Socialized Medicine

Exactly. I don't get the point of it?

jmac3 wrote: Exactly. I don't get the point of it?

The point FE is trying to make is that the President is lying about a private option remaining in force once his plan is fully implemented.

Edited:  Because FE jumped in between postings (durnit FE!) and I had to add Jmac3's original post for this to make sense.


Edited by Mack - 03 August 2009 at 12:03pm

oldpbnoob wrote: I actually happened to be watching some news show on Fox yesterday and they had Karl Rove on. Some of the figures he was presenting were actually pretty interesting. I tried to find the video, but couldn't. Basically, after discounting non-U.S. citizens, and those making $50k or more, and some other factors, it came down to somthing like 2 or 3% not actually having viable health insurance. Sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through to change our entire healthcare system to absorb that small of a percentage. Something like 16 million in the 41 or 47 million figure apparently is represented by non-U.S. citizens. Should we really have to be insuring people that aren't here either legally or not citizens?

You left out the part about them not contributing while using up resources contributed by those here legally.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Between myself, and my company I pay over $1,000 a month for my family of 4's health care currently.

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

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

FreeEnterprise wrote:   Dude, you are so lost its not even worth pointing you in the right direction...

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

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

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

jmac3 wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: 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.