> I think we have to start somewhere that isn't controversial like extending coverage to kids. I don't think anyone is going to be against covering 8 and 9 year olds...

Not sure what gives you this idea. The major political party in power in the US today campaigned in large part on cruelty and removing subsidies and social benefits from people. There are a huge number of people who would bitterly fight against providing health care to children. It's the same mentality that bitterly fights against free school lunch for children.

I’m not cruel because I think society operates best — in terms of human outcomes — if incentives and disincentives are tied to decisions in ways that maximize the likelihood and benefit of personal responsibility.

Parents need to be responsible for their children. The state should only step in if they fail in their responsibility.

How is it folks like yourself can understand these concepts across a myriad of domains, including things like wildlife and their rehabilitation, and the importance of fostering self-sufficiency, but not this?

It’s not kindness to create people dependent on the state, or to advantage businesses that do not pay a living wage by subsidizing their employees.

Hell, look at what we’ve done to the cost of education by creating government-backed loan programs that simply allow universities to charge as much as students can afford to mortgage from their future.

The party of “think of the children” couldn’t actually give two flying ducks about children, if it inconveniences them even slightly.