How many of you think socialism simply rewards the lazy?

[NO!bama08]

"In fact I know one family the mom and dad are working , going to school and still need food stamps to fill the gaps. When people say things like that it pisses me off because you see a few do it then does that mean everyone does it hell no."

So, let's tweak the system, not overhaul it. This is purely a power grab. Clinton had 8 years, i'd say the same number are left out now as then.

 

[Gudrid]

The bill does have a provision to prevent identified illegal aliens from getting service.

However it also has another provision where service must be provided regardless of citizenship status (IE for tourists). The loophole is an illegal immigrant can be viewed as a tourist and get service anyway.

Thanks. The provision to prevent identified illegals from getting service -- is it a citizen verification tool (like e-verify)? I'm thinking not because if it worked the way e-verify works, it would go far in preventing illegals getting the services. The fact that they shot down the amendment says to me that the wording of the bill is such that loopholes exist, as you pointed out.

Sounds expensive and unwieldy and unnecessary, since you apparently have to show proof of citizenship to get the Health Care ID card (you know, the one the more bizarre of the anti-sites are calling a secret front for a National ID card, proving it's all a dark socialist plot...)

How is treating people with a tourist visa a loophole? Do you honestly think this is all some big government plot to provide medical care to illegals? Is it a bid for the oh-so-powerful illegals voting block?

Like Immie, my biggest concern about the health bill is the cost. And Navy made a point in another thread regarding constitutionality that I've pondered as well, because while I do think it's constitutionally acceptable, I also have concerns about opening doors in the public welfare clause. At the same time, I think there's a government responsibility that's been neglected for a long time that this bill would help to rectify. It's not perfect - nothing every is - but it's an improvement over the current system in my mind. But it will have it's issues.

 

[Gudrid]

The bill does have a provision to prevent identified illegal aliens from getting service.

However it also has another provision where service must be provided regardless of citizenship status (IE for tourists). The loophole is an illegal immigrant can be viewed as a tourist and get service anyway.

no, he wouldn't have a valid visa, as a tourist would....but where does it say we would pay for a tourist's injury? no where that i am aware of...? a person here on a visa, working for 6 months or a year, on a LEGAL visa, can BUY in to any plan on the exchange....but a tourist, a vacationer??? i have honestly not seen such???

care

Thats just it...in the emergency situation they check for the visa AFTER the service is complete .

I was reading in the "for tourist" bit. It doesn't actually say the word "tourist" it just says that services for sick/injured must be provided regardless of citizenship status. Then later in the bill its thrown in that those who are illegally in the country may be denied service.

See the loophole? Its big and easy to exploit, not unlike many tax loopholes.

What section/subsection of the bill are you referring to, specifically?

 

[veritas]

I ask this because my wife basically said as much when we were discussing healthcare today. She said she didn't want to pay for people who were (insert standard comment about welfare laze-abouts).

By and large, those "laze abouts" already qualify for medicaid so they're covered. Add all prisoners, local, state and Federal...they're covered.

The gap remains for the non-lazy people who do the lower tier jobs for lower tier money and can't afford insurance. And they are more likely to actually need to be healthy and fit because they aren't the ones playing phone tag in an air conditioned office. They are also the ones that take piece work or projects and are considered sub contractors so they don't have employers per se nor get any benefits. They're the ones that work for companies that don't offer any benefits and get riffed periodically so the company doesn't have to give them squat. They dig the ditches, take care of children, serve you your food and reroof your house and trim trees. They are the most physical element of our workforce and probably the most necessary, and they actually produce things.

I am not liking your wife at this moment. You, I like.

 

[Vast LWC]

I wasn't too worried about having to pay for people who dont WANT to work but can. I'm more worried about the actual govt failing to handle it properly once it is made law.

Our government has shown time and again that whenever it runs some kind of "entilement" "socialistic" style program that it will do 3 things:

1. Underfunding/costing way more than they estimated (medicare has cost 10x what they initially estimated, adjusted for inflation)
2. General Failure to provide the service they promised (Social Security going bankrupt)
3. Corruption (The very thing your wife is worried about, people who dont need/deserve it taking advantage of the system)

Sure there are problems with government programs, just as there are issues with most programs, public or private, that deal with hundreds of millions of people.

That being said, however:

Medicare costs less than private insurance, and costs have gone up due to the volume of old people who use it, rather than due to inefficiencies.

Social Security is bankrupt because certain people in government robbed Peter to pay Paul and put the SS money into defense, instead of keeping it safe for beneficiaries.

Now, the corruption thing, I will agree with you on. But there is plenty of corruption in private enterprise as well. Public services certainily don't have a monopoly on corruption.

 

[Vast LWC]

As for the Original thread starter question:

How many of you are against Obama's healthcare reform, at least in part, because you think you'll be paying for lazy, dont want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings?

