Obama donors getting off to fast start....

DamnYankee said:
You're moving the goal posts. My argument is that: "most harm is done to the human body by it's owner". If they got off their butts and exercised, stopped smoking, overeating, and having sex with strangers they'd be much healthier. But like you, they 'vote in their best interest' for free health care and food stamps.
Click to expand...

OK I can see smoking not being good. And stuffing ones face in front of the TV and never getting off the couch is a no-no. But sex? I suppose if we all moved into a monastery but I bet those guys suffer a type of carpal tunnel syndrome. ;)

In any case we can't let people die due to our "culture". Perhaps education along with health care is the answer.
 
bravo said:
Its bullshit.....Income tax is paid on income.....you have income, you pay your fair share of the total.....a fair share cannot = zero because thats no share.
Click to expand...

A fair share of income is enough money to eat and clothe oneself/family. Let's start there before we talk about what amount is fair to be taken from someone who isn't receiving a fair amount to be taken from.
 
apple0154 said:
OK I can see smoking not being good. And stuffing ones face in front of the TV and never getting off the couch is a no-no. But sex? I suppose if we all moved into a monastery but I bet those guys suffer a type of carpal tunnel syndrome. ;)

In any case we can't let people die due to our "culture". Perhaps education along with health care is the answer.
Click to expand...
Perhaps personal responsibility is the answer. But liberals reject that since it doesn't give them control over others.
 
DamnYankee said:
Perhaps personal responsibility is the answer. But liberals reject that since it doesn't give them control over others.
Click to expand...

Here we go, again, with control. What control? Will people be compelled to go to the hospital?

As to personal responsibility that's exactly why people voted for Obama. They are taking responsibility to ensure they have medical coverage when needed so they voted for a politician who will see that's the case. They are taking personal responsibility to ensure if they do become ill or suffer an accident they will not lose their home due to medical bills. They are taking personal responsibility by ensuring they will be able to get medical coverage without having to kiss the boss's bottom. They are taking personal responsibility by electing a President who will ensure they won't be denied coverage due to an existing condition. That has to be the most absurd thing when it comes to medical coverage. How many baby boomers don't have an existing condition of some sort?

The folks who voted for Obama not only took personal responsibility but took responsibility for their family, their spouse and children, by ensuring some illness or accident doesn't result in them being on the street.

That is taking responsibility by voting for the right candidate. Right, with a small "r". :D
 
apple0154 said:
Here we go, again, with control. What control? Will people be compelled to go to the hospital?

As to personal responsibility that's exactly why people voted for Obama. They are taking responsibility to ensure they have medical coverage when needed so they voted for a politician who will see that's the case. They are taking personal responsibility to ensure if they do become ill or suffer an accident they will not lose their home due to medical bills. They are taking personal responsibility by ensuring they will be able to get medical coverage without having to kiss the boss's bottom. They are taking personal responsibility by electing a President who will ensure they won't be denied coverage due to an existing condition. That has to be the most absurd thing when it comes to medical coverage. How many baby boomers don't have an existing condition of some sort?

The folks who voted for Obama not only took personal responsibility but took responsibility for their family, their spouse and children, by ensuring some illness or accident doesn't result in them being on the street.

That is taking responsibility by voting for the right candidate. Right, with a small "r". :D
Click to expand...

That's quite a spin: you want the government to pay for your health care so voting for that is a form of personal responsibility. Wow. You were accurate before saying that you voted in your best interest, meaning that you voted for freebies.

With regards to the control issue, GovCo will now be able to control what treatments they pay for or choose not to. If they determine that Granny is a burden on society then they'll pay for pain pills but not an organ transport. And try suing them over that; they'll pass a law saying that you can't.
 
DamnYankee said:
That's quite a spin: you want the government to pay for your health care so voting for that is a form of personal responsibility. Wow. You were accurate before saying that you voted in your best interest, meaning that you voted for freebies.
Click to expand...

It's similar to paying into SS. It's the responsible thing to do.

With regards to the control issue, GovCo will now be able to control what treatments they pay for or choose not to. If they determine that Granny is a burden on society then they'll pay for pain pills but not an organ transport. And try suing them over that; they'll pass a law saying that you can't.
Click to expand...

