A Call to Republicans and Conservatives, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 03:10 PM by jd140

Originally posted by Sundancer
Star and flag for you.

I think both parties are trash meant to keep us divided so that we don't notice how they are really screwing us. I wouldn't and didn't vote for either.

I did notice though that the Dems may have disagreed with Bush and verbally bashed him, they didn't try to start their own country within the country. It is pretty childish.

Wouldn't it be better if they could admit their party sucked and that's why they were voted out and that people really do want change. And why can't the Dems admit they haven't really changed anything - They're still giving the corps the Bush bailouts and putting the screws to the voters.

Both parties suck!!!

You are right they didn't try and have their own Country. They just screamed and hollered that Bush should be impeached.

The ones trying to split off are just saying that those who want Obama can have him, we want someone better.

Which may sound childish as you put it, but you have to admit its a nicer way to essentially say screw you to the president. Plus the Dems have done more then verbally attack Bush, they did physically attack his convoy after a speech.

So what is more childish, fighting or simply leaving?

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 09:17 AM by grover

reply to post by Rockpuck

Working together means you support the country.

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 12:58 PM by Rockpuck

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by Rockpuck

Working together means you support the country.

OK?

Maybe I didn't make my self clear:

I do not, will not, and never will support this Government in it's current form.
I have not, will not, and cannot bend my beliefs to appease the few who desire "unity".. which is conformity.

The Government said "Screw You" to the people. Now the people are saying "Screw You" to the Government. I apologize that as it happens the anger and hate heated up last October just as your man was put in office. The "Work together" BS doesn't work on me.

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 02:16 PM by whatukno

reply to post by Rockpuck

I completely understand your point of view. Dissenting viewpoints is the cornerstone of freedom. Without people to keep us in check there is no freedom just tyranny.

But some people on the right confuse healthy dissent with just saying no and that doesn't work. It didn't work with the war on drugs (cause oddly enough, drugs, being inanimate objects, have no ears, and therefore can't listen to you telling them no.) and it doesn't work with complex social problems such as health care reform.

I can understand the conservative viewpoint where you don't want to pay for Joe Shmo's health care coverage. Why should you? Even though that if Joe Shmo is healthy he can be a productive member of this society and therefore contribute to the gross domestic product, you know, earning a paycheck, and hopefully therefore spending part of that paycheck at your business. Thereby stimulating the economy in a more self sustaining and economically conservative fashion where the government isn't having to bail out Joe Shmo and his piss poor family.

Just saying no does not work. Instead the right needs to come up with a better plan. A plan that will allow every American to afford their own health care coverage and not burden you with the expense.

I also have to reject the notion that our leaders are somehow Nazi fascists. The idea propagated by those at FOX news is appalling especially when the same acts done by liberals were denounced as loony just a few years ago.

The right has some good core values. It's time that they took those core values and stepped up to the plate with them and came up with a plan that the majority of Americans can get behind and agree with. Instead of just being the party of NO and the party that sees themselves as victims of a tyrannical regime hell bent on destroying the country they used to know.

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 02:22 PM by jibeho

So far Republican efforts to offer a counter solution have fallen on deaf ears with the Super majority. The bill has been in committee since it was introduced in May.

Called the Patients' Choice Act, it would eliminate the tax break that employers receive for providing health-insurance benefits to their workers. Instead, it would give an annual tax credit of $2,300 to each individual and $5,700 to each family that they could use to offset the cost of their health insurance. Low-income families would get extra money to buy into private insurance plans.

online.wsj.com...

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 06:09 PM by whatukno

reply to post by jibeho

Or even better, we could use the existing medicare/medicaid system. Everyone pays into medicare/medicaid/Fica/Social Security. All three of these can be combined to reduce the amount of money that is taken out of our checks each pay period, and give each and every American basic coverage without raising taxes.

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 06:13 PM by Rockpuck

reply to post by whatukno

But some people on the right confuse healthy dissent with just saying no and that doesn't work. It didn't work with the war on drugs (cause oddly enough, drugs, being inanimate objects, have no ears, and therefore can't listen to you telling them no.) and it doesn't work with complex social problems such as health care reform.

True true.. I am a healthy dissenter, a equal opportunity hater. But it doesn't matter because if I oppose the Powers That Be (Obama in this case) I must be a radical right wing nut job hell bent on supporting the Republicans in bringing down Obama rable rable rable and so forth.

I can understand the conservative viewpoint where you don't want to pay for Joe Shmo's health care coverage. Why should you? Even though that if Joe Shmo is healthy he can be a productive member of this society and therefore contribute to the gross domestic product, you know, earning a paycheck, and hopefully therefore spending part of that paycheck at your business. Thereby stimulating the economy in a more self sustaining and economically conservative fashion where the government isn't having to bail out Joe Shmo and his piss poor family.

