Poll: Do you favor Universal Healthcare if:

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

Thread: National Health Care

  1. #1
    JPSartre12 Guest

    National Health Care

    I believe that the majority of supporters for universal healthcare wouldn't be in favor of it if the costs were borne by them. What do you think?
    Check all that apply
    Last edited by JPSartre12; 09-18-2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason: Messed up initial poll

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    St Petersburg, Florida
    Posts
    69
    I'd be willing to pay a higher tax in order to not have to worry about losing health benefits if I lose my job (or my insurance company drops me if I get sick). I have no deductions or tax breaks, I pay my full tax rate now and I always have (and I don't make a lot of money). I'd be willing to pay for the security of not worrying about health care insurance. I've never collected any kind of benefit in my life from the government. But it would be good to know I won't be left to die if I get sick and my insurance company drops me. I'm very thankful I do have Health Insurance with my job (an HMO) because a lot of people here in Florida have no health insurance at all because most employers here do not offer that benefit (and low pay on top of it). I'm not complaining, I'm just telling you the situation and why I feel like I do. If I really don't like it I should move (I plan on that when I retire, I'm moving back to NY). I definitely DO agree that illegal aliens should NOT be covered by this and that needs to be written into the law so that there is no loophole.

  3. #3
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JimStPete View Post
    I'd be willing to pay a higher tax in order to not have to worry about losing health benefits if I lose my job (or my insurance company drops me if I get sick). I have no deductions or tax breaks, I pay my full tax rate now and I always have (and I don't make a lot of money). I'd be willing to pay for the security of not worrying about health care insurance. I've never collected any kind of benefit in my life from the government. But it would be good to know I won't be left to die if I get sick and my insurance company drops me. I'm very thankful I do have Health Insurance with my job (an HMO) because a lot of people here in Florida have no health insurance at all because most employers here do not offer that benefit (and low pay on top of it). I'm not complaining, I'm just telling you the situation and why I feel like I do. If I really don't like it I should move (I plan on that when I retire, I'm moving back to NY).
    I agree that there is some need for reform. Portability is certainly one of the areas that needs improvement. Coverage for pre-existing conditions would be another. Tort reform would be a third.
    I definitely DO agree that illegal aliens should NOT be covered by this and that needs to be written into the law so that there is no loophole.
    The problem is that this Congress thinks it's out-slicking the American public. They write a clause stating that illegals won't be covered, but block a provision that requires proof of citizenship prior to treatment. So, essentially, they are setting up a system that covers illegal aliens. No verification, no prevention. It's that simple.

  4. #4
    Mintaka Guest
    Yeah mon just take an advil, save the status quo ..

    YouTube - Billionaires For Wealthcare - - Battle Hymn of the Insurance Companies

  5. #5
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mintaka View Post
    Interesting fact for you. 40% of those responding to the poll above thought it was OK to force the wealthy to pay for the poor's healthcare. Is this your idea of a democracy, or do you see the socialist philosophy in play here.
    "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,052

    Exclamation So few take the time,...

    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    Interesting fact for you. 40% of those responding to the poll above thought it was OK to force the wealthy to pay for the poor's healthcare. Is this your idea of a democracy, or do you see the socialist philosophy in play here.
    "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx
    So few people take the time to think things through. Ant///Mintaka wants to tax the rich to pay for healthcare for all. That sounds great until you do some learnin and find out where the rich get their money from.

    Here's a clue people, the Rich get their money from YOU!

    You buy their goods and services, YOU make good on their investments, YOU pay interest on their loans and other securities... etc.

    And when someone gets into their pocket, guess how they make up the difference?

    That's right, they raise their prices and or get rid of some of their other expenses. They lay off workers, invest less, and spend less on other things which negatively impacts the bottom lines of OTHER rich people.

    In the end, YOU will be the one paying for 'national healthcare' through higher and higher prices, jobs that require you do more with less and reduced goods and services.