Possible but let's look at the other side of the coin. Full government medical has to cover every citizen which means more illnesses and diseases must be covered. Many more than any private plan would cover. It would have to cover illnesses/diseases that are more prevalent in Jewish populations and Negro populations and Hispanic populations and Caucasian populations because of the mixture of citizens. However, that doesn't mean it would cost more because those illnesses are mostly limited to specific groups of people. For example, (Excerpt) "Sickle-cell disease occurs more commonly in people (or their descendants) from parts of tropical and sub-tropical regions where malaria is or was common." While under government medical everyone would be covered but the incidences of sickle-cell would not rise or result in an increase in costs. That is the beauty of government medical. More people are covered for more illnesses and because coverage is standard no one has to figure out what to insure and not insure against.

Look at private insurance like travel insurance. Lost bags? Access to emergency funds? Free towing? A hotel room? People have to pick and choose what coverage they want or think they'll need. How can anyone possibly know what medical coverage they'll need? It's really insane. Who knows if they'll acquire cancer or heart disease? Or lose a leg and need money for a prosthesis?

It's a change that was long overdue and ObamaCare still needs work but it's going in the right direction. There are and probably always will be private companies that offer to pay for private rooms for those who feel they're special. That's great. As long as everyone gets basic medical attention the frills can be paid for by those who want them.
 
apple0154 said:
[1]It's similar to paying into SS. It's the responsible thing to do.

[2]Possible but let's look at the other side of the coin. Full government medical has to cover every citizen which means more illnesses and diseases must be covered. Many more than any private plan would cover....
Click to expand...

1. No, saving for your own retirement is the responsible thing to do. Social security should be optional.
2. Wrong. "Full" GovCo coverage means that health care will be rationed. Granny won't get her new kidney because she's too old to justify the expense. The Obama said it himself: 'sometimes folks will just have to take a pill'.

We just went self-insured here with a managed system and saved a ton from what we were paying earlier. $10,000 deductible per family and after that every penny is covered. The first $1000 is on the company as well as additional wellness visits. The next $9000 is split between the company and the employee. Most will do better than before since there are no other co-pays. One of our families paid out nearly $12k in co-pays last year. Under this plan, the most anyone will pay is $4500. This is the way insurance should be, not some GovCo program where you don't have the freedom to choose.

Why do you hate freedom so much?
 
DamnYankee said:
1. No, saving for your own retirement is the responsible thing to do. Social security should be optional.
2. Wrong. "Full" GovCo coverage means that health care will be rationed. Granny won't get her new kidney because she's too old to justify the expense. The Obama said it himself: 'sometimes folks will just have to take a pill'.

We just went self-insured here with a managed system and saved a ton from what we were paying earlier. $10,000 deductible per family and after that every penny is covered. The first $1000 is on the company as well as additional wellness visits. The next $9000 is split between the company and the employee. Most will do better than before since there are no other co-pays. One of our families paid out nearly $12k in co-pays last year. Under this plan, the most anyone will pay is $4500. This is the way insurance should be, not some GovCo program where you don't have the freedom to choose.

Why do you hate freedom so much?
Click to expand...

Your definition of freedom, optional SS, resulted in the suffering of millions before SS was implemented. It's strange how some people have no idea what transpired before government programs were put in place.

Your insurance scheme sounds good. My question is how do the 300 million other Americans get a job at your company and enjoy those benefits?
 
apple0154 said:
Your definition of freedom, optional SS, resulted in the suffering of millions before SS was implemented. It's strange how some people have no idea what transpired before government programs were put in place.

Your insurance scheme sounds good. My question is how do the 300 million other Americans get a job at your company and enjoy those benefits?
Click to expand...

When was SS ever optional?

My insurance "scheme" allows private companies to reduce insurance costs and overhead. I'd never hire someone who refuses to accept personal responsibility like you do.
 
DamnYankee said:
When was SS ever optional?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the time before SS when it was optional to save for retirement. That didn't work out very well.

