Muscatine

They, like all liberals, look at all income as actually belonging to the government first, and ours should only be what the government allows us to keep.   Because,  ....we are too stupid to manage it ourselves and the government has much better uses for it.

 

I pretty much agree with you hiroad.....but in the statement above ..i disagree with the word liberal.....i think at this point and time ...you should use the term "socialists".......a conservative does for himself.....a liberal expects others to do for him......but u notice that haysus never stated he was helping this man....but haysus wants the government to help this man....at one time i worked 10 hrs a day at Allsteel....got off work...didnt get to go home but drove to my second job that i worked from 2 til 9 at pizza hut.......got off went home went to bed so i could do it all over again.......lots of times i worked 6 days at allsteel and volunteered to work a couple of sundays.....and worked 3 and 4 weeks str8 at pizza hut without a day off......i'm only 39 yrs old...but i learned a long time ago ..that ya have to do what you have to, to survive....this new generation thinks its the governments job to do it.......

 

 

My bad, I thought it was a rhetorical question. The answer is yes. If this coverage turns out to be better than what I currently have and can provide better coverage for my family or comparable coverage at a lower cost, I will be glad to switch. It would be foolish not to. But the irony of it all is that if I didn't want to switch coverage, I wouldn't have to. It's not being put in place for people with coverage, it's being put in place for those without.

But... since we're talking about unanswered questions here, I do believe I asked you a few that you conveniently "blew off," gta1. So I'll ask them again:

Why should a person's access to quality health care (and therefore their chances of living a long and productive life) be determined by the size of their pocketbook?

Is a poor man's life worth less than a rich man's?

Is the life of an unemployed person not as important as a the life of a person has a job that provides benefits?

Considering that I make less than $250,000 a year (and now there's talk of raising that lower limit), I don't think I have anything to worry about just yet. I'm guessing you two (gta1 and hiroad) don't have to worry either. I'm sure the East Coast elites appreciate you sticking up for them, though.

Sorry, you're gonna' have to be a little more specific on this one. Just exactly what rights will I be losing? The right to choose my own insurance provider? Nope, I can keep my current one, choose a different one, or go with the public plan if I want.

Will I be losing the right to choose my doctor or hospital? Well... I've already lost that right with my current private insurance plan. They love to tell me who I can see, where I can go, what procedures and medications they'll pay for, how long I can stay in the hospital, etc. So you're gonna' have to be a little clearer on that one.

Who says I'm not helping him out? Fact of the matter is I'm helping out any way he'll let me.

Besides, what difference does it make whether or not I know him? Are you saying that you're unwilling to help people that you don't know? Because that sounds a lot like "Screw him! It's every man for himself."

This is my favorite part of your response, gta1, because it's the perfect example of why we need public health care. You shouldn't have to endure being sued and ruining your credit simply because you were dealt a difficult hand. We are the richest country in the world and we're allowing people to be sued and have their credit ruined because of medical expenses they have no control over simply because of the size of their bank accounts. Had you been wealthy (or even middle class with insurance) you wouldn't have had to deal with that. Which brings me back to the questions I asked you earlier: What did the wealthy do to deserve better treatment than you? What did those with insurance do to deserve better treatment than you? The simple fact is, they have insurance and you don't because of their financial status. Are only the people with insurance worth treating, gta1? Are only those who can afford insurance worth protecting from financial ruin?

So if the option for public health care had been available are you saying that you wouldn't have taken it?

Unless you make over $250,000 per year, you're not going to have to.

 

I think this will suffice for now. hiroad, I see you didn't really want to give it a "whack." Instead you just wish to hurl conservative talking points, insults and strawmen around. When you're ready to discuss this, I'm open to it.

 

By the way, gta1. I, like you, am 39 years old. We're from the same generation. It's likely that we know each other, or did at one time. I understand doing what you have to in order to survive, but I also recognize a system rigged to disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged when I see it.

Just for the record, I'm still waiting for that good reason.

 

Demonstration of socialism (many versions of this are on the internet; but this is a simple way to show one aspect, true or untrue):

 

(Forgive me if you have all seen this before.)

 

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.


That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.


The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".


All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.


After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. 


As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. 
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering,
blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 


All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the high reward away for one class, no one will try or want to succeed.

 

 

Ok haysus..so you believe the government owes you something on the backs of others?...last i heard was a tax rate of 55 % for the rich.....your smart to want that ....companies will be shutting down  and moving overseas ......the rich wont have much left to invest in america....so what country will you move to for a job?  and you say i stick up for the rich.....when in fact i was brought up to believe there is NO FREE RIDE......currently there is "hawk-i " insurance for kids...and if u r that destitute there is medicaid........and one of the talking points i had heard was that even with this new plan millions of americans wouldnt be eligible for it....leaving millions uninsured!....so apparently haysus, our parents had different values....my parents WERE crats til sick willy got in....i've been a conservative since i was 19 ...but even being "crats" my parents DIDNT believe in the free ride that you liberal....er sorry socialistic minded people want.....