What crack rock did you get hold of?Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Carnival put out the fire. The people have food, and are not going to die without the US government. Everyone is safe - without the government's help. The ship is only 200 miles from San Diego, and tugboats are headed to it now.
The US Coast Guard responded - because that is their job.
The US Coast Guard asked for the USS Ronald Reagan to divert from training maneuvers to go to the ship - not Carnival.
You need to get your facts straight before you make baseless accusations.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/09...ex.html?hpt=T2
Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.
I wonder how socialism (your favorite) would have handled it? Oh yeah, no one would have the ability to take a cruise, as their money would have been taken from them by the government in the form of higher taxes.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
This made me laugh. As I was reading his responses I was thinking the same things. His stories are not even close to the reality of it.
So you add the actual tax burden into my whole message? Obviously the country isn't a poor country nor are its citizens. Norway isn't concerned with everyone elses views on "taxes" and assuming the GDP and PPP are correct ($88,600 and $53,000 respectively) the citizens "burdened" by this high "taxation" nor are they poor, none of them are. Because they get the idea of helping each other and helping oneself. As I stated once before a strong workforce creates a strong economy and not worrying about getting sick helps that even further. I mean, in Norway, your wife can have a baby and devote a full year to that baby, with PAY and then return to her employer, relaxed, organized and prepared to put her all back into her role in the countries health because the country looked after her.
Also, Norway isn't a purely Socialist country, its more of a mixed market; with lots of free market activity and government presence to keep it all together and on the right track. Considering they're standard and cost of living is nearly 30% higher than the US and they have a balanced budget AND are leaning more toward energy independence there are no negatives you can put to make this argument stand. From the lowest or nearly lowest crime rates, lowest death rates, very high infant mortality rates, high income, high productivity and it is even a creditor to other countries, it doesn't NEED you to give it oil or lend it money. You know why? Because they are responsible and are healthy and are preparing themselves for the future not for the right now.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
David took care of the rest in his post. I just pointed out the huge tax burden that pays for mediocre health care.
Whats with the quotes around the word taxes?
The rest of the quote is jibberish. Why should a company pay for someone to do nothing that benefits the company?
That is all fine and dandy but really offers nothing new to this thread. It isnt hard to look at statistics and draw a conclusion from it. That doesnt make the conclusion correct though.
Most of the highest crime rates and lowest incomes in the country are controlled by democrat politicians, therefore you can a assume that any area with a heavy democrat voting base will be a low income, crime infested area.
How much does that really tell us about the problems? Absolutely nothing and there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue. It is absolutely true, but using stats without context and real knowledge of the situation is misleading at best.
What do you mean why should a company pay? Why should a company pay for you if your injured on the job if your not benefiting the company? Why should a company pay u overtime for doing nothing more than what u were doing in the first place? That woman is an employee, hired by the employer, she is an asset. Norway understands that relaxation and family time is just as important as working. It's more than just money its the principal, you have a child.
Um, clearly statistics have to give a conclusion. You all will use hospital statistics to prove my information wrong, this is solid statistics and prove my point especially with the fact that the country is a creditor. My jibberish isnt clogged with what other people tell me on TV, it's only jibberish to you because the idea of working with each other is beyond your scope because it isn't just for your benefit. Your idea is all about the amount of $$ involved and how u can make more of it. No one worries about just how much more $ they can con out of one another (as it seems) over there.
Wrong, because Norway itself has a lower crime rate than even the highest concentration of crime in that said area.
Of what problems, our countries or theirs? That they have virtually no real problems or that we have many problems because our country is owned by companies? Because the US puts its faith in a healthcare institution? Do you not understand that a corporation must maximize profits so... in turn if the health institute is insuring you, you must be deemed "healthy" because u cost less than if u are actually someone that needs help. Which is backwards as the ones who need the healthcare are the ones that arent healthy.
Money makes us treat each other as items or customers not as humans. When you walk into an American hospital your asked first "are you insured" or "how are you paying" then... "how can we help you." vs anywhere that isn't using privatized healthcare you may generally hear "how can we help" or "what amatter."
Also, I quoted taxes because if we weren't raised with the idea that taxes are bad then taxes wouldnt matter. Our taxes go to nothing, their high "tax" is circulated in most ever aspect of their country and used for benefits not to pay off the banking system or finance a campaign.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Workers comp cases are covered under separate laws. OT pay is a benefit, not a requirement, just ask exempted salaried workers.
