PDA

View Full Version : bonus's/handouts vs rights



mr_badman
09-20-2008, 04:19 PM
i am nor democrate nor republican my views on certain issues cross the board. how ever i tend to lean towards more democratic views. that why im an obama supporter. below i have compiled a list of issues were parties differ in opinion. and i would like to see how much of a issue it is to real people.

1. gay marriage or rights.
2. universal health care.
3. welfare
4. abortion

my personal opinions:
1. i dont really care but if i was a law maker i would never address this issue. i dont support gays and i do believe marriage is between a man and woman. but thats my own believe and shouldnt be forced on anyone. there is no law that says being gay is breaking the law therefor it should be 2 :love: probably have the right to marry. personally im with iran on this one though ;)

2. health care should be a right not a privlage for a select few. just because someone for what ever reason doesnt have or cant get a job that provides health care doesnt mean they should be shhted on when they are sick. a citizen that pays taxes to this country should have certain benifits as a basic right. if someone is going to rob or hurt you your allowed to call the police without charge, so why should people worry a bill if they call a ambulance when they are sick.

3. although there is abuse welfare workfare what ever it is now a days i still think it is needed. i dont mind paying taxes for a family who may have met some form of misfortune maybe a Katrina or a layoff death separation of from a spouse, old age sickness without health care or something along the lines. this may be some what of a hand out but its also humane.

4. although i dont personally agree with abortions for myself because i love children and im responsible. if for some reason i had a drunken uprotected 1night stand with a ugly or a fatty (not going to happen) i wouldnt want to have that baby with a person i wouldnt want or didnt plan to build a family with. i also dont think i have the right to tell someone else what to do with there body. it is not illegal to commit suicide or harm/mutilate yourself in any way. abortion is a right for a woman to partake in. maybe not for the dr. performing it but definitly for the woman who chooses to do so.

key notes im not gay, i have a job with healthcare, and hope i will never have to be involved in an abortion.

Doc Fluty
09-20-2008, 05:09 PM
my views on your answers...

Answer 2... if you think its is a RIGHT to get heath care then in that sense you would assume it would be your RIGHT for food, clothes, baby sitters, telephone and other things too right?

by your standards just because someone pays taxes then the government should supply all there basic life need.. by your reasoning you would have to provide food and shelter for a taxpayer right? you cant go without food, but you can without health care... if you pay taxes then you are employed.. so you need clothes, a lot more than you need health care...

i could go on but i think you get my point... my mother and uncle are on welfare and they get chemo therapy free for their cancer.

answer 3... welfare is a crutch. it is a needed p[rogram but should have term limits and mandatory job training as a requirement..

"if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day... teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime"

Answer 4.... if you get drunk and drive home and kill a family of 4 while drunk.. you cant just erase that... there is no morning after pill for wrecking your car and maybe someone elses life

this is the epitome of no personal responsibility...

"oh i got drunk and ****ed a fat chick" is no excuse for the murder of a child.

you dont want a baby? then dont get sooo drunk that you have no idea what your doing or saying...

Lady's Man
09-20-2008, 05:11 PM
1) indifferent
2) whatever, just make sure its incentive based (I.E. like graudating high school)
3) see #2
4) indifferent

ari1013
09-20-2008, 05:12 PM
To help you out a bit:

1. So you're going to pretend like there aren't any gay people here? That's what Ahmedinejad does...

Anyway, that view puts you in line with McCain more than Obama, and with our current policies like "don't ask, don't tell."

2. Agreed. That view puts you more in line with Obama than McCain.

3. That's a little different than welfare, though I suppose it still falls under the same "safety net." As far as that goes, I doubt either politician would disagree with you with regards to SSI or FEMA relief.

4. Again, Obama would be closer to your view than would McCain.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 05:23 PM
1. gay marriage or rights.
2. universal health care.
3. welfare
4. abortion

Interesting set of points you have here. I'll play. :)
1. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. But do agree with the idea of civil unions. Gay committed couples should have every right under the law as straight couples. And I think civil unions are a good way of achieving this.

2. I do not want universal health care at all in any form in the U.S. The government can't manage what they already control let alone give them something as massive as health care. It would be ripe for lots and lots of fraud to be involved. Not to mention if people don't have to pay for something they are going to use it to excess if they are paying for it they will use it only when necessary. I think we should go the opposite direction and get employers out of the health care business and allow each individual to obtain their own health care. Go with a tax break to people so that they can buy their own policies a lot like buying life insurance. If you allow each consumer to go into the market place and get their own policy that way it can go with them if/when they change jobs or get layed off.

3. Welfare is great for those who need a hand up from a tough position. It should be limited and for a limited time frame. Should be a bridge only to get people back on the right track. I hate when you hear about the abuse and people staying on welfare because it is more beneficial to them than actually working.

4. Abortion- First off I believe R v. W should be overturned for the fact that abortion is not a federal issue and should have been up to the individual states to make up the decision. But I am for abortion only in certain circumstances health of mother, incest/rape and things like that are no brainers of course it should be available. Past that I think it should be limited to no later than 20 weeks gestation at the VERY latest. Anything past that the child can viably live outside the mother and should be treated accordingly. At 5 months gestation you have had plenty of time to realize you are pregnant and can have made the decision if you wish to keep it or not. Once you get past that time and there is no problem medically I don't believe abortion should be an option. If after this point you don't want the child you should have the child and put it up for adoption. I have very strong feelings on this since our daughter was born at 25 weeks and have seen what the little babies are capable of.

gcoll
09-20-2008, 05:26 PM
1. gay marriage or rights.

