- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm #753289
kootchmanMemberFor those to irresponsible to get with a social responsibility, yes. For the rest of us.. we have better options and use them. I don’t need Big Daddy Obama to tell me how to run my life.
April 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm #753290
dobroParticipantDoes anyone else notice the cognitive dissonance in those two statements?
April 1, 2012 at 8:59 pm #753291
JanSParticipantApril 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm #753292
jamminjMemberSubsidize a behavior and you get more of it. Living on the margins, on government subsidy”
like corporate welfare and tax cuts… time to cut the cord and stop the govt subsidies to corporations and the wealthy, well stated.
April 1, 2012 at 9:19 pm #753293
kootchmanMemberI agree. Dovernment subsidies are cash and loans … that includes the 140 billion to Obana bird choppers and fantastical electric vehicles ( charged by coal fired generation). Put crop subsidies in there too. Eliminate corporate welfare? Great.. all for it. Corporate tax rate of 15%, no deductions? Fine. No double taxation .. taxes on income paid overseas and profits generated overseas may be repatriated with no penalty until converted to personal incomes as dividend income. That is the Ryan plan. You on board?
April 1, 2012 at 9:28 pm #753294
kootchmanMemberWe already sanction irresponsible social behavior Dobro… we have prisons where we put socially irresponsible. It’s regrettable. but since we have taken personal responsibility out of the social contract..and incentivize less of it it and replaced it with entitlement. It’s a compromise between nothing or something to compel those that don’t get the message this is an opportunity society, not an assured outcome one.
April 1, 2012 at 9:33 pm #753295
kootchmanMemberYea Jan?
“For example, a 1990s law requires health plans to cover at least a 48-hour hospital stay for new mothers and their babies. Such requirements protect some consumers while indirectly raising costs for others.”
Show me the law that compels me to even go to the hospital … a family may even opt for home delivery and no hospital stay. You cannot force an economic activity for the purpose of regulating it,
April 1, 2012 at 9:46 pm #753296
dobroParticipant“We already sanction irresponsible social behavior Dobro… we have prisons where we put socially irresponsible.”
Then, according to your earlier statement…
“Every working stiff who is not insured gets not one penny of tax refund until they can show proof of health insurance.”
are you now suggesting we imprison socially irresponsible people who fail to provide proof of health insurance? Or just confiscate (steal, a “conservative” would say) their tax money?
April 1, 2012 at 11:55 pm #753297
kootchmanMemberIs that how you interpret that simple statement? I said, there are government sanctions and powers that intervene when there is flagrant social irresponsibility. If you seek your supper at the taxpayer table.. you owe. If you choose not to have healthcare coverage, and show up at the emergency room, you should reimburse the federal government. That reimbursement being a lien on your tax returns until you pay the bill and become insured. If they are getting free medical care, it’s not “their” refund.. it’s partial payment for a debt.
April 2, 2012 at 12:06 am #753298
dobroParticipantSo then we can discern that when government exercises power to do things you approve of it’s working fine. and when it does things you don’t approve of, its evil and must be stopped.
Sun rises in the east.
April 2, 2012 at 12:29 am #753299
kootchmanMemberIndeed that is the arguement….. just how much government will we tolerate. Some have an appetite for endless amounts.. but in the end… it costs too much, we are too far in debt, and until we have a balanced budget … no mas. Get the patient off life support, then we can argue what sports he should play. No more goodies. In the meantime recouping something from the users is better than nothing.
April 2, 2012 at 12:41 am #753300
dobroParticipantThen you are confirming that your arguments are those of any common complainer- if I like it, its ok. If I don’t like it, its bad. Correct?
April 2, 2012 at 3:12 am #753301
jamminjMember“If you choose not to have healthcare coverage,”
the fallacy in your inane argument is that 50,000,000 americans CHOOSE not to have health care. There are people working two jobs and still can’t afford health care or their job doesn’t provide one, there are people with pre-existing conditions that no insurance company will touch, there are people dropped due to last minute policy changes by the insurance companies to get out paying the care, and yes there are a small amount of people who may ‘choose’ not to have health care.
But for your argument to be, charge them AFTER they come to the ER, shows your total lack of understanding of the problem and medical epidemic we have here. That is the worst economic way to solve a problem, not even considering it for the patient, but for the hospital and it’s staff. That is why we spend more of our GDP than any other country, because of stupid ideas like this that does nothing to solve the problem, only to increase the cost and decrease the efficiency of care.
“If you seek your supper at the taxpayer table.. “
sure, if you want your millionaire and billionaire tax cuts, then you better show something for it, not just have your money sitting in offshore accounts, sitting in some trust, but you want our money for tax cuts, then you better invest it in THIS country.
Same with corporations, you want tax credits and subsidies, ONLY if you bring jobs back to the US and invest here. Otherwise you don’t get our money.
