Socialism at Work!

[pace2006]

Re: Socialism at Work!

Man, I love this forum.

[T-Mill]

Re: Socialism at Work!

What's meaningless are the sites you're getting your info from... ny times? please... I'm not even going to waste my time reading anything that comes from that hell-hole... and the second site... it's all the same as the WHO... social factors affect those statistics... and neither site has taken that into account so far...

Around 65% of people in the US are considered obese or overweight leading to poor health... estimated 300,000 lives lost a year due to obesity, and around 117 billion dollars in health care costs... point is there are other social factors that contribute to the statistics that you keep showing me... none of this proves that socialized health-care is a good idea...

If you were diagnosed with some disease... what country would you want to be treated in? According to the statistics you've shown me... not the U.S. but it's pretty apparent (at least to me) that the US is the only place I would want to be treated for an illness...

...and I'll tell you what, I'll find out what my sister pays, and what my parents pay for health insurance... and I'll find out what my parents paid before my dad lost his job bc at that time they had a health savings account type insurance, and my mom has commented before that she preferred it... so once I get that info I'll pass it along...

Just looked up health insurance for myself... 147.95 a month... $250 deductible and $10 copay through anthem blue cross blue shield... in the example I gave earlier had I stayed at Walgreen's I could afford health insurance...

[Mogobs30th]

Re: Socialism at Work!

What's meaningless are the sites you're getting your info from... ny times? please... I'm not even going to waste my time reading anything that comes from that hell-hole... and the second site... it's all the same as the WHO... social factors affect those statistics... and neither site has taken that into account so far...

Around 65% of people in the US are considered obese or overweight leading to poor health... estimated 300,000 lives lost a year due to obesity, and around 117 billion dollars in health care costs... point is there are other social factors that contribute to the statistics that you keep showing me... none of this proves that socialized health-care is a good idea...

If you were diagnosed with some disease... what country would you want to be treated in? According to the statistics you've shown me... not the U.S. but it's pretty apparent (at least to me) that the US is the only place I would want to be treated for an illness...

...and I'll tell you what, I'll find out what my sister pays, and what my parents pay for health insurance... and I'll find out what my parents paid before my dad lost his job bc at that time they had a health savings account type insurance, and my mom has commented before that she preferred it... so once I get that info I'll pass it along...

Just looked up health insurance for myself... 147.95 a month... $250 deductible and $10 copay through anthem blue cross blue shield... in the example I gave earlier had I stayed at Walgreen's I could afford health insurance...

Your using the term "social factors" as a crutch to support a privatized health care system to keep rich people healthy and poor people without coverage. Fat people cover this planet, the US does not have the monopoly on being a fatass. Social factors also don't explain why 50+ million people are uninsured in this country, a country that many people have claimed to be the forefront in health care coverage. You have yet to show my how socialized health care is a bad idea in the first place, the only thing you have showed me is things I have already said were true. America has the BEST health care in the world, there is no denying that. If I got sick, ill, had cancer, heart trouble, whatever, I would want to be helped here. But at the same time, I have some of the best health insurance money can buy. I can't speak for the 50+ million people with no coverage at all. Those people deserve health care as well. And Im not saying in the LEAST that everyone has to have the SAME type of coverage, but some minimal type of health care coverage, yet something that can actually work for them, is what is required. There is no sense in a country with this economic power that has people without some sort of basic health care. And out of those 50+ million people, I bet a LARGE majority of them aren't working 40 hours a week right now.

Now, as for your quote, you getting a quote for yourself fails to show me how that could work for everyone. Your 23 years old, with what I assume to be no pre-existing conditions. This is why I asked you to get prices for SINGLE individuals who are older than you, at the age of 45 and 65. I GUARANTEE those prices will spike dramatically, because a person at the age of 23, with no pre-existing conditions, would be able to afford their coverage compared to someone who is much older, for the simple fact that they are more prone to sickness. For example, you stated your insurance would have been $147.95 a month with a $250 deduct and a $10 drug card, for you, a 23 year old male with my guess is no history of smoking in the last 10 years. Wanna know what it was for a 45 year old male with no history of smoking, same deduct and drug card??

