For the last time, Democrats are NOT Socialists... oh, wait, maybe they are

[Ilmater]

I sure hope Gephardt gets in. That would be swell. And maybe the whole country can start holding hands and feel better about themselves.

Linkified

You know, deep down, underneath my conservative shell, I've really always wanted this country to be more like Canada, France, and Germany. Really, I did.

My problem with most Democratic thinking is that most of it is just "feel good" ways of doing things. I hope he personally explains to all of the small businesses that don't offer health care programs how spending more money on health care will actually help them, as he claims it will.

 

[BarneyFife]

It's real simple. When you offer health care, you can attract a better pool of potential employees. Nobody will take a job that doesn't offer health care benefits.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
It's real simple. When you offer health care, you can attract a better pool of potential employees. Nobody will take a job that doesn't offer health care benefits.

What? I assume you are talking about a certain level of job, otherwise most fastfood, amusement parks and other low paying jobs would be out of business due to a lack of workforce. That said, it's the business' decision to offer healthcare, not the government's.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
It's real simple. When you offer health care, you can attract a better pool of potential employees. Nobody will take a job that doesn't offer health care benefits.

What? I assume you are talking about a certain level of job, otherwise most fastfood, amusement parks and other low paying jobs would be out of business due to a lack of workforce. That said, it's the business' decision to offer healthcare, not the government's.

Not if you're a Democrat like Gephardt. Then it's the government's job to do everything.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
It's real simple. When you offer health care, you can attract a better pool of potential employees. Nobody will take a job that doesn't offer health care benefits.

What? I assume you are talking about a certain level of job, otherwise most fastfood, amusement parks and other low paying jobs would be out of business due to a lack of workforce. That said, it's the business' decision to offer healthcare, not the government's.

I don't think Mcdonalds is considered a small business... You are right that a business might go broke because of the ridiculous price of health insurance. The government should offer some sort of insurance to people with low paying jobs. It's a shame that this country doesn't have a 100% insured rate yet can spend billions upon billions on Iraq and Israel where they get free health care.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
It's real simple. When you offer health care, you can attract a better pool of potential employees. Nobody will take a job that doesn't offer health care benefits.

What? I assume you are talking about a certain level of job, otherwise most fastfood, amusement parks and other low paying jobs would be out of business due to a lack of workforce. That said, it's the business' decision to offer healthcare, not the government's.

I don't think Mcdonalds is considered a small business... You are right that a business might go broke because of the ridiculous price of health insurance. The government should offer some sort of insurance to people with low paying jobs. It's a shame that this country doesn't have a 100% insured rate yet can spend billions upon billions on Iraq and Israel where they get free health care.

And what an incredible quality of health care that is!! C'mon, think about market forces. If you want a better pool of employees, then you pay more for them, whether that be through benefits or higher take-home pay. If people were demanding medical benefits, then McDonalds would have to offer it or go out of business. This is proven by the simple fact that the McDonalds in my home town (of 30,000 or so) offers minimum wage or slightly above, while the McDonalds where I live now (1.5 million+) has to offer $9 - $10 an hour. People here demand a higher wage. If people weren't willing to accept that pay, they wouldn't work there. If the pay that McDonalds offers is better than what they'd make unemployed, then they take the job.

Plus, many people go to fast food restaurants because they're cheap. If they started raising prices, they could very well go out of business. Then, all of those people that were enjoying the health care would lose their jobs and their coverage.

Again, it sounds like a good idea, but I personally feel that Democrats consistently push ideas that sound good but don't work well.

 

[Stark]

private business should insure their workers. Unfortunately, huge corporations like McDonalds and the companies that try to be the next McDonalds thrive on a system of paying its workers too little with no health benefits. If lab monkies could cook fries, they'd use them to save on labor costs. That's not good for America.

But having socialized medicine like Europe is not good either. Overtaxing the rich to support the poor is not what made America the promised land for 200+ years.

