Page 40 of 57 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 570

Thread: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

  1. #391
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'll tell you straight...

    I don't believe any social program has been run efficiently throughout this country's 200+ year history. But that DOES NOT obsolve our government from doing everything it can to provide aid to its people by any means it deems necessarily by the electorate to look after and promote the general welfare of the country as a whole.

    Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, EPA, VA, DEA, FDA, Dept of Humans Services (DHS), etc, etc. All of this agencies/programs were designed to promote the general welfare of the people, to provide a means whereby those who have been economically, financially or in some way socially disadvantaged to give them a means to lift themselves up and have a fair shake at having a decent quality of life. Now, the overall authority with some of these programs remain at the federal level while others have been delegated and/or shared by the states. I think those who are in opposition of some of the more commonly known social programs, i.e., welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, VA, forget that these programs have a shared responsibility between the federal government and the states. It's not just the fed that run these programs inefficiently. It's also the fault of the states. But what's at the root of this inefficiency?

    MONEY!

    No state wants to take full responsibility for these social programs because they know if they do their government subsidy will stop!

    No state wants to run these social programs more efficiently and, thus, eliminate the co-dependency status of their residences because they know if the financial kickback they receive from the fed will cease!

    The irony here is the states have yet to realize that the more of their residences they can off of these social programs and, thus, become independent the more economically solvent the state can be. Put people to work earning a living for themselves bring more tax revenue to that state. Unfornately, what we have is 50 nanny states. Personally, I like the idea of "work-fare" because it empowers the people who depend on it to get a leg up in society. Unfortunately, not one state that has enacted workfare run their programs as efficiently as their laws were designed to do. Nonetheless, that does NOT obsolve the federal government from doing everything it can to provide for the general welfare of its people. So, inefficient as some or most social programs may be, I think they serve a very important purpose. It's really up to the states moreso than the federal government to make these programs work more efficiently because that power has been delegated to them despite the federal government setting the standards.

    Now, as to the public option, I was for it because it would have promoted openeness across the board in personal health insurance. If the program would have been passed as originally intended, statelines would have been open and the people could have obtained their health insurance from any state in the union no matter where they lived, no matter what job they migrated to, no matter what type of health insurance package they purchased and no matter how that insurance was provided to them - employer-based, individually acquired, via high risk pools, co-ops or state-based health insurance exchange. The health insurance industry would have been an open playing field, but the industry as a whole would have remained intact and been far more viable, IMO, because it would have promoted greater competition. For me personally, I liked the idea that if I changed jobs or moved from one state to the next be in a neighboring state or clear across country I could retain my health insurance if I were satisfied with what I had. As things stand now, no one can do that. So, if I lived in CA but moved to Maine, I couldn't keep my current health insurance UNLESS my relocation was at the request of my present employer. Otherwise, we're all screwed in that regard.

    Now, granted, not alot of us will ever have to deal with that problem, but it was nice to think that should I move from one state to the next I could keep my health insurance plan under the public option as originally designed. Or if I wanted to migrate from my employer-based insurance plan and find one I thought was better at a reduced cost out-of-state I could do that, too. For the insurance company that felt they were losing customers, I say tough! You argue captialism...I say they should provide a better, more economical product! That's their problem, not mine. IMO, it would have been captialism at it's finest...the insurance company that provided the worst policies go under while those companies that provide better at a fair price remain afloat. It's what Conservatives wanted, right? The certainly would have had it with the public option or been forced to adjust their practises and better compete in the marketplace.

    You can't have it both ways.
    Did you read what you have posted here? Subsidies, welfare, govt. responsibility, providing for domestic welfare? Is that what you were taught in school as to the role of the Federal Govt? Did you take any history and civics classes? Does personal responsibility have any place in your world?

    Are you really this naive? Our Founders got it right, theirs was giving the power to the states and local govt. for issues like the ones you want the Federal Taxpayer to subsidize. Why do you believe some bureaucrat in D.C. knows what the needs are for your hometown?

    Everything you posted is contrary to what history tells us about our Founders and takes our country the way of Europe and its social model. Better check out the economic conditions in Europe with their high unemployment, low wages, and low economic growth.

