Thoughts on healthcare

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by doug66, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. doug66

    doug66 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    538
    Location:
    Kansas
    Healthcare is a right for: Elderly
    Vets
    Handicapped
    All others, go get a job.
    Still can't afford it... Then cancel your cell phone, internet, quit drinking beer and smoking, stay out of casinos, try water instead of pepsi, eat a miricle whip sandwich instead of a whopper, stop charging up your credit cards on chinese made crap from WM you don't need. It seems to me alot of people have the funds to do the things they want to do.
    I know there are millions of Americans who really can't afford it, and they oughta be able to get some sort of govt. subsidy to help out, but I believe people need to be responsible for their own lives and put some of that fed tax credit/return towards some health insurance.
  2. JohnBrainard

    JohnBrainard New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Gilbert, AZ
    Calling something a right doesn't mean that it ought to be provided for by other people's taxes. If that were the case, I want to know where to get my free gun. After all, I have the right to keep and bear arms. It even says so in the Bill of Rights. Considering that the 2nd Amendment was written for the sole purpose of giving the people a means to protect themselves from an oppressive government, I expect at least an M4.
  3. artabr

    artabr New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,859
    Location:
    New Iberia, Louisiana
    I haven't been able to find the word "health care" in the Constitution or any of it's Amendments. Just saying.

    If you want state funded health care do it at the state level, not federal.

    I have no problem with VA health care being funded through the military budget.



    THE BILL OF RIGHTS


    Amendment I (1): Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II (2): Right to bear arms
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III (3): Housing of soldiers
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV (4): Search and arrest warrants
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V (5): Rights in criminal cases
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

    Amendment VI (6): Rights to a fair trial
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

    Amendment VII (7): Rights in civil cases
    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII (8): Bails, fines, and punishments
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX (9): Rights retained by the people
    The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X (10): Powers retained by the states and the people
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


    Amendment XI (11): Lawsuits against states
    The Eleventh Amendment was proposed on March 4, 1794, and ratified on February 7,1795. However, the amendment was not proclaimed until 1798 because of delays that occurred in certifying the ratification.

    The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


    Amendment XII (12): Election of the President and Vice President
    The Twelfth Amendment was proposed on December 9, 1803, and ratified on July 27, 1804.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; —The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; —The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall evolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-] (Note: Superseded by section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.) The person having the greatest of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


    Amendment XIII (13): Abolition of slavery
    The Thirteenth Amendment was proposed on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865.

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    Amendment XIV (14): Civil rights
    The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


    Amendment XV (15): Black suffrage
    The Fifteenth Amendment was proposed on February 26, 1869, and ratified on February 3, 1870.

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    Amendment XVI (16): Income taxes
    The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed on July 12, 1909, and ratified on February 3, 1913.

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


    Amendment XVII (17): Direct election of senators
    The Seventeenth Amendment was proposed on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913.

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointment: until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


    Amendment XVIII (18): Prohibition of liquor
    The Eighteenth Amendment was proposed on December 18, 1917, and ratified on January 16, 1919. It was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, December 5, 1933.


    Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

    Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.]


    Amendment XIX (19): Woman suffrage
    The Nineteenth Amendment was proposed on June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18,1920.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    Amendment XX (20): Terms of the President and Congress
    The Twentieth Amendment was proposed on March 2, 1932, and ratified on January 23,1933.

    Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified, and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

    Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

    Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a president whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

    Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

    Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.


    Amendment XXI (21): Repeal of prohibition
    The Twenty-First Amendment was proposed on February 20, 1933, and ratified on December 5, 1933.

    Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

    Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


    Amendment XXII (22): Limitation of Presidents to two terms
    The Twenty-Second Amendment was proposed on March 24, 1947, and ratified on February 27, 1951.

    Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.


    Amendment XXIII (23): Suffrage in the District of Columbia
    The Twenty-Third Amendment was proposed on June 16, 1960, and ratified on March 29, 1961.

    Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

    A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    Amendment XXIV (24): Poll taxes
    The Twenty-Fourth Amendment was proposed on August 27, 1962, and ratified on January 23, 1964.

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    Amendment XXV (25): Presidential disability and succession
    The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was proposed on July 6, 1965, and ratified on February 10, 1967.

    Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

    Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

    Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

    Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

    Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

    Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.


    Amendment XXVI (26): Suffrage for 18-year-olds
    The Twenty-Sixth Amendment was proposed on March 23, 1971, and ratified on July 1, 1971.

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    Amendment XXVII (27): Congressional salaries
    The Twenty-Seventh Amendment was proposed on September 25, 1789, and ratified on May 7, 1992.

    No Law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

    Only one amendment has overturned a previous amendment. The Twenty-first Amendment (1933) repealed the prohibition of alcohol, which was established by the Eighteenth Amendment (1919).