I don't really care. I think a pretty good temporary solution would be just legalizing "civil unions"....then when the novelty of that idea fades, you can call it marriage and nobody will care.


2. universal health care.
As a matter of principle I'm against it.

But even if I was for it, at this point, I don't see how it could work without being way too expensive.


3. welfare
Well. You'd put me down as having a negative view of welfare, though I don't think it should be abolished.


4. abortion
I'm one of those "anti-abortion, but pro-choice" people.

As a general rule though. These 4 issues aren't all that important to me.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 05:32 PM
For those so far that are for universal health care have you ever had to deal with a governmental agency on a pretty much monthly basis? If not you have no idea what you are asking for. Our daughter was born premature and has some minor issues but enough to qualify for SSI. Social Security is the most inept organization that I have ever had to deal with. And I have zero faith that any type of universal health care system would be any better than what SS is but with a LOT more money to play with. I guess my warning is be wary of unintended consequences if we do get universal health care. That and get/keep a passport ready because it will be easier to go to Mexico to get health care than it would be here in the States.

ari1013
09-20-2008, 05:38 PM
For those so far that are for universal health care have you ever had to deal with a governmental agency on a pretty much monthly basis? If not you have no idea what you are asking for. Our daughter was born premature and has some minor issues but enough to qualify for SSI. Social Security is the most inept organization that I have ever had to deal with. And I have zero faith that any type of universal health care system would be any better than what SS is but with a LOT more money to play with. I guess my warning is be wary of unintended consequences if we do get universal health care. That and get/keep a passport ready because it will be easier to go to Mexico to get health care than it would be here in the States.
I think simplification would go a long way to improving our health care system.

I don't really care if everyone buys into a government plan, like what happens with medicare (the elderly pay a $90/month premium and then it essentially is their health insurance), or if the government simply acts as a bargaining agent with insurance companies to allow all Americans the option of becoming privately insured at a reasonable price.

mr_badman
09-20-2008, 05:52 PM
To help you out a bit:

1. So you're going to pretend like there aren't any gay people here? That's what Ahmedinejad does...

Anyway, that view puts you in line with McCain more than Obama, and with our current policies like "don't ask, don't tell."

im not in line with McCain because i dont care if they are married/unioned or even that they choose to be gay, and i dont see a problem with dont ask dont tell. to some people like me being gay is offensive and an eye sore. i dont like to see two men hugging. not to the extent that i believe they should be stone but i dont want to see it.

2. Agreed. That view puts you more in line with Obama than McCain.

3. That's a little different than welfare, though I suppose it still falls under the same "safety net." As far as that goes, I doubt either politician would disagree with you with regards to SSI or FEMA relief.

4. Again, Obama would be closer to your view than would McCain.
hoosiercubsfan has it right 5 months is just insane but i do support the choice of an abortion fully

i dont have to agree with 100% of what obama says to support him. just as even though i may have simular views with mccain doesnt mean im a mccain supporter.

mr_badman
09-20-2008, 06:01 PM
im sorry i didnt clearify my view on healthcare. or should i say affordable healthcare. it should be more affordable alot more affordable. just transfering from one job to another and keeping cobra insurance for 30-90 days can run upto or over 1000 per month for a family plan. for a family who is living check to check and barly staying afloat this is near impossible.

mr_badman
09-20-2008, 06:24 PM
my views on your answers...

Answer 2... if you think its is a RIGHT to get heath care then in that sense you would assume it would be your RIGHT for food, clothes, baby sitters, telephone and other things too right?

by your standards just because someone pays taxes then the government should supply all there basic life need.. by your reasoning you would have to provide food and shelter for a taxpayer right? you cant go without food, but you can without health care... if you pay taxes then you are employed.. so you need clothes, a lot more than you need health care...

if your paying taxes you should be able to provide most of your basic needs. even if only at a basic level. that statment doesnt hold true for healthcare. you can work at wendy's and maintain food&shelter, but you wont be able to afford health care. and we cant say just because an adult works at wendy's they are not hard working or they are lazy. i do believe healthcare should be more attainable for the less fortunate. i dont have a problem with a person having to pay for it. i pay a portion of mine, but i have an upper end jobs that pays the majority its a big difference between 150+- per month vs 1000+ especially considering i make a lot more than a person a wendys

"if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day... teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime"

i agree some people need a little more teaching though

Answer 4.... if you get drunk and drive home and kill a family of 4 while drunk.. you cant just erase that... there is no morning after pill for wrecking your car and maybe someone elses life

thats not an abortion ^^

this is the epitome of no personal responsibility...

"oh i got drunk and ****ed a fat chick" is no excuse for the murder of a child. :puke:

my opinion human life doesnt begin upon conception it happens when a being can function as a human. there is a cutoff period between when i feel an abortion is a murder but i dont think our current laws currently cross them.there are no laws against self mutilation

you dont want a baby? then dont get sooo drunk that you have no idea what your doing or saying...

i agree with you on that^^ but that isnt the only way people get into unwanted pregnantcies. there are many reasonable scenarios were a mother may want to have an abortion.

ink
09-20-2008, 06:34 PM
For those so far that are for universal health care have you ever had to deal with a governmental agency on a pretty much monthly basis?

Yes. I've had the benefits of universal health care in three countries (where I studied and worked - Canada, Norway (where my wife is from, and my daughter was born), and Germany) all my life and NEVER once had a problem. In fact, I've been amazed at the efficiency and low cost. btw, that has even included physio in specialized clinics for sports injuries. All covered by universal health care. No bureaucracy whatsoever, despite the nonsense opponents attempt to spread.

