Go ahead and pound me: But I believe the Government should be involved in healthcare.

No personal attacks are intended - we are just trying to understand.

Here is how I see it.

You have no insurance even though you seem to make enough money to buy it.

Personal choice - I understand that.

And it is not a problem for me because you have said that you don't expect to be given health care services for free - as you are trusting God instead.

Again - personal choice - I understand that.

The problem is that there are many others who also can afford medical insurance but don't want to buy it and are looking at the government as the source for their free health care services - and they want the rest of us to pay for it.

That I do have a problem with - along with all of the damage that the government is going to do to the system.

 

That's true but with the health care plan that's in the Congress, people who are able to pay for their own insurance will. There is a subsidy, but it's based on a sliding scale contingent on income. With the House bill, you can choose between public and private insurance, similar to how you can choose to send a package by FedEx, UPS, or the Post Office.

 

To quote the great Gilbert Gottfried..."I'm going to die of not surprised."

Repeating...

and...

 

Yes, FedEX and UPS are the private delivery systems - they make a profit and do the job better than the Post Office which is why they are in business.

The Post Office runs at a loss even though it is government subsidized in addition to what I pay for them to deliver a package.

Good examples.

And you think that the government run health care will not be a disaster because...?

 

We have no business making anyone pay for their own insurance or paying for anyone Else's. Ever. There are a plethora of other means to make health care affordable. But demcoms do not want to implement them because of their lust for power.

 

Havensdad sez:

Rude? No, but you sure have been ambiguous about the "stories" of the hardships you relate (very eloquently, I might add) to "prove" your point!!!!

Makes me think of the "bait & switch" tactics used by some retail outlets to pawn off otherwise un-movable merchandise.

Come to think of it, you are trying to pawn off a product (the health-care fiasco) that most discerning folk KNOW is a disaster and a recipe for gov't control just waiting in the wings.

 

Nope, that's not the issue. They want to "provide health care" with other people's money. That's the horror! I say everyone wanting to contribute to this "free" healthcare, line up and start handing over money on a volunteer basis. Then we'll see how serious the libbies are about it.

 

What about the homeless do you want us to give them a house? My point is where does this end? How about let's work to get people self sufficient rather than mere minions of the government that only wants more power over your life.

 

This should all be handled at the state level and is not the same thing.

The constitution provides for those taxes to be collected.

 

What I'm saying is that it's awful easy to be generous when you're spending other people's money.

Comparing the military to healthcare is apples to oranges.

 

So let's see:
You're saying it is not about you..... it is about those you know/ have known?
So this is not your complaint...... it is their complaint?
Because they are dissatified you want national health care?

Whether the antedotes are your own.... or ones you own by proxy..... I don't buy into your position. I've enjoyed private care until very recent. Its not that I'm ungrateful but I prefer choice and personal responsibility over government care and dependence.

 

The sign of a person losing an argument is when they begin to take their points to a ridiculous end.

OK, I'll play. I think everyone has a right to housing. And the internet...after all, knowledge is power, right? Furthermore...everyone should get a "living wage." And...you see what's happening to folks who are po'...they don't get good nutrition. I think our tax dollars should make sure people get gourmet-designed meals. That's a "right," after all. And who could forget transportation? That should be a right. Cell phones, too! And how can we know what Mr. Obama is doing for us without being able to see the news? And how can we see the news without a TV? That should be a right! Oh...and you mentioned roads: I would like roads with bike paths. ANd a bike, too. After all, it's my right...

See what happens when you dismiss the idea of personal responsibility? Kind of stinks, doesn't it?

BTW...at some point, the "rights" of one group will financially overtake the ability of the "producer" group to pay for said rights. That is where you have the financial (and possibly total) collapse of a country.

 

No, one protects against enemies...and it is a constitutional right.

The other is a "quality of life" issue...and it is up to the individual, or those around the individual. That is not the government's job. Perhaps a refresher civics course would be of help. Or read the Constitution.

 

Wow...what is there to say, when a person decides that it's up to the Government to take care of my physical needs?

I find it hilarious that you say in sentence one, "it's not necessarily up to the feds," and then in sentence three, you want to fix the Constitution so that it is the job of the Feds!

Make up your mind, man.

 

Havensdad, I am still hoping for an answer to my proposal.

I will ask again for a third time.

How about a system of medical insurance for the uninsured that is paid for through voluntary donations from people who feel as you do?

What percentage of your income would you be willing to contribute?