nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

Re: Question for Health care reform opponents

Von: mike3 (mike4ty4@yahoo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 25.04.2010 05:24
Message-ID: <0c1e03b7-0492-43a1-8d22-e16b869e56a1@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.politics
On Apr 20, 5:02 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:01:11 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 19, 2:32 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:58:43 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 18, 4:25 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com>
wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT), mike3
<mike4...@yahoo.com
>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 16, 1:15 pm, Patriot Games
<Patr...@america.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:43:46 -0700 (PDT), mike3
<mike4...@yahoo.
com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Apr 12, 4:10 pm, Patriot Games
<Patr...@america.com> wrote
:
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:34:46 -0700 (PDT), mike3
<mike4...@yah
oo.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >> Medicaid is for the poor.
> >> >> >> >> Medicare is for the old.
> >> >> >> >> SCHIP is for children.
> >> >> >> >Medicaid doesn't cover all poor. You have to fall
into certain 
special
> >> >> >> >categories, and "poor" isn't one of them
(though it looks to be
a
> >> >> >> >requirement, it is not the only requirement). A
single, adult, 
young
> >> >> >> >(well, under 65 but over 21), healthy, childless,
poor person w
ould
> >> >> >> >not seem to qualify for coverage.
> >> >> >> That person should be WORKING...
> >> >> >So then make it so absolutely no factor but their own
laziness
> >> >> >can possibly stop them from getting a job.
> >> >> >How do you propose to do that? Here's something: What
> >> >> >does it mean if you keep signing up for jobs, but keep
getting
> >> >> >rejection letters and they don't tell you what they didn't
like ab
out
> >> >> >you?
> >> >> These days most companies can't tell you what they don't like
about
> >> >> you for fear of getting sued...
> >> >So how the heck then are you supposed to do anything about it? If
> >> >you don't even know what, if anything, you are doing wrong, how can
> >> >you possibly hope to remedy it?
> >> That's a damned good question!  Unfortunately, I don't have a damned
> >> good answer!
> >See, and that's just it. That's the rub.
> >> My best advice is try to figure out everything "wrong" with you
and
> >> see what you can fix or change.  Then, for the stuff you can't fix o
r
> >> change, present THAT first and get it out of the way.
> >> The average, ordinary, normal person probably doesn't have ANYTHING
> >> "wrong" with them....  But you have to understand that with
a tight
> >> economy most companies are promoting from within but required to
> >> advertise openings.  So, let's say you're a certified advanced welde
r
> >> who was a welding supervisor but that company went bankrupt.  And yo
u
> >> see an ad for a Welding Supervisor.  So you rush on over there!
 
> >> Oops!  You should assume that SOMEBODY was doing that job and quit,
> >> died, or got promoted...  Next you should assume that they will
> >> consider YOU the Unknown and anybody who worked for the guy who quit,
> >> died or got promoted to be Known, AND Known is ALWAYS safer than
> >> Unknown.  So, if you're lucky enough to get an interview ask those
> >> questions upfront.  No attitude, just honest questions.  
> >> When situations like the above aren't the first obstacles then it's
> >> usually gonna be a fake ad to collect resumes...
> >> >> >Or, what if you do get a job, but it don't pay enough
> >> >> >to get that health care coverage? And you have done high
> >> >> >school or equivalent AND even college too?
> >> >> I don't think that exact situation exists.  
> >> >I KNOW it exists, since I saw it first hand. I can't prove that to yo
u
> >> >(I
> >> >can't share experience), but that's irrelevant, it just means I'll
> >> >never
> >> >agree with you on this particular point.
> >> Well, the bad news is that your Buckwheat has made it LAW that you but
> >> some kind of health insurance OR you'll fined by the IRS when you do
> >> your taxes.
> >> The obvious problem with that type of Communist DemocRAT law is that
> >> "afford" AND "it don't pay enough" are completely
personal!  Suppose
> >> you're an average, college-educated guy, and certified Human Resources
> >> person and that job pays $40K per year.  If you're single with minor
> >> bills "afford" means ONE thing, but if your that same guy,
divorced,
> >> and paying child-support then "afford" means SOMETHING VERY
DIFFERENT,
> >> right?  
> >> Unfortunately, the DemocRATs don't think so....
> >So what about a law that did recognize that difference? Would you
> >support it more?
>
> No, because it would be utterly ridiculous.
>
> Remember, America is about Personal Responsibility.
>
> >> >> >See what's going on here?
> >> >> The last 18 months have sucked because we ran into a Recession.
 
