Yeah....but it's the idea that if he skips and gets injured....he's completely covered for his actions as well as possibley, like Stem pointed out in Norway, getting paid while healing from his own decision to skip work and play, by way of taxes.....I guess that's why we have AFLAC and you can CHOOSE it or not, risk versus reward...A lot of this backlash against is because of our fierce independence, the idea that govt. will have more control and we will have less and how we have made our own way in life. We dont' want to give up that idea of freedom. On many aspects of taxes....I wish I could just check a box on what I wanted my money to go towards...now there's an idea....
Please explain the healthcare resistance
- Thread starter stem
- Start date
Yeah....but it's the idea that if he skips and gets injured....he's completely covered for his actions as well as possibley, like Stem pointed out in Norway, getting paid while healing from his own decision to skip work and play, by way of taxes.....I guess that's why we have AFLAC and you can CHOOSE it or not, risk versus reward...A lot of this backlash against is because of our fierce independence, the idea that govt. will have more control and we will have less and how we have made our own way in life. We dont' want to give up that idea of freedom. On many aspects of taxes....I wish I could just check a box on what I wanted my money to go towards...now there's an idea....
IMO that is the common misconception. The govt isn't taking control away from us, they are taking it from the health care system, from the hospitals, from the insurance companies, from the doctors. I would be in the same spot as before, with still limited control.
If it were really taking control away from the hospitals and the insurance companies, we would be hearing about it. By FORCING Americans to buy insurance, that hurts an insurance company? And how is that not taking control away from us?
Why? You trust the media to tell you what is important?True, that will help insurance companies, and I guess it takes some control away. Well not me, I have it through my employer. Though, the bill is MUCH more then just that point. It is a give an take when trying to change the way a system operates. Someone is going to benefit from ANY change made. Someone is going to LOSE from any change made.
I think you need to analyze what is trying to be done from the big picture aspect. If you focus on ONLY one part, then you tend to loose focus and the point of what is trying to be accomplished.
Last edited:
Is it? Wasn't the wording of the bill at one point to fine me or my employer for not having coverage?
Unfortunatly, when wording like that crops up, we read no further and just figure the govts. up to no good.
Stem, If you don't mind me asking how is your percentage based? Is it a strait 36% across the board? Does it go up or down with your income?
I'm one of the lucky ones. I have a nice job and a company that helps with health care. I have a $2,000 deductible to fill each year and I pay about 21% of my income to taxes and heathcare premiums. So for me personally I would lose about $550 per month on a plan like yours with a 36% tax which would be $6,600 a year or $4,600 if you take out my $2,000 deductible (that is if I use any health care for the year). Now I can't say I fully know how the plan for us works out percentage wise yet, but it would be hard to beat the deal I have now. I think this is some of the resistance they are facing because there is still a good portion of this county with decent healthcare that only seams to lose money when they try to even the field.
My thoughts anyway.
We are taxed heavily as it is...but some things need to be to be maintained like defense and highways...
I'm sure most of us in the US are taxed close to 50% or more when you factor in state, fed, property, sales tax, gas tax, death tax, luxury tax and.....
So like Stem asked...is that just the fed tax...36%?
I'm sure most of us in the US are taxed close to 50% or more when you factor in state, fed, property, sales tax, gas tax, death tax, luxury tax and.....
So like Stem asked...is that just the fed tax...36%?
No, I trust the media to cover up what is important and tell me what they want me to hear. Which is- that health care is great for me, benefits me, yada yada. Bullcrap. If they have to tell me it's good for me, it's not! It's good for them if I think it's good for me because I have to foot the bill for it. If the insurance companies were really against it, you would hear about it in newspapers and in commercials, from the insurance companies themselves, not the spin the networks get to put on it.
I too am covered thru my employer, and I don't like how much they pay for me to be covered. I am not against a health care overhaul, I am against the way they are going about it. They aren't attacking the parts of health care that they need to. They are making it so everybody can have it. Big woop, that doesn't get rid of the problems, it makes it so everybody in the country can experience the phukked up system.
L
lucky13
Active member
ok stem we will try again, we will send you 1 million mexicans, and 100,000 hatians to go with them and let your govermont take care of them, and you can watch your taxes go from 36% to 85%. WE DO NOT LIKE HELP, WE DO NOT LIKE THE WORDS [WERE FROM THE GOVERMONT WERE HERE TO HELP YOU. we are free thinking stay out of our buisness leave us alone people, once again we do not like being told what to do by anybody or anything. and our current president is trying to force us to pay for a bunch of worthless types that dont want to work
Do you think that the only problem with health care is the cost due to illegals?
