Sherri Vogt has responded to issues raised by commenters in Comment 5 below.
See comment by ‘Questioner’ under the article “Sherri Vogt Speaks to Us Directly.”
“…(Sherri Vogt) will not turn her back on the unfortunate of our state.”
No one who supports the idea of universal health care is saying that such a program would be a blank check providing for the needs or wants of others drawn at someone else’s expense. No one is saying that providing a program where Americans who can not afford health insurance and health care is establishing a right that violates rights of others. Most Americans believe that it is a desirable function of government to be of assistance to those in need. And when a problem becomes one of national proportions, most Americans have no difficulty with the government coming to the aid of those in desperate straits.
While the governments response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina was woefully slow and inadequate, humanitarian organizations’ efforts alone would have been sufficent to address that catastrophe. There are numerous other situations where our government has played a necessary role in addressing “suffering” of Americans and of mankind in general and the ability to do so has come substantially from being in a financial position to do so. The financial position has for the most part come from taxation. The question is not whether there should be taxation. Republicans try to convince us that they are against taxation. Such is not really the case. They are against taxation of the wealthy. There is a necessary amount of taxation if government is going to perform the function that a majority of Americans desire. The real issue is how that taxation is imposed. Democrats like Sherri Vogt are honest with the issue and also have the courage to say that the amount of necessary taxation should be fairly distributed.
Your rhetorical questions, however, might lead one to believe that you don’t believe in any governmental program that relies upon funding from the general public, through taxation of some kind. So, what would happen to Social Security (many now receiving those benefits have drawn more than they paid in) and Medicaid (a poverty program that helps the disabled, elderly in nursing homes, as well as families with/without children who live in poverty)? Could the government require our young wo/men to continue to register for a draft as they now do and to actually conduct a military draft were it necessary for our national security? There are many situations where the government must demand that citizens contribute for the good of all. You may view that as depriving you of a right, but most Americans view it as carrying your weight so that we can live in a country which does not promote an underclass. How could we have an education system worth a hoot if we did not have a system of taxation to support it. Are you saying that the inherent generosity of most Americans would provide for that need?
The libertarian undertone to your questions is contrary to the American spirit. Sherri Vogt is not a libertarian so you clearly will not be voting for her. But, she does support the role that government should play when problems arise, such as the obvious problem where many citizens of Connecticut and the nation just do not have the ability to afford health care on their own. She will not turn her back on the unfortunate of our state, even if it means losing the support of those who would let them fall through the cracks.
Please leave your comments.
What a joke to claim that libertarian undertones are contrary to the American spirit. The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves with that one. All government programs initiated with good intentions to provide a safety net have been turned into disasters thanks to politicians, particularly politicians in the liberal democratic party. Hence the fear of initiating Universal Healthcare in the guise of providing a safety net. I have worked for 25 years in healthcare and have seen rampant abuse of our resources by those who have taken no personal accountability for their own health. When will it end? How much will we tax the working middle class American to support all the wonderful plans that democrats like Sherri tout for political leverage to support their lazy benficiaries. When you speak of those who cannot afford healthcare or those unfortunates who we shouldn’t turn our back on, who exactly are you talking about? Why should the weight of the world be placed on the backs of taxpayers when there is no plan in sight to address the root causes of poverty and government dependence while at the same time we let 20 million illegal immmigrants in through our back door. Your last sentence insinuates that there are those that would “let them (the unfortunates) fall through the cracks.” Did it ever occur to you that the so called unfortunates are letting THEMSELVES fall through the cracks?? Did you ever consider the grotesque lack of personal accountability as being one of the root causes? No, instead you blame those who do not support Sherri’s agenda. Americans have been too kind and yet we are never appreciated. Its time for a little tough love before we end up in a real crisis because of short-sighted politicians like Sherri.
Insurance, widely paid for across society, is a good thing.
