Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why Vets hate Obama

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 March 2009 at 11:18pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Actually, I just read the OP. Did OS just argue AGAINST privatizing healthcare?
Apparently it's different when you're on the receiving end of it....

The word hypocrite does not get thrown around enough these days.


There's nothing hypocritical about it.  Veterans chose to pursue a career in which the very nature of the job put life and limb in jeopardy.  In return for this they accepted reimbursement from the government and certain assurances.  The reimbursement tends to be less than in the civilian world but this is offset to a certain extent by non-taxable benefits such as housing and health care.  Part of the assurances from the government included the fact that if they were injured/disabled during their service, the government would provide medical care.

The VA benefits are compensation earned with the blood and sweat of servicemen.  My question for all of you that are whining about this and comparing it to national health care is what did the general public pay with to earn similar benefits.

If this goes through, I foresee two eventual outcomes:
  • It will become even harder to recruit for the armed services.
  • Insurance companies will readjust the risk factors for those in the service making insurance prohibitively expensive.  In return, service members will drop the insurance and there will be no one for the VA to collect from except the service members which will be an entirely new political hot potato.  (I base this on what happened when the AF medical system started trying to collect for medical services from the private medical insurance of USAF personnel.  Rates went up and people dropped their separate insurance.)
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 March 2009 at 11:22pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I 100% agree with you. If you send your kids to private school, why should you have to pay local school taxes?


That's not what I said at all.

I am saying that because my kids are in private school, NOBODY should have public school.

The government should not be providing education for anybody at all. That is what the free market is for. We aren't socialists.

Well that's silly because no one would get an education. If you can't afford to pay for a private education, you should be taxed, and get a lesser public education. Seems fair to me. Kind of like healthcare. If I can afford my own private healthcare, why should I have to pay taxes to support a national one?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 March 2009 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I 100% agree with you. If you send your kids to private school, why should you have to pay local school taxes?
That's not what I said at all. I am saying that because my kids are in private school, NOBODY should have public school. The government should not be providing education for anybody at all. That is what the free market is for. We aren't socialists.
Well that's silly because no one would get an education. If you can't afford to pay for a private education, you should be taxed, and get a lesser public education. Seems fair to me. Kind of like healthcare. If I can afford my own private healthcare, why should I have to pay taxes to support a national one?


This isn't my line, but... are you trolling? You don't usually post stuff with massive and obvious logical flaws like this.

I mean, seriously, dude. Seriously.

Please tell me you are trolling.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 March 2009 at 11:29pm
Mack, you and I understand. For 23 years of sacrifice, by choice in service for my country/government I was promised certian compensation by that government. That is any service connected injury/wounds/illness would be 100% the responsibility of the government, for the care of, as well as compensation for any handicap resulting from these injuries/wounds/illnesses. A contract was signed to that effect between myself the serviceman and the US Government promising medical and compensation through the Veterans Administration Health Care System.
I already paid for this healthcare, and I do not need to pay for it again. Why don't the congress target thier own healthcare system, way more expensive per individual.

Just another attempt by the Liberal Democrats to dismantle the military, and yes recruitment will suffer, and the additional burden on the private medical system of the catistrophic care of the current crop of veterans will be prohibative and deemed too expensive for private coverage, as well as the famous "pre-exsisting condition" clause.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 March 2009 at 11:39pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:


I already paid for this healthcare,


I know this isn't what you meant, but I would like to point out that it was us tax-paying types that paid for your healthcare. Servicemen don't pay much income tax (because they don't make much money), so the financial burden rests with the private sector.

I will accept thanks for your healthcare whenever you are ready.

Quote Why don't the congress target thier own healthcare system, way more expensive per individual.


I love how FEHBP becomes "Congress' healthcare system" in political debates. It is open to almost all Federal employees.

Quote Just another attempt by the Liberal Democrats to dismantle the military, and yes recruitment will suffer, and the additional burden on the private medical system of the catistrophic care of the current crop of veterans will be prohibative and deemed too expensive for private coverage, as well as the famous "pre-exsisting condition" clause.


This is amusing. You are making several rather strong arguments for socialized healthcare and bemoaning the problems with private healthcare, all while wearing your rigth-wing tinfoil hat.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 12:33am
This who thanks who arguement is funny. While the military stood on the "wall" and protected the freedoms for the past two centuries, the citizen thinks we should than them for our "benifits". That in itself shows how the country now differs from my fathers and your grandfathers generations.
The VA Medical System is a comedy of errors, but it can and does serve a purpose in the society. Providing healthcare for some serious conditions relating to military service. The current budget constraints, and cutbacks of the Clinton Administration which effectively gutted the VA Medical System have made the system a fiasco.
We have a full Hospital standing empty except for an Oupatient Clinic here in Lincoln, with the main VA Hospital in Omaha constantly out of beds for care. The Lincoln VA Hospital was closed as a direct result of the Clinton cutbacks. ANd now with more veterans with catistrophic care issues from the current wars the VA is hard pressed tp provide that care. The WW2 and Korea generation is in need of geriatric care, the VN and Cold War generation is also getting older and more service connected issues are arising, and finally the War on Terror veterans.
Which should we say no thank you to, in order to provide healthcare to individuals who by thier own choice abuse drugs, are obese, and create thier own health problems.
It is not a tin foil hat, it is my defense of my brothers in arms who are now the target of another government cutback to support another "give-away" program to a voting block.

Edited by oldsoldier - 17 March 2009 at 12:33am
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 1:01am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

This who thanks who arguement is funny. While the military stood on the "wall" and protected the freedoms for the past two centuries, the citizen thinks we should than them for our "benifits".


Who said anything about "citizens?" I said "private sector." Quite distinct and different. But I digress - that really is a different discussion entirely.

Quote ...ANd now with more veterans with catistrophic care issues from the current wars the VA is hard pressed tp provide that care.


So, by pbnoob's theory, if I disapprove of the Iraq war, can I elect not to pay for medical care for resulting injuries, and thereby have my income taxes reduced?

Quote The WW2 and Korea generation is in need of geriatric care


Did those folk get old due to having fought in those wars? Is their old age a direct result of their military service?

I can see your argument for a moral obligation to care for injuries/illness caused by military service - it is a bit of a stretch to extend that to geriatric care. Unless, of course, it is your position that a stint in the military entitles you to cradle-to-grave care, socialist-style.

Quote ...in order to provide healthcare to individuals who by thier own choice abuse drugs, are obese, and create thier own health problems.


I do/are none of those things, and neither do my children. Nor do most people who are currently uninsured.

But if we are going down that path...

Your view is (I believe) that society has a moral obligation to take care of a combat wound in military service. Can I presume that the same moral obligation applies to carpal tunnel syndrome incurred by the office clerk in the basement of the Pentagon? The infantryman and clerk are both serving their country and making sacrifices, and these health problems are a result of their service.

Now we extend that to an office clerk working for minimum wage at the local supply company. He also serves his country (we all need supplies, after all), and also gets carpal tunnel. Do we not have the same moral obligation to repay him by healing him? Or the money transport guard who gets shot, for that matter?

If it your position that a limited period of service and sacrifice ENTITLES you to lifelong healthcare, then you must either extend that entitlement to almost all, or you must define "service and sacrifice" in a limited and self-serving manner.

Quote It is not a tin foil hat, it is my defense of my brothers in arms who are now the target of another government cutback to support another "give-away" program to a voting block.


You do realize, I hope, that the "Clinton cutbacks" were mostly the "Bush cutbacks"... Heck, Bush practically campaigned on the need to cut military spending.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30746
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 1:12am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

You know what I think? I think we should abolish public schools.   My kid is in private school, so I could care less about schooling for others. If I can afford it so can they. Maybe they should have worked harder to get better jobs if they can't afford it.

America is the land of Dreams. Just have to work your arse off to get it.

Something else we should abolish: Police. I live in a safe neighborhood, so I don't need the police. If I did, I would just hire my own security. So I don't care about those who need police or can't afford their own security. Screw'em. Screw'em all. Should have worked harder.

And roads in Missouri. I don't live their anymore, so I don't care about the roads there. If they want roads, they can buy their own roads. Hicks should have worked harder if they didn't want to drive on gravel.

The dream is there. You just have to work for it.




Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 2:42am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:



So, by pbnoob's theory, if I disapprove of the Iraq war, can I elect not to pay for medical care for resulting injuries, and thereby have my income taxes reduced?

No . . . and that's a silly argument.  If we go down that road we'd pay more in taxes to pay the people keeping track of who's exempt from which taxes due to their disagreement with how it's spent than we would in the original taxes.  (I'd claim exemption from my share of the taxes that would go toward the National Endowment for the Arts, supporting public schools, the failout and scientific studies concerning pig flatulence for sure.)

On a serious note, there are things such as the military, roads and schools (public goods) that cannot be supplied by the private sector and must be supplied by government.  We have private sector health care; if we wanted it to be affordable for everyone we'd just clean up the malpractice laws.  (And before anyone whines that doing so would infringe upon the rights of wronged patients to seek redress, keep in mind that if the government ran health care you wouldn't be able to sue them anyway.)

As a side note, I read somewhere that legal expenses have now exceeded 25% of the cost of medical care.

Quote The WW2 and Korea generation is in need of geriatric care


Did those folk get old due to having fought in those wars? Is their old age a direct result of their military service?

I can see your argument for a moral obligation to care for injuries/illness caused by military service - it is a bit of a stretch to extend that to geriatric care. Unless, of course, it is your position that a stint in the military entitles you to cradle-to-grave care, socialist-style.

In regards to the older generations of veterans; it does, because that is the promise that was made and part of the compensation that was promised for taking them from their homes and sticking them in a war. 

Your view is (I believe) that society has a moral obligation to take care of a combat wound in military service. Can I presume that the same moral obligation applies to carpal tunnel syndrome incurred by the office clerk in the basement of the Pentagon? The infantryman and clerk are both serving their country and making sacrifices, and these health problems are a result of their service.

The risks, rewards and promises are different.  If the file clerk was promised life-long health care for injuries related to his job, then that was what he contracted for and earned by his service.  (This is also a silly argument . . . I've never seen a file clerk have to worry about landmines on the way to the water cooler.)

Now we extend that to an office clerk working for minimum wage at the local supply company. He also serves his country (we all need supplies, after all), and also gets carpal tunnel.

. . . and his medical care is dependent upon either his insurance or the contract/benefits that were negotiated as part of his compensation package.  But that is an issue between the clerk and the company, not the government.  (The office clerk at the supply company is working for a private company, not the government.  Furthermore, there is no way what he is doing could be considered a public good.)

Do we not have the same moral obligation to repay him by healing him?

Morale obligation?  It's a nice concept, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Or the money transport guard who gets shot, for that matter?

That sounds like an issue between the guard, his insurance, his employer, and possibly the courts.

If it your position that a limited period of service and sacrifice ENTITLES you to lifelong healthcare,

His position, and the position of most veterans is that their were specific promises made regarding compensation for that "limited period of service and sacrifice" and those promises should be fulfilled.  The difference between the military and mercenaries (think Blackwater) is that the military gets paid a lot less and this pay difference is offset by other benefits.  I am also insulted by the apparent comparison you are making between folks who have seen combat in the service of their country and some file clerk with carpal tunnel.

then you must either extend that entitlement to almost all,

. . . whether they earned it/worked for it or not apparently.  (My question here would be "why?"

or you must define "service and sacrifice" in a limited and self-serving manner.

Here's a definition for you:  Risking life and limb in military service supporting the national objectives as defined by the nation's legitimate government.

You do realize, I hope, that the "Clinton cutbacks" were mostly the "Bush cutbacks"... Heck, Bush practically campaigned on the need to cut military spending.

Whoa . . . something I agree with;  Bush was an idiot on national defense.



Edited by Mack - 17 March 2009 at 2:43am
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 3:23am
Mack - I think you and I may have read OS differently. I have no problem with the contractual justification for geriatric care for veterans. If that was the deal, then that was the deal. Fine. Of course, then we shouldn't begrudge AIG executives their bonuses or unions their job banks either, but that is perhaps a separate discussion.

My read of OS was that he was arguing not from contract but indeed from moral obligation. Having fought in a war, those veterans are owed care - not by contract, but by national moral duty. If that was not his position, then my argument falls away.

If that was his position, then I stand by my claim that it is arbitrary and wrong to single out military personnel for this benefit. Everybody in society contributes to a greater or lesser degree, and I cannot accept a clean green line between "huge benefits" and "screw you" drawn on moral grounds. Your definition of "sacrifice and service" is arbitrary, limited, and self-serving.

As to pbnoob's argument, yes it is silly.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 9:20am
Having fought in three conflicts as an Infantryman my views are both contractual as well as moral. Even the draftee was promised lifetime medical care for any "service connected" injury recieved while on active duty. So if a clerk typist in Ft Dix is diagnosed with carpel tunnel, and through the VA medical systems extensive vetting system if that injusry is determined to be "service connected" yes he/she is entitled to medical care for that "service connected" injury. Once a veteran reaches 70% disabled by this system he/she is quarenteed 100% of his medical care through the VA at no cost. Below that number the veteran is required to have private insurance as it stands today.
Combat injuries fall under a differant catagory of % qualifacation, I have 3 major combat wounds, 2 minor combat wounds, artificial knees determined to be "service connected" from service as an Infantryman/Paratrooper, chemical contamination based on my service during Desert Shield/Storm, diagnosed with PTSD (limited based on my combat service) and now RSD also based on the degree of injury determined as "service connected". I am now unemployable based on these conditions, yet Obama states that now I will need to provide private insurance to suppliment VA care, if his plan goes throught. OK Peter, How am I going to contract any private insurance, and I am only one of millions in the same situation.
That is my concern, the concern of the American Legion, Veterans of Foriegn Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and many more Veteran advocacy groups. When you contract with your private sector employer for healthcare that contract is binding, why is the veterans contract for medical care any differant.

Edited by oldsoldier - 17 March 2009 at 9:24am
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 9:31am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I 100% agree with you. If you send your kids to private school, why should you have to pay local school taxes?
That's not what I said at all. I am saying that because my kids are in private school, NOBODY should have public school. The government should not be providing education for anybody at all. That is what the free market is for. We aren't socialists.
Well that's silly because no one would get an education. If you can't afford to pay for a private education, you should be taxed, and get a lesser public education. Seems fair to me. Kind of like healthcare. If I can afford my own private healthcare, why should I have to pay taxes to support a national one?


This isn't my line, but... are you trolling? You don't usually post stuff with massive and obvious logical flaws like this.

I mean, seriously, dude. Seriously.

Please tell me you are trolling.
 
I must be having a slow day, but I am not seeing the logical flaws. Must be a difference of opinion. Anyways....
 
I do have a question for you Petey. You mentioned that your children go to a private school. Why would you pay to send them to a private school when they have a perfectly good tax payer supported, government run public school just down the road? It couldn't possibly be because the private school offers a better education? How does this differ from NHS? If you don't trust the government to provide an education to your kids, do you really want to trust them with your life? What evidence is there that they will do any better of a job?  This obviously getting off the OP, so I will tag out.
 
Last thing I will say is to Oldsoldier and to all the others that have risked their lives to keep our country safe... Thank You! Please do not label all of us in the generations that came after you as ungrateful. Some of us are quite appreciative of the sacrifices that you made.


Edited by oldpbnoob - 17 March 2009 at 9:32am
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 9:52am
OS, the way i read his plan was that if you have private insurance, then they would be billed, but if you dont have private insurance then they will still cover you.  They said it would force private insurance to pay for it, they didnt say it forced vets to get private insurance.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 11:04am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I do have a question for you Petey. You mentioned that your children go to a private school. Why would you pay to send them to a private school when they have a perfectly good tax payer supported, government run public school just down the road? It couldn't possibly be because the private school offers a better education? How does this differ from NHS? If you don't trust the government to provide an education to your kids, do you really want to trust them with your life? What evidence is there that they will do any better of a job?  This obviously getting off the OP, so I will tag out.


Your point has been moot the whole time; you don't pay "school tax".  You pay property tax, income tax, etc.  Your state, local, and federal government then decide what to do with them.  This system is pretty well established at this point.

There seems to be a logical problem with you comparing Petey sending his kids to private school and paying taxes with you having private health care and not paying taxes for public health care.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 11:15am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I must be having a slow day, but I am not seeing the logical flaws. Must be a difference of opinion. Anyways....


