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.
A few things should be recognized in this health care debate.
Almost every developed nation in the world has UHC. They consider it a moral obligation. We are a capitalist society so morals don't come into play. Not one of these countries has ever gone back to an insurance system once UHC was established. In each of these countries, there are insurance policies one can purchase. Most don't.
Many of the discussion points brought up in this thread are moot because there are some reforms that both sides of the health care debate agree on. One is the reform of the health insurance industry that includes the banning of pre-existing condition exclusions in private insurance. The hidden trade off of this is that health insurance will be mandatory for everyone. Both Dems and Repubs engaged in reform agree on this issue.
So in the end, everyone's "ox will be gored" as private health insurance will be just like auto insurance, a mandatory requirement. No matter what happens, this will come to pass. Don't expect private insurace premiums to lower even though the pool of healthy insured has increased. It sure didn't come down when mandatory auto insurance was mandated. Just a big payoff to the insurance industry same as the Bush drug plan was a payoff to the pharma industry.
If I didn't have to go to work in a couple hours (to provide health care to kids), I'd do some research on that, but the article you cited is an opinion piece.
Yes, it is - this man's opinion: "Mr. Walker, a 57-year-old accountant, didn't set out to be a fiscal truth-teller. He rose to be a partner and global managing director of Arthur Anderson, before being named assistant secretary of labor for pensions and benefits during the Reagan administration. Under the first President Bush, he served as a trustee for Social Security and Medicare, an experience that convinced him both programs are looming train wrecks that could bankrupt the country. In 1998 he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to head the GAO, where he spent the next decade issuing reports trying to stem waste, fraud and abuse in government.
Despite many successes, he was able to make only limited progress in reforming Washington's tangled bookkeeping."
Lol, it is nice to see you are trying, however I am not talking about $50 vs a day's volunteering. I am talking about the people who donate $100/mo every month. THOSE people are needed more than volunteers. Go ahead and ask the directors of the charities where you work, you might be surprised at thier answers.
This frustates me to no end. If I donate $400/month to charity (and I do), I will NOT get anywhere near $400/month back as a tax break. To claim so shows ignorance to no end. If the money stopped flowing in, charities would stop functioning. How can liberals 'get the job done' at a homeless shelter when there is no money to pay for food and clothing? What would you rather have me do, work an extra couple of hours a week and donate $400/month that a charity can use to buy food for starving people, or should I leave work early, keep that money for myself and work serving food? the second will definately make ME feel better, after all, I am on the front lines, helping people! The problem is starving people don't need a friendly face, they need resources. They need food, clothing and shelter, which are things that cash can buy. The next time you serve food to someone, or work to build someone a house when their home was destroyed, just remember, it is evil conservatives like me who are sitting in an office working extra hours alone so we can write checks to give you the resources to do it. The ignorance you display exemplifies your hypocracy.
Charities can tighten their belts quite a ways financially but they cant get by without volunteers -- who do much more than help process things that have been bought. Not all charity work depends on money. It's great that you give more than you benefit tax-wise
you are saying that volunteering is less good than giving money. you're trying to say that liberals are more selfish than conservatives because they volunteer rather than giving money (based on your personal experience, no less). that is ridiculous.
come again? who's been saying that exactly?
Please re-read the point I was trying to make. I explained it in my last post.
The general consensus amongst liberals is a very anti-capitalist sentiment. Any socialized program speaks to that. If making money was a good thing, liberals would be encouraging people to pay their own way, instead of encouraging people to rely on government for assistance. Personally, I do not have social security or medicare in my retirement plans. I fully expect to pay my own way my entire life. I am also going to pay into programs that benefit people who are too lazy to plan out their futures. I am 23 years old and I have a plan to retire while supporting myself. I plan for emergencies. I can't tell you how many of my friends voted for Obama and support every liberal plan (social security, UHC, etc), and yet they spend money to party every weekend, take vacations every year, blow money on stuff they simply can't afford. Meanwhile, I sacrafice those things so I can take care of myself, and I am punished for my hard work. THIS is why liberals make me angry. I will end up paying for their lack of planning.
