I am against the taxation pf people to let them have this free/public healthcare. People work hard for there money, yet to pay for that the money has to come from somewhere. You know where? The tax payers are who, I am sorry but I can not say that I support it. If they can not afford healthcare then that falls on them. This system of force us to pay for them brings us down even more. Those people are usually not good with money, usually never went to college to help themselves get a good paying job. I understand why you support it, but as long as we the tax payers are forced to pay for there healthcare then I can not in good faith say I support it. If I want to give money to the poor and to help them with healthcare then I would give money to a charity, but instead we get tax increases because they can not pay for there own healthcare.
You do realize, that people are born into poverty, and that sometimes they can't afford to pay. The price of procedures in the U.S are so damn expensive, that it will put a middle-class citizen in debt. If you needed a heart operation, it will easily cost 100k, and that would be enough to put anybody in debt.
Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. But I simply will not support it, I am sorry. Here is why it forces money out of tax payers putting mlre stress on them. Increase the amount of money you pay to taxs making the area being more expensive and not in a good way. Makes the government spead more leading to higher amounts of dept.
@stargate - OK. Cut the military by meager amounts, and pay for healthcare. The actual people paying taxes. And ALL people living in the country pay taxes! All of them. Even all those dummies that don't get degrees, or born to the right parents.
@TBR No just no, one we shouldn't cut the military. Two we do tax everyone ot is just a flat tax. Also no yhere shouldn't be a progressive tax(just in case you bring it up). If we do that it just nickels and dimes the population, that makes it so less power to spend. Less peoppe buying means an economic slow down. Also that weaken out military makes us weaker and weakens the nations we protect.
"Also no yhere shouldn't be a progressive tax(just in case you bring it up). If we do that it just nickels and dimes the population, that makes it so less power to spend. Less peoppe buying means an economic slow down. Also that weaken out military makes us weaker and weakens the nations we protect." - Again, I have no idea. What are you saying? A progressive tax reduces spending? Then the military bit. What?
@TBR If our military keeps on getting cut then we will have to pull back. By the way we have some sort of defense pacts with the folling nations, most if not all of north america, most if not all of south america, all NATO nations, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, philippian.
@TBR You really do not get it do you? I care it is just I do not want it foced on us, if I saw a criminal attack someone or threaten someone I would try to help to matter the danger. I care just in a different way, I also slove it in a different way.
@stargate - 1) I know what a progressive tax is, I have no idea what you are objecting to. 2) Our military spending is well past the need to "protect" allies. 3) You still are not addressing why you care about spending HUGE amounts of money "protecting" someone in the M.E., and denying any help to someone living in your own town - other than they are dirty people who did not bother to get a degree.
Stargate, why do we have taxes then? We pay taxes for our roads, so if people don't use the roads, should they say I want people to privatize the roads? How silly does that sound? Same with healthcare.
The healthcare is not any better, it is just free due to us paying for it. I know I will be hit with comments left and right. But I will stand by what I say and what I believe. Dose that make in evil maybe, but no one is prefect. Though I will say one thing, if this was the congress then I just got out vpted and the bill for public healthcare pasted.
"I am fine woth there being less expensive private healthcare" Im pretty sure most people would like things cheap, not more expensive. Its not something people are "fine" with. The problem is, that thats pretty much impossible.
I am sorry but I will not support public healthcare, I will never support it. Also that dosn't mean I am evil or hate my fellow amerians. I love this nation, I like the people who live here, I would help someone if they needed help, I would risk my life if need be.
Ok, I stand with what I said. I support single payer because everybody deserves healthcare. Simple as that. I'm not letting you die, because you don't have money to get care. It's so sad people would actually say it's not their problem. Conservatives let me make a point. So, you are pro-life, but you want private healthcare? So you basically are forcing a women to have a child they don't want to, and on top of that you want her to pay for it, even though she doesn't want to? Fascist much?
Thats right. That is true. People live without roads fine. They suffer without healthcare. Thanks for torturing the poor, while providing aid to people that don't want us in their countries. But at least we have a road to transport the corpses to the grave.
