Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on February 03, 2008, 02:51:20 PM
-
A now a word from the "It's-not-a-new-tax-if-it's-a-payroll-garnishment" department.
".....Also Sunday, Clinton said she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance.
The New York senator has criticized Obama for pushing a health plan that she says would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified how she would enforce 100 percent enrollment. But when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income....."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp
Regards,
Sun
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
A now a word from the "It's-not-a-new-tax-if-it's-a-payroll-garnishment" department.
".....Also Sunday, Clinton said she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance.
The New York senator has criticized Obama for pushing a health plan that she says would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified how she would enforce 100 percent enrollment. But when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income....."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp
Regards,
Sun
Well on my signature, i have the quotes of an actual speech that Hillary Clinton said.
"We are taking the rights away from the people for their own good"-Hillary Clinton
-
(http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/hilary-hitler.jpg)
-
"We are taking the rights away from the politicians for their own good"-john9001
-
Originally posted by john9001
"We are taking the rights away from the politicians for their own good"-john9001
"We are giving the rights to the American people for the country's own good" - Odee
:aok
WTF is so difficult to understand about; "For the People, By the People, and Of the People..." ?
:noid
-
Hmmmmm..............
This kinda fits in with another thread.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=225638
SEEMS it will NOT matter if you like what's happening.
YOU WILL COMPLY!?
-
They have to get the money from somewhere.. they have already spent every penny and then some that they have extorted from us.
Every day a democrat comes up with a new idea for a tax or a fee (same thing).
In the end.. the only reliable way of taking our money is to make our employers take it away from us before we get it.
Look at your lives people... every day it seems a new fee or tax is put on you.. most are hidden but they grow till one day you say "what is this $1 a month internet for negros fee on my cell phone?"
lazs
-
The present taxes are plenty, they just need to be managed better.
Sounds like yet more government bloat.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.... "what is this $1 a month internet for negros fee on my cell phone?"....
lazs
Damn! You reeeaaaly should be doing stand up or writing jokes somewhere, I'm just mad I didn't think of that 1st.
-
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
-
Government by "men" rather than "law" is no fun when your "men" are not in control.
shamus
-
Of course, you all get on the Dems for hair-brained money-raising schemes. But I don't see a lot of people wondering how the Republicans expect to pay for EXISTING programs by reducing the cash-flow INTO the government, much less starting up new ones.
There's two sides to this issue.
Do I AGREE with Hillary's stance? HELL NO. But spending money without first SECURING it is only going to make things worse.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Of course, you all get on the Dems for hair-brained money-raising schemes. But I don't see a lot of people wondering how the Republicans expect to pay for EXISTING programs by reducing the cash-flow INTO the government, much less starting up new ones.
There's two sides to this issue.
Do I AGREE with Hillary's stance? HELL NO. But spending money without first SECURING it is only going to make things worse.
Time and Time again, after cutting taxes, tax revenues have went UP.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Time and Time again, after cutting taxes, tax revenues have went UP.
That has to be the singular dumbest thing posted I've ever seen.
Please cite one instance where the above has happened.
Take Florida's new cut on property tax that just was just passed. Suddenly municipalities are laying off fireman and police, and cutting education.... sounds like revenue must have gone up!
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
That has to be the singular dumbest thing posted I've ever seen.
Please cite one instance where the above has happened.
Take Florida's new cut on property tax that just was just passed. Suddenly municipalities are laying off fireman and police, and cutting education.... sounds like revenue must have gone up!
Cite one where it isn't the case. And show me a case where raising taxes resulted in an increase of revenue that was sustained.
The Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts resulted in increased revenue, and economic prosperity that lasted.
People are only going to stand for being fleeced for so long. Keep raising taxes and see what happens next.
I hate to have to tell you this, but the solution to all the problems that exist is NOT to keep taking more and more money from people and companies that EARN it, and spend it on whatever the whim of some government moron is this week. People are getting sick of it. They'll get even sicker when politicians tax all of their jobs out of existence, and then keep trying to raise taxes.
-
I'm sorry, could someone remind me how much money we had when Bush came into office and how much we have now? While you're at it please explain how it's the Democrats fault we're broke?
I have'nt read any good fiction in a while. This could be interesting.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
(http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/hilary-hitler.jpg)
That's gotta be the most accurate description I've seen of it.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm sorry, could someone remind me how much money we had when Bush came into office and how much we have now? While you're at it please explain how it's the Democrats fault we're broke?
I have'nt read any good fiction in a while. This could be interesting.
i don't know about "we", but i have more money now. :D
-
Originally posted by Denholm
I've seen of it.
IT Has got to be the second best then :D
-
moray.. do you think we can tax our way into prosperity?
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm sorry, could someone remind me how much money we had when Bush came into office and how much we have now? While you're at it please explain how it's the Democrats fault we're broke?
I have'nt read any good fiction in a while. This could be interesting.
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;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
The last time the budget was balanced was when Lott and Gingrich were the leadership of the Senate and House.
The last time the Demos balanced the budget was during JFK's tenure.
-
JFK would be considered a radical neocon by todays standard. after his death the democrats moved left of stalin.
lazs
-
Originally posted by RATTFINK
IT Has got to be the second best then :D
I was wondering how long it would be before someone saw my consideration of her being "human".
-
I'm more than willing to pay and can't wait for my health care benefits... Hillary in '08.
-
See Rule #7 (last warning)
-
Both Democrats and Republicans are spending too much.
Democrats wants to finance spending with more taxes, Republicans with more debt.
Which one is worse?
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm more than willing to pay and can't wait for my health care benefits... Hillary in '08.
MT doesn't know how to buy health insurance, he wants the govt to do it for him.
-
And I quote the signature of one of our BB members, "The nine most dreaded words, 'I'm with the government, and I'm here to help!'"
