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 elseâ€™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.