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

Socialized Medicine

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 12>
Author
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 8:56pm
You guys should really start splitting quotes up. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




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: 9819
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

I don't use $12,000 a year in medical bills. I am sure many people don't. Thus something doesn't actually cost $1,000. It cost less than that. You are just paying now in case something happens that does cost a ridiculous amount of money.

The $1000 a month is just a nice round sum that is easy to work with.  My point is that if the government takes in less than it is spending, it will increase the deficit.  This has actually become an issue between the President and his advisers in recent days.  (Specifically raising taxes on the middle class.)

But how will it take in less than what it is spending? I am sure a number could be found. Much like insurance companies and hospitals already do.

Exactly; it can't take in less than it is spending.  Since costs will go up (by adding additional subscribers) funding will have to go up as well.  Someone will have to pay those costs . . . and it won't be the people who already can't afford their own medical care. (You need to hurry up and admit I'm right; we're running out of readable colors.)

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.

Hence the reason it is paid for with taxes. Yes they will not be able to magically afford it, but if everyone was taxed I am sure it would be less than what it costs to insure a family these days.

How do you figure that?  Let me offer a hypothetical situation.  (Granted, it is vague, but given the vagaries related to the current health care discussions at the national level it is the best I can do.) 
  • There are people who can't afford health care.
  • There are people who can afford it and they currently pay for it.
  • The government plans to make health care available to everyone.
  • This means that you now have additional expenditures but, because the people who can't afford it still can't afford it, the additional money must come from somewhere.
  • Whether this somewhere is taxes on individuals or businesses or some other form of collection, the expense is eventually passed along to those who are already paying for their own healthcare.  I really don't see anyway that costs won't be increased for some.
  • The government could just charge less than the value of the service without raising taxes, but this would have a negative impact on the deficit.
    • An additional factor that will probably raise costs is the requirement that pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying factors.  (This disqualification is one of the ways that the private industry reduces costs to keep prices down.  Doing away with it can only increase expenses.  I should point out that I agree with this, but it is a cost factor that has to be considered.)
They would lose more to the government every week, but be receiving more(healthcare) for less than insurance. I don't see why that makes people that can afford healthcare against it either. It doesn't hurt you.

But it does, maybe not me specifically, but someone has to take up the slack for those who are being subsidized.

As I have said, some people may not be able to afford $1,000 a month to insure their family of 4. Say taxes had to go up $300 a month on individuals to cover everyone. People who couldn't afford the $1,000 are now being taxed for it($300 a piece for each parent), and it is $400 cheaper.

If we're just going to throw out random numbers, we can make anything work.  However, we are dealing with a cost structure and we can say maybe it will be cheaper, but there is nothing in changing from a private to public health care structure that will make it so.  To over simplify, health care insurance costs are based on determining what needs to be paid for the company to take care of an individual's expected healthcare expenditures plus provide for administration reimbursement and profits for the company involved.  While removing the profit motive may add some level of efficiency it will not automatically make everyone able to pay for the level of insurance that they actually use.  It should be noted that to some extent, the current healthcare system is based on the subsidizing of the unhealthy by the healthy.  The averaging that the insurance companies do results in someone who doesn't use their benefits very often paying for someone who does.  The difference is that everyone is paying something for those benefits.  Now, if you take the same pool of people and add everyone who can't pay for health insurance (40+ million if I remember right) you have just expanded the benefit usage pool without expanding the benefit payment pool.  Something has to give.  It may be a decrease in the level of care, in which case those who were already paying will not pay more, but they will get less service for the same price; or, prices will have to be raised to maintain the same standard of service.  In this case, those that couldn't afford healthcare will still not be able to, so such a price increase would have to be disproportionally given to those who were already paying for their health care.  If this happens, they would have the same level of care, but would end up paying more for it.

This would also make businesses not have to pay part of the health insurance costs. Hypothetically this could raise salaries or lower other costs. Yes I am horrible at explaining but it is something that could happen.

 
If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.

