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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Hmmm... could it be because so many of you believe you have a 'right' to health care?

How is that 'right' going to work out for you if you can't afford your meds?
Amusing, considering I took MMA as an expensive joke, one completely unfunded, with hope $800B would grow on tree. It was the "right" at work after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:03 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
The extra incentive was the subsidy, which they still have. Being able to write off the subsidy as their own expense was simply corporate welfare and a huge handout to bis business.
No problem... the government can KEEP their subsidy and tax deduction to pay the EVEN LARGER expense of providing Part D plans for those millions of seniors.

Now we know why Obama and the Dems are deficit spending us into oblivion... they have absolutely NO financial sense whatsoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No problem... the government can KEEP their subsidy and tax deduction to pay the EVEN LARGER expense of providing Part D plans for those millions of seniors.

Now we know why Obama and the Dems are deficit spending us into oblivion... they have absolutely NO financial sense whatsoever.
Thanks to the "fiscal conservatives" planning it all out in 2003.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:06 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Amusing, considering I took MMA as an expensive joke, one completely unfunded, with hope $800B would grow on tree. It was the "right" at work after all.
WHO keeps claiming, repeatedly, that medical care is a "right?"

You should be celebrating Part D, it gave liberals exactly what they wanted... a "right" to meds for seniors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:09 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Thanks to the "fiscal conservatives" planning it all out in 2003.
So... they gave subsidies and tax deductions to corporations to save the government money, and saving the government money while providing a wanted benefit is a bad thing because...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Fargo, ND
1,034 posts, read 1,244,551 times
Reputation: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Thanks to the "fiscal conservatives" planning it all out in 2003.
So you are for getting rid of part D? Just so you know if you remove the so called corporate handout and get rid of part D...seniors are going to have a hell of time paying for their drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,190 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
So... they gave subsidies and tax deductions to corporations to save the government money, and saving the government money while providing a wanted benefit is a bad thing because...?

They gave subsidies to try and save the government money. They added a loophole to allow big business to write off the government subsidies as their own expense in order to give big business a handout of corporate welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:14 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
The time to talk about potential for growth in debt was in the 1980s, or even 2001 when we actually had a budget surplus.
You mean the "surplus" that never was, as the national debt continued to INCREASE under Clinton?

Quote:
So, if private sector could do it cheaper and better, perhaps they will without complaining. They will take care of the retirees too, better than the government ever could, right? After all, they're still getting tax free subsidies from the government. Now, wouldn't they?
No, Obama and the Dems trashed that government funding-saving deal in their HCR bill.

So pay up, sucker!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
They gave subsidies to try and save the government money. They added a loophole to allow big business to write off the government subsidies as their own expense in order to give big business a handout of corporate welfare.
They gave corporations money and let them write it off via tax credits.
In return the government SAVED about $600 it did not have to spend on retiree drug prescriptions.

For once the government SAVED money and you're happy ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 09:17 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
They gave subsidies to try and save the government money. They added a loophole to allow big business to write off the government subsidies as their own expense in order to give big business a handout of corporate welfare.
So Obama and the Dems are ending that, and now the government can pay $1,209 instead of $665 per senior for prescription coverage. What part of that is a good deal for the government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 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