. Tens of thousands are on waiting lists for adoptions in the US alone.
How many kids have you had?Bertster7 wrote:
So you agree, that's not the real world. It's a hypothetical example you've presented. One based on insubstantial and incomplete data about the costs involved.FEOS wrote:
No shit it doesn't work like that. I'm not arguing that point. My point is that if the government put even a fraction of the money you've quoted into adoption programs, it would cost far less in the long run.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. It's a hypothetical scenario you've presented. It's not the real world because it doesn't happen and there is no precedent for it having happened.
I haven't said it couldn't work. Just that it DOESN'T work like that. With major reform, perhaps, it could work - though that would be completely contrary to every real world example out there.Where are those numbers from? By how much does the number of unwanted pregnancies each year outstrip the demand for adoptions?FEOS wrote:
No shit. I'm saying an excellent alternative is an adoption program instead of state-run foster care.Bertster7 wrote:
It DOES cost the taxpayer shedloads of money. This is the same the world over. What is your evidence that this doesn't have to be the case?
Evidence? Look at the numbers:
Cost of an uncomplicated birth: $25k
Legal costs associated with adoption: $10k
Total cost of adoption program, per kid: $35k
How much per kid, per year does the foster system cost? How about cumulative over the entire time the kid's in foster care? It far, FAR exceeds that fairly conservative estimate. Now, how many kids could be adopted out using that $7-9B? 200,000-257,000. Per year.
A quick statistics check shows that in 2005, there were 513,000 kids in foster care nation wide. Less than 200,000 adoptions occur each year. Tens of thousands are on waiting lists for adoptions in the US alone.
There are around 2 million unwanted pregnancies a year in the US (based on figures for 2001, I would expect that figure to have risen as all the other associated figures have). How many people adopt or plan to adopt in the US each year? The figures I've had a look at suggest the total cost associated with adoption range from $5000 to $40000.
The more numbers I look at, the less feasible your fanciful notion looks.
So what? I'm sure the adoption agencies and information sites have more insight into the average cost of adoption than you do.FEOS wrote:
How many kids have you had?Bertster7 wrote:
So you agree, that's not the real world. It's a hypothetical example you've presented. One based on insubstantial and incomplete data about the costs involved.FEOS wrote:
No shit it doesn't work like that. I'm not arguing that point. My point is that if the government put even a fraction of the money you've quoted into adoption programs, it would cost far less in the long run.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. It's a hypothetical scenario you've presented. It's not the real world because it doesn't happen and there is no precedent for it having happened.
I haven't said it couldn't work. Just that it DOESN'T work like that. With major reform, perhaps, it could work - though that would be completely contrary to every real world example out there.Where are those numbers from? By how much does the number of unwanted pregnancies each year outstrip the demand for adoptions?FEOS wrote:
No shit. I'm saying an excellent alternative is an adoption program instead of state-run foster care.
Evidence? Look at the numbers:
Cost of an uncomplicated birth: $25k
Legal costs associated with adoption: $10k
Total cost of adoption program, per kid: $35k
How much per kid, per year does the foster system cost? How about cumulative over the entire time the kid's in foster care? It far, FAR exceeds that fairly conservative estimate. Now, how many kids could be adopted out using that $7-9B? 200,000-257,000. Per year.
A quick statistics check shows that in 2005, there were 513,000 kids in foster care nation wide. Less than 200,000 adoptions occur each year. Tens of thousands are on waiting lists for adoptions in the US alone.
There are around 2 million unwanted pregnancies a year in the US (based on figures for 2001, I would expect that figure to have risen as all the other associated figures have). How many people adopt or plan to adopt in the US each year? The figures I've had a look at suggest the total cost associated with adoption range from $5000 to $40000.
The more numbers I look at, the less feasible your fanciful notion looks.
How many have you adopted?
I know how much it costs because I've done both.
From adoption agencies and information sites targeting people looking into adopting. If you want links, just ask.FEOS wrote:
And where have you gotten your numbers?
As I implied, I don't know. I know the figures from 2001 and I know that other associated figures have risen (costs to the state rising from $7 billion to over $9 billion from 2001 - 2006). Based on that I would expect the number of unwanted pregnancies to have risen, which seems reasonable to assume.FEOS wrote:
By how much as the number of unwanted pregnancies risen?