I find that an interesting comment, coming from the fact that we are very strong in consumerism, and the fact that we are more the ok being told what to do as long as it isn't the government doing the telling...
What do you think they need to attack? How do you know if they are attacking when you have already stopped listening?
Last edited:
I think most Americans don't want to here the truth about illegals.. We need them, they wouldn't be here if we didn't. The problem with illegals is that you guys are right, they are a burdon on society. The problem is that many people profit because of them. I mean, someone is hiring these people, and that darn well know that they are illegal. Just like the rest of our system, capitalism for the gains, socialism for the losses.
If we wanted to seriously look at the problem, we would need to look at the people that hire them. It is similar to the drug trade. You can't stop it from coming in... but if you remove the demand, well, then that solves the problem..
dang, sorry for the rant.
The other thing though, is if they are avoiding the issue, should that really stop you from being for a bill that WOULD make the health care system better?
Holding out because it doesn't deal with the immigration issue, aren't you just as bad as the congressmen that want a little something special for them to vote on it?
IMO, immigration should not be the focus of this discussion... nor abortion either...
You know, as to the issue of itemizing where your taxes go, maybe they should do that. I mean, its not like you can prove where the money went anyways.. Kind of like buying the wind power. No one knows what makes up the power coming into your home...
eee who would want to go to a county hospital? I love my insurance and the place/places it's good at.
But those parts are in the bill.....in one way, shape or form....and they hit on some core beliefs, values and morals of a lot of people in the U.S. It's a part of the backlash....
S
stem
Well-known member
I Pay 36% of my gross income and 50% of all overtime/extra shifts witch is not planned work.
Also there's taxes on everything you buy here (28%) and all of this contributes to maintenance of the country and it's citizens.
A government controlled health care system where everybody can get help is in my opinion a investment, an investment to keep all of the country's citizens in work, making money for growth....
But as I understand you do not want this bill due to the immigrant's? So you do not have to pay for them...(?)
If this is the case then yes: I understand where the resistance comes from, but are there really that many immigrant's in the US??
Is there no compromising? That is the difficult part for me.. The fact that people are willing to stay with a bad system, when there could be a better one, all because they are unwilling to compromise. Isn't this the same reason that we blast congress for not accomplishing anything?
My other question got lost in the quote....
How do you feel about Nebraska cutting a better deal than Wa. state....to have all their costs covered by the feds just to get a vote for the bill....
Seems unfair to the rest of America....
How do you feel about Nebraska cutting a better deal than Wa. state....to have all their costs covered by the feds just to get a vote for the bill....
Seems unfair to the rest of America....
I don't like it.. though I would guess he held out due to moral beliefs, but then found the price.
A bigger, more important question is,
What do you do if a system is broken and it needs to get fixed, yet you can not get a majority to come to a unified solution? I think that is the big question here. Do you wait for a solution until it is too late? The problem is that we as a society are reactionary, that is how we function...
I think we need less senators and representatives. Maybe like half of them, or a 1/4 maybe. You get too many people involved and no one will be happy with anything..
Or a dictatorship would be nice.. as long as I am the dictator.
Last edited:
" Give me a choice, not a requirement. " Stem , you dont understand cause you havent lived here for awhile. My friend is from Sweden , he said you cant get ahead there. If you do , you'll be frowned upon. He moved here and has done very well . You dont have opportunities like we have here. When something is taken away from you, what happens ... You get pissed. We Americans, even the Liberal left, dont want control. It only sounds good when you think you're getting more. Go make your own, money , peace , achievments , dont rely on someone else to do that for you . I know that 90% of all my problems are created from others. And you want me to trust my Fuken Government .
stem,
The healthcare debate is not, as characterized by some, a battle between hard-hearted conservatives and caring liberals who're just trying to take care of people.
It is about America remaining true to it's founding principles, namely personal liberty and personal responsibility, a free market (being the best vehicle for accumulating personal wealth and thereby security) and subsidiarity.
Liberty and responsibility get talked about a lot, and so does the free market. Granted, the American free market of today is NOT what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned, but I digress...
The last thing I mentioned, subsidiarity, is also a fundamental aspect of American governance but it doesn't get talked about much, at least not using that term, because most people have never heard the word or know what it means. Subsidiarity simply means that issues ought to be solved by the smallest and least centralized competent authority. Individuals, families, charities, churches and local communities, counties/boroughs then the individual States ought to be the primary instruments of political change instead of a massive bureaucratic centralized federal government.
Subsidiarity means solving problems at the lowest level possible.
It is important to understand that the men who crafted our Founding documents were fearful of allowing the accumulation of power in any one civil authority. Our three separate, interdependant yet rival branches and the deliberate separation of powers were intentionally designed to limit and check power.