Everyone is paying for people who don't have insurance now anyway. They are just unable to get it themselves if they are working. Noone is denied care, and if you have a child or are a drug addict(at least in my state) health insurance is easy to come by. It is the people who work that can't afford it for themselves, but are still paying for those types of people who lose.

I think you just provided a very good argument against national heath care.  (I take the above statement to be your explanation of how the "leeches" are subsidized by others.) 

They are subsidized anyway.  If a way was found that these people could be subsidized without current insured spending more money(I won't say without raising taxes), and without increasing the deficit would you have an issue with a universal healthcare plan?

By leaving the raising of taxes off of the table in that question you are acknowledging my point that such a plan pretty much has to increase the costs of somone in order to work.  With that said, I am not in favor of a piecemeal, poorly thought out plan, which is what I believe that the government is going to force down our throats.  If I was in charge, I would not mind a certain level of universal care, but those who received free care would be given a different level of care from those who worked and paid their way.  Problems resulting from poor lifestyle choices would receive very little sympathy.  I believe the government should act as an advocate for consumers as opposed to providing the healthcare.  Such intervention, done properly, would help prevent unnecessary procedures and overbilling.  (Although, given the success of Medicare with this I could be overly optimistic.)  I think tort reform has to be a part of any serious overhaul of our medical system.  (I have no problem punishing a company that knowingly sold a defective product; however, I feel that companies that correctly got their product certified/tested in good faith and it took 20+ years for a harmful side effect to show up should not be punished.  (This would be a case where the government, which probably approved the drug/treatment in question, should ensure that treatment related to the issues caused was paid for.  It is not a case where the unfortunate victim deserves to be made independently wealthy.)  I don't have the answer, but I know a bad idea when I see it.  One indication of the problems with the current plans being floated would be to consider the mixed messages coming from the White House and Treasury.

If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for it.

Edited addition:  I am not against additional taxes that would support ensuring everyone under 18 has medical care or programs that extend that care to the age of 22 for those attending college.  I am against subsidizing people who need to take some responsibility for their own lives.


Edited by Mack - 04 August 2009 at 8:56pm
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 6:31pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

I don't use $12,000 a year in medical bills. I am sure many people don't. Thus something doesn't actually cost $1,000. It cost less than that. You are just paying now in case something happens that does cost a ridiculous amount of money.

The $1000 a month is just a nice round sum that is easy to work with.  My point is that if the government takes in less than it is spending, it will increase the deficit.  This has actually become an issue between the President and his advisers in recent days.  (Specifically raising taxes on the middle class.)

But how will it take in less than what it is spending? I am sure a number could be found. Much like insurance companies and hospitals already do.

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.

Hence the reason it is paid for with taxes. Yes they will not be able to magically afford it, but if everyone was taxed I am sure it would be less than what it costs to insure a family these days.

How do you figure that?  Let me offer a hypothetical situation.  (Granted, it is vague, but given the vagaries related to the current health care discussions at the national level it is the best I can do.) 
  • There are people who can't afford health care.
  • There are people who can afford it and they currently pay for it.
  • The government plans to make health care available to everyone.
  • This means that you now have additional expenditures but, because the people who can't afford it still can't afford it, the additional money must come from somewhere.
  • Whether this somewhere is taxes on individuals or businesses or some other form of collection, the expense is eventually passed along to those who are already paying for their own healthcare.  I really don't see anyway that costs won't be increased for some.
  • The government could just charge less than the value of the service without raising taxes, but this would have a negative impact on the deficit.
    • An additional factor that will probably raise costs is the requirement that pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying factors.  (This disqualification is one of the ways that the private industry reduces costs to keep prices down.  Doing away with it can only increase expenses.  I should point out that I agree with this, but it is a cost factor that has to be considered.)
They would lose more to the government every week, but be receiving more(healthcare) for less than insurance. I don't see why that makes people that can afford healthcare against it either. It doesn't hurt you.

But it does, maybe not me specifically, but someone has to take up the slack for those who are being subsidized.

As I have said, some people may not be able to afford $1,000 a month to insure their family of 4. Say taxes had to go up $300 a month on individuals to cover everyone. People who couldn't afford the $1,000 are now being taxed for it($300 a piece for each parent), and it is $400 cheaper. This would also make businesses not have to pay part of the health insurance costs. Hypothetically this could raise salaries or lower other costs. Yes I am horrible at explaining but it is something that could happen.
 