My insurance "scheme" allows private companies to reduce insurance costs and overhead. I'd never hire someone who refuses to accept personal responsibility like you do.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I'd never work for someone like you so we're even.
 
apple0154 said:
I was referring to the time before SS when it was optional to save for retirement. That didn't work out very well.
Click to expand...
Actually it worked out very well for folks who accepted personal responsibility. Why not make savings along with disability insurance mandatory, and SS optional?
 
DamnYankee said:
Actually it worked out very well for folks who accepted personal responsibility. Why not make savings along with disability insurance mandatory, and SS optional?
Click to expand...

Two reasons. First, SS is saving so what would be the difference? Second, what happens when someone loses their job? How would they pay for continued disability insurance?

The roll of government is to make people's lives easier/better. It's like hiring an accountant and a construction company and a mercenary and a doctor and a baby-sitter and a snow removal company and .....that's basically what government services are all about and those services are paid for through taxes. Some local and some national for the larger projects. It's simply making life easier. It's not wanting something for nothing.

Think of it like hiring a butler or personal assistant. From scheduling appointments to ensuring there is something for dinner one does not think of the butler/personal assistant as dominating the employer. They are providing services. We wouldn't consider that as the employer not taking personal responsibility. We wouldn't consider the CEO of a major company not taking personal responsibility because he doesn't wash his own car.

The same idea applies to government. When people become ill they don't want to have to find a doctor and then a lawyer to interpret their insurance contract or worry if they can afford to get better. Taking personal responsibility can mean doing something oneself or ensuring someone else gets the job done. Each member of a car pool is personally responsible to get to work on time but only one member is responsible for the actual car they use. Are the poolers not being responsible because they do not own/use their own car?

Government; by, for and of the people. Get them working for YOU today!
 
apple0154 said:
Two reasons. First, SS is saving so what would be the difference? Second, what happens when someone loses their job? How would they pay for continued disability insurance?

The roll of government is to make people's lives easier/better. It's like hiring an accountant and a construction company and a mercenary and a doctor and a baby-sitter and a snow removal company and .....that's basically what government services are all about and those services are paid for through taxes. Some local and some national for the larger projects. It's simply making life easier. It's not wanting something for nothing.

Think of it like hiring a butler or personal assistant. From scheduling appointments to ensuring there is something for dinner one does not think of the butler/personal assistant as dominating the employer. They are providing services. We wouldn't consider that as the employer not taking personal responsibility. We wouldn't consider the CEO of a major company not taking personal responsibility because he doesn't wash his own car.

The same idea applies to government. When people become ill they don't want to have to find a doctor and then a lawyer to interpret their insurance contract or worry if they can afford to get better. Taking personal responsibility can mean doing something oneself or ensuring someone else gets the job done. Each member of a car pool is personally responsible to get to work on time but only one member is responsible for the actual car they use. Are the poolers not being responsible because they do not own/use their own car?

Government; by, for and of the people. Get them working for YOU today!
Click to expand...

Actually the role of the federal government is to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you want your state or local government to make your life easier then by all means lobby for that.

Is SS is savings it is the crappiest return imaginable. Why not make it voluntary? Because you hate freedom, that's why.
 
DamnYankee said:
Actually the role of the federal government is to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you want your state or local government to make your life easier then by all means lobby for that.

Is SS is savings it is the crappiest return imaginable. Why not make it voluntary? Because you hate freedom, that's why.
Click to expand...

No, because retirement saving was voluntary from 1776 till 1935. Over 150 years and people still didn't save and they suffered. As you correctly wrote, " Actually the role of the federal government is to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and I agree 100%. What better way to ensure life than to ensure people had money for retirement. And then there's ObamaCare. Another way to ensure life.

As the saying goes, "And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."
 
apple0154 said:
No, because retirement saving was voluntary from 1776 till 1935. Over 150 years and people still didn't save and they suffered. As you correctly wrote, " Actually the role of the federal government is to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and I agree 100%. What better way to ensure life than to ensure people had money for retirement. And then there's ObamaCare. Another way to ensure life.

As the saying goes, "And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."
Click to expand...

Why not make SS voluntary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top