nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

Re: Question for Health care reform opponents

Von: mike3 (mike4ty4@yahoo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 18.04.2010 08:40
Message-ID: <33d0c39f-41d9-475c-8496-5f71a77dda07@12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.politics
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...@yahoo.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 would
> >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 about
you? 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?

See what's going on here?

> >One of the things the healthcare bill does is to expand Medicaid and
> >Medicare programs. What do you think about _that_ part?
>
> Well, the person you described above would be required to purchase 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 Medicare?  Pic
k
> one, eliminate the other (along with SCHIP), and expand it for every
> citizen...  Simple.
>
> ><snip>
> >> There no such thing as "chronically bad circumstances" that span
> >> 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 through
> 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?

> >Poverty can perpetuate itself. This chain needs to get broken somehow.
>
> We can clearly see that poverty does perpetuate itself via an
> entitlement mentality.  The ghetto poor have steadily increased for
> fifty years.  Not only has everything we've tried failed, but since
> the problem is worse now we can conclude that everything we've tried
> actually made things worse.
>
> The only program that showed some success was one Bush ran a pilot on
> early in his first term.  The key to that program was EXTRACTION.  It
> took a family OUT of the ghetto - never to return.  The entire family
> got relocated, cleaned up, educated, trained, employed.  
>
> >> >How would you prove that? Mind-reading devices? How would you stop
> >> >such a thing from being abused by Corrupt Government? Do you know
> >> >of ANY country on Earth who does something like that? Would you
> >> >support
> >> >such countries in their endeavors? I can't believe what I'm hearing
> >> >here.
> >> Relax......
> >Can you answer the Qs?
>
> We aren't gonna send troops into the ghettos to machinegun the
> neighborhoods.  You need to be able to distinguish joking from other
> comments...
>

So it's a joke. Whew.

>
>
> >> >I'd think that if the handout programs were denied to _lazy_ people,
> >> >and
> >> >said were capable of getting a job (just don't want to because they'r
e
> >> >lazy,
> >> >remember?), they would be forced into getting it, and with no
> >> >handouts,
> >> >there would be no more "too much" expense.
> >> Actually, sending them money is the problem.
> >Who's sending the money? The Government?
> >If so, isn't that the same as handouts? If not, then why not just have
> >them
> >quit doing that, and find another way to use the money to help them?
> >Anything but "euthanize".
> >> If we setup Food Courts that serve Breakfast and Dinner and then set
> >> up Work Sites that Issue Meal Cards for the Food Courts we only need
> >> to send them a tiny anount of money and we can get work done.
> >Ahh. So then you don't have to "euthanize" them, you do this
> >instead, and don't bother sending the handouts to them.
>
> Replace sending them money with providing the essential services we
> hope they would spend that money on...  
>

But WAIT... that's SOCIALISM, isn't it? Just using the same objection
that's been used to object to "public service" healthcare.

> >> >And does the "poor" in "transgenerational poor"
exclusively mean
> >> >"don't intend to get a job" (i.e. Lazy) or does it also
include "belo
w
> >> >the
> >> >poverty limit" since if the latter, they could still be doing
hard
> >> >work, but for
> >> >meagre pay (it DOES happen).
> >> The distinction between Poverty and Unemployment is straightforward.
> >> About 4% of the population is permanently unemployed.  Of course,
> >> they're Poor and on Welfare, but this group doesn't intend to ever
> >> work.
> >How do you _know_ they don't intend to work, never have and never
> >will?
>
> Because they never DO work.
>

And you know this is due to their intention... how?

>
>
> >> >What if they ran their own farm
> >> >or something to get food, etc. if it's the latter?
> >> If they did that they'd starve to death.  
> >Well, then no need to "euthanize" then, eh?
> >> >If you'd say to
> >> >"euthanize" *them*, then I'll say you are sick.
> >> Relax...
> >> >Also, what about other cases like where the parents, etc. did have
> >> >jobs at some point but they never paid much, or if the parents
> >> >couldn't get jobs even if they wanted them due to constant
> >> >rejection letters being given (without anything to tell them why
> >> >they aren't wanted and so they can't find out what if _any_thing
> >> >they are doing wrong), etc.? Perhaps, to qualify for the handout
> >> >programs, there should need to be some "proof of hardships"
> >> >that would involve, for example, documenting such letters or
> >> >something.
> >> We already have all that in place to receive unemployment
> >> compensation.
> >But this would be "transgenerational" poverty (note how I said the
> >"parents" couldn't get jobs. I should've also mentioned about this
> >situation making it more difficult for the kids to get them, as that
> >was an important bit), and you think the best option there is to
> >"euthanize" them. You didn't say that it only comprised those who
> >were deliberately refusing to work.
>
> There's no such thing as a normal healthy person beginning at about 20
> years old and ending at about 60 years old NEVER being able to get a
> job...  
>

Hmm. But then what about the other case, where they get jobs but it
doesn't pay enough?

> >Do you know of ANY country on Earth who "euthanizes" its own
> >citizens like you are proposing?
>
> hahahaha!  Calm down...


[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]