    And finally, due to government inefficiency,... For every dollar the government gives to even the most legitimate cause,... it has to take three or more from YOU.

    Government buildings must be built and maintained, computers, employees, power and light, grounds, security, retirement and other benefits for the government workers, printing, copiers, transportation, office equipment,... and on and on and on.....

    And every dollar the government takes EVEN from the richest citizens of the U.S...... ultimately comes from YOU.

    Enjoy your FREE healthcare.

    Can I get an AMEN on this?
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 10-19-2009 at 05:53 PM.
    "How can a government that has the authority to grant or to deny "personhood" to a prebirth child not also have the authority to define "marriage" as it sees fit to address the general welfare of the nation?" - Chuz Life

    Something smells!

  7. #7
    ImYY4U Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    I believe that the majority of supporters for universal healthcare wouldn't be in favor of it if the costs were borne by them. What do you think?
    Check all that apply
    Completely agree!!!

  8. #8
    ImYY4U Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JimStPete View Post
    I'd be willing to pay a higher tax in order to not have to worry about losing health benefits if I lose my job (or my insurance company drops me if I get sick). I have no deductions or tax breaks, I pay my full tax rate now and I always have (and I don't make a lot of money). I'd be willing to pay for the security of not worrying about health care insurance. I've never collected any kind of benefit in my life from the government. But it would be good to know I won't be left to die if I get sick and my insurance company drops me. I'm very thankful I do have Health Insurance with my job (an HMO) because a lot of people here in Florida have no health insurance at all because most employers here do not offer that benefit (and low pay on top of it). I'm not complaining, I'm just telling you the situation and why I feel like I do. If I really don't like it I should move (I plan on that when I retire, I'm moving back to NY). I definitely DO agree that illegal aliens should NOT be covered by this and that needs to be written into the law so that there is no loophole.
    If you can't afford to pay for your own health care, why should the taxpayers have to subsidize it? That is socialism, my friend.

  9. #9
    ImYY4U Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    I agree that there is some need for reform. Portability is certainly one of the areas that needs improvement. Coverage for pre-existing conditions would be another. Tort reform would be a third.


    The problem is that this Congress thinks it's out-slicking the American public. They write a clause stating that illegals won't be covered, but block a provision that requires proof of citizenship prior to treatment. So, essentially, they are setting up a system that covers illegal aliens. No verification, no prevention. It's that simple.
    It's getting close to the time for the pitchforks and torches.

  10. #10
    ImYY4U Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    Interesting fact for you. 40% of those responding to the poll above thought it was OK to force the wealthy to pay for the poor's healthcare. Is this your idea of a democracy, or do you see the socialist philosophy in play here.
    "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx
    Most of the socialists are incapable of abstract thought when it comes to economics, or else they are just lazy, no-good leeches.

  11. #11
    ImYY4U Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    So few people take the time to think things through. Ant///Mintaka wants to tax the rich to pay for healthcare for all. That sounds great until you do some learnin and find out where the rich get their money from.

    Here's a clue people, the Rich get their money from YOU!

    You buy their goods and services, YOU make good on their investments, YOU pay interest on their loans and other securities... etc.

    And when someone gets into their pocket, guess how they make up the difference?

    That's right, they raise their prices and or get rid of some of their other expenses. They lay off workers, invest less, and spend less on other things which negatively impacts the bottom lines of OTHER rich people.

    In the end, YOU will be the one paying for 'national healthcare' through higher and higher prices, jobs that require you do more with less and reduced goods and services.

    And finally, due to government inefficiency,... For every dollar the government gives to even the most legitimate cause,... it has to take three or more from YOU.

    Government buildings must be built and maintained, computers, employees, power and light, grounds, security, retirement and other benefits for the government workers, printing, copiers, transportation, office equipment,... and on and on and on.....

    And every dollar the government takes EVEN from the richest citizens of the U.S...... ultimately comes from YOU.

    Enjoy your FREE healthcare.

