Politics Universal Health Care

[ALIAS_RULES]

Adding to what I said in the other thread...

Here's the deal with "giving money right to the poor":

(1) Handouts. Are. Bad. For the economy, for you and me, for FREEDOM, and most of all to the poor themselves. Handouts teach people to be lazy and give the government unwarranted control over individuals. It's just a bad idea all around, even if it LOOKS good in the beginning. And from a more selfish perspective, if I am paying taxes I expect my money to go towards things that benefit EVERYONE (including me), not just to be taken from me and given to someone else. I can easily do that via charitable organizations like The Salvation Army (which everyone should do if they can afford it, IMO).

(2) "Giving money to the rich" is simply flat tax! :lol: It's just taking away the tiers to the tax system so that everyone gives an EQUAL PERCENTAGE of their income to the government. It's not handing anything out -- it's allowing people who make more money to keep more of it.

(3) The "top 1%" wealthy Americans control the economy because they control so much of our resources and businesses, which is why they are rich. A vicious cycle, maybe, BUT -- since this is so, it is necessary to work around it. By giving them more money, they invest more in the country, creating more jobs, lowering unemployment, and raising the general status of the economy (as well as helping with inflation), which in turn helps "the regular guy," and the "poor."

That's all for now from me. ^_^ Feel free to comment and I'll reply!

Les

ETA: As for where Healthcare fits into all of this -- I don't remember. :lol: But I felt the need to defend the idea I wrote abt in the other thread. ^_^

[post="977981"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

OK! I have one thing to say. Instead of giving money to the poor... WHY NOT, stop giving tax cuts to BILLIONARES, and give them to the lowest class. That would be the best idea in my opinion.

 

[ALIAS_RULES]

I think everyone should have the right to healthcare as well; and under America's current system, they do have the right, but they need to put a little effort in to get it. 

Tell that to a single mom with three kids, who works two shifts because her husband left her. Tell that to a widow who can't afford to even pay utilities bills, let alone insurance costs.

 

[Kewii]

Friendly reminder not to double post.

Now back to your regularly scheduled chat.

 

[ALIAS_RULES]

Friendly reminder not to double post.

Now back to your regularly scheduled chat.

[post="978001"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I'm so sorry! I've been trying to avoid that! Ahh, I didn't realize... I got caught up in the moment! Oops...

 

[VaughnsAHottie]

Haha Silly Law as for the people the people that cant afford it...dont they have life insurance...doesnt the dad have to part-pay in it

 

[ALIAS_RULES]

Haha Silly Law as for the people the people that cant afford it...dont they have life insurance...doesnt the dad have to part-pay in it

[post="978023"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Not if you can't find the dad...

 

[VaughnsAHottie]

Yah I guess...but then it brings me back to the whole thing of we should have it but we cant afford it with bush spending so much money on the war

 

[Kewii]

Haha Silly Law as for the people the people that cant afford it...dont they have life insurance...doesnt the dad have to part-pay in it

[post="978023"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

some parents prefer not to get involved. My mom hasn't seen a cent from my dad since I was about 10 (I'm 20 now) despite all the agreement, the divorce settlement.
He doesn't even keep a steady job so that we could take it right off his pay.

 

[VaughnsAHottie]

^Which is totally not fair! But then again that would mean your dad would get health care for free pretty much if he can't keep a job...which i guess means he's not "rich" doesnt seem fair to me

 

[ALIAS_RULES]

^Which is totally not fair! But then again that would mean your dad would get health care for free pretty much if he can't keep a job...which i guess means he's not "rich" doesnt seem fair to me

[post="978349"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

So, her mom does deserve it. And even if he can't "keep" a job, that doesn't make him inhuman. Some people have trouble keeping jobs, or they run into bad luck. It happens.

 

[AliasHombre]

OK! I have one thing to say. Instead of giving money to the poor... WHY NOT, stop giving tax cuts to BILLIONARES, and give them to the lowest class. That would be the best idea in my opinion.

[post="977997"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

THATS GIVING MONEY TO THE POOR

 

[VaughnsAHottie]

^amen...which it isn't fair to some respect

 

[Azhria Lilu]

The government is accountable to no one.  Most of this system would not be elected representatives, rather people who always work there, like a normal job.  The elected representatives are not accountable becasue even if they get the boot, the new reps will likely do the same thing.

[post="977894"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

First I'll refer to documents and then to real life

The US Declaration of Independence which declared this country created, states

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I believe in popular sovereignty, the doctrine that government is created by and subject to the will of the people, who are the source of all political power. This doctrine is in fact what the colonists used to justify the revolution.

Real-life: If the people were outraged about something, someone else - such as yourself - could stand up and fight for what you believe and, if the people truly were that outraged, you would be elected.