April 2, 2012 at 1:01 pm #753302
redblackParticipantsorry, kootch. you don’t get to pick and choose what you will or won’t pay for any more than i do.
but don’t worry. we’re not after your money. or rich’s. or smitty’s. you guys will never make enough to be in the tax brackets we’re trying to raise.
we’re after willard’s money.
and, umm, once again, words have specific meanings. look up feudalism. it’s about decentralized local government – which is what modern american conservatives are clamoring for – and not centralized government, which is what our federal government has become.
April 2, 2012 at 2:33 pm #753303
JoBParticipantWhen are we going to talk about actual health care?
when you are sick and you need a doctor…
trust me.. your first thoughts aren’t about policy..
or spreading the risk..
or containing costs
your first thought is where you can find a help
April 2, 2012 at 2:41 pm #753304
JoBParticipantkootch..
“”For example, a 1990s law requires health plans to cover at least a 48-hour hospital stay for new mothers and their babies. Such requirements protect some consumers while indirectly raising costs for others.””
So.. you ridicule a law
that became necessary because insurance companies were throwing women out of the hospital within hours of birth
and both women and children were dieing.
i suppose you think we should all go out to the fields and squat to release our children
like you imagine pioneer women did.
back when childbirth was the number one cause of death for women.
Take a good look at America’s live birth and infant mortality stats kootch…
they aren’t anything for a nation supposed to have the best medical care in the world to be proud of.
It always amazes me when those who call themselves right to life have so little interests in the lives they insist shouldn’t be ended.
In the interests of accuracy..
i have always thought those who insist that abortion is murder
but not providing adequate medical care is cost effective
ought to call themselves the right to suffer movement…
in a weird way
i could have respect for that
that is.. if they expected their families to suffer too
April 3, 2012 at 5:17 am #753305
kootchmanMemberno redblack? did you not post anyone making over 6 figures was on your envy and tax list? Where did I ridicule that law? It is commerce.. and .. as such, it can be regulated. BUT… there is NO law that says you MUST go to a hospital just so you can be regulated under that law. You have every right to not participate in that sector of commerce. That birth and mortality rate? Then by your definition … since we have the mandatory 48 hour stay… it should be geat, right? Think maybe crack and drugs might make a small contribution? Or underage birth rates? You pull the same stats out on education…? We spend the most., but we don’t have the best outcomes do we? It’s not all about the money… it’s all about how it is spent. And again.. as statitistic after statistics how… those who are right to life supporters spend more on charitable giving to support those lives. Out of pocket… and by taxes. You’ve seen the stats… why post them again… but conservatives at every income level donate more in time and money…. for social causes. The left en masse waits for the government to tax someone else and then provide the service….. McGovernment…. order anything off the menu….they guy behind you is paying for it. No JoB … most of us step up to the plate and do what we have to do so our families prosper and don’t suffer. That personal responsibility thing again.
April 3, 2012 at 5:33 am #753306
redblackParticipantkootch: drugs – and recreational sex and alchool, too – are a part of the human condition. it’s been that way for thousands of years. claiming that that isn’t what america is all about or that we’re better than that as a country is ridiculous, at best. it’s a mutli-billion dollar industry, for crying out loud.
denying people entry to health care whether they’re on drugs or not is criminal. period.
like i said before: needing a new liver is not the same as wanting a porsche.
And again.. as statitistic after statistics how… those who are right to life supporters spend more on charitable giving to support those lives. Out of pocket… and by taxes. You’ve seen the stats… why post them again… but conservatives at every income level donate more in time and money…
and, again, i. don’t. care.
charitable giving is voluntary.
taxes are not.
conflating the two is ridiculous. and giving to charity as some excuse for not paying taxes – or justification for dodging taxation – is lazy and selfish.
put on your big boy pants and write the check to the IRS. again.
thank you.
April 3, 2012 at 5:34 am #753307
kootchmanMemberApril 3, 2012 at 5:37 am #753308
redblackParticipanti won’t be a serf if i redistribute your wealth, though. ;)
April 3, 2012 at 5:40 am #753309
kootchmanMemberBut you won’t. You will be taxed to marginal subsistance. Fees, inflation, energy costs, etc… you be working the wheat fields for the Lord and his appointed Vassals. Watch… your vassals just blew 850 grand in Vegas for 300 GSA partiers… replete with fine ales and meads and joints of meat, and minstrels… wouldn’t if be even funnier if they stayed at the Excalibur? And ya know… that fine GSA headquarter building…in DC? It has the auditorium space for 1000 participants…
April 3, 2012 at 5:43 am #753310
kootchmanMemberNo it’s not… but if ya destroy your liver with hepatitis and shared needles… some pallative care… sure. But a half million dollar regimen and liver transplant… sorry.. it doesn’t jerk my empathy chain.
April 3, 2012 at 5:44 am #753311
redblackParticipantdude. the government doesn’t make profit.
corporate lords do.
and they want your facebook password.
April 3, 2012 at 5:45 am #753312
redblackParticipantand, by the yea, alcoholics and drug addicts can’t get liver transplants. because insurance companies forbade it.
April 3, 2012 at 5:49 am #753313
kootchmanMembergood choice… but actually they can… if you doc says you are no longer an alcoholic and are in remission you can. They may want it but I ain’t giving it to them.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.