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.
What does employee/employer related health care have to do with taxation and redistribution to the non working? What is the matter with you? Do you actually think the employee health care policies give money to the unemployed street beggars to help them with their addiction and abortion issues? Do you think employees and unions would accept a health care plan with a cost built into it to give away money to the people who choose not to work? I just don't get the desperate analogies liberals make to deflect from the issue; which in this case is should Americans be taxed to provide benefits for the unemployed who choose not to work.
I'm not deflecting from the issue. It's all part of the same issue: paying for others.
You seem to think that "paying for other's healthcare" is something applicable only to universal healthcare or other social healthcare policies (like medicare, medicaid). But we pay for the healthcare of others who work AND who don't work -- through "private" employer - based insurance plans.That is what I've been saying all along.
For example, there are employees who, often due to long-term lifestyle choices, need frequent and/or involved medical treatment, (ie. heart disease in their 40s or 50s). They also might have spouses who don't work who, likewise, have chronic health conditions directly due to lifestyle choices. Not to mention the employees who are "at work" physically, but who don't manage to get much work done.
I think we all know how insurance companies (and healthcare providers) operate. They are in business to make profits. What we pay through employer-provided insurance all goes into the same bucket, so to speak, and if too much is taken out, the insurance companies respond by increasing premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.
So, to answer your question: yes, we should support the care and healthcare of others. Because they are human beings. Because we are human beings. Because, unfortunately, there are people who make really bad choices that, yes, affect us all, and we MUST pay for them. Because, no matter which kind of system we have, there's no getting out of paying for others. Yes, it can be frustrating, but that is part of the cost of living in a civilized society.
If we don't pay for others -- for the indigent, the sick, the poor -- what is your viable, ethical solution?
The question becomes: what is the most sensible, most humane, most efficient way to pay for others?
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 12-29-2019 at 11:37 AM..
That's not what I said. I said that good people shouldn't object to it being done through taxation. Anyone who does object to it is usually selfish and sociopathic
Dude, you have the audacity to call other people selfish and sociopathic! You are the one wanting to force other people to pay for your expenses!
Most politicians are corrupt, but we should give the corrupt politicians more power over our life, and magically the said corrupt politicians can be held accountable as long as we can leech off the said corrupt government.
What kind person believes this crap?
Then elect politicians who are not corrupt. It’s your vote.
Why do you always say "pay for your expenses"? That's a disingenuous way to frame the argument and strawman the poster your debating with
Are living expenses, food cost, child rearing, education, healthcare and sexual entertainment not expenses you should be responsible for?
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.