You are basically making taxes and government services opt-out. Since I never go to Alabama, I hereby opt out of all Federal taxes that goes to Alabama.

Quote I do have a question for you Petey. You mentioned that your children go to a private school. Why would you pay to send them to a private school when they have a perfectly good tax payer supported, government run public school just down the road? It couldn't possibly be because the private school offers a better education? How does this differ from NHS? If you don't trust the government to provide an education to your kids, do you really want to trust them with your life? What evidence is there that they will do any better of a job?


We pay for private school because we determined that the local public school was not up to our expectations. We considered moving into a better district (about half a mile away), but eventually decided against it. There are plenty of perfectly fine public schools around. In fact, had we been able to open enroll in the better school district (we missed the lottery) we would not even have considered private school. I get angry every time I write a check.

An unfortunate feature of the US public school system is the very uneven quality due to local funding (yet another topic), but I have absolutely nothing against public school. If/when we move, I fully expect to use the public schools.

But moreover, at no point did I think that I was entitled in any way to a tax reduction because I elect not to use the public schools. By that theory, the old lady next to me should also not pay taxes associated with school, since she is, you know, old.

So it is with any type of NHS. I would not support any system that prohibited people from obtaining private medical care or insurance, but nor would I expect such a system to allow users to opt out and avoid taxes.

That isn't how taxes work. I pay above-average taxes, and use below-average government services. For others it is the opposite. Every one of us pay taxes for services for which we aren't even legally eligible. Not one among us pays taxes exactly for what we use.

Taxes are not a self-service menu, but a pooling of resources for the common good. And if you honestly cannot see how a healthy population benefits everybody, just the same as a well-educated population benefits everybody, then we have a fundamental disconnect.

And what evidence is there that a NHS would do a better job than what we have now? That's easy: we have the worst healthcare among all fully industrialized nations, and the most expensive. It could hardly get worse.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 11:16am
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I do have a question for you Petey. You mentioned that your children go to a private school. Why would you pay to send them to a private school when they have a perfectly good tax payer supported, government run public school just down the road? It couldn't possibly be because the private school offers a better education? How does this differ from NHS? If you don't trust the government to provide an education to your kids, do you really want to trust them with your life? What evidence is there that they will do any better of a job?  This obviously getting off the OP, so I will tag out.


Your point has been moot the whole time; you don't pay "school tax".  You pay property tax, income tax, etc.  Your state, local, and federal government then decide what to do with them.  This system is pretty well established at this point.

There seems to be a logical problem with you comparing Petey sending his kids to private school and paying taxes with you having private health care and not paying taxes for public health care.
Umm, you're quite wrong sir. I do in fact pay a local school district tax.
 
And the point being, is that Mr. Parker is quite adamant about the government being able to operate a NHS and there will be no reduction in services or quality of care, yet he doesnt trust this same government to educate his children. And my basis is on the scenario that we do end up having a NHS.  And to correct you again, I do currenty pay taxes that go directly to medicare and other programs that pay for the medical expenses of those that do not have insurance.
 
I agree with MBro that the word hypocrite is not thrown around often enough on this forum.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 11:17am
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

OS, the way i read his plan was that if you have private insurance, then they would be billed, but if you dont have private insurance then they will still cover you.  They said it would force private insurance to pay for it, they didnt say it forced vets to get private insurance.


That's kind of how I read it as well. But I am not particularly up on this topic, and always hate to base an opinion purely on short newspaper articles.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 11:19am
I'm having green jello with lunch. 


Back to Top
Ceesman762 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Time for a C-Section!

Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ceesman762 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 11:21am
^^^^MMMMM!!!!!!^^^^ I have blue berry yogart, wanna trade?
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!


Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2009 at 11:21am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I do in fact pay a local school district tax.


This varies from place to place. In the Eastern states it is more common for school districts to be actual taxing authorities - less common as you go West.

I do not pay a separate "school tax". That gets factored into my property tax.

But even so - no public school (that I know of) is paid for entirely with local taxes. There is significant state contribution, which means there is also Federal contribution. The local taxes are a significant part of it, but certainly not the whole enchilada.

But those are details...


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.