Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
KSMountain
Participant[quote=briansd1]Medicare and Social Security are existing programs. They have nothing to do with providing health care to all Americans.[/quote]
Pelosi et. al. have been calling them pillars analogous to what was just passed. As pillars, they leave a bit to be desired.[quote=briansd1]
Who says a fast-food worker should have the same benefits as a business executive?In America, there should be a minimum standard of health care for all. Minimum doesn’t mean the very best.
The rich executive is free to buy insurance or pay out of pocket for health care service at the Ritz Carlton if he wishes. Nobody is stopping him.
If the executive’s employer is giving him this very best health care as compensation, that compensation should be taxed.[/quote]
Well ok, sounds like we kind of agree on that.
Though I will say, the *tone* of the debate has been more towards homogenizing the benefits. Limiting what people make in salary/benefits. Demonizing folks that have been successful.
Imagine that the rich-haters fully got their way. Imagine a society where everyone made exactly the same income. Why would anyone try hard at work? Why even go to college? How much innovation would there be?
I’ve seen first hand where union folks actually *squashed* hard work, extra work, fast work. I don’t even *know* how they’d feel about creativity but literally based on what I saw, I don’t think they’d encourage it.
I really think you should consider the long term implications of actually getting what you think you want Brian.
ParticipantHere’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:
ParticipantHere’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:
ParticipantHere’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:
ParticipantHere’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:
ParticipantHere’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:
ParticipantI’ll say it again:
When you say “our money”, do you imagine there’s some huge pot of gold labeled “U.S. Government” that you’d like to distribute in a way that would placate your social conscience and make you a cool guy at the parties you attend?
I have bad news for you: THERE IS NO POT OF GOLD.
We are already spending A LOT more than we take in. At the local, state, and federal level.
Ignore that fact at our peril.
It’s irrelevant to talk about Iraq/Afghanistan – those were funded on credit too.
Why couldn’t we have at least been budget neutral (but preferably with a surplus and a prediction of future surpluses) before embarking on this social engineering experiment?
ParticipantI’ll say it again:
When you say “our money”, do you imagine there’s some huge pot of gold labeled “U.S. Government” that you’d like to distribute in a way that would placate your social conscience and make you a cool guy at the parties you attend?
I have bad news for you: THERE IS NO POT OF GOLD.
We are already spending A LOT more than we take in. At the local, state, and federal level.
Ignore that fact at our peril.
It’s irrelevant to talk about Iraq/Afghanistan – those were funded on credit too.
Why couldn’t we have at least been budget neutral (but preferably with a surplus and a prediction of future surpluses) before embarking on this social engineering experiment?
ParticipantI’ll say it again:
When you say “our money”, do you imagine there’s some huge pot of gold labeled “U.S. Government” that you’d like to distribute in a way that would placate your social conscience and make you a cool guy at the parties you attend?
I have bad news for you: THERE IS NO POT OF GOLD.
We are already spending A LOT more than we take in. At the local, state, and federal level.
Ignore that fact at our peril.
It’s irrelevant to talk about Iraq/Afghanistan – those were funded on credit too.
Why couldn’t we have at least been budget neutral (but preferably with a surplus and a prediction of future surpluses) before embarking on this social engineering experiment?
ParticipantI’ll say it again:
When you say “our money”, do you imagine there’s some huge pot of gold labeled “U.S. Government” that you’d like to distribute in a way that would placate your social conscience and make you a cool guy at the parties you attend?
I have bad news for you: THERE IS NO POT OF GOLD.
We are already spending A LOT more than we take in. At the local, state, and federal level.
Ignore that fact at our peril.
It’s irrelevant to talk about Iraq/Afghanistan – those were funded on credit too.
Why couldn’t we have at least been budget neutral (but preferably with a surplus and a prediction of future surpluses) before embarking on this social engineering experiment?
ParticipantI’ll say it again:
When you say “our money”, do you imagine there’s some huge pot of gold labeled “U.S. Government” that you’d like to distribute in a way that would placate your social conscience and make you a cool guy at the parties you attend?
I have bad news for you: THERE IS NO POT OF GOLD.
We are already spending A LOT more than we take in. At the local, state, and federal level.
Ignore that fact at our peril.
It’s irrelevant to talk about Iraq/Afghanistan – those were funded on credit too.
Why couldn’t we have at least been budget neutral (but preferably with a surplus and a prediction of future surpluses) before embarking on this social engineering experiment?
