Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
5,238 posts, read 8,771,854 times
Reputation: 2645

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
I keep hearing Liberals, Socialists, and Democrats keep saying that the public option is "self-sustaining"... how is a program "self-sustaining" when it RELIES on taxes to keep operating? The private insurance companies RELY on insurance premiums to keep operating... the public option does NOT... I have yet to see a public option that relies ENTIRELY on premiums... so please tell me, how is the public option, "self-sustaining"?
You said it in your original post.

 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:28 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 3,586,933 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
I keep hearing Liberals, Socialists, and Democrats keep saying that the public option is "self-sustaining"... how is a program "self-sustaining" when it RELIES on taxes to keep operating? The private insurance companies RELY on insurance premiums to keep operating... the public option does NOT... I have yet to see a public option that relies ENTIRELY on premiums... so please tell me, how is the public option, "self-sustaining"?
In order to understand the liberal brain..you must first accept the premise that most liberals think that we are so rich that we can sustain anything. After all we print money don't we?? They have a genetic abnormality that prevents them from grasping any concept related to inflation and the economy. Furthermore, they believe that we have so many rich people in this Country that are paying no taxes that once we collect money from them, we will have a source of unlimited funds that can be distributed to all the poor people. Hence the "robin hood" affliction.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:29 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdavid002 View Post
In order to understand the liberal brain..you must first accept the premise that most liberals think that we are so rich that we can sustain anything. After all we print money don't we?? They have a genetic abnormality that prevents them from grasping any concept related to inflation and the economy. Furthermore, they believe that we have so many rich people in this Country that are paying no taxes that once we collect money from them, we will have a source of unlimited funds that can be distributed to all the poor people. Hence the "robin hood" affliction.
Oddly enough, that's not reflected in any of the liberal comments on this thread. Can you support your argument with any substantive proof and not just silly insults?
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:30 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,806,587 times
Reputation: 9283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123 View Post
You said it in your original post.
Perhaps if you read it a bit more... it says ENTIRELY... doesn't take much intelligence to infer that it take in premiums... and if you read the sentence before that.. it says RELY... the public option does NOT rely... I know its a bit difficult to post without reading it and understanding before posting... I have yet to see any liberal here explain to me how it is self-sufficient yet needs TAX dollars in order to be alive when insurance companies don't rely on tax dollars...
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:36 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 3,586,933 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Oddly enough, that's not reflected in any of the liberal comments on this thread. Can you support your argument with any substantive proof and not just silly insults?
Since you stepped up to the plate I will assume that you are one of them liberals... so...this is merely a cartoon version of the liberal philosophy of wealth redistribution under which liberals govern. Explanations..not necessary..and by the way..not an insult..just a fact..
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:37 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
Perhaps if you read it a bit more... it says ENTIRELY... doesn't take much intelligence to infer that it take in premiums... and if you read the sentence before that.. it says RELY... the public option does NOT rely... I know its a bit difficult to post without reading it and understanding before posting... I have yet to see any liberal here explain to me how it is self-sufficient yet needs TAX dollars in order to be alive when insurance companies don't rely on tax dollars...
But you haven't troubled to explain why it NEEDS tax dollars to sustain itself. Are you saying that the legislation does not say the Public Option must RELY solely on premiums? Because just because it does not say that doesn't mean that there isn't an expectation that it will, in fact, be able to RELY on premiums at some point. Every company requires an initial investment, are you irked that the investor in this case will be the government?
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:42 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdavid002 View Post
Since you stepped up to the plate I will assume that you are one of them liberals... so...this is merely a cartoon version of the liberal philosophy of wealth redistribution under which liberals govern. Explanations..not necessary..and by the way..not an insult..just a fact..
When someone dismisses your remarks because they come from a conservative, do you not feel that the mere fact that the remarks are made by a conservative should not be reason for demeaning those remarks?

Albert Einstein was a late bloomer. If people had ignored his theories because they came from a "late bloomer", modern physics might not exist today.

The comments are worth reading and evaluating regardless of the source, and the source should not be part of the evaluation.

Wealth redistribution is the function of any economy. Moving money is what finance is all about. Laws against monopolies may be "liberal" ideology, but are you telling me that monopolies would be a good thing?
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:48 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,806,587 times
Reputation: 9283
It needs tax dollars because premiums will NOT be enough to support a public option meaning it will pay out MORE than it receives from those that is enrolled into it...

Yes, the legislation is doing just that... that it does NOT rely solely on premiums to be self-sufficient... as you can see from the budget office.. those taxes NEVER end... it is permanent which means this program is expected to NEVER be able to be self-sufficient...

And this is where competition comes into play... how is it competitive when you compete with a company that has an unlimited amount of money (i.e. their funding is tied to taxes that can and will increase whenever it needs more)...

If the government said that their program would be self-sufficient... meaning a start-up money is supplied to the public option and that it will be FOREVER banned from accessing taxpayer afterwards... I will be FOR the public option...

I am very irked when the government is the investor when it supplies a company an unlimited amount of taxpayer money... There is nowhere in the legislation to make the public option entirely self-sufficient because there is no deadline for them to go off and stay off of taxpayer money... I would be for them, if they relied solely on premiums... I want a guarantee they won't be coming back and asking for more taxpayer money because their program doesn't work...
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:55 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
It needs tax dollars because premiums will NOT be enough to support a public option meaning it will pay out MORE than it receives from those that is enrolled into it...

Yes, the legislation is doing just that... that it does NOT rely solely on premiums to be self-sufficient... as you can see from the budget office.. those taxes NEVER end... it is permanent which means this program is expected to NEVER be able to be self-sufficient...

And this is where competition comes into play... how is it competitive when you compete with a company that has an unlimited amount of money (i.e. their funding is tied to taxes that can and will increase whenever it needs more)...

If the government said that their program would be self-sufficient... meaning a start-up money is supplied to the public option and that it will be FOREVER banned from accessing taxpayer afterwards... I will be FOR the public option...

I am very irked when the government is the investor when it supplies a company an unlimited amount of taxpayer money... There is nowhere in the legislation to make the public option entirely self-sufficient because there is no deadline for them to go off and stay off of taxpayer money... I would be for them, if they relied solely on premiums... I want a guarantee they won't be coming back and asking for more taxpayer money because their program doesn't work...
Why can't premiums one day be enough to support public option? After all, public option doesn't have all the expenses of a private insurance company. So why do you insist that it's not possible for the premiums to support it?
 
Old 09-04-2009, 01:07 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,806,587 times
Reputation: 9283
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Why can't premiums one day be enough to support public option? After all, public option doesn't have all the expenses of a private insurance company. So why do you insist that it's not possible for the premiums to support it?
Because I look at the targets of the public option... the poor and unemployed.. you cannot simply increase their premiums to support their care cause they can basically never afford what their care will cost.... look at medicaid and medicare... Their premiums increase and they go crazy and still it is not enough to cover the plan's expenses... these programs are also assisted by government taxes... so far, taxes have gone up as well as premiums... the thought is that these programs will NEVER be off of taxes... the public option is set-up that completely lacks ANY language to not remain on tax dollars and this is intentional... I understand exactly why they are leaving that out... cause they are never planning on it being self-sufficient..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top