APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"

Good Luck said:
Yet when we propose a cover-only-the-needy type health care plan, you claim it cannot work. Again, you bite your own tail.

Which is it to be? Government plans that only cover the needy, or all encompassing socialist plans? Make up your mind.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it, do you? When there is a plan to cover only the needy people generally don't like it. Look at welfare. Which is the more common refrain; "I feel empathy for the individual on welfare" or "Just another lazy bum"?

If, and that's a big "if", the government would implement a cover-only-the-needy type plan it would be better for all, however, for a number of reasons those type of plans seldom pass. There has to be something in it for everyone which is why SS is structured the way it is and which is why medical has to be universal.

As I mentioned before people rant about someone getting a welfare check.

(EXCERPT)However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.(END)
http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/

Imagine when a medical bill comes in for 10 or 20 thousand or 40 or 50 thousand. HA!

When the care of the elderly was expected to be a personal responsibility, there was no resentment of it except by an unusually selfish minority;
Click to expand...

So what happens to the elderly person who has an unusually selfish family? Do we let him starve or do we give him SS? Do we force families to live together?

The rest of your post details exactly why we need social programs; from children not being supported to broken marriages to neglect of the elderly.

Try and understand those things were happening before programs were implemented. Maybe not on as large a scale but those are the reasons programs were implemented in the first place.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Good Luck said:
Yet when we propose a cover-only-the-needy type health care plan, you claim it cannot work. Again, you bite your own tail.

Which is it to be? Government plans that only cover the needy, or all encompassing socialist plans? Make up your mind.


As for the rest, I strongly suggest you study some social history. The current state of mobile population came about because people were no longer tied to family due to government programs which (deliberately?) weakened or eliminated those ties. Of course business is going to take full advantage of the new attitudes that diminish interpersonal relationships, but had the attitudes of society not turned to government to accept what was once considered personal responsibility, there is no way the current trend of moving employees around like chess pieces would never have come about.

And the rest of your post, asking about resentment for this, resentment for that, is the diatribe of the selfishness and egocentrism of modern liberalism. Why SHOULD people resent taking care of family? Do you consider it a normal attitude to resent caring for an unusually sick child? The why should such attitudes apply to the elder members of the family, who put THEIR lives on hold to raise the generation now resenting them for being a burden? It's the bullshit of pure egocentrism fed to the current generations under the lie of a progressive society "caring" for others. (How is handing it of to an amorphous entity under government "caring"? Caring means PERSONAL involvement. Handing the job to some impersonal agency is NOT caring, it is the act of assuaging guilt feelings that result from self indulgent egocentrism.

And to directly answer your question, I quite like my mother-in-law. She's one hell of a lady, not to mention the best cook in the lower 48. If something were to happen so she became a dependent, I would feel honored if she chose my household. If she were to have any type of financial troubles, I have no problem with providing any assistance she needs. And my wife had no problems with the situation when it was my father who needed our support.

When the care of the elderly was expected to be a personal responsibility, there was no resentment of it except by an unusually selfish minority; just as today there is no resentment of children by parents - except by an unusually selfish minority. It was progressivism that has promoted the idea that families - and neighbors - should push their obligations off on the government. The result is a society which focuses on the self - career, hobbies, self-indulgence. Anything that gets in the way of that takes a second seat. Don't get to know the neighbors, you may not want to move when your next promotion comes through. Wife or husband gets in the way of pursuit of happiness - dump them under no-fault divorce laws. Parents - they have their SS check. Send them greeting cards as various occasions call for. If they get sick, stick them in a nursing home. Children - dump them in day care, after school care, etc. - that is, those who are not killed out of hand before birth because they are not wanted.

The entire philosophy that has been erroneously labeled liberalism is based on and focused on individual self indulgence. It wants government to accept responsibility for the elderly because caring for ones own family members might be too much a bother. Progressivism promotes government to be the primary provider for the poor, because people who promote it are too egocentric to bother with it themselves. Pay taxes, (BUT MAKE SURE SOMEONE ELSE PAYS MORE TAXES) and send an occasional check to a favored charity is the outside limit people expect of themselves. Liberalism has attacked marriage, family, community, and society all under the "Don't I deserve to be happy?" mantra. Yet, hypocritically, they point to conservatives as the selfish ones for resenting the support of untold numbers of government officials and bureaucrats with unacceptably high tax rates advertised as helping the needy.
Click to expand...
 
"A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level. "



Doy.
 
AssHatZombie said:
"A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level. "



Doy.
Click to expand...

That was referring to SS, not medical.
 
AssHatZombie said:
SUUUURE it was.

Should SS cost all our worldy assets?
Click to expand...

In msg 194 I wrote, "A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level."
 
apple0154 said:
In msg 194 I wrote, "A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level."
Click to expand...

Why would receiving ss mean giving up major assets?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Why would receiving ss mean giving up major assets?
Click to expand...
Because you have to "show need"... We all pay in, only those who "show need" get to partake in the subsistence program. In his mind the perfect plan is one that everybody pays into, but only those he deems worthy by class get to actually participate in.

IMO, the perfect plan would be one that ensures people save, but when they retire they get to spend the money they saved and pass it on to future generations. The only people spending others money would be on welfare, and very rare as almost all would have saved per the "plan" while they worked. Instead we have a ponzi scheme where we all pay in, and never get a positive return.
 
Damocles said:
Because you have to "show need"... We all pay in, only those who "show need" get to partake in the subsistence program. In his mind the perfect plan is one that everybody pays into, but only those he deems worthy by class get to actually participate in.

IMO, the perfect plan would be one that ensures people save, but when they retire they get to spend the money they saved and pass it on to future generations. The only people spending others money would be on welfare, and very rare as almost all would have saved per the "plan" while they worked. Instead we have a ponzi scheme where we all pay in, and never get a positive return.
Click to expand...

That's what i thought too.
 
apple0154 said:
You just don't get it, do you? When there is a plan to cover only the needy people generally don't like it. Look at welfare. Which is the more common refrain; "I feel empathy for the individual on welfare" or "Just another lazy bum"?

If, and that's a big "if", the government would implement a cover-only-the-needy type plan it would be better for all, however, for a number of reasons those type of plans seldom pass. There has to be something in it for everyone which is why SS is structured the way it is and which is why medical has to be universal.

As I mentioned before people rant about someone getting a welfare check.

(EXCERPT)However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.(END)
http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/

Imagine when a medical bill comes in for 10 or 20 thousand or 40 or 50 thousand. HA!



So what happens to the elderly person who has an unusually selfish family? Do we let him starve or do we give him SS? Do we force families to live together?

The rest of your post details exactly why we need social programs; from children not being supported to broken marriages to neglect of the elderly.

Try and understand those things were happening before programs were implemented. Maybe not on as large a scale but those are the reasons programs were implemented in the first place.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...



You've been watching the STAR TREK marathon again, haven't you!! :good4u:
 
Damocles said:
Because you have to "show need"... We all pay in, only those who "show need" get to partake in the subsistence program. In his mind the perfect plan is one that everybody pays into, but only those he deems worthy by class get to actually participate in.

IMO, the perfect plan would be one that ensures people save, but when they retire they get to spend the money they saved and pass it on to future generations. The only people spending others money would be on welfare, and very rare as almost all would have saved per the "plan" while they worked. Instead we have a ponzi scheme where we all pay in, and never get a positive return.
Click to expand...

Thank-you, Damocles. Twice.

Once for your explanation in the first paragraph although "class" should read "need" and, again, for the second paragraph which is why I wrote in msg 202, "When there is a plan to cover only the needy people generally don't like it."

That's why anything less than universal health care does not work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top