Participant[quote=briansd1]How about thinking of others for a minute? So it’ll cost of little bit more to buy OTC meds. Is that a big enough deal to deny millions of Americans health care coverage?[/quote]
No Brian. It is not about a little bit more for OTC meds. It is about $1T more, per decade, when we’re $12T in the hole. Someone (maybe you) called Medicare and Soc. Security “bedrock” programs. Oh yeah? Bedrock programs that have no recognition of demographics or reality. Neither one of those programs are on fiscally sound footing. I did read some of the raw CBO report, and first of all they have a big disclaimer about any predictions more than a decade out. My prediction is that this will be FAR more expensive than predicted. Murphy has a way of being right.
You said it’s “our” money Brian. Yeah? Are you part of the 5 percent that’s been enlisted to pay for this?
When you say “deny millions of americans healthcare”… shouldn’t the system be set up to reward hard work? Should a Jack-in-the-box fryer refiller with 2 weeks experience *REALLY* get the same healthcare as say someone who worked 30 years, proved themselves as a leader, and now has 1000 people reporting to them? Really? Is that really what you believe? Shouldn’t there be an incentive to get out of Jack-in-the-box before you start a family?
With this, we’re heading down the path of Greece, with hairdressers demanding retirement at age 50 (look it up). We are heading FAR FAR away from the concept of pioneer spirit and yankee ingenuity.
It’s more about: what am I “entitled” to have provided to me by the abstract “government”. Problem is, that abstract “government” is actually your neighbors or phony printed money. There was a time when a lot of folks would have sufficient pride to decline that kind of charity and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Partypup and Arraya don’t scare me, but I have to say *this* kind of mentality does scare me about our future.
Participant[quote=briansd1]How about thinking of others for a minute? So it’ll cost of little bit more to buy OTC meds. Is that a big enough deal to deny millions of Americans health care coverage?[/quote]
No Brian. It is not about a little bit more for OTC meds. It is about $1T more, per decade, when we’re $12T in the hole. Someone (maybe you) called Medicare and Soc. Security “bedrock” programs. Oh yeah? Bedrock programs that have no recognition of demographics or reality. Neither one of those programs are on fiscally sound footing. I did read some of the raw CBO report, and first of all they have a big disclaimer about any predictions more than a decade out. My prediction is that this will be FAR more expensive than predicted. Murphy has a way of being right.
You said it’s “our” money Brian. Yeah? Are you part of the 5 percent that’s been enlisted to pay for this?
When you say “deny millions of americans healthcare”… shouldn’t the system be set up to reward hard work? Should a Jack-in-the-box fryer refiller with 2 weeks experience *REALLY* get the same healthcare as say someone who worked 30 years, proved themselves as a leader, and now has 1000 people reporting to them? Really? Is that really what you believe? Shouldn’t there be an incentive to get out of Jack-in-the-box before you start a family?
With this, we’re heading down the path of Greece, with hairdressers demanding retirement at age 50 (look it up). We are heading FAR FAR away from the concept of pioneer spirit and yankee ingenuity.
It’s more about: what am I “entitled” to have provided to me by the abstract “government”. Problem is, that abstract “government” is actually your neighbors or phony printed money. There was a time when a lot of folks would have sufficient pride to decline that kind of charity and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Partypup and Arraya don’t scare me, but I have to say *this* kind of mentality does scare me about our future.
Participant[quote=briansd1]How about thinking of others for a minute? So it’ll cost of little bit more to buy OTC meds. Is that a big enough deal to deny millions of Americans health care coverage?[/quote]
No Brian. It is not about a little bit more for OTC meds. It is about $1T more, per decade, when we’re $12T in the hole. Someone (maybe you) called Medicare and Soc. Security “bedrock” programs. Oh yeah? Bedrock programs that have no recognition of demographics or reality. Neither one of those programs are on fiscally sound footing. I did read some of the raw CBO report, and first of all they have a big disclaimer about any predictions more than a decade out. My prediction is that this will be FAR more expensive than predicted. Murphy has a way of being right.
You said it’s “our” money Brian. Yeah? Are you part of the 5 percent that’s been enlisted to pay for this?
When you say “deny millions of americans healthcare”… shouldn’t the system be set up to reward hard work? Should a Jack-in-the-box fryer refiller with 2 weeks experience *REALLY* get the same healthcare as say someone who worked 30 years, proved themselves as a leader, and now has 1000 people reporting to them? Really? Is that really what you believe? Shouldn’t there be an incentive to get out of Jack-in-the-box before you start a family?
With this, we’re heading down the path of Greece, with hairdressers demanding retirement at age 50 (look it up). We are heading FAR FAR away from the concept of pioneer spirit and yankee ingenuity.
It’s more about: what am I “entitled” to have provided to me by the abstract “government”. Problem is, that abstract “government” is actually your neighbors or phony printed money. There was a time when a lot of folks would have sufficient pride to decline that kind of charity and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Partypup and Arraya don’t scare me, but I have to say *this* kind of mentality does scare me about our future.
-
AuthorPosts
