Going Rogue

[kennyc]

Information on the Senate version of the health care plan introduced yesterday from Associated Press:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...HW-ywD9C2N6602

apparently nothing happens til 2014...heck I could be dead by then!

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No. The costs are out of control BECAUSE of Corporations and Private business that have been allowed to do whatever they want.

Horsepucky. Competition drives cost down, not up.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

The government wouldn’t be “taking care of you” – it would simply administer a plan using tax dollars – that’s it, in a nutshell. Instead of paying an insurance company, your “premium” would be paid in the form of taxes. This is a simplification of course, but so is the idea that a government administered healthcare system is some sort of giant freebee handout to deadbeats. The government isn't “giving” you healthcare, any more than it is giving you free roads and bridges.

If you and others are so distrustful of government, might I suggest a move to Somalia? There you will find a delightful little example of what it’s like to live without all that dastardly government interference, and all those freely available, government “handouts.”

I don't see how you can continue to attack people who are only stating their unease with the insurance situation.

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Just about any idiot can get "a college degree" these days. It is little more difficult than an high school diploma. You just have to show up for classes and make the minimum effort into making passing grades. Being educated in no way needs to be connected to training for a profession which is what most college degrees are. Being educated is being knowledgeable in a wide scope of areas-- even ones that do not have a direct effect on your daily life-- and having a thirst for continued learning. I can tell that Palin lacks that by the words coming out of her (NOT Tina Fey's) mouth.

So she managed to make it (over 5 years and 6 schools) to a 4-year degree in a light-weight subject, just like many millions of other Americans. How does that make her stand out to lead the free world? When I mean educated, I mean people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine and all the other educated people who helped frame the philosophy and the fact of this country. I mean intellectual giants with deep thoughts and advanced educations. People who had vastly less technology, vastly more difficult travel opportunities, and vastly less access to books than Palin had even though she was in Alaska and yet they learned far, far, far more than Palin ever has or (unless she changes radically) ever will. Any one of those men could run circles around almost all elected representatives in the US over the past century. Comparing them to Sarah Palin? She isn't even worthy to shine their shoes.

I agree that Thomas Jefferson was a pretty smart fellow but had some pretty radical ideas (of course, I jest), such as:


Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work, and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.


Of course, has nothing really to do with Palin and her book, but touches a bit on the drift the thread has taken about government, and Jefferson was mentioned as an intelletual giant with deep thoughts.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Horsepucky. Competition drives cost down, not up.

Not where the competition is eliminated. This is EXACTLY the issue. The costs are out of control because of coercion, regulation and NO competition for the existing private corporations. A Public Option will correct that.

(sorry I know I said I wasn't going to post on this topic again, but when a moderator HORSEPUCKY's me.... )

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

The government wouldn’t be “taking care of you” – it would simply administer a plan using tax dollars – that’s it, in a nutshell. Instead of paying an insurance company, your “premium” would be paid in the form of taxes. This is a simplification of course, but so is the idea that a government administered healthcare system is some sort of giant freebee handout to deadbeats. The government isn't “giving” you healthcare, any more than it is giving you free roads and bridges.

If you and others are so distrustful of government, might I suggest a move to Somalia? There you will find a delightful little example of what it’s like to live without all that dastardly government interference, and all those freely available, government “handouts.”

Bear in mind that when a conservative talks about 'government' and 'the government' being too big, they're generally referring to the FEDERAL government. Very few people want to get rid of roads, police, firefighters, education etc etc. However these are services which are all provided locally, and paid for with local taxes. Wanting to reduce the size of 'government' (ie, the FEDERAL government) has nothing to do with getting rid of these services. (Yes, several of these items, specifically education and some roads are subsidized with federal funds. Nothing is perfect. )

Just because I don't want a federal healthcare plan doesn't mean I want to fire the local police.

And this is where I'd suggest that if you really want the government to be more involved in your life that you move to China, where they even tell you how many kids you can have. But then the moderators might think the conversation was getting a little too heated.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

If you and others are so distrustful of government, might I suggest a move to Somalia? There you will find a delightful little example of what it’s like to live without all that dastardly government interference, and all those freely available, government “handouts.”

No, I would suggest you and others who want more governmental power over your lives move to someplace like China, or the middle east........

You might then realize just how good you have it here without more 'federalization'.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Bear in mind that when a conservative talks about 'government' and 'the government' being too big, they're generally referring to the FEDERAL government. Very few people want to get rid of roads, police, firefighters, education etc etc. However these are services which are all provided locally, and paid for with local taxes. Wanting to reduce the size of 'government' (ie, the FEDERAL government) has nothing to do with getting rid of these services. (Yes, several of these items, specifically education and some roads are subsidized with federal funds. Nothing is perfect. )

Just because I don't want a federal healthcare plan doesn't mean I want to fire the local police.

