Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 77 of 440 (610555)
03-31-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phage0070
03-31-2011 9:30 AM


Re: Proactive Health Care
Instead you think that you should be able to use a public service paid for in great part by taxpayers as a substitute; you want those insurance premiums that you dubbed "too expensive" to be paid for by other people who don't have a choice in the matter.
Replace "insurance premiums" with "school tuition" and you have the public school system. Do you consider the public school system to be "disgusting"?
What I am interested in this thread is how Republican policies benefit the middle class. If the philosophy of the Republican part is based on the idea that it is disgusting to use taxes from those who are more well off to pay for expensive medical care for those in lower income brackets then I can only conclude that Republican polices are not favoring middle class families. This makes their claims regarding "family values" a bit hollow, IMO.
So why should middle income families vote for a political party that sees no value in making sure they can afford health care? Why should middle income voters support a party that is more concerned with protecting the wealth of the top 5%?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phage0070, posted 03-31-2011 9:30 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Phage0070, posted 03-31-2011 12:12 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 93 of 440 (610572)
03-31-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Phage0070
03-31-2011 12:12 PM


Re: Proactive Health Care
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Phage0070, posted 03-31-2011 12:12 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 97 of 440 (610577)
03-31-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Phage0070
03-31-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Proactive Health Care
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Phage0070, posted 03-31-2011 12:37 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 103 of 440 (610584)
03-31-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
03-31-2011 1:21 PM


Re: Proactive Health Care
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2011 1:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 03-31-2011 1:34 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 106 of 440 (610589)
03-31-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phage0070
03-31-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Proactive Health Care
Furthermore, you pointed out that renting a decent apartment at $700 a month was apparently worth more than obtaining health insurance. You could perhaps find a tiny terrible apartment at maybe $300 a month (a single room rat-trap probably) and not have to worry about your child dying to the flu. But no, a choice was made there.
There is the Republican Healthcare plan. Can you tell us why middle class America should support such a plan? Can you tell us how this plan benefits middle class americans and supports their families?
Insurance is pooling a steady stream of income to offset a risk which can be mitigated by financial aid. Those who contribute are eligible to draw from the pooled funds should some relatively rare event occur. The entire system depends on most contributors not using as much money as they pay in, but rather offsetting the risk of a possible payment they wouldn't be able to cover on their own.
It isn't just sticking your hand into other people's pockets without contributing yourself. Crashfrog, you fucking moron.
You left out the part where the insurance companies pull out money from this pool for profit. That is the whole reason that insurance plans exist, to produce profit for the insurance comapny. So I guess Republicans have no problem with insurance companies sticking their hands into the pockets of americans and providing zero health care for the money they take, but it is a sin to have the government take money out of the pockets of individuals and use all of it for health care.
What conservatives always want to hide is the fact that insurance companies provide ZERO healthcare. Hospitals supply healthcare, not insurance companies. Insurance is nothing more than a middle man who takes his cut. If anything, private health insurance is a barrier between patients and healthcare.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phage0070, posted 03-31-2011 11:15 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Rahvin, posted 03-31-2011 2:12 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 118 of 440 (610609)
03-31-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by hooah212002
03-31-2011 2:14 PM


I think we need to recruit a few more right wingers here to EvC. These two need assistance from the barrage of us socialist commies.
I tried to word the OP in a way to at least give them a chance. All I asked is to show us how Republican policies benefit the middle class. What we got was the exact opposite. All we are told is how helping the middle class through social programs is a bad thing, and that protecting the money of the wealthy is the top priority. I was at least hoping for an argument that Republicans want to help the middle class. Perhaps I hoped for too much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by hooah212002, posted 03-31-2011 2:14 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2011 3:20 PM Taq has replied
 Message 121 by hooah212002, posted 03-31-2011 3:42 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 120 of 440 (610615)
03-31-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by New Cat's Eye
03-31-2011 3:20 PM


I think the most honest answer, from me, to your questions of how the Republicans help the middle class, is by keeping the other guys from hurting us.
This is definitely a move in a positive direction. Thanks CS!!
So what are these policies, and what harm are they preventing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2011 3:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2011 5:17 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 137 of 440 (610689)
03-31-2011 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by New Cat's Eye
03-31-2011 5:17 PM


