Health care and the strong arm tactic

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3064614
Geridoc,
...
Now,
Please provide me information that the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth were LYING about Sen. Kerry.
Would you accept the word of John McCain, who said of the first TV ad "I condemn the [SBVT] ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong". I could go on, but I don't want to hijack this thread because it does raise a good question that warrants discussion.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3064733
Would you accept the word of John McCain, who said of the first TV ad "I condemn the [SBVT] ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong". I could go on, but I don't want to hijack this thread because it does raise a good question that warrants discussion.

McCain never (to my knowledge) said they were lies. Just bashing him with the truth his service record was not what he was inlfating it to be.
IMO, I'd have hit him over the head with it, heck the left has no problem making fun of real torture injuries in McCain' case, so what, Kerry earned some purple owies.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3064615
Define 'poor'. There are plenty of people out there that work two or three different jobs just to scrape together enough money to pay for living essentials - rent, clothing, and food. After they pay these, they don't have any money left to pay the exhorbitant insurance premiums for even basic services. So even if they are 'hard workers', yet still have incomes at the poverty level, they shouldn't be allowed some type of low-cost health care?
You simply have a beef with the 'welfare recipients' who sit on their rears all day because they get more in government checks than they would if they worked full time at McDonalds or Burger King. That I can agree with. My take on welfare is some people do have life changing events whereby they need some assistance to help get by. But that assistance should be TEMPORARY. If you go on welfare, you have 1 year to either find a new profession, or some form of job. After the year is up, so are the free checks. If that puts you out on the street, so be it. Look at New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina was what, three years ago? There's still hundreds of people living in FEMA trailers, and getting free rent from FEMA. THREE YEARS. Tell me that's not a broken system.
My beef is with people who make stupid decisions in life then whine because they can't afford 2 cells phones a big screen TV and a new car every three years. When CHIP first came out my neighbor who could afford 2 snowmobiles and a ATV bragged about the fact he was getting his kids in the first round. I'd say the cost of 2 snow machines and the ATV would have bought quite a bit of insurance. People who made the right choices and did without the toys to provide for the kids weren't eligible to sign up for the program.
Another woman wrote a letter to the editor chastising legislators who were trying to apply a 25 dollar per child co-pay to a max of 75.00 for the health coverage which includes Optical and Dental coverage. She and her "Partner" had 6 kids, 2 of which were special needs kids and her partner didn't have the type of job that provided benefits. Why in the world would any sane person spit out 6 kids if the father didn't have a job that provided benefits? Those are the people that annoy me.
I am a prime example of "Stuff" happens. If I had not been on the job and the person who killed me not had good insurance we would have had to either borrow from the parents or go on public assistance. I really have no issue with a Autoworker who got laid off getting welfare or whatever while he/she tries to get their life back on track.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3064618
We want this same gov't running healthcare?
$2500 pre paid credit cards ( filled with MY tax $$$) for adult entertainment and big screen TV's.
No thanks.
Anyone collect on T. Boone Pickins million dollar offer to anyone who could show they lied? I happen to have met a officer in that organization (he even did the financing for our first house) on several occasions well before SBVT was ever even thought of and I know for a fact the man is a non partisan. For him to get involved the proof must have been pretty solid.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3064323
For the parasites who get a free ride now socialized healthcare is great. If you pay taxes get ready for it to at least double.
I don't get how the two are connected.
The parasites that get a free ride now aren't paying in at all. That's not Socialized Medicine. Under Socialized Medicine - everybody pays - there is no free ride - for anybody.
So here goes the boring counter-argument as I see it:
The current trouble relates to immigration law. "Illegals" don't have health care because their employers are cheating the system by not paying it, i.e. not factoring it into their cost of employment like they do with you and me. They're shifting the cost to We the Taxpayers.
OTOH, contrary to popular belief, "illegals" do pay taxes.
The simple reason is that their employers are perfectly comfortable evading the INS, but not so the IRS.
Follow the money. INS, at worst, will deport your employees (unlikely) and even if it does happen, they're almost immediately replaceable at virtually no risk to the employer. Dodge your taxes though, and both you and your employees are in a world of hurt. Employees can easily disappear, however, because they don't "exist" to begin with, whereas, the employer has a bit of trouble with that.
Whether through taxes or insurance premiums, it is under the current system that your health care costs are likeliest to double. Costs are currently increasing at more than double the rate of inflation.
Whether that will continue to happen under a socialized system in America is unclear to me however, primarily because the powers that be prefer to fear monger rather than lay out facts for comparison.
E.g. I can understand the fear of increased taxes, because here's how I envision the scenario (and I don't believe our legislators are intelligent enough to anticipate it):
Under the current system, my insurance premiums are, let's say, $600/month. Of that, $100 or so comes directly out of my paycheck as my co-pay. Even though I don't see it there however, my employer counts the remaining $500 as part of the cost of employing me. (tax free to me, but let's set the minutiae aside for a moment.)
If we were to socialize, I can easily see the employer taking that $500/employee off of company payroll expenses and pocketing it, rather than giving it to you as it rightfully should be. You and I would be left holding the bag in increased taxes, w/o receiving the benefit of the "increase" in take home pay.
That, however, is a fault in our version of capitalism, not one of socialism, per se, again minutiae and variations on a theme notwithstanding.
In addition, how is it that states (on behalf of the insurance companies) mandate auto insurance, but they don't mandate health insurance? I find that to be an interesting dichotomy.
Again, follow the money.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3064896
I don't get how the two are connected.
The parasites that get a free ride now aren't paying in at all. That's not Socialized Medicine. Under Socialized Medicine - everybody pays - there is no free ride - for anybody.
So here goes the boring counter-argument as I see it:
OTOH, contrary to popular belief, "illegals" do pay taxes.
The simple reason is that their employers are perfectly comfortable evading the INS, but not so the IRS.