 

[jjones]

You know the insurance company lobbyists will be all over this. Mandatory employee health insurance coverage = money in the bank.

I'm no socialist that's for sure but health care is one of those areas where I think universal coverage is a good idea. I just don't like what's been proposed about this issue. My idea, which I'm not sure even makes sense and is a definate no-go because big money insurance companies would be against it, is this:

A federal basic health insurance policy carried by the government. The coverage includes an agreed upon list of basic health care services. Every worker is covered mandatorily and a health care tax at a set percentage is applied to the company's payroll. Workers have the option of paying a little more for family coverage or optional benefits such as dental or eyecare, whatever.

This is not a government run HMO but solely a basic health care insurance plan leaving the medicine and services in the hands of the private sector. The problem is it would kill the private sector health care insurance companies who would be limited to offering only plans to augment the Federal basic health care plan.

The good, and bad, part about it is that it would put the billions of dollars that health care costs in the hands of the Federal government. Now, this is a money making situation for the Federal government who would be able to invest that money just as insurance companies do right now. Unfortunately, I can foresee them fvcking up a good thing like they always do and this would ultimately go the route of Social Security.

 

[Ilmater]

Hillary Clinton tried to do something much like that before. It worked REAL well. That must be why she got elected. No, wait, that can't be it. Oh, I remember now, it was a horrible disaster. Maybe THAT was why she got elected. No, that doesn't make any sense either.

As I was saying, jjones, once again, you proved my point that the ideals sound great on paper, but don't work in reality. I believe that the Republican ideals, many times anyway, focus on what we have and what we could be able to realistically do, and from that they form a plan of action, rather than starting from, "Wouldn't it be great if there were no homeless and nobody without health care?!"

 

[Judgement]

The U.S. gives its citizens every opportunity to be successful... all one has to do is put in the effort (besides the people with disabilities) to achieve the level of success needed to support themselves and get healthcare. Despite that some democrats feel the need to make it even easier and use the people who have worked to earn their money (for the most part) to pay for those who haven't worked for it. Why don't they help them wipe their ass while they're at it.

I know there are some exceptions to this, such as the elderly (an argument could be made that they should have saved money but I won't go there) and teenage mothers not having the money to get medical care. In my opinion those should be handled seperately from national healthcare issues though.

The government needs to start making decisions which take their influence out of our lives instead of shoving it down our throats against our will. Socialism is a weaker form of government, nothing good can come of it by instituting socialist idea in American policies; it will only serve to weaken our economy and freedoms.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: Judgement
The U.S. gives its citizens every opportunity to be successful... all one has to do is put in the effort (besides the people with disabilities) to achieve the level of success needed to support themselves and get healthcare. Despite that some democrats feel the need to make it even easier and use the people who have worked to earn their money (for the most part) to pay for those who haven't worked for it. Why don't they help them wipe their ass while they're at it.

I know there are some exceptions to this, such as the elderly (an argument could be made that they should have saved money but I won't go there) and teenage mothers not having the money to get medical care. In my opinion those should be handled seperately from national healthcare issues though.

The government needs to start making decisions which take their influence out of our lives instead of shoving it down our throats against our will. Socialism is a weaker form of government, nothing good can come of it by instituting socialist idea in American policies; it will only serve to weaken our economy and freedoms.

But life is really hard sometimes...really...really...really difficult...And some people get it easy
Of course that is sarcasm, but I think that in general its just an anger against those people that have more than you. If you work your @ss off anywhere in this country, you can afford food, shelter, clothing, and a family. But hard work is the only thing that will get you there. And before anyone asks, no I am not even middle class, and no I don't ever want to be upper. I like working hard and I earn it. For charity I prefer to give my time and not my tax money.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Judgement
The U.S. gives its citizens every opportunity to be successful... all one has to do is put in the effort (besides the people with disabilities) to achieve the level of success needed to support themselves and get healthcare.

