|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
hooah212002 writes: If you can't get a decent job: fuck you. I got mines, you get yours, fuck you. Welcome to a reality of limited resources. I'm sorry you never grew up, your are going to have some painful realizations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I would agree, so buy some fucking insurance. Any way you cut it you are not carrying your weight. LOL. Do you even know what a public good is? Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Everyone contributes to the public school system and is eligible for the rewards of public education. The same would apply for public healthcare.
On the other hand, most people pay for their own private health insurance and are not eligible to get equivalent care from the ER because that isn't what the ER is supposed to be doing.
There are also people that pay for private education. Does that mean we should throw out public education?
A more appropriate analogy involving the school system would be someone demanding a college degree for free, because they "can't afford" to pay college tuition like everyone else. You are aware that there are federal Pell Grants, and that states pay for a portion of the tuition, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
So do you think its going to become magically less expensive if the government forces people to pay for it, or do you not realize that people who can't afford to buy health insurance now aren't going to be able to afford paying taxes which substitute for health insurance? Or are you still just pitching the idea that other people should be forced to pay to keep you healthy? Apparently Johnny Q Shitstain here doesn't understand the concept of a progressive motherfucking income tax. A person making less than $20,000 a year doesn;t have to pay nearly anything in taxes...even if we add in a public health care plan. A person making $60,000 a year has to pay a lot more, and can afford it - $100 to this person means a lot less than it does to the guy making 20k. A person making $100,000 a year has to a pay a LOT more, for the same reason. Somehow this is okay when we talk about paying for the military, or public infrastructure, or police and fire protection, but not okay when it comes to health care, because...well, because Phage is a brainless hatfucker who doesn't think beyond what Ayn Rand told him in Atlas Shrugged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phage0070 writes: jar writes: If you read what I posted, it was criticizing your fallacious remark that a single payer system paid through taxes would be beyond what he could afford. This seems reasonable, given that he could afford it before but claimed otherwise. *IF* he truly wasn't able to afford healthcare before then getting it from him through taxes wouldn't solve the issue. He would be a burden on other taxpayers. Now you might want to argue that people unable to afford healthcare should be cared for by placing their financial burden on others, but again I maintain that he wasn't one of those people. He could afford healthcare but chose not to. If taxation to fulfill healthcare desires was enacted he would be rendered unacceptably poor which he seems to translate into "can't afford". Therefore in his own bizarre terminology he "couldn't afford" such a system. Do you like making up your own version of what people say? Getting health care through a system of taxation DOES solve the problem, he would have had health care provided. It really is that simple. The fact is that Health Care for all citizens and others living in the US is both a security concern and in our enlightened self interest. A tax supported Single Payer system that cuts out ALL health insurance except for elective procedures and single private hospital rooms should be the minimal standard if the US hopes to join the group of First World Nations. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Oh right. Lay-offs don't happen to privileged, pompous fucks like you, right? Get the fucking silver spoon out of your hoity toity mouth. You obviously have your own version of what my situation is so I'm not going to bore you with facts that you aren't interested in.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Even if I grant that you seriously couldn't afford healthcare, you still have to make the case that you deserve something you can't afford. Again, let's look at the public school system. Let's say the state spends 10k per student. Let's move that cost back to the parents, as you want to do with healthcare. A family with three kids in K-12 would need to spend 30k a year to keep their kids in school. That's a lot of money for a middle class family. A family where both parents make 30k a year could live in a little rat hole and ea Mac and Cheese for every meal and perhaps could afford to put their kids through school. I guess this is the kind of support that Republican policies offer the common family in America. If you have kids then you need to live in poor housing and scrape by just to educate your kids and keep them healthy. Awesome. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
And why exactly did you have 2 car payments? Why didn't you carpool together?
Classic right wing crap. Why doens't everyone live and have a life like me. I am not sure of hooah's situation, but from your comment I assume you know nothing about life in America outside of suburbia and the urban areas. A lot of people need cars to perform their jobs, no matter how low paying they are. Where I live, for most families 2 vehicles are a necessary. Not everyone works in areas where a lot of other people work. Car pooling is not a magic bullet in most of America. Your condescension and lack of ability to see that others may have lives vastly different than yours is astounding. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There are less expensive plans out there that have lesser coverage. Indeed. Some might not provide pediatric care, for instance. Even the "average" plan might not.
Companies offer plans based on what the market desires, not some sort of arcane formula which will force the companies into offering products nobody can buy. Well, no, they don't. They don't offer based on what the market desires, because obviously what the market desires is as much health care as they need, for free. What they offer is what it's most profitable to offer, and because of the nature of health insurance, what is most profitable to offer is to charge high premiums for little to no expenditure on care. So, to the greatest extent possible, what health insurance companies are in the business of is charging premiums to provide nothing in return - hence the high rates of practices like claim denials and recission - all means to evade the responsibility to reimburse hospitals for medical care. Because they make more money that way.
You could perhaps find a tiny terrible apartment at maybe $300 a month (a single room rat-trap probably) The single-room rat trap is what I was referring to - $700. You could probably get a box under the bridge for something less, but then that's going to increase the health needs of you and your family and make it impossible for you to qualify for health insurance (they don't provide it to the homeless.) So what do you actually save, there?
It isn't just sticking your hand into other people's pockets without contributing yourself. Crashfrog, you fucking moron. Nonsense. Your first month on health insurance - you've paid in no more than $1200, on average - you're entitled to make claims up to the maximum of your policy. Say, $250,000. What on Earth is that besides your hand in everybody else's pocket? Your notion of health insurance as a savings account, where you contribute and then withdraw, is moronic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
And why exactly did you have 2 car payments? Oh, right. Let me leave my girlfriend at home to take care of the kids without a way to transport them anywhere while I work 16 hours a day. Let me force her to stay at home by getting rid of the vehicle she brought into the relationship. Or, you could have bought the car that I brought into the relationship so I could take her car. Good idea.
Why didn't you carpool together? With whom do you propose I carpool with? Oh, right. Now you know my co-workers too? You know for certain that I live next door to everyone I work with. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Welcome to a reality of limited resources. But here's the thing - the resources aren't limited, not in that way. There's enough medicine for everybody. There are enough people to be doctors. We don't have to ration care and only give it to the rich; there's enough for everyone who needs it, because we can make as much as we decide we need. Other people's kids getting medicine for their illnesses doesn't make it any harder for your kids to get what they need. You don't have to worry about poor black people slurping up all your delicious, precious health care. The sooner you get over your absurd fear of brown people getting in line ahead of you, the sooner you'll realize that we don't need markets to allocate care to the richest. There's more than enough, or could be if we decide there should be. You need to ask yourself whose interests are served by an artificial scarcity of health care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Welcome to a reality of limited resources. They are only limited for the greater good of the US public. They are unlimited, however, when it comes to bombing the fuck out of some brown guys, or letting GE skate free when it comes to tax time, or when we give 700 billion dollars to companies that destroy our country. Amurrica, Fuck Yea! Land of the rich and fuck yous! "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Well, no, they don't. They don't offer based on what the market desires, because obviously what the market desires is as much health care as they need, for free. What they offer is what it's most profitable to offer, and because of the nature of health insurance, what is most profitable to offer is to charge high premiums for little to no expenditure on care. So, to the greatest extent possible, what health insurance companies are in the business of is charging premiums to provide nothing in return - hence the high rates of practices like claim denials and recission - all means to evade the responsibility to reimburse hospitals for medical care. Because they make more money that way. Or to put it more succinctly, it is not in the best interest of the insurance company to insure everyone, especially those that have chronic illness or risk factors. Also, it is not in their best interest to make the premiums affordable to everyone. Even worse, it is not in the interest of the for-profit healtcare industry to make medical care affordable to everyone. If we ran our education system like we run our healthcare system then millions of kids would not be in school. If the Republican philosophy is correct where it concerns healtcare how long will it be before that same philosophy is applied to other social programs such as schools, roads, Medicare, etc.? Why should a middle class voter support these policies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
or do you not realize that people who can't afford to buy health insurance now aren't going to be able to afford paying taxes which substitute for health insurance? Gotta put on my right wing thinking cap for this one. .. So, if I can't afford health insurance, I don't pay enough in taxes. Conversely (using conservative cognition), if I CAN afford health insurance, I pay too much in taxes. Sound about right? "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
If the Republican philosophy is correct where it concerns healtcare how long will it be before that same philosophy is applied to other social programs such as schools, roads, Medicare, etc.?
Now is when. Look at what is passing through congress right now. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024