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
That has to be the singular dumbest thing posted I've ever seen.
Please cite one instance where the above has happened.
Take Florida's new cut on property tax that just was just passed. Suddenly municipalities are laying off fireman and police, and cutting education.... sounds like revenue must have gone up!
Handing out the extortion money to those unions over multi years had nada to to with it ehhh?
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Suddenly municipalities are laying off fireman and police, and cutting education....
why is it when a govt runs out of our money it's always fireman, police and education that get cut? Everyone else that works for govt must be more important.
-
Could always get the Chinese to pay for universal health care. They've been very accommodating over the last 8 years.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Look at your lives people... every day it seems a new fee or tax is put on you.. most are hidden but they grow till one day you say "what is this $1 a month internet for negros fee on my cell phone?"
lazs
Seriously... you have some issues.
-
I'm sorry to say, but taxes are a necessary evil. How are we going to be able to conduct a war and decrease taxes at the same time? Why wouldn't you want to increase taxes to atleast provide better equipment for the troops? Quit using political bias to justify your stances.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
I'm sorry to say, but taxes are a necessary evil. How are we going to be able to conduct a war and decrease taxes at the same time? Why wouldn't you want to increase taxes to atleast provide better equipment for the troops? Quit using political bias to justify your stances.
Increasing taxes WILL NOT provide better equipment for the troops. Increasing taxes will not increase revenue. Look at the states with the highest taxes. They can't keep companies in their states to generate employment. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot tax your way to better roads, better schools, or anything else. The only thing you can tax your way into is bankruptcy. Political bias has nothing at all to do with it. Basic common sense and a fundamental grasp of economics has everything to do with it. Read Thomas Sowell instead of Karl Marx and Nikolai Lenin and you'll begin to understand that you cannot continue to take more and more from those who produce and expect them to continue to produce.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Increasing taxes WILL NOT provide better equipment for the troops. Increasing taxes will not increase revenue. Look at the states with the highest taxes. They can't keep companies in their states to generate employment. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot tax your way to better roads, better schools, or anything else. The only thing you can tax your way into is bankruptcy..
Yup R.I. is an excellent example of this. don't believe it, just look it up.
-
isn't this the same way Mitt Romney wants to pay for health care?, or is his way a little more pro business? He just want to start out by fining people that dont have it..
Democrats take the money for services
Republicans force people to pay big businesses for those services...
Difference, The big businesses get rich.
-
You forget that Romney is not a liberal democrat, therefore his idea is better :) ...oh wait they are the same idea, my bad.
shamus
-
No, Romney (and McCain) is a liberal Republican. The REAL Republicans, the CONSERVATIVE Republicans, (Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson) are both out of the race. Once again leaving us the choice between the lesser of two evils, both in the primaries and the general election. As usual, we're screwed.
-
There is an invisible line where increasing taxes anywhere past is counter-productive--it destroys incentive, or just forces people to hide their money from taxation, thus hiding it from our economy. Leftists don't acknowledge such a line exists, at least not in public
(http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg)
(note McCain was against afore-mentioned 2003 tax cuts)
link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-02-20-debate-oppose_x.htm)
In 2000 and 2001, the end of the dot-com bubble, the 9/11 attacks and a series of corporate scandals sent the economy into a tailspin. During the downturn, high taxes limited economic growth and kept receipts down. Although Americans were making some of the largest per-household tax payments in our nation's history, revenues plummeted in 2002 and 2003. When the major tax-relief measures kicked in, they restored the economy to health and helped deliver quarter after quarter of strong growth.
Republicans' decision to reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends provides a good case study in effective tax policy. When we enacted these measures in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that revenues would decline by $27 billion over the next two years. Instead, it turned out that the tax cut stimulated investment and increased revenues by $26 billion — a $53 billion difference.
link (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3059) In 1980, President Carter and his supporters in the Congress and news media asked, "how can we afford" presidential candidate Ronald Reagan's proposed tax cuts?
Mr. Reagan's critics claimed the tax cuts would lead to more inflation and higher interest rates, while Mr. Reagan said tax cuts would lead to more economic growth and higher living standards. What happened? Inflation fell from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 3.9 percent in 1984, interest rates fell, and economic growth went from minus 0.2 percent in 1980 to plus 7.3 percent in 1984, and Mr. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide.
Despite the fact that federal revenues have varied little (as a percentage of GDP) over the last 40 years, there has been an enormous variation in top tax rates. When Ronald Reagan took office, the top individual tax rate was 70 percent and by 1986 it was down to only 28 percent. All Americans received at least a 30 percent tax rate cut; yet federal tax revenues as a percent of GDP were almost unchanged during the Reagan presidency (from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18.1 percent in 1988).
What did change, however, was the rate of economic growth, which was more than 50 percent higher for the seven years after the Reagan tax cuts compared with the previous seven years. This increase in economic growth, plus some reductions in tax credits and deductions, almost entirely offset the effect of the rate reductions. Rapid economic growth, unlike government spending programs, proved to be the most effective way to reduce unemployment and poverty, and create opportunity for the disadvantaged.
-
"Where am I?"
"In the Village."
"What do you want?"
"Information."
"Whose side are you on?"
"That would be telling…. We want information. Information! INFORMATION!"
"You won't get it."
"By hook or by crook, we will."
"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is Number One?"
"You are Number Six."
"I am not a number — I am a free man!"
-
Originally posted by Trell
isn't this the same way Mitt Romney wants to pay for health care?, or is his way a little more pro business? He just want to start out by fining people that dont have it..
Democrats take the money for services
Republicans force people to pay big businesses for those services...
Difference, The big businesses get rich.
Itgs a little deeper then that difference.
