Political Question

[jonnythan]

  denver_nuggs_15 said:

Can you prove that 60% stat. I've never heard that before and while I don't doubt it's true, I also have a feeling it's false.

The highest 25% of income-earners pay more than 85% of the income tax in the US.

The top 10% pay more than two thirds of the income tax. The top 1% pay over one third of the income tax all by themselves. That's right. Out of every hundred people in the United States, there is one person paying an astonishing 40% of that hundred's share of the US income tax. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648/ http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/ Approximately one-third of income tax returns filed are non-paying returns.

[CG031]

  st0wgolf08 said:

Sure, it would be nice to have it and find a way to pay for it logically, but come on, if this ever happens, you know who is paying for it..

Well, why do you act like paying taxes is necessairly a bad thing. It's what our country is run on. It's how roads get fixed, it's how a lot of things we take for granted (ex. social security) are funded. There's a lot of good things that happens when we pay taxes - sure no one wants to pay more, but a lot of people really overlook the importance of taxes.

[st0wgolf08]

  CG031 said:

Well, why do you act like paying taxes is necessairly a bad thing. It's what our country is run on. It's how roads get fixed, it's how a lot of things we take for granted (ex. social security) are funded. There's a lot of good things that happens when we pay taxes - sure no one wants to pay more, but a lot of people really overlook the importance of taxes.

Yes, but it will be the "rich" paying for the "poor" so that the "poor" can have health insurance. What are the poor doing for the rich again? If you want health insurance and your poor, work your butt off and move up the ranks and buy health care or get a job with health care.

[CG031]

  st0wgolf08 said:

Yes, but it will be the "rich" paying for the "poor" so that the "poor" can have health insurance. What are the poor doing for the rich again? If you want health insurance and your poor, work your butt off and move up the ranks and buy health care or get a job with health care.

But that's the problem with the system. There are too few jobs that offer good, quality health care (your extremely lucky if you land one) and to get a good health care plan for your family is expensive dude. I know a lot of good family friends who can't afford to cover themselves because they cover their kids, and their jobs don't offer it. They aren't the "poor." They are an average middle-class family.

[jonnythan]

  CG031 said:

I know a lot of good family friends who can't afford to cover themselves because they cover their kids, and their jobs don't offer it. They aren't the "poor." They are an average middle-class family.

How many of them have a car made in the past 5 years?

How many of them have cable TV? How many of them have a flat-screen TV? Etc etc. People who "can't afford" health care often just put it way down on the priority list. It seems to make more sense to me to have them sacrifice some luxuries for health care instead of expecting someone else to pick up the tab.

[Power_fade]

  booman32 said:

Nothing that's socialist has ever worked... It's socialist, nuff said.

First off, did you go to public school?

Secondly, most embryonic stem cell research is done on artificially inseminated zygotes fertilized in an artificially recreated habitat. (Test-tube babies.) Theses "babies" could not live after the third trimester anyway, meaning they would be wasted otherwise. Yes, it's a question of morality, but just remember that the embryo was created by another human being and has no volitional thoughts whatsoever. Saying that is wrong to me falls into the same category as someone labeling the consumption of a steak as animal abuse.

[CG031]

  jonnythan said:

How many of them have a car made in the past 5 years?

Well that's where we fundamentally disagree - you obviously feel health care is a luxury, I believe it should be a right guaranteed to all-americans. Young, poor, rich and old.

Middle-Class families shouldn't have to sacrifice luxeries so they can make sure they won't go bankrupt if they get a serious illness. I guess we just fundamentally disagree.

[zeg]

  st0wgolf08 said:

See how well it worked out? Gm(besides the recent past) has been doing great, provided tons of jobs and set a standard for working conditions. Too bad our country decides they'd rather let someone get paid 3 dollars an hour and have a much worse life then the guy who gets paid 20 or 30 and lives in America. My money and my family's money goes to American car companies, which goes to America.

