Welcome to Gaia! ::

SmallTownGuy
SmallTownGuy
Another camp simply doesn't want to pay for anyone else's care but their own. They already have high-quality, expensive health plans. They see most of the poor as being lazy moochers with no work ethic, and don't want to give them a free ride. They want to be sure any public health care is minimal, watered-down, preferably paid for by somebody else. And once it's in place, they want to keep their own high-quality plans instead.
A right-wing friend of mine re-posted this on Facebook a couple days ago. I think it's a good example of this second opposition group: He thinks he's wealthy because he works hard. He thinks poor people are poor because they're lazy.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


Where is the line drawn on forcing others to pick up all the ******** bills for some people? Groceries, rent, cell phones, utilities, health care...at what point do we who pay taxes get to say 'that's not our problem, find another way to fund it'?
SmallTownGuy's avatar

Beloved Elder

Old Blue Collar Joe
Where is the line drawn on forcing others to pick up all the ******** bills for some people? Groceries, rent, cell phones, utilities, health care...at what point do we who pay taxes get to say 'that's not our problem, find another way to fund it'?
Suppose you tell me? Where is the line drawn on helping each other, because we all (or most of us, anyway) have times when we're doing ok, and other times when when we're in trouble.

Are you saying the rich should have private health care, and the poor should just die? Because there are a lot of people in between the extreme rich and extreme poor who have both good and bad years.
SmallTownGuy
Old Blue Collar Joe
Where is the line drawn on forcing others to pick up all the ******** bills for some people? Groceries, rent, cell phones, utilities, health care...at what point do we who pay taxes get to say 'that's not our problem, find another way to fund it'?
Suppose you tell me? Where is the line drawn on helping each other, because we all (or most of us, anyway) have times when we're doing ok, and other times when when we're in trouble.

Are you saying the rich should have private health care, and the poor should just die? Because there are a lot of people in between the extreme rich and extreme poor who have both good and bad years.


All that should be provided by the government is enough to feed your family and keep a roof over your head with emergency medical care. Period. It's supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock.
You keep giving them all they want, they have no incentive to get off the bottom. (Not all, some. But even some is too damn many.)
SmallTownGuy
Old Blue Collar Joe
Where is the line drawn on forcing others to pick up all the ******** bills for some people? Groceries, rent, cell phones, utilities, health care...at what point do we who pay taxes get to say 'that's not our problem, find another way to fund it'?
Suppose you tell me? Where is the line drawn on helping each other, because we all (or most of us, anyway) have times when we're doing ok, and other times when when we're in trouble.

Are you saying the rich should have private health care, and the poor should just die? Because there are a lot of people in between the extreme rich and extreme poor who have both good and bad years.


The "rich" wouldn't be so rich with out the poor. Some people believe in collectivism and helping everyone else, others prefer the more individualist aspect. It's so interesting to see the different cultures in America that leave us with so much to debate! However, it sucks when lazy people ruin the advantages for poor and misfortune people leaving a lot of prejudice for "how they all are."
chainmailleman's avatar

Tricky Conversationalist

8,750 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Initiate_Sacred_Demise
Trigr Warning
from blue to
I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.


Love the sarcasm! Great way to put it. Can't forget the public education system, too!


That we can actually do away with and actually be better off without.
Old Blue Collar Joe
SmallTownGuy
SmallTownGuy
Another camp simply doesn't want to pay for anyone else's care but their own. They already have high-quality, expensive health plans. They see most of the poor as being lazy moochers with no work ethic, and don't want to give them a free ride. They want to be sure any public health care is minimal, watered-down, preferably paid for by somebody else. And once it's in place, they want to keep their own high-quality plans instead.
A right-wing friend of mine re-posted this on Facebook a couple days ago. I think it's a good example of this second opposition group: He thinks he's wealthy because he works hard. He thinks poor people are poor because they're lazy.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


Where is the line drawn on forcing others to pick up all the ******** bills for some people? Groceries, rent, cell phones, utilities, health care...at what point do we who pay taxes get to say 'that's not our problem, find another way to fund it'?


Probably at the moment when the health and survival of our country isn't threatened by not providing these services?
SmallTownGuy's avatar

Beloved Elder

Old Blue Collar Joe
All that should be provided by the government is enough to feed your family and keep a roof over your head with emergency medical care. Period. It's supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock.
An interesting approach, considering it's the emergency care (including emergency surgery, etc) that's most expensive. Urgent care, long-term medication (including cancer and AIDS drugs), and long-term nursing care are well below that. Preventive care, well-baby care, vaccinations, etc, are cheap by comparison, and might just keep some people out of those emergency rooms.

Romney (and before him, George Bush) had to back peddle quickly when they made similar statements in public, and were later shown the statistics.
from blue to's avatar

Beloved Lunatic

Trigr Warning
from blue to
Trigr Warning
from blue to
I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.

Yes, taxation is theft. It is taking by force without permission. That immoral act taints whatever follows, so government anything is immoral.

