DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Universal Health Care: Yay or Nay?

Who gives a flying rats ass if they like us <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> This country needs to take care of it's own, pay off our debt, THEN we will be in the positon to help out other countries. <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

and it's time for people to stand up and say to hell with what it is, and start using some common sense. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Again....sometimes you spin a web and that is the way it is....I know it is easy to say just stop foregin aide, but that just wouldn't work.

You stop that and many of the things that make us what we are stop as well.....it just isn't that simple. I wish it was....but it isn't.....and I know you aren't a dummy....you know that.

That isn't to say we couldn't cut and spend more at home.....I won't argue that.

Things like no health care for many americans, students that can't pay their student loans, and the national debt.... <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Well lets stop those things ASAP so this country can get back on its feet, instead of going down the sewer <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

Like I said in the beginning....nobody is denied health care.....student loans???

It is called a loan isn't it??

Maybe we should just forgive car loans....everybody deserves and needs a car....no??


Might as well give everybody a house while we are at it...

Might as well give a young kid with a 4.24 grade point average a chance to succeed, instead of giving a kid with a 2.0 GPA a chance just because the kid with a 2.0 has poor parents <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

I don't think this applies to Peen GM. I mean I believe Peen understands the system is broken and needs repair.

But I do find it odd that people never complain about foreign aid,but do complain about helping fellow citizens.I have no problem with foreign aid,but much like you,I say let's take care of our own first.

In reality,if we can't "afford" to help our own people,why are we helping other nations? It's like giving away your Thanksgiving dinner to people across town while your own family goes hungry. I simply don't understand that concept.

But I agree with you GM,unless the GOP starts getting a grip on this sad situation instead of putting out the propeganda machine that "it can't be done" while nations like Canada ARE DOING IT,it makes them even less crdeable and more out of touch with every day Americans. It will only further polarize them as a party IMO

You can see the very lack of compassion for their fellow Americans in this very thread and that way of thinking is costing them big time. The difference between the haves and the have nots is growing annualy and this nations citizens are saying enough is enough. They need to find a moderate ground on such issues that face the majority of our nation or expect bitter defeats in the future.

Some in their party can see that. Those who do not,may cost their party a lot over the long haul.

JMHO

It's not just the Repubs who have caused this problem, it's every damn politician who looks out for him/herself instead of working for the american public. I realize it's not Peen who I am lashing out at, but it's every damn american who puts up with this crap <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I agree to a gret extent. But they seem intent on the status quo'

That's where the buck has to stop.

The buck has to stop with the voting public who needs to remove their heads from their backsides <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

"Coming from someone who has a salary derived from local taxes I find this amusing. I think HS football is worthless. Why should I have to pay taxes to cover your salary and program? It doesnt benefit me. ITs a game. If people want their children to play they should pay for it out of pocket. Why are my taxes paying for your football program? I want your position and program cancelled immediately, why do your kids think they are entitled to free football? Damn people looking for handouts Now tell me some more about people paying for other people. "

LOL, more ignorance from the Ragedawg. First, as I said above, I own my own business. Second, let's look at the "salary". You, and no one in my school district pays for my "salary". You see, football is self funded and pays for itself. Not ONE red cent of the school district's money is spent. In fact, revenue from football and basketball funds the ENTIRE SPORTS PROGRAMS at the school. That means that football runs at a PROFIT for the school. Don't let facts get in the way of your nonsense. Add to that the FACT that my great "salary" is $1,800 for the season AND that I donate it RIGHT BACK into the athletic boosters club and actually coach for FREE and you look more and more ridiculous with your ignorant babblings. Now, tell me how me not taking one red cent of taxpayers money to coach football compares to you demanding that others pay for your healthcare.because you are entitled to it. <img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif" alt="" />:

Theres the old Coach with the namecalling, I knew it couldnt be too long. I could care less what business you own. All I know you as is a HS football coach and an angry bitter poster. And if your program actually makes money. Well good for you. Not all do. Wich was really my point. The specifics were not as important as the idea itself and pointing out your hyprocrisy. I also never said you made a great salary. Only that you made a salary wich is paid for by the taxpayers, because it would be paid wether your program made money or not. I diidnt demand any one pay for anything. If you could read you would see I said I am unhappy about getting raped on prices. The same as everyone else in this thread who is for it. The link I put up was because it was the most comprehensive and well laid out plan I could find a link to. Im not worried about looking like an idiot by the way. I just read your angry postings and smile. <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

I have to admit, I've been watching this debate with great interest and so I'd figure I'd chip in a few more points.

The notion of cutting off foreign aid to pay for universal health care is ridiculous, especially in teh case of Israel. Israel represents the one US bastion of support in the Middle East and thus holds incredible strategic value.