It does NOT sink us. We pay WAY MORE than other nations, and get worse results. It moves the costs, and removes the profits from insurance companies. There is NO other nation that would put up with the obscene amounts we pay, and the crap results. This is a humiliation.
Stargate, don't talk about government spending. You want to fund our OP military which is actually meant for national offense not national defense. If anything, War hawk Republicans are big spenders also, the only difference is once helps, and the other could help, but usually doesn't
We need military spending... It is for our national defense. Our national defense is the first and foremost most important issue we must spend on. Everything else is highly debatable as it has to do with individuals, not us as a country.
Adoption or not. You have FORCED the woman to carry the child. NOW you want to bill her! And, I forgot, that is because "she knew what she was doing" and "she should have gone to college" so she could get insurance. Got it. Now watch as I launch this 1.5 million dollar cruise missile - you know to "help" all these people who don;t want my "help"
@Haroush Hey I understand, I'm not say we need to make our military weak. But it's more than enough to protect us. Alot of our expenditures go towards ancient Cold War weapons which we don't even use anymore. Let cut some spending just a little bit.
@stargate Thats basically how everybody DDO user feels when you want to invade every country in the middle-east. Don't be a hypocrite. We all have opinions, so we are sharing them. Just like how you always share your opinions.
So what about CIA operations and new technology research? What about DARPA spending which falls under military spending? What about increasing the number of FBI agents? What about funding new research into cyber warfare and funding education for cyber warfare experts of the future? All these things are very expensive and our military spending has already been cut tremendously. So, I disagree.
You know what here is one of my last post so long as everyone dose the same. You want to cut our military? Fine but then we can not longer protect most of the nations we do. For some we act as there air force and navy. If we leave and pull back there will be a power gap. Someone will fill that gap.
If you want me to be the big bad evil bad guy then so be it. But I love this nation, I still try to be friends with people who strongly disagree with me on politics. I wish for a better would, I know you do to. But while you do it though peace I usually do it though force. You spead I save, you are the gas on the car I am the brake.
I think smart weapons should make their own damn money. Enough freeloading off the taxpayer. If they want to be taken somewhere, fly commercial. They knew they were going to explode, they should take responsibility for that!
Ok, I'm not saying cut the budget by 50% or something. Get rid of some useless things we have. Not everything we need right now. War Hawk Republicans are definitely not supporters of small government. A small government is limited spending in all categories.
You do realize that international military base there is a very strategic and has to do with highly sensitive information which can't be disclosed. Many of our military bases are very strategic in nature. Perhaps we should get rid of our military bases in the middle east except for Israel, but that is it. Southeast Asia is a hot spot we need to be at and countries in Africa need to be surveilled. Trust in your military commanders. They know what they are talking about and care very much about this country.
@stargate - The guys nickel and diming aren't who is killing us. ~600b - That is what we are spending on our bloated military. ~150b per year lost to tax havens. The list goes on. Just stop picking on the boogie man - the Democratic party. They aren't the bad guys in the tax story.
150 billion is not much in terms of spending on military or in contrast to the debt which Obama has racked up in his presidency which didn't come from Bush, but Obama. The debt added up into each president's term rarely goes beyond their first term from the previous presidency. The military spending we accumulated from Bush's two terms wasn't much at all. The Housing market crisis was created under Bill Clinton and wasn't put in check by Bush. This is really what crippled the economy along with 9/11. People forget 9/11 was a strategic attack on our financial market by attacking the WTC. Think.. It is called the WORLD TRADE CENTER!! Duh!! Hmm.
The top sucked it dry, huh? So, why is most rich people on the top are DEMOCRATS? Hmmm... Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates.. And I could go on.. These are monopolies democrats love to help out because they help fund the democratic party in return get all kinds of breaks.
@Haroush - Who cares what party the 1% are part of (hit, most are republicans). I could care LESS. They have sucked most of the wealth out of the middle class. That is not some liberal thing, it is a simple provable fact. I will do a debate on the subject if you like. Its like water is wet. Just tue. And for the 150b that is the tax havens ALONE!!!!! Military is 500b. Point is, healthcare (est ~100b per year for single payer) is NOTHING.
