Insurance and NC Kids
Another whiny report was released last week by the so-called "nonprofit*" Action for Children North Carolina. The whine and complain about
the rising number of uninsured children to be a top concern because kids with health insurance often get more health care earlier, before illnesses progress.
Also
there are about 260,000 others [low-income children] who don’t have insurance, he said, adding that the increase in the uninsured numbers show that the public investments aren’t large enough.
Know what my response is? SO WHAT? By what right is every single person on the planet entitled to health insurance? And just because the government can't pay for it all, that means that "something" should be done? Hey morons, you can't save every person on the damn planet! Shut up! Stop stealing my money for your own personal uses to make yourself look good in front of your friends. You are NOT COMPASSIONATE when you STEAL from me to give health insurance to someone who doesn't deserve it. No, I DON'T CARE. You have NO BUSINESS taking money I earn for YOUR purposes -- NONE. If it's legitimate for you sorry excuses for people to steal my money for this purpose, I should be completely free to break into your house and take anything of yours for my own because I "need" it more than you do. Nonprofits in North Carolina should be shut down -- they're crap. ** In North Carolina, the definition of a nonprofit is an organization that does not produce anything but instead is supported by the involuntary payments of taxpayers via the Democrat-led General Assembly (and who gives donations of said cash to legislative candidates).
Comments
1
Actually, in North Carolina, about half of all nonprofits have budgets of less than $25,000 a year, and regardless of size the overwhelming majority do not receive any public money.
Posted by: Lex at October 30, 2006 11:45 AM (PcFi9)
2
The amount of the budget really doesn't matter. And why does even ONE of these so-called "nonprofits" get even one penny of government money? If ONE does, then, according to the legislature, then every single one is eligible to get taxpayer cash. That's just plain wrong.
Thanks for stopping along!
Thanks for stopping along!
Posted by: Ogre at October 30, 2006 12:12 PM (oifEm)
3
Compaired to Colorado your screwed.
Posted by: Michael at October 30, 2006 02:12 PM (pkkrm)
4
Hillary would be at home in NC. Worse, too many people will support crap like this because "its for the poor children."
Posted by: Ogre at October 30, 2006 02:51 PM (oifEm)
5
Lex,
FYI, they don't receive public money directly. these non-profits receive public money that goes directly into specific isolated accounts set up independently as is required by federal law. So yes, your statistic is correct, but they are the non-profit arm that files the grants. If the grant is approved, employees, goods, services etc. are all paid from that separate entity/foundation/etc. which the Feds have funded.
FYI, they don't receive public money directly. these non-profits receive public money that goes directly into specific isolated accounts set up independently as is required by federal law. So yes, your statistic is correct, but they are the non-profit arm that files the grants. If the grant is approved, employees, goods, services etc. are all paid from that separate entity/foundation/etc. which the Feds have funded.
Posted by: michele at October 30, 2006 06:13 PM (ctpbe)
6
Thanks for the confirmation, Michele. And in NC, they get the money directly from the legislature as line-items in the budget, believe it or not.
Posted by: Ogre at October 30, 2006 07:14 PM (oifEm)
7
Actually, Ogre, the amount of the budget does matter, for two reasons. First, nonprofits with annual budgets don't have to file "tax returns" (actually, statements of income and expenditure, since they're tax-exempt) with the IRS. And nonprofits that don't file those forms, called 990s, generally aren't eligible for government grants in most places.
Second, although North Carolina doesn't specifically ban grants to organizations that small, inasmuch as certain (fairly expensive) auditing requirements accompany such grants, it may as well have.
And why does even ONE of these so-called "nonprofits" get even one penny of government money?
Fair question. The answer, at least hypothetically, is that because the nonprofit can accomplish a public purpose more cheaply than the government can.
Whether that's true in each individual case is an open question, and having reported on fraud-ridden nonprofits several times in the past 20 years, I know it certainly isn't inevitable. But at least in principle, that's the reasoning. One can agree or disagree with the wisdom of that reasoning, of course.