But is it really just “unfortunate” when you hear about the 24 year old mother of three, who has no particular skills and no husband, and her uninsured kids? At some point personal responsibility has to enter into the equation too. Some pie-in-the-sky supporters of more government programs ignore this.
Sour Grapes,
Your correct, there should be accountability, but it should be from all parties. You have no doubt seen the horrendous effect that cigarette smoking has had on those who access the health care system. Yes, they should be personally accountable for their addiction, but what about the tobacco companies who have long been subsidized by politicians. Should those companies be held accountable for the plague they have perpetrated on the American public for decades?
What about insurance companies who bilk us every step of the way while making billions in profits? Who are they accountable to? Illegal immigration would be substantially deterred if all of these republican run corporations would just bother to check out who they are hiring and refuse to give them jobs. You fail to acknowledge one clear reality. There are many hard working people, employed, playing by all of society’s rules, who can not afford health insurance. These are the people who are falling through the cracks. There are more of them than libertarians would care to notice.
The middle class should not be supporting politicians who want to kick butt on the lower class while many in the upper class, with republican passed tax loop holes and other percs selfishly turn their heads away from the problem or come up with simpleminded ideas like tough love.
Blaming problems with government programs on democrats is ignoring the truth. Its been the current Republican administration, who are supported by the trickle-down theorists like Mike Alberts, who have invaded the Social Security Trust fund to cover for their massive borrowing to fund disastrous programs like the war in Iraq. That dishonesty will continue bankrupt a governmental program that has been working well for a long time as a safety net for the working class. And which class is providing the majority of soldiers losing life and limb over there in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld’s Republican cocktail friends? I don’t think so. If we had the trillions being spent over there, to use for correction of the health care problem at home, you and your cronies wouldn’t have to worry about paying more taxes. How about the Republican arranged percs for corporations like Haliburten who are profiting on the carnage and destruction we are committing there? Will those corporations be held accountable? No chance if the Republicans continue in the majority.
Sherri Vogt is the candidate who is looking at the long term costs of continuing the current situation where people with no health insurance can not engage in preventative health care, which would save substantially versus emergency room health care which costs bundles. The current situation, that Mike Alberts would perpetuate is the short sighted approach.
UDIO,
Perfect. Your points further my belief in a libertarian philosophy. But first, I apologize. Traditionally the republican party has favored this philosophy, but of late, the republican party of George Bush is leaning away from it and worthy of your anger and mine as well. Neither party has done a thing about illegal immigration and to spend trillions of tax dollars to bring democracy to another country is an atrocity. So there we have it. On both sides of the aisle we have politicians who know better than us and want to spend our money. Whether it be the war in Iraq or universal healthcare. Don’t get me wrong. I am not supportive of no spending, but rather in smart spending. Safety nets, a defensive military, environmental protection, public education are all acceptable to me. However, my point is, as stated above, “all governent programs initiated with good intentions to provide a safety net have been turned into disasters thanks to politicians, ” When a politician’s rhetoric calls us to arms against the poor, the unfortunate, the opressed, the needy, whether here or in Iraq, they are trying to strike a cord and exploit the American people’s great generosity for the sake of votes and to move forward an agenda. Government controlled charity is a farce and, as if you couldn’t tell, my trust in politicians is on the steep decline. Preventative healthcare, preventative military action are nicer ways of convincing us to move ahead with an agenda. They are very true and very appropriate. However, when government controlled, the agenda does not stop there, it keeps moving along and moving along and before you know it we are in a quagmire. Privatization and capitalism, although flawed, are the only true ways we can seriously face issues whether it be in healthcare or in international squabbles. Socialism never works because it is truly too short sighted. Oh, just another aside that you might find interesting. 1) Which political party took social security from an independent “trust fund” and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it? It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. 2) Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for social security witholding? The Democratic Party. 3) Which political party started taxing social security annuities? The Democratic party with Al Gore casting the tie breaking vote as President of the Senate while he was VP of the US. 4) Which political party decided to start giving social security annuity payments to immigrants? Answer: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. The Democratic party gave payments to immigrants who never paid a dime into the system! Then after all this travisty, the Democrats have the audacity to tell the American people that the Republicans want to take your social security away!