$314.75. More than double for someone double your age. Thats with choosing doctors in THEIR network, not a PPO network, and only 80% coverage. This is the absolute cheapest they offer for a 45 year old male with no history of smoking with your deduct and drug card. Wanna know how much it costs for some the age of 64, with still, no history of smoking??

$634.78!!! Thats right. Does that still look affordable? Granted, this is BCBS we're talking here, and its going to be on the high side, but it isn't going to be much different. Now, lets take a look at a mock family I made, with more realistic terms. I chose a mother and father and two kids, a father at the age of 53, a mother at the age of 52, both smokers, with two children, one the age of 8, the other at the age of 17. Wanna know what their premiums are monthly with the same deduct and drug card as you had???

$1242.81!!! Staggering isn't it?? Both parents would have to come up with over $600 a month to cover their families if their employer didn't offer them health coverage, or if they both lost their jobs for any period of time. The whole point being, its MUCH cheaper when you are younger and have no kids, but the costs continue to rise the older you get. Using yourself as an example without other ages to compare to its stupid. Of course you could afford it at your age, but could you say the same if someone double your age making the same money was trying to buy coverage? I think not.

This all comes back to the point Im trying to make. These are the prices people have to look at when they're offered either substandard health care coverage or none at all. The working poor could not afford such coverage, hell, I would have a hard time affording it, and I make $50k a year. Affordable health care coverage is a myth to people approaching their 50's and 60's or older (which makes up for a great deal of that 50+ million). So now I ask you again, what are they to do? There is no reason why this country can't offer some competitive health care coverage for these underinsured or uninsured people. None whatsoever. Yet offering such affordable competitive coverage by the govt is seen to be socialist, and scares anyone willing to make a dollar off someones sickness.

The current system is broken, and even keeping it privatized with some reform isn't going to give 50+ million people the coverage they need.

[venom3300]

Re: Socialism at Work!

And we couldn't remain both because of our economic status due to capitalism. We were dragged into everything because we were a world power, all due to capitalism.

Still failing.....

so u would rather be a poor 3rd world country so u dont have to fight any wars???.... fail

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

......Abraham Lincoln

[T-Mill]

Re: Socialism at Work!

First off the 50 million+ number isn't accurate... Be weary of numbers you hear from Pelosi and Biden... lol ...many of those are people between 18 and 35 who choose not to have health coverage but could afford it if they decided it was worth it, so they don't fit into your category... and some who are over 65 and don't qualify for medicare...and pay out of pocket... I wish I had more time bc I'd find you a link to click on, since you like those so much... my point has been from the beginning that our system has flaws, and universal health care will only create more problems especially in the way it's being proposed right now... yes, it may insure those who currently can't afford coverage... but it will lower the quality of care provided to those who currently can afford it... the current proposal would require businesses to provide health care... that should be thrown out... I don't care what your opinions are, we'll just have to agree to disagree that businesses do NOT have a moral obligation to provide health care to its employers... but that's what Obamacare hopes to do... at a penalty of $750 per employee for not providing coverage... Those costs are not absorbed by the business... they are either absorbed by employees, through lowered wages, or layoffs, or they are absorbed by the consumer via increased price of goods and services... The current Obamacare proposal will cost over 1 TRILLION in its in years and is expected to double according to the CBO in the outgoing years... the tax burden will fall to the states, many of which already have a proposed income tax for the highest rate pushing 60%, and that's only including income tax... Reform with a public option will increase the gov't expenditure, it may decrease the amount that most pay for health care, but the increase in taxes will offset those savings...

Where does your faith in the U.S. government to run such a program come from? Medicare and medicaid are broke, they have been for a while... they've been using unfunded revenue for some time now, and is a major drain on the fed...what makes you think that universal health care will be any different...

I understand where you're coming from, that something needs to be done to make access to health care services easier for the working poor... but universal health care would provide it to not only the working poor, but the non-working poor... and there are other solutions... You'll never be able to justify to me, stealing from the rich to give to the poor... I have to go to class, but I'll try and find the proposal, I believe from John Boehner from Ohio and let you read his proposal... I'm not sure if it was him, but I'll try and find it...