Back to the list:

1. gay marriage or rights - civil unions at minimum.
2. universal health care - no question. Yes, I think it's a right.
3. welfare - very strict guidelines to qualify, but it needs to be there.
4. abortion - I'm also an anti-abortion, pro-choice type person. Frankly, I think it's the woman's right, not mine, to choose.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 06:41 PM
I think simplification would go a long way to improving our health care system.

I don't really care if everyone buys into a government plan, like what happens with medicare (the elderly pay a $90/month premium and then it essentially is their health insurance), or if the government simply acts as a bargaining agent with insurance companies to allow all Americans the option of becoming privately insured at a reasonable price.

That is something like what I am talking about. Though I really would like the government to have very little to do with it. I think it could be done easily by the private market with just government oversight. As I have said I'd like to see health insurance turned over to something like life insurance I believe the prices would come way down with market competition.

ink
09-20-2008, 06:42 PM
That is something like what I am talking about. Though I really would like the government to have very little to do with it. I think it could be done easily by the private market with just government oversight. As I have said I'd like to see health insurance turned over to something like life insurance I believe the prices would come way down with market competition.

There is no reason why premiums should be high. The prices are not high in other countries. There is no need for market competition on a fundamental need like health care - and there is a huge ethical problem with profiting on people's illness.

SmthBluCitrus
09-20-2008, 06:48 PM
Market competition won't drive down health care prices. Health care is an in-demand service. People need it, and somebody has to supply it -- and you can bet that they're going to profit off of it.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 06:49 PM
Yes. I've had the benefits of universal health care in three countries (where I studied and worked - Canada, Norway (where my wife is from, and my daughter was born), and Germany) all my life and NEVER once had a problem. In fact, I've been amazed at the efficiency and low cost. btw, that has even included physio in specialized clinics for sports injuries. All covered by universal health care. No bureaucracy whatsoever, despite the nonsense opponents attempt to spread.

I just have ZERO faith that our government can run anything effectively. That is the inner libertarian coming out in me. I have seen how poorly it is run with the education system and social security. So why would I have any belief that they will all of the sudden run an even larger program effectively? You talk about different countries and to be honest I know nothing about their governmental programs but knowing the ones here in the states universal health care will be a colossal **** up. There will be so many hands stuck in the pot that you won't know which way the money is going.

SmthBluCitrus
09-20-2008, 06:51 PM
Um ... other than the limited oversight from (the failed) NCLB act, where does the federal government run education?

ink
09-20-2008, 06:52 PM
Market competition won't drive down health care prices. Health care is an in-demand service. People need it, and somebody has to supply it -- and you can bet that they're going to profit off of it.

Yes, in a free market health care situation. That's why universal health care works so much better. I can't say enough how lucky I've been to have been covered in every place I've lived. It's not a legal right, but it's so close to that standard, that I've almost become accustomed to thinking of it that way.

SmthBluCitrus
09-20-2008, 06:53 PM
Yes, in a free market health care situation. That's why universal health care works so much better. I can't say enough how lucky I've been to have been covered in every place I've lived. It's not a legal right, but it's so close to that standard, that I've almost become accustomed to thinking of it that way.

You don't have to make the argument to me ink ... I'm in favor of completely universal health care in the US. Have been for a long long time.

ink
09-20-2008, 06:56 PM
I just have ZERO faith that our government can run anything effectively. That is the inner libertarian coming out in me. I have seen how poorly it is run with the education system and social security. So why would I have any belief that they will all of the sudden run an even larger program effectively? You talk about different countries and to be honest I know nothing about their governmental programs but knowing the ones here in the states universal health care will be a colossal **** up. There will be so many hands stuck in the pot that you won't know which way the money is going.

It's not even complicated for consumers here. You get a health card, you give the number to the doctor or hospital, and they treat you. The doctor/hospital records your number and sends it on to the government agency that administers. Either you or your employer pays the premium. The actual medical interaction is never with the bureaucracy, and always between client and patient.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 06:57 PM
Market competition won't drive down health care prices. Health care is an in-demand service. People need it, and somebody has to supply it -- and you can bet that they're going to profit off of it.

I'm not talking about driving down the price of health care. I am talking about driving down the cost of health care insurance. When you have health care offered on a menu where you can pick and choose what you like it will cause the price to go down. Why make someone who is 70 pay for maternity coverage as part of their health care plan when they won't ever need that part. Allowing people to choose what they want covered will also cause people to use their health care coverage more wisely. It would be like car insurance do you really care about that little scrape in your fender or do you turn in a claim making your rates go up.

SmthBluCitrus
09-20-2008, 06:58 PM
I'm not talking about driving down the price of health care. I am talking about driving down the cost of health care insurance. When you have health care offered on a menu where you can pick and choose what you like it will cause the price to go down. Why make someone who is 70 pay for maternity coverage as part of their health care plan when they won't ever need that part. Allowing people to choose what they want covered will also cause people to use their health care coverage more wisely. It would be like car insurance do you really care about that little scrape in your fender or do you turn in a claim making your rates go up.

Man ... that nail in my foot hurts. Crap, I'm not covered for that ... guess I'll just pull it out myself and avoid a trip to the doctor. I'd hate to have to pay more for using it.

Why's my foot turning green and smelling like almonds???

ink
09-20-2008, 06:59 PM
You don't have to make the argument to me ink ... I'm in favor of completely universal health care in the US. Have been for a long long time.