I honestly don't think this will happen any more than it does with private insurers. Unless someone can produce some numbers to prove otherwise?

 

[Vast LWC]

My poisiton on ALL initiatives that come out of the White House....this administration or ANY administration...

If a policy has public support and will cost me more tax dollars, you will not see me argue it. However, ANY policy that comes out of ANY white house that includes my losing ANY of my liberties, is a policy I will fight till the end.

Take my money....do NOT take my liberties.

OK, I agree with your point in general, but I fail to see how it applies.

Exactly what liberties are being taken away from you personally?

 

[veritas]

My poisiton on ALL initiatives that come out of the White House....this administration or ANY administration...

If a policy has public support and will cost me more tax dollars, you will not see me argue it. However, ANY policy that comes out of ANY white house that includes my losing ANY of my liberties, is a policy I will fight till the end.

Take my money....do NOT take my liberties.

OK, I agree with your point in general, but I fail to see how it applies.

Exactly what liberties are being taken away from you personally?

The mandate on maintaining an acceptable policy of insurance according to HR3200?

But since the the public option has been ceded, what version are we looking at now? What sections need to be redacted?

 

[xsited1]

How many of you are against Obama's healthcare reform, at least in part, because you think you'll be paying for lazy, dont want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings?

That's a small part of it. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's health care if they can pay for it themselves. Likewise, the government should not force anyone to have health care.

 

[KittenKoder]

If anyone was really interested in making healthcare affordable, they'd get rid of the FDA and AMA.

 

[rdean]

Like it or not we're already in a "mixed economy" - meaning part capitalism, part socialism. We have a government that redistributes wealth through taxes and entitlement programs. It's a fact.

Here's my question:

How many of you are against Obama's healthcare reform, at least in part, because you think you'll be paying for lazy, dont want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings?

Really think about it...and I'd like to hear your honest answer.

I ask this because my wife basically said as much when we were discussing healthcare today. She said she didn't want to pay for people who were (insert standard comment about welfare laze-abouts).

Is this part of the argument that Obama needs to address to get his message across?

We have lazy, don't want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings now.

An entire political party full of them. They are called Republicans. It's why less than 6% of scientists are Republicans. Becoming a scientist is a lot of hard work. Or becoming a doctor or an engineer or an architect. All these things take hard work, one more thing Republicans just aren't very good at. But they breed. They are real good at that.

 

[veritas]

Like it or not we're already in a "mixed economy" - meaning part capitalism, part socialism. We have a government that redistributes wealth through taxes and entitlement programs. It's a fact.

Here's my question:

How many of you are against Obama's healthcare reform, at least in part, because you think you'll be paying for lazy, dont want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings?

Really think about it...and I'd like to hear your honest answer.

I ask this because my wife basically said as much when we were discussing healthcare today. She said she didn't want to pay for people who were (insert standard comment about welfare laze-abouts).


Is this part of the argument that Obama needs to address to get his message across?

We have lazy, don't want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings now.

An entire political party full of them. They are called Republicans. It's why less than 6% of scientists are Republicans. Becoming a scientist is a lot of hard work. Or becoming a doctor or an engineer or an architect. All these things take hard work, one more thing Republicans just aren't very good at. But they breed. They are real good at that.

so true........

 

[KittenKoder]

Like it or not we're already in a "mixed economy" - meaning part capitalism, part socialism. We have a government that redistributes wealth through taxes and entitlement programs. It's a fact.

Here's my question:

How many of you are against Obama's healthcare reform, at least in part, because you think you'll be paying for lazy, dont want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings?

Really think about it...and I'd like to hear your honest answer.

I ask this because my wife basically said as much when we were discussing healthcare today. She said she didn't want to pay for people who were (insert standard comment about welfare laze-abouts).

Is this part of the argument that Obama needs to address to get his message across?

We have lazy, don't want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings now.

An entire political party full of them. They are called Republicans. It's why less than 6% of scientists are Republicans. Becoming a scientist is a lot of hard work. Or becoming a doctor or an engineer or an architect. All these things take hard work, one more thing Republicans just aren't very good at. But they breed. They are real good at that.

Wow ... just wow ... you must be a Communist, since this is not how true liberals act.

 

[Vast LWC]

My poisiton on ALL initiatives that come out of the White House....this administration or ANY administration...

If a policy has public support and will cost me more tax dollars, you will not see me argue it. However, ANY policy that comes out of ANY white house that includes my losing ANY of my liberties, is a policy I will fight till the end.

Take my money....do NOT take my liberties.

OK, I agree with your point in general, but I fail to see how it applies.

Exactly what liberties are being taken away from you personally?

The mandate on maintaining an acceptable policy of insurance according to HR3200?

But since the the public option has been ceded, what version are we looking at now? What sections need to be redacted?