[T-Mill]

Re: Socialism at Work!

email sent

[Mogobs30th]

Re: Socialism at Work!

yes, it may insure those who currently can't afford coverage... but it will lower the quality of care provided to those who currently can afford it

There it is, thats what I was looking for. The underlying fact that if the people who could afford it had to take the slight sacrifice for the greater good of the people as a whole, the people who would have been better off would become enraged. This is the greed I was looking for, the overwhelming factor that I have waited for someone to say. Now as for the govt running the health care plan its proposing, I don't think it has to work like that. It can easily be funded thru tax monies to private corporations to administer such plans.

As for a businesses obligations, I believe they have no legal obligations, but they certainly do have a moral obligation to the people that keep the business afloat. Its the problem with the deregulation of many sectors of business. It has allowed companies to run around, doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without any regard for the lives that it must be responsible for. Its part of the reason for the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. I mean, do you honestly support the idea of taking a job from an American overnight to give one to someone in China, just to save a few dollars in the name of capitalism?

I read the email, and alot of it I do agree with, but not all of it. I can't argue the fact that the costs in general are overwhelming, and there is a TON of overspending on unessecary things. But that is an issue that needs to be resolved before ANY reform of the current coverage plans like medicare and medicaid.

I understand where you're coming from, that something needs to be done to make access to health care services easier for the working poor... but universal health care would provide it to not only the working poor, but the non-working poor... and there are other solutions... You'll never be able to justify to me, stealing from the rich to give to the poor...

Non-working poor? Well, someone thats now unemployed from a lower paying menial job now makes up the non-working poor, which has become a little more common now that the unemployment rate is up. You can't say they don't deserve coverage either.

[T-Mill]

Re: Socialism at Work!

There it is, thats what I was looking for. The underlying fact that if the people who could afford it had to take the slight sacrifice for the greater good of the people as a whole

This is the essential problem with socialism... What justice is it for the poor to blame the rich for wanting to keep what's theirs? That's not greed!!! It really bothers me that so many people in this country feel that way. If I decide to devote my time to becoming wealthy and suffer through 6 years now of college and go on to make a ton of money and become filthy rich, that's my choice... it's not my responsibility to give back... I am the type who will give back, I've already given my time to a volunteer service for several years... and if I ever am allowed to become wealthy and not have the government take it away, I will find all the best charities to invest in, but that's my choice, and as far as I'M concerned it's MY moral obligation, but it's not the responsibility of the government to tell me how I'm supposed to help and contribute...

It's just like the classroom experiment... The people who worked their *** off and were smarter DESERVE the better grades... the people who don't work as hard and aren't as smart DESERVE the lower grade...

Grades aren't rewards or punishments, they are an evaluation of their knowledge of the material... Just like the people who earn more money reserve the right to keep it for their own benefit, not the benefit of those who are less fortunate...

Money isn't a reward and lack thereof isn't a punishment... it is an evaluation of a person's monetary worth... if those people choose to contribute to the greater good (which studies show Conservatives contribute a higher percentage of their income than liberals) then that is their CHOICE they should not be legally obligated to give their money away... much less have it stolen from them... it is not the rich people's fault for being rich... I thought there was an American right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... The opportunities are there for EVERYONE to make a life for THEMSELVES... The government's role is to protect the rights of the individual, not the whole... it's the responsibility of the public as a whole to provide for eachother, not the government's role to mandate this responsibility. Your calling the people wanting to do with their money what they please, greed, is obsurd...

As for a businesses obligations, I believe they have no legal obligations, but they certainly do have a moral obligation to the people that keep the business afloat.

Obamacare will make it a legal obligation for businesses to provide healthcare... with penalties if they fail to do so...


I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't offer health care plans and retirement plans... but it's not an obligation. I think it's smart business practice to offer these if they're able I've said before that ORIGINALLY companies offered health insurance as an attractive benefit for potential employees. If a bright experienced mind is looking for employment, and two employers offer the same salary, but one also offers medical, dental, and a 401k, the bright mind will be more likely to choose that company, and the company will benefit from his employment, while the other company may suffer from the lack of it...