Tell it to the thousands of engineers who have been thrown out on the street in the last few years.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I sure hope Gephardt gets in. That would be swell. And maybe the whole country can start holding hands and feel better about themselves.

You know, that's a really good point. Any problem affecting a mere 41 million Americans probably isn't worth worrying about. Maybe they'll all just die and then we won't have to address it.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Judgement
The U.S. gives its citizens every opportunity to be successful... all one has to do is put in the effort (besides the people with disabilities) to achieve the level of success needed to support themselves and get healthcare. Despite that some democrats feel the need to make it even easier and use the people who have worked to earn their money (for the most part) to pay for those who haven't worked for it. Why don't they help them wipe their ass while they're at it.

I know there are some exceptions to this, such as the elderly (an argument could be made that they should have saved money but I won't go there) and teenage mothers not having the money to get medical care. In my opinion those should be handled seperately from national healthcare issues though.

The government needs to start making decisions which take their influence out of our lives instead of shoving it down our throats against our will. Socialism is a weaker form of government, nothing good can come of it by instituting socialist idea in American policies; it will only serve to weaken our economy and freedoms.

Nobody is denying that. The problem is that many people have knuckleballs thrown at them. Some people lose their job because of a disease, some people lose their job and have a tough time finding one in that specific industry(airline), and some people have various other disasters that happen to them. It's really easy to say "Go find a job" but an $8 hour job isn't going to pay the $500 a month premium from Blue Cross. The government should guarantee everyone in this country "barebones" health care if they are unable to acquire it. This should not effect the people that have their own health insurance. I call it a safety net for everyone. It would be easy to scrape up the money to do this. The problem is that this country is controlled by special interests and they'll lose their pork.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I sure hope Gephardt gets in. That would be swell. And maybe the whole country can start holding hands and feel better about themselves.

You know, that's a really good point. Any problem affecting a mere 41 million Americans probably isn't worth worrying about. Maybe they'll all just die and then we won't have to address it.

Those people have no heart or compassion for people. All they care about is money. Imagine one of them coming down with god forbid cancer and losing their job and then how are you going to pay your $500 a month premium? I'd bet they have a change of heart.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Judgement
The U.S. gives its citizens every opportunity to be successful... all one has to do is put in the effort (besides the people with disabilities) to achieve the level of success needed to support themselves and get healthcare.

Tell it to the thousands of engineers who have been thrown out on the street in the last few years.

Yeah - it's all the gov't fault

Sure people have been laid-off in the last few years, but it has happened before and will happen again. Is it the Engineer's fault for the economy and being laid-off? probably not but with carefull planning he/she should have been able to survive until finding another job. Don't get me wrong - being unemployed sucks but just because you didn't save your money doesn't mean the gov't has to keep bailing you out.

CkG

 

[Zebo]

From someone who can't define the term neo-con I suspect you'd have diffulty defining what a socialist or a democrat is.

It's helpful to learn the terms of the debate before talking politics and casting a vote.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Yeah - it's all the gov't fault

Sure people have been laid-off in the last few years, but it has happened before and will happen again. Is it the Engineer's fault for the economy and being laid-off? probably not but with carefull planning he/she should have been able to survive until finding another job.
CkG

I take it you don't work in tech, or tried to save while supporting a family on one income. I never said it was the government's fault, but this ra-ra-ra America land of opportunity all you have to do is buck up and work hard garbage is just a steaming pile of crap for people who would prefer not to actually think about the issue. And finger wagging and a lecture on prudent saving isn't going to help either. Many people had their savings wiped out by this wonderful economy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I sure hope Gephardt gets in. That would be swell. And maybe the whole country can start holding hands and feel better about themselves.

You know, that's a really good point. Any problem affecting a mere 41 million Americans probably isn't worth worrying about. Maybe they'll all just die and then we won't have to address it.