How do you pay taxes if you are here illegally? You steal someone's SS# and pay under their name until the feds figure it out. The common tactic is to claim enough dependents that no income taxes are withheld period. What they pay into FICA is eaten up in man hours correcting the records, let alone the time and money a honest taxpayer goes through correcting their record.
In addition, how is it that states (on behalf of the insurance companies) mandate auto insurance, but they don't mandate health insurance?
Again, follow the money.
I think insurance coverage or a bond should be required. I really don't have a problem with requiring every employer in the country providing insurance coverage to anyone who doesn't have coverage through other means. Thing is I don't want the government running it. That isn't it's place. Let the government enforce the requirements and those who know what they are doing take care of the health care.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3064910
How do you pay taxes if you are here illegally?
You don't. The company does it for you. It's the law. It's deducted from your paycheck. It is not legally possible to have no deductions taken from your paycheck as an employee, and if the proper deductions are taken, there is no crime committed by the employer as far as the IRS is concerned.
Al Capone didn't go to jail for rum running or "conspiracy to commit"... He went to jail for tax evasion. Had he paid taxes, the DA would'a had nothing.
You think that ConAgra, etc. didn't learn from that? That they're hiding their slaughterhouse employee costs altogether? That'd require quite the amalgam of creative accounting between the IRS, SarbOx and the stockholder reports...
I think insurance coverage or a bond should be required. I really don't have a problem with requiring every employer in the country providing insurance coverage to anyone who doesn't have coverage through other means. Thing is I don't want the government running it. That isn't it's place. Let the government enforce the requirements and those who know what they are doing take care of the health care.
I don't see much of a difference between mandated private and mandated public. Either way is socialist.
The level of inefficiency of large corporations is not far different from that of the gov't. Witness GM.
You're right, it ought not be gov'ts place. Then again, the enforcement situation you describe is what the EPA is supposed to do, isn't it?
To paraphrase Churchill, the gov't is the worst watchdog there is, except for all the rest.