Do you also think a company should pay you for a 40 hour work week even if you miss a day and dont have any vacation time? Cause, you know, sometimes you just dont feel like going to work that day.
The coast guard asked the Reagan to come, but again, the CG is also a government operation. Coast guard tugs are pulling the Carnival ship back to shore. Government personnel, wherther they are from the CG or the Reagan, are sending supplies to the ship. The CG is working with the engineers to keep the ships life support systems working. Again, if the gov't had not helped out Carnival, both the Carnival business and the Carnival passengers would have had a hard time.
[David88derp]
Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.[/David88]
If you consider the mobilization of gov't resources to be "capitalism," then... yeah.
As far as the rest of your rant, the cruise ship industry didn't go under when the wealthiest brackets were taxed at an extra 5% under Bill Clinton. So your point is moot.
The US Coast Guards job is to respond to incidents like this. They chose to call in the USS Ronald Reagan for it's airlift abilities.
The provisions were made available by Carnival Cruise Lines, and the tugboats were contracted by Carnival - and are not US Coast Guard boats.
Carnival engineers are utilizing their backup generators. Coast Guard engineers are not working to keep life support systems working. There are two Coast Guard officers onboard the ship to help ensure the passengers' health and safety.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/10...ex.html?hpt=T1
You have no idea what you are talking about. You hav stated blatant lies.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Thats not the story you linked to yesterday, so it seems there is new information. The story yesterday made it seem like CG tugs were hauling the boat because they attributed the info about it to a CG source:
[yesterday's article]
One tugboat "is in process of tow," Coast Guard Petty Officer Rachel Polish told CNN. Another tug is en route and will speed the slow process, she said.[/article]
But anyway, the ship did require some assistance from the CG. The CG provides necessary services to the maritime industry, you CANNOT dispute that.
At no point did any article say that it was a Coast Guard tugboat, nor did the Coast Guard itself.
Of course, the Coast Guard responded to the distress call. that is part of their job. Any boat or ship that is without power and coasting offshore should issue a distress call, and no matter if it is a small private boat or a cruise ship, the Coast Guard will respond. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/
Here's food for thought: If it had been a small boat that was in trouble, the Coast Guard would still have responded, and would have tugged them to shore themselves. Do you have a problem with government resources mobilizing in that scenario?
Heres' a case where that just happened on 10/27: http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/586/930163/
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
And to further this Universal Healthcare argument and to justify it. Why is it that our police and fire departments are owned and operated by government? It works just fine, if ur house catches fire, the fire department is sent out and take care of it. Just like if your in a domestic dispute that's boiling over into more than just talking trash our police force is sent out to resolve it or stop it. Would you expect the fire fighter to ask u if u had fire insurance on your home and if you didn't he'd follow up with a question on how you would pay for his service? If you didn't have a means to pay he'd just leave on to the next home that had it and put it out or would actually put your fire out then send you bill for his service. You know why he doesnt ask you? Because he is paid by all of us for the benefit of all of us when he is needed, just as our police officers.
How is it that we can accept the governmental control of those types of services but cannot accept that as a way to provide heath services to all of us? Hell, I may as well just start my own fire department and make money off people because I would solely insure places that are less likely to catch fire and insure everyone else at staggering premiums because they're in an area more prone to fires, like all of CA and TX and the heart of the country like KS, then once you catch fire I drop you or increase your premium beyond reasonable limits.
Doesn't make sense at all does it?
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Actually, fire and police departments are local services, paid for through property taxes - after the citizens vote and chose to fun them. You obviously can move to ares in this state that do not offer either.
Recently, there was a story specifically about a fire department that chose not to put out a house fire because the owner did not pay a $75 fire service fee. They had it on the computer, so they did not need to ask him. He watched his house burn to the ground.
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local...104052668.html
You should watch the news more.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
So you want to fix america mr. president? One word, FAIRTAX. Thank you
Fairtax would help, but spending is the real problem.
Yall go out of your way to find some type of evidence against a common sense argument. I may have been incorrect in stating that the "Government" owns the FD and PD, but a local government owns it. And here and there I suppose a county or city will deny them. But I'm not about to backpedal as those were used as examples. Its common sense to care for somebody in need. Why does it even matter? You cant place a cost on your life nor can you on someone elses. Talking all this negativity towards the idea of helping people live is beyond me.
