Kings over Queens Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 why not? isn't the problem that people get out of it much more than they pay in? Because it's a **** product. The returns suck, you can't pass it down and the company (government) changes the rules in the middle. Seriously, if I tried to sell you an retirement product where the insurance company could decide, without any input from you, that they were going to change age when you could start drawing down on your money, would you buy it? You should check around a little to see what can be purchased on the market with what is being confiscated from your paycheck. I'd be very surprised if after doing so you'd still feel that you'd purchase social security over other things available. I don't understand why people think a government run health insurance program is going to be any better. #otterlivesmatter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was addressing the fact that you can help someone so greatly, that you cannot claim you were harmed to the degree they were helped. Subjective, meaningless measurement. I am out a thousand, someone gets a thousand. You cannot claim the moral authority over me to decide "how much" that action helps or hurts each individual, given that its the exact same transaction, and an equal exchange That would be either an act of arrogance or maybe even an act of aggressiveness. Now the real immorality comes when the person forcing the transaction (in this discussion you, in reality you and the gummit you support) takes the thousand, skims off one hundred, and gives the other party nine hundred. THAT is how it really works, doesn't it? “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...
Little Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 The whole "if you don't like it why don't you leave" drek? Well people are doing that in droves (the last light bulb factory in the USA closes its doors and turns out the lights next week), and the response I hear is not "good riddance, see ya"; its a resounding, "DEY TUKK ERRR JUUBBSSS". Derka drrrrr. “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...
dogboy Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 We are discussing wealth redistribution by power i thought we were discussing health care distribution the only thing wealth has to do with it is to supply a means to pay for it it might play out that everyone pays for a basic level of care gravy and a bisquit costs extra "ya gets no bread with one meatball" i don't hear too many well paid people who choose to take the train to work, or live in the city and don't need or want a car, complain about how much it costs to fix the potholes on the streets they never use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogboy Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 The whole "if you don't like it why don't you leave" drek? Well people are doing that in droves (the last light bulb factory in the USA closes its doors and turns out the lights next week), and the response I hear is not "good riddance, see ya"; its a resounding, "DEY TUKK ERRR JUUBBSSS". Derka drrrrr. any solutions you can think of? should we strive to match the per capita income of china? FWIW- we still manufacture more stuff than any other country and our ongoing productivity increases are usually unsurpassed china will catch us soon enough just like we caught, and passed, england 160 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepshax Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 The whole "if you don't like it why don't you leave" drek? Well people are doing that in droves (the last light bulb factory in the USA closes its doors and turns out the lights next week), and the response I hear is not "good riddance, see ya"; its a resounding, "DEY TUKK ERRR JUUBBSSS". Derka drrrrr. who thought mandating the use of such a prevalent and vulnerable product filled with a toxic substance such as mercury was a good idea? furthermore, how did all the "green/environmental" activists let this one go through? I mean, what could be better for the environment than improperly disposed of mercury laden light bulbs? something smells mighty funky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogboy Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 How cavalier you are with money that I earned. I should get to decide how valuable MY money is to me, not you or any one else. And those are your opinion, not facts. no man is an island in fact, given equal income levels, societies where the lower classes are healthier and happier also have a healthier and happier upper class somehow, a crack wh*re who is able to get the root canal she needs makes the rest of us happier than we would be if she had a toothache she was unable to get taken care of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepshax Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 somehow, a crack wh*re who is able to get the root canal she needs makes the rest of us happier than we would be if she had a toothache she was unable to get taken care of i think the root canal should be the last of this woman's worries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpaniard Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 On one hand you have people who applaud and support the insurance industry. They will gladly pay for insurance and it would never matter if they used it. In investment terms you normally looking at a 70-100% loss. Think auto-insurance and never have a claim. They don't view it as an investment where they should get all their money back.... Now, if the Gov runs the program it would be viewed like you should get every dollar plus more, because they view it as it should be an investment and not insurance any longer...... The problem with programs like SS and Medicare is that the Gov itself treats the programs wrong. They should be insurance programs and not something that people should be totally relaying on. Medicare for example does not collect enough to pay for what older Americans use. Thats a know fact so why hide it? The rate should be upped or services should be cut. There is now way a program that pays out 2-3-4-5X's as much as people pay in should/could work without borrowing money and sacking the general tax payer. The point is, just like insurance all these programs are not investments but somehow people have been duped into thinking they are. Even the guy who says I don't need the Gov, I am being responsible, etc... You know what? You hit the unlucky lottery and get some terrible disease like cancer or need a heart by-pass surgery...Good luck. I seriously doubt anyone puts away the kind of cash needed for those treatments and guess what? Those people will of course come back and sack the regular tax payer and have zero guilt about doing so........Not even a thank you from that crowd.... John Create instead of living off the buying and selling of others....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinambition 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. Two failing ideas which hemmorrhage more money than they take in. Neither makes sense. Neither addresses cost which is what people have a problem with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimW Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Two failing ideas which hemmorrhage more money than they take in. Neither makes sense. Neither addresses cost which is what people have a problem with. Sure it does. Take insurance companies profits out of it and costs are less. Increases in costs of services still need to be addressed if that's possible but public administration of the services is not the problem. "I have ... put a lump of ice into an equal quantity of water ... if a little sea salt be added to the water we shall produce a fluid sensibly colder than the ice was in the beginning, which has appeared a curious and puzzling thing to those unacquainted with the general fact."- Joseph Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milk Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 do you have ANY idea what a Government is, and Does? taxing and spending is how a Government operates. go buy an island if you don't want to be a part of it. I have an idea of what this government has and is becoming. Cradle to grave care for all... I subscribe to the teach a man to fish theory, not give them one. You don't mind giving up your fish and everyone elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepshax Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Sure it does. Take insurance companies profits out of it and costs are less. Increases in costs of services still need to be addressed if that's possible but public administration of the services is not the problem. ?? insurance companies profit margins are very slim. Insurance is a business, a product, a service...it is not a right. If it makes no money it is no longer in service, your SOL. if you want to lower premiums, lower the exposure (start with tort reform) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnmagician Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I have an idea of what this government has and is becoming.. any/every Government will compell you to pay taxes, and will spend your money. period. Eggy 10-13 LAA 7-14 50-50 2-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinambition Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Sure it does. Take insurance companies profits out of it and costs are less. Increases in costs of services still need to be addressed if that's possible but public administration of the services is not the problem. Insurance companies' profits and operating costs would be replaced by gov't operating costs aka layers of bureaucracy and tremendous waste. Unless of course this could be the first time ever that didnt happen. 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