I think everyone should have the right to healthcare as well; and under America's current system, they do have the right, but they need to put a little effort in to get it.  The government does have programs to support people who do not receive healthcare through their work, but the system isn't perfect.  That being said, national healthcare is NOT the right way to go.  Universal healthcare is socialism...pure and simple.  The U.S. is not a socialist country and we did not become the wealthiest and most diverse nation in the world by giving things away for free.  You have to work for the American dream, you have to put some effort in.  Once we start moving away from the capiltalistic precepts that our country is built on, our nation as a whole will take a step backward.  Universal healthcare may be a good option for France or Canada, but it won't work for us. 

Also, I am pretty sure PunkRockGirl's comment about the bigger house was a comment toward working for what you get here in America.  Those people with larger houses have worked for their money and those people DESERVE a larger house for their efforts.

[post="977973"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

So, should people have to "put a little effort in" in terms of monetary payments to get freedom of speech? Due process? Elementary education? If not, then why should they have to pay for health care?

Adding to what I said in the other thread...

Here's the deal with "giving money right to the poor":

(1) Handouts. Are. Bad. For the economy, for you and me, for FREEDOM, and most of all to the poor themselves. Handouts teach people to be lazy and give the government unwarranted control over individuals. It's just a bad idea all around, even if it LOOKS good in the beginning. And from a more selfish perspective, if I am paying taxes I expect my money to go towards things that benefit EVERYONE (including me), not just to be taken from me and given to someone else. I can easily do that via charitable organizations like The Salvation Army (which everyone should do if they can afford it, IMO).

Why shouldn't the money go to the people who need it most?

Quite honestly, I've met a lot more lazy rich peope than lazy poor people. In our society, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer...

I would really suggest Nickel and Dimed to everyone reading this thread --- it's a great book. Click the link for more info.

(for response to point #2 see the end of my post)

(3) The "top 1%" wealthy Americans control the economy because they control so much of our resources and businesses, which is why they are rich. A vicious cycle, maybe, BUT -- since this is so, it is necessary to work around it. By giving them more money, they invest more in the country, creating more jobs, lowering unemployment, and raising the general status of the economy (as well as helping with inflation), which in turn helps "the regular guy," and the "poor."

But why not invest DIRECTLY in the country, creating more jobs, lowering unemployment, and raising the general status of the economy???

Yah I guess...but then it brings me back to the whole thing of we should have it but we cant afford it with bush spending so much money on the war

[post="978039"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Great. So instead of going towards health care to save people's lives, we spend $399 Billion each year (more than 6 times any other country) on weapons to take away lives. That's great.

THATS GIVING MONEY TO THE POOR

[post="978569"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

But based on this quote

(2) "Giving money to the rich" is simply flat tax! :lol: It's just taking away the tiers to the tax system so that everyone gives an EQUAL PERCENTAGE of their income to the government. It's not handing anything out -- it's allowing people who make more money to keep more of it.

Rather, by that standard, it's just allowing those who need their money the most to keep more of it

 

[ALIAS_RULES]

THATS GIVING MONEY TO THE POOR

[post="978569"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

That's not giving them money, that's giving them the opportunity to catch up! When you get more people in the poor, moving to middle class, the economy becomes stronger! So you think it's better to give a tax cut to Bill Gates rather than to a father, who's been laid-off of work, and doesn't have enough money to send his two kids to the doctor because he has to pay the health care insurance costs. Or it could be the other way around, his kids don't even go to the doctor, so that he can pay the utilities. Under Bush, the gap between poverty and middle class has widened.
Census Bureau Stats, Associated Press

Now, maybe you have turned the corner. It is evident, just like with any conservative aminstration (regieme can even be used, maybe dictator who defies UN and does whatever he wants, that's another thread though) the poor always are left behind to fend for themselves. And, the deficit just gets bigger and bigger.

 

[Azhria Lilu]

I’d also like to point out that the way we determine poverty is grossly inaccurate. We take the average cost for the bare bones foods for that family and multiply it by three and people earning under that are considered impoverished. The problem is the average American family spends about only 15% of their money on food, so the number should more realistically be multiplied by five, not three, to determine what poverty is for a family.

Actually, tying it to food at all is bad because things like housing increase in price and inflate much more quickly than food does, so this problem is only going to get worse.

It is highly unlikely that these families could afford health care, but that does not diminish their right to it. And it is not inherently their fault they can’t afford it (see my earlier reference to Nickel and Dimed)! As I pointed out in my earlier post, we don’t have to work to receive most of our rights – due process, freedom of speech, or elementary education – so why should we have to pay for health care?

 

[AliasHombre]

It is still giving money to the poor.