Like the Military who train you to kill for instance, when u get injured, your cared for (most likely to get you back into the fight) and thats that. There are no questions about what company is providing your insurance, your injured, they fix you free of charge.
Jimmy stop being a smartass. Workers Comp may have separate laws but its just the same with child birth. She cant just give birth and bam be back at work. As I said Norway allows a whole year off with pay no questions just your having a baby so... your having a baby, take care of him/her. Your injured in Norway, see a doctor free of charge, get cared for free of charge, then take a week or two off to recover or longer if need be, so you can be productive for the country.
David, of course that may happen, its part of the counties ordinance system of whatever. I mentioned it for understanding because again, it doesnt make sense. I cant speak against it nor do I care to, this isnt about the fire protection in places that have the option to pay or not pay, this is about a constant tax to keep the service your government, local, state, city, county is providing you with. If your paying for it out of taxation, then its available to you when you need it. You dont need news to tell you that.
So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it? Or... yourself, knowing you have been diagnosed with cancer and you know you can either get it under control or even prevent it (as some forms of cancer are preventable) its ok with you to just die because u didnt have some damn insurance or you couldnt afford the co-pay when needed to cover the expense? Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life. God forbid you get played when your time comes and u need assistance then, say you get it and you have to refinance your home or downgrade and are stuck paying 30-50k in medical bills because your insurance company only covered the initial 4 days of treatment, but not the hospital stay, the drugs, the reoccurring visits and check-ups.
My Grandmother is now 40k or so, in debt from her stroke just because she had a stroke and didn't prepare for it, he daughter (my aunt) sold her home to cover the upfront costs and the physical therapy required so her mother could keep her home she's been in for 74years. U know why this cost her so much? Because he health insurance dropped her due to age. Do you want me to verify the "average" cost of a stroke http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm:
Economic Cost of Stroke
* The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.
* The direct costs of medical care and therapy are estimated at $28 billion per year.
* Indirect costs from lost productivity and other factors are estimated at $15 million per year.
* The average cost of care for a patient up to 90 days after stroke is $15,000.
* For 10 percent of patients, the cost of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is $35,000.
* The percentage breakdown of the direct costs of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is:
Initial hospitalization – 43 percent
Rehabilitation – 16 percent
Physician costs – 14 percent
Hospital Readmission – 14 percent
Medications and other expenses – 13 percent
My Grandmother happen to be one of those 10%. Her care cost a bit more because she was charged for her air lift from Portsmouth, OH to Columbus, OH and spent 17 days in the hospital, racking up debt, just to stay alive.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
How was it common sense when your argument was already proven wrong?
Every country that has socialized health DOES PUT A PRICE ON LIFE. David pointed that out back on like page 2 of this thread.
You couldnt be more wrong. Unless you are in a combat environment, your unit is "charged" a fee based on the number of troops in the unit. That fee is pooled with all other units using that medical facility to provide the operating budget for that facility.
If being correct is being a smartass to you then no. I agree it is he same with child birth. Federal law requires businesses to give a certain amount of time to come back from child birth. This is called maternity leave. Just because they dont get paid for it doesnt mean they dont get it. Also, most companies to pay for maternity leave at the same rate they pay out short term disability. Now, if a woman doesnt want to go back to work when she is able to do so, that is a choice she makes and a company should not be liable for that choice.
Really? We just had a lady at my job have a baby and she was back in about 3 weeks. It did not take a year.
it doesnt take anywhere near a year to get back on your feet and back to full strength after having a baby.
They have that in the US too. It is called long term and short term disability. Most major medical plans do cover it. Oh, and it isnt free. The govt just takes it ahead of time and doesnt charge a copay. Then again, it may take you 2 or 3 months to see the doc, so good luck.
Yes comrade, the peasants must be at full strength to assure the strength of the nation and the party.
Someone shows up in the hospital and the hospital is required to treat them, whether the patient has the ability to pay or not.
Once again, every country with socialized medicine is doing this already. They are rationing care based on future productivity and the costs to save you.
Tricare, the medical care provided via the military, has varying levels of care: Tricare Prime, Prime Remote, Prime Remote Overseas, Guard/Reserve, and Standard. Might have missed one or two. Depending on which you choose, will determine what costs you will bear. I am currently enrolled in Tricare Prime Remote, I pay no out of pocket costs, nor does my unit. My wife wanted to keep her doctors and enrolled her in Tricare Standard, depending on what service is rendered, there may be a cost involved and again, my unit doesn't pay a fee. Not sure what unit you are with BanginJimmy, but you might want to investigate that fee your unit is being charged.