Lets look at Hillarys plan for example.
Now lets call it what it really is.
Its another form of social security tax.
really I shouldnt even need to say anymore then that.
Would have worked great if both parties left it alone to do and be there for what it was intended for.
Problem is. they dont.
What happened with social security? Soon as it showed a surplus. the government started borrowing from it.
Problem is. They never bother to pay it bac.
End result, a Social security shortfall. Now there isnt enough money in it to provide for those that put it there.
True Big businesses get rich. thats what businesses large or small are in business for.
Im not in business to loose money or break even.
equally true is with most government social programs. the money gets mismanaged.
And instead of big business getting rich. Its the local polititions and their cronies who get rich instead.
Just look at the New Orleans levi situation.
Millions put in to fix the levis. Most of it went not to fix the levies but into the local polititions pockets.
Either way. we loose
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
Well on my signature, i have the quotes of an actual speech that Hillary Clinton said.
"We are taking the rights away from the people for their own good"-Hillary Clinton
Wouldnt happen to have the speach she said that in handy or the source would ya?
I'd like to use it. but it makes it a little bit more legitimate if it can be showed in its entirety
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm sorry, could someone remind me how much money we had when Bush came into office and how much we have now? While you're at it please explain how it's the Democrats fault we're broke?
I have'nt read any good fiction in a while. This could be interesting.
No but I could remind you that we were already in a recession that started while the Democrats were still in office.
And that the surplus was only a projected surplus.
Im not broke. im not rolling in dough. but Im not broke either.
actually Im duing better now then I did during the Clinton reign.
But not nearly as well as I did during the Regan reign.
ahhh those were the days.
I was able to walk into almost any store. Point at an item and say "mine" and pay cash money for it.
I used to actually pay to have my laundry done. Im not talking having suits dry cleaned. I dont and wont wear a suit.
Im talking everyday jeans T-shirts and underware.
Used to get them washed and folded for $25 a week.
Yup was great while it lasted.
but then the thing happened to the economy that always happens reguardless of the political party in power after a great rise in the economy.
It deflated.
Late 80s Started a stint lasting 10 years in a "job" I loathed
Durng the runaway economy of the mid to late 90s I did ok
but nowhere near what it was for me in the 80's. But Managed to take advantage of the poor economy in the early 90s to buy our house
Late 90s went back into my own business
a good first 1/2 year in business
But things started to go downhill during Clintons last year and a half. and you could almost feel disaster was on the horizon even though the markets didnt show it yet.
Managed to stay afloat in it. and aside from a couple of rough winters during the 2000's I've done pretty good
-
This is the closest that I've found:
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
-
hillary is a liar and a thief who wants to impose socialist medicine on every American and garnish the wages of any American who attempts to opt out of her mandatory welfare state. She is dangerous and needs to be defeated no matter what.
osama is dangerous too, but he is like a snake out in the open. easy to spot. hillary is the cunning one. watch out for her.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Yup R.I. is an excellent example of this. don't believe it, just look it up.
Look up NJ for example for that matter.
Dispite being the highest taxed state in the US
the State is $3 Billion Dollars in debt.
Oh and I forgot to mention we have legalised gambling in NJ
Which makes us the only state in the nation that has legalised gambling running a deficit.
And it aint looking to get better.
The Democrates of course will blame the Whitman administration.
and to a certain point they would be right.
But.
the Democrates have now had control of the state pretty much lock Stock & barrel for 6 years now
Taxes have gone up. But the debt hasnt gone down
-
BTW
According to a graph someone posted in one of the other threads.
Health care related costs already make up 24% of the US annual budget.
That is the single largest portion of the budget.
And Hillary wants to make it even larger?
Dispite a Democratically controlled congress.( they cant properly manage the money they have now. and they want to add to it?
Now before anyone screams "Republican budget under Boosh"
Last time I checked. congress still had to approve the budget
So he aint doing it all by himself
-
There was a strange passage in this series of vids about the legislated need to pay taxes... part two of five.
Is this really true or some strange fabrication?:huh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ
-C+
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Defense is what it is.. the reality is that we need it. it is number one.. it protects our human rights. having other people pay for your health care and forcing doctors to do it... is not a "right".
If we want lower taxes we need to cut social spending not raise it.. defense will go up and down depending on the world but at least.. there is some profit in it.. we are after all.. the wolds biggest arms dealer... people make things for defense.. social welfare creates do nothing jobs and more missery... social welfare creates poverty and dependence and semi billingual idiots. It creates drug addicts and broken homes.
You know what, health and medical industry is worth $3 trillion annually, worldwide. That's roughly 3 times more than $s spend for defense. In most cases, it is also more profitable.
Domestically, ratio is only 2 to 1. Even if you don't adjust that with the rest of the world, you could just cap the profit to certain percentage (much like for defense industry deals with DoD). That in itself would lower the costs of medicaid and medicare programs for about $150 billion annually.
If you would break the pharma cartel and open up the market, which is (domestic figure) worth $200 billion annually (not including drugs sold in hospitals etc), you'd save another $50-60 billion per year.
It would be very easy to balance the budget if we stop corporate welfare programs and invest in people instead.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
Why "universal health-care" is a lie, and stupid idea to begin with.
One week ago, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "universal" health-care plan was shot down by a committee in the state's Senate, 7-1. The most vociferous opponents were not fiscal conservatives, but labor unions that launched a last-minute revolt against its most crucial feature: an individual mandate that would have forced everyone to buy coverage.
This defeat has national political implications. Hillary Clinton, for example, has denounced Barack Obama for refusing to include an individual mandate in his health-care plan. Yet many California unions argued that a mandate would force uninsured, middle-income working families to divert money from more pressing needs toward coverage whose price and quality they cannot control.