So, you want to have the "right" to make other people pay for your health care when you have an emergency?

Cause that's the end result of not having adequate coverage.

 

[Vast LWC]

If anyone was really interested in making healthcare affordable, they'd get rid of the FDA and AMA.

Definitely, then those pharma companies wouldn't have to deal with those silly "regulations". They could just distribute all their experimental drugs among the general population without all those pesky "drug trials".

Not to mention all the farmers that wouldn't have to sell us healthy food anymore.

That would definitely bring down health care costs.

 

[KittenKoder]

If anyone was really interested in making healthcare affordable, they'd get rid of the FDA and AMA.

Definitely, then those pharma companies wouldn't have to deal with those silly "regulations". They could just distribute all their experimental drugs among the general population without all those pesky "drug trials".

Not to mention all the farmers that wouldn't have to sell us healthy food anymore.

That would definitely bring down health care costs.

Wow ... you are an idealist aren't you?

Have you been paying attention to how well the FDA has been protecting us? The only thing they have managed to do right is keep e coli outbreaks down. Most of the meds they okay, the really expensive ones, have been killing people, while cheaper and more tested meds which have had very little ill effect in large areas over long periods of time are not allowed because they can't afford the "filing fees" (bribes in reality) the FDA collects ... wake up sometime and see what's really happening.

 

[veritas]

OK, I agree with your point in general, but I fail to see how it applies.

Exactly what liberties are being taken away from you personally?

The mandate on maintaining an acceptable policy of insurance according to HR3200?

But since the the public option has been ceded, what version are we looking at now? What sections need to be redacted?

So, you want to have the "right" to make other people pay for your health care when you have an emergency?

Cause that's the end result of not having adequate coverage.

I was making the supposition FOR old and tired, I was guessing at what liberties he/she might be afraid of losing......they haven't answered yet.

 

[Vast LWC]

If anyone was really interested in making healthcare affordable, they'd get rid of the FDA and AMA.

Definitely, then those pharma companies wouldn't have to deal with those silly "regulations". They could just distribute all their experimental drugs among the general population without all those pesky "drug trials".

Not to mention all the farmers that wouldn't have to sell us healthy food anymore.

That would definitely bring down health care costs.

Wow ... you are an idealist aren't you?

Have you been paying attention to how well the FDA has been protecting us? The only thing they have managed to do right is keep e coli outbreaks down. Most of the meds they okay, the really expensive ones, have been killing people, while cheaper and more tested meds which have had very little ill effect in large areas over long periods of time are not allowed because they can't afford the "filing fees" (bribes in reality) the FDA collects ... wake up sometime and see what's really happening.

Soooo....

You find problems with the regulatory agency, and your answer is to do away with the regulatory agency?

Were you going to replace it with another regulatory agency?

Because, as has been made VERY clear to everyone by the recent financial crisis, corporations are sure as hell not going to police themselves.

 

[Agnapostate]

Hate to say it, but you're a bit off. Yes, "each according to his contribution" is part of the basis for socialism, to be sure. This is a move towards meritocracy. You get what you deserve based on community standards, enforced by a centralized planing system. (Of course the ideas of "who makes the standards" is a HUGE discussion)

No aspect of socialism necessitates centralized planning, and indeed, considering the failure of socialism to manifest itself in the authoritarian and centrally planned economies of the Soviet bloc, China, et al., centralized planning seems to inhibit the effective implementation of socialism. Support for central planning boards as cornerstones of a socialist economy is thus scarce among socialists (and has always been so among some sects of socialists, such as anarchists), the majority of whom now support either markets or decentralized planning.

So to say that there's no mixed system when we obviously have centrally-planned, equality based regulation for progressive re-distribution while at the same time we have private, for profit market competition is flat wrong. It's not just a shade of captialism, its both.

No one referred to an absence of a "mixed system." What was referred to was the reality of that respective economic structure not being a "mixture" of capitalism and socialism, but instead of market exchange and government provisions, as both are utilized as means of resource allocation. Central governmental planning is and will remain a necessary component of capitalism, but it's fallacious to assume that it constitutes an insertion of a "socialist" element into the capitalist economy. In fact, considering the role of state programs in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization and sustaining the physical efficiency of the working class, this has the consequence of upholding stability in the capitalist economy and thereby also upholding the private ownership of the means of production. Such government influence is thus opposed to socialism.

 

[Vast LWC]

The mandate on maintaining an acceptable policy of insurance according to HR3200?

But since the the public option has been ceded, what version are we looking at now? What sections need to be redacted?

So, you want to have the "right" to make other people pay for your health care when you have an emergency?

Cause that's the end result of not having adequate coverage.

I was making the supposition FOR old and tired, I was guessing at what liberties he/she might be afraid of losing......they haven't answered yet.

Ah, I see. Seemed like an answer. kk.