I feel that the Democrats want to do more to get more to the less fortunate, but that they take all the choice in the matter out of my hands. I don't want to just throw my money in the general direction of the less fortunate. I like to have that decision myself as to who I'm helping because then I feel like I actually am helping.
This isn't exactly what I had in mind for the OP. I will get to your points in a second, so bear with me.
When I talk about the middle class I mean families that bring in 40-60k a year or singles who bring in 20-40k a year. Somewhere around there. I am NOT talking about bums on the street. I am talking about people who do have jobs and do go to work if there is work available. How are Republican policies helping these people? Are tax cuts to the rich helping? Are cuts in public education and social programs helping? Are massive tax cuts for people making 20 times more than these middle class families helping?
As to the "downtrodden", that's a tough one. It really is a different set of questions. Do we put federal guards at ER's to kick out people who can't afford care? That doesn't seem like the right thing to do. We are going to have to pay for that care somehow, even if it means hospitals have to charge more to those who can pay. Do we let people freeze to death on the streets? Do we not help out single mothers with rent so that they don't end up on the streets?
I see the left's approach as not offering any incentive to putting in the great effort that I have towards setting myself up so that I can do this on my own without aid. Further, its seems that they are rewarding not putting the effort in by making it easier to get help if you didn't make it.
Recently, the Republican policy was to cut unemployment even to those actively seeking work. Part of the compromise for the recent tax cuts was the extension of unemployment to those hit hard by the economic downturn. If it was left to just the Republicans we would have seen even deeper tax cuts for the wealthy and no extension of unemployment.
Do you support these types of cuts to social safety nets? It seems that you lean more towards judicious use of safety nets, am I wrong?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2011 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 170 of 440 (610983)
04-04-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
04-02-2011 9:46 PM


Why does the middle class need help (government help) today?
That is a completely separate question from "Are they getting help?".
So, are Republican policies helping the middle class or not?
It trickles down. That phrase has been made to sound evil by the left/Democrats/liberals, but it works.
How has it worked? From what I have seen, middle class incomes are losing ground to the cost of living.
There’s no evidence that increasing taxes/social programs, government impositions on private business, special rights for labor unions, and erosions of morality help anything in the long run.
Stronger labor unions in the middle of the 20th century led to a surge in middle class incomes. Social programs such as single payer healthcare has led to major reductions in cost for the middle class in other countries. So why can't we have stronger unions and single payer health coverage?
The EPA has possibly done more to destroy the middle class than any other single thing in the U.S. It imposes regulation that someone has to pay for, and the middle class always gets the bill. It destroys business, large and small, putting the middle class out of work.
So please tell me how unregulated polluting helps the middle class.
It really shouldn’t be thought of as laws and reforms by Republicans, it should be thought of as an undoing of failed laws and reforms put in place by Democrats in the past, most of it the very recent past.
So what laws and reforms are Republicans going to put in that would benefit the middle class? What is the Republican plan for making health care affordable for the middle class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 04-02-2011 9:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 8:04 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 189 of 440 (611092)
04-05-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by marc9000
04-04-2011 8:04 PM


Yes. By slowing down the socialist policies of the Democrats.
How does that help the middle class?
50 years ago, many homes in the U.S. didn’t have a television, most driveways only had one car. Statistics show that the poor in the U.S. have it pretty good, compared to the poor in other countries. Or it could be compared to 100 years ago in the U.S. — many/most poor families in the U.S. today have it better than upper middle class families had it back then.
Fifty years ago, how many two income families were there? Fifty years ago, how many people had to choose between healthcare and bankruptcy? Fifty years ago, how many kids had to take out a student loan that was equal to 3 years pay when they left the state funded university? Fifty years ago, healthcare took up 5% of GDP, now it takes up 15%. This is just a few examples of the cost of living that strongly affects the middle class.
Because a lot of people in the U.S. don’t agree that all the details involved in those things works out for the better in the long run. If middle class living in other countries looks attractive to those on the left in the U.S., we should be seeing a mass exodus in emigration to those countries. It’s not happening.
That is a very weak argument.
It keeps them from having to foot the staggering bill for all the unnecessary regulation that’s going on today.
So you are saying that rivers and lakes choked with cyanide from gold leeching fields is worth the trade off for wealthy mining companies getting to keep more of their money?
The auto emissions testing in my area from 1990 to 94 (or 95, whenever it ended) was nothing but a multi million dollar waste. Like any government bureaucracy, the EPA doesn’t seem to be accountable for its mistakes.
From everything I have heard, the reduction in deisel sulfur has been a ringing success.
I don’t know, I don't think they have any magic answers for it. The mess didn’t happen overnight, and it won’t be solved overnight. Did you know that in the 60’s or 70’s, it was not uncommon for just about anyone at any education level to get a job, and automatically have his wife and all 6, 9 or 12 children fully covered? Why not today?
The cost of healthcare has outpaced wages. So too has the cost of education if you want to look at that as well. At one time all you needed was catastrophic coverage which is way cheaper. Now you need complete coverage because even a simple visit is a lot to pay for. This increase does not affect the wealthy that much, but it hits the middle class very hard. Countries with universal health coverage and single payer spend a lot less as a percentage of GDP as we do. Private healthcare isn't working, and yet this is the system the GOP wants to support. That doesn't make sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 8:04 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:14 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 236 of 440 (611316)
04-07-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:14 PM


It eases their burden of having to pay for those socialist policies. Despite all the political rhetoric, it’s not all that complicated. Government spending has to be paid for by the productive citizenry of that government.
You left out what the middle class would not be paying if these social programs were put in place, namely private health insurance. Single payer healthcare coupled with a progressive tax code would result in a net reduction in the money spent for healthcare by the middle class. The middle class in other first world nations with single payer healthcare (i.e. socialism) spend way less on healthcare than we do.
The Republican stance against socialized medicine is actually a stance that makes the middle class pay more for healthcare.
So healthcare wasn’t near the political issue 50 years ago than it is today, we can agree on that. The question is, why?
50 years ago money spent on healthcare was about 5% of GDP and everyone had access. Today, healthcare is 15% of GDP and many people can not get access to healthcare and/or are being bankrupted by medical bills.
Not many, because they didn’t have near the appetite for alcohol and illegal drugs at their fraternity parties as college kids do today.
What? What does this have to do with tuition outpacing cost of living and wages?
Because it doesn’t have much detail about the details? The detail is out there, but it’s not going to be found at NPR, or ABC. Here is a link you won't find in the mainstream U.S. media.
Because it is wrong. I would never tell a Tea Partier that if they don't like taxes in the US to move to country with fewer taxes. We want to fix our country, not move to another one. For some strange reason, we feel patriotic and want to live in America, warts and all.
Why has it been necessary? Because there are more people — because civilization is more complex? Even so, is the question of affordability not an important one?
Affordability of healthcare is not an important issue for the middle class? Do you really think that?
Choked with cyanide — evidence?
Without the EPA and laws punishing polluters why would companies spend money to prevent pollution that would otherwise go towards profit? In my area of the country, mining gold involves leeching with cyanide. Leakage of the cyanide is a HUGE issue around here because if it gets into the watershed in the mountainous regions it will destroy local and very senstive ecosystems. Without EPA protections there is nothing stopping these mining operations from spilling cyanide into the local watershed.
What doesn’t make sense to me, (and about 150 million other Americans) is how replacing competing insurance companies with one more massive government bureaucracy is going to make health care less costly.
Let's compare what we spend to our neighbors up north:
"In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%."
Comparison of the healthcare systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia
That 6.7k we spend doesn't even cover everyone. There are still millions of americans without health coverage. With a socialist program and 3.6k per capita Canada is able to cover EVERYONE. If this competition is driving down prices, and government systems are less effecient than a free market, then why are Americans spending twice as much as every other first world socialist country on healthcare? Why are the Republicans supporting a system that doubles the cost of healthcare for the middle class?
What you are ignoring is that private health insurance companies are competing for customers they can make a profit on. They are competing for healthy individuals with good incomes. They are NOT competing for the business of sick people. On top of that, health insurance supplies ZERO HEALTHCARE. Hospitals supply healthcare, not insurance companies. Private health insurance is nothing more than a middle man that takes a profit without supplying any healthcare.
Also, a single payer system does not prevent people from buying supplemental insurance for the gaps they perceive in the social program. This is true in every first world western socialist system I know of. This insurance is often very cheap because it has to cover very little.
The big difference in what government should and should not pay for is the question; Are a free people able to supply this want or need for themselves, or does it absolutely require some type of municipal organization?
Given the millions of Americans that have to choose between death and bankruptcy, I would say that it is time for the government to step in. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem more concerned about the financial reports from insurance companies, not the middle class.
If we have single payer health insurance, why not single payer automobiles?
Or public transportation? Oh yeah, we already have that.
What next, public schools systems? Oh yeah, we already have that.
Or socialist road building programs? Yep, we have that too.
Need I go on?
The same type of government agency that will soon determine who qualifies for what medical procedure?
How is this different than an HMO that decides who is qualified for a medical procedure? At least with a government agency we have a medical board that answers to the people instead of stockholders.
Have you ever checked into the details of the decision making process of who gets what care, how long waiting periods are etc., of government health care in foreign countries?
Yes, I have. I have even spoken to a handful of doctors from the UK at some of the conferences I have attended. In 99.9% of cases it is the doctor who decides which patients get what care. Health Services in the UK do a great job of researching which procedures are most effective, and these are the recommendations they give to doctors. This is quite different from the American system where it is insurance companies who decide which people get what care based on profit instead of the health of the individual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:14 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 11:20 AM Taq has replied
 Message 287 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2011 8:28 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 239 of 440 (611322)
04-07-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by jar
04-07-2011 11:20 AM