I have been off line for a few weeks and no time to run out and buy a computer so I will answer just a few things from the public library computer today and hope to get some time next week to check in. A few answers to the healthcare issues. Just a few facts: The state of Connecticut already pays for the healthcare for the uninsured to the tune of $572 million. This is emergency room type care, the most expensive way to treat our citizens. If the state opened up the programs we have on a sliding scale to businesses large and small, individuals with jobs that don’t offer insurance, whomever needs it and they pay a portion of the premiums, we would be working towards a healthy work force and SAVE STATE TAX MONEY. To insure the people that need it would cost the state about $200 million. More to follow, just see the savings and the basic needs met of our hard working folks.
Second, I read a few weeks ago a bit on why the slogan, “get your voice back.” I was sending in a response when the power went out. The long and the short of it is I worked at the state capitol for 2 legislative sessions and watched our state rep. He was nice enough but not effective, he had perfect attendance yet never used the microphone button in committee meetings that formed legislation surrounding jobs in the state, tourism, or brownfield remediation. I was shocked, then got mad, and then I did something about it. I am running to get our concerns heard in Hartford. We deserve more and I will deliver.
As for the STEAP grants you have heard Rep. Alberts talk of, the entire program was the Democrat’s initiative under the Roland administration. It was a way to get $200,000,000 back into the rural areas. Our district is enjoying the grant money they should and can request up to $400,000 for projects.
Other comments on taxes, look into property tax reform….. google the topic read all you can. It will help save open space and it will tax people on their ability to pay. Both ideas make sense to me.
Sherri, if it were that simple it would have been done long time ago. I wonder what percent of that $572 million goes towards the working poor and what percent goes to the non-working poor? I am going to take a guess and make the leap to assume that those who have jobs that don’t offer insurance are quite a small percent. Furthermore, those who do work without benefits often make that choice themselves. Retirees and the disabled recieve medicare and medicaid. So who exactly is it that doesn’t work and doesn’t have insurance besides the retirees and the disabled?? It is the foolish, the lazy, the illegals, and the criminals. Go spend one day, no one hour, in the Emergency room at Bridgeport Hospital. Your rose colored glasses will splinter into a million pieces. There are plenty of free clinics and charities that fund healthcare for these unfortunates, but instead they go to the ER because they get a free ride there by an ambulance. Would you suggest that we buy a car and provide gas and insurance money for these folks as well? I have worked in the ER for many years and the abuse of resources by the indigent is flagrant and rampant and with demanding entitlement. In addition, the very last statement of Sherri’s is scarier to me than anything else she has said but is very, very telling: “…tax people on their ability to pay”. I am appalled by this statement. In other words, rob from the rich to pay for the poor. Take the money from those who work hard, went to school, and achieved and give it to those who did not. And let me warn everyone, the democrats view those who are rich as those families who make a gross combined income of $60,0000 a year. In other words, most of the families in Woodstock. Why do you think the democrats in Hartford have slashed our education funds? As it is, our taxes are funding the schools in Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven. Our children get about $100 each from the state for school and the inner city kids get about $9000. Our healthcare insurance premiums keep going up to provide free care to the those who never pay into the system. Sherry, aren’t the middle class squeezed enough? Your heart is in the right place, but you are very short-sighted. You lack the knowledge and experience to be making statements about healthcare. Maybe that is why Mike Alberts is so silent, he knows better. Wake up folks, the democratic party is not for the working middle class, they are the party of non-working indigents.
Sour Grapes, your statement: “If it were that simple it would have been done a long time ago” doesnt cut it. Look at our budgetary train wreck every year. We have the answers…………..