Now if the company who doesn't offer the healthcare and retirement plans chooses to offer a higher salary to its employees instead, as well as other incentives to increase profits such as lower prices, or higher quality products... then that is their right... it may or may not prove to be a sound business strategy, but it is their right as a private business and private employer...

my friend's mom owns a puppy food store... She has 3 employees, and barely makes profit... she runs the business because she loves to do it, she works every day from the time the doors open until it closes... If she was required to provide her employees health care she wouldn't be able to afford it... she would either have to downsize her store, would have to increase prices, or decrease pay or the number of her employees, which would lead to more lost profit and could ultimately close the doors for good... any of which would in some way lead to a loss of jobs... She only employs people who either need temporary full-time employment or need some extra cash... does she have a moral obligation to provide these benefits?

Non-working poor? Well, someone thats now unemployed from a lower paying menial job now makes up the non-working poor, which has become a little more common now that the unemployment rate is up. You can't say they don't deserve coverage either.

so you want to enact a permanent solution to a temporary problem? Yes... unemployment is up... but it will rebound, it always does... (if capitalism is allowed to run its course) This is a fundamental of Capitalism, things got bad, and they will be bad for everyone for a while, but it is only like that because it is fixing the problems that arose during the prosperous times that capitalism allows...

Social Security was enacted in a similar situation... people lost alot of money during the depression so the government decided to give them money so they could retire and maintain their "social security"... the problem is, once the markets recovered and people could once again afford to provide for their own futures, the government continued to pay these benefits even though in most cases they are completely unnecessary, if people would go back to being responsible for their own well-being...

I would like to see social security be put to use for people who are in some fashion incapable of fending for themselves... ie: children, disabled, terminally ill, chronically ill... not as a public health insurance, but in a way like a retirement plan for people who either can't work, or are unable to make enough to afford basic living expenses... it should be constantly audited with plenty of oversight to avoid corruption... They shouldn't provide a health-care plan with it, but provide an income that can be used to obtain health care... not improve their standard of living as far as general income, but for basic living needs, not to replace work they could do, but add enough to make personal liberty possible... again not as security blankets, not as handouts, but as a life-line to protect the individual rights of those who for some reason are less fortunate...

[T-Mill]

Re: Socialism at Work!

This is the essential problem with socialism... What justice is it for the poor to blame the rich for wanting to keep what's theirs? That's not greed!!!

The poor telling the rich that they should fork up some of their hard-earned dough to pay for them... THAT's greed

[Mogobs30th]

Re: Socialism at Work!

This is the essential problem with socialism... What justice is it for the poor to blame the rich for wanting to keep what's theirs? That's not greed!!!

Yeah, what justice is it for the Waltons to keep their billions and billions of dollars while offering the employees of Wal-mart substandard health insurance? This is the type of company I am talking about. The Walton family could give a rats *** about the little guy, but its the little guy that keeps their company afloat. Without the tens of thousands of people stocking shelves, running cash registers, and picking up carts in the cold days of winter, where would this company be? Granted, its not a hard job, which is a reason why their pay is minimal, but substandard health insurance, if none at all? You cannot sit there and tell me that their billions and billions of dollars they worked SO HARD for is worth them keeping, especially since the majority of them inherited the company. That family didn't work hard for anything, but they sure are reaping the benefits of their grandparents and parents aren't they? Not to mention, they will do ANYTHING to keep a union out of there, including illegal termination. Know why they have no problem breaking the law to terminate someone that is attempting to organize? Because to organize would cost MORE MONEY than simply paying the fine for breaking the law, if they are even caught in the first place. There is no stiff penalty for breaking that law either, and it is loosely enforced. But they have no problem doing it, because they have NO moral obligation (although they do have a legal one in this case). So how do you justify a company that repeatedly breaks the law time and time again, just so they can keep their billions and billions and BILLIONS of dollars. Those people have a RIGHT to organize, a right that has been law for almost 80 years now, yet that company breaks that law to save a few dollars. Can you justify that??