The
> >> >> DemocRATs used that to try to socialize healthcare...
> >> >> >> >One of the things the healthcare bill does is to
expand Medicai
d and
> >> >> >> >Medicare programs. What do you think about _that_
part?
> >> >> >> Well, the person you described above would be required
to purcha
se some
> >> >> >> kind of healthcare insurance or be fined by the IRS.
 I think 
the
> >> >> >> Supreme Court will strike that...
> >> >> >> What do I think about it....  Why expand Medicaid,
and Medicar
e?  Pick
> >> >> >> one, eliminate the other (along with SCHIP), and expand
it for e
very
> >> >> >> citizen...  Simple.
> >> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >> There no such thing as "chronically bad
circumstances" that s
pan
> >> >> >> >> multiple generations....
> >> >> >> >So if the parents are poor, and the kids can't be
well-educated
due to
> >> >> >> >lack
> >> >> >> >of money (*especially* if you cut out Gov't-funded
educational 
handout
> >> >> >> >programs), then what?
> >> >> >> Sorry, there's no such thing.  We have free piblic
education t
hrough
> >> >> >> high school.  Poor or not, an citizen can get
educated IF THEY
WANT
> >> >> >> IT.
> >> >> >And yet I've heard some people wanting to axe that, claiming
such 
free
> >> >> >public education is "socialism" (same objection as
to public
> >> >> >healthcare).
> >> >> >What do you think about doing that?
> >> >> The #1 definition for Socialism is the State CONTROLS the means
of
> >> >> production. (The #1 definition for Communism is the State OWNS
the
> >> >> means of production.)
> >> >> The #2 definition for Socialism is the Redistribution of Wealth.
> >> >> Our public school system is NOT socialism.  What I suspect
you've
> >> >> heard is the Socialist DemocRAT PRETENDING what is or osn't
Sociali
st
> >> >> because they want you to think we already are Socialist so they
can
> >> >> implement MORE Socialism...
> >> >And how is providing publicly-funded healthcare, like exists in many
> >> >other countries
> >> >around the globe, "redistribution of wealth", while
providing publicl
y-
> >> >funded
> >> >schools is _NOT_?
> >> Other countries have what's called single-payer healthcare.  Just li
ke
> >> in America we have a single-payer Space Agency - NASA.  When taxes a
re
> >> taken out of your pay some amount goes to NASA.  Simple.
 There's 
no
> >> line item on your paycheck for NASA, there's nothing on your tax
> >> return for NASA.  You make money, you get taxed, NASA gets to do coo
l
> >> things that we watch on TV.  Simple.  Upper income people (who
pay
> >> most of the taxes) get to enjoy watching spacewalks on TV just like
> >> everyone else...
> >> The exact same thing is true for our public education system.  Simpl
e.
> >> Neither of them are "redistribution of wealth" because everybody
who
> >> works is supposed to pay taxes so everybody contributes to the cost
> >> and everybody enjoys some benefit from them.
> >> "Redistribution of wealth" is when money from the upper class is
taken
> >> and they enjoy NOTHING from it.  
> >> The BuckwheatCare that is proposed IS Socialist because it taxes ONLY
> >> the upper incomes to provide subsidized healthcare for the lower
> >> incomes.
> >But I don't think you'd support a single-payer healthcare system in
> >the >US (or government-run, tax-funded "public option"), or would
you, w
ith
> >everyone paying taxes into it? If not, why not?
>
> I'm likely one of the only ultra-right people you'll find who actually
> DOES think that a simple single-payer healthcare system is what we
> should be converting too.
>
> However, I have some requirements.......
>
> 1) We need to eliminate (over 5 or so years) ALL Federal taxes on
> business.  Along with that we need to BURN the IRS.  Zero exemptions,
> zero deductions, zero everything - FLAT TAX ONLY on EVERY source and
> type if income.
>
> 1.1) What States do is their business.  Businesses, like people, can
> and should (and do) vote with their feet.
>
> 1.3) We'll want to pick a number, maybe like 18%, for the Flat Tax,
> and we'll also want to pick a "floor" (say $25k/yr.) below which you
> MUST file a tax return but you don't owe anything.
>
> 2) Now we need a reality check.  Did President Kennedy fly a spaceship
> to the Moon?  No.  He just said go do that.  Did Congress Critters
> (excepting Glenn) invent or design rockets, space navigation, etc.?
> No. They wrote some legislation and oversaw the agency that collected
> taxes.  99.99% of NASA was what it should be: rocket scientists.
>
> 2.1) The reason single-payer will never get popular in America was
> painfully visible in the latest Poll showing 80% of Americans DO NOT
> TRUST the President, DemocRATs, Republicans, the Senate or the
> House...  And a significant portion of Americans flat out HATE THEM
> ALL.  
>
> 2.2) An American version of a single-payer healthcare system has to be
> like NASA & Apollo...  Instead of a weak nappy President we need a
> President who says "Let's do this!" but doesn't pretend HOW to do it,
> and we need a Congress that steps up and CLEARS THE WAY to get it done
> instead of pretending they know anything about healthcare and/or
> medicine.  It will ONLY work if we have an Agency that is NOT staffed
> with politicians but with DOCTORS.  Right?  Rocket scientists do Spac
e
> stuff, it worked fine.  Doctors do health stuff, other than the
> current cost that has been working just fine.  (And other than the
> cost we Americans have had and still have the PREMIER healthcare on
> the planet.)
>
> Now you said "But I don't think you'd support... government-run,
> tax-funded "public option"..."
>
> On that you are 100% correct.  The "public option" was just a trick
> and there's no chance I'll support tricks....

Thanks for the response. At least you gave me the answers I sought
with
my original post: real serious ideas about healthcare reform and
opinions
about the general idea as opposed to just more critiques of the
current
reform attempt. I am done discussing this now.

[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]