No no no .. you completely misunderstand. If it were to save the lives or treat the illnesses of good, hard working people who fall on hard times I wouldn't mind paying at all. If it were to be a program that offers anything to anyone simply because it's free.. well that's abusive, and a waste of money.. especially when certain people will get the coverage for practically free, while others will have to pay a premium + taxes, all the while non-American illegal immigrants will reap rewards for nothing. As it is, if I want to help those good hard working people, there is a number of organizations I can DONATE to, to which I will get to deduct from my taxes (basically deciding where my taxes go)

The plan is flawed simply because the Government is in control of it. The government is inept and unable to guide ANY social program, least of all our health and well being.

Just saying no does not work. Instead the right needs to come up with a better plan. A plan that will allow every American to afford their own health care coverage and not burden you with the expense.

Except I am not on the right at all ... I believe the States can do a much better job meeting the needs of what the local people want.. different regions will have different answers. Think of it this way, if the Federal government taxes every citizen to pay for a National Plan.... how many States tax revenue will it take to support California? The entire North West, and Plains states will have to be taxed at a level to support their own population plus a level to support the mega population that is California.

If it were a State program that offered this type of Insurance to poor people, I would be all for it and would support paying an extra tax into it. The difference being my taxes will be considerably LOWER, compared to a National Tax.

Proof of this is in the fact that California with a massive budget deficit cannot even operate its current social programs. The vast majority of funds would go to the states with the largest populations, or thus, the states with the largest poverty bases. This is actually the reason we have a bicameral legislature.. the small states did not want to be abused by the big states all the while the big states having all the power. California has the most political say in the entire union, and yet it will take a number of smaller states to support its massive population with these added health care benefits.

I also have to reject the notion that our leaders are somehow Nazi fascists. The idea propagated by those at FOX news is appalling especially when the same acts done by liberals were denounced as loony just a few years ago.

Bush blended the Banks and the State. Obama will blend the Health Care and the Auto's to the State. Please explain to me how the merging of Corporation and State is not a Fascist ideology? Not Nazi, but Fascist.

The right has some good core values. It's time that they took those core values and stepped up to the plate with them and came up with a plan that the majority of Americans can get behind and agree with. Instead of just being the party of NO and the party that sees themselves as victims of a tyrannical regime hell bent on destroying the country they used to know.

I AM NOT A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE.. I DO NOT BELONG TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

I support stem cell research
Gay marriage
Social welfare programs (at a state level)
Separation of Church and State
Abortion
etc, etc, etc....

But yet I am identified as the ultra-right wing fringe ..

I just HATE the Federal Government, and every pig behind a desk that operates it (INCLUDING OBAMA) ..

So again.. all I have to say is NO .. no to every single thing the Government tries to do .. because none of it is good enough.

**sorry for the edits**

[edit on 8/20/2009 by Rockpuck]

[edit on 8/20/2009 by Rockpuck]

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 06:25 PM by Rockpuck

reply to post by whatukno

I would assume under this plan it would merge it with Medicaid (not medicare) .. Medicaid being specifically for poor people with children .. they would get the free, or near free insurance. However the benefits of subsidized insurance would expand to tens of millions of other Americans, the plan is far more comprehensive than Medicaid is. Social Security wouldn't be touched, as that's something completely different. Medicare is a toss up, it's specifically for Seniors and is already comprehensive.. I can't imagine government insurance would be much better. The bill is aimed at the "poor" middle aged and young who currently don't have insurance.

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 06:42 PM by whatukno

reply to post by Rockpuck

Yes the money is already being allocated. However as you pointed out the government has an obvious problem when it comes to managing anything. Each week taxes are taken out for social security, medicare and Fica. This money can be used in conjunction with several private insurance companies, to give every single American basic health insurance without the need for a single payer program.

This way, insurance companies would reap the benefits of being competitive, this would also allow people who wish and can afford to buy more insurance for themselves.

Now you couple this with a program to assist doctors and nurses to offset their student loans by working in high demand low income areas while they are in residency and you have the beginnings of an adequate plan that will help everyone regardless of income. With insurance companies managing the plan instead of the government you have a situation where such a plan can be managed correctly and efficiently.

The problem that I have with state run plans is that states right now are under water fiscally. So much so that many states are misappropriating the stimulus money to stopgap holes in state budgets. Couple this with states that don't have income tax and there is an obvious problem with state run health care.

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 06:47 PM by cranberrydork

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I had NO IDEA that it meant: Your man lost, conform to the winner!

At its core, I don't think the current health care debate and argument can be reduced to an ideology. The economic numbers have no ideology.....health care costs are eating up a staggering amount of this nations revenue. Sick people who can't afford good health care have no ideology.....Cancer is an astrological sign....but cancer isn't Republican or Democrat; it isn't socialist, democratic, or anarchic.....

The rest of the world doesn't give a hoot.....global competition, at its core, has no ideology. Either your keeping up with the rest of the world, or you're not.

Will health care turn into another sad failure of the United States to compete in a global economy?

Pick one industry that you may want to rescue from its lack of global competitiveness.....which one do you think would have the greatest societal impact? Sewing sneakers and t-shirts for Wal-Mart?

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 08:19 PM by Rockpuck

reply to post by whatukno

Yes the money is already being allocated.