Money isn't a reward and lack thereof isn't a punishment... it is an evaluation of a person's monetary worth... if those people choose to contribute to the greater good (which studies show Conservatives contribute a higher percentage of their income than liberals) then that is their CHOICE they should not be legally obligated to give their money away... much less have it stolen from them...

Stolen from them?? They have to pay taxes. Everyone pays taxes. And all you conservatives think that taxes go only to welfare, medicaid, and whatever else, while at the same time we have an AGING transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, national parks that are closing, and schools that are getting underfunded. Again, they made their BILLIONS of dollars off the backs of people paying them minimum wage, they should be the one forking over the larger majority. I bet if we told everyone that the money from income taxes was going to defense (which the largest majority of it already does), everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, would probably keep their mouths shut. You start talking about cutting funds to the military, and everyone gets pissed. Its a hypocritical system. **** the homeless, but lets go conquer more countries. Fighting two wars is whats draining us little by little, has for years now. Bunch of conservative Toby Keith cowboys ready to pull a gun on another country because they called your **** small, because thats really all it is, a **** waving contest that costs American lives....but NO ONE says anything about that money, do they?

I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't offer health care plans and retirement plans... but it's not an obligation.

I have no problem with giving these businesses options, I have two options for them, either offer a minimum health coverage, or get taxed more. Simple as that. Now they have options. Nothing is forced, and they can decide for themselves.

my friend's mom owns a puppy food store... She has 3 employees, and barely makes profit... she runs the business because she loves to do it, she works every day from the time the doors open until it closes... If she was required to provide her employees health care she wouldn't be able to afford it... she would either have to downsize her store, would have to increase prices, or decrease pay or the number of her employees, which would lead to more lost profit and could ultimately close the doors for good... any of which would in some way lead to a loss of jobs... She only employs people who either need temporary full-time employment or need some extra cash... does she have a moral obligation to provide these benefits?

That depends. If these people are clocking in a certain amount of hours, then yes, it is her obligation to provide some kind of health care on some level or another. If she can't turn a profit, then she isn't running the business correctly. This is where capitalism steps in. She's weak, the other companies should beat her business down with a stick. She made the choice to involve another human in her business, she has a moral obligation to them, plain and simple. Decide not to uphold that obligation, and be prepared for the consequences. No one should be profiting of the labor of anothers back without certain standard benefits.

The days of entreprenuers and businessmen exploiting the common American worker are ****ING OVER. People are tired of getting nothing for putting their lives on hold. For too long now people have lived to work, not worked to live. It ends with this administration, and the rich are running scared, because the middle class (whats left of it) has finally caught onto their game.

[T-Mill]

Re: Socialism at Work!

Yeah, what justice is it for the Waltons to keep their billions and billions of dollars while offering the employees of Wal-mart substandard health insurance? This is the type of company I am talking about. The Walton family could give a rats *** about the little guy, but its the little guy that keeps their company afloat. Without the tens of thousands of people stocking shelves, running cash registers, and picking up carts in the cold days of winter, where would this company be? Granted, its not a hard job, which is a reason why their pay is minimal, but substandard health insurance, if none at all? You cannot sit there and tell me that their billions and billions of dollars they worked SO HARD for is worth them keeping, especially since the majority of them inherited the company. That family didn't work hard for anything, but they sure are reaping the benefits of their grandparents and parents aren't they? Not to mention, they will do ANYTHING to keep a union out of there, including illegal termination. Know why they have no problem breaking the law to terminate someone that is attempting to organize? Because to organize would cost MORE MONEY than simply paying the fine for breaking the law, if they are even caught in the first place. There is no stiff penalty for breaking that law either, and it is loosely enforced. But they have no problem doing it, because they have NO moral obligation (although they do have a legal one in this case). So how do you justify a company that repeatedly breaks the law time and time again, just so they can keep their billions and billions and BILLIONS of dollars. Those people have a RIGHT to organize, a right that has been law for almost 80 years now, yet that company breaks that law to save a few dollars. Can you justify that??

So because you have a problem with a company breaking laws that were put in place to protect the individual, you want to punish everyone else... The problem you presented with Wal-Mart doesn't sound like a "health-care system of the U.S." issue... once again another irrelevant example you present. You made my argument for me^ the laws protecting the individual are in place... if they aren't being enforced, that's no reason to go running into another permanent solution to a temporary problem...