Sour Grapes – You said, “I am going to take a guess and make the leap to assume that those who have jobs that don’t offer insurance are quite a small percent. Furthermore, those who do work without benefits often make that choice themselves.” I am having a hard time believing you really think people would choose a job without benefits if offered one with benefits! Many employers deliberately schedule positions for just below the number of hours that would qualify employees for benefits. It is a way for companies to ‘control’ overhead costs. I agree that there is a problem with those who suck the life blood out of the system without pulling their weight, but I would caution everyone that we not lump all these people together. Its not just the working poor that are uninsured. More and more of the middle class (the lower end) is facing this very challenge.
We ask Sherry for details on her plans for “property tax reform” and she tells us:
“look into property tax reform….. google the topic read all you can.”
What kind of answer is that Sherry? You need to tell us your proposed solutions. Of course anyone can “google” the topic but the problem is everyone’s idea of “property tax reform” is different and we need to know your specific plans and ideas.
Henry, There are many working people who opt out of insurance for many reasons that do baffle me as well. Mostly the younger worker with no family looking to work for higher wages rather than benefits. Another group is small business owners. Perhaps the choice to opt out is because it is too expensive. I can give you many reasons why it is too expensive and many have to do with the comments i have already made.
Equatorial, Do we really have the answers?? Are they answers that are acceptable to the majority of voters?
addendum: the point I was hoping to focus on is not on those who opt out of insurance, but on those who opt out on work, opt out on gaining education and skills, opt out on learning the english language and then expect entitlements from tax payers to support their decisions. My argument is that the working middle class is being squeezed and their health premiums are increasing because of the burdens placed on the system by freelaoders. Sherry is the one who is lumping all those effected together without recognizing the root of the problem and her only solution is to offer universal healthcare.
SG- I think your logic is way too simplistic. The working class is getting squeezed but for many more reasons than just the existance of freeloaders in our healthcare system (if you would call it a ‘system’). I do take offense at your remark above dated Oct 23 that “the democratic party is not for the working middle class, they are the party of non-working indigents.” The first part of the phrase I believe is not close to being true and the later is even further off. Lets try not to be so absolute – we all know well-to-do Republicans and Democrats as well as middle class Democrats and Republicans. So lets focus on the candidates and what they want to offer. As a side note- I would rather empower a young energetic ‘newbie’ than continue to support someone who has had a chance to make a difference but hasn’t….no name calling, no finger pointing, just a desire to give the opportunity to someone who can hopefully make improvements in the areas I care about.
Sour Grapes: You are putting all who would benefit in the category of “slackers” not pulling their own weight – this just is not the case. This is a major, nationwide problem with almost 20% of the population having no insurance – most children. The Federal government has been unable to respond so now the states are stepping in – I applaud Sherri’s efforts.
Sherri, regarding the idea of “programs . . . on a sliding scale to businesses large and small, for individuals with jobs that don’t offer insurance”. If the state did that I think that businesses would have less incentive to provide ANY health insurance. They would say “we don’t provide health insurance; you can get it thru the state.” Just like LBJ’s “great society” welfare bureacracy, if you build it they will come. (field of dreams quote)
Regarding your statement, “tax people on their ability to pay”, reinforces my opinion that liberals think that my money belongs to government, and because I might have a little more of it than others, it’s “fair” to take it from me and give it to others. I studied, got good grades, got a good education, got a good job, lived thriftily, and saved my money. Now liberals think it’s “fair” to take it from me to give to people who ignored getting an education, spend money as soon as they get it, have multiple babies out of wedlock, and don’t save any money. They want to take my money to pay for the health care of people who have chosen to weigh 350 pounds, smoked all their lives, eat fatty meats and french fries, and pickle their liver with booze. They want my money to buy someone cholesterol medicine so they can continue to eat fatty meats and french fries with less risk.
It’s not government’s money. It’s OUR money. The inheritance tax is the biggest example of tax abuse. That is money that has been taxed already, and now gets taxed again just because it gets inherited. Government should tax to provide basic needs that benefit all and for things that individuals cannot do on their own, like defend a country, build a highway system, or provide policing.