As far as you Grandmother goes, that situation is fucked up. That is the kind of reasoning why Healthcare Reform should have been instituted. Does that mean everything in the Health Reform Bill was correct? By all means, no. But, a matter like this validates to me that health insurance is not a commodity, is it a basic human right. Kind of reminds me of document which speaks of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. It seems to me that the health insurance business is not about protecting people, but about protecting profit; once those who are insured aren't profitability anymore, they are dropped. Anyone else see what is wrong here?
92 EH2 - Current "We will build him, better, stronger, faster."
98 EJ8 - Stolen (Thieves)
I dont believe he is talking about dependent care but care for the actual member.
Every unit is appropriated a certain amount for medical care for its troops. As unit numbers change, so does that appropriation.
You wont find anyone that doesnt say the health industry as a whole needs a ton of reform, but that doesnt make the current bill worth it. The current bill has nothing in it to reign in costs, instead it has dozens of provisions that will raise costs. There is nothing in the bill to reduce fraud, but there are things that will make fraud easier.
Yes, there are several provisions of the bill I am a supporter of, but that doesnt mean the bill is worth keeping in its present form. Because of those provisions though, I am not a fan of repeal unless there is something there to replace it.
Any bill I would support would have ZERO govt involvement in my medical decisions. The bill would have very serious penalties, STARTING with the loss of his/her license, for fraud. There would be massive tort reform that caps both punitive and liability awards at 10x the estimated lifetime earnings of the victim. Also under tort reform would be a loser pays, both client and lawyer equally, for frivolous lawsuits.
I gotcha. IIRC, there is only a set amount for units that are CONUS.
I hope we can all agree on your post regarding the healthcare bill. No dount that the bill has many positive and negative aspects. Only time will tell what is the best course of action to replace that parts which are negative. One fear that I have is that even if we amend and change the negative aspects, the positive aspects might suffer as well. I think what people fear with the bill that it is set in stone and cannot be or will be hard to amend.
Not that I think government should make medical decisions, then who should? Family? Insurance Companies? Pick your poison and suffer the consequences. As far as Tort Reform, definitely a serious issue that needs to be addressed more.
I think the lawsuit concept should applied system wide. Imagine what that would do if there was a consequence for losing.
92 EH2 - Current "We will build him, better, stronger, faster."
98 EJ8 - Stolen (
Obama has already said he would veto any significant changes to the bill though. I think the only way to assure personal freedoms are not taken away is a repeal and replacement, not changes to the current bill. That would require heavy bipartisan support in the Senate though and I think that a large enough support base would bring that as Senators up for re-election in 2012 try to save their jobs. The protections need to be in the bill, but not the mandates to buy insurance. Not the requirement that companies write a policy on all comers, regardless of existing conditions, for the same prices.
There are only 2 people that should be making medical decisions for someone. Either that individual, or the eldest member of the immediate family. Obviously a living will that appoints someone to that role should be enforced whenever possible. Remember that without other instructions from someone with the proper decision making authority a hospital is required to do anything possible to save or extend a life.
Because this is so prevalent in the medical field, the medical field would be most impacted. I think you could honestly see an overall drop of at least 10% in medical overhead immediately. The vast reductions in malpractice insurance alone would make a sizable impact. Add to that the offensive amount of money spent on defensive procedures and drugs and the drops in prices could really be dramatic.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for emergency care or for those providing a legitimate service for our country, such as our military having veteren's care covered.
I do not support giving general healthcare to the masses who should be purchasing their own insurance for non-emergency, maintenance, or elective procedures. Proper financial planning is needed.
My grandmother had a heart attack and spent time in the hospital 2 years ago. Due to proper financial planning many years before, my grandfather left her with enough money to cover medical issues. Is this a rarity? No, not in my family. None of my family has been rich, but all have been able to handle their needs to get insurance and to cover their own medical costs. Are you claiming that you are not capable of planning your own financial future, and need the government to do it for you?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
This is exactly what the whole argument boils down to, be it healthcare, welfare etc. this is the basic principle that needs to be addressed. Many people don't want to be accountable for themselves anymore, at all. There are far too many people who are perfectly content to sit back and let someone else worry about their problems instead of taking responsibility for themselves and their family and planning for future circumstances. If you combine the fact that far too many people have that mentality with the fact that many people are grossly under-educated on how to even begin to save and prepare for such events and you end up with our current situation. Just my
I can only speak intelligently about my situation. I have always budgeted my money pretty well. When I was no longer carried on PeachCare, I wasn't able to afford health insurance. Between rent, water, electric, gas, food, and phone bills, wasn't enough left to purchase health insurance. Between the time I was 18 and when I went Active Duty, I had a choice between health insurance and bills, I chose bills so I could continue to work, eat, and have a place to live. It is easy to say proper financial planning is needed and not give a plan. You can plan all you want and still not have the resources left to purchase health insurance.
