57% Tax Rate

[GabonX]

I don't have a problem with people drinking, smoking, etc. In fact I think that the government is way out of line in telling people ANYTHING like this is illegal. We are supposed to live in a free society, and that includes substance use regardless of whether or not it is a healthy decision to do them.

That said, if you CHOOSE to do these things and you mess up, you shouldn't get a bail out from taxpayers.

[InkL0sed]

I don't have a problem with people drinking, smoking, etc. In fact I think that the government is way out of line in telling people ANYTHING like this is illegal. We are supposed to live in a free society, and that includes substance use regardless of whether or not it is a healthy decision to do them.

That said, if you CHOOSE to do these things and you mess up, you shouldn't get a bail out from taxpayers.

If you get a disease completely unrelated to to smoking or drinking, you shouldn't get healthcare?

If your answer is no, doesn't it just add more inefficient bureaucracy to define when and who gets what healthcare? Not to mention that the way to reduce cost is to include everyone in whatever plan it is.

[GabonX]

I don't have a problem with people drinking, smoking, etc. In fact I think that the government is way out of line in telling people ANYTHING like this is illegal. We are supposed to live in a free society, and that includes substance use regardless of whether or not it is a healthy decision to do them.

That said, if you CHOOSE to do these things and you mess up, you shouldn't get a bail out from taxpayers.

If you get a disease completely unrelated to to smoking or drinking, you shouldn't get healthcare?

If your answer is no, doesn't it just add more inefficient bureaucracy to define when and who gets what healthcare? Not to mention that the way to reduce cost is to include everyone in whatever plan it is.

You're right, there is more than enough inefficient bureaucracy..

Our position is that it is not the role of government to distribute health care, period.

[The1exile]

You're right, there is more than enough inefficient bureaucracy..

...which is generally summed up with the term "health insurance".

[thegreekdog]

You're right, there is more than enough inefficient bureaucracy..

...which is generally summed up with the term "health insurance".

So why can we not fix health insurance? Why must we socialize healthcare (oh, sorry bad words... what I meant to say was provide universal healthcare)? Why can't we provide health insurance only for those that can't afford it?

One side argues that it's cruel to not give people healthcare, to which the other side replies, "but we do." And then the first side replies, "but it's really expensive, so let the government do it." - Why does the "expensive" part of it have to do with the "kindness" part of it? Nothing.

[Night Strike]

Not everyone deserves to go to college. Not everyone deserves to own a house. Not everyone deserves to own a new car. that is what America is about. Work for what you want, earn what you can.

Very well said.


On a different note, I heard a comment the other day wondering why only the rich people are going to be taxed to pay for the health care plan. If the system is supposed to be for everybody, shouldn't everybody who is using it be paying at least something for it? Will there at least be co-pays? If you choose to use the public option, you should at least pay something like 1-2% of your income for it.

[slowreactor]

You're right, there is more than enough inefficient bureaucracy..

...which is generally summed up with the term "health insurance".

So why can we not fix health insurance? Why must we socialize healthcare (oh, sorry bad words... what I meant to say was provide universal healthcare)? Why can't we provide health insurance only for those that can't afford it?

One side argues that it's cruel to not give people healthcare, to which the other side replies, "but we do." And then the first side replies, "but it's really expensive, so let the government do it." - Why does the "expensive" part of it have to do with the "kindness" part of it? Nothing.

Let's see you with a diabetic kid, $20,000 a year, and no public health care.

[xelabale]

Not everyone deserves to go to college. Not everyone deserves to own a house. Not everyone deserves to own a new car. that is what America is about. Work for what you want, earn what you can.

Everyone deserves the opportunity - if they throw it away then fine, but if people are not given the opportunity it is fundamentally unfair.

[PLAYER57832]

You're right, there is more than enough inefficient bureaucracy..

...which is generally summed up with the term "health insurance".