    You live in the greatest country on the face of the earth but liberals want to make it into the welfare state. Stop thinking with your heart and use your brain. Social problems are best handled by the local govt. and charities. Govt. creates dependence and victims and that doesn't bode well for the future.

  2. #392
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA but mostly in my head
    Last Seen
    06-02-10 @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    161

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You think it is right for 50% of the people not to pay any income taxes? It is bogus to call SS a retirement fund on one hand but a tax on another. Typical liberal bs. People are force to pay into the SS fund with a guarantee they will get something out when they retire. Where is that guarantee with income taxes?

    It is the liberal argument that SS is a tax when it is really a "contribution" to ones retirement account.
    It is a tax if you accumulate all that money and get to keep it for yourself imagine how much money you can invest into your company or intuition. Everything is a tax when you cant keep the money to so to make decision to benefit yourself and cause. People I believe can generate their own retirements if not then its their own mismanagement of a substantial amount of money to be paid yearly to those who retire and deserve nothing more. But to pay yearly or monthly back money leaves money left unspent to go to government when someone dies unexpectantly without achieving their goals from lack of funds in which they already worked for.

  3. #393
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtprocess View Post
    It is a tax if you accumulate all that money and get to keep it for yourself imagine how much money you can invest into your company or intuition. Everything is a tax when you cant keep the money to so to make decision to benefit yourself and cause. People I believe can generate their own retirements if not then its their own mismanagement of a substantial amount of money to be paid yearly to those who retire and deserve nothing more. But to pay yearly or monthly back money leaves money left unspent to go to government when someone dies unexpectantly without achieving their goals from lack of funds in which they already worked for.
    When liberals equate SS taxes to income taxes then we have a serious problem. Although forced to pay both SS is supposed to come back to you. I would have preferred the private investment of my SS funds then my family would get it all.

    In the liberal world there is no such thing as personal responsibility as individual problems are always the fault of someone else especially those evil businesses.

  4. #394
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA but mostly in my head
    Last Seen
    06-02-10 @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    161

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    When liberals equate SS taxes to income taxes then we have a serious problem. Although forced to pay both SS is supposed to come back to you. I would have preferred the private investment of my SS funds then my family would get it all.

    In the liberal world there is no such thing as personal responsibility as individual problems are always the fault of someone else especially those evil businesses.
    I agree with your private investment. That is a decision you wish for yourself but is not possible. We definetly agree on how we should profit from our own earnings. I believe this instance should be one of focus to us all because you are successful and I am successful by our own hands and effort so why doesnt the money we get taken from us dictate our further earnings. We are limited to percentage a percentage like a bank that can net us profits for not only us but our future generations. Great point Im glad you stepped your game up because it is very enjoyable to witness those ideals.

  5. #395
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Did you read what you have posted here? Subsidies, welfare, govt. responsibility, providing for domestic welfare? Is that what you were taught in school as to the role of the Federal Govt? Did you take any history and civics classes? Does personal responsibility have any place in your world?

    Are you really this naive? Our Founders got it right, theirs was giving the power to the states and local govt. for issues like the ones you want the Federal Taxpayer to subsidize. Why do you believe some bureaucrat in D.C. knows what the needs are for your hometown?

    Everything you posted is contrary to what history tells us about our Founders and takes our country the way of Europe and its social model. Better check out the economic conditions in Europe with their high unemployment, low wages, and low economic growth.

    You live in the greatest country on the face of the earth but liberals want to make it into the welfare state. Stop thinking with your heart and use your brain. Social problems are best handled by the local govt. and charities. Govt. creates dependence and victims and that doesn't bode well for the future.
    Obviously, you didn't read the content of what I posted, only the context. The point I was trying to make and get you to see is that perfect Union our Founding Fathers conceived in is far from perfect. As so many others have pointed out time and time again, there are gray areas and loopholes in the way this country governs for a reason. In order to remain strong there has to be flexibility.