92 EH2 - Current "We will build him, better, stronger, faster."
98 EJ8 - Stolen (
So to some I may be wrong in my view of this whole healthcare thing. I believe it should be provided to all, at a fair price because its life. It is a common sense argument because you cant always PLAN for your accidents or your aliments. A business model that is designed to make a profit will always try its hardest to turn a profit, in this case by not providing necessary care to those most in need or those who cost "more" than deemed medically practical.
I always get ran thru the mud on this view of mine because I am from the "unhealthiest metropolitan area" in America, although they seem to state just obesity, my teeth speak of what bad water can do to you and the industry in the area has crippled so many. WIKILINKY
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Here is the problem with your "solution" to the problem. Every country that is using a socialized health model is also limiting those they care for and what they treat because costs far exceed what they bring in through taxes and premiums. On top of that are the lower quality of care, less medical innovation, and longer wait times for care, especially specialist care that are common is all of these models.
In the US we use capitalism and the power of choice to demand better care and it works. You dont like your doc, go find another one. Dont like the way you are treated by your insurance company, move on to a different one. In Norway, for example, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, thats all you get. In Canada, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, and if you go somewhere else you can be fined for it.
I am not claiming any such thing. My grandmother knew she was old but my family happened to have many members die off during that time. Our money went to their care/bills/funerals as well. The bills eventually exceeded what we were bringing in. It also has a bit to do with the amount of income a particular family is bringing in as a whole. I'm not sure where a majority of your family is located but we aren't in a nearly affluent part of the country or city for that matter. The only person in the family that was capable to assist was my aunt as she was the wealthiest of all in the area. Now yes, I have family in a few other cities (1 couple in ATL, 1 old couple in NYC, 1 Uncle in NC, 1 cousin in Cincinnati (who ended up in the hospital himself this year ekk) and a cousin in MI.)
- Note after re-reading my initial post, I have to state that I listed the information wrong. My aunt did not sell her home DUE TO the bills, she had already sold her home and used the money from the sell to assist her mother with up-front costs. My grandmother just so happen to suffer the stroke at that time. Then just used savings to purchase her home she is in today.
My ATL family is taking care of the wife's mother who is in a special needs housing situation and from what she has told me, that eats up almost another mortgage payment, she works 2 jobs for that reason. The NYC residents are well into their respective lives and are on a fixed income barely getting by, unlike in their heyday when money was coming back in forth likea seesaw. My Uncle in NC is also retired, not to sure about his actual status as we don't normally communicate with him. My cousin in Cinci has never been that well off, but he did make an effort to assist in all this. Also the cousin in MI helped a bit, but he is young in his career and raising his own family. For an example, I probably have others, but what happened was coincidence and it was managed as best as possible.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
There are enough taxes taken/given already. The problem lies in that we have "governing" officials who either A) Have their own personal agenda for things, B) Are too stupid to admit they don't know what they are doing, C) Aren't called out and reprimanded accordingly. We blow money like dope boys at a strip club on free parking and entry night. Proper allocation of funds would be a good starting point to get things on track, just saying.
I'd rather have a Nanny McFrugal running the ship. I'm going to the capital soon to sit in on a session, just to see/hear how these "smart people" work on the local level.
Nathan Deal comes to mind, lol. We elevcted and offical that can mange his own funds to manage our state....HOE LEE SHIaTsu.
WHO are the taxes taken from? What percentage group are you in? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%? In order to be "fair", everyone should be inputing into system as a percentage of their needs.
What you are advocating is a system that takes from those that succeed and gives free healthcare to those who have not put into the system in a proportiate amount to what they claim. That only works if you are one that does not put into the system in an equivacable amount to what you received from the system.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
....delete
Whoa Whoa....maybe my cronic boredness at work allowed me to give poor response.