I know. I was just adding ... :D

There have been so many times when I've needed medical assistance (because of sports injuries and general crashing of bikes and skis, lol) and I've never had to give it a moment's worry. I'm covered.

SmthBluCitrus
09-20-2008, 07:00 PM
I know. I was just adding ... :D

There have been so many times when I've needed medical assistance (because of sports injuries and general crashing of bikes and skis, lol) and I've never had to give it a moment's worry. I'm covered.

You dirty Habs and your filthy health care! :p

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 07:00 PM
It's not even complicated for consumers here. You get a health card, you give the number to the doctor or hospital, and they treat you. The doctor/hospital records your number and sends it on to the government agency that administers. Either you or your employer pays the premium. The actual medical interaction is never with the bureaucracy, and always between client and patient.

That right there is my big problem with the whole idea. Tell me a governmental agency in the U.S. of similar size that is run effectively and I will change my mind about it. I just don't trust the government to do anything correctly for me. I am a cynic from all the dealings I have already had with the agencies I have had to deal with already on matters of much less importance.

ink
09-20-2008, 07:01 PM
I'm not talking about driving down the price of health care. I am talking about driving down the cost of health care insurance. When you have health care offered on a menu where you can pick and choose what you like it will cause the price to go down. Why make someone who is 70 pay for maternity coverage as part of their health care plan when they won't ever need that part. Allowing people to choose what they want covered will also cause people to use their health care coverage more wisely. It would be like car insurance do you really care about that little scrape in your fender or do you turn in a claim making your rates go up.

There's no need for market principles in health care. In fact, there's a need to isolate health care and health insurance premiums from market forces. Health coverage is a basic need. Nothing should alter its availability.

SmthBluCitrus
09-20-2008, 07:02 PM
That right there is my big problem with the whole idea. Tell me a governmental agency in the U.S. of similar size that is run effectively and I will change my mind about it. I just don't trust the government to do anything correctly for me. I am a cynic from all the dealings I have already had with the agencies I have had to deal with already on matters of much less importance.

So, what's your feeling on the $700b bailout?

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 07:07 PM
Man ... that nail in my foot hurts. Crap, I'm not covered for that ... guess I'll just pull it out myself and avoid a trip to the doctor. I'd hate to have to pay more for using it.

Why's my foot turning green and smelling like almonds???

I've got the sniffles and I don't feel like going to work today. Maybe if I go to the doctor I can not get fired for missing another day of work. I could take this dose of Robutussin and be just fine but going to the Doctor would just be easier plus I don't have to pay for it anyway.

And your missing my point of what is covered/not covered. Older women/single men should not have any type of maternity coverage in their policy. The more you want covered versus out of pocket would be more expensive with healthy teen age/20 somethings that are typically more healthy they could take the more out of pocket for cheaper premiums. You are twisting my point around to serve your own purpose.

ink
09-20-2008, 07:08 PM
You dirty Habs and your filthy health care! :p

:laugh2:

SmthBluCitrus
09-20-2008, 07:13 PM
I've got the sniffles and I don't feel like going to work today. Maybe if I go to the doctor I can not get fired for missing another day of work. I could take this dose of Robutussin and be just fine but going to the Doctor would just be easier plus I don't have to pay for it anyway.

And your missing my point of what is covered/not covered. Older women/single men should not have any type of maternity coverage in their policy. The more you want covered versus out of pocket would be more expensive with healthy teen age/20 somethings that are typically more healthy they could take the more out of pocket for cheaper premiums. You are twisting my point around to serve your own purpose.

LoL -- and you're twisting it to serve yours. So, what's the difference?

You can't defend from irresponsibility regardless. If a person doesn't want to go to work, they're going to find an excuse that works. But, last I checked, you don't need a doctors note for one missed day of work. I believe that is what they call harassment unless the situation is a chronic offender.

Anyhoo ... by lumping everybody together and making it a tax, your actual "annual payment" (i.e. tax) is likely to be lower than what you pay in insurance. And, you don't have to worry about what's covered and what isn't.

ink
09-20-2008, 07:13 PM
I've got the sniffles and I don't feel like going to work today. Maybe if I go to the doctor I can not get fired for missing another day of work. I could take this dose of Robutussin and be just fine but going to the Doctor would just be easier plus I don't have to pay for it anyway.

There are always cheaters in every situation. That doesn't mean that everyone will cheat.


And your missing my point of what is covered/not covered. Older women/single men should not have any type of maternity coverage in their policy. The more you want covered versus out of pocket would be more expensive with healthy teen age/20 somethings that are typically more healthy they could take the more out of pocket for cheaper premiums. You are twisting my point around to serve your own purpose.

I think you must be applying market principles you're used to when buying health insurance. We don't add in or subtract coverage in that way. That's why it's called "universal". Seniors would pay a lower premium anyway because the country tries to ease their expenses given that they don't have the wherewithall to bring in a salary anymore.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 07:32 PM
So, what's your feeling on the $700b bailout?

Honestly I am not for it and think the businesses should be allowed to fail. But in doing so it would totally destroy whatever economy we have left. The problem is the issue goes so much deeper pointing straight at the government itself.

What is your feeling that Obama has the directors of Lehman Brothers now as chief fundraisers. That he is second among donations from Lehman Brothers among all members of congress since 1989. Barack Obama ranks second among donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac among all members of congress since 1989. Remember, in four years Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other member of congress in the past two decades except for Chris Dodd, and Chris Dodd has been in federal office since 1975. Obama's only been in office since 2005. Former CEO Fannie Mae, former Obama adviser Jim Johnson, he's the guy who was there on the committee to help select a vice president. Obama offers up that he is all about change but if this isn't more of the same I don't know what is.

The reason for that diatribe was the fact that the tentacles from these types of companies are so deeply entrenched within Washington that they just knew they would not be allowed to fail. That and with the drastic changing of Community Reinvestment Act under the Clinton administration the fault of this falls directly with Washington. We just spent about a trillion dollars total to prop these companies back up and make the solvent again. Where did that money come from? China is the best answer I can come up with.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 07:40 PM
LoL -- and you're twisting it to serve yours. So, what's the difference?

You can't defend from irresponsibility regardless. If a person doesn't want to go to work, they're going to find an excuse that works. But, last I checked, you don't need a doctors note for one missed day of work. I believe that is what they call harassment unless the situation is a chronic offender.

Anyhoo ... by lumping everybody together and making it a tax, your actual "annual payment" (i.e. tax) is likely to be lower than what you pay in insurance. And, you don't have to worry about what's covered and what isn't.


There are always cheaters in every situation. That doesn't mean that everyone will cheat.



I think you must be applying market principles you're used to when buying health insurance. We don't add in or subtract coverage in that way. That's why it's called "universal". Seniors would pay a lower premium anyway because the country tries to ease their expenses given that they don't have the wherewithall to bring in a salary anymore.

No my point was that I feel that it should be opened to the free market and that everyone should be able to pick and choose their own health care plan. Take employers out of the health care game give everyone a standard deduction to pay for basic health coverage. Which is in a sense like universal health care but it takes out the government at the point of the tax break for the coverage. But it would be up to the individual consumer to pick what plan suits them. This would allow for the leaving out of certain coverages that are unnecessary for the individual. I just don't like the government being involved in anything like this to deeply. Again they can't control the agencies they have now let alone adding another one. If they had a better track record at running ANYTHING correctly/efficiently I wouldn't have a problem with it.

ink
09-20-2008, 07:49 PM
No my point was that I feel that it should be opened to the free market and that everyone should be able to pick and choose their own health care plan. Take employers out of the health care game give everyone a standard deduction to pay for basic health coverage. Which is in a sense like universal health care but it takes out the government at the point of the tax break for the coverage. But it would be up to the individual consumer to pick what plan suits them. This would allow for the leaving out of certain coverages that are unnecessary for the individual. I just don't like the government being involved in anything like this to deeply. Again they can't control the agencies they have now let alone adding another one. If they had a better track record at running ANYTHING correctly/efficiently I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Maybe they just need to implement what works so well elsewhere. Respectfully, there's no need to cherry pick the coverage you need. The whole principle of "universal" care is that you're covered for everything that could come up, and it doesn't affect the price of coverage. I think the USA must be one of the last wealthy countries to have universal health care.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 08:01 PM
Maybe they just need to implement what works so well elsewhere. Respectfully, there's no need to cherry pick the coverage you need. The whole principle of "universal" care is that you're covered for everything that could come up, and it doesn't affect the price of coverage. I think the USA must be one of the last wealthy countries to have universal health care.

Problem is I have no faith in our government doing anything correctly. I'd rather go to the way I describe it and allow people to go out into the market and get their own coverage. If they are put in charge of health care it will wind up another crisis sooner than later like what we are facing with our financial sector. Leave anything up to the government and they will find a way to screw it up.

ink
09-20-2008, 08:14 PM
Problem is I have no faith in our government doing anything correctly. I'd rather go to the way I describe it and allow people to go out into the market and get their own coverage. If they are put in charge of health care it will wind up another crisis sooner than later like what we are facing with our financial sector. Leave anything up to the government and they will find a way to screw it up.

Side note: if you feel so strongly about the incompetence of the US government, how on earth can you even begin to support the Republican party right now?? I know you want to blame EVERYTHING on the last two years of Congress, but that's just the tail end of a disastrous Bush presidency.

I know you may hate the thought of a Democrat-led USA, but under Clinton, we saw much much better administration than under Bush. Who do you think McCain is going to turn to in order to run his government? Magically minted politicians who have no connection to all the failures of the last eight years? Look at his campaign team. Look at Palin's campaign team. She is surrounded by Bush aides. These people can only fight for power. We've seen that they can't run a country.

It's time for someone else to have a chance to run things. I don't believe that it's a foregone conclusion that government can't run things just because the Bush administration failed so badly.

But if you just don't believe in government, then we're never going to agree. It's a paradox to me: why do people debate elections when they actually don't want a government at all? Kind of defeats the point of an election - which is to find leadership for said government.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 08:29 PM
Side note: if you feel so strongly about the incompetence of the US government, how on earth can you even begin to support the Republican party right now?? I know you want to blame EVERYTHING on the last two years of Congress, but that's just the tail end of a disastrous Bush presidency.
The answer to this is easy for me. I believe Democrats will hold both houses of congress after this election. With that I support the Republican ticket as president. I feel that far less damage will be done to this country than would be done by an Obama presidency with the Dem held congress. If the Repub's held both houses I would not have a problem at all with Obama being president because his damage would be far more mitigated.


I know you may hate the thought of a Democrat-led USA, but under Clinton, we saw much much better administration than under Bush. Who do you think McCain is going to turn to in order to run his government? Magically minted politicians who have no connection to all the failures of the last eight years? Look at his campaign team. Look at Palin's campaign team. She is surrounded by Bush aides. These people can only fight for power. We've seen that they can't run a country.

Again McCain would be forced to work with the people that are already there. All the supposed good decisions of the 2nd Bush term has come with the Dem's taking control. And I think that would continue with a McCain presidency.


It's time for someone else to have a chance to run things. I don't believe that it's a foregone conclusion that government can't run things just because the Bush administration failed so badly.

The systems that have failed so badly have been failures far before Bush became president.


But if you just don't believe in government, then we're never going to agree. It's a paradox to me: why do people debate elections when they actually don't want a government at all? Kind of defeats the point of an election - which is to find leadership for said government.

I didn't say I don't believe in the government I just don't want to give them another bigger department to screw up. My biggest problem with Obama is I think he as a president if he sticks to what he states his policies are will cripple this country. We just spent over a of trillion dollars to bail out a segment of our economy that have benefited Obama almost more than anyone else. He is not anything different he is not going to offer any kind of change he is a typical Chicago style politician who just happens to have more pigment to his skin. He is a great speaker but that to me is not enough to be president. I'm sorry i'd rather take my chances with McCain as president with a Dem lead Congress.

ink
09-20-2008, 08:56 PM
The answer to this is easy for me. I believe Democrats will hold both houses of congress after this election. With that I support the Republican ticket as president. I feel that far less damage will be done to this country than would be done by an Obama presidency with the Dem held congress. If the Repub's held both houses I would not have a problem at all with Obama being president because his damage would be far more mitigated.

Again McCain would be forced to work with the people that are already there. All the supposed good decisions of the 2nd Bush term has come with the Dem's taking control. And I think that would continue with a McCain presidency.

The systems that have failed so badly have been failures far before Bush became president.

I didn't say I don't believe in the government I just don't want to give them another bigger department to screw up. My biggest problem with Obama is I think he as a president if he sticks to what he states his policies are will cripple this country. We just spent over a of trillion dollars to bail out a segment of our economy that have benefited Obama almost more than anyone else. He is not anything different he is not going to offer any kind of change he is a typical Chicago style politician who just happens to have more pigment to his skin. He is a great speaker but that to me is not enough to be president. I'm sorry i'd rather take my chances with McCain as president with a Dem lead Congress.

You make some strong points. The ones I'd pick up on would be that I don't think Obama is at all a "Chicago-style" politician. That's no more fair than to say that McCain is self-centred just because (as he says) he was self-centred at the start of his career. People develop.

I know that universal health care can be administered well because I've experienced it myself in several places. It's defeatist to assume that it can't be. In my experience, it is actually a great deal simpler when it's run universally and organized in that way.

I don't think McCain has a vision. Listening to him, it sounds as if he's intellectually bankrupt, like his party is. And I don't see when he has actually led anyone before. His POW experience, though inspiring, was an individual experience. His Keating Five experience (giving him the benefit of the doubt), involved him turning away from corruption by abandoning the circle he was close to, and striking out solo to "fight" lobbyists. I can see that he brokered some bipartisan bills, but I think it's a huge leap to see that as leadership. He was brokering deals. Then he tried and failed to get enough support in 2000 to run for the presidency, again showing that he had a hard time leading. Then he spent a significant stretch of the Bush presidency following. He may have been a maverick at times, but he certainly didn't lead anyone. I think a very bad assumption is being made that a deal broker like McCain can suddenly become a leader - someone who would have to lead the Dems if they held power in both houses.

Contrary to what you're suggesting, I don't think Obama has dangerous ideas at all. And financial realities will limit what he can actually implement in terms of new programs. I like his measured, thoughtful approach to issues. In fact, I agree with the growing number of critics who think he would actually be the more conservative leader. After eight unpredictable years, conservative with a small "c" is exactly what I would like to see in an American president. I think McCain is far too volatile.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 09:14 PM
I see and respect what you are saying in the previous post. And to be honest I personally do not like either candidate. The only thing that swings me over to the McCain side is his VP who is more ideologically in lined with my own views. I would have voted third party if he would have chosen someone like Lieberman. So since I do not like either side all that much I would rather be stuck with opposing president and congress. That way as I said the damage that can be done will be greatly mitigated. And with Obama being on the take and under the influence of many of those who where directly involved with our current crisis that helps sway me even more. But as has been said about the only thing that either candidate will be able to accomplish in the first year is continue the fix on the economy and wind up Iraq. And I just don't think Obama's plans for the economy will have a positive effect. I think there will be more taxes raised on more people than he is letting on. That there will be many unintended consequences to his tax raises and cuts. Though he has finally come around and said that if we are in a recession he won't raise taxes. But doing so even if we are teetering on the edge will send us over. Economic policy is one of the biggest reason I do not support Obama.

ink
09-20-2008, 09:23 PM
I see and respect what you are saying in the previous post. And to be honest I personally do not like either candidate. The only thing that swings me over to the McCain side is his VP who is more ideologically in lined with my own views. I would have voted third party if he would have chosen someone like Lieberman. So since I do not like either side all that much I would rather be stuck with opposing president and congress. That way as I said the damage that can be done will be greatly mitigated. And with Obama being on the take and under the influence of many of those who where directly involved with our current crisis that helps sway me even more. But as has been said about the only thing that either candidate will be able to accomplish in the first year is continue the fix on the economy and wind up Iraq. And I just don't think Obama's plans for the economy will have a positive effect. I think there will be more taxes raised on more people than he is letting on. That there will be many unintended consequences to his tax raises and cuts. Though he has finally come around and said that if we are in a recession he won't raise taxes. But doing so even if we are teetering on the edge will send us over. Economic policy is one of the biggest reason I do not support Obama.

I don't understand the bolded part at all. Obama is for regulation, which sets him apart from those directly involved with the current financial crisis. I also don't understand the accusation that he's "on the take". Where's the concrete proof? This "maverick", "I'm above earmarks and payoffs" of any kind is all fine, but it ignores the fact that McCain's party is riddled with lobbyists and corrupt members of the previous administration. The party you are favouring right now is actually more indebted to special interests - especially energy interests - than any other party. McCain may be able to claim that he's pure, but from his own running mate down the line, his party is completely "on the take".

But we're drifting off topic here. Good talking with you.

ari1013
09-20-2008, 09:25 PM
hoosiercubsfan has it right 5 months is just insane but i do support the choice of an abortion fully

i dont have to agree with 100% of what obama says to support him. just as even though i may have simular views with mccain doesnt mean im a mccain supporter.
That is exactly McCain's stance on gay rights.

ari1013
09-20-2008, 09:27 PM
Market competition won't drive down health care prices. Health care is an in-demand service. People need it, and somebody has to supply it -- and you can bet that they're going to profit off of it.
Exactly. Which is why the government has to at least regulate the industry, if not take it over.

If it's ok to buy $1 trillion in financial corporation debt, why can't we invest $150 billion into health care?

Where are our priorities?

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 09:31 PM
I don't understand the bolded part at all. Obama is for regulation, which sets him apart from those directly involved with the current financial crisis. I also don't understand the accusation that he's "on the take". Where's the concrete proof? This "maverick", "I'm above earmarks and payoffs" of any kind is all fine, but it ignores the fact that McCain's party is riddled with lobbyists and corrupt members of the previous administration. The party you are favouring right now is actually more indebted to special interests - especially energy interests - than any other party. McCain may be able to claim that he's pure, but from his own running mate down the line, his party is completely "on the take".

But we're drifting off topic here. Good talking with you.

I agree it has drifted off topic by here is my concrete proof. I put it in a response to Citrus earlier.


That he is second among donations from Lehman Brothers among all members of congress since 1989. Barack Obama ranks second among donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac among all members of congress since 1989. Remember, in four years Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other member of congress in the past two decades except for Chris Dodd, and Chris Dodd has been in federal office since 1975. Obama's only been in office since 2005. Former CEO Fannie Mae, former Obama adviser Jim Johnson, he's the guy who was there on the committee to help select a vice president. Obama offers up that he is all about change but if this isn't more of the same I don't know what is.
The fact that there was meaningful reform being offered to look into the shady practices of Fanny and Freddy where rebuffed by the Dems. So now that these companies are bankrupt and asking us for bailouts shows that it is quite possible the Dems where on the take from these corporations to look out for their best interests. There is a whole lot of blame to spread around but this just doesn't look good for the Dem's point of being reformers.

ari1013
09-20-2008, 09:34 PM
I'm not talking about driving down the price of health care. I am talking about driving down the cost of health care insurance. When you have health care offered on a menu where you can pick and choose what you like it will cause the price to go down. Why make someone who is 70 pay for maternity coverage as part of their health care plan when they won't ever need that part. Allowing people to choose what they want covered will also cause people to use their health care coverage more wisely. It would be like car insurance do you really care about that little scrape in your fender or do you turn in a claim making your rates go up.
Actually that's completely backwards.

Think about what your family's health care is like. Whoever the principal member is pays some base price. Then for any riders, the additional cost is much lower. However, all of you on the same policy have the exact same coverage. If you each wanted different coverage, you'd each have your own unique policies and start with that same high fixed cost.

Now extend that to a company that offers health insurance as a benefit to its workers. All workers get the same coverage plan. That makes it cheaper for the company.

Now extend it to the entire country.

See how a generic health plan would be more cost effective?

Of course an even better reason for the government to take over (or become the sole bargainer) is that it would seriously reduce the burden on our companies. The main reason that our automobile, electronics, and other heavy industry jobs are leaving is because of their high average labor costs. If they didn't have to pay for health, those costs would fall and thus the price of their produced goods could also fall -- and become competitive once again.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 09:36 PM
Problem is I have no faith in our government doing anything correctly. I'd rather go to the way I describe it and allow people to go out into the market and get their own coverage. If they are put in charge of health care it will wind up another crisis sooner than later like what we are facing with our financial sector. Leave anything up to the government and they will find a way to screw it up.


Exactly. Which is why the government has to at least regulate the industry, if not take it over.

If it's ok to buy $1 trillion in financial corporation debt, why can't we invest $150 billion into health care?

Where are our priorities?

You are missing my response to the question so I linked it above. I am for a form of healthcare reform which you could almost call universal health care. I just want the government itself kept as much out of it as possible. The financial sector is something completely different and is the result of failed policies that started in the Clinton administration with the revision to the Community Reinvestment Act.

ari1013
09-20-2008, 09:43 PM
You are missing my response to the question so I linked it above. I am for a form of healthcare reform which you could almost call universal health care. I just want the government itself kept as much out of it as possible. The financial sector is something completely different and is the result of failed policies that started in the Clinton administration with the revision to the Community Reinvestment Act.
I understand -- I just think you have it backwards.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 09:46 PM
Actually that's completely backwards.

Think about what your family's health care is like. Whoever the principal member is pays some base price. Then for any riders, the additional cost is much lower. However, all of you on the same policy have the exact same coverage. If you each wanted different coverage, you'd each have your own unique policies and start with that same high fixed cost.

Now extend that to a company that offers health insurance as a benefit to its workers. All workers get the same coverage plan. That makes it cheaper for the company.

Now extend it to the entire country.

See how a generic health plan would be more cost effective?

My plan would be for much like you describe it with the head/head's of the family. Going into the marketplace and choosing the right plan for their particular families needs. Using a tax break to completely pay for or at least majority pay for the health care. I think in doing this it would allow for the consumer to choose which provider they want to go with. Do I want Anthem or do I want Healthpoint or whoever else the competition is. This would cause them to compete for new members. Thus driving down the prices of their policies in the market place.


Of course an even better reason for the government to take over (or become the sole bargainer) is that it would seriously reduce the burden on our companies. The main reason that our automobile, electronics, and other heavy industry jobs are leaving is because of their high average labor costs. If they didn't have to pay for health, those costs would fall and thus the price of their produced goods could also fall -- and become competitive once again.

This biggest factors facing these companies are the unions that are within them. The UAW is a major contributer to the declining of our auto industry. That is why companies like Toyota and Honda can come in to the U.S. and make a far superior product and do quite well. They have not allowed themselves to be unionized on top of making a superior product. Of course a national health care system would help these companies but the fact that their employees make far more per hour than is warranted will still cause them to stay within the same issues they are in now.

ink
09-20-2008, 09:47 PM
I agree it has drifted off topic by here is my concrete proof. I put it in a response to Citrus earlier.


The fact that there was meaningful reform being offered to look into the shady practices of Fanny and Freddy where rebuffed by the Dems. So now that these companies are bankrupt and asking us for bailouts shows that it is quite possible the Dems where on the take from these corporations to look out for their best interests. There is a whole lot of blame to spread around but this just doesn't look good for the Dem's point of being reformers.

That's cited from a John McCain interview with Glenn Beck so far as I can see. I'd like to see more credible sources than his not-quite-honest opponent's spin. lol. And I truly think McCain is a bit cuckoo about all of this. I think McCain's "maverick" thing is a bit quirky and inconsequential. I highly doubt he could translate being a thorn in people's side to being an effective leader. This is a lot of holier-than-thou rhetoric which just makes me shrug.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 10:05 PM
That's cited from a John McCain interview with Glenn Beck so far as I can see. I'd like to see more credible sources than his not-quite-honest opponent's spin. lol. And I truly think McCain is a bit cuckoo about all of this. I think McCain's "maverick" thing is a bit quirky and inconsequential. I highly doubt he could translate being a thorn in people's side to being an effective leader. This is a lot of holier-than-thou rhetoric which just makes me shrug.

That is where I read much of what I posted. You can disagree with the commentary but the facts of what Obama recieved are not debatable. It is either no big deal to you or a big deal either way most have made up their mind on this board so it is what it is.

ink
09-20-2008, 10:11 PM
That is where I read much of what I posted. You can disagree with the commentary but the facts of what Obama recieved are not debatable. It is either no big deal to you or a big deal either way most have made up their mind on this board so it is what it is.

It's from McCain's mouth. I don't even agree it's a fact yet. His campaign has been notorious for lying (or at the very least distorting) in this campaign.

hoosiercubsfan
09-20-2008, 10:27 PM
It's from McCain's mouth. I don't even agree it's a fact yet. His campaign has been notorious for lying (or at the very least distorting) in this campaign.

I'm looking for the article I read about it recently soon as I find it i'll post it.

Edit.
Here is a link from the LA Times on the Fanny/Freddie donations.

But Obama is the recipient of the largest individual money, at $111,849, according to federal campaign finance reports compiled by Times researcher Maloy Moore.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mortgage-giants.html

And here is a website giving what has been recieved from major corporations.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Again not a big deal for those that have chosen their side

ari1013
09-20-2008, 10:42 PM
My plan would be for much like you describe it with the head/head's of the family. Going into the marketplace and choosing the right plan for their particular families needs. Using a tax break to completely pay for or at least majority pay for the health care. I think in doing this it would allow for the consumer to choose which provider they want to go with. Do I want Anthem or do I want Healthpoint or whoever else the competition is. This would cause them to compete for new members. Thus driving down the prices of their policies in the market place.



This biggest factors facing these companies are the unions that are within them. The UAW is a major contributer to the declining of our auto industry. That is why companies like Toyota and Honda can come in to the U.S. and make a far superior product and do quite well. They have not allowed themselves to be unionized on top of making a superior product. Of course a national health care system would help these companies but the fact that their employees make far more per hour than is warranted will still cause them to stay within the same issues they are in now.
It doesn't work that way for necessities. Look at the multitude of gas stations by you. All of them charge essentially the same high price.

As for the UAW... Here's something to consider. GM pays its workers about $26.50 per hour. However, including health and pension benefits, that total comes up to $80.18 per hour.

Toyota doesn't offer health benefits to its retirees. The wage Toyota offers is around $21 per hour. But their total cost including pensions is $35 per hour.

That $5.50 union premium is substantial, but it's nothing compared to the $20-$30 per hour for medical.

mr_badman
09-20-2008, 10:50 PM
That is exactly McCain's stance on gay rights.

well i agree with mccain then. after 5 months its a baby and can live and develop outside of the mothers body as a premi that is murder and if a child removed from the mother at 5. i dont think our current law allows us past 4 months which is pushing it. there is a difference. i support a womans choice but there is a limit. a 5-9 month abortion is murder in my oppinion