This just in, republicans have no problem with socialized medicine...

Could you point me in the direction of how I can get this same healthcare that gov't officials get? I think I qualify as being a part of "everyone".

I'm not following. Did you, or did you not, say: ? Of course it isn't. But it IS government funded/subsidized....

I would say it is "socialized" because it is essentially funded by tax payers.

Technically contradictory? Perhaps no. Hypocritical? Hell yes. The main reason I have heard that Conservatives do not want Universal health care is that they don't want their taxes to go towards paying for someone else's healthcare. However, these guys have no problem USING taxpayer money to pay for their healthcare.

That isn't what he's doing. That's not what this thread is. No, I would say that the fault of that lies in the politicians who do the exact opposite they campaign on. The politicians who have their own agenda in mind as opposed to the people's. These guys, the guys in the OP, are the types who scream to their constituents about "socialism" and "Obamacare"...... yet they take TAXPAYER money to pay for THEIR healthcare. Like DA said: these people are rich enough to pay for their bills outright. Hell, they don't even NEED insurance. But, they are more than happy to get you riled up to be more than happy to pay exorbitant amounts. Why?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Pointing out hyprocrisy in Republican presidential candidates. Pointing out hyprocrisy in Republican presidential candidates. And that is why it is hypocrital. "I can get cheap, taxpayer paid healthcare, but if YOU get access to it: it's socialism." You have a good way of twisting my words.... Nowhere did I say it was based on needs. I meant that he is rich enough to pay for healthcare outright. Nowhere did I say he should not get access to health insurance. I meant that he is rich enough to afford even the most expensive premium available to his constituents. Constituents who pay for his health insurance while not even being able to afford the premiums they have access to. I didn't mean you, CS. I meant you, in the general sense of the term. "You" as in: a conservative constituent.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Why not? If Taz requested it be placed in, say, the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, you might be on to something. However, this is the coffee house section. No, that would be called "a good health care system". Conservatives are the ones screaming "SOCIALISM" at every turn, not me. It IS, however, hypocritical to call it socialism if someone else gets access to the benefits YOU have.... It IS, however, hypocritical to scream "SMALLER GOVERNMENT" while using the perks of the government to get cheap healthcare.And those same people who clamor on about veteran healthcare, all the while screaming "SOCIALISM" at every turn, are hypocritical. They apparently don't realize they are already paying for what is effectively socialized medicine. They just don't have access to it. Is that what you would like to do? Not me. I want equal coverage for all. I'd rather my tax money go to people who need it and can't afford it, rather than people who don't need it but can. However, if my tax money happens, by proxy, to go to someone who can afford it, so be it. So long as everyone has access to equal care.

I don't mind these kinds of threads. I suppose you could ask Percy to shut it down? You could ask him to make it a rule to not allow anything but EvC related material? I dunno. The thread says "socialized medicine". I don't see where it says "socialism". Again, conservatives are the ones screaming "SOCIALISM" in relation to socialized medicine......but only when the general populace gets access to it.They're not. "Socialized medicine" is not a "buzz-phrase", nor is it wholly incorrect in describing the sort of medical care the OP mentioned. IMO, you sling that word around too much. Just because it disagrees with your worldview doesn't make it "trolling". Disagreeing and having a conversation is not an argument.

Care to explain? Like I said: conservatives conflate the two. So YOU think socialized medicine=socialism? Tell me: do you think it is OK to use taxes to pay for a small sect of people's healthcare, but not OK to use it for the whole of society? If so, why? In a sense: yes. Except they want those sort of services for EVERYONE, not just a select few. It is being used against the right because it is hypocritical. I'm not sure where the confusion about that lies.... When it is subsidized with taxpayer money, it is, essentially, socialized medicine. And that's your opinion that you are entitled to.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : fixed image code

Except that it doesn't..... As of late, it is a scare word used by conservatives to conjure up images about communism and how scary the cold war was. I've already explained this a number of times. It is socialized medicine because society is paying for it....Let's change the phrase to "taxpayer funded healthcare". It is exactly the same. I've yet to see a politician complain about it.... That is yet to be found out. There are plenty of measures that can be taken to redirect funds. Well, I'm glad you can afford it. Many people cannot. Yes, it is. They are taking advantage of a system that could be implemented on a larger scale. But, if it were on a larger scale, it's socialism. So long as only the select few get it, it's a-ok. The system, when implemented on a larger, societal scale, would be exactly the same. Except they would call it socialism and fight against it. Yes....

Actually, it is. Why? Because they clamor on about smaller government and no taxes, all the while using TAXPAYER FUNDED HEALTHCARE. They get cheaper health insurance that you and I pay for, yet WE have to pay out the nose for worse care. You're OK with this?I'm not sure how much further this conversation with you can go. VA aside, you have no problem having your taxes go to a select few, but you do have a problem if a portion goes towards all, yourself included? Why should certain people get better healthcare than the rest, when the same system and funds could be used to care for everyone? I don't think I can further assist in the confusion you seem to be having.

DO your taxes go towards his care? Do you realize that the right is trying to get rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare, regardless of whether there are people that need it? That is kinda the crux of the topic at hand.... They want to get rid of ALL of it, while taking advantage of it.... So you're saying this multimillionaire (the governor in the OP) IS in need of government help? More so than the janitor? Why not? Is the funding of war that important that some of those funds can't be redirected towards taking care of our own people?

Boehner: We Will Cut Social Security, MedicarePractically every GOP lawmaker in both chambers is now on record supporting a ridiculous plan to end Medicare entirely, privatizing it out of existence, and replacing it with a voucher scheme. Boehner got ’98 percent’ of what he wanted in debt dealI mention Boehner as he is the lead voice. If you dig into the Tea Party ranks, they are much worse....It's not hard to find. Especially amid the fiasco labeled the "debt ceiling crisis". For profit health care (i.e.: the private insurance companies) do jack shit to care for consumers. They are all about profits....at yours and my expense. Now, I'm not claiming to know how good or bad of a job Uncle Sam would do, but at least Universal Healthcare would give EVERYONE the chance to get seen without worrying about going bankrupt just because they are sick and because they can't afford the outlandish premiums. Again, good for you that you can afford it. Ask the single parent with a few kids if they can. (hint: I am and I can't). Then why did you say the gov't wasn't up to the task? What is so much more important than taking care of US?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Do you know what Social Security and Medicare are? Like I said: good for you for being able to afford it and not having any major health concerns. Not everyone is so lucky. And with Universal HealthCare: they still would. Except instead of you paying taxes for some elite few to get health care, on top of paying your premium, your taxes would also benefit you, and you wouldn't have the premium. Of everyone having access to healthcare, preventative services, OBGYN's for pregnant women, prescription drugs that they need? Oh it would be terrible, I'm sure. Again: good you. We can't all be perfect and not make mistakes. So who gets to decide who does have children and when? Why should those people suffer? Why should those children go without healthcare? Or, why should those families be broke just to pay for insurance? Is this Somalia? And if we allow teh gays to marry: everyone will marry gay. And if we end prohibition: everyone will turn into alcoholics. And if we teach kids safe sex (instead of abstinence), they'll all screw each other.{abe}
So are you more reckless because you have health insurance? I can tell you that people abuse the system as it is: all because they can go to the emergency room, not get turned down and not have to pay for it. Sure, their credit will get dinged, but when you're ass broke with medical bills up the ass: who cares?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Perhaps you didn't see the second link I provided you with? I even said it in the verbiage highlighted..... You needn't look any further than the words I typed. Though, the proof is in the article. Here is another:If you actually look it up, or even followed politics at all, you would be privy to all this info. It was clear as day throughout the entire "debt ceiling crisis" debacle. And another:Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.