52
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:32 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:


Health care is diagnosis, counsel, physical therapy, healing medicines, and necessary procedures.

Health care insurance can be used to pay for health care.

They are two different animals. Please try to understand that when I say that we have the best health care in the world here in the USA.



To make my response more noble for <ou:
Gratias, sed non ignoramus sum: scio, salus est prosperitatis physicae, mentalis ac socialis modus et nonnisi morbi vel infirmitatis absentia - pater meus erat doctor medicinae primarius in valetudinarium per quadraginta annos .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 10:36 am
@Foxfyre,
There are two sides to every story; your's misses out on what has also happened to private insurance premiums. That's a very important part of the cost of health care in this country, and most companies and individuals who now have health insurance are paying much higher premiums to keep their insurance - and that's if they can afford it. There are reliable projections that health insurance premiums will double if nothing is done to revamp health insurance in this country; in other words, we don't have the option of doing nothing. Our products and services become more non-competitive as these costs must be included in the cost of business. How many companies can continue to include health insurance and 401ks as benefits for their employees in the world marketplace?

Most of the people who are crying wolf about revamping health insurance are the very people who fail to understand that our country cannot continue on the present path of higher costs for health care while less people get coverage. We already spend the most for health care, and the projections of health care costs will continue to increase faster than the inflation rate for the forseeable future - when people with health insurance now has no guarantee their companies will continue to provide this benefit. How many families in the US can afford the $12,000+ annual premium for health insurance as these costs continue to increase faster than their pay raises?

From what I have been observing, most Americans do not have a clue why they are fighting health care reform.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 11:39 am
The cost of private health insurance has increased as the feds have increased their payments to federal health insurance.

I bet that the cost of private health insurance would decrease as the feds decreased their payments to federal health insurance.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 12:07 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

The cost of private health insurance has increased as the feds have increased their payments to federal health insurance.

I bet that the cost of private health insurance would decrease as the feds decreased their payments to federal health insurance.


Before the federal government got involved, health care was affordable for most, even those who were uninsured. And nobody was denied health care then any more than they are now. For sure health care was more responsive and more humane before the government got involved.

Catastrophic illnesses did bankrupt some people as they do now, but as bad as it is, bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen to somebody. Certainly medical costs is not the only thing that causes it. We cannot preserve our freedoms and liberties and at the same time give the Federal government license to protect us from everything bad that might possibly happen to us or rescue us from whatever bad situations we find ourselves.

For sure the Government can do much to improve our current situation, but in almost all cases such improvement will come in the way of deregulation of all but what prevents fraud and then by encouraging more competition and flexibility in the private sector, passing effective tort reform that remedies the current abuses of that process, and then get out of our way. If the Federal government does that, then yes, health care costs and the cost of insurance will certainly come down.

I would not object to a federal program offering catastrophic insurance for health care similar to what is offered for catastrophic flood and crop loss etc. and think that would be a good thing which would allow the insurance companies to be much more able to offer affordable policies.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 01:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I have never owned slaves or condoned slavery . . . In fact I had opportunity to work directly to help eradicate some of the last vestiges of formal discrimination in this country. While I am very glad that chapter in American history is long behind us, I don't feel that I have anything to be ashamed of there. Another principle that separates modern conservatives and liberals is that conservatives feel responsible to atone for their own sins.


Exactly what did you do to help eradicate the last vestiges of "formal" discrimination? What do you mean by "formal" discrimination?
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 01:45 pm
@Debra Law,

Foxfyre wrote:
I have never owned slaves or condoned slavery . . . In fact I had opportunity to work directly to help eradicate some of the last vestiges of formal discrimination in this country. While I am very glad that chapter in American history is long behind us, I don't feel that I have anything to be ashamed of there. Another principle that separates modern conservatives and liberals is that conservatives feel responsible to atone for their own sins.


Exactly what did you do to help eradicate the last vestiges of "formal" discrimination? What do you mean by "formal" discrimination?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 02:06 pm
@Debra Law,
Like most everything else, Foxie has the habit of grandiose accomplishments; however her idea that she has helped "eradicate the last vestiges of discrimination" shows her world is quite different from the ones many minorities, gays and lesbians, and women still lives as second class citizens. I doubt very much she even understands what she means by "formal discrimination." It must have some self-described definition similar to her MACS that only she and a few others on a2k understand.

Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 02:20 pm
ALLEGED CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST RECOUNTS THE DAYS OF GLORY

Old woman Foxfyre, with a mind as sharp as a tack despite her advanced age, regaled the community with stories from her past. Beaming with pride, she declared, "I had an opportunity to help eradicate the last vestiges of formal discrimination."

Several years after segregation was declared unconstitutional, Foxfyre instructed her colored laborer to take down the signs that adorned the walls of her business establishment and to throw them in the trash.

http://www.threatofrace.org/uploads/content/images/3c16816r.jpg

"There now," she said, "the vestigates of formal discrimination are gone." "I'm glad that chapter in our history is over!"

