Republican Candidates

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
I'm assuming you either own your own business, or are an independent contractor to pay that much for health insurance. Although my medical insurance rates have gone up at least 15% every year for the past 5, they still aren't that bad. Last year my comapny took $300 per month, or $3600 for the year for my insurance. For that $3600, they gave me a credit card with $1200 on it to spend on any medical services I needed. If I have a recurring prescription, I can do a mail order for a 90-day supply of the medicine, irregardless what the

[hr]
price is, for $10 per precription. My out-of-pocket maximum was $4500. Last summer, my wife had to have a major surgery where all the bills totaled close to $80,000. I paid my $4500, and the insurance company either ate the rest, or negotiated with the doctors and hospital for the remainder. Do you think any national health program can beat that?
National healthcare has its pros and cons, but I don't think it's a solution. Go talk to people in Canada and see how great their 'National Insurance' is. Sure they pay little or no money for healthcare services, but it's essentiall all HMO. You don't get the luxury of picking your own doctors, getting second opinions, or getting any kind of elective surgery. Need to go to a doctor? Go wait for 3 hours with the rest of your fellow Canadians.
I agree with you here... but this system would be different. You could still have a private plan or a a gov't plan. You would still have to pay for premiums, and have copays. I don't know how the gov't plan would work as in the small details... but I know that some employers only offer plans that only pay for doctors who are on the plan, and exclude many optional surgeries.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I do not have a big issue with other types of insurance... Currently health insurance is going pretty much unchecked and making a killing off the fact that people have always and will continue to get sick...
Actually they would make money if they DIDN:T get sick. If they did that owuld be bad.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
I'm assuming you either own your own business, or are an independent contractor to pay that much for health insurance. Although my medical insurance rates have gone up at least 15% every year for the past 5, they still aren't that bad. Last year my comapny took $300 per month, or $3600 for the year for my insurance. For that $3600, they gave me a credit card with $1200 on it to spend on any medical services I needed. If I have a recurring prescription, I can do a mail order for a 90-day supply of the medicine, irregardless what the

[hr]
price is, for $10 per precription. My out-of-pocket maximum was $4500. Last summer, my wife had to have a major surgery where all the bills totaled close to $80,000. I paid my $4500, and the insurance company either ate the rest, or negotiated with the doctors and hospital for the remainder. Do you think any national health program can beat that?
National healthcare has its pros and cons, but I don't think it's a solution. Go talk to people in Canada and see how great their 'National Insurance' is. Sure they pay little or no money for healthcare services, but it's essentiall all HMO. You don't get the luxury of picking your own doctors, getting second opinions, or getting any kind of elective surgery. Need to go to a doctor? Go wait for 3 hours with the rest of your fellow Canadians.
I work at a very large company and my insurance costs me like $50/mo and I have the added top coverages... and is negotiated by our union in our contract. I pay very little but realize the burden this places on many familes and employers.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I agree with you here... but this system would be different. You could still have a private plan or a a gov't plan. You would still have to pay for premiums, and have copays. I don't know how the gov't plan would work as in the small details... but I know that some employers only offer plans that only pay for doctors who are on the plan, and exclude many optional surgeries.
And I'll ask you a third time; Who pays for the deficit this plan would create?
 

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Actually they would make money if they DIDN:T get sick. If they did that owuld be bad.
Yes, but no one would buy health insurance is they knew they wouldn't get sick. So they need people to either get sick or have a fear of getting sick. They also rely on the fact that people are usually unable or unwilling to manage their own money.
 

notsonoob

Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Jeb Bush? Youy've got to be joking!
The guy doesn't even deserve to be a Governor, much less a presidential candidate. Since he's been Governor of Florida, some of the craziest legal rulings have occurred in that state (Terri Schiavo, Elian Gonzales, etc., let's not forget the 'hanging chad'). He mirrors all his brother's policies, and doesn't have a clue how the federal government should be run. Forunately, the Republican Caucus knew better and didn't even approach him to run.
I see we have a democrat who has no idea that a republican is pro-life ((Schiavo)) Gonzales was a Clinton disaster ala Butch the ugly Attorney General... IMMIGRATION IS A FEDERAL CRIME...NOT STATE LEVEL!
He didn't run, because he knew he wouldn't be nominated...of course you take a slithering democrat governer in charge of a natural disaster and thats what you got. A general disaster.
 

notsonoob

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The only religious views being forced on anyone in this country are from the Atheists...
Athiests and Islam...Have you noticed that too?
 

bigarn

Active Member
Oh yeah ... I've noticed .....

I'd really love to express my opinions on this ...... but I'd get banned!
 

notsonoob

Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Lets look at Huckabee and his tax program... the "Fair Tax" it would basically scrap the IRS and tax all items around 23%. So if you bought a pack of gum worth a dollar it would be $1.30. By the way my math is correct. The % is based on what is dollar + 23%? I have some views on this... what are yours?
Problem that it ISN'T Huckabee's tax program. Steve Forbes has been pushing this since he ran for the Republican ticket in 1992 and probably before.
 