I understand that, I was making a point. The point being, nothing is being given freely as a handout. The government would administer the plan using tax dollars. Right now, I’m paying $358 a month for health insurance through my employer. I’m guessing this is more than what I would be paying within a government administered plan.

[pshrynk]

This continues to be a lively debate which has stayed for the most part in bounds. I would like to gently remind everyone to refrain from name calling and invectives.

Thanks

pshrynk (moderator)

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

I agree that Thomas Jefferson was a pretty smart fellow but had some pretty radical ideas (of course, I jest), such as:


Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work, and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.


Of course, has nothing really to do with Palin and her book, but touches a bit on the drift the thread has taken about government, and Jefferson was mentioned as an intelletual giant with deep thoughts.

Wow. Beautifully said.

Does anyone really disagree with this?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

awww! but you see... this is an intrinsic part of our government, part and parcel of our Bill of Rights, and what makes us who we are!

I don't quite understand you. Basically you are saying that yes, it is written into your bill of rights that you should fear a 200 year old - and out-dated - form of government because this is the kind of government you could get.

And honestly, you sound as if you're talking down to me as well. I am quite plainly bewildered. I my view, basic and preventive healthcare helps not only the ones recieving it, but one's country, people and nation as whole, as it as an entity stays healthier and more competitive.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Wow. Beautifully said.

Does anyone really disagree with this?

I have great respect for Jefferson, but he was a slave owner, so I guess he would know a thing or two about profiting from the labor of others.

But that is beside the point, the overwhelming majority of people covered under a government plan would be paying taxes into the plan. You, among others, seem to have it backwards, as if a few folk would fund it, while everyone else just sort of sits around doing nothing. Will some people who do not contribute taxes benefit, absolutely, but they represent a small minority – I can deal with that.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Let me try again by quoting myself from the last post.

"And everybody is certain that their way of life is the only one that matters, and willing to cause as much collateral damage in other peoples lives (that they don't even acknowledge exist (or matter)) as it takes to implement their vision of how people's lives should be run?"

That's why the fear of the idea of government in the US. Nobody trusts that people with other moral/ethical/political viewpoints will limit the reach of their implementations. Think that's silly? Or limited to the founding of the nation in the late 18th century? Well....

In 1920, after intense 30 years of lobbying, the possession and consumption of alcohol was made illegal in the US. Unfortunately, a majority of Americans drank alcohol. They're still making movies about the criminality spawned by that law. Repealed 13 years later.

From 1933 to 1975, it was illegal to own gold in the US (other than jewelry sold at a price at least 10 times the price of the gold contained.) Why? A president made a decision. Period.

Apartheid? Yep, legally sanctioned from the 1890's into the 1960's.

Shall I go on?

All these, and many others, are reasons why Americans fear government. Look at many of the closed minded comments in this thread. Would you like to live under their implementation? I wouldn't.

Yes, I think I would like some more examples. Isn't the government supposed to be representative of the people? Would it then not be the people who sanctioned these things you mention?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Ea

I don't quite understand you. Basically you are saying that yes, it is written into your bill of rights that you should fear a 200 year old - and out-dated - form of government because this is the kind of government you could get.

And honestly, you sound as if you're talking down to me as well. I am quite plainly bewildered. I my view, basic and preventive healthcare helps not only the ones recieving it, but one's country, people and nation as whole, as it as an entity stays healthier and more competitive.

first off, I do not intend to be talking down to you at all. I may be a little impassioned about the topic, and if it comes off as demeaning, I am sorry.

200 years is an extremely short time in the scheme of things. perhaps our memories are long, perhaps we hold dear the addage of "never forget lest history repeat itself". our forefathers learned hard, very hard lessons and left us strict instructions as to their view/concept of government. we simply do not become complacent in the governance of ourselves.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I have great respect for Jefferson, but he was a slave owner, so I guess he would know a thing or two about profiting from the labor of others.

But that is beside the point, the overwhelming majority of people covered under a government plan would be paying taxes into the plan. You, among others, seem to have it backwards, as if a few folk would fund it, while everyone else just sort of sits around doing nothing. Will some people who do not contribute taxes benefit, absolutely, but they represent a small minority – I can deal with that.

while Jefferson did indeed own slaves, it is an issue he struggled with constantly. he did not like it, but at the time it was not only commonplace, but simply the way the economy functioned. large property owners could not succeed without utilizing slave labor. I am in no way excusing the practice, simply sharing the reality check of the day

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I have great respect for Jefferson, but he was a slave owner, so I guess he would know a thing or two about profiting from the labor of others.

But that is beside the point, the overwhelming majority of people covered under a government plan would be paying taxes into the plan. You, among others, seem to have it backwards, as if a few folk would fund it, while everyone else just sort of sits around doing nothing. Will some people who do not contribute taxes benefit, absolutely, but they represent a small minority – I can deal with that.

Some quick stats from answers.com:

The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.

I'd say there's reason to believe that "a few folk will fund it" - I don't expect the percentages listed there to change much.