Those people have no heart or compassion for people. All they care about is money. Imagine one of them coming down with god forbid cancer and losing their job and then how are you going to pay your $500 a month premium? I'd bet they have a change of heart.

I'm sorry but just because your ass was born in the US doesn't entitle you to cheap healthcare. Being a US citizen guarentees that you have ACCESS to healthcare, and like all "good" things in life - it isn't FREE.

However..... I might(and I stress might) go along with a form of base level health coverage for the nation, but it wouldn't be much more than a doctor visit or 2 a year and maybe even a dental and eye check a year. These gov't paid visits would do wonders for those at the poorest level and wouldn't strain an already overtaxed working class american. Now obviously there is room for a little leway on my stance but full fledged health coverage is NOT an option

Has anybody stopped to think about the ramafications of the Gov't having acces to your Medical history? Talk about an intrusive government

CkG

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Judgement
The U.S. gives its citizens every opportunity to be successful... all one has to do is put in the effort (besides the people with disabilities) to achieve the level of success needed to support themselves and get healthcare. Despite that some democrats feel the need to make it even easier and use the people who have worked to earn their money (for the most part) to pay for those who haven't worked for it. Why don't they help them wipe their ass while they're at it.

I know there are some exceptions to this, such as the elderly (an argument could be made that they should have saved money but I won't go there) and teenage mothers not having the money to get medical care. In my opinion those should be handled seperately from national healthcare issues though.

The government needs to start making decisions which take their influence out of our lives instead of shoving it down our throats against our will. Socialism is a weaker form of government, nothing good can come of it by instituting socialist idea in American policies; it will only serve to weaken our economy and freedoms.

Nobody is denying that. The problem is that many people have knuckleballs thrown at them. Some people lose their job because of a disease, some people lose their job and have a tough time finding one in that specific industry(airline), and some people have various other disasters that happen to them. It's really easy to say "Go find a job" but an $8 hour job isn't going to pay the $500 a month premium from Blue Cross. The government should guarantee everyone in this country "barebones" health care if they are unable to acquire it. This should not effect the people that have their own health insurance. I call it a safety net for everyone. It would be easy to scrape up the money to do this. The problem is that this country is controlled by special interests and they'll lose their pork.

IMO government intervention would only end up helping a few legitamately destitute people, but it would be exceedingly exploited, which would result of the exploitation of tax payers who must cough up the payment for the lazy.

If the condition is potentially fatal and the person is seen as a contributing member of society who really just can't afford treatment, then by all means help them as much as is possible. We shouldn't be responsible for paying a hooker's conctraceptive pills because she can claim she is poor as she doesn't file her true income with the government. Then there is the guy who gets workers-comp for his so-called inury, etc etc...

The problem is, its too difficult to discern the legitamate cases with unncessary ones.

 

[SuperTool]

Why should we blow $100 Billion on a war, if we have a 300 Billion budget deficit and have 41 Million people uninsured?
you do realize that $100 Billion would be $2000+/uninsured person. So instead of bombing Iraq we could have everyone in the US insured for a couple of years.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Yeah - it's all the gov't fault

Sure people have been laid-off in the last few years, but it has happened before and will happen again. Is it the Engineer's fault for the economy and being laid-off? probably not but with carefull planning he/she should have been able to survive until finding another job.
CkG

I take it you don't work in tech, or tried to save while supporting a family on one income. I never said it was the government's fault, but this ra-ra-ra America land of opportunity all you have to do is buck up and work hard garbage is just a steaming pile of crap for people who would prefer not to actually think about the issue. And finger wagging and a lecture on prudent saving isn't going to help either. Many people had their savings wiped out by this wonderful economy.