    Can I get an AMEN on this?
    You have a qualified amen.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,052

    Thumbs up I'll take it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImYY4U View Post
    You have a qualified amen.
    I didn't cover all the angles I wanted too.... But I'll take it!

    "How can a government that has the authority to grant or to deny "personhood" to a prebirth child not also have the authority to define "marriage" as it sees fit to address the general welfare of the nation?" - Chuz Life

    Something smells!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    St Petersburg, Florida
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by ImYY4U View Post
    If you can't afford to pay for your own health care, why should the taxpayers have to subsidize it? That is socialism, my friend.

    Ummm, you did notice that I said "I" would be willing to pay higher taxes for this didn't you? I've paid into the tax system all my life with no deductions. I've never received any government benefit because I'm lucky, I've never been unemployed and would only consider a job if it had health benefits. So I'm not seeing the socialism here 'my friend.' Did you get your education in Florida by any chance?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    61

    to JimStPete, a definition of socialism.

    Wow, Jim. Would you kindly get a towel and start mopping up? You're dripping disdain and sarcasm all over the floor.

    If when you say that YOU would be willing to pay for the "security" of not having to worry about loss of job or healthcare, that YOU are willing to pay for YOUR OWN insurance to that end, then yes, you are right in being indignant when that is called a socialistic tendency. If you mean that you don't mind VOLUNTARILY paying for SOMEBODY ELSE's security, as long as they pay for yours when you need it, then that's also not socialistic. However, if you mean that you support the idea that all persons required to pay for another's security, regardless of desire, then that DOES come under the heading of "socialistic tendencies."

    The first listing in the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "socialism" in the following way:

    1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

    So let's apply this. government would have "ownership" (see the above definition,) his public healthcare option, government would be responsible for the 'administration the means of producing' this healthcare, and government would be responsible for the "distribution of goods." The goods in this case being the money (tax money) and healthcare service. Wow, that fits the definition of socialism pretty dang well.

    Yes, liberalism is closer to socialism than conservatism ever was to socialism.

    Socialism (and to a large extent Liberalism,) believes that the government should take care of many details in a person's life, such as whether or not the populace have jobs, healthcare, etc. The definition is even found in the names of the two platforms! The political term "liberal" means a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT (for liberal, see abundant, large, plentiful), with wide-spread (one may also insert the word 'liberal' here,) influence.

    Conservatives believe that government should be "conservative" (see minimal, sparing, small) and exist for the reasons that Locke lays out in chapter i of his second volume of "Two Treatises on Government." (A book which almost all of the Founding Fathers read avidly.) In chapter i, Locke defines political power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property. What does he mean by "regulation of property"? Later in that chapter, he states that a man in this original state is bound by the laws of nature, but he is otherwise able to live, act, and dispose of his possessions as he sees fit. NOT AS THE GOVERNMENT SEES FIT.

    Now of course, for a government to exist, there must be SOME mandatory tax to cover the overhead. But Locke insisted that government did not exist to force men to be "good", just to make sure they didn't infringe one another's rights. As a conservative, I do not believe that government should FORCE us to be charitable to the poor. I DO believe in charity; I give away 12% of my income to charities OF MY OWN CHOOSING. I, like you, am willing to give others a bit of security simply because I believe it is right. However, I do not believe that it is right for government to force this on us. Governments can and should offer incentives for such charitable organizations to form, and, according to Adam Smith, founder of our capitalist economic model, they will form. As Reagan stated, "The government does nothing as well or as efficiently as the private sector."

    Beyond any arguments (extremely valid though they are,) that the government will be creating a conflict of interest by competing in the private sector, the biggest, I think is that this public option is going to be cheaper, and will succeed by subsidizing it from OUR TAX DOLLARS, and WITHHOLDING FULL PAYMENT from Doctors and Hospitals, which will further strain an already harried healthcare industry. We can't afford this "cheaper" and more socialistic option.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    61

    Holy text overdose!

    Geez, that was wordy.

    *whew*

    Sorry for the length there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •