Nebraska Senators representing Lancaster County convened a public meeting on Wednesday, November 17, at the Lincoln Public School District building at 59th & O St. The first half of the meeting, allocated to the subject of problems with Nebraska’s child welfare system were reviewed in an article located HERE, an accounting of comments by myself and Linda about Nebraska’s serious budget issues, concerns about Nebraska’s medicaid program, and implementation of the health care law can be read HERE, and a GiN “Toast” for Senator Colby Coash can be found HERE.
In addressing the Senators present about Nebraska’s Medicaid program, Linda at one point focused on the shocking fact that 47% of Nebraska births in 2008 were paid for by Medicaid and projections indicated that number would go up 2-3% per year thereafter.
Providing such benefits, Linda pointed out, discourages people from making choices based on their own ability to pay for them; people who may not be able to afford the responsibility are encouraged to have children because they know someone else will pay the bills.
Senator Amanda McGill, who represents District 26, was literally unable to sit still, interrupted, “I’m sorry, I have to say something. What do you expect them to do, deliver at home?”
While such hyperbolic drama does tend to leave one speechless for a bit, it doesn’t take long to come up with a response, and Linda did so, in generally, but more succinctly than my statements, below.
No, Senator, we expect people to do the responsible thing. You know, like the majority of Americans traditionally used to do? Who among us who strives to be personally responsible, yet who are not independently wealthy, have not taken into account our financial circumstances when deciding to have more children? In the event that the unexpected, but most blessed gift of a child has been given to us, we do whatever we must to pay our bills. Second jobs are secured, expenses scrutinized, extras are cut out of the budget, and perhaps we get on a payment plan with the doctor and the hospital. Some unmarried pregnant women, not believing themselves ready for the responsibility and desiring a two parent family for their child, give them up for adoption. Whatever it takes to be responsible and do the right thing. Many Americans still conduct themselves this way.
Beyond those points, before nearly half of the births were paid for by the State of Nebraska, I had not heard of rashes of at-home births taking place. Somehow people managed.
And speaking of the apparently unthinkable, at home births are just one option considered by parents today who seek a calmer, more relaxing environment in which to deliver their babies.
Senator McGill clearly missed the point. We should all be shocked that so many Nebraska births are paid for by Medicaid. We should want to know why that is the case, how it affects our society and whether it is sustainable in light of our increasing financial problems.
Amanda McGill is, unfortunately, the Senator who is representing my district. I believe she is Deserving of Darts, what do you think?
Your column reminded me of this speech by Mark Steyn.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=04
Some of the best parts…
In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood—health care, child care, care of the elderly—to the point where it’s effectively severed its citizens from humanity’s primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. Hillary Rodham Clinton said it takes a village to raise a child. It’s supposedly an African proverb—there is no record of anyone in Africa ever using this proverb, but let that pass. P.J. O’Rourke summed up that book superbly: It takes a village to raise a child. The government is the village, and you’re the child.
…
As Gerald Ford liked to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” And that’s true. But there’s an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn’t big enough to get you to give any of it back. That’s the position European governments find themselves in. Their citizens have become hooked on unaffordable levels of social programs which in the end will put those countries out of business.
…
Every Democrat running for election tells you they want to do this or that “for the children.” If America really wanted to do something “for the children,” it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a leviathan of bloated bureaucracy and unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. That’s the real “war on children” (to use another Democrat catchphrase)—and every time you bulk up the budget you make it less and less likely they’ll win it.
It is thoughtless attacks on individuals that brings about ignorance and hatred , which stirs more hatred . that ends up in groups of innocents hurt and killed as in the 1-8-2011 Tucson shooting. It is sad how statistics clump together one group of women together and then others who are (PURE) attack them for being pregnant and needing help. Amanda didnt say much , but I do agree with her. She does represent my district.
Try some compassion or is that too democratic. There are other ways to get women off of welfare. Focus on soulutions… not attacking individuals.
I agree with Jane. Common sense would commonly tell someone that people cannot come to solutions when attacks are being made at each other.
Tricia,
While I appreciate that you took the time to stop in here and make comment, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
You seemed to miss one fact: We didn’t initiate the attack – the people who work for Jane Kleeb did that. If you want to talk about common sense, let’s start by applying to the idea that Jane Kleeb and her associates, by their own actions, prove they aren’t interested in “coming to solutions”. Bold Nebraska accused us of being violent.
And why? Because they were ticked that we employed rhetorical humor in calling out an elected official who didn’t behave professionally or rationally in a public forum.
It was morally wrong to attempt to connect our humor feature to an incident that involved the deaths of innocents. By engaging in such vile hyperbole, they diminished the value of human life and, I remind again, prove it’s not us that’s opposed to “coming to solutions”.
Shelli
Tricia,
Common sense would commonly tell someone that people cannot come to solutions when some of them refuse to recognize the role of facts in the discussion, insist on making decisions based on the emotion of the moment, and characterize any disagreement as an “attack”. According to that paradigm, the only option left is to instantly adopt the position of the person with whom one disagrees, or be labeled an “attacker”. So if you, for sound reasons you can explain, don’t agree with the article, and you say so, according to Jane’s logic that would be a “thoughtless attack” on your part.
For example Jane, with whom you agree, did not propose any solutions in her comment, but she did make two untrue assertions about individual women being “attacked” (no pregnant women were named in the article), two sarcastic comments about the writers, an unsupported and unrelated statement (“there are other ways to get women off welfare”), all without proposing a single solution to the problem that nearly half of births in Nebraska are paid for by someone other than the child’s family.
Apparently, Jane thinks that focusing on solutions is a responsibility of others, but not one of hers. Is that what you intended to agree with? Or would you say that pointing out the errors in Jane’s reasoning, her lack of supporting facts, and her dearth of solutions is just another thoughtless attack?