    Art
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2010
  4. doug66

    doug66 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    538
    Location:
    Kansas
    My point is the vets,the old and disabled should be taken care of, all others need to help themselves. I wasn't questioning the constitutionality of healthcare. Maybe the word "right" wasn't what I was looking for.
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2010
  5. JohnBrainard

    JohnBrainard New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Gilbert, AZ
    I don't mind the veterans being taken care of through the VA on the military budget as artabr said, but any care for the elderly or disabled should, at most, be done on the state level. We don't need the federal government "helping" any more than they already do. In fact, I would love to see them stop "helping" as much as they do now.
  6. pinecone70

    pinecone70 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4,729
    Location:
    Minnesota Gal!
    I know a couple of people that went on disability and there is nothing wrong with them. Free ride on the entitlement train is all they're after.
  7. ARB

    ARB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,186
    Location:
    Mid Missouri
    Yeah, I've known a few a well. :(
  8. Zane71464

    Zane71464 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    5,968
    Location:
    Ohio NRA Member
    That's partly why things as such are so screwed up, people abusing the system and that puts a damper on things for the deserving.
    And it seems that people that need it can't get it, or have a hard time getting it (like social security disability), and the low life's out there that don't deserve things seem to get it more so then the deserving.
  9. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,607
    Location:
    Australia
    Very different system here

    In the military the wages suck compared , but there are benefits
    War Service home loans

    home loans here are 7-10% interest if you do 90 days war service ( combat or combat support) your entitled to a loan of up to 85K at 3% interest they took that a few months after they took our guns

    health insurance

    here its mandatory payments but military pay less ( about half) subsidized

    even my pension i have to contribute to medicare insurance about $1000 a year only as i have already paid 30 years worth and have 20 years + mil service

    but nationailised health dont cover it and the insurance companies then refuse to cover folks , ( high risk) so even if you can afford it they wont cover you so after 20+ YEARS OF COMPUSORY INSURANCE YOU COST TO MUCH THEY DROP YOU , and most veterans are dropped real fast thats another side of what they aint explaining to you but is in the documents ..

    and yes we get folks here getting a free ride politicians and thier familys for life never have to contribute , refugees, welfare ( not all ) so the rality is 1/2 the people pay all thier lives the other half pay nothing but the ones who pay nothing get the most out of it while the ones who pay often get dropped , here they call it "falling through the cracks" and is accepted as just part of life
  10. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,125
    +1

    And I also agree with whoever said veterans should be given care through the military's budget.
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2010
  11. keepitlow

    keepitlow New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    US
    Another fellow (I think on the AR-15 forum) had a solution to America's woes. He subscribed to the "Scrooge Theory."

    He said if a person can't get along without pills, medicine, psychiatric care, welfare, medicare, food stamps or gov handouts to live - then they need to just die. He wasn't bitter about it, just viewed this as the correct way to run a country under the law of natural selection.

    I heard similar views from the survival podcast man about gov entitlements. (He didn't mention the need to die part) but, I agree with him the gov keeps a certain amount on the citizens beholden to the politicians for handouts,

    But that is how we built our nation. Do we kill off half of the pop in midstream? If that was the case, America would be a very different place, wouldn't it?

    The Rep on TV today at the presidential healthcare summit said the Reps don't what the gov in control of healthcare, they want people in control.

    OK, that is exactly what we have... people in control of healthcare. So if nothing changes, then nothing changes. (well, not really, we can guarantee that costs will skyrocket.)

    Even if the dreaded 'public option' went through it would not have helped. Have you ever noticed the politicians never talked numbers they just talked in generalities? Like we are going to insure tens of millions of uninsured citizens...but they failed to give the costs the uninsured people must pay?

    For instance lets say they took all the profit out of the Blue Cross $15,000 a year annual premium for a cheap health plan for me and my wife. So with a non profit - public option the annual premium ay come down to $11,000 or $10,000 or $9000...so what! We still can't afford it with all the profit taken out!

    And with the $3800 ObamaCare fine we would to pay for not being able to afford healthcare, we would have been in much worse shape trying to get by. The little bit of money we budget for medicine or doctor visits each year would not even touch the cost of paying that $3800 fine.

    Let me tell you how ObamaCare would have affected our family with our budget.

    When the original proposal to jail those without healthcare proved too unpopular and was dropped. The new proposed fine of $3800 they mandate on the uninsured would make it a decision of whether to pay my $345 a month house payment or pay Obama's fine of $316.66 per month (pro-tated)

    If I pay the fine, the bank takes back the house. And if I refuse to pay his fine, I'll still lose my house to the IRS? Either way we are out in the street.

    But, a socialized health plan was never really on the table. Well, it made good fodder to distract the public over the threat of turning America red.

    The 'real plan' all along, may have been to enrich the HMO's with new 'forced' business and ram the latest scam, the 'Individual Mandate,' down the publics throats. I was told that the lobbyists for HMO's have thrown more money at DC over this issue (healthcare related or not) than any other issue in history.

    Lets take a look at how it all went down. After all, it is quite a change from what Obama promised.

    From...

    "Lets Spread the Wealth. Lets set up a Socialized Healthcare System for All Americans paid for by taxing the rich 5%."

    To...