So why can we not fix health insurance? Why must we socialize healthcare (oh, sorry bad words... what I meant to say was provide universal healthcare)? Why can't we provide health insurance only for those that can't afford it?

3 reasons. First, the main reason insurance companies are "inefficient" is profit. They are quite efficient at gaining dollars from all of us, just not so efficient at providing care because that is only a secondary purpose. Their primary purpose is making money.

You can look at PA for the second reason and frankly, my own family. I have mentioned before the my husband's employer switched plans with no notice, effective Dec 1. Not only did this new plan have a high per person deductable (supposedly $500 per person, but it really wound up being $1000 each), but it was doubled -- once for Dec and then again for the following year. My son had to go through expensive testing in Dec and was hospitalized in for 4 days in January. My other son had a couple of lessor issues. We wound up paying over $4000 in just a few months and, thanks to the wonderfully generous hospital billing office that decided since we had not officially signed up for any billing plan (did not know there was one and did not know at firs that our insurance would not truly cover the charges, either) the "proper" response to saying we would pay 1/2 now and the rest later was to send us to collections. So, I wound up putting it on the credit card for which we are now paying 30% interest (no late payments, but we have too much credit, so are a risk now).

The worst part? If my husband's work had not been so "gracious" as to offer insurance, we could have qualified for the CHIP plan for myself and the kids for only a small monthly fee. (about $80 a month instead of $120). Worse yet, if we had enrolled my kids before -- if my husband had been unemployed or we had been divorced, etc., then we could continue on the CHIP plan even if the work offered insurace. THAT is why all this talk of the government "removing competition" is baloney. The real truth is the government NEEDS to be the "floor" below which no insurance is considered true insurance. If someone truly wants those poor policies, maybe, but no one should in any way shape or form be forced to take them.

[One side argues that it's cruel to not give people healthcare, to which the other side replies, "but we do." And then the first side replies, "but it's really expensive, so let the government do it." - Why does the "expensive" part of it have to do with the "kindness" part of it? Nothing.

They only relate in that there is a hidden, difficult to assess cost to simply "watching" while people get sick and die. I maintain it does hurt society to consider that OK.

BUT the real issue is that I don't think any but the most hardhearted really think that way. Even those insurance executives that absolutely have policies of delaying treatment justify it to themselves somehow.

That is why I mostly speak just of costs. And yes, when you look beyond the "socialism = bad" rhetoric, the REAL truth is that most people today -- and definitely almost all of those who are truly sick, or not wealthy, are stuck in HMOs that often take the worst of socialized medicine, but instead of creating a universal system, any "excess" just goes into company costs, particularly the heavy administration costs. Simply filling out paperword right now takes a HUGE part of any health provider's time and a big reason is the huge numbers of different policies with different rules.

This is not even getting into costs lost because information is just not shared. Want to know cure rates? Unless you are in a government study it becomes "proprietary" information. The companies want to protect their "investments".

[Nobunaga]

... I wonder if Senator Kennedy would qualify to live another year under the new guidelines that would be introduced.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/ ... his_e.html

... None of this bill would go into effect until 2013. Ask youself - why is there so much pressure coming from Obama and Pelosi to pass this thing NOW. What's the hurry? Let the details be debated and discussed, weaknesses assessed and fixed.

... Nope. Has to be right freakin' now. Why?

...

[spurgistan]

... I wonder if Senator Kennedy would qualify to live another year under the new guidelines that would be introduced.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/ ... his_e.html

... None of this bill would go into effect until 2013. Ask youself - why is there so much pressure coming from Obama and Pelosi to pass this thing NOW. What's the hurry? Let the details be debated and discussed, weaknesses assessed and fixed.

... Nope. Has to be right freakin' now. Why?

...

I think Teddy could afford to pay for expanded care, like he can in EVERY SINGLE FREAKING OPTION ON THE FREAKING TABLE.

[InkL0sed]

... Nope. Has to be right freakin' now. Why?

...