When you cut their taxes by a huge margin, they are getting back more than they paid. They are getting back money that was taxed from the wealthy. Many of them, in some cases, pay no income tax or a miniscule amount,

Thats redistribution of wealth...a.k.a. socialism.

 

[AliasHombre]

First I'll refer to documents and then to real life 

The US Declaration of Independence which declared this country created, states
I believe in popular sovereignty, the doctrine that government is created by and subject to the will of the people, who are the source of all political power. This doctrine is in fact what the colonists used to justify the revolution.

Real-life: If the people were outraged about something, someone else - such as yourself - could stand up and fight for what you believe and, if the people truly were that outraged, you would be elected.

One senator wont care about someone with cancer in utah as much as the next one will. John Doe wont ever become a senator.

So, should people have to "put a little effort in" in terms of monetary payments to get freedom of speech? Due process? Elementary education? If not, then why should they have to pay for health care?
Why shouldn't the money go to the people who need it most?

We pay for education genius. Education isnt in the constitution, neither is health care.

Quite honestly, I've met a lot more lazy rich peope than lazy poor people. In our society, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer...

A majority of rich people in this country got rich on their own, working hard. Not from inheritance (which the gov't steals most of anyways), but from hard work.

(for response to point #2 see the end of my post)
But why not invest DIRECTLY in the country, creating more jobs, lowering unemployment, and raising the general status of the economy???

How do we create more jobs giving huge tax breaks to the bottom class.

Great. So instead of going towards health care to save people's lives, we spend $399 Billion each year (more than 6 times any other country) on weapons to take away lives. That's great.

Way to misrepresent data. Try representing what we spend as a percentage of our GDP, which is the highest in the world, by a longshot. Our military budget as a percentage of our gdp is lower than many, many nations.

 

[Azhria Lilu]

One senator wont care about someone with cancer in utah as much as the next one will.  John Doe wont ever become a senator.

That's our fault though, as citizens.

We pay for education genius.  Education isnt in the constitution, neither is health care.

Don't know what country you live in

Elementary education is provided by the state, you do NOT have to pay for it. Imagine what our society would be like today if you had to pay to go to school. Many kids who need education the most would not get it. This is the same with health care --- those in the most dire need for health care have the hardest time getting it.

Education is in the constitution of most if not all states, including mine

Section 1. UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

The MN constitution provides for freedom of press, trial by jury, due process, and elementary education. You don't have to put in work to gain these things, don't have to pay to have a jury trial, don't have to pay to get an elementary education, regardless of how big a criminal or how bad a learner you are, so why should you have to pay for health care?

A majority of rich people in this country got rich on their own

Please back up this claim Many people I know, even if they didn’t inherit richness, are rich because their parents gave them the unique tools and connections to get them there. They would not be rich if it was not for their parent’s connections and support in the past. Thus, they did not get their on their own, even though they did not inherit wealth.

How do we create more jobs giving huge tax breaks to the bottom class.

I was suggesting that the government use the money instead to directly employ some of those who are have done nothing wrong but are having trouble finding a job until the people are able to find another job (they must show that they are activly looking). These workers would work on public works projects for the benefit of all.

Way to misrepresent data.  Try representing what we spend as a percentage of our GDP, which is the highest in the world, by a longshot.  Our military budget as a percentage of our gdp is lower than many, many nations.

I don't see your point

You seem to assume that amount of money each county's military needs scales to their GDP, which is not the case. We have no big military rivals, no close competitor, so there is no reason to spend 6 times as much as anyone else to buy weapons. The American people would be better served by universal health care. Even tax cuts would probably be better.

 

[PunkRockGirl]

First let me say I do feel sorry for some of the people who can't afford it. But a hospital cannot refuse them is they are really sick. And with societies addiction to suing I don't think they take many chances. Also like I said a lot of these people probably buy a pack of cigarettes a day. I still think deserve what they work for and if they need a job the provides heath care the government gives educational assistance to low income people.

QUOTE
We pay for education genius.  Education isn’t in the constitution, neither is health care.

Don't know what country you live in 

Elementary education is provided by the state, you do NOT have to pay for it. Imagine what our society would be like today if you had to pay to go to school. Many kids who need education the most would not get it. This is the same with health care --- those in the most dire need for health care have the hardest time getting it.

Maybe I could be convinced to have the government pay for the health care of children under the age of 15years. Maybe!

 

[Kewii]

Also like I said a lot of these people probably buy a pack of cigarettes a day.

[post="978975"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I find that comment very offensive.
It's not fair to generalize people like that. You clearly have no idea what it's like to have nothing and still be working so hard.
Before you judge everyone on the example of some maybe you should try being that person for a little while.