Mandatory but affordable health insurance.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind Never the less, you are sanctifying free health care. You think life is a right. I just want to see where you draw the line. You can't say your against it so strongly simply because we agree on the same thing, just varying degrees of it. I think people should be able to get preventative health care (cheeper, safer, and healthier for the public) for free. You think they should get health care when their life is in danger. Both come at some cost to the government. It's not too different.

Voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance.

How many times do I need to say it?

Quote by: Winter wind Actually, it wouldn't take much from the tax payer. If you got out of Iraq and redirected the funds to this, that should pay for a large chunk of it.

It's built around the same concepts, and principles as the current models that are already failing.


What makes you think this can work?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance. How many times do I need to say it?

I think voluntary compliance is expected.

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: grandpa I think voluntary compliance is expected. Grandpa h.

But is it required?


If so, call Houston, we have a problem.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance.

The hospital isn't pulling the money from thin air. The people with life threatening problems are being cared for by...wait for it...taxes taken non-voluntarily.

Or are you saying the medical cases we agree should be treated regardless of financial status are being paid by magic?

It's built around the same concepts, and principles as the current models that are already failing.

How did that respond to my post?

What makes you think this can work?

Works in most developed countries already.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind The hospital isn't pulling the money from thin air. The people with life threatening problems are being cared for by...wait for it...taxes taken non-voluntarily.

Explain to me how I'm sanctioning this, or OK with this again?


This is the exact philosophy I oppose

Quote by: Winter wind Or are you saying the medical cases we agree should be treated regardless of financial status are being paid by magic?

The hospital operates in a State, it is up to them ( the State, and the hospital ) to determine how that hospital acts in cases where the patient seeks treatment but cannot pay.


It is not up to a bunch of bleeding hearts to mandate that I must pay for these expenditures.

Quote by: Winter wind Works in most developed countries already.

Again, most developed countries don't afford me the freedom to dissent from their tyrannical dictates, and don't have similar property rights laws.


But, then, I suppose these are the points you must remain in denial about if you hope to validate your own hypocrisy.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Explain to me how I'm sanctioning this, or OK with this again?

I think you agree that if a homeless man has a heart attack, the hospital can't refuse to treat him because he can't pay.

Therefore the hospital saves his life for free. But someone has to pay. My question is why not the government. This fall smack in the "general welfare" category.

The hospital operates in a State, it is up to them ( the State, and the hospital ) to determine how that hospital acts in cases where the patient seeks treatment but cannot pay.

Fine, states rights. But the money is still not coming from thin air. someone has to pay for the free, life saving, treatment.

Again, most developed countries don't afford me the freedom to dissent from their tyrannical dictates, and don't have similar property rights laws.

sure you can dissent, you just leave the country.

But, then, I suppose these are the points you must remain in denial about if you hope to validate your own hypocrisy.

sigh. I'm glad you're pointing them out...

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind I think you agree that if a homeless man has a heart attack, the hospital can't refuse to treat him because he can't pay. Therefore the hospital saves his life for free.

here you highlight the fundamantal problem. In a purely state-capitalist system, everyone who couldn't pay for care would be scraped from the roster, no matter what.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa here you highlight the fundamantal problem. In a purely state-capitalist system, everyone who couldn't pay for care would be scraped from the roster, no matter what.

That's true. But someone has to pay for someone else. There needs to be a pool of resources readily available to the medical industry. How do they pay for it?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa I think voluntary compliance is expected. Grandpa h.

Indeed, if a wide majority of people vote for that new program advocated by the Democratic canidates then that sounds pretty much "voluntary" on the part of the majority of voters. No one forced them to vote for universal health care ideas.

No one forced people to vote for a canidate who advocates that compassion is more important the captialism. The medical equality is more important then medical discrimination. The voters like the idea and via free will have supported the canidates who agree with what the people need and want. That is how we do things in a democracy.

If you do not volunteer to join us in this new health care environment then move someplace else in the world where they have a capitalistic program that only favors the rich people and those with high paying jobs. But good luck finding such a place because most of the rest of the world has already done something simular to what we have volunteered (by popular vote) to put into effect.

Let the rich folks who do not like this buy an island to live on and they can all move there and rip each other off, the loosers get kicked off the island. That way they can have their little uptopian world for selfish people.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind I think you agree that if a homeless man has a heart attack, the hospital can't refuse to treat him because he can't pay. Therefore the hospital saves his life for free. But someone has to pay. My question is why not the government. This fall smack in the "general welfare" category.

No, I already ageed, in principle, that the person should be treated. I guess you ( conveniently ) missed the part where I said they should appeal to charity for those monies.


Odd, because this was all discussed in the same few posts.

Quote by: Winter wind sigh. I'm glad you're pointing them out...

Great, now account for the hypocrisy, or try on another philsophy.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: grandpa here you highlight the fundamantal problem. In a purely state-capitalist system, everyone who couldn't pay for care would be scraped from the roster, no matter what. Grandpa h.

Wrong, charities work fine, if the Welfare State standard of taxation is not applied, and commerce, and labor can avoid the liability of other peoples problems.


How would anybody ever be able to achieve "the American dream" if they are saddled with the resposibility of having to drag everybody along for the ride?


Individual rights, individual responsibilities.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind That's true. But someone has to pay for someone else. There needs to be a pool of resources readily available to the medical industry. How do they pay for it?

Start the Bleeding Heart Liberal Fund, and appeal to religious folks.


You'll have more revenue than you know what to do with.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Wrong, charities work fine, if the Welfare State standard of taxation is not applied, and commerce, and labor can avoid the liability of other peoples problems. How would anybody ever be able to achieve "the American dream" if they are saddled with the resposibility of having to drag everybody along for the ride? Individual rights, individual responsibilities.