If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.

Everyone is paying for people who don't have insurance now anyway. They are just unable to get it themselves if they are working. Noone is denied care, and if you have a child or are a drug addict(at least in my state) health insurance is easy to come by. It is the people who work that can't afford it for themselves, but are still paying for those types of people who lose.

I think you just provided a very good argument against national heath care.  (I take the above statement to be your explanation of how the "leeches" are subsidized by others.) 

They are subsidized anyway.  If a way was found that these people could be subsidized without current insured spending more money(I won't say without raising taxes), and without increasing the deficit would you have an issue with a universal healthcare plan?

If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for it.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 8:02am
Want to lower automobile costs? Get rid of the union...
 
Want to lower health care costs? Tort reform... (for all of you educated in public schools, that means eliminating "windfall" lawyer payouts)
 
But, both the union and the lawyers are major spokes in the democrat party. So they get things done to benefit them. (gotta pay for those votes...)
 
 
 
They tremble at my name...
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: 9819
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 12:14am
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

I don't use $12,000 a year in medical bills. I am sure many people don't. Thus something doesn't actually cost $1,000. It cost less than that. You are just paying now in case something happens that does cost a ridiculous amount of money.

The $1000 a month is just a nice round sum that is easy to work with.  My point is that if the government takes in less than it is spending, it will increase the deficit.  This has actually become an issue between the President and his advisers in recent days.  (Specifically raising taxes on the middle class.)

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.

Hence the reason it is paid for with taxes. Yes they will not be able to magically afford it, but if everyone was taxed I am sure it would be less than what it costs to insure a family these days.

How do you figure that?  Let me offer a hypothetical situation.  (Granted, it is vague, but given the vagaries related to the current health care discussions at the national level it is the best I can do.) 
  • There are people who can't afford health care.
  • There are people who can afford it and they currently pay for it.
  • The government plans to make health care available to everyone.
  • This means that you now have additional expenditures but, because the people who can't afford it still can't afford it, the additional money must come from somewhere.
  • Whether this somewhere is taxes on individuals or businesses or some other form of collection, the expense is eventually passed along to those who are already paying for their own healthcare.  I really don't see anyway that costs won't be increased for some.
  • The government could just charge less than the value of the service without raising taxes, but this would have a negative impact on the deficit.
    • An additional factor that will probably raise costs is the requirement that pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying factors.  (This disqualification is one of the ways that the private industry reduces costs to keep prices down.  Doing away with it can only increase expenses.  I should point out that I agree with this, but it is a cost factor that has to be considered.)
They would lose more to the government every week, but be receiving more(healthcare) for less than insurance. I don't see why that makes people that can afford healthcare against it either. It doesn't hurt you.

But it does, maybe not me specifically, but someone has to take up the slack for those who are being subsidized.
 
If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.

Everyone is paying for people who don't have insurance now anyway. They are just unable to get it themselves if they are working. Noone is denied care, and if you have a child or are a drug addict(at least in my state) health insurance is easy to come by. It is the people who work that can't afford it for themselves, but are still paying for those types of people who lose.

I think you just provided a very good argument against national heath care.  (I take the above statement to be your explanation of how the "leeches" are subsidized by others.) 

If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for it.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 10:14pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Hypothetical: Joe Healthy doe not have health insurance. He lives a healthy lifestyle and pays of any and all GP care out of pocket. Now under the new plan it will be manditory that he purchases health insurance.


Because when Mr. Healthy gets clipped on the side of the road while jogging by someone who wasn't paying attention while driving, and ends up rupturing his spleen and breaking both legs and pelvis, and sent to the hospital to get all fixed up, he is going to rack up a $10k plus hospital bill.

Mr. Healthy ends up not being able to afford to pay for it, so the hospital has to fix him up on their dollar and distribute the lost revenue via price increases to the other customers.


Again, I feel like the anti-reform arguments are stuck on loop. We've gone over this before.