    I'm not naive enough to think that this country doesn't have its share of problems on so many fronts, but neither am I naive enough to think everything will work so perfectly as you and others believe things should. Bottom line is if the government doesn't empower the states to empower the people, then you have exactly what the talking heads have been espousing through their fearful rhetoric - tyranny, injustice and an unjust society. Every once in a while a national leader comes along and tries to balance the scales alittle bit. History will show in time whether Pres. Obama's brand of leadership have tipped the scales too far to the left or if things are more evened out. For now, I'm fine with letting things play out because based on the laws that he has signed to date none have taken away your rights, your civil liberties, your peace of mind. You're afraid of what may be...what might be, but you're still able to be today who you were yesterday, last week, last month, even last year and do the exact same things you did way back when. Don't let your fear blind your common sense.

    (Sidenote: Let's save the "personal responsibility" and powers of government arguments for another thread. This one has been side tracked enough...stay on point, please.)
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 04-24-10 at 04:25 PM.

  6. #396
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Objective Voice;1058708710]Obviously, you didn't read the content of what I posted, only the context. The point I was trying to make and get you to see is that perfect Union our Founding Fathers conceived in is far from perfect. As so many others have pointed out time and time again, there are gray areas and loopholes in the way this country governs for a reason. In order to remain strong there has to be flexibility.
    As the Preamble states, to form a MORE perfect union, not a perfect union as none exists the Founders created the Constitution we have. They put the power at the state level due to the fact that centralized power corrupts and that is the case regardless of the party in power.

    The point I was trying to make is that it is NOT the Federal Govt's role to PROVIDE Domestic welfare but to PROMOTE Domestic welfare and they understood you do that through personal responsibility, individual risk taking, and by providing incentive. There is equal opportunity in this country today but there was never the intent of equal outcome.

    I'm not naive enough to think that this country doesn't have its share of problems on so many fronts, but neither am I naive enough to think everything will work so perfectly as you and others believe things should. Bottom line is if the government doesn't empower the states to empower the people, then you have exactly what the talking heads have been espousing through their fearful rhetoric - tyranny, injustice and an unjust society. Every once in a while a national leader comes along and tries to balance the scales alittle bit. History will show in time whether Pres. Obama's brand of leadership have tipped the scales too far to the left or if things are more evened out. For now, I'm fine with letting things play out because based on the laws that he has signed to date none have taken away your rights, your civil liberties, your peace of mind. You're afraid of what may be...what might be, but you're still able to be today who you were yesterday, last week, last month, even last year and do the exact same things you did way back when. Don't let your fear blind your common sense.
    Any govt. big enough to provide you all that you "need" is also big enough to take it all away. What this President is doing is trying to redistribute wealth and create dependence. That is contrary to the foundation upon which this country was built.

    History doesn't seem to have a place in most liberals' world because they ignore it or try to rewrite it. Liberals believe that you or me creating individual wealth always take it from someone else thus it has to be returned. Free enterprise and capitalism made this country great, not wealth redistribution. If you give someone everything they want there is no need for them to ever work for themselves.

    History will indeed judge this President and based upon his first year he is making Carter look good. It is the drastic shift to the left that is too much for most and thus the dropping poll numbers. The debt he is adding is going to consume 90% of our GDP and that is unsustainable. Your money isn't going to be worth the paper it is written on and more and more people are going to become dependent on the govt. That further centralizes power and further corrupts the process. Obama is not trying to balance the scales, he is doing everything he can to tip the scales and fund his brand of govt. on the backs of those of us that actually pay income taxes.

    Obama's goal is centralized power, redistribution of wealth, and a govt. providing for all Americans. National Healthcare is the first step in that direction. Why anyone believes a word he says is beyond me. His goal is single payer and his goal is total redistribution of wealth thus equal outcome. pay attention to what he is doing not what he says.

  7. #397
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA but mostly in my head
    Last Seen
    06-02-10 @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    161

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Obviously, you didn't read the content of what I posted, only the context. The point I was trying to make and get you to see is that perfect Union our Founding Fathers conceived in is far from perfect. As so many others have pointed out time and time again, there are gray areas and loopholes in the way this country governs for a reason. In order to remain strong there has to be flexibility.