Because every month, about 1,000 people die because they had no health care, and even more lose their insurance, and more go bankrupt because of health care bills (which is, by the way, the leading cause of bankruptcy).

[Nobunaga]

... Nope. Has to be right freakin' now. Why?

...

Because every month, about 1,000 people die because they had no health care, and even more lose their insurance, and more go bankrupt because of health care bills (which is, by the way, the leading cause of bankruptcy).

... Try to pay attention. Nothing in the bill would go into effect until 2013, even were it passed today. So... again, why the rush, inky?

...

[InkL0sed]

... Nope. Has to be right freakin' now. Why?

...

Because every month, about 1,000 people die because they had no health care, and even more lose their insurance, and more go bankrupt because of health care bills (which is, by the way, the leading cause of bankruptcy).

... Try to pay attention. Nothing in the bill would go into effect until 2013, even were it passed today. So... again, why the rush, inky?

...

Right, so let's take our time, no rush at all...

[Frigidus]

... Nope. Has to be right freakin' now. Why?

...

Because every month, about 1,000 people die because they had no health care, and even more lose their insurance, and more go bankrupt because of health care bills (which is, by the way, the leading cause of bankruptcy).

... Try to pay attention. Nothing in the bill would go into effect until 2013, even were it passed today. So... again, why the rush, inky?

...

Because if the president doesn't push the bill then it will be buried in congress, and never see the light of day. This shit happens all the time, especially when there are a lot of lobbyists interested in the particular bill's demise.

[GabonX]

Ya know what? It really isn't supposed to be the President's job to "push" legislation through Congress.

The President was not intended to be a legislator, just as Congress has no business conducting the affairs of the military.

[spurgistan]

head asplode

[Frigidus]

head asplode

[GabonX]

To be fair, I can't hold this against Obama personally. Somewhere along the lines things became misconstrued and the President took on the role of "chief legislator."

This is wrong.

[Frigidus]

To be fair, I can't hold this against Obama personally. Somewhere along the lines things became misconstrued and the President took on the role of "chief legislator."

This is wrong.

All right, fair enough. I'd argue that both the legislative and executive branch have taken several turns for the worse since their inception. Regrettably, we have to play things now the way they are instead of the way they should be.

[spurgistan]

To be fair, I can't hold this against Obama personally. Somewhere along the lines things became misconstrued and the President took on the role of "chief legislator."

This is wrong.

All right, fair enough. I'd argue that both the legislative and executive branch have taken several turns for the worse since their inception. Regrettably, we have to play things now the way they are instead of the way they should be.

My issue with that statement is that, Barack isn't even really getting what he wants in Congress! He wants a massive stimulus bill, Congress drags their feet and gives him a watered down stimulus bill. He wants universal health care, and the Senate is beginning to look like they might not give him that. Saying that Barack's presidency thus far has been getting everything he wants is just plain wrong.

[GabonX]

lol

[InkL0sed]

To be fair, I can't hold this against Obama personally. Somewhere along the lines things became misconstrued and the President took on the role of "chief legislator."

This is wrong.

Funny how much faith you have in Congress, and how little you have in people in general.

See, I have slightly more faith in people in general, but that doesn't mean I trust hundreds of people in the same room to get anything right. Our system is far from perfect, but sometimes you need one man to twist arms a la LBJ.

[GabonX]

To be fair, I can't hold this against Obama personally. Somewhere along the lines things became misconstrued and the President took on the role of "chief legislator."

This is wrong.

Funny how much faith you have in Congress, and how little you have in people in general.

See, I have slightly more faith in people in general, but that doesn't mean I trust hundreds of people in the same room to get anything right. Our system is far from perfect, but sometimes you need one man to twist arms a la LBJ.

LBJ, nice example.

How do you feel about him twisting arms to get full Presidential war powers against the nation of Vietnam?

You do know that the Vietnam war is an example of LBJ twisting arms right?

[GabonX]

Twisting arms in Congress that is. Pushing legislation through..

Did you know that?