However I do understand your point. Why help others when we're not fulling taking care of our own? True to an extent, but only an extent. Isolationism can't exist in the world today..economies and countries are too interconnected. Today foreign aid is not just about humanitarianism, its about good business and good foreign relations.

If we want to talk about where you can find money for health care, how about the military? As self-appointed policeman of the world, the US spends an incredible amount of cash on military equipment. Granted, right now the States needs this massive amount of military due to the number of situations it has committed itself to.

The US is not supposed to be the policeman for the world. That is why the UN was created. By strengthening ties with the UN and exerting more POLITICAL influence within the bounds of UN rules, the same military action may exist in many arenas without the US having to commit as much militarily. (Of course, situations like Iraq are exceptions to the rule.)

Back to the issue at hand though.... The US could not just suddenly bring in public health care on a national level. The scope of it is too large. Hell, in Canada its even too big. Although the Canada Health Act is federal legislation, the lions share of funding for health care comes from each individual province.

I think if you saw a Governor who included partially subsidized health plans for state residents, you'd have a decent groundwork made for some public health care. Depending on the success of a smaller endeavour, you can either expand or adapt the system as is necessary.

Although socialism is often considered a dirty word in the US, using some of its ideas about building social safety nets for people work perfectly well within a democratic, capitalist society.

Liberty has always meant unencumbered freedom to me. I think it is the responsibility of a government to have programs in place that allow its citizens to live freely without being unduly restricted from BASIC services such as health care for fear of exorbenant payments.

I mean, going under that logic, why don;t you pay individually for police service? Many people don;t need the services of cops for the majority of their lives?

Just my two cents...

And Canada, you pretty much made my point.
I really wasn't promoting the idea of stopping our foreign aid. It was far more the idea of having the ability to feed,fund and play police for the world,seems no problem for our citizens to accept. Yet health care for our own citizens sounds criminal to hear some of the posts here. And I find that very sad.

And I also agree that by abandoning diplomacy and working with the U.N.,we are playing judge,jury and executioner to the world. If anything will lead to isolationism,that will.

I think it's not that America can't afford health care,it's that our prioritiues are so out of whack,some would rather play global cops than help their own people.For some reason,some of our citizens and leaders feel we're somehow entitled to tell the rest of the world how to run things and what to do,they'd rather let their neighbors be damned in order to do that.

<img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

And 50 years ago the average auto was well under $2000 and a tank of gas was only $4.00....I fail to see the significance.

If you fail to see the difference,try looking at the problem.

Look at inflation rates across the board then compare them to the rate of medical insurance,medical procedures,drug costs,office visits and anything in the medical field's inflation rate over that same time period.

Then you'll see the problem. Or,maybe you still won't. I guess it depends on what you consider a problem.

As an ex GOP member and now a Libertarian I'd like to comment on your post below.

"...But I agree with you GM,unless the GOP starts getting a grip on this sad situation instead of putting out the propeganda machine that "it can't be done" while nations like Canada ARE DOING IT,it makes them even less crdeable and more out of touch with every day Americans. It will only further polarize them as a party IMO

You can see the very lack of compassion for their fellow Americans in this very thread and that way of thinking is costing them big time. The difference between the haves and the have nots is growing annualy and this nations citizens are saying enough is enough. They need to find a moderate ground
on such issues that face the majority of our nation or expect bitter defeats in the future."

The main difference between traditionalists and progressives in our nation is exemplified in your remarks. The opinion that you state is the dominant one in America today. It is not right or wrong necessarily but it is the prevailing opinion.
Claiming the GOP lacks compassion for fellow citizens because they do not want Hillary Care is akin to sponsoring an Alcoholics Anonymous group outing to the neighborhood bar for a month long "open bar" drinking session.
Yes, I said that! As an active AA member I am allowed to take shots at myself and other problem drinkers.
Back to the point! Giving the public what they want, whenever they want it, isn't always the best nor responsible thing to do.

Turning another 20% of our economy over to the Federal Gov't control cannot be a good thing-ever,ever,ever.!!!!

It comes down to this...redistribution of wealth in America...the bottom 80% of Americans pay nothing into the system now. The top 20% pays virtually all the taxes...this plays well with those who pay little in net taxes...doesn't it. It will continue to grow the political parties who want to "Punish the Evil Rich" wage earners...doesn't it.

I am not claiming that you or GM or Rage or anyone here wants totally free health care, but that is what many want...! Remember that nothing comes without a price...and this will be the steepest[other than death of course] yet!


Remember that the downfall of a society begins when the people realize that they can vote for a living at the expense of those who have produced the most. Eventually you can confiscate everything from everyone and then it all falls down.

Is this honestly true??? If so, I am amazed...

In looking around to verify this 80/20 fact...found these rather surprising figures..