No it's not? ... A new tax bracket will be formed (supposedly only to those making 250k or more) .. The proposed financial obligations are to increase 1.4-1.9 trillion dollars... Obviously, taxes will not be enough to actually cover the entire cost, so more debt will have to be sold to fund the hypothetical budget.

The other social programs, as of right now, are not being absorbed into this plan. But even if they were, or are proposed to be, there will be potentially 45 MILLION people added to the program as beneficiaries.

The money is NOT there, it is NOT being allocated yet..

This way, insurance companies would reap the benefits of being competitive, this would also allow people who wish and can afford to buy more insurance for themselves.

The average person paying $500+ a month for private insurance, but isn't poor enough to get the free coverage will.. I repeat WILL opt for the Government subsidized program.. there expenses won't be as expensive. As the marginal middle class move onto the Government funded program, the rates will increase across the market as the insurance pools decrease.

Think of it as the Government waning us off private insurance all together.

The problem that I have with state run plans is that states right now are under water fiscally.

SO IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

You say States are "abusing" the stimulus plans just to plug holes in the budget, but the Federal Government is monetizing it's own debt while holding the largest ever treasury auctions to finance our "habit".

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 08:37 PM by whatukno

reply to post by Rockpuck

But if everyone is paying into the plan not just the wealthy than the costs associated with the plan would be less. In fact with just a little persuasion on the part of the insurance companies people could pay 500 per year for basic health insurance. (I came at this number by taking my pitiful 7k a year net salary as a base.)

So if everyone is paying only $500.00 per year that would mean that the insurance would be funded with $150,000,000,000.00 per year in which to insure every single American.

Not everyone would be sick. So the surplus left over at the end of the year would be rolled over to the new fiscal year and thus people would be ensured perpetually.

And remember this is basic health insurance. Not comprehensive. This would benefit those of us best that don't have insurance but would need some sort of care at some point.

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 08:46 PM by Rockpuck

reply to post by whatukno

In fact with just a little persuasion on the part of the insurance companies people could pay 500 per year for basic health insurance.

A year? The "hypothetical" costs of personal health care in the US is around $7,000 .. the average family insurance plan is $500-600/month .. a MONTH .. not a year.

Not to mention the cost to income ratio still needs to be accounted for.. Insurance companies pay out far more than they have paid in .. Insurance companies are massive investment institutions.. the premiums are heavily invested in the Markets, as well as Real Estate, and Bonds. Obviously the Premiums will be used to off set expenses, unlike a normal Socialist program, however it's still going to cost a LOT of money.. the Governments own projections is 1.4-1.9 trillion in additional expenses.

And remember this is basic health insurance. Not comprehensive. This would benefit those of us best that don't have insurance but would need some sort of care at some point.

No, it's actually comprehensive.. that's the whole point of the program.. it's supposed to be BETTER than Medicaid. It's supposed to be on par with your typical Family Plan.

And you give the Government waaay to much credit for handling money..

reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 07:38 PM by whatukno

reply to post by Rockpuck

A year? The "hypothetical" costs of personal health care in the US is around $7,000 .. the average family insurance plan is $500-600/month .. a MONTH .. not a year.

Not to mention the cost to income ratio still needs to be accounted for.. Insurance companies pay out far more than they have paid in .. Insurance companies are massive investment institutions.. the premiums are heavily invested in the Markets, as well as Real Estate, and Bonds. Obviously the Premiums will be used to off set expenses, unlike a normal Socialist program, however it's still going to cost a LOT of money.. the Governments own projections is 1.4-1.9 trillion in additional expenses.

I'm not actually talking about the government plan but a more fiscally sound and realistic plan to cover everyone. The problem with the $7000.00 a year for coverage is that people like myself that would take up my ENTIRE net income for the year. So the price would have to be dropped massively.

What I am thinking is more along the lines of a diverse investment in insurance companies. Each insurance company gets a small slice of a big pie to insure everyone. Instead of paying into medicare/medicaid and Fica you would under my idea be investing in a group plan. (group plans are often much cheaper than individual family plans) in exchange for this investment everyone in America is covered.

And you give the Government waaay to much credit for handling money..

Your probably right about that.

reply posted on 22-8-2009 @ 03:02 PM by Rockpuck

reply to post by whatukno

Right but there is a difference between what sounds good and what is possible. The 7k a year is not the average ins cost but actual medical costs.. so to cut ins premiums you have to cut medical costs, to do that would be to under fund hospitals and cut the wages of their staff.

Group policies are more expensive than individual.. the purpose of a group plan is to cover uninsurable people.. plans go by pools.. so a group of 4 pays more than a group of 50.. if you are an individual your in a group of a few hundred thousand.. which is another reason a gov plan would eliminate private insurance.. pools would shrink causing prices to rise.

To divide all citizens "among all ins companies" would a more expensive fascist alternative to the current fascist alternative. Because all premiums would be .gov funded through subsidies that's like the .gov. competing with its self.... makes no sense.

Gov funded ins would be horrible.. we hate ins companies.. we hate .gov programs.. we would def hate a hybrid...

And your right, the cost would depleet your income. That's why someone else would pay for you.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^