Go ahead and pound me: But I believe the Government should be involved in healthcare.

[targus]

What I have actually said, instead of reading into my posts whatever you want. If you want to discuss the issue, discuss the issue. I have not been rude to anyone, and I do not deserve personal attacks.

No personal attacks are intended - we are just trying to understand.

Here is how I see it.

You have no insurance even though you seem to make enough money to buy it.

Personal choice - I understand that.

And it is not a problem for me because you have said that you don't expect to be given health care services for free - as you are trusting God instead.

Again - personal choice - I understand that.

The problem is that there are many others who also can afford medical insurance but don't want to buy it and are looking at the government as the source for their free health care services - and they want the rest of us to pay for it.

That I do have a problem with - along with all of the damage that the government is going to do to the system.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

The problem is that there are many others who also can afford medical insurance but don't want to buy it and are looking at the government as the source for their free health care services - and they want the rest of us to pay for it.

That's true but with the health care plan that's in the Congress, people who are able to pay for their own insurance will. There is a subsidy, but it's based on a sliding scale contingent on income. With the House bill, you can choose between public and private insurance, similar to how you can choose to send a package by FedEx, UPS, or the Post Office.

 

[rbell]

To quote the great Gilbert Gottfried..."I'm going to die of not surprised."

Repeating...

Havensdad has never answered this:

Since government care is such a great idea...how come it performs so poorly?

and...

Why then do you think that the government should be in the healthcare business?

Is there no other solution other than putting the people in charge who have already shown that they are capable of doing very little right?

 

[Havensdad]

How about this for a solution?

Rather than what we have been discussing, how about a sliding scale that allows a person to redirect the money being deducted out of their check for Social Security taxes, to buy private insurance? For everyone who is single, and makes 20k or less, married and makes 30k or less, and an extra 5k per child.

In other words, say Mr. John Doe, husband, and father of 1, works at a factory, making 30k per year. He therefore is contributing about 1900 dollars per year into Social Security. The company he is working for, under present laws, has to match that. So for the ease of argument, let's say this total is 4,000 dollars. Under this program, he could redirect that money into medical insurance for himself and his family (333 dollars per month).

This then, would be his own money: it would help those who were honestly working, but struggling.

Then, we remove the "Campaign contribution" option from income tax returns, and replace it with a donation box for healthcare for the indigent.

This would not solve the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction...

 

[targus]

That's true but with the health care plan that's in the Congress, people who are able to pay for their own insurance will. There is a subsidy, but it's based on a sliding scale contingent on income. With the House bill, you can choose between public and private insurance, similar to how you can choose to send a package by FedEx, UPS, or the Post Office.

Yes, FedEX and UPS are the private delivery systems - they make a profit and do the job better than the Post Office which is why they are in business.

The Post Office runs at a loss even though it is government subsidized in addition to what I pay for them to deliver a package.

Good examples.

And you think that the government run health care will not be a disaster because...?

 

[Revmitchell]

We have no business making anyone pay for their own insurance or paying for anyone Else's. Ever. There are a plethora of other means to make health care affordable. But demcoms do not want to implement them because of their lust for power.

 

[just-want-peace]

Havensdad sez:

I have not been rude to anyone, and I do not deserve personal attacks.

Rude? No, but you sure have been ambiguous about the "stories" of the hardships you relate (very eloquently, I might add) to "prove" your point!!!!

Makes me think of the "bait & switch" tactics used by some retail outlets to pawn off otherwise un-movable merchandise.

Come to think of it, you are trying to pawn off a product (the health-care fiasco) that most discerning folk KNOW is a disaster and a recipe for gov't control just waiting in the wings.

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad sez:Rude? No, but you sure have been ambiguous about the "stories" of the hardships you relate (very eloquently, I might add) to "prove" your point!!!!

Makes me think of the "bait & switch" tactics used by some retail outlets to pawn off otherwise un-movable merchandise.

Come to think of it, you are trying to pawn off a product (the health-care fiasco) that most discerning folk KNOW is a disaster and a recipe for gov't control just waiting in the wings.

Damon wants poor people to be able to receive medical care! Horrors!

Get the exorcist in here!

 

[abcgrad94]

Damon wants poor people to be able to receive medical care! Horrors!

Get the exorcist in here!

Nope, that's not the issue. They want to "provide health care" with other people's money. That's the horror! I say everyone wanting to contribute to this "free" healthcare, line up and start handing over money on a volunteer basis. Then we'll see how serious the libbies are about it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Damon wants poor people to be able to receive medical care! Horrors!

Get the exorcist in here!

What about the homeless do you want us to give them a house? My point is where does this end? How about let's work to get people self sufficient rather than mere minions of the government that only wants more power over your life.

 

[Havensdad]

Nope, that's not the issue. They want to "provide health care" with other people's money. That's the horror! I say everyone wanting to contribute to this "free" healthcare, line up and start handing over money on a volunteer basis. Then we'll see how serious the libbies are about it.

