it's completely dependent on me or my spouse being employed at a company with benefits and then when anything actually happens they don't want to pay.
You think the government will pay better? ha ha
um, in socialized medicine the government doesn't pay, the government provides the health care.
What has the government provided for you that makes you think they can do a good job providing health care? Oh and btw, somebody pays for it, and your right, its not the government, it you.
Ok, didn't want to click on this thread for the rant possibility or debate of politics (I haven't read any of the above posts...) Just wanted to throw a name out there that who I agree with most of his views....
Most likely will not be clicking on this thread again.
Mine is Mike also. I'm all for that Fair Tax! Obama and Hilary were my top matches after Mike....makes me wonder. I really dont know who i'll vote for.
Mine is Mike also. I'm all for that Fair Tax! Obama and Hilary were my top matches after Mike....makes me wonder. I really dont know who i'll vote for.
Mine is Mike also. I'm all for that Fair Tax! Obama and Hilary were my top matches after Mike....makes me wonder. I really dont know who i'll vote for.
What has the government provided for you that makes you think they can do a good job providing health care? Oh and btw, somebody pays for it, and your right, its not the government, it you.
The purpose of government is to provide basic services. The purpose of corporations is to maximize profits. Which one of these entities should be in charge of health care?
Giving health care to private corporations because government is not good at it is like hiring Tiger Woods to hit for the Yankess because A-Rod is choking in the clutch.
This sort of thinking is why it's a mistake to vote for Republicans. They run on the mantra that government is bad, and therefore they are motivated to screw everything up in order to prove their own point.
I get tired of Republicans complaining about taxes. They don't want to pay taxes for National Health Care because they don't want their taxes to go to some poor person that can't afford it themselves. Their take is, let them get a job and get their own health insurance.
My Response:
If that's the case, I don't want to pay taxes for public schools. Each set of parents can pay $7000.00 per year per student to pay for their OWN children's education. I don't have any kids in the public school system any more so why should I have to help your kids. It's YOUR fault that you have kids, Not Mine!
I get tired of Republicans complaining about taxes. They don't want to pay taxes for National Health Care because they don't want their taxes to go to some poor person that can't afford it themselves. Their take is, let them get a job and get their own health insurance.
My Response:
If that's the case, I don't want to pay taxes for public schools. Each set of parents can pay $7000.00 per year per student to pay for their OWN children's education. I don't have any kids in the public school system any more so why should I have to help your kids. It's YOUR fault that you have kids, Not Mine!
What has the government provided for you that makes you think they can do a good job providing health care? Oh and btw, somebody pays for it, and your right, its not the government, it you.
The purpose of government is to provide basic services. The purpose of corporations is to maximize profits. Which one of these entities should be in charge of health care?
Giving health care to private corporations because government is not good at it is like hiring Tiger Woods to hit for the Yankess because A-Rod is choking in the clutch.
It's funny that you would make that comparison. Tiger Woods is pretty much a corporation, one that runs pretty smoothly in fact and produces a hell of a product. I would have to disagree with the government being A-Rod. It's more like Todd Van Poppel, a high draft pick with all the promise in the world yet failed every chance he got. Monopolies, whether it be the government or private enterprise, simply doesn't produce good quality. Competition does. Besides, the government should be more worried about fixing it's existing entitlements (i.e. social security, welfare, medicare, etc) before it takes on something else.
I get tired of Republicans complaining about taxes. They don't want to pay taxes for National Health Care because they don't want their taxes to go to some poor person that can't afford it themselves. Their take is, let them get a job and get their own health insurance.
My Response:
If that's the case, I don't want to pay taxes for public schools. Each set of parents can pay $7000.00 per year per student to pay for their OWN children's education. I don't have any kids in the public school system any more so why should I have to help your kids. It's YOUR fault that you have kids, Not Mine!
My rant is over for now.
Republicans are not the only group that complains about funding benefits they don't reap. Democrats do just the same. Bottom line is the less you stand to benefit from something the less you'll support it.
I get tired of Republicans complaining about taxes. They don't want to pay taxes for National Health Care because they don't want their taxes to go to some poor person that can't afford it themselves. Their take is, let them get a job and get their own health insurance.
My Response:
If that's the case, I don't want to pay taxes for public schools. Each set of parents can pay $7000.00 per year per student to pay for their OWN children's education. I don't have any kids in the public school system any more so why should I have to help your kids. It's YOUR fault that you have kids, Not Mine!
My rant is over for now.
Republicans are not the only group that complains about funding benefits they don't reap. Democrats do just the same. Bottom line is the less you stand to benefit from something the less you'll support it.
You are right! However, the only people I ever hear complain about taxes are the Republcians and that is almost daily. Why do all of the Republican candidates say that they will cut taxes? You and I both know why. That is what their Republican base needs to hear. You don't hear the Democratic candidates harping on tax cuts.
Actually, I was playing the devils advocate in that statement. I understand the public schools need to be funded. I work with many republicans and they tell me that the ONLY thing the government should be responsible for is the military and everything else should be privatized because privatization creates competition. I'm not pulling your leg. I hear this day in and day out.