    I'm not naive enough to think that this country doesn't have its share of problems on so many fronts, but neither am I naive enough to think everything will work so perfectly as you and others believe things should. Bottom line is if the government doesn't empower the states to empower the people, then you have exactly what the talking heads have been espousing through their fearful rhetoric - tyranny, injustice and an unjust society. Every once in a while a national leader comes along and tries to balance the scales alittle bit. History will show in time whether Pres. Obama's brand of leadership have tipped the scales too far to the left or if things are more evened out. For now, I'm fine with letting things play out because based on the laws that he has signed to date none have taken away your rights, your civil liberties, your peace of mind. You're afraid of what may be...what might be, but you're still able to be today who you were yesterday, last week, last month, even last year and do the exact same things you did way back when. Don't let your fear blind your common sense.

    (Sidenote: Let's save the "personal responsibility" and powers of government arguments for another thread. This one has been side tracked enough...stay on point, please.)
    Your right president Obama is middle of the road. Healthcare he could have passed a single payer but he took into account bi-partisanship in which no one gives him credit for and he agreed to less of a liberal bill. Republicans are against him for political reasons but Obama threw out the Olive branch with no regard of the effect politically that has happened with a weaker healthcare bill that translates to liberals not getting what they want merely a piece of it. There is no excuse for this amount of hatred for a man who comes to the table and makes decisions that incorporate everyone even though they are adamantly against him. The only excuse is that hes a democrat (i wont go black because it attempts to invalidate my point).

    Also personal reponsiblity does come into play in these arguements its just now during this administration that people are taking things personal. Where were you before recession? We seek personal responsiblity but only after we should have engaged in that practice? Now people dont know what to do but hold others responsible. Personal responsiblity we didnt practice before now its the bees knees. It makes me laugh to state something needed that is not in practice is laughable.
    Last edited by thoughtprocess; 04-24-10 at 04:47 PM.

  8. #398
    User KeeKee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    123

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    I keep hearing that this all needs left to state, local and charities where it is suppose to be handled. If that is so true then my question is why haven't the state, local and charities already handled this? Why have they dropped the ball so badly that the government has an opening to step in?

    Why have private insurance companies used predator practices so heavily that it is fast coming to a point that only the middle rich can buy their product? The upper rich don't need it they have the money to pay out of pocket.
    May all beings give and receive compassion, Live free from fear, And dwell in peace. - author unknown

  9. #399
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA but mostly in my head
    Last Seen
    06-02-10 @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    161

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by KeeKee View Post
    I keep hearing that this all needs left to state, local and charities where it is suppose to be handled. If that is so true then my question is why haven't the state, local and charities already handled this? Why have they dropped the ball so badly that the government has an opening to step in?

    Why have private insurance companies used predator practices so heavily that it is fast coming to a point that only the middle rich can buy their product? The upper rich don't need it they have the money to pay out of pocket.
    You must breakdown the issue. Why is the top insurance companies so dominate so not to provide product to the most?

    Why cant Americans afford a product of paper and words?
    Why cant we fix healthcare?

    Like car insurance I believe if you have a set amount of time where you dont get into an accident you should at least get half your money back. 5 years without an accident for some pays for the value of your car but you never see that money again. We only get savings on force pay. That money is gone from me never to be seen again when Im doing the right thing always. That is not profit or gains for myself just a bill for driving a car responsibly.


    The answer is government. Through leadership change big business is protected because they rightfully attempt to control the market through government yet they want less government control lol. The legislations provide safety from competitiors and more income through special interest investments into government. Government attempts to correct the problem while groups in government retain profits therefore the people arent served equally. Look to government and its control on small business and the amount of money some officials accumulate to keep them down so to net a handful of companies more profit. It is known that you have to play that game to be successful but what kind of business do you need millions of campaign contributions and high powered lawyers to keep small business competition at bay but dishonest and not a fair market
    Last edited by thoughtprocess; 04-24-10 at 05:14 PM.

  10. #400
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    As the Preamble states, to form a MORE perfect union, not a perfect union as none exists the Founders created the Constitution we have. They put the power at the state level due to the fact that centralized power corrupts and that is the case regardless of the party in power.