I commend you and respect you for your courage to present your views and participate in a discussion like this.
And in case anyone wants to brand me as a tow-the-line conservative, they should know that I voted for a Democrat for first selectman and will be voting for a “real” Democrat in the senate (and that isn’t Lamont). There are good reasons for both. The best candidate isn’t always determined by which party they are in.
Thanks Numbers, Your comments were refreshing.
3rd Voice, I’m not going to back down on this one. 1) The logic is simplistic because it makes sense. All logical arguments should be simplistic. 2) Yes there are middle and upper class Democrats and Republicans. I was not referring to the members of the party in my statement, but rather whom the party panders to. And yes, the democrats pander to the non-working indigents. Do you really think that those folks dependent on government handouts vote Republican? 3) I totally agree with your last side note. Absolutely, hands down agree. The motivated, the self-accountable, the ambitious, the person who wants to do good for our society should be rewarded…but not by handouts, not by racial quotas, not by government entitlements funded by other hard workers. The reward should be much greater. The reward should be the opportunity to succeed based on merit and the pride of knowing that you reached the American dream by the fruits of your own labors, and that the American government protects (not provides) your ability to do so.
Sour Grapes/Numbers – If your assumption were right, your conclusion would be right – but its not. Those benefitting from subsidized health insurance plans are not just persons guilty of sloth, etc. As for the Libertarian arguments, be serious – do you really believe you have no obligation to support your government providing public infrastruture, security, basic services? I have read plenty of Ayn Rand too – and I am able to distinguish it from the real world.
Numbers, Thank you for a refreshing viewpoint in this overwhelmingly big spending Liberal environment that dominates this site. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Realist, You are correct, those benefiting from subsidized health insurance are not just persons guilty of sloth. Retirees, the disabled, and children are all examples. However, there are huge amounts of sloth, of fraudulents, of illegals that drain our health care system so that the cost to those who really deserve it have unnecesarily increased. Regarding my libertarian views, yes, I do believe that the government definitely has its place, particularly in the military and security/intelligence services (although we are witness to their recent failures due to politicians). I also do believe in some degree of safety nets. This is America, we can do better than China. However, the governments record of providing such services has abyssmally failed. Government has become all about politics rather than doing the right thing. Lastly, although Ayn Rands novels were fiction, her philosophy, which has its roots with Aristotle, is very much based in the real world and your failure to recognize this is short sighted. Her real world experience in the Soviet Union laid the foundations for her writing which, although extreme, drives her points quite clearly and quite rationally. 50 years after her writings, we have seen the downfall of socialism and are witnessing the dangers of religious fanaticism, both of which Rand vehemently opposed.
Numbers – If you believe in safety nets, you are not a libertarian, only a conservative. I agree we have not done as well as we can with these safety nets. So the question is, do we try to improve their structure (i.e., Clinton’s welfare reform) or do we get rid of them altogether? Its not all that philosophically different from our bankruptcy law system which is designed to encourage entrepeneurs to try, fail, and try again – not libertarian at all. Bankruptcy protection is a safety net for entrepeneurs. What’s wrong with this approach to the social safety net – try, fail, try again?
Ku Klux – Your pap is not worth responding to.
Sherri
If you get elected- how about proposing testing and licensing for individuals before society allows them to pro-create? Since the government regulates nearly all other aspects of our lives(driving, construction, law, etc.)-why are people on “crackâ€?, alcoholics, IQ’s below 50, or a rash of other “issuesâ€? that might make individuals unsuitable for parenthood- allowed to have children? Sterilization anyone? This is the “root causeâ€? issue which needs to be addressed, rather than the band-aids of counselors, etc. which are required to deal with aftermath of our ignorance.