Actually, fifty years ago universal healthcare certainly was a major issue, and in fact it was something that Richard Nixon tried to get enacted.
True enough. LBJ also pushed Medicare through around the same time. Nothing is funnier than a Tea Partier decrying the evils of socialism while holding a sign that tells the government to keep their hands off Medicare. Kills me every time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 11:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 11:44 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 256 of 440 (611349)
04-07-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by jar
04-07-2011 11:44 AM


Re: Today's Republican Party is simply ignorant
Today's Republican Party is quite simply, ignorant; ignorant of reality, of history, of the meaning of words and their historic usage, of the very basis even of the Republican Party.
Is the con man ignorant, or is the ignorance found in those who are conned?
What the Republican party has done is package their message to distract people from the fact that their policies harm the middle class. Instead of allowing people to ponder the idea that socialism might actually help the middle class they throw out the red herrings of atheistic communisms, tax paid abortions, and welfare queens. It works not because Republican politicians are ignorant, but because their constituents are ignorant (or easily conned, take your pick).
A perusal of this thread will demonstrate this. When asked how the Republican party is helping the middle class the answer is that the GOP is fighting socialism. They never even stop to consider the fact that a certain amount of socialism is very beneficial to the middle class. The GOP has been allowed to demonize socialism so that people never stop to think if socialism would actually help them or not.
Both Democrats and Republicans want a limited government. The difference is the limitations they want to put in.
As a long time Republican I find that sad and pitiful; the Grand Old Party has been reduced to a mob with but one battle cry... "What's in it for me?"
Shouldn't we be asking that question with respect to public policy? You may be referring to a very narrow and myopic view in which case it is a fair criticism. However, I do believe that we would be better off if people did ask this question more often and if they demanded an answer that went beyond talking points and buzzwords.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 11:44 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 4:25 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 257 of 440 (611350)
04-07-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by crashfrog
04-07-2011 1:25 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
My claim throughout is that children, being human beings, have a right to not be brainwashed into dangerous and loathsome ideologies just because that's what their parents decided to do.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't see how this could be implemented. Who decides which ideologies are allowed and not allowed? Do we start a Thought Police force? That doesn't sound double plus good.
Whether right or wrong, US law has sided on punishing actions instead of beliefs. While this may not be ideal, it may be the most practical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2011 1:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2011 4:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 261 of 440 (611355)
04-07-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by jar
04-07-2011 4:25 PM


Re: Today's Republican Party is simply ignorant
No, being a citizen requires that we go beyond just what is good for "me", for the personal individual, and look towards what will be good for society. We are our brothers keepers.
So we should be asking "What is in it for us?".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 4:25 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 4:56 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024