30 comments

  1. Rogue109 says:

    Like it or not, we are a state filled with children who desperately need the helping hand of the stonger members of this society.

    No doubt! But how about the “helping hand” doesn’t come in the form of confiscatory tax burdens on other citizens?

  2. kevpriest says:

    It must not be a strength of mine. If I were good at it, they wouldn’t keep asking me to do it again; do it different this time; a little more over here.

  3. gatormathis says:

    I’ll have to watch myself here. It will be a fine line between being almost brag-ado-shish and making a shameless plug.

    I’m both proud and happy to say, I’ve got a neice who is “as we speak” locating her new dental practice in Commerce, Ga.

    She is a sweet one who has pushed herself relentlessly to acheive this goal. Her mother passed away due to the dasterdly melanoma cancer when the lass was entering her teenage years, and a sweet mother she was.

    Not content to stop with her Dentist Degree, she went on further to be able to do pediatric dentistry also.

    She knows and values the “preventive” care you speak of enough to figure out the mouths you start off right will be a lot better patients in their later years. Pretty sound career thinking, especially when you are planning to spend a while doing this.

    I figure it’s kinda fitting for a country girl from South Georgia. She told me the other day her office was almost in the “shadow” of the Tractor Supply Store up there.

    If you’re needing a Dentist in that area, check in on her. Dr. L. Pitts, a sweet youngun to say the least..

    She says she is getting ready to have a open house as soon as she can get settled in.

    I like them open houses. Maybe I’ll bring a sno-cone or two…….

  4. CobbGOPer says:

    Well, that’s what you get when you let an HMO run things. Thankfully I got rid of my HMO long ago in favor of better coverage. Fool me once…

  5. Romegaguy says:

    The state seems to think that there are enough dentists to cover the kids…

    “Amanda Seals, spokeswoman for the state Department of Community Health, which monitors the provider network, said the state is confident that there are enough dentists to cover the extra patients.”

  6. M.P.E. says:

    Someone explain this to me please.
    If the same children are going to need the same number of dental visits and the state/feds will pay the same amount per visit, how is money going to be saved. And this is all assuming there are enough dentist in the state willing to take on hundreds on new PeachCare Kids a piece.
    The only way the the CMOs and State will save money is to cause a huge disruption in service and hope that a good chunk of these gets drop off the rolls and stop seeing the dentist.
    Of course, this won’t save money in the long run, it will just turn basic problems fixable in 15 mins at the dental office into huge problems that need a trip to the emergancy room.

  7. drjay says:

    i am under the impression that not very many of my colleagues at all accept medicaid or peachcare payment, i think part of the problem was that there was a move to go to a capitation plan that was balked by many, also i do know from the experience i do have w/ a couple of hmo type plans thast they will limit the number
    of patients assigned to you–so it may be that was part of the reason they chose to discontinue
    some of those patients and /or providers.

    gator–leslie is a very kind and generous person from what i remember of her as she was a couple of years behind me in school–glad to see her finishing up her pedo training…

  8. David says:

    I’m getting tired as hell of having to pony up big bucks to help the dependents of irresponsible people. Stronger people? Give me a break! Why the hell are we paying for dental services for other children not our own? Same for the medical care! Hell, folks, take responsibility for your own reproductive choices and get your hands out of the pockets of people who actually plan for the necessities of life. I have a novel idea…if you can’t afford to pay for your own progeny, don’t have them and don’t come with your hands out to others to ease your own financial burdens. Enough of robbing the taxpayers!

  9. Roadkill says:

    Ya gotta be a flint-hearted conservative to think of a bunch of poor kids walking around with painful, rotten teeth and not care. You guys give loud lip service to your god but really worship MONEY. Is the word “compasion” in your vocabulary?

  10. jsm says:

    Hey, Roadkill. We care. We’re just tired of our government forceably taking money from us to pay for an inefficient program to fix these kids’ teeth. Most of them, by the way, aren’t “walking around with painful, rotten teeth.”

    People in this country used to help each other by their own choice (a.k.a. “compas[s]ion”) before welfare was instituted. Now we can’t afford to do as much out of the goodness of our hearts because our government digs so deeply in our pockets to take care of lazy people on welfare and behind desks in government offices, buy tons of equipment government doesn’t need, and, oh yeah, help those few people that really need it.

    Is “waste” in your vocabulary?

  11. rugby_fan says:

    jsm:

    Suppose the government stopped collection taxes that were used to pay for welfare.

    How much of the money you saved would you (or more broadly if you’d like, society) spend on similar programs?

  12. jsm says:

    “Suppose the government stopped collection taxes that were used to pay for welfare.

    How much of the money you saved would you (or more broadly if you

  13. David says:

    Just got in from a hard days’ WORK and I see some are beating the hell out of JSM.

    Bottom line: It isn’t our job to take care of your child’s braces, teeth cleaning or any-damn-thing else for that matter. This wonderful “social” spending we do for all of the non-productive, tapeworms in our society costs us well over one trillion dollars! That is absolutely sickening! Can you imagine what the people who earned that money could have done with it???? Maybe they would be giving a lot of it to charity, maybe not. It should be their choice and not some vote buying scheme to take what’s mine and give it to someone who has contributed nothing to the betterment of our society.

