Thread: What are we coming to or I don't believe it!

Originally Posted by gugi

If you don't want to be paying you should be demanding the correct change to the system - one where nobody is forced to provide health care until they are paid upfront.

That change is underway. It's been characterized here as a "deadly game of chicken".

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

That change is underway. It's been characterized here as a "deadly game of chicken".

Not at all, nobody has been advocating that. The vast majority of people do want to have a 'civilized society', it's just that a lot of them are confused about the costs, who pays what and who gets what.

Originally Posted by gugi

How about the people who elect them then? It's the exact same answer - the people responsible for the current state are the parents and grandparents of those 20-somethings.



The real question is why haven't you been outraged over this until now. Because whether you have realized it or not, you've been paying for this for all your life, unless you've been a moocher and had somebody else pay for you. If you don't want to be paying you should be demanding the correct change to the system - one where nobody is forced to provide health care until they are paid upfront.

Oh, I certainly agree that generations previous have played a part in who is in office right now, as well as young people who are too ignorant of the state of things in America. They're usually more concerned with who's popular than who makes logical sense. What I was referring to concerning politicians is that they intentionally mislead the people into thinking what they're doing is for the people's benefit, just to stay in power. The people, I'm sure, don't elect someone with the intent to destroy our liberties and freedoms.

As for me not being outraged until now, that statement couldn't be further from the truth. Concerning the ACA, I've been outraged since the plan was first revealed to the American people. Also, I'm all for a cash and carry healthcare system, since it allows doctors to set the pricing and payment terms... in other words, free market healthcare with no government oversight.

As for taxation in general, no, you certainly can't eliminate it altogether, but the size of your tax is directly proportionate to the size of your government and services offered by the government. The solution is simple- decrease the government, decrease the tax. We have enough moochers here, though, that apparently I seem to be in the minority... either the minority of what the US people actually want or the minority of those who actually understand what's going on and what our politicians are trying to do.

I don't know if you were referring to me specifically or people in general, but if it was me specifically, I think you may be mistaken about what type of person I really am. I don't mean for this statement to come across as mean or indignant toward you, gugi... you may just be honestly mistaken about my character. I'm just saying that I'm no mooch, nor am I ignorant, nor am I anyone else's responsibility.

Originally Posted by gugi

Not at all, nobody has been advocating that. The vast majority of people do want to have a 'civilized society', it's just that a lot of them are confused about the costs, who pays what and who gets what.

Wait, what are you referring to in this statement... society at large or the ACA?

What I am saying is that you paying for people who do not have insurance has been going on since before you were born, and has nothing to do with ACA.

Okay, now I understand.

You're right, we have been. I disagree that we should, but we have been.

Originally Posted by crouton976

Okay, now I understand.

You're right, we have been. I disagree that we should, but we have been.

But to say that the issue is about who pays and who doesn't is a sideshow meant to distract everyone from discussing the real problems with the plan. This is not about insuring people or delivering health care. This is about dismantling the current system and to hell with the consequences. Rep Barney Frank came out and stated quite clearly that the act was the fist step toward full blown gov't health care. The current system is DESIGNED to run private insurance out of the market place. Don't think that Obama and his clan on Capital Hill are not aware of the fact that business in this country will cut hours to avoid putting people on their health plans? You'd be crazy to think they were that stupid. But then why did they do this? Well, quite simply to drive those workers out of private insurance INTO the gov't plan. Why demand that private insurance companies pay out 90% of their revenue in claims? To make insurance unprofitable. Think about that - 10% for overhead, expenses, and profit. That isn't much. And what was the health care industries response to that 90% regulation? They laid off thousands. Why are all of these subsidies in place in the event that you can't pay for insurance? Because when the costs rise well beyond the average person's ability to pay for insurance, the gov't will be there with their subsidies ready to to put you on the plan. Once they have the majority of the people on the plan and the insurance agencies behind the exchanges can't supply quality care, the costs to the taxpayer go through the roof, and the system is in crisis, another round of legislation will be passed to address all of these issues. And when that happens, it'll be gov't run health care - 100%. Its classic Cloward-Piven strategy designed to bring change through crisis. It fits in with Obama's past an the ideology he learned and later taught as a community organizer. The argument and anxiety over who gets what for free and who pays is there to keep people fighting among themselves while the whole mess plays itself out. IF we were to not resolve our budget disputes and were to fail to pay our debts, it would only play into this strategy further.

yes, lets take the Govt back to the hmm, is 1840s OK with you guys. Ah, The good old days when anything goes and you either made it on your own or you were dead, no excuses period. No Govt to interfere.

It's always sad when ideology trumps rationale.

Gugi, Spendur, I'm unsure if your two previous comments are directed at me. If not, then disregard this post.

If they are, I would only say that the idea of a person being able to decide for themselves what say they have about living their life as they see fit is nothing new, nor is it irrational. It's what this country's founders believed in, and what centuries of civilization have always believed in.

From religion to nature, it is a principle which is evident over and over.

The use of force, unless in self defense, is wrong. Under penalty of law, one I do not and never will agree with, I'm forced year after year to pay into a system that I shall never see give me a return on my investment. I pay into this system through income tax, property tax, sales tax, ad valorem tax, etc.

Mostly, I have little control, under the current set of laws I'm coerced into following, of how much tax I'll pay.

Do I think that we should be completely on our own, as you have pointed out, Nelson? Not completely, no, but mostly, at least at a Federal level.

Our Constituion was designed in such a way to allow for a minimal Federal Government and let the States take up the demand for further governance.

We could not be further from this original design.

I might as well be robbed at gunpoint. Between my wife and myself, we bring in approximately $75k per year, before taxes. In effect, that means we really have closer to $50k to spend.

Are we in as bad of shape as some? No, we're not. But, we're not well off either.

Given the choices in front of me, I'd rather be in the 1840's. I've proven time and again that I can rely on myself a lot more than I can on my government.

That's not ideology. That's proven history.