It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Final Plea- Is this not enough?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
On behalf of those of us who have to make a concerted effort to behave, thank you very much, Seth. Feel free to knock us in the head if we get stupid!




posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seth Bullock


Why would I vote for someone that wants to take more of my money and spend it on things that are not important to me?

Why would I want national health care. I work. I pay for my insurance. I see the doctor that I want when I need to. I like a system that rewards the best and brightest people to join the medical field. And they do it to make money.



You see, the poor get free heath care through medical and medicaid. The upper middle-class and above, can afford it. It is the middle class, who happens to pay the most in taxes in ratio to thier income, that is affected by lack of a national health care system. It is the middle class that can't afford to send thier kids to college, obtain healthcare, all the while trying to make ends meet. It is this aspect of society that is for lack of a better word, "scr***d". A national health care system would prevent, medical bills unpaid (driving the cost up anyway) and access to those who need it and unable to afford it, the middle class.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Narnia, I think you can say "screwed" without punishment. However, do not attempt to circumvent the censor!


As far as your national health care, you can keep it. All it means is that everyone gets the same crappy, socialistic "care", and my taxes go up for it.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Narnia
You see, the poor get free heath care through medical and medicaid. The upper middle-class and above, can afford it. It is the middle class, who happens to pay the most in taxes in ratio to thier income, that is affected by lack of a national health care system. It is the middle class that can't afford to send thier kids to college, obtain healthcare, all the while trying to make ends meet. It is this aspect of society that is for lack of a better word, "scr***d". A national health care system would prevent, medical bills unpaid (driving the cost up anyway) and access to those who need it and unable to afford it, the middle class.


Could we get some kind of definition of middle class here? I'm not sure where you live, but I have not seen an overwelming amount of middle class give so much as a second thought to health care, because we all have it.

So, perhaps you can work 35 hours at Walmart and still be middle class where you are from (at least it sounds that way).



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Could we get some kind of definition of middle class here? I'm not sure where you live, but I have not seen an overwelming amount of middle class give so much as a second thought to health care, because we all have it.

So, perhaps you can work 35 hours at Walmart and still be middle class where you are from (at least it sounds that way).


KJ- the following is a quote from USA Today along with a link, not just for those who work at Wal- Mart. Since you bring up geography, Wal- Mart is not allowed within our city walls, we just recently let Starbucks in- the city conceded to Capitalism there. Although, "Peets Coffee" right next door is always twice as busy because of us anti-big business aware folk.

"The largest group of South Carolina's uninsured, 44%, earned less than $30,000, but 24% earned $30,000 to $40,000, says Viki Fox, project manager for the survey. Their average age was 33.

"The thing that surprised me the most is that data," Fox says. "Being uninsured is becoming more of a middle-class problem. It's not just a problem for people who are poor or not working."


Please read the link KJ:

www.usatoday.com...


"Long term, he says the answer is "a national health policy." In the short run, he's just hoping he doesn't get sick. "


If you need in any more info, I would be more than happy to provide it to you. Googling this topic however, you will find much information.


[Edited on 18-6-2004 by Narnia]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Narnia, I think you can say "screwed" without punishment. However, do not attempt to circumvent the censor!


As far as your national health care, you can keep it. All it means is that everyone gets the same crappy, socialistic "care", and my taxes go up for it.


Mr. Crown, good thing to know I can use that word without needing reprieve.

National Health care, would only mean that those who cannot afford it get access, it isn't fair that illegal persons can obtain it, but the average "Joe" and his family making $30,000 a year and paying the most in taxes cannot. "Same crappy" socialistic care? Well then if affordable, PPO is always an option and highly reccomended by yours truly.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
The fact of the matter, Jethro, is that while Narn and I don't agree on the solution, we both see there is a problem and the problem is only going to get worse.
It might be hard to fathom this, but while I am a conservative, I am very much a proud union member. I'm with the International Assoc. of Machinists, and before, I was a Teamster, and a shop steward at that. I firmly believe we will either hang togather or we will hang separately.

A major issue facing every union involved in negotiations with a company is health insurance. The cost of insurance is going up faster than the cost of cable TV. It is costing the companies, and of course, they want it to cost the employees.

I know better than socialism. There is no good example of it. Taxes will be high, unemployment high, and healthcare pisspoor. But what we face in the future is no walk in the park, either. Sure, there is no right to healthcare, never has been, never will be. So the question is, what are we going to do, how are we going to fight the exploding cost of insurance?



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The fact of the matter, Jethro, is that while Narn and I don't agree on the solution, we both see there is a problem and the problem is only going to get worse.
It might be hard to fathom this, but while I am a conservative, I am very much a proud union member. I'm with the International Assoc. of Machinists, and before, I was a Teamster, and a shop steward at that. I firmly believe we will either hang togather or we will hang separately.

A major issue facing every union involved in negotiations with a company is health insurance. The cost of insurance is going up faster than the cost of cable TV. It is costing the companies, and of course, they want it to cost the employees.

I know better than socialism. There is no good example of it. Taxes will be high, unemployment high, and healthcare pisspoor. But what we face in the future is no walk in the park, either. Sure, there is no right to healthcare, never has been, never will be. So the question is, what are we going to do, how are we going to fight the exploding cost of insurance?



i think thats the crux of it, certain people want everything to be all sunshine lollipops and rainbows and believe that socialist views and ideals are the only way to make things better. the sad truth is life isnt easy and nothing is perfect. there is no cure all as some would like to think, what works for one person may not work for someone else.

nothing is easy in this world, there will always be loser and winners in this world and there is no amount of socialism or redistributing of anything thats going to change that.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
I'd be more than happy to pay more tax if the money was used to help people less fortunate than myself...


What's stopping you from giving more of your money to the less fortunate now? Why do you have to have a new law raising taxes for everyone for you to do it? On top of the 50%+ taxes they pay, the truly rich in this world (people like Bill Gates, for example) give millions of dollars to charitable organizations every year...




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join