Average wage earner in Canada tax %= 31.6

Average wage earner in US tax %= 29.1

Drops with kids, US more than Canada

It's pretty much a myth Canada. I'm not in the top %20.
But pay a LOT of my income goes into federal taxes. Then there's state.local and sales taxes. So I know that's a line of crap. My federal tax rate almost mirrors yours from your previous post and I make around 40k.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

See,they try to "isolate" it by only figuring in "federal income taxes" only. If you make a small enough income and have children,with the write offs,you often won't be paying any federal taxes.

But they pay taxes every time they spend a dime,pay property taxes if they own a home,local city taxes,etc.... They still pay a pretty good bit in taxes. But it sounds so much better to suit their arguement by saying "they pay no taxes".

It's little more than a shell game.
<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It's not nice to remind GM of his middle-age years <img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes_devil.gif" alt="" />

Or me....I bought a new Mustang ragtop for $3100 in 1969....loaded

and i bought my 66 mustang for 1895 out the door.

nordawg

What was considered "loaded" in 1969 <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Pit....meet Phil! Phil thanks for the chart which proves that the top 20% pays a full 80% of income taxes.....some myth!

As far as crediting the citizens who pay nothing in net income taxes with the paying of sales tax and property tax...the upper 20" pay at least as much and most likely much more.

It comes out to pandering for votes and once again the "barbarians are knocking on the gates"!!!

The barbarians are knocking down the gates,not on them.

THIS time,you said income taxes. Thanks for clarifying.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Pit you are welcome and I needed to clarify the statement.

I'd still like to hear your take on the major increases in income taxes to make an attempt to pay for this new program.

You're welcome for the chart. Your numbers certainly are correct, although (and I'm sure this is where we'll differ), I don't think it tells the whole story.

First of all, let's not forget that while the highest quintile paid 80% of the taxes, they also had 48.9% of all the country's income. The middle quintile owns 15.3% of the income, and they pay 6% of the taxes.

Also, look at the shift in the numbers. The top 1%, 5%, 10%, and highest quintile are ALL paying less taxes (average income ranging from $1,050,100 at 1% to $259,000 at 10%). I don't like that, I'm sure you do...at least we can agree that it's a product of Bush. Now look at the lowest quintile. These are the ones being accused of looking for handouts or a free ride. Their income is around $18,500. According to the chart, they're not moving. Actually, they were getting a little more cash back under Bush. But here's the funny thing - I'm citing the same source here (The Congressional Budget Office) http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324&sequence=0) - when Bush came into office it was -2.3. It's currently still -2.3. So despite the arguments on both sides, he's maintained the poor, he hasn't screwed or helped them.

But anyway, out of all those groups, look who's taking the hit - the second, middle and forth quintile. The biggest burden is given to the middle quintile, which is defined as the $40,000-$65,000 income range. That's whose burden is rising.

Here's an interesting thing to look at:

Average after tax income of the lowest quintile in 1979: $13,000
2001: $14,100

A.T.I. of the middle quintile in 1979: $37,400
2001:$43,700

Highest quintile, 1979: $86,300
2001: $133,700

A.T.I of the top 1% in 1979: $294,300
2001: $703,100

And, again, federal income tax is only a part of the equation.

Phil I am trying to not be a smartass about this but 80% is still 80% . If the top 20% had 50% of the income it would still be too much in my opinion. When the bottom 50% of filers pays virtually nothing in income tax and the top 40% pays almost 95% we do have income redistribution.
Call it a progressive tax scale...dress it up and put a bow on it...it is still not the way we should do things. If we want to give work bonuses to workers on the bottom fine...do it. Don't use the tax system to teach the underproducers that you will actually come out ahead by not making money.

Listen I do understand the Earned Income Tax Credit plan and putting more money in the hands of the needy is fine with me and should be done. My problem comes when we use the Tax system of the country to provide welfare payments directly to the low end earners from the efforts of the top end earners.

Those on the lowest end should pay virtually nothing...something to be part of the plan...but virtually nothing. The upper 20% can still pay the 80% but not more simply to give a check away.

50 years ago people could afford the car, the gas, and their medical bills. Today people can still afford the car, and the gas, but NOT the medical bills.

<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Does Bill Gates pay more in taxes than 1,000 working class americans..... sure he does, and he makes 10,000 times more than they do <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Now factor what percentage of Gates income is spent on gas taxes, property taxes, taxes of beer, smokes, and all the hidden taxes that americans don't even know they are paying, compared to what percentage of the average Joe's income goes into these and you will still see that the poor and working class are footing a higher percentage of their income into taxes than the rich folk are.