Never said I did. What does worldwide have to do with it anyway? You expect the US to become an exporter of babies for adoption? I would guess that currently the trend is the opposite.FEOS wrote:
Do you know how many are actually on adoption waiting lists worldwide? No, you don't. It's much easier to just provide some smarmy responses.
Stop living in a fantasy world and look at the numbers.FEOS wrote:
Fanciful my ass. Get off your pretentious high horse for once, Bert.
I'm ok with that, but you do realize that probably equals considerably higher taxes. Good luck getting any fiscal conservatives to sign on for that one.FEOS wrote:
So the government pays for the birth and the kid is given to a family that wants a child but can't have one. That limits the expense for the kid.Turquoise wrote:
You have 2 choices. You can either pay for someone else's abortion, or someone else's kid.Harmor wrote:
Now excuse me while I go abort a fetus.
The kid is going to be more expensive by a longshot.
Now, I'm not saying cost is everything, but those are the facts. Whether we have private care or socialized care, we end up paying for poor people's kids one way or another. The only difference right now is that abortion is mostly something that taxes don't pay for. I think there are some states that already do that though.
Did you miss the part about using a fraction of the existing funding for the foster-care system (and associated SS, Medicare, and welfare funding) to pay for this?Turquoise wrote:
I'm ok with that, but you do realize that probably equals considerably higher taxes. Good luck getting any fiscal conservatives to sign on for that one.FEOS wrote:
So the government pays for the birth and the kid is given to a family that wants a child but can't have one. That limits the expense for the kid.Turquoise wrote:
You have 2 choices. You can either pay for someone else's abortion, or someone else's kid.
The kid is going to be more expensive by a longshot.
Now, I'm not saying cost is everything, but those are the facts. Whether we have private care or socialized care, we end up paying for poor people's kids one way or another. The only difference right now is that abortion is mostly something that taxes don't pay for. I think there are some states that already do that though.
And I'm sure I've got more insight and information into the actual costs of adoption than YOU do. Even using conservative numbers, the analysis comes out in favor of an adoption program over foster care.Bertster7 wrote:
So what? I'm sure the adoption agencies and information sites have more insight into the average cost of adoption than you do.FEOS wrote:
How many kids have you had?
How many have you adopted?
I know how much it costs because I've done both.
Would these be those numbers you haven't provided from sources you haven't provided?Berster7 wrote:
From adoption agencies and information sites targeting people looking into adopting. If you want links, just ask.FEOS wrote:
And where have you gotten your numbers?
Your (flawed) assumption is that I'm saying every unwanted pregnancy should end in an adoption. I never stated nor implied that. I would just rather see a reasonable alternative to abortion for unwanted pregnancies.Berster7 wrote:
As I implied, I don't know. I know the figures from 2001 and I know that other associated figures have risen (costs to the state rising from $7 billion to over $9 billion from 2001 - 2006). Based on that I would expect the number of unwanted pregnancies to have risen, which seems reasonable to assume.FEOS wrote:
By how much as the number of unwanted pregnancies risen?
Yes, the current trend is in the opposite. But it doesn't have to be. Other countries adopt internationally...there's no reason the US couldn't/shouldn't.Bertster7 wrote:
Never said I did. What does worldwide have to do with it anyway? You expect the US to become an exporter of babies for adoption? I would guess that currently the trend is the opposite.FEOS wrote:
Do you know how many are actually on adoption waiting lists worldwide? No, you don't. It's much easier to just provide some smarmy responses.
Would those be the numbers you didn't provide? Or the numbers you just scoff at without applying any thought to the issue under discussion?Berster7 wrote:
Stop living in a fantasy world and look at the numbers.FEOS wrote:
Fanciful my ass. Get off your pretentious high horse for once, Bert.
I doubt a fraction would cover this, but good luck.FEOS wrote:
Did you miss the part about using a fraction of the existing funding for the foster-care system (and associated SS, Medicare, and welfare funding) to pay for this?Turquoise wrote:
I'm ok with that, but you do realize that probably equals considerably higher taxes. Good luck getting any fiscal conservatives to sign on for that one.FEOS wrote:
So the government pays for the birth and the kid is given to a family that wants a child but can't have one. That limits the expense for the kid.
