Compaines laying off due to Obama?


  1. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Well our mildly better diet helps up the life expectancy, but as I said, drinking and smoking are way higher here


    I have heard of it, but thats not really relevant. You could provide healthcare for all without increasing the deficit (although less spending would result in less tax revenues and thus a higher deficit, and 6-8 of the US economy would disappear)
    Well its healthcare.. health is a right. Its not my fault I am predisposed to cancer or Alzheimers or high cholesterol, or that kids are born with illnesses.

    Why should it not? The government is there for the betterment and protection of the people. If this was not the case we would all be impoverished and likely dead.



    Anywaaaaay, heres an interesting article with some fun facts and figures. Interesting to see some of the problems European countries have (Although they obviously pale in comparison when compared to the US):

    Six out of every seven doctors agree: Our health-care system doesn’t work
  2. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    1. Healthcare is NOT a right. You don't have the right to FORCE someone to provide you a service.

    2. Government is not there for the betterment of people. It's there to protect the people's rights. That's it.
  3. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    It's a different mindset than say Cuba, where health care is a right, a national imperative and something that every Cuban naturally expects. Here in the U.S., health care is a privilege based on what type of money you have.
  4. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    It's not a privilige any more than owning a car is a privelige. Someone has to pay for it. Asking those who benefit the least to bear the burden and those who benefit the most pay nothing is crap. If the feds want to implement their own insurance program and they can operate it to either break even or make money, then I have no objection to it. Let people choose between that plan and the other plans that are out there.

    Requiring that everyone purchase health insurance is crap. Requiring that employers bear the burden is crap as well.
  5. kevincott

    kevincott Well-Known Member Contributor


    You a terribly misinformed. Vets only get VA health care on a sliding scale, I think you have to have a household income of less than $15k to get free health care. Around $20k you have a prescription co-pay.

    Most Vets buy health insurance based on never checking the VA and having too high an income anyway.
  6. kevincott

    kevincott Well-Known Member Contributor


    I generally agree, I am against most forms of socialism. I think we need flat tax brackets with VERY minimal deductions.

    Forcing everyone into programs only raises inflation and/or will end up hurting the common workers. The guys at the top won't give back money, but they will force lower employees into cuts.
  7. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    In a way you're right. This is similar to our public school system. It is a complete disaster now days, anyway. Alot of the kids coming from elementry schools can barely read/write. I think the USA is way below other western nations school kids level.

    I know alot of single and couples without kids do not like paying taxes to their local school taxing district. Why should they have to pay if they don't have kids going to them? Why should tax payers who are against foreign wars have to have their tax money used for that purpose? The list can go even further.

    Just some thoughts!
  8. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    My understanding was that any vet could go to a VA hospital and be treated free of charge. Is that statement incorrect?
  9. Apoplectic1

    Apoplectic1 Well-Known Member

    This. Health is a personal responsibility, not a right.

    The whole point of government is to govern, nothing more or less. The betterment of the people is up to the people themselves.
  10. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Ah go away with your Cuba. Health is a right in pretty much every developed country. Its part of UN agreements etc (which the US opted out of). Health being a right is why we ban carcinogenics and provide healthcare. Sure people are free to make themselves unhealthy, but they are likewise free to make themselves unfree or make themselves uneducated if they are so strongly inclined. Does not stop education or freedom being essential rights.


    I think the US educational system is very unequal. Realistically education should be funded by state taxation, local government should have nothing to do with education.

    a) Health is a right in most places. Obviously rights depend on laws etc. Anyway Catholic and Protestant churches and all sorts of organisations are with me on that front.

    b) The betterment of the people is an essential part of governance. To achieve progress. To increase economic output. To increase scientific and research advancements. If betterment of the people was not a part of governing we would still be in the 1800s.
  11. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    A) big difference between a private organization providing healthcare and the government providing it.

    B) as previously stated, it's up to you to better yourself. Not the government's job.
  12. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Not really. Again, in Bavaria or Switzerland it will be private hospitals providing
    your healthcare, in England & Wales public hospitals, but the difference is far from big.

    I was more on about the betterment of society. For example, a space program, medical research, healthcare and education, environmental research and legislation, etc. The government does not necessarily have to provide or do these things directly, but it certainly has to push them and ensure them.
  13. Apoplectic1

    Apoplectic1 Well-Known Member

    Promote them sure, but provide them? That's where the federal government would be overstepping their bounds.

    If the states wanted to do it (like Tenessee and Massachusettss do already) they can do so by the right given to them in the tenth amendment of the US Constitution. The federal government has no such rights.
  14. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Well in my opinion, the federal government should not be involved with healthcare. Its actually an unusual situation, especially when one considers the sovereignty the states of the US have when compared to other federations.

    However, states have by and large failed to ensure adequate healthcare for their citizens. Given that Obamacare is a very loose system, states can still implement their own systems. Really should be a way for them to opt out of medicaid and medicare if they do so however.
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Still a huge difference. A private healthcare system can't force me to give money to it. That is where the difference is. It relies purely on the donations of like minded individuals. If you believe that healthcare for those who either cannot or do not purchase insurance is extremely important and you are willing to donate your money/time to that cause I have no problems with that at all. If you want to give everything you earn to that cause, knock yourself out. It's your money and no one's coercing you to give it. That is where the difference is. Also, you have the choice to support just the organizations who provide the care the way you think it should be provided according to the criteria you like. Huge difference.

    Well, our government disagrees with you on the space program as they have severely cut NASA's funding (and some of it NASA brought on itself due to it's own incompetence and lack of foresight) and shifted a lot of the research on space into the responsibility of the private sector. Medical research is funded by drug companies looking to make a buck. Our public education system is even more of a joke than our healthcare system. So much for the feds running that. And, as stated before, there is a difference between promoting something and taking steps to make sure it happens. That is where the government oversteps its bounds.
  16. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Well... the government can mandate this, as happens in the examples I gave.
    You cant fund healthcare on charity. That would require something like 20% of GDP going to charity. Which is madness.

    No, the government still promotes a space program, and ensures it, thats the thing! Thats exactly why I gave that example. Medical research is indeed often do by medical companies, and by universities working with them. The government has a role to play in promoting this, with grants, infrastructure and education. I obviously dont want the federal government owning schools and paying teachers, be serious A.Nonomyous, stop acting like I am some sort of fool, and stop distorting what I say and manipulating it.
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I'm not manipulating anything. The government does own schools and pays teachers. That's the current system. It's severely broken.
  18. kevincott

    kevincott Well-Known Member Contributor

    Any Vet can walk into a VA hospital and get treated but may get a bill down the road; I do not know the specifics.

    You have to get pre-approved for ongoing or recurring VA care and it is based on household income; I applied for VA care for a back injury and know for sure about the sliding scale.
  19. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Fair enough. I stand corrected then. Since my experience with the VA system is 3rd hand and your is 1st hand would you say the VA system is better or worse than what you can get from a public hospital?
  20. kevincott

    kevincott Well-Known Member Contributor

    Can't say, the VA thing is recent and I have only had 1 visit.

    Before this I haven't seen a doctor in about 20 years, nothing to really compare.
  21. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member

    according to the VA guidelines the threshold varies depending on where you live...... but on average to qualify for 100% free care the income threshold is around $40K for a single person up to $70K for a family of 4 ($70K/$100K in a city like St Louis for example)

    pretty reasonable thresholds IMO...... anyone making above those levels can surely afford private insurance which is always a better alternative than VA benefits

    of course above those thresholds you most likely still qualify for benefits.... you will simply have a co-pay which is comparable to the co-pays of most private insurance policies
  22. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    The average household income in the US is around $45k so if you are a vet making the average household income you're very close to qualifying.
  23. Apoplectic1

    Apoplectic1 Well-Known Member

    Its not their place to ensure it. If they feel the need to, and their citizens agree and pass an amendment ratifying it, then by all means. But if a state doesn't want government healthcare, and it's residents do not either, they shouldn't be forced to have it.
  24. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    Why am I forced to pay into the local school district? I do not have any kids! Can someone give me an answer?
  25. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member

    I can give you an answer....... because some whiney liberal made it that way

    before everyone was made to pay into school funding only the wealthy could afford education....... if you want to go back to that system then by all means write your congressperson and let them know

    Im sure you would have the backing of many

    hell Id even throw my support behind you....... mine are the products of private schooling.... I should have to pay for people who are most likely going to end up in prison anyhow to go to school?
Loading...

Share This Page