GM, I'm just throwing this out to further the discussion... but I see an awful lot of people living well above their means when it comes to what kind of home they live in and what kind of car they drive... Not saying this is true of all, or most, or your daughter... but I can drive through any lower middle to middle class neighborhood and see new cars, brand new trucks, BMWs in the driveway... and not always just one, sometimes 2 or 3... I can also go into some of the bigger homes and see folks who own a big home but have very little furniture because they are strapped with a mortgage on a home that's a lot bigger than what they need. I can drive through the same neighborhood and see folks with cell phones, kids with cell phones, kids sporting $120 shoes and walking around with their ipods... and I'd bet you a donut that most of these people are swimming in credit card debt.

So when you say that people can't afford the car, the gas, AND the medical bills... it's a bigger question than that.

50 years ago my grandparents had 1 car even when they had 4 drivers, which they paid off in 3 years and kept for 10... they had a 2 bedroom house and my mom and her sister shared a room... they had never been to Jamaica, the Bahamas, Hawaii, or Las Vegas... they went to 2 major league baseball games a year... they had 1 television set and 1 phone... they were middle class and felt lucky to have that. Now you compare that to what is considered "middle class" today and tell me why people don't have any money left over for medical bills and why they aren't even in a position to borrow that money to get through a troubled time.. because they are MAXED out on their borrowing power already to support the lifestyle they think they deserve..... that's why.

I agree with what you say to a point bro <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> I'll use myself for an example... we have four cars for four drivers. (when I was growing up we had three cars for four drivers) While my parents always had two new or damn near new cars, we have two cars that are both 2000's and my daughters is a 1996, plus my demo. We had three TV's in our house when we were growing up, I have seven TV's in the house (one we bought our daughter for christmas, one my son bought for himself, two I won from contests from GMAC, and three I bought myself. We go out to eat way more often than my parents ever did, BUT we never take vacations, while my parents took one or two every year. I don't have one single credit card, they had several.

But for the most part your correct about most people today living about their means <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Well everybodys situation is going to be different, some will be more in one area and less in others...

7 TVs? what the heck is wrong with you man? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

We always had nice stuff growing up to. We took the same vacation every year, a week in Myrtle Beach at hotels that I now look at and wonder how we stayed there... I just tell myself they were much nicer 20 years ago and they probably were... we took bread and had pb&js... we didn't do the whole big restaurant thing every night...

We had 3 tvs, I got a car when I was 16... we were middle class. I'm not saying people shouldn't have nice things or even a lot of nice things.... but when you get hit with a few thousand in medical bills and have no savings, those nice things aren't going to pay the bill... and when your credit is maxed out, then you are out of options...

Hey I don't have one in the front living room, dinning room, any of the three bathrooms, laundry room or the garage...YET <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Depends, do you want a fellow Dawg Talker to be out of a job and homeless? NAY, NAY, NAY

Private Health Insurance must stay. This country was built by entrepreneurs and privately owned companies.

Don't let the government take over healthcare.

Raleigh

but he has 3 in the bathroom <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

Ralphie,
Did you bother to reads what "I was proposing" in the first place? If you did,you would have seen it wasn't a huge giveaway program. It was more of the government playing the middle man to negotiate drug prices and insurance costs and pass that savings on to our citizens.

It included payroll deductions to help offset the cost by those wishing to join in the program. More a minimum standard that would be offered to all working Americans,rather than them having no legitimate option for health care.

The bottom line Ralphie,is that if people have no insurance now and go to the emergency room? Guess what? You end up paying their bill anyway through higher medical costs and premiums on health insurance. So your only arguement is not wheather you'll be paying for it,but how you'll be paying for it.

Seriously,go back and read "my health care proposal". It's not a huge government giveaway as you suggest it to be,but rather a happy medium.

Including; government negotiating drug prices with the drug companys like Canada does. That's why drugs manufactured here,are cheaper there. Buying in bulk through competative bidding.

The same goes for health insurance policys. Set a standard and let the major insurance providers bid on the contract causing competative bidding for health insurance which will lower the cost of these policys.

Using payroll deductions for those who join the program to offset the cost. Surely a mother of four making 8 bucks an hour can't afford tons of money,but a deduction based on income to offset the costs incurred is logical and fair.

Putting caps on medicl law suits and a more stringent guidelines for what will be accepted as a suit to begin with. This keeps doctors and hospitals insurance rates lower to help stem the rising cost of health care.

And to pay for it? Cut our the "pork" in Washington! Stop destroying and rebuilding other countries. Quit playing world police and worry about our own first.

I'm not advocating tax raises,even though it would finally go for something worth wild for a change. But to be so kind to the rest of the world while denying our own citizens decent health care isn't very American at all.

But don't you get it Pit? If you can't afford to spent 10,000 a year on health care, and you don't have 1,000,000 in the bank, then your a good for nothing bum who is sponging off of everybody else. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />