Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 decade ago

should parents be required by the government to provid healthcare insurance for their children?

"Should parents be required by the government to provide healthcare insurance for their children?" It's for my debate class and I have absolutely no idea what to say about it!!! Please Help!!!!

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    YES !

    if you can't afford to have children ... then don't have them !!!!!!!!!

    it should NOT be the state or the federal governments responsibility to take care of "PAY" for BASIC NEEDS for your family !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    people like to say "oh insurance is to expensive" ...

    you know what I like to say to those people ...

    - how big is your tv

    - how much did your suv cost

    - disneyland again

    etc

    people need to stop living beyond their means ...

    and if the choose to start a family, or are to stupid to understand unprotected sex can cause pregnancy ... then they should NOT be rewarded with FREE medical, food stamps etc

    I think there should be exceptions made for the single mom, who doesn't make enough to cover expenses ... as long as she isn't driving a brand new SUV sittin on 20s ...with her fake nails on, and highlights ... if she is a money waster ... then tough love it is !!

    GOOD LUCK !!!!

    I loved debate class in h.s.

  • 1 decade ago

    What side are you taking? How sophisticated an argument do you want?

    Your choices are yes or no. How many uninsured children are there? How much would it cost to insure them? For all routine and emergency care? Just for major medical problems? Do all small untreated problems eventually get very expensive to treat as the condition worsens?

    Where is the money going to come from? Does the government agree to pay the rent if the family's money goes to health care? How do we do this? A new bureaucracy? Use the tax code, like MA does?

    Do we limit the profit insurance companies can make off a mandated coverage? If not, what's to keep insurance companies from using the new money to buy more corporate jets and pay for expensive agent parties in fancy locations? Not to mention big bonuses.

  • 1 decade ago

    YES!! yes they should cover their children, because what if a child gets into an accident and their is no healthcare insurance, that child not get treatment at certain hospitals if there is not insurance or proof that a person can pay a bill. With many schools a child can not even go on a school trip if they dont have insurance because of the liability a school would have for the safety of the child. It is ALWAYS better to be safe than sorry

  • 1 decade ago

    NO. There are tons of children out there whose parents simply cannot afford health insurance. This is what Medicaid covers (along with eligibility requirements)... uninsured children under the age of 18 (sometimes 21). It is not true that you cannot receive the same care for your uninsured children as your insured children. Many hospitals (almost all SSM and Mercy Medical hospitals, along with many private hospitals) have a disclaimer that you are entitled to services at their hospital. There are many people who go to the hospital and do not have insurance. If I had to provide health care for my children, I would have to do so privately. My husband is self-employed and I am a full-time student and stay at home mother. We simply cannot afford the outrageous monthly fees and deductibles private insurance companies require. Many penalize for missed payments, and unless your deductibles are paid, you cannot received covered healthcare anyway. My answer is NO, it would be too costly for many Americans.

    Source(s): Life.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There is no way to enforce that type of law, and if the parents lose their jobs, which causes them to lose their insurance how are they going to do this?

    Especially with the current economy, that is a valid excuse. If you have no job, you have no employer provided health care. How can you expect them to pay for one without a job? With that law, a person who has lost their job will now have to deal with the legal system?

    Also, the majority of people without insurance actually have jobs, they just can't afford the premiums.

    My answer is NO.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    I stay in a u . s . a . with a unmarried-payer device. no longer in elementary words this, besides the indisputable fact that the authorities owns and runs lots of the hospitals and employs the medical crew. it isn't any longer a suitable device (and it is totally expensive), besides the indisputable fact that it works fairly nicely and is really established. if you're sick, you receives healed, even if you're wealthy or negative. lots of the fears human beings look to precise in those situations - that they received't be able to make possibilities about their healthcare, or that the state will be prying into their affairs - are laughably faulty.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The answer could vary by person.It is alway a good idea to hear the suggestion from different sides and try to choose the best one.Here is a good one i recommend.

  • No. They should be required to provide health care though.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    parents should take care of their children. They should provide health care for themselves AND their children. I shouldn't have to pay for my coverage and theirs!

    Source(s): Barry is LOUSY!
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.