    "All uninsured Americans MUST buy healthcare insurance. And you must submit such evidence of coverage on your tax returns to the IRS or you will be FINED a penalty up to $3800."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072103410.html

    Employers are decreasing ins coverage to keep their bills down. Companies are letting go of full timers to replace them with part timers to cutout benefits offered. It used to be companies stayed with a medical insurance plan for years, Now the trend is to change plans yearly shopping around for the lowest cost plan which translates into lower coverage for the employees.

    The trend with healthcare benefits has been steadily declining. A friend told me 2 years ago their jobs med insurance went from no ded with a $10 co pay to $20 co pay and $750 ded. This year it was $20 co pay and $2000 ded...plus a $600 a year raise in premiums for privilege of less coverage.

    Next year they are talking about only covering the actual worker and not covering the family members and / or a $5000 ded.

    In addition to these cutbacks, in 2010 the insurance company now mandates that the insured cannot use either of 2 local state of the art hospitals, but must use 3 regional smaller hospitals to get coverage for most medical needs.

    Here is a glimpse of your future...

    "Kaiser forecast that the yearly family premium for health insurance could reach $30,803.00 in ten years if the 8.7% annual increase of the previous 10 years were to continue."

    http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm

    And lets go out a further 10 years. Now, the average premium is $70,939.00 per year at an 8.7% annual increase. Would you like to be forced under penalty of law to pay a $70,000 a year bill?

    Some of you say that is ridiculous?

    Well, why so?

    If it has happened on a continual and regular year in - year out basis for decades...what will stop it? Are healthcare costs suddenly frozen for all of eternity?

    Once healthcare insurance is mandated under penalty of law, the insurance companies will really start raping the public. They will have a captive audience.

    There is ONLY one solution to the healthcare mess in the US of A. The solution is this. We need a SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE plan for the poor (people making under $150,000 a year) as well as a 'FEE FOR SERVICE' plan for the rich. (current healthcare plan in the US.)

    But the insurance companies that own the politicians wont go for socialized medicine even as an adjunct. Capitalism and greed block social ethics at every turn.

    And if per chance a politicians leans in a direction of social ethics. The lobbyists funded by the rich tell him or her we will back your opponent and take you out of office come next election. But if you play ball we will fund your campaign.

    So human nature what it is, they go where the money flows.

    We already have a socialized education system. We all pay for educating the kids through taxes. And some of us use this system and others don't, but we all pay. The people that don't want to use the public education system go the private education route.

    So it should be with healthcare.

    Tax people 1% to 6% depending on income and start a gov run healthcare system that can be used by ANY citizen in need. If that tax is not enough revenue, then start charging foreigners flying into the US an arrival and departure tax. Or start charging a 1% SHC (socialized health care) sales tax.

    Oh ... there is one fly in the ointment with my suggestion. The problem is getting a bunch of greedy, lying, power hungry rhetoricians in DC to oversee socialized medicine in a way that is not corrupt and money squandering like Medicare is. As one of my mentors said....'You can't regulate integrity.'
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2010
  12. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    The working man is expected to pay for everything.
    We pay for our schools for as long as we live. When your kids graduate, do you get to stop paying taxes? What if you don't even have children?
    I don't ride the bus or the train, but I pay for them.
    I don't ride the ferries either. People make the choice to live in a half million dollar home on an island with a waterfront view, and I have to subsidize their commute?:eek::mad::mad::mad: How on EARTH does that work?

    Howsabout if you use a service, YOU pay for it?
    I've paid into medi-whatever and SS all my life. I'll never see a nickel of it. It's all been given to those that don't contribute.:mad:
    I will die at my desk, and then be taxed for doing so.:(

    How screwed up is it?

    I once worked with a single mom of two. The Mint would pay her child care if she only made X amount of dollars. If she worked an hour over that, her childcare was cut off. COMPLETELY!
    That's some real incentive for folks to get back to work and better themselves!:mad:
    No wonder we're on the brink. There's no middle ground any more.

    Sorry.:eek: Back to topic.

    My son is no longer covered by my insurance because he's 19, can't get a job, and doesn't qualify for any loans/grants/funding to pay for college.
    In the eyes of the Mint, I make too much money for him to qualify, and my credit rating seems to be too high?.:confused:

    If he were to need to use the ER (heaven forbid), I'm sure that he'd be admitted and cared for. That's the way it works. I'm glad for that. BUT!?
    Would the hospital come after me or the Mint for payment?
    I gotsa job, so I'm guessing my salary would be on the chopping block.
    If I were on welfare, it wouldn't even be questioned.

    Why is that?

    Our gubMint is totally screwed up.:(
  13. walien

    walien Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    276
    So all of those people who write off their donations to churches should have that taken away?
  14. JohnBrainard

    JohnBrainard New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Gilbert, AZ
    I've never been to a government subsidized Church before. And, it's not just donations to Churches that are tax deductible.

    Sorry. Try again.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Scary thoughts....becoming reality Feb 16, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Furloughed Government Employees Share Their Thoughts on the Shutdown Oct 8, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Thoughts on New Federal DWI Law With .05 Max Alcohol Level? May 15, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Charley Reese's final thoughts, interesting Jan 22, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr My Thoughts on Sandy Hook Dec 29, 2012