0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 02:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Like most everything else, Foxie has the habit of grandiose accomplishments; however her idea that she has helped "eradicate the last vestiges of [formal] discrimination" shows her world is quite different from the ones many minorities, gays and lesbians, and women still lives as second class citizens. I doubt very much she even understands what she means by "formal discrimination." It must have some self-described definition similar to her MACS that only she and a few others on a2k understand.



I also wonder if she knows the meaning of the word "vestiges." Because we know that the vestiges of discrimination have not been eradicated, perhaps she was trying to qualify the discrimination she was talking about by describing it as "formal." We need our resident word experts to come forward with their merriam-webster interpretation.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  3  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 02:58 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

...Catastrophic illnesses did bankrupt some people as they do now, but as bad as it is, bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen to somebody. ...


right! a little salt in the wound is good for ya!.

cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:05 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
More like acid in the wound; it harms more than the financial security of the individual and his/her family. Some people lack any sensitivity for others because they think they have it all - until they're in the same boat. All conservatives are not immune from major medical needs, nor some form of government assistance.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
All conservatives are not immune from major medical needs, nor some form of government assistance.

But when conservatives get government assistance it isn't charity. It is what they are owed for having paid in.

Of course no one else is owed anything for having paid taxes because conservatives believe only they pay taxes.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

More like acid in the wound; it harms more than the financial security of the individual and his/her family. Some people lack any sensitivity for others because they think they have it all - until they're in the same boat. All conservatives are not immune from major medical needs, nor some form of government assistance.


that's what i've been trying to get across to a few. they simply cannot conceive of the notion that some really bad **** can happen to anyone, anytime. and you don't have to be doing anything bad or wrong for it to happen. it just does.

i really have to wonder how a person comes to a place where they are so laissez faire about another person's misfortune, even when it's just an intellectual exercise.

seriously; "well the bad news is that you've stroked out and will not be walking or working ever again. you are bankrupt, your house is gone, the wife and kids are at the shelter. but look at the bright side; at least you are still here to enjoy the misery of your loss! "



0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  4  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:24 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Before the federal government got involved, health care was affordable for most, even those who were uninsured. And nobody was denied health care then any more than they are now. For sure health care was more responsive and more humane before the government got involved.


So you're ready to give up your government provided health care, right?

You know... there are 72 million baby boomers becoming eligible for Social Security and Medicare over the next 13 years - they all paid into the system their entire working lives too, fox. Unfortunately there's no money in the till to support their needs. In addition to deficit spending, jobs are going overseas faster than we can count the numbers, measured unemployment is approaching 10% (real unemployment is closer to 20%), companies are beginning to eliminate benefit packages (including insurance), enforce furloughs, and with all of that you think you're entitled to financial and medical support from a reduced work force making lower wages in fewer jobs while complaining about government assistance to the needy. My, aren't you special?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:43 pm
@JPB,
I truly believe Foxie et al are oblivious to what's been happening in our economy and the cost of health insurance. There's no other rational conclusion; only the ignorant believes what she and the minority of people in this country believes about health insurance reform.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:45 pm
@JPB,
not to mention complaining about 53% of the people paying in to that support that she is receiving.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:49 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
That is, unless, you accept Social Security monies and/or Medicare coverage - in which case you are a hypocrite.


Tell me, do you consider everyone that accepts any govt money a hypocrite if that person also opposes any type of govt run or subsidized healthcare?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:52 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Perhaps it is bleeding red ink because people like you are taking far more out if it than you ever paid in.


But you justify your taking it because you paid in never mind that you will get far more back.



So then let those of us that want to stop paying into the system, and give us back all the money we have already paid in.
That way, we wont get any money back later in life and those that want to can go ahead and do so.

Unless you are saying that it is ok to get meore back then you pay in?
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 04:01 pm
@mysteryman,
The money you've paid in is gone, mm. It simply doesn't exist any longer. It's been squandered and spent on things other than supporting health care and retirement needs. It's time to face that fact. You turned it over to the government in good faith, as did we all, but they blew it. Foxy can bitch all she wants about liberals but, as a strong fiscal conservative, I'm tired of Foxy thinking she's entitled to government provided health care while espousing "old values" of non-intervention.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 04:07 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
That is, unless, you accept Social Security monies and/or Medicare coverage - in which case you are a hypocrite.


Tell me, do you consider everyone that accepts any govt money a hypocrite if that person also opposes any type of govt run or subsidized healthcare?



No, I don't consider those who accept "any" govt money a hypocrite if they oppose subsidized healthcare. I consider those who accept government subsidized health care while opposing government subsidized health care hypocrites.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 08/27/2014 at 04:59:39