I am saying plainly that the idea of taxing more, at this point, is pointless. An extra 10% is not going to help if the current "contributions" are being poorly allocated.
I fall in the 25% range, fearing 28% change.
Ok, I understand your saying that we do not need to collect more taxes as a whole for the country to add to healthcare. I disagree with this, as we are already running a bigger deficit each year, and adding additional costs of healthcare would have to be collected from somewhere/someone - or other programs would have to be cut or funding reduced. You cannot give additional benefits without affecting either source of revenue or expenditures.
Now, WHO would pay more? The rich? Why should they pay for others people's healthcare? They don't utilize the socialist healthcare in other countries due to the waiting and inferior care. They come to the US to get the best care, as they can afford it. So it wouldn't really be fair to charge them for a service they do not use, is it? Would you like to pay for my next tuneup to my car, just because I think you can afford it better?
The poor cannot afford to pay for they system - but that is exactly who uses the majority of the current healthcare systems benefits right now. The poor tend to run to the emergency room for every small thing, as they do not want to pay for a doctor. If you don't believe it, go to the ER at any hospital in the metro area and see for yourself. In California and Texas, hospitals are closing their doors due to the sheer amount of illegals who do not pay, and are abusing the free part of our system right now.
So tell me, who should pay for the system? The ones who use the system, or those who don't? Socialist healthcare reform is always touted as being "fair,", but the fact is, it is not fair. It undermines a capitalist economy by the explotation of resources from society members that are successful, to those who choose to make poor choices. The fact is, if you are indigent, you already get free healthcare. If you have resources, you can purchase advanced healthcare through cutting-edge technology and drugs.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Obviously because its cheaper. A dentist here will cost to much for me to pay out of pocket as I dont run on credit. There is a better way to get that done without going upside down in cost, just to eat food and smile.
On this technology thing you talk about. Since we have the latest and greatest why is it that none of the people that really need it get to use it? Its only those with the money that can get scan for their life. Your 31, you've seen people die off that you knew (maybe because I know I have) due to the inability to afford that scan or... can afford the scan but not the work because the scan itself cost them both arms. You may complain of your tax but at least you can complain, this money thing makes you think your better or have done something better than another person your same age.
Now to my 10% contribution to government, that will be a no, because our government will not use it for what its intended for. But as an example: If my family gave your family 10% of their earnings and your family gave mine the same, we would "insure" one another and if another family gave 10% of their earnings neither one of those families would have to worry about payment because its already paid for. Its an investment in one another for when your GOING to need it. Works exactly the same as saving for retirement, that money we ALL put into our system would earn interest on itself and be available to those 3 families that need REAL help or just simple repairs to ones body. Now imagine if a whole community did that, or can u imagine sharing a few bills here and their for solidarity?
To continue: say that neighborhood and its 10% contribution to one another was used to push 1 student of each respective practice for any kid that really wanted to help their fellow neighbors. Oh look, free college education on behalf of the neighborhood for you to help the neighborhood out AND as a bonus, u get paid from the neighborhood for helping folks that need it, because thats your job. You could probably do that with just 2% of that 10% of each neighbor in the area. You will try and find specific #'s and incidents of pay grades and all that, ladeda, but its an example.
Whats your income? 45k, 70k? Your living great I could only imagine that for myself, but once I get there I can complain about things like how much I'm paying in taxes and what not, but... of the available income and disposable income I have, I can enjoy myself, 36k is enough for me to get a nice 1 level home with a full basement (value of roughly 110k), 2 car garage, new car payment (of 25k or less) and finance new furniture out the ass and get my lil goodies I want here and there.
To try and answer the greed I mentioned, which I cant, but I will try. Your not willing to help someone in need is greed. Just as a country not willing to help its people in need is greed. I may have said this before, but if America has the BEST health care system with the BEST doctors and the BEST technology, how come we are the worse off? We dont live as long as others in other nations poorer than us, which can be found, again on the CIA factbook. We dont live any longer than any nation that is "social" in its health needs with this AMAZINGLY NEW TECHNOLOGY we have and incredibly high paid doctors. I would only assume with a country that is balling in the trillions we could afford a few billion to help one another so... as I said previously, this strong profitable nations workforce can continue to grow, learn and prosper and even attract others to move here for the hopes of the same.