Stolen from them?? They have to pay taxes. Everyone pays taxes. And all you conservatives think that taxes go only to welfare, medicaid, and whatever else, while at the same time we have an AGING transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, national parks that are closing, and schools that are getting underfunded.

If we weren't wasting so much money into these broke, socialistic programs, there would be more money available to repair the not aging, but ancient transportation infrastructure, keep parks open, and keep schools funded...

Again, they made their BILLIONS of dollars off the backs of people paying them minimum wage

Exactly... they worked for the companies, and they get paid by the companies... you work, so you get compensated with a weekly paycheck... not every company that offers minimum wage doesn't offer health benefits... many companies do if you're a full-time employee, if people who needed these benefits didn't work at Wal-mart they wouldn't have to worry about not receiving healthcare from Wal-mart... but Wal-mart provides their employees with other benefits that are enticing to potential employees... Wal-mart doesn't force their employees to work for them... I have many problems with Wal-mart... the least of which is their so called "obligation" to pay for their employee's health care

I bet if we told everyone that the money from income taxes was going to defense (which the largest majority of it already does)

the largest majority? umm...


Get YOUR facts straight...

Toby Keith cowboys ready to pull a gun on another country because they called your **** small, because thats really all it is, a **** waving contest that costs American lives....but NO ONE says anything about that money, do they?

Was it just a d!ck waving contest when radical cowards flew two planes into the twin towers, a plane into the pentagon, and tried to fly another into God knows where had the passengers not stopped them? Is that all that was? It's amazing how short liberal's memory is? Do you have any pride for your country? I would be ashamed of myself if I made that comment... it's no wonder you have no regard for the constitution

I have no problem with giving these businesses options, I have two options for them, either offer a minimum health coverage, or get taxed more. Simple as that. Now they have options. Nothing is forced, and they can decide for themselves.

That's like giving someone the option of punched in the head, or punched in the gut... Either we'll **** you, or we'll **** you... BRILLIANT!!!

That depends. If these people are clocking in a certain amount of hours, then yes, it is her obligation to provide some kind of health care on some level or another. If she can't turn a profit, then she isn't running the business correctly.

So now her employees still won't have healthcare, but they also won't have jobs... BRILLIANT!!!

No one should be profiting of the labor of anothers back without certain standard benefits.

Standard benefits... like a paycheck...

People are tired of getting nothing for putting their lives on hold.

Right you think they should be given something for nothing...

It ends with this administration

You're right about this one... If they get everything passed, then you are correct... everything most of us have enjoyed as a result of being an American will be over

and the rich are running scared, because the middle class (whats left of it) has finally caught onto their game.

They are running, but they're running mad, not scared... they're running from the liberal run states to the conservative run states where their money will be safe from voters and politicians like you...

[Shirl]

Re: Socialism at Work!

T-Mill for PRESIDENT. :D

[T-Mill]

Re: Socialism at Work!

And this problem with taxes wouldn't be such a problem if you had a lower unemployment rate, which could be fixed if more corporations were willing to open shop here in the US, with more opportunities within the manufacturing sector. We essentially manufacture nothing anymore. We're a country full of managers and middle management lackeys. Bring manufacturing back to this country, allow more export than imports, and see the tax rate drop.

If I was planning on opening a manufacturing business, I sure as hell wouldn't waste my money right now and open one... not with Cap and trade, and Obamacare looking to get passed... You can't make an argument for socialized healthcare, and complain that jobs leave the U.S. at the same time... why wouldn't they? You seem to have forgotten that the reason jobs exist is to make money... people don't open a business to become poor... they don't open a business so that they can provide healthcare, they open a business so they can make money... and you're demonizing that

[T-Mill]

Re: Socialism at Work!

T-Mill for PRESIDENT. :D

lol... I have actually thought of running for the board of trustees in my township... I don't think I have the temper for public office... lol

[Blizzard242]

Re: Socialism at Work!

Oh ****, I logged onto the wrong forum.