Hilfe & Kontakt

Re: Question for Health care reform opponents

Von: mike3 (mike4ty4@yahoo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 20.04.2010 03:01
Message-ID: <c2954a09-0574-4315-a5e3-edb7a9188cef@x38g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.politics
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>
> >> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:43:46 -0700 (PDT), mike3
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 12, 4:10 pm, Patriot Games
<Patr...@america.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:34:46 -0700 (PDT), mike3
> >> >> >> 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 spe
> >> >> >categories, and "poor" isn't one of them (though it
looks to be a
> >> >> >requirement, it is not the only requirement). A single,
adult, you
> >> >> >(well, under 65 but over 21), healthy, childless, poor person
> >> >> >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?
> >> 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 or
> 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 welder
> who was a welding supervisor but that company went bankrupt.  And you
> 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 you
> >(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!
> 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
it more?

> >> >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
Medicaid a
> >> >> >Medicare programs. What do you think about _that_ part?
> >> >> Well, the person you described above would be required to
> >> >> 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
> >> >> one, eliminate the other (along with SCHIP), and expand it for
> >> >> 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 du
e to
> >> >> >lack
> >> >> >of money (*especially* if you cut out Gov't-funded
educational han
> >> >> >programs), then what?
> >> >> Sorry, there's no such thing.  We have free piblic education
> >> >> high school.  Poor or not, an citizen can get educated IF
> >> >> IT.
> >> >And yet I've heard some people wanting to axe that, claiming such fre
> >> >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 Socialist
> >> 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
> >funded
> >schools is _NOT_?
> Other countries have what's called single-payer healthcare.  Just like
> in America we have a single-payer Space Agency - NASA.  When taxes are
> 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 cool
> 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.  Simple.
> 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
US (or government-run, tax-funded "public option"), or would you, with
everyone paying taxes into it? If not, why not?

[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]