Then I say the building of public roadways, schools, etc., should ALSO be on a volunteer basis. You want that fancy overpass to avoid the stoplight? Pay for it yourself.

For that matter, the military as well. Why should the government be able to take someone's money that does not support the war overseas? You want that new tank? Take donations!

 

[Revmitchell]

Then I say the building of public roadways, schools, etc., should ALSO be on a volunteer basis. You want that fancy overpass to avoid the stoplight? Pay for it yourself.

This should all be handled at the state level and is not the same thing.

For that matter, the military as well. Why should the government be able to take someone's money that does not support the war overseas? You want that new tank? Take donations!

The constitution provides for those taxes to be collected.

 

[abcgrad94]

Then I say the building of public roadways, schools, etc., should ALSO be on a volunteer basis. You want that fancy overpass to avoid the stoplight? Pay for it yourself.

For that matter, the military as well. Why should the government be able to take someone's money that does not support the war overseas? You want that new tank? Take donations!

What I'm saying is that it's awful easy to be generous when you're spending other people's money.

Comparing the military to healthcare is apples to oranges.

 

[Havensdad]

What I'm saying is that it's awful easy to be generous when you're spending other people's money.

Comparing the military to healthcare is apples to oranges.

Not at all. Both are serving to protect and preserve life.

 

[windcatcher]

]What are we to believe?

Previously you said this:



This was an example. I only have personal examples, since I am not omnipresent. Someone mentioned something about "stealing their money" to pay for someone else's healthcare. My example here, was to show the huge amount of money already taken for other people, from me, and the rest of the public. I was demonstrating that society is necessarily a give and take relationship. Some people pay for roads they never use. Others pay for healtchare for others: give and take.



Is my brother me?

As I believe I stated in my post, my brother was fine because he had family: my point was specifically about others (not my brother) who did not have money, nor family. This post specifically excluded me and my family.



What I have actually said, instead of reading into my posts whatever you want. If you want to discuss the issue, discuss the issue. I have not been rude to anyone, and I do not deserve personal attacks.

So let's see:
You're saying it is not about you..... it is about those you know/ have known?
So this is not your complaint...... it is their complaint?
Because they are dissatified you want national health care?

Whether the antedotes are your own.... or ones you own by proxy..... I don't buy into your position. I've enjoyed private care until very recent. Its not that I'm ungrateful but I prefer choice and personal responsibility over government care and dependence.

 

[rbell]

Then I say the building of public roadways, schools, etc., should ALSO be on a volunteer basis. You want that fancy overpass to avoid the stoplight? Pay for it yourself.

For that matter, the military as well. Why should the government be able to take someone's money that does not support the war overseas? You want that new tank? Take donations!

The sign of a person losing an argument is when they begin to take their points to a ridiculous end.

OK, I'll play. I think everyone has a right to housing. And the internet...after all, knowledge is power, right? Furthermore...everyone should get a "living wage." And...you see what's happening to folks who are po'...they don't get good nutrition. I think our tax dollars should make sure people get gourmet-designed meals. That's a "right," after all. And who could forget transportation? That should be a right. Cell phones, too! And how can we know what Mr. Obama is doing for us without being able to see the news? And how can we see the news without a TV? That should be a right! Oh...and you mentioned roads: I would like roads with bike paths. ANd a bike, too. After all, it's my right...

See what happens when you dismiss the idea of personal responsibility? Kind of stinks, doesn't it?

BTW...at some point, the "rights" of one group will financially overtake the ability of the "producer" group to pay for said rights. That is where you have the financial (and possibly total) collapse of a country.

 

[Havensdad]

This should all be handled at the state level and is not the same thing.

Never said that it had to be federal government.


And your right: saving lives is much more important than a new 30 million dollar school, or a big hunk of concrete that takes 3 minutes off your driving time!

The constitution provides for those taxes to be collected.

Then the constitution needs amending. It is ridiculous that we can collect taxes to kill people, but not to save them.

 

[rbell]

Not at all. Both are serving to protect and preserve life.

No, one protects against enemies...and it is a constitutional right.

The other is a "quality of life" issue...and it is up to the individual, or those around the individual. That is not the government's job. Perhaps a refresher civics course would be of help. Or read the Constitution.

 

[rbell]

Never said that it had to be federal government.


And your right: saving lives is much more important than a new 30 million dollar school, or a big hunk of concrete that takes 3 minutes off your driving time!



Then the constitution needs amending. It is ridiculous that we can collect taxes to kill people, but not to save them.

Wow...what is there to say, when a person decides that it's up to the Government to take care of my physical needs?

I find it hilarious that you say in sentence one, "it's not necessarily up to the feds," and then in sentence three, you want to fix the Constitution so that it is the job of the Feds!

Make up your mind, man.

 

[targus]

Havensdad, I am still hoping for an answer to my proposal.

I will ask again for a third time.

How about a system of medical insurance for the uninsured that is paid for through voluntary donations from people who feel as you do?

What percentage of your income would you be willing to contribute?