Edited by agentwhale007 - 03 August 2009 at 10:15pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 9:59pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Hypothetical: Joe Healthy doe not have health insurance. He lives a healthy lifestyle and pays of any and all GP care out of pocket. Now under the new plan it will be manditory that he purchases health insurance.
No comment just because I believe we should have universal(which yes I suppose he would be paying) not a system like Mass. where we are required health insurance or taxed.

Example 2: From what I understand those already in the VA health care system and having had paid for thier "benifits" usually in something more precious than dollars, will also now be required to purchase public health insurance under penalty of law. I don't know the specifics, but I doubt it. I am sure there are exemptions that would allow you to not be fined/taxed for not having it. I only don't know the specifics because I am not reasearching current plans. I only argue for the idea of OMG SOCIALISM.

One of the "benifits" of military service is recieving free healthcare for any and all service connected issues, such as wounds from combat, physcological services resulting from combat, injuries recieved in the performance of any and all military duties, combat and non-combat. So that is no longer a "perc" of service, Does it matter if it is a perk of the service anymore? All current and former military will still be able to receive said services.

not like lifetime free medical care for congress (who have excempted themselves from any program they will develope) for as little as one term of service in congress (no that is fair). I don't know anything about the healthcare congress uses. I know on numerous occasions I have seen PP explain to you that they use the same healthcare available to all federal employees though. There is no special congress health care


Edited by jmac3 - 03 August 2009 at 9:59pm
Que pasa?


Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 9:42pm
Hypothetical: Joe Healthy doe not have health insurance. He lives a healthy lifestyle and pays of any and all GP care out of pocket. Now under the new plan it will be manditory that he purchases health insurance.
Example 2: From what I understand those already in the VA health care system and having had paid for thier "benifits" usually in something more precious than dollars, will also now be required to purchase public health insurance under penalty of law. One of the "benifits" of military service is recieving free healthcare for any and all service connected issues, such as wounds from combat, physcological services resulting from combat, injuries recieved in the performance of any and all military duties, combat and non-combat. So that is no longer a "perc" of service, not like lifetime free medical care for congress (who have excempted themselves from any program they will develope) for as little as one term of service in congress (no that is fair).
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 9:09pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:



And you think your taxes would go up by more than $1,000 a month to have universal healthcare?

Are you high?

If you weren't so backwards, that would qualify as an argument for universal healthcare
 
 
So, if you buy something for $1,000 it costs $1,000.
 
 
If the government buys something worth $1,000 and "gives" it to me, it costs me less than $1,000?
 
And I'm backwards. Dude, you are so lost its not even worth pointing you in the right direction...


No, because it will probably cost less than $1,000 a month in taxes.

Also, what is wrong with everyone having healthcare if it isn't costing you any extra money?

Explain to me how I am lost.

I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

I don't use $12,000 a year in medical bills. I am sure many people don't. Thus something doesn't actually cost $1,000. It cost less than that. You are just paying now in case something happens that does cost a ridiculous amount of money.

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.
Hence the reason it is paid for with taxes. Yes they will not be able to magically afford it, but if everyone was taxed I am sure it would be less than what it costs to insure a family these days. They would lose more to the government every week, but be receiving more(healthcare) for less than insurance. I don't see why that makes people that can afford healthcare against it either. It doesn't hurt you.
 
If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.
Everyone is paying for people who don't have insurance now anyway. They are just unable to get it themselves if they are working. Noone is denied care, and if you have a child or are a drug addict(at least in my state) health insurance is easy to come by. It is the people who work that can't afford it for themselves, but are still paying for those types of people who lose.

If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for it.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 5:26pm
One of the practices you all forget on government taxation. Collect tax A for project A, deposit taxes into the "general fund" and then pay for the deficet already in projects B,C and D. Then when it comes time to fund project A, no funding available. Government option at that point, are 1. Borrow from project E, or 2. Raise taxes again for project A and repeat the process. Guess which one congress usually goes for, and then just try and find the social security lock box funds as were promised.

And since when does the government actually work on a 0 deficit model, not since 1862. The income tax was a temporary "fix" to fund the union war effort, and we now know the true government term for "temporary", that term is increase.

