Would you give up your tax cut if?

maxsdadeo
I think someone has got the hots for you. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Okay, Phoenix!

The sentiment being discussed here is essentially -- would I be willing to give up money to the government if I thought it would help with some social problems that are pressing.

YES I WOULD.

GLADLY!

I understand that other feel otherwise.

This is a democratic Republic -- and that is their right.

0 Replies

As I will now eloquently point out, max, I agree with you on the excellence of our health care. 'Tis true we have some of the finest in the world. But one of the points of this discussion is its availability.

It's there if you can afford it. Period. And some of the well-publicized stories about conjoined twins and other children with serious health problems (and it's always children - makes a better story) who come here and receive these marvelous services - it's all subsidized by groups and people who also have other purposes in mind. These poor people would never be able to afford this if they were Americans - their HMOs would deny it as unnecessary care. If they could even afford an HMO.

There is something incongruous and small about the tales of people who can afford the Botox and rejuvenation solutions, and the millions of people who can't afford a doctor's visit.

If I sound cynical, it's because I've had ample opportunity to observe first hand. This is a situation that grows worse.

When I noted that the estimation is about a third of the population, that is for people with NO insurance. A vast number of the others have very limited insurance. They further note in many studies that any figure is a suggestion, just like the jobless figures estimates. Many people have just given up even responding.

They say charity begins at home. Indeed it does. And maybe home is where the thinking and feeling processes take place.

0 Replies

Phoenix and goldie are right, if you find me cute, that's ok, I can handle it, but it really isn't germaine to the discussion, simply pm me with your thoughts, (have you found that lovely feature yet, MR. Pisa? You really ought to try it, it's FABULOUS!) and you'll save the rest from the torment of your unrequited affinity.

Ahem, as we were saying.....

Quote:

It's there if you can afford it. Period

By your own admission, 70% can afford it our they wouldn't be in the 70%, right?

They would be in the 30%.

And if they couldn't afford it, by becoming part of the 30%, the 30% would be higher.

But it isn't.

It's 30% (your numbers, not mine, but I would stipulate that they are probably pretty accurate.)

So, we are to scrap the system that presently provides 70% of the population with basic health care coverage, {NOT improve it, bolster it, make it better, but TEAR THE MUTHA' TO THE GROUND} and arguably provides the other 30% with non-recurring critical care coverage on an as needed basis (Did you see ER tonight? GREAT SHOW!)

I am not willing to scrap the system for another government program du jour which is supposed to provide everyone the same level of coverage, but will invariably provide a far lower level of care for all Americans, simply because of some disingenous "tug" on my heartstrings with the midguided notion that it is the "right" thing to do.

This is a problem that will only be solved with an equal dose of HEAD as well as HEART.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am not willing to scrap the system for another government program du jour which is supposed to provide everyone the same level of coverage, but will invariably provide a far lower level of care for all Americans, simply because of some disingenous "tug" on my heartstrings with the midguided notion that it is the "right" thing to do.

This is a problem that will only be solved with an equal dose of HEAD as well as HEART.

maxsdadeo- I think that you have said it all. I think that the insurance companies went the wrong way when H.M.O.s were put in place. Instituting government programs which would only add to the bloat would not solve anything, and would most assuredly make the situation worse.

Every time when government control of health insurance is discussed, I just look to our neighbors in the north, in Canada. Where do they go when they need serious health care? The United States!

0 Replies

Ducky1

Quote:

Every time when government control of health insurance is discussed, I just look to our neighbors in the north, in Canada. Where do they go when they need serious health care? The United States!

There is no doubt that the best medical care and medicine can be found in the US. However you neglected to mention one critical element. If you can afford it. That my friend is the problem. It is like a hungry man looking through the window of a restaurant watching other people eat. That does not satisfy his hunger.

0 Replies

au1929- There are government health programs for the indigent. It is called Medicaid, in most states.

0 Replies

Max, you are getting too hung up on this 70% - 30% thing.

We have a real problem with health care delivery and the 70% are getting fed up to because of the rising costs. The present system is illogical and inefficient as well as unjust. If it is not clear now soon it will be that it needs a major overhaul. "Tearing the mutha to the ground" would be a good start.

This is from the libertarian party web site (hardly bleeding heart liberals).

"Twenty years ago, health care was a $42 billon per year industry. Today, health care costs Americans more than $2 billion per day, more than 14% of our Gross Domestic Product. These soaring costs are putting enormous financial pressures on American businesses, forcing thousands of small businesses to reduce or drop benefits for their employees. Moreover, health care costs are an increasing burden to already strained family budgets. At the same time, nearly 35 million Americans lack health insurance."

(This is from http://www.lp.org/issues/program/health.html. The site goes on with some questionable ideas to fix the problem, but I include it to show that the problem is real and accepted by both liberals and conservatives)

This repeated chorus that people coming from Canada for medical services is irrelevent. The country needs a complete health care system that provides for the needs of all of its citizens. The few people who want to pay extra for services will not be hurt by a rational health care system. Incidently there is a fair number of Americans who travel to Cuba and Mexico for health care services. I don't know what importance you would give to that.

The fact is the health care system has problem that affects many Americans. Sooner or later this will become enough of a crisis that the politicians will do something. It seems that the longer we keep hiding our heads in the sand the worse it will be.

0 Replies

The people who do not see our health care problem for the disgusting and avoidable thing that it is -- are people who are selectively blind. All the pap they throw at others in defense of their position amounts to variations on the theme: "Let them eat cakes."

American conservatism, with its rationalzations about why safety net programs are the wrong way to go, give me a pain akin to the ache my hemorrhoids are currently causing.

With any kind of luck at all though, the moron in chief will soon open the eyes of many of the affluent wanna-bes who are currently helping steady the hand of someone trying to cut their throats.

In any case, American conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major dispute in this country's history -- so it stands to reason they are on the wrong side of this one.

Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. I am willing to do with a bit less money in my pocket if it will help set up a system that will cover some of the unfortunates now not covered.

0 Replies

Quote:

The term hemorrhoids refers to a condition in which the veins around the anus or lower rectum are swollen and inflamed.
Hemorrhoids may result from straining to move stool. Other contributing factors include pregnancy, aging, chronic constipation or diarrhea, and anal intercourse.

For your sake, frank, I hope you are pregnant!

Quote:

In any case, American conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major dispute in this country's history -- so it stands to reason they are on the wrong side of this one.

The above is so stupifyingly ridiculous as to not merit comment, so I won't.

Please excuse those of us who do not desire to live under a regime that most closely resembles Cuba, China or North Korea, because despite your protestations to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what you are proposing.

0 Replies

If we could somehow come up with a system to cover everyone, including workers who receive no health insurance, the unemployed and children, then, fine, let's keep the current private system for everyone else. That may not be perfect, but if it means coverage for all, what the heck.

As for Canadians crossing the border for surgery, point well taken. There are also seniors from the US going to Canada for cheaper medications. So let's not assume too much about which system is better...

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

Quote:
The term hemorrhoids refers to a condition in which the veins around the anus or lower rectum are swollen and inflamed.
Hemorrhoids may result from straining to move stool. Other contributing factors include pregnancy, aging, chronic constipation or diarrhea, and anal intercourse.

For your sake, frank, I hope you are pregnant!

Bite me, you fruit.

You quoted me saying: "In any case, American conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major dispute in this country's history -- so it stands to reason they are on the wrong side of this one."...

...and then wrote:

Quote:

The above is so stupifyingly ridiculous as to not merit comment, so I won't.

My guess is you won't comment on this, Max, not because it is "stupifyingly ridiculous" but because any attempt to dispute it is destined to be blown out of the water.

American conservatives during the War for Independence were the ones arguing that we were the property of the crown -- and owed undying allegience to our liege Lord, George III.

American conservatives during the Civil War were the ones arguing for states rights -- and the right of property owners to do with their property whatever they wanted -- including property that happened to be human beings.

American conservatives during the time of World War II were the ones saying we should stay out of the fray -- that it didn't matter who ruled Europe.

American conservatives have tried to block every piece of safety-net legislation ever enacted.

They are pathetic.

Quote:

Please excuse those of us who do not desire to live under a regime that most closely resembles Cuba, China or North Korea, because despite your protestations to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what you are proposing.

That most assuredly is not what I am proposing -- but since you are a conservative, that is about the limit of your intellectual abilities regarding safety-net programs.

And to think -- we have to listen to you delivering those hypocritical lectures on God and morality. What bunk!

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

As for Canadians crossing the border for surgery, point well taken. There are also seniors from the US going to Canada for cheaper medications. So let's not assume too much about which system is better...

Excellent observation -- and excellent advise.

Thanks.

0 Replies

We've already given up much of the tax cut in higher food prices, gasoline tax, etc., etc. (as the King of Siam would say) -- the measley $600.00 is likely already gone and with the minimum tax law clicking in, be advised the tax cuts mean nothing to anyone but the very wealthy. They'll perhaps "trickle" it down if they can get their fly open.

0 Replies

Oh come on, max, show a little flexibility. This 70 - 30% is simply generally representative. To use it to show that 70% of the people are adequately covered is simplistic to an extreme. Why are you all so dead set against taking care of the needy? You had mentioned charity a while back. This transcends charity - it becomes necessity. The conservatives are all for taking care of the needy - those with share dividends should not be taxed; Franklin Graham should be sent to the mideast to preach the gospel of conservative Christianity to the heathen; business taxes (particularly large corporations) should be helped to be lowered in every way they can.

But, like the French Revolution, the poor? Let them eat cake.

What a narrow, selfish view of things. I am glad for you that you are able to afford all these nice things in American life. May you live long with them, and successfully avoid all the signs of poverty and want that exist among so many other people. It is restrictive, but if it makes you happy, who am I to deny you that?

0 Replies

Oooweee! As if that little 600.00 bribe was anything more than just that. You tell 'em, LW!! :wink:

0 Replies

James P. Sullivan said:

Quote:

We've already given up much of the tax cut in higher food prices, gasoline tax, etc., etc.

You are on to something worthy of two more threads here, Sully.

While I would disagree with you on the direction of food prices, the tax angle intrigues me.

If the Federal Government collects fewer taxes, it will give the states less revenue to fund the federally mandated, state run programs, and as such, many states, (mine, IL, included) will be looking for new ways to shake us down.

Be warned.

0 Replies

Oh, Max, where have your good christian values gone?

0 Replies

You've stumped me on that one, littlek.

What leads you to believe that they have gone anywhere?

What am I missing?

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

You've stumped me on that one, littlek.

What leads you to believe that they have gone anywhere?

What am I missing?

Max

In complete sincerity -- with as little judgementalness as possible -- and with all the respect in the world -- I ask that you reconsider the question LittleK asked and perhaps offer a bit of reasoning into your thinking that your conservative take on issue like this do not conflict with traditional Christian values.

Frankly, I think most of the American conservative agenda is at odds with the teachings of Jesus -- and I've often wondered why so many Christians allow the abortion issue to pull them into the conservative fold.

For the record, it is my experience that LittleK and I are not alone in thinking there is considerable incompatibility between American conservatism and Christianity, but we may be missing something and you may be able to provide valuable insights.

If it appears this is an inappropriate diversion for this thread, perhaps you would even consider initiating a new thread to talk about why you think the two are compatible. It surely is a topic that ought to be given some attention.

0 Replies

Would you give up your tax cut if?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know