Yall try to bash me on Norway, the UK, France, Germany even, but you cannot deny the fact that they all live longer than us. Not sure how u could possibly find any issues with Norway, your just worried about their tax, even though they're balling with even half their income their making more than us. NOK is less than Dollar, but Dollar is less than Euro, NOK and Euro exchange not NOK and Dollar. Because in this mind, if the currency is worth LESS to another, that means it can buy the exact same in THAT country for less. 45,000 Euros a year only make around 36,000 Kroners a year. So a Norwegian wouldn't need as much to buy the same products.
To conclude, no I wont send 10% to this Government, but would I give my 10% a check to someone that really needed it, yes, because thats only $60 a paycheck, $60 that, if you needed it every week, would help u get your medication so you can fuking live. Also the "rich" get the amazing Bush Tax CUT of almost 85k a year, at least the highest rollers in this country, Alan Grayson can tell you that.
-- You may have some amazing ass insurance because u can afford it, but if u just so happen to be that man or woman that becomes diseased solely because thats what your body will do when it gets older, and you 70k a year is maxed out through ur final few yrs of home payments, car notes for the kids and grand kids, charitable "gifts", your medication(s) and the cost of living and those super bills that you incurred because u needed help, u will then request help. But bitches like you guys over here huffing and puffing over a little bit of your income going to help the needy because they arent "like you" and you cant verify why they need the help, will let them die. Oh just you wait till we all bang 60's, late 70's even 80's yet cant die, but must use medication and or need routine checkups and physicals and whatnot to function in our day to day lives, seeing every fukin year we are 10, 20, 40, 50k in debt simply because we're alive. When all along, those 40+ yrs of youth we all could of put our into something for our own futures to help us survive when we need it. 1%, 6%, 11%, why do u care, its just a little bit of money. Its not just for "those other fukin people u dont know" its also for you, because all those fukin people u dont know are doing it to, for other people they dont fukin know. One day that "person u dont fukin know" could be you and those other fukin people u dont know will help you. Not because they wont to or because they care for u, but because they can and thats how it is.
Last edited by blaknoize; 11-23-2010 at 09:35 PM.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
And there you go. You ar not looking for advances in dentistry, and to have the best possible. You are just looking for a cheap price. That is the difference between you and I. I want quality in dental care - and I spend it out of pocket. I had no trouble saving up and affording my family's dental care, why should I pay for others dental care, when no one else is going to assist me?
The poor do get to use it - whenever they really need it for LIFE-SAVING needs. We have free emergency care for those that do not have the financial means to support themselves. They get x-rays, cat scans, etc - if they are in emergency care. Go to any hospital and ask the financial department where there money comes from for those in lower income levels. Technnology works well - who do you think got rid of polio, smallpox, etc? Where do you think almost all of the drugs available have come from?
And what exactly makes you think that if we "fund" a healthcare program, that it will get the funding marked to it? We already have healthcare programs, and if the government is doing such a poor job now, what makes you think it will get better if you give them more money? If you say that they do not need more money, tell us where they are going to pull that money from -in other workds, what programs are they going to cut.
There is no free lunch - and no free college. You are living in a dream world if you think there is. There are tax incentive programs in place for people to plan for college now. Look up 529's. Better education does not mean that the person you send through will get a better job, or be a better member of society either. People complain about the cost of their HOA's now, and have trouble paying basic living expenses now - and you want them to pay for someone else's kid to go party at UGA? Let me bring you back to reality - we do not live in a utopian society, as one never has existed, nor ever will. There is no magical government system that will give everyone the perfect life. Life is about making choices and living with those choices.
My income is enough for me to be in a higher tax bracket. Do I have disposable income? No. Why? Because I already pay out enough in taxes to cover all of your family's emergency care needs right now.
Americans life expectancy is not because of the medical care, but rather, the choices they make. We eat unhealthy food because it tastes good, we smoke, we drink, etc - all because we chose to. Our technology allows us to have these indulgences and still keep a long life. Additionally, "helping everyone" through the force of taxes is not choosing to help out your fellow humans. Tht wouldn't solve this "greed" of wanting to keep what you earn through work. If I choose to help, it should be just that - a choice. I give to charities already, but it is my choice who I give it to, and how much.
$60 a week, $3120 a year - Are you unable to purchase medical insurance and dental care for that much each year? You shouldn't spend even close to that. Most of it should be available for investment. If you are responsible for your own financial future, you should be able to not only pay for medical needs, but also contribute to reducing your future needs from the government. For me, it would be a lot more than $60 a week.