It's funny that you would make that comparison. Tiger Woods is pretty much a corporation, one that runs pretty smoothly in fact and produces a hell of a product. I would have to disagree with the government being A-Rod. It's more like Todd Van Poppel, a high draft pick with all the promise in the world yet failed every chance he got.
Todd Van Poppel is still better at baseball than Tiger Woods.
Originally posted by yanko:
Monopolies, whether it be the government or private enterprise, simply doesn't produce good quality. Competition does.
Competition fosters the maximization of profits, not quality.
Originally posted by yanko:
Besides, the government should be more worried about fixing it's existing entitlements (i.e. social security, welfare, medicare, etc) before it takes on something else.
The government should pick and choose what it needs to be taking care of. It's ridiculous that social security and welfare are funded while universal health care is not.
And Bob Martuch, there are some Republicans that want the military to be privatized as well. Can you say Blackwater? Google Naomi Klein.
It's funny that you would make that comparison. Tiger Woods is pretty much a corporation, one that runs pretty smoothly in fact and produces a hell of a product. I would have to disagree with the government being A-Rod. It's more like Todd Van Poppel, a high draft pick with all the promise in the world yet failed every chance he got.
Todd Van Poppel is still better at baseball than Tiger Woods.
Originally posted by yanko:
Monopolies, whether it be the government or private enterprise, simply doesn't produce good quality. Competition does.
Competition fosters the maximization of profits, not quality.
Originally posted by yanko:
Besides, the government should be more worried about fixing it's existing entitlements (i.e. social security, welfare, medicare, etc) before it takes on something else.
The government should pick and choose what it needs to be taking care of. It's ridiculous that social security and welfare are funded while universal health care is not.
And Bob Martuch, there are some Republicans that want the military to be privatized as well. Can you say Blackwater? Google Naomi Klein.
And you know why that is! They want the war but they don't want their family to go. Can you say Chicken hawk? Privatizing it would aleviate their fear of a possible draft. That way they could sit in front of the TV and watch the war and thump their chest and talk about how tough they are knowing that their kids are safe from having to participate in what they so strongly believe in.
Monopolies, whether it be the government or private enterprise, simply doesn't produce good quality. Competition does.
Competition fosters the maximization of profits, not quality.
Without quality profits won't be maximized.
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by yanko:
Besides, the government should be more worried about fixing it's existing entitlements (i.e. social security, welfare, medicare, etc) before it takes on something else.
The government should pick and choose what it needs to be taking care of. It's ridiculous that social security and welfare are funded while universal health care is not.
There is medicare, medicaid and anybody needing immediate care can get it today.
Originally posted by posthumous:
And Bob Martuch, there are some Republicans that want the military to be privatized as well. Can you say Blackwater? Google Naomi Klein.
How does this pertain to healthcare? Are you saying that's an example of privatization not working?
I get tired of Republicans complaining about taxes. They don't want to pay taxes for National Health Care because they don't want their taxes to go to some poor person that can't afford it themselves. Their take is, let them get a job and get their own health insurance.
My Response:
If that's the case, I don't want to pay taxes for public schools. Each set of parents can pay $7000.00 per year per student to pay for their OWN children's education. I don't have any kids in the public school system any more so why should I have to help your kids. It's YOUR fault that you have kids, Not Mine!
My rant is over for now.
Republicans are not the only group that complains about funding benefits they don't reap. Democrats do just the same. Bottom line is the less you stand to benefit from something the less you'll support it.
You are right! However, the only people I ever hear complain about taxes are the Republcians and that is almost daily. Why do all of the Republican candidates say that they will cut taxes? You and I both know why. That is what their Republican base needs to hear. You don't hear the Democratic candidates harping on tax cuts.
Actually, I was playing the devils advocate in that statement. I understand the public schools need to be funded. I work with many republicans and they tell me that the ONLY thing the government should be responsible for is the military and everything else should be privatized because privatization creates competition. I'm not pulling your leg. I hear this day in and day out.
Well I'll agree with you on the republican complaining but I also hear democrats complain about the rich not getting taxed enough, repealing tax cuts, corporate welfare, etc, etc. It is what both sides do. FWIW, I'm not a repub or a dem and I'm not in favor of privatizating everything. I'm more for hybrid solutions.
That's a good one! -- Endorsements of previous losers doesn't seem like something that would help!
Really, this is a major-media-driven set of events. Let's pretend the major media outlets decided on a candidate or candidates to help win (I'm not saying they haven't by the way) ... It's pretty much a guarantee that if that person wasn't an ax murderer, he or she would win (or at least be very high in the vote list).
I hesitate to fault the media though ... because there seems to be a desire on the part of Americans (at least) for sensationalist news, regardless of the validity of it .... but I also would look toward the conformist nature that envelopes many people that forces conclusions to be jumped-to and division among viewpoints without complete understanding of things or empathy toward others.
Just my 11 cents.
Originally posted by BHuseman:
I think it is funny that everyone is going nutts over the fact that Kerry indorsed Obama instead of his former running mate Edwards.
Don't they realize the best thing that Kerry could have done to help Edwards win was to indorse Obama and not Edwards?