  14. rugby_fan says:

    I actually apologize for that last statement, a little too harsh, I admit I was in a foul mood when typing.

    However, I don’t know if I would consider than an acceptable answer.

    Several reasons for it (which I don’t feel like taking the time to elaborate but I guess I might if you so desired) among them: I think the “actually needed” phrase is what I don’t like.

    This is mainly because I just think there is too much wiggle room to be able to judge what is really necessary which will skew the “actually needed” amount.

    Moreover, the government’s leveraging power creates lower prices, ergo, if people say I pay too much in taxes for X, so I will contribute less (this does not have to be a solely pecuniary donation), well you might actually be giving less than what is needed, even for something that truly is needed.

  15. rugby_fan says:

    David:

    Right away you set yourself up for criticism with this “This wonderful ‘social’ spending we do for all of the non-productive, tapeworms in our society costs us well over one trillion dollars”.

    There is no proof that you could offer showing how social spending is done only for “non-productive” citizens.

    Granted yes, there are some who merely live off the system. The next step from there is creating a guideline for how a government decides who gets what from the government.

  16. David says:

    Thanks, Rugby, but I don’t mind the criticism. Our society is in a world of hurt if the government confiscates one trillion dollars of the productive citizen’s wealth to pay for entitlement programs, most of which go to people who contribute very, very little to our nation. Medicare, Medicade are horrid programs. One provides medical care to those over 65, who statistically have more wealth than any other age group, so why should they be subsidized, and the other provides free medical care for those who fall below a certain dollar level in earnings. Why should they be subsidized? I am not responsible for any other people other than my dependent family members. If I CHOOSE to give additional money to various charities, then bully for me. Actually most of my charity goes to the Humane Society or local animal shelters.
    I know I’ll get slammed and called cold and heartless, but it’s ok.

  17. drjay says:

    if we are going to have medicaid at all–which at this point i think everyone should concede as a given…then we can talk about what should be covered..i’m not overly concerned about braces but people can and do die from bad teeth and ditching dental coverage moves an entire population that is still getting the medicaid–we all concede still exists into emergency rooms for treatment which is not only not cost effective but puts an additonal burden on another branch of medicine that is struggling in many hospitals–this hmo sysytem that has been administering medicaid for dentistry has been flawed at best from the get go and the impression i get is that it is they who are “kicking people of the rolls” and doing all of the unseemly things that hmo’s tend to do when they have their way…

  18. rugby_fan says:

    No I’m not saying your cold and heartless, I’m saying your a callous bastard mate! I also am willing to wager you have a heart, made of either ice or stone.

    In all seriousness, the problem I see with your argument is that there are many working families who depend on these “entitlement programs” and others who are productive. Productive does not equal wealthy.

    And those over 65 have more wealth because they have had a lifetime to accumulate said money. But that’s it. That’s all they have, so that’s not really a fair statistic (if you were to ask me).

    I actually feel make it all or nothing. Either provide coverage to all with private medical care is a viable option (a la Australia), or don’t provide any at all. It’s this middle ground we have where we start to have problems.

  19. jkga says:

    David – I don’t think you should be supporting the Humane Society. They do nothing but coddle worthless dogs who are just a drain on society. If they got left by the side of the road, well it’s their own damn fault for not studying harder in obedience school and wasting their allowance on pig’s ears rather than investing in mutual funds. If a pet’s not cute enough to keep, it should learn to be a seeing-eye dog or to sniff for WMD’s and earn its keep.

  20. rugby_fan says:

    “You forgot the massive overhead of bureaucracy” there is plenty of that in the private sector as well.

    What I would be genuinely interested in seeing is if there were an objective study showing the difference in costs between government provided services and private companies.

    Although, if I remember correctly from Australia, the private companies were much more expensive.

  21. David says:

    Ahhhh, Jkga! The dogs don’t have the power of choice unlike we humans! Funny blurb, though! I think I’ll up my donations!

    Rugby, I guess I have a problem with those working families having children they cannot afford. As a result, said kids become a societal burden. We each have the responsibility to pay for the things we need during the course of our lives. That includes our own houses, cars, education for our children, insurance plans for our families. It’s totally our responsibility not the government. If private charities want to help those who are less fortunate, that’s fine. Those working families might seek help from other relatives or their churches before forcing their hands into their neighbor’s wallets.

  22. dorian says:

    It is a problem that we reward people for irresponsible breeding. There ought to be some sort of restrictions on repoduction if you receive public benefits. I don’t say that harshly, but at some point we are going to reach critical mass here. Just finished a book by Richard Dawkins, and although anecdotal to the subject matter, he states that welfare and unrestricted repoduction is a state that is impossible to sustain, and that in the entire history of the world it never has been. This from a world class scientist.

  23. jsm says:

    rugby, some food for though:

    1.)Excerpt: Who Really Cares
    Is Compassionate Conservatism an Oxymoron?

    “The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals

Comments are closed.