So you're an anarchist, then?

Are you serious in believing that nothing the government does is good?

For now, yeah.

I guess I can't complain about what they get through lottery.
from blue to's avatar

Beloved Lunatic

Je Nique vos Merdiers
It would be way more efficient (and probably cheaper) to get rid of fast food, cars, and poverty.

from blue to
Yes, taxation is theft. It is taking by force without permission. That immoral act taints whatever follows, so government anything is immoral.

Protip: So is private property. All resources on Earth originally belonged to no one. They have been stolen.

If no one owned it, then it couldn't be stolen.
from blue to's avatar

Beloved Lunatic

marshmallowcreampie
from blue to

Yes, taxation is theft. It is taking by force without permission. That immoral act taints whatever follows, so government anything is immoral.


If people want to give up being taxed, they should be willing to give up anything else they get from the government.

That's the idea.
I AM R U's avatar

Savage Fairy

13,150 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
SmallTownGuy
I AM R U
Can you please explain the opposition towards universal health care? As far as I've understood, people seem to want the right to not have health care... Which while understandable in a purely theoretical sense, but makes no practical sense at all.
People are seldom simple. Their views are not always logical.

I think the opposition falls into a few main camps, which are not cleanly divided between each other and don't entirely make sense even within their own camp.

On one side are the insurance companies. They make a fortune off the current system. Anything that makes them take on more high-risk people, limits their profits, or - worst of all - takes them out of the middle entirely, has to be bad. They have well-funded lobbyists, who contribute mightily to politicians of all types and can buy all the airtime on Fox they want.

Another camp simply doesn't want to pay for anyone else's care but their own. They already have high-quality, expensive health plans. They see most of the poor as being lazy moochers with no work ethic, and don't want to give them a free ride. They want to be sure any public health care is minimal, watered-down, preferably paid for by somebody else. And once it's in place, they want to keep their own high-quality plans instead.

A third camp doesn't want to pay for their own care either. They feel they only have enough money to handle their own day-to-day expenses. They're healthy now, and would rather deal with paying for health care later, if it ever actually becomes necessary.

A problem is that none of those people are entirely wrong. Corporate CEOs are supposed to protect their company's profits. Some poor people really are lazy moochers. And it is not a sin to enjoy the fruits of your labor today.


Cheers.
from blue to's avatar

Beloved Lunatic

Old Blue Collar Joe
from blue to
Trigr Warning
from blue to
I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.

Yes, taxation is theft. It is taking by force without permission. That immoral act taints whatever follows, so government anything is immoral.



Unreasonable taxation is theft. Not taxation itself. However, the popular excuse of 'well, they can afford it more than I can and it will benefit ME' IS theft.

Okay. So where is the line for what's reasonable? Do you think it is reasonable to tax living essentials such as food and shelter?
I AM R U's avatar

Savage Fairy

13,150 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Initiate_Sacred_Demise
I AM R U
SmallTownGuy
^^ Generally agreed. The original version was a pretty good bill before it got ripped apart to appease Republicans (who wound up voting against it anyway). The version that got signed will still help a lot.

Come to think of it, Hilary Clinton's version (12 years ago, when Bill was in office) would have helped, if that bill hadn't gotten bogged down with the right-to-sue details.


Can you please explain the opposition towards universal health care? As far as I've understood, people seem to want the right to not have health care... Which while understandable in a purely theoretical sense, but makes no practical sense at all.


It is an interesting way to look at it that not everyone wants health care, and would like the right to not pay 200+ dollars a month. However, I would like your opinion on when people don't have health care, and need to go to the hospital and rack up thousands of dollars worth of bills and can't pay it and that causes bad public debt, if that should ruin it for the honest ones? Also, how many honest ones who would pay do you think are out there?


Huh? Um, sorry, what exactly are you asking?
I AM R U's avatar

Savage Fairy

13,150 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Nonesuch Solo
I AM R U
SmallTownGuy
^^ Generally agreed. The original version was a pretty good bill before it got ripped apart to appease Republicans (who wound up voting against it anyway). The version that got signed will still help a lot.

Come to think of it, Hilary Clinton's version (12 years ago, when Bill was in office) would have helped, if that bill hadn't gotten bogged down with the right-to-sue details.


Can you please explain the opposition towards universal health care? As far as I've understood, people seem to want the right to not have health care... Which while understandable in a purely theoretical sense, but makes no practical sense at all.


Health insurance relies on some people paying in more than they will get out of the system, in order to make good on their promises to people who fall ill as well as to make a profit. There are some people who would much rather put away $1,000/month in a savings account than piss it away on health insurance premiums. In their minds, why bother with "health insurance" at all? If we're going towards a universal health care model, let's do away with the idea of insurance and just make sure everyone can get the care they need.

ACA won't do that.


The whole health insurance system in the US is... weird...
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,750 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Initiate_Sacred_Demise
for the government to come up with a way to cover everyone and attempt to make it more efficient?


Government never makes anything more efficient.
Milton Friedman: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand”

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games