The unions are correct: This is exactly what is happening in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney enacted a similar plan two years ago as governor. (And Mr. Romney's plan is the inspiration for both the Schwarzenegger and Clinton plans.) The experience in the Bay State deserves a lot more scrutiny than it has been getting.
Massachusetts uses a sliding income scale to subsidize coverage for everyone up to 300 percent of the poverty level—or a family of four making around $60,000. Everyone over that limit is required to pay for their own coverage if their employers don't provide it. All this has inflated demand, which, combined with onerous regulations on insurance suppliers, has triggered premium increases of 12 percent for this year—double last year's national average.
No one is escaping the financial sting. The state health-care bill for fiscal 2008-2009 is expected to be $400 million more than originally projected—an 85 percent increase. Still the state won't be able to full shield those it subsidizes from the premium increases. But uninsured folks who don't qualify for government help really get pounded. Before the hike, the cheapest plan for uninsured couples in their 50s cost $8,200 annually. Now, unless government bureaucrats hand them an exemption, they might well find it cheaper to pay the penalty—up to half the price of a standard policy—than purchase insurance. That is, pay to remain uninsured. This is legalized extortion: TonySopranoCare.
The government response to rising premiums is, unsurprisingly, price controls. The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority—the bureaucracy created to oversee RomneyCare—is considering prohibiting underwriters from raising premiums more than 5 percent for unsubsidized plans, meanwhile requiring them to cover 40-odd benefits from hair prostheses to chiropractic services. If companies can't scale back coverage, they'll have to compromise care; and the Connector is perfectly willing to assist.
As reported in the Boston Globe, the Connector is encouraging insurance companies to include only a limited network of cheaper physicians and facilities in some plans to hold down premiums. Patients who wish to see more expensive providers will have to dig into their own pockets. Dr. Steffie Wollhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, worries that the Connector will revive Gov.
Romney's original idea of enrolling poor people in plans that only offer access to neighborhood health centers ill-equipped to treat anything beyond routine ailments. Forcing people to buy substandard care they cannot afford is not universal care, she says. "It is a hoax." And so Massachusetts is marching toward a system of two-tiered medicine—the alleged market inequity that universal care is supposed to cure.
How about enforcing the mandate? In Massachusetts, non-compliers lose their personal tax exemption—about $220—the first year, followed by fines in subsequent years.California was planning to garnish the wages or impose liens on the mortgages of the uninsured to pay for coverage. "This bill was like telling someone who is in need of help, 'I'm going to give you food, but I'm going to take away your clothes," Leland Yee, a Democratic senator from San Francisco, told the California Chronicle.
The problems with RomneyCare have prompted Mr. Romney himself to abandon it. And Mr. Obama is surely correct that part of the reason 45 million Americans are uninsured is not that no one is forcing them to buy it, but that they can't afford it. It may be too much to hope that Mr. Obama would embrace market-oriented measures—such as deregulating insurance markets, giving patients more control over their health care dollars, and fixing the federal tax code to let individuals, like employers, buy health coverage with pre-tax dollars—to bring down insurance costs. But unlike Mrs. Clinton, he at least seems to understand the perverse side effects of an individual mandate.
Should Hillary Clinton ever be in a position to bully people into buying coverage, a coalition of labor and fiscal conservatives might well do to HillaryCare what it just did to GovernatorCare.
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by indy007
Why "universal health-care" is a lie, and stupid idea to begin with.
Great article indy. Unfortunately the folks that want more stuff for free can't see the forest for the trees. Preachin to the choir...
Because, "Well....healthcare is important."
Just not as important as a new plasma. or a 1000 channel sat dish. Or a 10 meg internet connection. Or a new car every-other year (plus one for the wife). Or a 2500 sq foot house for three people. Or a second home on the lake. Or a boat parked in front of that second home. Or a cell phone for your ten year old...
But just because healthcare isn't as important as all those other things, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't demand that the gubment provide it for me.
-
See Rules #2, #4, #5
-
Originally posted by sluggish
See Rule #4
I was so serious about taking away Laz's right to vote :rolleyes:
Back on topic. Affordable health care is a great idea. I'm still not sold on how a universal health care plan would work in this country. I think if someone gets sick they shouldn't have to hesitate about seeking treatment because of cost. I can guarantee everyone knows someone who has had medical hardships, and is up to their neck in medical bills. How is it a bad idea for them to get needed treatment at an affordable cost?
The major question is how do we get health care at an affordable cost? Raise taxes or keep taxes the same? I personally would not have a problem paying a higher tax rate in order to help someone get the care they needed at a lower cost. What's wrong with that? Whatever happened to helping one another?
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
anytime you FORCE americans to take something they don want you are in for a world of hurt. We love choice. Hillary would garnish wages from people who refused to participate in her government mandated healthcare system. That is anti-american and she will be defeated. Go to canada or europe if you like that garbage but dont force it on the rest of us.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
anytime you FORCE americans to take something they don want you are in for a world of hurt. We love choice. Hillary would garnish wages from people who refused to participate in her government mandated healthcare system. That is anti-american and she will be defeated. Go to canada or europe if you like that garbage but dont force it on the rest of us.
Force it on the rest of us? If Hilary becomes president and her plan goes through, then it's our fault. She was voted in by the people, as well as our senators and congressmen. If she wins and the plan goes through, you can only blame the American people.
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
I was so serious about taking away Laz's right to vote :rolleyes:
Back on topic. Affordable health care is a great idea. I'm still not sold on how a universal health care plan would work in this country. I think if someone gets sick they shouldn't have to hesitate about seeking treatment because of cost. I can guarantee everyone knows someone who has had medical hardships, and is up to their neck in medical bills. How is it a bad idea for them to get needed treatment at an affordable cost?