Civics question: What is the role of the "states" in a Federal system as envisioned by the founders? And the differences today are?

Edited by oldsoldier - 03 August 2009 at 5:28pm
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: 9819
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 4:58pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:



And you think your taxes would go up by more than $1,000 a month to have universal healthcare?

Are you high?

If you weren't so backwards, that would qualify as an argument for universal healthcare
 
 
So, if you buy something for $1,000 it costs $1,000.
 
 
If the government buys something worth $1,000 and "gives" it to me, it costs me less than $1,000?
 
And I'm backwards. Dude, you are so lost its not even worth pointing you in the right direction...


No, because it will probably cost less than $1,000 a month in taxes.

Also, what is wrong with everyone having healthcare if it isn't costing you any extra money?

Explain to me how I am lost.

I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.  If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.  If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for it.
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 4:37pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

   Remmember you get what you pay for, except when you try to get something from the government, then they overcharge you and tell you what you are going to get, how much, and where, now is that "choice".
Sounds like you just described any insurance program in existence.


Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 4:10pm
Doesn't bother me a bit if this idiotic proposal is passed. I got maybe 10-15 years left on this rock, and I've been dealing with government run iefficient healthcare for years. It is you all that will be stuck paying the bill, and getting little return on your medical care investment. Remmember you get what you pay for, except when you try to get something from the government, then they overcharge you and tell you what you are going to get, how much, and where, now is that "choice".

Oh and remmember last week my "rural americana" discussion: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090801/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_rural_health_2 farmers who work with bravo sierra daily, know what it is, and the smell from DC is unmistakeable to them, and they know who will be forgotten in this coming fiasco.

Edited by oldsoldier - 03 August 2009 at 4:30pm
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 1:25pm
Sand to vagina ratio in this thread is insane.
Back to Top
slackerr26 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - language, 8/20

Joined: 24 June 2008
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 1697
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote slackerr26 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 1:24pm
what exactly do you guys think is going to come about in these discussions? do you think obama cares what FE and OS think? no. its going to happen no matter how many youtube videos you post, or however many obama posters you throw on here.


Edited by slackerr26 - 03 August 2009 at 1:27pm
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 1:16pm
Julius Levinson: You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?




Also, FE you never told me how I am lost.


Edited by jmac3 - 03 August 2009 at 1:17pm
Que pasa?


Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 1:14pm
Show one government program that confiscates X amount in taxes, and can actually supply a service to you for X or less than X. Usually it is a X+ cost per individual when the government is involved. Look at your Social Security, and tell me straight faced that you actually expect to recieve that amount or more when you retire. Lets see you go to Home Depot and pay for a $15.00 hammer, the government buys the same hammer st $150.00, the $1500 coffee pot for the C5A was a classic. The M16 Sight adjusting tool costs the government $27.50 per, yet all it is is a dropkey screwdriver available at any hardware store for around $2.75.

It is quite clear that the Obama budget is a disaster, now they have to figure out how to pay for all the promises to thier low income voting base. So the easy answer is raise the taxes on the middle class (again) to support the dependant class of democratic voters. The middle class suckers that voted for this idiot with dreams of "Hope and Change" are getting it now in heaping steaming piles as they try to dodge the crap dropping down on them from DC.

Edited by oldsoldier - 03 August 2009 at 1:17pm
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 12:36pm
...
Que pasa?


Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 12:34pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 
Dude, you are so lost its not even worth pointing you in the right direction...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:



And you think your taxes would go up by more than $1,000 a month to have universal healthcare?

Are you high?

If you weren't so backwards, that would qualify as an argument for universal healthcare
 
 
So, if you buy something for $1,000 it costs $1,000.
 
 
If the government buys something worth $1,000 and "gives" it to me, it costs me less than $1,000?
 
And I'm backwards. Dude, you are so lost its not even worth pointing you in the right direction...


No, because it will probably cost less than $1,000 a month in taxes.

Also, what is wrong with everyone having healthcare if it isn't costing you any extra money?

Explain to me how I am lost.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.