Perhaps you still don't understand - plan for your OWN financial future. It is clear that you are not currently prepared for your own financial future, and have not covered all of your own needs yet. With that in mind, what makes you think that you have acquired enough knowledge to explain to those that are prepared how they should spend their money? Currently, you are one of those that is in the lower income brackets, looking for others to pay your way, and make life easier for you. Why should I, one who has already been where you are, and have worked hard and made good decisions, and lived below my means, give you the money that I have earned and worked for, for free? Specifically, why should I personally pay for your health insurance? That is what you are asking for - for me to personally pay for your health insurance.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I'm younger than you, my income is lower than you, my education is lower than you. I throw my numbers out there for real examples. So no, that is incorrect on me expecting and wanting hand-outs and assistance, even though we have all had assistance from family and friends to get where we are today, you have, I have. I know many who do and could use it to better their lives and get through it all to see a good future then pursue it, thats the point.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
And yes, I will travel, for the experience, because I'm not narrow-minded and I would love for this rich ass country to show some care for each other, because all of us made this country rich and the "rich" aren't going to aid us without us speaking up. The idea, again, isnt far-fetched, if there are issues with "social" care then lets actually analyze it. Its not hard, pick out the things that are obviously in disarray and test different ideas till we get it right. Not sit here and bitch.
Yall bitches protect the rich because they're "RICH" not because your rich. If I was rich I wouldn't mind. If I made 1.5mil net (ignore tax for this example) lost 5mil in taxes, whatever, I'm balling, fucking bbaaallliinngg, you can tax the shit outta me but I'm still balling. I have a home, a car, a washer dryer, can take trips, fix shit, make bad decisions and all that without a worry in my mind because I'm STILL MAKING ONE FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS A FUCKING YEAR. Your all worried about some fukin taxes for the rich. If your total amount income regardless of tax is a million dollars, why would you complain? Is it because other people are telling you what they are making or grossing or netting? You cant even spend a million a year if you live right.
Since housing is a need also, and a lot of people are homeless, the rich should build everyone a house also while they pay for their healthcare also, right?
Who decides how people should live? You? You think that everyone should live the same way, and have the same needs? You think the government should make the decision on where you live, how much food you are provided (so everyone gets the same amount - to be fair), what possessions that they own, etc? That's communism, plan and simple. Sounds like you might want to move to a communist country. Why don't ou do that, and let us know how that works out for you.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Why are u talking about housing? This isnt about housing, its about healthcare for all. Just like why Honda provides "safety for everyone" in all of their cars, DX to EX because its unfair to provide only a person that is better off than u; a chance to survive a crash. It is unfair in Honda's eyes to allow someone else that can spend just a bit more to drive a more "premium" class car in their lineup a higher chance of survival in an accident than any other person who picked up a lesser version of that same car.
Same thing in relation to healthcare, why is it that someone else can get the care they need if they have the $$ but another person with a little less $$ cannot? Stop this trying to roll me into communist ideas, its a socialistic idea that is, again, being used by every other industrialized nation but us.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. A Hummer is safer than a DX or EX also, so should we be required to buy one of those?
Because this is the real world, not a socialist utopia. People that make more money have better things. Back to your car analogy. Should everyone be required to buy a Civic because there are some people that cant afford a BMW? Why is it that someone can get a better car just because they have more money?
So now we should do it because everyone else does it, is that really your argument? Remember, the people from those countries that can afford it come to the US for medical care for a reason. Our medical care is better in every imaginable way.
Emergency care is already provided by our current system. No one can be refused emergency medical care under current laws.
The healthcare push from the liberal platform is to provide maintenance care to everyone through taxation. This is not the same thing.
Ultimately, it all comes down to this question: Who pays for it? Liberals claim it's everyone, but its not that simple. Those that pay federal payroll tax (including SS and Medicare), pay for the current system for everyone. Those that are working for cash, not working, or working in an environment where they can manipulate what they are "paid", pay less than most, or nothign at all. That's a lot of people. Everyone benefits though. Since this money is not enough to support additional healthcare, you will need another source of federal income to support the additional costs.
47% of Americans pay no income tax, it means the other 53% are paying all of the cost for the current programs offered by the government. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly....html?x=0&.v=1
Please explain how it is fair for half of America to be forced to pay for the benefits of the entire country? Where is your social equality and justice in that?
You think that the rich don't pay enough, and should pay more?:
"The top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government."
"The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
You think that is fair?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