Because in the American dream everyone would be able to find jobs and jobs would pay enough so that you can afford the cost of living and also save something aside of those rainy days.

In the American Dream people could start up a small business and turn it into a bigger business by taking advantage of the free market place.
But in the un-American dream we have chain store monopoly, the folding up of the mainstreets and the transfer to shopping malls with only those chain stores selling stuff. And the distrabution centers will not sell wholesale to a small order the same as they do for big orders, so the small family businesses, which were once basic to the American Dream cannot get off the ground. If we had the right system in play you would not have to drag everyone else along because your tax money would solve that problem, once taxes are spent properly and not wasted on unjust wars and useless pork projects for special interest groups.

Why should tax payers be forced to pull all those big companies along with governmental bail outs, special grants, and unfair tax breaks?

Why should the wealthy employer drag along the middle class by giving them union wages and perks?

Why should the middle class working stiff want welfare safty nets? Because they fear getting laid off - and who is responisble for those lay offs? Because their family budget is now "living on the edge" due to rising costs for gasoline and other important basics. Because of the high cost for health care for their family, because credit card companies have deceptive ways to rip people off, not to mention the banking industry. And because they fear that their unions can no longer insure them union wages for much longer, because the boss does not want to drag them along with his profits.

So first we must solve this current American Nightmare and after we do that then we can get back to the American (nice) Dream.

To be united we must all hold hands and that means pulling everyone along in a kind of circle dance, so that everyone who joins the dance is not left out, as the wallflower sitting on the sidelines.

So if you want to be elected, you all better learn how to dance. ( or end up like Al Gore).

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Tachnosoul So first we must solve this current American Nightmare and after we do that then we can get back to the American (nice) Dream.

You already have the right to collective bargaining, but I don't see you guys pursuing that legal avenue to your goal.


As a matter of fact, the Democrats have become notorious from ending up with the bulk of the money collected by Labor, and Trade Unions, because, of course, they "want" to have their voices heard.


What a scam.


What a bunch of disingenuous creeps selling this scam as well.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul Indeed, if a wide majority of people vote for that new program advocated by the Democratic canidates then that sounds pretty much "voluntary" on the part of the majority of voters. No one forced them to vote for universal health care ideas.

It doens't mean everyone "vulunteers" for this, though. Ask certain independent and third party candidates, for example. Keep in mind, a lot of propaganda exists to make proposals attractive.
But they may lose popularity when reality steps in.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Wrong, charities work fine, if the Welfare State standard of taxation is not applied, and commerce, and labor can avoid the liability of other peoples problems. How would anybody ever be able to achieve "the American dream" if they are saddled with the resposibility of having to drag everybody along for the ride?

The American Dream is a series of fabrications, as is the idea that charity will solve everything. The problem is capitalism and state domination of resources. Until these conditions are removed, charity will keep falling dramatically short.

Also Milton, why do you assume capitalism doesn't "drag everybody along for the ride?" When resources are privatized by elite, profit-hungry groups, you're still being dragged along. And they still use legal coercion to do it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You already have the right to collective bargaining, but I don't see you guys pursuing that legal avenue to your goal. As a matter of fact, the Democrats have become notorious from ending up with the bulk of the money collected by Labor, and Trade Unions, because, of course, they "want" to have their voices heard.

You are right. Unions in this country tend to stink, as required by law.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Milton Bradley No, I already ageed, in principle, that the person should be treated. I guess you ( conveniently ) missed the part where I said they should appeal to charity for those monies.

The charities don't reach everywhere. What if they don't get the money. Do you mean the man shouldn't be treated, or the hospital just takes the hit and moves on?

Most hospitals in California would go bankrupt.

Where is the solid flow of money?

Start the Bleeding Heart Liberal Fund, and appeal to religious folks. You'll have more revenue than you know what to do with.

If that were true, we would have solved world hunger, and given out free aids medicine to every pot-bellied child you could snap a picture of. It isn't as much as you think. Charities don't have the influence political bodies do.

[Maryjane]

Techno:

If you do not volunteer to join us in this new health care environment then move someplace else in the world where they have a capitalistic program that only favors the rich people and those with high paying jobs. But good luck finding such a place because most of the rest of the world has already done something simular to what we have volunteered (by popular vote) to put into effect. Let the rich folks who do not like this buy an island to live on and they can all move there and rip each other off, the loosers get kicked off the island. That way they can have their little uptopian world for selfish people.

I don't mind paying taxes. I for one do not like the idea of a mandatory health care plan. I'm having a hard enough time dealing with the bureaucratic red tape of the IRS sorting out my federal taxes from 02 & 04 and now the state is starting to hound me. One hand has no idea what the other is doing, even my tax payer advocate can't figure out what the hell they are doing. The last thing I want is the goverment sticking their hand out for more of my hard earned money and putting my finances on hold. I think a better solution would to be for them to give citizens an tax break on insurance premiums just like they do for businesses.

That said...I'm not going a damn place. Let those that don't want to support themselves go live in a commune and support each other. I got where I am today by hard work and smart planning. And I did it without a college education or by asking anyone else for their help. It took years to reach the American dream, I'll be dammed if you are going to sit on your ass all day and take what I rightfully earned. I'm not being selfish...I'm being self sufficient. It's not my fault you didn't plan for your future. Why should I be punished?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: grandpa Also Milton, why do you assume capitalism doesn't "drag everybody along for the ride?"

That was not what i was trying to imply. What I meant was how is any poor person going to be able to drag themselves out of the ghetto with the Wefare State tax structure.


We know poor people can climb up the ladder under the principles a adhere to.