Y'all just can't handle that some folks don't want to pay for others health care. I'm taxed enough, I don't need to pay for dead beats health care too.
Printable View
Y'all just can't handle that some folks don't want to pay for others health care. I'm taxed enough, I don't need to pay for dead beats health care too.
And if it doesn't get created you'll be whinning about not stealing my hard earned money to pay for others health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Swami
re: police and fire deptsQuote:
Originally Posted by WTFchris
Out here, I'm pretty sure they are property taxes. No dead beat houses. Someone is paying.
I'm not against everyone pitching in for a service. I'm against Obama socializing the country.
You already do, and you pay a premium for it because the dead beats suck up pricey emergency room resources, often over pricey matters that wouldn't have been as pricey if regular care were done sooner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
The reality is that our society values not having a lot of indigent dead bodies just sitting around collecting diseases and making people feel shameful. We spend a lot of money creating a system that costs twice as much and doesn't have any more bang for the buck than socialist healthcare. I don't want to pay twice as much because some folks are a buncha fucking buttheads who can't see the forest from the trees. I don't want jobs leaving the country because healthcare is a whole lot less hassle there than it is here. My taxes pay for public roads that even dead beats can use because it's better than trying to create tariff systems where the roads cost twice as much but aren't any better maintained or utilized.
And I don't want to do it more than I alread do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
Our WH and Mr T apparently is continuing the practice of trying to get neighbors to spy (and turn in ) neighbors.
I could only imagine if Bush did this. Y'all have to admit the hypocrisy here.
Do public healthcare right and we all pay less. A whole lot of countries in the world have figured this out. The halfass approach is killing us. Either do it right or don't do it at all, and the "don't do it at all" crowd lost a long time ago with Medicare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
That's an excellent sentiment that most reasonable people would agree with as a starting point. If that's also the end of the discussion for you, if your next step is "therefore don't touch anything, leave the status quo as it is" then you're being neither realistic nor constructive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
The reality is the current system has serious structural problems that can't be ignored.
.
- Many people with coverage get less than they need when the time comes, or lose it when they change jobs.
- Many people with coverage get less than they need when the time comes, or lose it when they change jobs. Those aren't deadbeats by any reasonable measure.
- Many people who have jobs and work just as hard as the next guy are under-insured or uninsured. They aren't well served by the current system and they aren't deadbeats.
- Actual deadbeats... Mxy covered that pretty well. There are ways forward to get more and pay less.
- In a few years, with no changes, commitments under medicare/medicaid are going to exceed the total revenue of the federal government. This is an according-to-hoyle train wreck.
That's real talk. Opponents of Obama's plans need to bring some ideas to the table and engage constructively. If they succeed in simply shouting down the discussion and making sure nothing gets done, they haven't done themselves or anyone else any favors.
They aren't shutting down the discussion though, they are saying they don't want it. And I know you are going to have fun with that line.
Also, from what his own backers say, it isn't in stone yet anyway. AARP is still waiting to see what the final bill looks like and so are blue C, etc, I'm sure.
This is another one of BO's 'push something through (getting the money first) before we have all the details"
You can call it shutting down the converstation before it starts but I think its more of we don't want a Gov't run health care system (anymore than it alread is <-- thats for you mxy :) )
It makes sense, if I read it correctly it's an argument for the status quo. I just think it's a profoundly counterproductive argument to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Sort of. The lack of details is intentional. The thinking behind it, at least as I've read it, is that part of why health care reform died in the incubator under Clinton was they tried to originate a more fully formed, detailed bill from the white house without buy in from congress or other stakeholders.Quote:
Also, from what his own backers say, it isn't in stone yet anyway. AARP is still waiting to see what the final bill looks like and so are blue C, etc, I'm sure.
This is another one of BO's 'push something through (getting the money first) before we have all the details"
The strategy this time is to push congress to hash out the details and originate the bill from there with the white house lighting a fire under them to get something crafted. The hope being that if the particulars are worked out in congress first, a finished bill will have more political legs than if the president just handed it down from the top.
I call it side-stepping the issue. Specific aspects in which the current situation fails or will soon explode catastrophically have been thrown out on the table. Saying "we don't want a Gov't run health care system" in no way offers a constructive solution to any of them.Quote:
You can call it shutting down the converstation before it starts but I think its more of we don't want a Gov't run health care system (anymore than it alread is <-- thats for you mxy :) )