The so-called reform of our healthcare system equates to the government seizing control of an entire private industry and 1/6 of the U.S. economy, which is specifically prohibited by our Constitution. The hitch in this and other past abuses of government power, is that they were justified by the Commerce Clause (Article 1, section 8, Clause 3) which charges Congress with regulating commerce between the states. In the 1789 use of the word, "regulate" meant "to keep regular", as in to keep flowing, and moving with as little impediment as possible.
In more contemporary times, as the meanings of words evolved and expanded, the word regulate came to mean oversee and then to control, and so Congress violated it's charter and pirated control of interstate commerce away from private business.
Congress was supposed to stimulate and facilitate trade not micromanage it.
In America, despite the hype, we enjoy the best healthcare system in terms of overall quality, specifically because our system is competitive. Ironically, the very same Congressional liberals who rail against the failures of the insurance companies are the ones who dictated to those same companies the counterproductive rules and regulations that limit their ability to respond to consumer demand.
Health insurance in this country is the bloated, bureaucratic, unresponsive mess that it is specifically BECAUSE the government got involved. The government blocks competition, dictates reimbursement rates, and already sets limits on care. Sure it's the insurance company doing the dirty work, pulling the plug as it were, but they are responding to rules set forth by a meddlesome government. Only the blindly naive believe the availability and quality of care will improve if the entire system is federalized.
The best analogy I can make is...having the government take over healthcare would be like being a passenger in car driven by your doctor and a crazy man jumps in, grabs the wheel and forces the car off the road, totaling it, and then forces you at gun point to buy a newer, slower, crappier, less reliable and grossly more expensive car.
Subsidiarity--Let the states figure out their own healthcare rules and let increased competition improve quality and availability of care while driving costs down.
The healthcare debate is not, as characterized by some, a battle between hard-hearted conservatives and caring liberals who're just trying to take care of people.
It is about America remaining true to it's founding principles, namely personal liberty and personal responsibility, a free market (being the best vehicle for accumulating personal wealth and thereby security) and subsidiarity.
Liberty and responsibility get talked about a lot, and so does the free market. Granted, the American free market of today is NOT what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned, but I digress...
The last thing I mentioned, subsidiarity, is also a fundamental aspect of American governance but it doesn't get talked about much, at least not using that term, because most people have never heard the word or know what it means. Subsidiarity simply means that issues ought to be solved by the smallest and least centralized competent authority. Individuals, families, charities, churches and local communities, counties/boroughs then the individual States ought to be the primary instruments of political change instead of a massive bureaucratic centralized federal government.
Subsidiarity means solving problems at the lowest level possible.
It is important to understand that the men who crafted our Founding documents were fearful of allowing the accumulation of power in any one civil authority. Our three separate, interdependant yet rival branches and the deliberate separation of powers were intentionally designed to limit and check power.
The so-called reform of our healthcare system equates to the government seizing control of an entire private industry and 1/6 of the U.S. economy, which is specifically prohibited by our Constitution. The hitch in this and other past abuses of government power, is that they were justified by the Commerce Clause (Article 1, section 8, Clause 3) which charges Congress with regulating commerce between the states. In the 1789 use of the word, "regulate" meant "to keep regular", as in to keep flowing, and moving with as little impediment as possible.
In more contemporary times, as the meanings of words evolved and expanded, the word regulate came to mean oversee and then to control, and so Congress violated it's charter and pirated control of interstate commerce away from private business.
Congress was supposed to stimulate and facilitate trade not micromanage it.
In America, despite the hype, we enjoy the best healthcare system in terms of overall quality, specifically because our system is competitive. Ironically, the very same Congressional liberals who rail against the failures of the insurance companies are the ones who dictated to those same companies the counterproductive rules and regulations that limit their ability to respond to consumer demand.
Health insurance in this country is the bloated, bureaucratic, unresponsive mess that it is specifically BECAUSE the government got involved. The government blocks competition, dictates reimbursement rates, and already sets limits on care. Sure it's the insurance company doing the dirty work, pulling the plug as it were, but they are responding to rules set forth by a meddlesome government. Only the blindly naive believe the availability and quality of care will improve if the entire system is federalized.
The best analogy I can make is...having the government take over healthcare would be like being a passenger in car driven by your doctor and a crazy man jumps in, grabs the wheel and forces the car off the road, totaling it, and then forces you at gun point to buy a newer, slower, crappier, less reliable and grossly more expensive car.
Subsidiarity--Let the states figure out their own healthcare rules and let increased competition improve quality and availability of care while driving costs down.
Last edited:
Similar threads