The major question is how do we get health care at an affordable cost? Raise taxes or keep taxes the same? I personally would not have a problem paying a higher tax rate in order to help someone get the care they needed at a lower cost. What's wrong with that? Whatever happened to helping one another?
That's great and I admire your community spirit. You should volunteer at the local clinic. However, forced enrollment into a government mandated (not individual) healthcare pyramid scheme reeks of socialism bordering on communism.
-
resistance is futile!
you will be assimilated!
Well they can try too assimilate my cold dead heart:cry
-
"We need to go after people's wages" - Clinton.
-
We Have the "Best Health Care in the World"!!
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation
-
MT,
Do you think putting clinton (or any other gubment beaurocrat for that matter) in charge of it, forcing 100 percent compliance will fix that problem? Perhaps the problem is that gubment is already too involved.
-
The problem is they are not involved enough.
Forgot the link last post...
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
-
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
A tragic consequence of people who haven't the wherewithal to be parents making babies.
Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
Americans are fat and unhealthy and fat, a side effect of living in a society that values personal choice and liberty and the most prolific agriculture man has ever realized. See fact five.
Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
Again, lifestyle choice. See fact five.
Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind BotswanaTwo parts. 1. Some countries for many factors merrit the administration of more types of vaccines than we in the realively immunologicaly safe temperate zone of north america need. One example of many; in some developed countries there are strains of bacteria that are deemed STDs. In the US these bacteria are rightly catagorized as natural human borne fuana. 2. It's legal to refuse vaccinations, we can not force people to recieve vaccines. We're free to make stupid decisions. So again, personal choice, liberty.
Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
Yep, were're as fat and lazy as we want to be. A good argument against socialized medicine.
Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation
Huh. So why do you suppose we have such health problems? I mean it's basically free, especially for mothers and babies. Even if it wasn't, doctors aren't exactly strapped for cash, I've known a lot of ahole doctors but even the vast majority of them wouldn't refuse to treat somebody because of lack of money. Our hospitals are half full of people who can't pay, yet the doctors are still driving farraris, collecting race horses and ex-wifes. Heck we import people from poor countries to treat them here, and I'm not talking about illegals.
It's true. We are the most unhealthy population of any developed country in the world, by choice.
So what's your solution?
-
Originally posted by sluggish
MT,
Do you think putting clinton (or any other gubment beaurocrat for that matter) in charge of it, forcing 100 percent compliance will fix that problem? Perhaps the problem is that gubment is already too involved.
How about this? You earmark your tax dollars to go where you want it to go. It would be nice wouldn't it? Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. You have to take the good with the bad. Further, you could quit paying taxes altogether. Unfortunately we both know what would happen if you did that.
-
the biggest problem with american health and life expectency has been our over-indulgence in artery clogging diets. Our wealth and hunger for FAT and SUGAR and a propensity for sitting on our ever increasing buttucks is whats killing us, not our health care. Thats what works overtime to keep us rolling.
I dont buy any of those stats mt, pure rubbish. The doctors I associate with are the best in the world as far as I am concerned, and thats the only thing that counts for me.
-
2bighorn... I have to say... your post was the biggest bunch of soundbites and gibberish I have seen in a while.. only the young "twenty fo" comes close... what the hell is "twenty fo" anyway? is that like some less than half a 50 cent?
"Stop investing in corporate welfare" what the hell is that? aren't like 60% or more of Americans part of the corporate welfare system... owning stock and all... we get something out of healthy companies...
"Invest in people" what does that mean? does that mean you are gonna send me some money? I could use it and.. I will make it grow and make America grow... somehow.. I don't think you mean "invest in people" so much as you mean... give money to those who have no money skills and who will simply become more dependent on handouts. That is what the LBJ great society socialism has given us... more broken homes more out of wedlock babies and more poverty and more people who are here illegally.
As for the health care thing.. It can be solved... everyone can have affordable health care... maybe less than they spend on beer and ciggs.. certainly less than they spend on recreational drugs and internet and cable tv..
All we have to do is limit care and procedures to only allow things that were available in 1960. Where does it say you have a right to a bypass or even kemo or a liver or heart transplant.. where does it say you need to have all the blood workups and mri's?
Nope.. for cheap you can get a general practicioner that can set a leg and prod and poke you and take a good guess at what is wrong and what you need... If the pharmacies made the stuff in 1960.. you can buy it and use it.. the patents have long run out and you should be able to get a generic version for pennies.
lazs
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
How about this? You earmark your tax dollars to go where you want it to go. It would be nice wouldn't it? Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. You have to take the good with the bad. Further, you could quit paying taxes altogether. Unfortunately we both know what would happen if you did that.
Yea just like Soc Sec. :rolleyes: You give those tards $ it goes intO the general fund... then poof its gone.
Give them NOTHING.
-
the excess SS money is invested in govt bonds, redeemable upon maturity.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
2bighorn... I have to say... your post was the biggest bunch of soundbites and gibberish I have seen in a while..
Facts, Lazs, facts. Beats the hell out of your rhetorics any day.
The whole point is that health services are too expensive. Make them cheaper and we won't have to discuss universal health care, because everyone will be able to afford health insurance.
Originally posted by lazs2
"Stop investing in corporate welfare" what the hell is that? aren't like 60% or more of Americans part of the corporate welfare system... owning stock and all... we get something out of healthy companies...
It means stop accommodating big corporations in a way which eliminates competition and free market.
Originally posted by lazs2
"Invest in people" what does that mean? does that mean you are gonna send me some money? I could use it and.. I will make it grow and make America grow... somehow.. I don't think you mean "invest in people" so much as you mean... give money to those who have no money skills and who will simply become more dependent on handouts. That is what the LBJ great society socialism has given us... more broken homes more out of wedlock babies and more poverty and more people who are here illegally.
