Why aren't 'we' fixing the real problem? The Dems are more interested in consolidating federal government powers and the Reps didn't do it because they're more interested in keeping the power in the hands of big business.As long as both parties continue to put their party ahead of the people, it will never improve.
This is the fundamental debate for this issue, and I still havent heard the other side of it explained in a satisfactory manner: As murrdpirate said: one person paying more than another for the same product is fundamentally flawed and unfair. Is it ok for me to get paid more for the same job, based on my age? My ethnicity? Should I pay more for groceries based on my income?As a person who definitely qualifies as "underinsured", and has recently faced massive medical bills (who knew birth without maternity coverage could be so expensive), I absolutely cannot feel ok about the wealthy paying my medical bills because they have more money than me. It's unfair, and I can't support it.
Being rich isn't necessarily productive. Being poor is not necessarily being a parasite. If you have an income 10 times higher than the average citizen, what is unfair about paying 10 times more in taxes than the average citizen?
Make some more, if not printing from where? The UK's economy is crushed by their socialist policies. I am not saying that helping people is wrong, but every dollar or pound placed on one thing came from somewhere else. Maybe a new job is not made or equipment which could make a product cheaper for everybody is not purchased. There is no free, everything has a price, even if you cannot actually see the transaction that was delayed or abandoned altogether in order to pay a tax.
You actually believe that? When, _ever_, has "government run" _anything_ worked out as well as promised? For that matter, anywhere _near_ promised? Social security is a wreck. The trust is empty, paid back by IOUs. Medicare/medicaid is bankrupt. For that matter, the VA is an unmitigated nightmarish disaster. $800 treatment for strep? You're wildly exaggerating. A simple exam determines that, and you get a prescription for some penicillin. All of which, were it not for the interference of the government, would cost (and used to cost) about twenty bucks. You do realize that doctors get a minute fraction of their normal fees with Medicaid/care? As in pennies on the dollar? So guess who gets to subsidize that on the back end. You and me. Guess who gets to eat the cost of that outrageous malpractice insurance? You and me. A little tort reform, a lot less government interference (weren't these programs supposed to resolve these problems in the first place?), and a little encouragement in the way of tax breaks, and these issues will go away. You are too trusting of your government. It is a necessary evil. Necessary, yes, but an _evil_ nonetheless.
Ya, why give the people that built, and died for this country a damn thing.. After storming the beaches in WW2 and in the Pacific and dying by the tens of thousands then coming home and building this country in to what was the greatest Nation on the planet, now they think they deserve some sort of security in their old age.. Whatever.. Mattmedwards you are truly a f**k tard in every sense of the meaning..
There are exceptions, but I would argue the vast majority of things aren't addictive, and even if they are, the consumer KNOWS this and factors it into his or her decisions. Of course there are exceptions to rational addicts (like a pregnant woman smoking cigarettes), but in my experience, atleast around people drinking and smoking pot and cigarettes, people have the costs of doing those substances already considered.I also am not opposed to taxs to make things reflect their true social costs. In fact I strongly support those, to the point we should mainly use those to finance government and NOT income\payroll\whatever taxes.
Closed AccountNov 16, 2009
Why aren't 'we' fixing the real problem? The Dems are more interested in consolidating federal government powers and the Reps didn't do it because they're more interested in keeping the power in the hands of big business.As long as both parties continue to put their party ahead of the people, it will never improve.
peteybugsNov 17, 2009
This is the fundamental debate for this issue, and I still havent heard the other side of it explained in a satisfactory manner: As murrdpirate said: one person paying more than another for the same product is fundamentally flawed and unfair. Is it ok for me to get paid more for the same job, based on my age? My ethnicity? Should I pay more for groceries based on my income?As a person who definitely qualifies as "underinsured", and has recently faced massive medical bills (who knew birth without maternity coverage could be so expensive), I absolutely cannot feel ok about the wealthy paying my medical bills because they have more money than me. It's unfair, and I can't support it.
bacon_skodaNov 17, 2009
rizzo, i didn't say print money.just increase tax revenues.
rottencodNov 17, 2009
Being rich isn't necessarily productive. Being poor is not necessarily being a parasite. If you have an income 10 times higher than the average citizen, what is unfair about paying 10 times more in taxes than the average citizen?
diggduggjoeNov 17, 2009
Make some more, if not printing from where? The UK's economy is crushed by their socialist policies. I am not saying that helping people is wrong, but every dollar or pound placed on one thing came from somewhere else. Maybe a new job is not made or equipment which could make a product cheaper for everybody is not purchased. There is no free, everything has a price, even if you cannot actually see the transaction that was delayed or abandoned altogether in order to pay a tax.
Closed AccountNov 17, 2009
You actually believe that? When, _ever_, has "government run" _anything_ worked out as well as promised? For that matter, anywhere _near_ promised? Social security is a wreck. The trust is empty, paid back by IOUs. Medicare/medicaid is bankrupt. For that matter, the VA is an unmitigated nightmarish disaster. $800 treatment for strep? You're wildly exaggerating. A simple exam determines that, and you get a prescription for some penicillin. All of which, were it not for the interference of the government, would cost (and used to cost) about twenty bucks. You do realize that doctors get a minute fraction of their normal fees with Medicaid/care? As in pennies on the dollar? So guess who gets to subsidize that on the back end. You and me. Guess who gets to eat the cost of that outrageous malpractice insurance? You and me. A little tort reform, a lot less government interference (weren't these programs supposed to resolve these problems in the first place?), and a little encouragement in the way of tax breaks, and these issues will go away. You are too trusting of your government. It is a necessary evil. Necessary, yes, but an _evil_ nonetheless.
fullclipNov 17, 2009
Ya, why give the people that built, and died for this country a damn thing.. After storming the beaches in WW2 and in the Pacific and dying by the tens of thousands then coming home and building this country in to what was the greatest Nation on the planet, now they think they deserve some sort of security in their old age.. Whatever.. Mattmedwards you are truly a f**k tard in every sense of the meaning..
fullclipNov 17, 2009
Hahaha.. I love it.. *Robot Voice* "By your command Messiah"
themostimprovedNov 21, 2009
There are exceptions, but I would argue the vast majority of things aren't addictive, and even if they are, the consumer KNOWS this and factors it into his or her decisions. Of course there are exceptions to rational addicts (like a pregnant woman smoking cigarettes), but in my experience, atleast around people drinking and smoking pot and cigarettes, people have the costs of doing those substances already considered.I also am not opposed to taxs to make things reflect their true social costs. In fact I strongly support those, to the point we should mainly use those to finance government and NOT income\payroll\whatever taxes.