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.
Health care reform just amounts to redistribution of wealth. I don't want to pay taxes to help other people pay their medical bills... it's not my job. It's theirs.
My health care plan is very simple
1) If you can pay for health care, then you can purchase it if you want it.
2) The government stays away the best they can. Which isn't very well at all.
3) We all go back to economics and learn a little bit. Taxes create a gap in the curve. In this gap is a loss of productivity and generally wasteful. When you add expenses onto things where the people never see where the money is going, they lose incentive.
4) Incentive= the will to work hard, be more efficient. If it's up to me whether to work extra hard today and know that I will make an extra $20 in a tax-free system, or if I work extra hard and make an extra $20 but have to give up $10 of it to taxes, in which scenario would I be more likely to work harder and be more efficient?
President Obama's joint congressional speech ups his approval ratings on health care.
Quote:
The day after Mr. Obama's congressional address, CBS re-interviewed 678 adults first questioned in a poll conducted August 27-31.
Last week, just 40 percent of these adults approved of how the president was handling health care. More, 47 percent, disapproved. After the speech, 52 percent said they approved and only 38 percent said they disapproved. Those are the best assessments for Mr. Obama's handling of health care shown all year by CBS News Polls.
President Obama's speech was particularly successful in unifying Democrats. Now, 85 percent of them approve of his handling of health care.
Approval rates also rose among independents and Republicans, but independents are still divided and only 17 percent of Republicans approve of the president's health care actions.
Health care reform just amounts to redistribution of wealth. I don't want to pay taxes to help other people pay their medical bills... it's not my job. It's theirs.
My health care plan is very simple
1) If you can pay for health care, then you can purchase it if you want it.
2) The government stays away the best they can. Which isn't very well at all.
3) We all go back to economics and learn a little bit. Taxes create a gap in the curve. In this gap is a loss of productivity and generally wasteful. When you add expenses onto things where the people never see where the money is going, they lose incentive.
4) Incentive= the will to work hard, be more efficient. If it's up to me whether to work extra hard today and know that I will make an extra $20 in a tax-free system, or if I work extra hard and make an extra $20 but have to give up $10 of it to taxes, in which scenario would I be more likely to work harder and be more efficient?
Ah.. okay..
Let's see.. are you aware of how much insurance premiums cost a month.
about the same as a mortgage on a house and.. even rent.
So.. if a family can't afford to pay the equivalent of rent or a mortgage on a second home.. then too bad.
AND.. if they can't pay for the actual treatments.. which, btw.. one week in the hospital ends up costing $50K, then they deserve to die?
So your stance is that those that can't afford the high price of medical care and insurance to cover said medical care basically just deserve to die?
Oh .. and before you say that Americans can get treated if they go to an ER and no one is refused medical care.. you would be partly right. Americans are not refused IMMEDIATE medical care.. however, they are under no obligation to treat the LONG TERM care of the diagnosis. In other words.. get diagnosed with cancer.. do not have health insurance to cover treatments or the money to cover the drugs, you will not get treated for said cancer.
Nice attitude. Now.. i wonder if you go to church on Sundays with that attitude.. and kiss your children with that mouth of yours at night...
Because YOU and them could very easily.. at the drop of a dime.. be a victim of the system we have in place now. Just remember... that if you DO ever end up in that position.. you thought it would be okay that people just "die" if they can't afford it.
Being provided security against the risk of cancer doesn’t make us less likely to avoid getting cancer. It doesn’t create incentives to be less healthy (more wasteful perhaps, but in the interest of health not pecuniary gain). Catastrophic disease could befall any individual at any time, nearly any of whom could not possibly prepare for it with only his or her personal wealth. Pooling the risk among everyone is of course the most efficient and humane solution, whether done through a public option, all through private insurers, or a competition between the two (this is why mandates are necessary).
In Arizona, ANYONE applying for ANY type of State funded "aid", of any sort, and to register a child in school, has to provide proof of lawful presence in the United States.
This requirement has resulted in a decline in enrollment in certain schools / districts that have had a high population of illegals.
The same applies with medical related issues: AHCCCS, our state "medicaid" requires proof of lawful presence when applying. Applications have declined.
Uh, no, the point is is that you guys say that MOST of the middle class is just 1 injury away from losing everything that they have. MOST means, at least more than half. MOST of the uninsured are not middle class people.
If there are 30 million uninsured, according to Chairman 0bama's new figures, and there are roughly 300 million people in the United States then that means about 10% are uninsured. Stop twisting facts to support your lies.
Quote:
2 - There are now more uninsured in the U.S. — 47.0 million — than at any time since passage of Medicare/Medicaid in the mid-1960’s.
3 - 93% of the increase is among middle and high income families:
Of the 2.18 million increase:
1.398 million (64% of the increase) was in >$75k family income
An additional 633,000 (29% of the increase) was among $50-$75k group
Among full time workers, the number of uninsured increased by 1.230 million (56.4% of the increase).
Of course I know you'll take issue with the 47 million figure but it's interesting to note the income bracket of these people.
You'll also notice that these people have full time jobs. No need to yell out, "GO GET A JOB!!"
Of course in this economic environment, it's much easier said than done.
Let's see.. are you aware of how much insurance premiums cost a month.
about the same as a mortgage on a house and.. even rent.
So.. if a family can't afford to pay the equivalent of rent or a mortgage on a second home.. then too bad.
AND.. if they can't pay for the actual treatments.. which, btw.. one week in the hospital ends up costing $50K, then they deserve to die?
So your stance is that those that can't afford the high price of medical care and insurance to cover said medical care basically just deserve to die?
Oh .. and before you say that Americans can get treated if they go to an ER and no one is refused medical care.. you would be partly right. Americans are not refused IMMEDIATE medical care.. however, they are under no obligation to treat the LONG TERM care of the diagnosis. In other words.. get diagnosed with cancer.. do not have health insurance to cover treatments or the money to cover the drugs, you will not get treated for said cancer.
Nice attitude. Now.. i wonder if you go to church on Sundays with that attitude.. and kiss your children with that mouth of yours at night...
Because YOU and them could very easily.. at the drop of a dime.. be a victim of the system we have in place now. Just remember... that if you DO ever end up in that position.. you thought it would be okay that people just "die" if they can't afford it.
This isn't a debate over what people 'deserve', it is about what they have a Constitutional right to, and there is nowhere in the Constitution that grants the federal government permission to have anything to do with health care. Please separate moral obligations from legal ones.
You are thinking much too emotionally to be taken seriously in this debate.
This isn't a debate over what people 'deserve', it is about what they have a Constitutional right to, and there is nowhere in the Constitution that grants the federal government permission to have anything to do with health care. Please separate moral obligations from legal ones.
You are thinking much too emotionally to be taken seriously in this debate.
People who do just that are cold.. so I guess you can lump yourself into that category.
Call it what you want.. but if you think that villifies you from your horrific and immoral position..then so be it.. You have to live with yourself.
BTW.. there are lots of things within our government that weren't specifically
Do you honestly think that just because it's not specific in the law.. that that excuses putting something in place that allows for all Americans to have access to healthcare.
Your attitude is dispicable, disgusting, deplorable.
Your attitude is dispicable, disgusting, deplorable.
AND, the above TM has caused YOU to "Lose" the debate.
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.
