Gotcow? Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 it definitely is a major difference in the mindset between Democrats and Republicans. the right seems predisposed to label as "commie" any effort to work for a common good. No, it's more like those that believe in personal resposibility and freedom vs those that want more government oversight of your life and mandates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kings over Queens Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 let me ask you a question, you have mentioned you have a child with autism. is he in any special classes in Public school? does he get any extra attention? I have a child with Aspergers, in public school (do you really want to open up the public school discussion?) who does get limited extra help, which is required by law. Given the choice I'd prefer that there wasn't a law that required the schools to do so, but their is, and since I've paid the money I might as well utilize the service, right. #otterlivesmatter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnmagician Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 so there is a safety net which benefits you, so you use it. there is a LAW mandating that a child who needs some extra help, gets it. if these special needs kids were left on their own, to sink or swim on their own, would their futures likely be better or worse? Eggy 10-13 LAA 7-14 50-50 2-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gseries69 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Here's a very simple explaination of why single payer/universal healthcare does not work... Universal or single payer healthcare will be viewed in the minds of it's users as FREE healthcare, and the DEMAND for free healthcare is INFINITE. Because it is infinite the cost to deliver care is driven up not by technology but by demand and volume of use. Once that happens one of two things will follow. The cost to the poor taxpayer will be so high that they won't be able to afford it or, what would likely happen, the tax system for healthcare would become another progressive tax and the weight of paying for the system would be on the shoulders of the same people who are paying all the taxes now. The only answer to combat this dilema is to ration healthcare, and even then it will only stem the rise in price, it will not prevent it. What you end up with is long waits to see a doctor and a lower quality of care. Single payer or universal healthcare is not the answer and would hurt our economy. You think jobs are being sent over seas now? Add a hefty tax to payrolls and see how much faster they head over seas. A better approach would be a hybrid type system that is STILL private and not public. Catastrophic risk should be shared by everyone and a tax collected by the govt and administered to a private company for the benefit of all insurance companies is one approach that could work. That will lower the cost of preventative care while not putting a major increase on demand. By lowering the cost of preventative care more people will be able to see a doctor before their condition evolves into a much more expensive catastrophic care event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 it definitely is a major difference in the mindset between Democrats and Republicans. the right seems predisposed to label as "commie" any effort to work for a common good. Actually that would be your opinion of what is "common good". “My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.” Ayn Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnmagician Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 of course little, and many view any program that works for the collective as being contra to the common good, because it's best if only the strong survive. Eggy 10-13 LAA 7-14 50-50 2-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamcaster Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Deducting health insurance premiums from everybody's paycheck the same way as is now done with social security and medicare just might make more sense than the obamacare mandate. Since it is an established practice and has obviously withstood any potential legal challenges, simply pooling insurance money and then paying medical bills from it might be the way to go. Insurance companies could become sub-contractors, so it wouldn't put them out of business. More importantly, uninsured people, who are forced to let their chronic maladies go untreated, would get the care they need. How much does it cost to cut a diabetics toes off? Wouldn't it be better for everybody if it never went that far? Would I pay less for better services? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogboy Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 A key difference is that I would prefer to be responsible for myself with my money and not dictact to others how to spend theirs. You can't force people to become responsible. You can confiscate their money under the premise that it's good for them, but it really isn't. Going back to Social Security, which as you have surmised is a hot spot for me and has been since I started paying in at 16 or 17, instead of letting my save and invest my won money, the government literally confiscates what was mine and then changes the game during my life time (retirement age pushed back) with no say from me and has treated what should be run with fiduciary responsibility as nothing more than a game of 3 card monty and your advocate letting them run a health insurance program, yet ANOTHER entitlement program. Negative. social security was never set up as a trust fund at its inception, a whole lot of old people had nothing- as in nothing- despite working hard until age or infirmity forced them to the sidelines i do not agree with the accounting shenanigans vis a vis social security payments being used for day to day expenses and people are living a lot longer than they used to, which requires some adjustments in 1900, the average life expectency in the US was 47 years people who made it to 65 would usually check out in a couple of years i don't know what it was when social security started, but now it is nearly 30 years longer so, KoQ- if you retire at 66, like i plan to, and die a year later- you got screwed if you live another 25 years, the rest of us got screwed but it all comes out in the wash but you know that because of how you make your living Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogboy Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Actually that would be your opinion of what is "common good". the constitution does give the gummint power to enact laws that promote the "common welfare" so i guess the people who win elections get to decide what that means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnmagician Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 vis a vis social security payments being used for day to day expenses and people are living a lot longer than they used to, which requires some adjustments in 1900, the average life expectency in the US was 47 years people who made it to 65 would usually check out in a couple of years I don't know that this is true, life expectancy was lower due to much higher child mortality rates. but I have been led to believe that if you made it to adulthood, your life expectancy wasn't that much shorter than it is now. Eggy 10-13 LAA 7-14 50-50 2-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 of course little, and many view any program that works for the collective as being contra to the common good, because it's best if only the strong survive. If you take money from one man, and give it to another, the balance sheet is a zero. One man benefits and one man is hurt-by the exact same degree. “My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.” Ayn Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gseries69 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 of course little, and many view any program that works for the collective as being contra to the common good, because it's best if only the strong survive. Not so. Talking about a special needs child is talking about caring for the most vulnerable in society not the collective good. Americans are very good at helping the most vulnerable, what we do not accept is working for the collective good because first and foremost, Americans believe in individuality. Second, in doing so you are hampered by the weakest and the laziest in a society making an entire society suffer for it. It's kind of like the weakest link in a chain. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link. A program for special needs children is not anywhere close to the scale of universal healthcare. A special education program as whole does not cost a lot of money per taxpayer and therefore does not impact the economy. A universal healthcare system delivered to 360M Americans would be an economic disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnmagician Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 If you take money from one man, and give it to another, the balance sheet is a zero. One man benefits and one man is hurt-by the exact same degree. if the ONLY aspect that you are looking at is $$$ then you are correct, but that's overly simplistic. If a man is starving, and I have extra and feed him. I just saved a life. is the balance sheet Zero? if the next season I have no food, and he feeds me, and he saves my life, is the balance sheet still zero? because we helped each other we are both still alive. I'd say that is a win-win not a Net-zero transaction. Eggy 10-13 LAA 7-14 50-50 2-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnmagician Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's kind of like the weakest link in a chain. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link. wouldn't the special needs children be the weakest link in the school? Eggy 10-13 LAA 7-14 50-50 2-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gseries69 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 wouldn't the special needs children be the weakest link in the school? Vulnerable, not weak. A vulnerable person is one who can not help themselves. Weak people have ability and resources but refuse to use them. There is a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to register here in order to participate.
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now