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.
Sorry if the truth hurts, asp. You can put all the words into my mouth or make any assumptions you want, if it makes you feel better, but you can't change the simple fact that you already get much more out of the system than you contribute, and you want to change the balance so that you get even more.
I read in another post of yours today (maybe this thread; maybe another) where you were chastising high-salary management types for "stealing" (your words) from their employees by simply living up to the contract that the employee agreed to upon hire. Hardly "stealing," IMO, but that's for the other thread. I bring it up here to ask you how you can rationalize that position with the one you're taking in this thread. Is advocating for a system in which you already know that you'll be getting much more out of than contributing not "stealing," as well?
In essence, you're demanding that everybody else pay for your care, and that of your child, and you want to use the force of law to fulfill that demand. At least in the other scenario, employees are voluntarily taking part in the agreement. If you had your way, nobody would even have a choice in whether or not to pay for your health care services.
"Stealing?" Indeed.
You do not know me personally , yet you assume much.
I DO pay into the system, TWO systems- Medicare AND corporate insurance. I have been paying into the Medicare system since I was 15.
You claim to be against the Medicare system, 1) so are you and/or your family paying into it? 2) are you and/or your family drawing Medicare now or plan to in the future?
And of course you never use your corporate insurance card for flus or surgeries etc, right? Because then you would be stealing from the CEOs and shareholders instead of paying out of pocket for your own illnesses and conditions.
Last edited by aspiesmom; 11-11-2010 at 01:02 PM..
The problem is the Republican Party has successfully duped a significant number of the American people.
If only people knew how easy and well organized HC is in most European countries, they would change their minds right away, but having been misled and lied to, they are unfortunately not aware of it.
I usually never jump in on the politics forum but I am a lurker.
I just have 2 questions:
1) for those of you who are in favor of repealing the WHOLE HC bill, does that mean you also want to get rid of the mandates that cover children until the age of 26 and the mandate that prevents insurance companies from preventing people who have pre-existing conditions (aka cancer and other maladies) from purchasing health insurance.
2) also, what do you plan to do for those who have pre-existing conditions but have lost their jobs and cannot purchase insurance on their own (even if they can afford it)?
1) Yes to repealing the part about covering kids. That gives no incentive for the person to go get a decent job. There is no reason to live off Mommy and Daddy for 1/3 of your life. Finish high school, go to school or find a trade and move out. Being self-reliant is highly important if you want to make it anywhere in life, and giving kids incentive to stick around longer than is necessary will make this country regress.
I'm not sure where I stand on the second half regarding pre-existing conditions. On one hand, it's not beneficial from an economic standpoint for the insurance companies to take a risk on someone who might possibly require a massive amount of healthcare in the future. That could bankrupt an insurance company if they insured everyone who previously had cancer or something, and then no one would have insurance and a gov't run system would be the only option. On the other hand, Many cancers and catastrophic illnesses, accidents and disabilities are not necessarily the individual's fault, and then they can't obtain coverage through no fault of their own. I believe that is unfair. But it would require so much red tape to sift through who should be excluded from the pre-existing condition clause, further bogging down the whole system.
2) See above. Something has to happen to change this but I'm not sure what.
1) That could bankrupt an insurance company if they insured everyone who previously had cancer or something, and then no one would have insurance and a gov't run system would be the only option.
What is the GOP going to do, just destroy Healthcare Reform Act, and that's it?
GOP wants to spend taxpayers money on endless efforts at repeal against Healthcare Reform Act (law which the majority of the public wants, and even wants more of)?
What is the Republican healthcare reform plan, what Congressman Alan Grayson said, to get sick and die?
Excellent post. The health care crisis was staring at the Republicans and Bush for 8 years and they DID NOTHING. Now that this administration has implemented a solution and addressed the problems, Pubs are outraged. Pubs don't have a plan for health care. Their entire plan is to do what they can to hinder Obama. Quite a sorry bunch.
The Repubs couldn't give a crap about poor people having healthcare. It is a party of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. They couldn't care less about the poor and middle class. As long as multinational corporations and wealthy fat cats are making their billions, the so-called conservatives are satisfied. If the poor all die of cancer (or preventable diseases) because they lack access to healthcare, hey, it's less people to compete with them for resources. It's all about "personal responsibility!" Unless, of course, it's a big corporation that's struggling: then they'll authorize bailouts to the tune of billions of dollars. Billions for failing corporations, not one red cent for working-class Americans. It's the Republican way.
The Repubs couldn't give a crap about poor people having healthcare. It is a party of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. They couldn't care less about the poor and middle class. As long as multinational corporations and wealthy fat cats are making their billions, the so-called conservatives are satisfied. If the poor all die of cancer (or preventable diseases) because they lack access to healthcare, hey, it's less people to compete with them for resources. It's all about "personal responsibility!" Unless, of course, it's a big corporation that's struggling: then they'll authorize bailouts to the tune of billions of dollars. Billions for failing corporations, not one red cent for working-class Americans.
It's the Republican way.
Yeah, all those Dems in Congress are verifiable paupers.
What is the GOP going to do, just destroy Healthcare Reform Act, and that's it?
GOP wants to spend taxpayers money on endless efforts at repeal against Healthcare Reform Act (law which the majority of the public wants, and even wants more of)?
What is the Republican healthcare reform plan, what Congressman Alan Grayson said, to get sick and die?
Why don't they all give up their government health care while they are at it?
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.
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.