notsonoob

Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
Removing the ambulence chasers (like Edwards) from the healthcare malpractice con game would make healthcare a LOT more affordable. The federal government shouldn't do any more than help the individual states inprove their health delivery services. It's not a federal issue, it's a STATE issue.
We both agree that Hillary would destroy our health care system, so we're not that far apart it seems.
That's 10% of it. Now take out the drug company sindicates and medical supply companies raping the system and you'll cut the other 90%.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
Problem that it ISN'T Huckabee's tax program. Steve Forbes has been pushing this since he ran for the Republican ticket in 1992 and probably before.
Good point the huckster didn't invent a national sales tax.
 

notsonoob

Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Lets look at the negatives...
It discourages spending and economy growth and encourages saving... If you have 3 people who make $50,000, $100,000, and $1million... and they all have the same budget... they all pay the same $ amount in taxes. Meaning guy#1 30% of income taxed....guy#2 19% of income taxed...Guy#3 2% of income taxed.
What about state taxes? There is no account for this.
Basically for those who can afford to save a large chunk of their income pay less, the burden of taxes in any given year likely shifts to lower earners.
Let's see. I make over 50,000 and my federal tax rate is about 9% with my deductions. I don't see where your 30% is coming in.
Now with my 9% tax I would pay about 4,500 in federal tax...while Mr Millionare pays 20,000 on his 2%...now WHO is paying more tax????
I never payed over 17% tax rate even single.
I think you just flunked MATH, Economics, and Government all in 1 post.
 

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
Let's see. I make over 50,000 and my federal tax rate is about 9% with my deductions. I don't see where your 30% is coming in.
Now with my 9% tax I would pay about 4,500 in federal tax...while Mr Millionare pays 20,000 on his 2%...now WHO is paying more tax????
I never payed over 17% tax rate even single.
I think you just flunked MATH, Economics, and Government all in 1 post.
I think you were misunderstanding the post you quoted. I believe Ryan1 was discussing the idea of sales tax and no income tax. He was not talking about the current tax situation but rather a proposed idea for taxation that Huckabee supports.
 

notsonoob

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Yeah, and that is my only real beef with Bush. I think the Huckster and Mickey are going to be the same way.
Congress puts the amount on teh check...
The president just signs the check...
Federal Employees have a weenie roast.
My wife used to work for an embassy in South America. Just for one politician or dignitary to go to her former country for a visit would cost millions of dollars...WHY?
I think we better place blame where blame needs to be placed...CONGRESS for spending us into oblivian. Granted G.W. never Reganed a budget (veto) until now, but still, it soley rests on Congress to pass the so called budget.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by natemd
I could argue in theory that a communist form of government is a great thing, even better than what we have. But it would never work in reality because of human nature. But that is a whole different discussion.
You could, but then I could argue, that historically it hasn't worked even on a small scale like jamestown.
 

notsonoob

Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I think you were misunderstanding the post you quoted. I believe Ryan1 was discussing the idea of sales tax and no income tax. He was not talking about the current tax situation but rather a proposed idea for taxation that Huckabee supports.
Where in the heck does his numbers come from then? 30% to 2%?
Whether you are poor and buy catfood at Walmart to eat...or Rich and buy cat pancreas at 100 bucks a plate..the rich will always spend more than the poor.
You buy you pay say 17% in a flat tax rate. I'm sure that millionares will spend a ton more than me.

[hr]
and

[hr]
...could probably finance a small war in Pakistan.
Not only that. It will shift the burden of paying for schools and city and county budgets to everybody instead of property owners.

[hr]

[hr]
and

[hr]

[hr]
? Cut?
 

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
Where in the heck does his numbers come from then? 30% to 2%?
Whether you are poor and buy catfood at Walmart to eat...or Rich and buy cat pancreas at 100 bucks a plate..the rich will always spend more than the poor.
You buy you pay say 17% in a flat tax rate. I'm sure that millionares will spend a ton more than me.

[hr]
and

[hr]
...could probably finance a small war in Pakistan.
Not only that. It will shift the burden of paying for schools and city and county budgets to everybody instead of property owners.

[hr]

[hr]
and

[hr]

[hr]
? Cut?
Well according to his post he was talking about a theoretical situation, three people making different amounts of money but all spending the same.
Basically if we only have sales tax it hurts the poor who spend all their money locally on food and necessities and rich people can always spend their money out of the country...
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
Congress puts the amount on teh check...
The president just signs the check...
Federal Employees have a weenie roast.
My wife used to work for an embassy in South America. Just for one politician or dignitary to go to her former country for a visit would cost millions of dollars...WHY?
I think we better place blame where blame needs to be placed...CONGRESS for spending us into oblivian. Granted G.W. never Reganed a budget (veto) until now, but still, it soley rests on Congress to pass the so called budget.
But with a republican congress, the "leader" of the Republicans, spend a poopload of money. Sure congress sends him a check. And he signs it, But he didn't have to sign it. He needed to lead his followers. When he had the chance. Those morons blew it. so now I have to sit here and hear someone say oh the bush tax cuts are why we have a deficit, instead of oh look the prez cut taxes and dramatically lowered spending and we have a surplus, and we are going to return that to the people too.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well according to his post he was talking about a theoretical situation, three people making different amounts of money but all spending the same.
Basically if we only have sales tax it hurts the poor who spend all their money locally on food and necessities and rich people can always spend their money out of the country...
Most "plans" for a sales tax don't include food.
 

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Most "plans" for a sales tax don't include food.
Even if that is the case, the rich have the means to go out of the country to save on sales tax while the poorer are generally stuck paying local prices.. That isn't really good for our economy or our tax situation..
 
Top