But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of nonprofits, in North Carolina and everywhere else, get no public money.
Now, to answer the larger question I think you're getting at: Why should taxpayers help pay for health insurance for poor people? Simple cost-benefit analysis. Because if they don't, they inevitably end up paying for medical care via hospital emergency room when the patient is much sicker and the fix much more expensive.
You can argue that taxpayers shouldn't do even that. Heck, philosophically, you can make a pretty good case. But the vast majority of Americans still think it's OK for their taxes to pay for emergency-room care for people who can't afford it, and political efforts to change that way of thinking haven't gotten very far that I'm aware of.
Second, although North Carolina doesn't specifically ban grants to organizations that small, inasmuch as certain (fairly expensive) auditing requirements accompany such grants, it may as well have.
And why does even ONE of these so-called "nonprofits" get even one penny of government money?
Fair question. The answer, at least hypothetically, is that because the nonprofit can accomplish a public purpose more cheaply than the government can.
Whether that's true in each individual case is an open question, and having reported on fraud-ridden nonprofits several times in the past 20 years, I know it certainly isn't inevitable. But at least in principle, that's the reasoning. One can agree or disagree with the wisdom of that reasoning, of course.
But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of nonprofits, in North Carolina and everywhere else, get no public money.
Now, to answer the larger question I think you're getting at: Why should taxpayers help pay for health insurance for poor people? Simple cost-benefit analysis. Because if they don't, they inevitably end up paying for medical care via hospital emergency room when the patient is much sicker and the fix much more expensive.
You can argue that taxpayers shouldn't do even that. Heck, philosophically, you can make a pretty good case. But the vast majority of Americans still think it's OK for their taxes to pay for emergency-room care for people who can't afford it, and political efforts to change that way of thinking haven't gotten very far that I'm aware of.
Posted by: Lex at November 01, 2006 03:19 AM (PcFi9)
8
And you do identify the problem: the majority have agreed to FORCE the minority to pay for medical care of the irresponsible. That's when Democracy and freedom ended. The part that people absolutely refuse to understand is that it is NOT compassionate in any way, shape, or form to steal from one person and give that money to another - ever.
And yes, you followed my reasoning. The nonprofits should not get a single penny of taxpayer money. Under the US Constitution, there is NO clause that allows legislators to take money from one group of people and give it to another because they're "nice" or even because they're doing a "public purpose."
We are so far from the concept in freedom in this country that it's beyond hope. I just try to point it out to the few people left who care.
Just because the majority think it's a good idea doesn't make it a right -- nor even a good idea.
And yes, you followed my reasoning. The nonprofits should not get a single penny of taxpayer money. Under the US Constitution, there is NO clause that allows legislators to take money from one group of people and give it to another because they're "nice" or even because they're doing a "public purpose."
We are so far from the concept in freedom in this country that it's beyond hope. I just try to point it out to the few people left who care.
Just because the majority think it's a good idea doesn't make it a right -- nor even a good idea.
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2006 03:28 AM (196ug)
9
OK, I think I better understand where you're coming from now.
Leaving aside for the moment the distinction between "irresponsible" and "unfortunate," let me ask you this: Do you agree or disgree that the principle of taxation "to promote the geneal welfare" (if not authorization for any specific type of tax) is authorized in the Constitution?
Leaving aside for the moment the distinction between "irresponsible" and "unfortunate," let me ask you this: Do you agree or disgree that the principle of taxation "to promote the geneal welfare" (if not authorization for any specific type of tax) is authorized in the Constitution?
Posted by: Lex at November 01, 2006 04:31 PM (PcFi9)
10
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Be very clear: the general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.
Be very clear: the general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2006 04:36 PM (oifEm)
11
OK, that's Congress and the United States. Does not similar authority reside within the N.C. Constitution for the N.C. General Assembly to do similar things on a state level?
Posted by: Lex at November 02, 2006 03:36 AM (PcFi9)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0073 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0059 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 11 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.