Who's talking about handouts? Investing in people... Creating economy where cheap imports don't drive standard of living into basement. That is, that those who work can afford some kind of health insurance, even if they just clean restrooms or picking fruits. Stuff like that...
-
Cut our coporate tax rate so corporations wont have to be bribed with corporate welfare to stay in the U.S. Get the ABA and other lawyers lobby groups out of governments pockets so frivolous medical law suites can be brought under control. The line between real tragidy and the SUPER FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITE LOTTERY has blurred health care into a money vampire feeding off those it's supposed to serve.
The high cost of health care is proportional to the number of lawyers in the U.S. needing to make a living. What are we up to in 2008, 25-75 lawyers per 3500-100,000 citizens? COPS are only 1 to 3500 citizens. We are paying for the incestuous money making love affair between lawyers organisations lobbies, insurance companies lobbies and politicians.
If you throw more money at these issues, where does it come from, and where does it dissapere to? Kind of like public shools. The more money we throw at them, the stoopider the kids get, and the more money the bueroucrats who run them still need us to give them.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We Have the "Best Health Care in the World"!!
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
Ok so whats your point?
I dont remember us having a national health care system in any of the years between 1945 and 1990.
Wait!!!!
I know what your saying!!
Your saying the Clintons sabotaged our health care system when Billy boy was in orifice !!!
Ok Gotcha!
:p
-
Originally posted by john9001
the excess SS money is invested in govt bonds, redeemable upon maturity.
Backed by the full faith and credit of the government of the USA. Same government that's how many trillion in debt?
-
Those of you who think the government placing price controls on medical care will work are either too young, or too stupid, or were too stoned to understand or remember how well price controls worked for gasoline under Carter.
-
Maybe I just don't know enough about the different health care plans that the parties have in mind...but a few questions come to mind when I think of National Healthcare..
1. Why is/should the government be responsible to make sure everyone can see a doctor. Isn't the free market system basically a "survival of the fittest" type thing anyway..so any kind of universal system goes against part of what were are founded on.
2. Why should anyone have to give up more money from their checks that are already grossly overtaxed to pay for someone else's doctor visits or surgeries?
-
How many countries in this world have, in effect, 'nationalized' health care, and are ANY of those NOT gobbling up the GDP of their respective countries at an alarming rate?
-
Originally posted by bustr
Cut our coporate tax rate so corporations wont have to be bribed with corporate welfare to stay in the U.S. Get the ABA and other lawyers lobby groups out of governments pockets so frivolous medical law suites can be brought under control. The line between real tragidy and the SUPER FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITE LOTTERY has blurred health care into a money vampire feeding off those it's supposed to serve.
The high cost of health care is proportional to the number of lawyers in the U.S. needing to make a living. What are we up to in 2008, 25-75 lawyers per 3500-100,000 citizens? COPS are only 1 to 3500 citizens. We are paying for the incestuous money making love affair between lawyers organisations lobbies, insurance companies lobbies and politicians.
If you throw more money at these issues, where does it come from, and where does it dissapere to? Kind of like public shools. The more money we throw at them, the stoopider the kids get, and the more money the bueroucrats who run them still need us to give them.
which made $400 hair edwards running on the platform that he'd fix what in the past made him millions was great SNL material...
-
How many countries in this world have, in effect, 'nationalized' health care,
Most first world countries have some form of "nationalised" health system.
and are ANY of those NOT gobbling up the GDP of their respective countries at an alarming rate?
Most of them have growing budgets. The OECD (30 countries in Europe, North America, Japan, New Zealand and Australia) found that health spending rose from an average of 7% of GDP in 1990 to 8.4% of GDP in 2004. The US saw the largest rises, though, up from 12% in 1990 to 15.3% in 2004.
The US spends almost twice as much as a proportion of GDP as the OECD average, and far higher than any other member state. Switzerland is second, on 11.6%, Germany third with 10.9%.
One of the features of the US system is that you have nationalised care, just like other countries. In fact, it's one of the most expensive nationalised systems, only 2 OECD countries spend a higher proportion of GDP on their nationalised health systems than the US does. What's unique about the US is that, despite costing so much, the nationalised health system is only open to a small percentage of the population. Most people in the US have to not only pay for nationalised care through their taxes, they pay again for private care they can use.
-
2bighorn said...
" Facts, Lazs, facts. Beats the hell out of your rhetorics any day.
The whole point is that health services are too expensive. Make them cheaper and we won't have to discuss universal health care, because everyone will be able to afford health insurance."
What does that mean? does it mean you are going to not allow law suits? does it mean you are going to limit money available to pharamcudicals to invest in research? put a price cap on procedures and cut the number of advanced medical procedures and or quadrupal the waiting period for em? Health insurance is affordable now... you can get insurance with a high deductable for as little as $80 a month.. By "affordable" do you mean not have to give up cable tv? What would you change?
You said.
"It means stop accommodating big corporations in a way which eliminates competition and free market."
meaningless without some examples. If that means giving walmart a tax break or break to build and save everyone in the town $2,000 a year (average savings at walmart per family over mom and pop) then you are wrong. walmart for instance also increases the tax revenue of a city.
You said, on "investing in people".
"Who's talking about handouts? Investing in people... Creating economy where cheap imports don't drive standard of living into basement. That is, that those who work can afford some kind of health insurance, even if they just clean restrooms or picking fruits. Stuff like that..."
more soundbites and gibberish. cheap imports allow poor and lower middle class to survive and have a few luxuries. Everyone can afford health insurance now.. even more so if the socialists didn't force us to take care of 12 million or so illegals and as many no income people.. take care of "families" that consist of nothing more than some nameless sperm donnor.. a 17 year old mom and 3 half wit born addicted kids.
we could get specific if you didn't use soundbites. You sound like osamabama.. free everything for everyone... the "government" and the "rich" pay for it.. the devil is in the detail.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
does it mean you are going to not allow law suits?