I don't think donating one's time is hypocritical. A lot of people would rather just write a check than actually go to a soup kitchen and help prepare and serve food, for ex. as I have done. Actually, I do both; I have volunteered my time, and I have given money to various charitable organizations. Thank you very much.
I am glad I could make you feel smug. Please re-read my last post, as it seems you skipped over it. My point was not that donating time is hypocritical. My point is that liberals (actually, people in general) are unwilling to life a worse life for the benefit of those around them. Liberals included. Threads like this are intended to paint liberals as saints, when in reality they are as big of hypocrites as any other political group.
Please re-read the point I was trying to make. I explained it in my last post.
The general consensus amongst liberals is a very anti-capitalist sentiment. Any socialized program speaks to that. If making money was a good thing, liberals would be encouraging people to pay their own way, instead of encouraging people to rely on government for assistance. Personally, I do not have social security or medicare in my retirement plans. I fully expect to pay my own way my entire life. I am also going to pay into programs that benefit people who are too lazy to plan out their futures. I am 23 years old and I have a plan to retire while supporting myself. I plan for emergencies. I can't tell you how many of my friends voted for Obama and support every liberal plan (social security, UHC, etc), and yet they spend money to party every weekend, take vacations every year, blow money on stuff they simply can't afford. Meanwhile, I sacrafice those things so I can take care of myself, and I am punished for my hard work. THIS is why liberals make me angry. I will end up paying for their lack of planning.
i don't see how any of that justifies denigrating volunteer work as less worthy than monetary donations.
i support universal health care (REAL universal health care, not the sop to the insurance companies that obama is peddling), i have a job, insurance, and savings. financial irresponsibility is not exclusive to the left.
some of the richest countries in the world have uhc. if we get it, then you can use some of that emergency money for something else, maybe more money for retirement, or more charitable giving. you also might get paid more because your company will no longer have to pay workman's comp or health insurance.
i and other left-wing people on this board have said that we would be ok with paying more taxes to help other people get health care. i'm not sure why we have to spend every extra penny on charity because we support the type of medical system that every other country in the developed world has.
Lol, it is nice to see you are trying, however I am not talking about $50 vs a day's volunteering. I am talking about the people who donate $100/mo every month. THOSE people are needed more than volunteers. Go ahead and ask the directors of the charities where you work, you might be surprised at thier answers.
just what kind of response do you expect? I'm not feeling smug, BTW. I was being a little snarky.
A few things should be recognized in this health care debate.
Almost every developed nation in the world has UHC. They consider it a moral obligation. We are a capitalist society so morals don't come into play. Not one of these countries has ever gone back to an insurance system once UHC was established. In each of these countries, there are insurance policies one can purchase. Most don't.
Many of the discussion points brought up in this thread are moot because there are some reforms that both sides of the health care debate agree on. One is the reform of the health insurance industry that includes the banning of pre-existing condition exclusions in private insurance. The hidden trade off of this is that health insurance will be mandatory for everyone. Both Dems and Repubs engaged in reform agree on this issue.
So in the end, everyone's "ox will be gored" as private health insurance will be just like auto insurance, a mandatory requirement. No matter what happens, this will come to pass. Don't expect private insurace premiums to lower even though the pool of healthy insured has increased. It sure didn't come down when mandatory auto insurance was mandated. Just a big payoff to the insurance industry same as the Bush drug plan was a payoff to the pharma industry.
I agree 100% I believe when the smoke clears UnitedHealthCare's stock will double and soon their rates will increase. I do disagree that most other civilized countries do not have private insurance, I believe most do and have a mix of private and public. The UK system is one of the most socialized and still has private insurance.
More to the point is when are those in favor of the government plan going to rally and demand that their taxes be raised to pay for the plan. Once they actually are willing to pay for the plan with their money and not with others ;I will beleive its other than a something for nothing plan of personal greed.
Charities can tighten their belts quite a ways financially but they cant get by without volunteers -- who do much more than help process things that have been bought. Not all charity work depends on money. It's great that you give more than you benefit tax-wise
Do you understand how people benefit from donating money? It is IMPOSSIBLE to gain more than a fraction of what you donate in tax benefits. Please do some research on this before you continue posting.
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.