Realist, when you said, “Numbers – If you believe in safety nets, you are not a libertarian, only a conservative,” I think you meant Sour Grapes, as s/he made the comment about safety nets and libertarian views. Also, I most certainly do believe I have an obligation to support government in providing public infrastructure, security, and basic services. I think where any disagreement might arise would be in what we view as necessary “basic services.” And, by the way I think that Clinton’s welfare reform was a good thing.
Right, I meant Sour Grapes.
Sherri,
I would still like to hear an answer as to the reasons I should be glad to be forced to pay for another’s medical bills.
And if I’m not glad to be paying for another, why should I be legally forced to do so by the(your) government?
Such Arrogance,
WE, (you and Sherri) do not have to turn your backs on anyone. You two and all the other compassionate people at the cafe can pool your money and help the persons falling through the cracks, just keep your compassionate hands out of my pockets.
And maybe sterilization of underacheiving parents is a bit too harsh. But we at least could follow Citizen loving China’s lead and do the one child thingy.
According to some other posts, when something endagers “public” safety it is AOK to infringe some rights. I could easily make a case for the burdening costs of all these new babies, not to mention the environmental impact of too many people. One child per household would sure slow down these rising medical costs, college tuitions too!
Seems like a worthwhile and fair infringing of rights to me!
Your writings are as repulsive as Mein Kampf!
Sherri,
I see that Mike Alberts has been reading at the Cafe. His WINY radio spots are now attacking you using out of context statements you’ve made here. Typical Carl Rove tactics. Say nothing. Hide out in the Bushes collecting your opponents statements. Then spew below belt attacks in the few days/hours before the election, distorting those statements, with no opportunity for rebuttal so the voters to learn the truth.
I hope the electorate sees this garbage for what it is. Mike Alberts is a say nothing lighweight. He’s using scare tactics and is now mischaracterizing your positions. He’s done ZERO for Woodstock. Time to vote him out.
By the way, I’m sure the teaching profession in this area is smart enough to see through Mike’s deception. Don’t believe the cute personal notes he’s said to have mailed to all of you about the underfunded Teachers’ Retirement. You don’t really believe he is sincere about attending to that problem. Where has he been on that issue since he entered the legislature? Silent. Oh, he may have feigned concern at the opportunistic time, but his actions speak louder than words. He’s done nothing to address the problem.
Sherri Vogt is a teacher. She knows the real danger that exists with this situation and will make sure it gets fixed. Two years from now, if Mike Alberts is reelected, you’ll be in no better position than you are now. You all should revolt against your misguided local leadership in the CEA and vote smart. Vote for Vogt.
Sherri, now that you may have some free time, I would love to hear why I should be glad to be forced to pay for another’s medical bills.
And if I’m not glad to be paying for another, why should I be legally forced to do so by the(your) government?
Such Arrogance,
WE, (you and Sherri) do not have to turn your backs on anyone. You two and all the other compassionate people at the cafe can pool your money and help the persons falling through the cracks, just keep your compassionate hands out of my pockets.
And maybe sterilization of underacheiving parents is a bit too harsh. But we at least could follow Citizen loving China’s lead and do the one child thingy.
According to some other posts, when something endagers “public� safety it is AOK to infringe some rights. I could easily make a case for the burdening costs of all these new babies, not to mention the environmental impact of too many people. One child per household would sure slow down these rising medical costs, college tuitions too!
Seems like a worthwhile and fair infringing of rights to me!
Questioner, Some hands are already reaching into your pocket. The cost of medical care and insurance is raised when uninsured people go to the only place that is required to treat them, the hospital emergency room. There they receive care that could be delivered in a doctor’s office for much less money. When these uninsured people are unable to pay their hospital costs, the hospital raises costs for you (the insured patient) and your health insurance costs continue to rise. It would be both more compassionate and more cost efficient to supply health care to everyone so they would go to a doctor’s office instead of the emergency room. And medical costs are also reduced when people are encouraged by an insurance company to seek preventative cure.