EDIT - taken out as to not beat a dead horse /EDIT

I do understand how hard it is to "save" for an unexpected period of unemployment, Both my wife and I work and it is still hard to pay the bill, raise 2 kids, and still try to "save" $. If either of us were laid-off it would be devastating to our financial situation, but there are places we'd cut spending. But even if it did happen (God forbid) I wouldn't go looking to the Gov't for a handout. I guess it is just the way I was raised. Work hard and enjoy the good times and when the bad times come - work even harder

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Quote by Ilmater

You know, deep down, underneath my conservative shell, I've really always wanted this country to be more like Canada, France, and Germany. Really, I did.

My problem with most Democratic thinking is that most of it is just "feel good" ways of doing things. I hope he personally explains to all of the small businesses that don't offer health care programs how spending more money on health care will actually help them, as he claims it will.[/quote]

"feel good ways" For the small business health care is a large "Perk" that often is expected by potential employees. If a company intends to hire top notch people then the perks must meet the competition. It is assumed the delta productivity (or whatever) coupled with the lower turnover, fewer sick days off etc. offsets the cost of the Perk. But, underlying all the mumbo jumbo is the attempt to get everyone "covered" the importance of this is critical. With out going into all the cost issues regarding equipment etc. The actual unit cost goes down by increasing the number covered. Beside, what will all them new MDs do with out patients.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I sure hope Gephardt gets in. That would be swell. And maybe the whole country can start holding hands and feel better about themselves.

You know, that's a really good point. Any problem affecting a mere 41 million Americans probably isn't worth worrying about. Maybe they'll all just die and then we won't have to address it.

Those people have no heart or compassion for people. All they care about is money. Imagine one of them coming down with god forbid cancer and losing their job and then how are you going to pay your $500 a month premium? I'd bet they have a change of heart.

I do rather enjoy people dying of stomach cancer.

Come on. I don't want to get too personal with this, but you're a typical Democrat. The plan to universalize health care doesn't work! If you implemented it, millions would be without jobs. Compared to that one guy that doesn't die of cancer, I'll take the millions.

Think about what you're saying. You're calling me unsympathetic and cold-hearted because I don't agree with a plan that only sounds good, but wouldn't work well. That is exactly what I believe most Democrats do. They stand up for things that sound good more often than bothering to think about what works.

So, considering what I said I thought a Democrat was and what ____ said, my definition must have been WAAAAAAY off, eh Carbonyl?

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I sure hope Gephardt gets in. That would be swell. And maybe the whole country can start holding hands and feel better about themselves.

You know, that's a really good point. Any problem affecting a mere 41 million Americans probably isn't worth worrying about. Maybe they'll all just die and then we won't have to address it.

Those people have no heart or compassion for people. All they care about is money. Imagine one of them coming down with god forbid cancer and losing their job and then how are you going to pay your $500 a month premium? I'd bet they have a change of heart.

I'm sorry but just because your ass was born in the US doesn't entitle you to cheap healthcare. Being a US citizen guarentees that you have ACCESS to healthcare, and like all "good" things in life - it isn't FREE.

However..... I might(and I stress might) go along with a form of base level health coverage for the nation, but it wouldn't be much more than a doctor visit or 2 a year and maybe even a dental and eye check a year. These gov't paid visits would do wonders for those at the poorest level and wouldn't strain an already overtaxed working class american. Now obviously there is room for a little leway on my stance but full fledged health coverage is NOT an option

Has anybody stopped to think about the ramafications of the Gov't having acces to your Medical history? Talk about an intrusive government

CkG

I'm talking about catastrophic coverage. For example if you have a heart attack and go the hospital etc.. I'm not talking about the eye doctor or dentist. I'm also saying that this could be a sort of barebones coverage which people that are unemployed for various reasons could have. Sort of like medicare and it could cover the whole family. I'm sure this could be done easily. That $100 billion to Iraq could have been used for such a proposal. Getting sick, with no job, and no health insurance basically screws you for life because of the enormous bills.

If someone in the government wants to know you history, they could find it. Really, what does it matter anyway? The most frightening thing is when corporations have your medical history and they can deny you employment because you could fall into that "risky hire" category.