Great. When I bought my car 9 years ago, I tried very hard to find a decent American car. There was nothing even remotely in the price range that had the build quality, feature set, and over all design to compete. It also beat them in gas mileage... IMO that is the reason for the decline. The cars they were producing simply weren't competitive with the world market. Note also that my car was built in Germany, so this wasn't competition with $3/hour labor. No, GM and other US car makers simply failed to keep up with the obvious needs of the market, and this lack of foresight and creativity has materially harmed the interests of our nation by prolonging and increasing our dependence on foreign energy sources.

  CG031 said:

Nationalizing health care isn't a bad idea at all, as a matter of fact it makes perfect sense considering how many people go bankrupt each year beacuse they can't pay their medical bills...but we still have the best health care system in the world, right? wrong.

Yes! Well, at least we pay less per capita for this health care since we're not socialist.. Oh wait, we are relatively expensive compared to countries that provide better health care.

  Chilli Dipper said:

Personally, I think the best solution would be for the health care system to run by private providers operating on a not-for-profit basis, provided they cannot refuse coverage to or arbitrarily increase premiums on anyone based on their medical history. With the present corporate culture in America, though, I'm not holding my breath on that happening.

Would be interesting, but I think it's difficult. The not-for-profit thing is the critically important part. Health insurance is fundamentally incompatible with a free market for-profit solution. The insurance provider's interest becomes making profit, which is obviously best achieved by insuring only healthy people and dumping them as soon as possible after they make claims. There is no incentive to provide good care to an expensive group, and few healthy consumers have the vision to pay more now for insurance that they don't need now, even though it will assist them later.

  st0wgolf08 said:

Yes, but it will be the "rich" paying for the "poor" so that the "poor" can have health insurance. What are the poor doing for the rich again? If you want health insurance and your poor, work your butt off and move up the ranks and buy health care or get a job with health care.

What are the poor doing for the rich? How about providing labor. How about providing a market for the goods produced in their factories. How about the fact that the rich accumulate their wealth within a society that is made up of rich, poor, and middle class, and you can't pretend that the poor somehow don't have an effect just because you don't see the direct cash flow channel.

I have enough quotes, so rather than quote, I'll just agree with the guy who said that health care is not an optional privilege, it is a simple human right that we as Americans need to provide for each other. There are many reasons why we should do this, why you should do this. First off, there is simple sympathy and compassion for your fellow man. Then, there is the economic argument that if you don't pay a little for their preventive care now, you're going to wind up paying a lot more for their emergency care when they show up uninsured in the ER and run up a $10,000 bill treating an advanced infection that could have been prevented with $2 of antibiotics that could have been dispensed by a $30/hour nurse in 5 minutes at a clinic. Finally, there is the self-interested argument that if you help create a society where everyone's health care needs are met, if you ever find yourself in need of some assistance, you won't be on your own. And, someone else also said this, it bears repeating. It's not just the very poor who need better health insurance than our country currently provides. Many insured, employed, middle class people are just a major accident or illness away from financial ruin. Check the lifetime or per-illness caps on your insurance, many of them are not as high as you'd think. And remember, it's not hard to run up half a million dollars in treatment over the course of a few years with a severe chronic illness. And if that illness prevents you from continuing with your employer who's providing your group health insurance, well, good luck buying private insurance now that they know you're going to be an expensive customer.

[ramrockgolfer35]

  Leftygolfer said:

I posted for the GOP but I do not mean this GOP. There really isn't much difference right now. But the left and our administration scare me to death and seem to be opposed to American prosperty and real solutions.

I agree. I am just right of center, and the administration in office right now doesn't seem left to me, they seem off the map and more akin to socialism.

[Chilli Dipper]

As far as the oft-repeated "rich people having to pay for poor people's health care" argument is concerned, that's pretty much the system unofficially in place in this country right now. The majority of the people in the United States with some form of medical insurance receive those benefits from their employers, at the latter's great expense. Furthermore, the thousands of small business owners who aren't all that rich who struggle with the costs of providing health care for their workers often have to cancel or greatly reduce the plans they offer to remain competitive, so the "get a better job with insurance" argument does not hold water much of the time, either.

[TheNatural]

  Chilli Dipper said:

As far as the oft-repeated "rich people having to pay for poor people's health care" argument is concerned, that's pretty much the system unofficially in place in this country right now. The majority of the people in the United States with some form of medical insurance receive those benefits from their employers, at the latter's great expense. Furthermore, the thousands of small business owners who aren't all that rich who struggle with the costs of providing health care for their workers often have to cancel or greatly reduce the plans they offer to remain competitive, so the "get a better job with insurance" argument does not hold water much of the time, either.

Sadly

I know way too many small biz owners that would pi$$ away the money they need for Health care on a trip to aruba. Too many people feel it important to keep up with the jones's

[jonnythan]

  CG031 said:

Well that's where we fundamentally disagree - you obviously feel health care is a luxury

What?

No. I don't. I feel that people should be able to decide for themselves whether to pay for health care or pay for that new car and cable TV with four movie stations.

  CG031 said:

Middle-Class families shouldn't have to sacrifice luxeries so they can make sure they won't go bankrupt if they get a serious illness.

Middle-class families shouldn't have to pay for their own health care even if they can afford it?

You do realize that someone has to pay for it, even if it's nationalized and 'free' at POS, right? If the middle class isn't paying for any of it, who is? You really want the top 25% of income-earners to pay for health care for the other 75%?

[TheNatural]

  st0wgolf08 said:

Yes, but also think of where your money goes when you buy a nissan, even if it is made in the United States. I think labor is roughly 1/4- 1/3 of the total cost of the car, so if 100 percent of Nissan's labor is done here 1/3 of that money for your new car goes to America, while 2/3s goes overseas. People point out that GM uses overseas labor, which I don't deny. However, they don't use all foreign labor, as there are sheer towns in states that nearly everyone works for GM. Anyway so even if GM has everyone working overseas for them, 1/3 of the money goes overseas, and 2/3 goes to America. Gm sounds like the better bet for America, with a larger sum of money going to America.

I can accept the car being built in the US. The $$ going to japan still comes back to a degree since many US investors own stock in foreign car co's. Im a GM brat. tuition paid and raised on union wages, I will always buy their cars. They all need to be kept afloat until things are sorted out.

[TheNatural]

  jonnythan said:

What?

My household income is in the top 10% without a doubt. I use private schools since my public district is awful. ADD $10-15000 a year. THIS IS A PRIORITY. A NEW RANGE ROVER IS NOT. my cars are 2008 2001 and 2000 old huh? I TAKE MY TRASH TO THE LANDFILL EVERY 3 WEEKS! and save over $500 a year doing that. I DONT NEED TO but i do. I HAVE NO MOVIE CHANNELS... JUST THE FOOTBALL Package HAHA! BUT I WATCH EVERY DAMN GAME I CAN. most people have the movie channells and never watch them....flu$h.

[st0wgolf08]

  jonnythan said:

What?

Of course the rich should, I mean their the people that actually worked and managed their money right, so they rightfully deserve to pay for everything. What a joke, I completely agree with you, I'm all in favor for a flat rate tax.

[Power_fade]

The only two people that have it good as far as healthcare goes are the two extremes. The very rich, who can pay for their health care out of their own pocket, and the very poor, who are helped by HMO's and PPO's for free. The middle class is just screwed.

[CG031]

  Power_fade said:

The only two people that have it good as far as healthcare goes are the two extremes. The very rich, who can pay for their health care out of their own pocket, and the very poor, who are helped by HMO's and PPO's for free. The middle class is just screwed.

That's what I've been trying to get at. The system is flawed. I realize that nationalized health care is going to raise taxes - I know this. But, where we are right now with our health care system it is simply broken.

[jonnythan]

  Power_fade said:

The only two people that have it good as far as healthcare goes are the two extremes. The very rich, who can pay for their health care out of their own pocket, and the very poor, who are helped by HMO's and PPO's for free. The middle class is just screwed.

There are

millions of middle class people who are perfectly capable of paying for health care coverage but spend the money on other things instead. The people who are really screwed are the people in the middle, not making enough to actually afford their own after the necessities (rent, food, decent clothing) but making too much to qualify for sufficient help. These people are not the middle class.