@TBR Thats funny because we are the knes that lower taxs and cut government spending. Yet of it most be us why there are so many poor people. Also the middle class at least here in the south is fine. I am in the middle class, the high middle class. Also I have seen people who are dirt poor, heck my one of my uncles dosn't make a lot of money at all. But he uses drugs smokes had two kids and a wife. The wife also smoked, you know what I do not feel sorry for them. They abouse the system.
The bit about "job creators" is complete junk. There is no connection you can make between republicans and job creators. http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/private-sector-job-creation-by-president-political-party.jpg
Well Texas is at the top, plus all the states at the bottom are democrats. Also some of those states are more of in the middle then deep blue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
@triangle.128k - No democratic is dissing "big business" because they want to stop them from growing. We are talking about tax and allowing access to markets for all. You know, the American way. Pay your fair share, promote competition in the market, don't kill your workers and the environment.
@TBR I am fine with not runing the eco system. I am also fine with treating people as equals. But the thing is more taxs puts more burdens on us the people, makes companys want to move to where there is less taxs. Big companys provide more jobs, we need them. Though there are some I hate (wallmart is one of them).
I agree they should at least give workers good conditions. But the enviornment isn't that bad. Eco-friendly technology advances day by day. There's still plenty of wildlife, trees and all avaliable. Putting strict environmental restrictions threatens economic growth and wealth. It's not like the world is ending if a few trees are dying. Climate change is an issue, but there's evidence of a "mini ice age" coming anyhow. It will become less of a problem day by day, as green technology advances.The economy should be our first concern.
Fine when gorgia lowed taxs business came whotch in turn made more jobs. More jons meant more people came now look at us. Look at detroit they made more taxs more jobs left, same with other places. Look at virginia for while there was less taxs but then tax increases happened and jobs left. Maine business left due to high taxs. I am not lying you need to belive me.
It's simple, really:
Companies (especially large ones) generally have employees.
Employees have to be hired.
Therefore, businesses employ workers.
See, what that really that hard? Furthermore, I proclaim:
When businesses expand, they need more employees.
When businesses need more employees, they hire more.
When more employees are hired, the percent of employed people increases.
Therefore, businesses create job growth.
I don't really see what else could possibly cause actual job growth aside from the free market.
Plus more taxs means that people have less buying power. This means the the economy will begam to slow down. On top of that business will not want to come due to higher taxs there rather then in other states. Whitch we see. This means that there are less jobs, less jobs means more people will leave. This along with increased government spending leads to an economic slow down.
@FrozenLichBox - "Look at programs like NICE, which essentially decides wether you live or die. In what world is this a good idea?" It's a good idea when everyone gets treated but drug companies try to charge $180,000 for one course of cancer treatment. It keeps prices down, don't think an insurance company will pay out $180,000 to you either.
If cancer treatment costs so much, that's because it's relatively new and experimental. If government decides to control the price of cancer treatment, and they choose an unreasonably low price, medical practitioners can't make a profit from it, and so will discontinue the treatment altogether.
Government money can come from one of three places: Inflation, borrowing, and taxation. None of these can generate actual money, so how can the government afford to pay $180,000 for everyone who needs a cancer treatment, and still maintain a balance in the currency?
Really, all that universal government care does is make waiting periods lethally long, and the service itself horrible.
If Microsoft sends their labor to foreign countries, that's only the fault of our government being too involved in our market system.
@FrozenLichBox - In practice not many can afford the treatment so insured or otherwise go untreated. However the NHS is one of the biggest employers globally, it has huge bargaining power and as such uses it to bring prices down. In the UK we pay income tax but also National Insurance from our wages, in effect we get a very cost effective insurance we buy from the Gov. Use is unlimited and the premiums don't go up. I've already had several ops that I couldn't afford privately with insurance as the premiums after the first claim are not affordable.
If the US had this sort of service it's negotiating powers with the drugs co's would be huge. It doesn't also mean people that can afford it can't top up with private insurance. The market is so huge and so many people would be treated that profits may even go up with the reduced price but increased sales.
Not to mention the benefit too the economy in having a fit and health society.