    The point I was trying to make is that it is NOT the Federal Govt's role to PROVIDE Domestic welfare but to PROMOTE Domestic welfare and they understood you do that through personal responsibility, individual risk taking, and by providing incentive. There is equal opportunity in this country today but there was never the intent of equal outcome.

    Any govt. big enough to provide you all that you "need" is also big enough to take it all away. What this President is doing is trying to redistribute wealth and create dependence. That is contrary to the foundation upon which this country was built.

    History doesn't seem to have a place in most liberals' world because they ignore it or try to rewrite it. Liberals believe that you or me creating individual wealth always take it from someone else thus it has to be returned. Free enterprise and capitalism made this country great, not wealth redistribution. If you give someone everything they want there is no need for them to ever work for themselves.

    History will indeed judge this President and based upon his first year he is making Carter look good. It is the drastic shift to the left that is too much for most and thus the dropping poll numbers. The debt he is adding is going to consume 90% of our GDP and that is unsustainable. Your money isn't going to be worth the paper it is written on and more and more people are going to become dependent on the govt. That further centralizes power and further corrupts the process. Obama is not trying to balance the scales, he is doing everything he can to tip the scales and fund his brand of govt. on the backs of those of us that actually pay income taxes.

    Obama's goal is centralized power, redistribution of wealth, and a govt. providing for all Americans. National Healthcare is the first step in that direction. Why anyone believes a word he says is beyond me. His goal is single payer and his goal is total redistribution of wealth thus equal outcome. pay attention to what he is doing not what he says.
    Again, you totally misconstrued what I posted previously. I'm not saying that the government should see to every need of its citizens. However, I AM saying that unless government takes ample measures to look out for the general welfare of its citizens this country in particular will be no better off than the Nazies during WWII where the old, weak, infirmed and disregarded were disgarded as being unfit for humanity let alone society. Is that truly the kind of country you invision? Is that where you really want to live?

    Captialism has its place and the U.S. by all accounts have perfected the concept better than any other civilized nation. But the idea of "trickle-down economics" really is a pipe dream when you consider it in its truest form. The "have's" make the money and, thus, obtain and retain the power while the "have-nots" sit on the sidelines waiting for the breadcrumbs to be thrown to them. Is it their fault that they either were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths, born on the wrong side of the tracks as it were, weren't privileged enough to be able to obtain a higher education or simply did not luck out and latch onto some novel idea that made them a fortune? Frankly, I think you've got it all wrong! For if your idea of "the rich just keep getting richer and retain their wealth, privilage and power whereby they make all the rules while the poor keep getting poorer and aspire to nothing" wins out, this nation is no better off than a Communist state.

    NO! It is the responsibility of the priveleged and of government to help the "have-nots" to aspire to greatness as much as it is for the "have-nots" to work towards attaining their own piece of the pie. Otherwise, the rich are a bunch of Scrooges hoarding power while the poor are relegated to nothing more than peering through the living room windows of the rich and powerful wishing they were born on the right side of the tracks.

    I am not opposed to anyone aspiring to fame and fortune. I wish I should one day become so lucky. But until God bestows such a blessing upon me, I am in no way begrudging those who do have wealth or fame or privilege nor am I sitting back with my hand held out waiting...hoping for someone to give me anything. I put in my 40+ hrs per week and provide for me and mine just as I'm sure you do. But that doesn't mean I spit on those who are less fortunate than myself. If I have it to give, I help those who are less fortunate than myself. I expect the more privileged to do the same and many do through their charitable contributions, including our nation's 44th President. Moreover, while I do believe that the wealthy are entitled to certain benefits, i.e., tax codes that allow them to retain some of what they earn tax-free, I also believe that government has a responsibility to help those who otherwise cannot help themselve - or atleast provide avenues whereby those who are struggling to make ends meet can hope to get a leg up. And if by that it means that the tax codes should be revised and/or modified to provide perks to the middle-class, well so be it. But we're not talking about taxation as much as we're discussion social programs. As such, I see nothing wrong with our government enacting such social programs as long as in doing so it is left up to the states to manage them for the most part because it is they - the states - who should be holding the residents within their respective states accountable for the federally sponsored benefits they receive. To that, I don't blame the fed as much as I blame the individuals states.

Page 40 of 57 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •