Originally posted by jasonjnelson
Okay, so he estimates that his health "insurance" plan, will cost between 50-65 billion usd a year. But his staff and others who answered questions
later said that it could easily reach 75 billion a year.
I have seen even higher estimates than that to cover all 47 million of the uninsured. What I can't find out is if any of these 47 million include
those that can afford to buy it, or if that is the number that cannot afford it. With limited time, I can't go through to really dig into the cost
and the actual number needing to be covered by the government. What ever it is it will be expensive according to Obama's plan.
Where to get that money? By eliminating tax cuts, or taxing if you will, the wealthy. BTW, they are still short billions even after "fixing" the
Bush tax cuts But here's the thing with these programs the gov't starts. First, it ALWAYS expands, because they NEVER complete their mission, always
saying that it's not the execution, we just need MORE money.
I don't have a problem paying for it by rolling back those tax cuts, but lets leave that debate for another day. The wealthy were paying less taxes
than they have in the past even before these cuts. The remaining would come from the same place everything else does. Our tax dollars. This would
preclude a fiscally sound budget without waste, but when the Government takes in 2.5 trillion dollars a year, I don't why we couldn't be able to pay
for it without raising taxes.
In reality, if Obama were elected and proposed this plan, by the time they got it through (if it actually would make it through) the legislative
process, the plan will probably not resemble his proposal. He would be president, but he would not be a dictator. It has to be approved by a few more
people before it would happen. I just believe that if it were possible to have everyone covered with health care insurance, that the cost of health
care would become more affordable for everyone, including you.
BTW, I found this
New York Times webpage that compares all three
candidates health care plans. Now Hillary's and Barack's plan are similar, but have you looked at McCain's. He want to do the same thing except
instead of paying for it with taxes, he would give a tax credit for those that purchased insurance. What difference does it make, whether the
government pays for it, or it reduces it's income? The end result is the same. I guess that makes McCain a socialist too.
Sen. Obama has also supported numerous bills that will be "comprehensive" in their approaches to immigration reform. Meaning that he wants to add
12 million to the amount that he wants to cover. This is not included in his estimates, and would almost double the costs associated.
I have not heard that and would appreciate a reliable source for that. If that were true, then he would be wrong to include illegals in this program.
Again, just because he wants to do it, won't mean he will get to do it.
Since socialism is CLEARLY defined as the use of illegal taxes for the above, then that is what this is. And that makes him a socialist. I don't care
how you think of socialism, because "A rose of a different color...".
This all requires that you and I have read the same information. That we feel the same about our U.S. tax codes. And that we both agree that it is not
within the power of the federal gov't to do any of this.
If you are referring to “taxation without representation", or something to that effect, I will say that am aware of what you mean, but would have
to respectfully disagree. If the government could not generate an income by taxing us, it would not exist. That is another debate to leave for another
day.
But let's get back to your definition of socialism. I believe your issue with this is what many call the re-distribution of wealth. That is part of
the definition, but not all of it. Here is a full definition from Wikipedia.
Socialism is a socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publicly and
cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. Since the ownership and distribution of
wealth is controlled by the whole community as a collective, and not individually or by groups of individuals that do not comprise a whole community,
socialism has been identified with communism. In a practical ideology, members of the community would contribute as much as reasonably possible, yet
they would be capable of consuming as much as reasonably necessary.
Socialism
By this definition, the government would own the hospitals and employ the health care providers, which is not part of Obama’s plan or any of the
other candidates. In other countries that have socialized medicine, given that each country varies and is unique, but for some this is how it is
run.
So if you believe that fulfilling only part of the definition is enough to make the claim that it is socialized medicine, you would only be half right
or half wrong.
My whole point earlier was that when referring to socialized medicine MOST other people would think you are referring to the same thing that other
countries have, and Obama’s plan is anything but that. I believe that this was intentional misleading and is a tactic used all the time. You can
argue semantics all you want, but unless you are clear or that you tell the whole truth, then IMHO you are being dishonest.
As for your other recurring point. At what point did the Gov't stop supporting medical research? If we were still actively doing research, then
there would be advances that were available immediately as generics.
I made no reference to medical research. You must be thinking of someone else.
Second, have you still not scrolled back to see where I advocated the reinstatement of P.E. in schools? Or the necessity of proper eating and
exercise? Or the need to eliminate unnecessary visits to the doctor? Or the whole insurance system?
Yes I saw that. Is this your plan to reduce health care costs?
One of the causes of the rising cost of health care is uninsured patients. They can’t afford the insurance, and can’t pay for the services. How is
this plan going to fix that? The fact is health care is expensive and is too much of a burden to pay without insurance. How can you do without it?
What the heck man? did you read any of it, or just the parts you wanted to respond to? You see this as some clear cut argument, when all it really
takes is to look at our governments history of F-ing things up on a large scale to know that this will be more wasteful than anything. It is
socialism, just with a different paint job. Just like Obama IS THE MOST LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (and democrats ARE socialists). oh, but without the history
of doing anything.
Yes, I read it, but it is not realistic. If we can’t trust the government to do this then we have to leave it up to the free market to do it. Oh
wait, that’s what we’ve been doing. And we have millions of people who don’t pay for services they receive so the hospitals stick the bill with
those of us that do pay.
But back to my original point,. It is not my job to support ANYONE who I cannot control or moderate their bad behaviors.
And seeing as I would rather DIE than have someone watch over me like that, I will never force it on someone.
Let’s see if you feel the same way when you’re older and have to rely on help others.
Does this answer your question? Can you finally answer mine?
I will say it was an attempt to answer it, but I don’t agree with it, just as you won’t agree with mine.
What question are you referring to now that I was supposed to answer? Was it this question?
And you still, STILL, have not answered my query as to my responsibility for those that lead unhealthy lifestyles.
If so, I did answer it in the
following post.
I guess I’m not the only one having trouble reading.