Law suits are fine. Frivolous law suits aren't and they should be limited by what ever means.
Originally posted by lazs2
does it mean you are going to limit money available to pharamcudicals to invest in research?
LOL, The biggest expense item is not R&D but advertisement.
Beside that, most of R&D is still done by universities, national institutes of health and small independent biotech labs, all taxpayer financed.
Instead of being in public domain, thanks to Bayh-Dole Act, big pharma can buy exclusive rights on those patents. What's even more sad is that in last 20 years most of the new drugs are just 'me too' drugs.
Originally posted by lazs2
put a price cap on procedures and cut the number of advanced medical procedures and or quadrupal the waiting period for em?
Nope
Originally posted by lazs2
Health insurance is affordable now... you can get insurance with a high deductable for as little as $80 a month.. By "affordable" do you mean not have to give up cable tv? What would you change?
WTF? $80? Get real.
I pay almost $1000 per month for something I call 'acceptable' coverage,
and that's just slightly above the range of average premiums.
I wouldn't call that 'affordable'.
Originally posted by lazs2
meaningless without some examples.
"Big Ten" pharmaceuticals are very good example, with exclusive rights granted by USPTO and FDA, illegality of importing drugs by all but those same pharmaceuticals and taxpayer founded research...
Originally posted by lazs2
If that means giving walmart a tax break or break to build and save everyone in the town $2,000 a year (average savings at walmart per family over mom and pop) then you are wrong. walmart for instance also increases the tax revenue of a city.
Don't start with Walmart, unless you wanna deal with reality and facts at the rate you'll hardly comprehend.
Originally posted by lazs2
more soundbites and gibberish. cheap imports allow poor and lower middle class to survive and have a few luxuries.
Luxuries? IN what a *ucked world are you living? Cheap Chinese imports are hardly a luxury by any definition.
Originally posted by lazs2
Everyone can afford health insurance now
Sure.
Originally posted by lazs2
and as many no income people..
Like children and elderly and disabled... Let just gas them. Problem solved
Originally posted by lazs2
take care of "families" that consist of nothing more than some nameless sperm donnor.. a 17 year old mom and 3 half wit born addicted kids.
Well, I'm sorry your family turned out that way, but please, don't generalize.
Originally posted by lazs2
we could get specific if you didn't use soundbites. You sound like osamabama.. free everything for everyone... the "government" and the "rich" pay for it.. the devil is in the detail.
You obviously have trouble with facts. Where did I mention free? I've said fair and affordable. Big difference.
-
I think any lawsuit over occurances that could have been prevented by exercising plain common sense should be automatically thrown out. If you order a cup of HOT coffee from a fast food joint and burn yourself when drinking it that's your OWN damn fault. :furious
-
the evil wal mart is selling drugs at a discount, what are they trying to do ,ruin our economy?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
A tragic consequence of people who haven't the wherewithal to be parents making babies.
Another Fact:
The War on Poverty took a crisis-level illegitimacy rate among blacks in the mid-1960s (22 percent) and tripled it to 69 percent. It transformed a negligible illegitimacy rate among whites (2 percent) to emergency proportions (22.5 percent) — higher than the black illegitimacy rate when Daniel Patrick Moynihan heralded the War on Poverty with his alarmist report on black families, "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action."
This is one of the many "Success Stories" of leftist programs.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
illegitimacy rate
Why and how illegitimacy relates to medical insurance?
-
It doesn't.
-
in florida we have no state or local income taxes, we are taxed acording to what we buy. witch means that all the elligal alians/and tourists that come here dont get a free ride. if the fed gov went to same system and did away with the LEACH I.R.S we would all be better off.
-
Looks like this thread has been suitably Skuzzified.
Tempers running hot?
Band-Aids only from here on out.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Those of you who think the government placing price controls on medical care will work are either too young, or too stupid, or were too stoned to understand or remember how well price controls worked for gasoline under Carter.
Time to revisit your history and the reason for the high gas prices. And the price controls
"The 1979 (or second) oil crisis in the United States occurred in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. Amid massive protests, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled his country in early 1979, allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to gain control. The protests shattered the Iranian oil sector. While the new regime resumed oil exports, it was inconsistent and at a lower volume, forcing prices to go up. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations, under the presidency of Dr. Mana Alotaiba increased production to offset the decline, and the overall loss in production was about 4 percent. [2] However, a widespread panic resulted, driving the price far higher than would be expected under normal circumstances. In the United States, the Carter administration instituted price controls.[3]
In 1980, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran, oil production in Iran nearly stopped, and Iraq's oil production was severely cut as well.
After 1980, oil prices began a six-year decline that culminated with a 46 percent price drop in 1986. This was due to reduced demand and over-production, and caused OPEC to lose its unity. Oil exporters such as Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela expanded. The US and Europe got more oil from Prudhoe Bay and the North Sea"
-
How will we pay the trillions for the Iraq excursion? I don't much care for the universal health care plan. More of my hard earned money going to the lazy and non deserving.
Asking where the money is coming from after ignoring Bush's spending is ridiculus. Remember. No elected official, no government program and no political party is the answer to your problems. Take care of your own business. Learn to handle your money. Act your wage. Then your health care will be taken care of.
By the time the Universal health care passes it will be so encumbered by government red tape and special interests that the taxpayers will pay two to three times what its worth. Much like the Iraq war. Be careful what you ask from your government. They can't see past the special interests.
I am not a Hillary fan nor a detractor. After Bush people are likely to elect anyone. And no matter who gets elected nothing will be done for the real problems.
Primaries should be held in stadiums or big pits in every state. Then all the citizens could pelt them with rotten fruit.
-
The problem with the Carter price controls on gas wasn't the high prices, it was the fact that you couldn't BUY gas, or you had to wait in line forever to buy 1/3 of what you needed.
So, the government controls prices on drugs, and you get on the waiting list for your medication. Sounds GREAT!
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Most first world countries have some form of "nationalised" health system.
Most of them have growing budgets. The OECD (30 countries in Europe, North America, Japan, New Zealand and Australia) found that health spending rose from an average of 7% of GDP in 1990 to 8.4% of GDP in 2004. The US saw the largest rises, though, up from 12% in 1990 to 15.3% in 2004.
The US spends almost twice as much as a proportion of GDP as the OECD average, and far higher than any other member state. Switzerland is second, on 11.6%, Germany third with 10.9%.
One of the features of the US system is that you have nationalised care, just like other countries. In fact, it's one of the most expensive nationalised systems, only 2 OECD countries spend a higher proportion of GDP on their nationalised health systems than the US does. What's unique about the US is that, despite costing so much, the nationalised health system is only open to a small percentage of the population. Most people in the US have to not only pay for nationalised care through their taxes, they pay again for private care they can use.
I found a few examples
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#australia
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The problem with the Carter price controls on gas wasn't the high prices, it was the fact that you couldn't BUY gas, or you had to wait in line forever to buy 1/3 of what you needed.
So, the government controls prices on drugs, and you get on the waiting list for your medication. Sounds GREAT!
Ok I thought you were referring to the prices.
I remember that. Even/Odd days
If your licence plate ended in and even number you could only get gas on an even day
Example. Licence ended in 234. you could only get gas on the 2'nd,4th,5'th and so on
And vice verse if it ended in an odd number.
then yes there were the lines.
There were ways around itto some extent if you used some enginuity.
Myself. My tag ended in an odd number. but I had a friend whose ended in an even number. If it ever came about either of us needed gas.
We would takewhoevers car had the right number and a 5 Gallon gas can and fill it up and put it in who's ever car needed it.
Somoene else I know had a seperate set of plates to a different car and would swap the tags if he really needed gas.
He just had to make sure he drove real carefully so as not to give any reason to get pulled over till he got to a place where he could change out tags again.
On a more sinister note.
I knew someone else who would outright theive it.
He managed to rig up a small pool pump to his cars electrical system.
he would then back up to another car late at night and literally pump the gas from one car into his own.
I remember one time the older brother of a buddy of mine had a car he was going to have wreaked. but it had a full tank of gas and told me I could have it if I could get it out.
So we tried syphoning it. Took us a LONG time to get the syphon going good (by mouth) Each of us spit out and probably swallowed our fair share of gas. (BLEACH!) before we could get a steady flow that didnt cut off.
The intitial taste wasnt the worse of it though.
It was the constant burping the taste of gas for hours afterwards and the skin around our lips peeling from the chemical burns
Not to mention how high we got from beathing in the fumes.
-
oil prices are dropping because the speculators think the possible US recession will reduce demand for gas in the US.
-
Originally posted by john9001
oil prices are dropping because the speculators think the possible US recession will reduce demand for gas in the US.
YEA thank god for speculators:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
We will smash through the recession with the advances in biofuel and technology under President Clinton.
-
2 bighorn.. you say you don't mean free but that you mean "fair and affordable"
Please tell me how you would make it fair and affordable. I don't think you even know what fair is.
How is it not free to people who claim they have nothing?
You and MT say that illigitimate children are not a factor in health care? On what planet? Would you say that more of the "free" health care will go to families that have a mother and a bunch of illigitimate kids by a variety of sperm donors or.. to normal healthy families?
Put simply.. are one parent homes gonna be a burden or not on your "free" system? are non english speaking illegals or recent free pass citizens gonna be more or less of a burden on your "free" health care.. will more of the burden be paid from income coming from the ghetto of from the middle class neighborhoods?
How many drug dealers and gang members will pay into the system? The rich... hardly..
Who does that leave? well.. you have to redefine "rich" down to upper middle class.. the burden will be on the lower middle class and the real middle class...
The area where the real money for socialism lies.
You can't have socialist totalitarianism without destroying the middle class.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You and MT say that illigitimate children are not a factor in health care? On what planet? Would you say that more of the "free" health care will go to families that have a mother and a bunch of illigitimate kids by a variety of sperm donors or.. to normal healthy families?
Listen, children are burden every where. In capitalist or communist societies. Humans or buffaloes.
That's how the nature works, or if you're believer, that's how god made the world.
Unless your kids are maggots and will morph into fully grown insects by themselves, you shouldn't argue the issue. We take care of children, no matter what.
If parents aren't capable to do that on their own, for whatever reason, the rest of the society will have to jump in. That's not up for discussion.
Originally posted by lazs2
you say you don't mean free but that you mean "fair and affordable"
Is that troubling you?
Originally posted by lazs2
Please tell me how you would make it fair and affordable.
Did you miss something on purpose, or you're natural at it?
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think you even know what fair is.
Then, by all means, educate me.
Go ahead, tell us your solution.
-
please define fair and affordable.
So far as I am concerned it is already pretty much fair and affordable except that.. many who can afford insurance are not buying it. Most can afford $80 or 100 a month for some kind of high deductible health insurance.. they just don't because..
They feel a cell phone of cable tv or a car or internet is more important.. that is their choice.. fair would be to let em do their own medical if they got sick.. pay for it or pray for health.
It is fair in that those who can afford the best care should get the best care.
lazs
-
I notice that the premiums that you cite are going up a bit laz, a few months ago you and I were having a similar discussion and $60.00 a month was the figure that you were quoting.
shamus