Is A Free Society The Goal of Most Politicans Today?

[Freedomfan1776]

No it isn't their goal.They may start out that way, but power will always make a good person go bad.

Exactly the point. Almost all of politicans succumb to hubris and are unwilling to ever admit they were wrong. Mainly because if they did admit they were wrong, some of their life's work would go to waste. For example, even though we now know the Chevrolet Corvair was no more dangerous than any other car on the road in 1963, Ralph Nader has never come out and said he was wrong.

 

[jeffrockit]

You are exactly right. However, one of the most frustrating things is when anyone believes that anything can be provided to them for 'free.' Just take the example of 'free' healthcare. Even if the consumer of the healthcare service does not believe it costs him anything to consume the product, the truth is, unlike free speech, in order for one to engage in the consumption of the product, he must take away something from another; namely the healthcare provider.

No one believes anything is free. I want the freedom to opt into a public option insurance co-op (where everyeone *gasp* pays in) with millions of others so that I can pay less for health insurance and receive more of the service that I pay for without fear that it'll be ripped away from me in order to increase profits. I no longer want to support the immoral greed of insurance companies.

But just like federal income taxes, everyone doesn't pay in. If the public option is funded along the same lines as income taxes are paid, almost 50% will not pay into a program but will benefit. The top earners will pay in the most, but as with taxes, not come close to getting out what they paid in. You will still be in fear of HC being "ripped" away as the % of people paying in will only be able to sustain their portion of payments until the number of users become too many for the funds to support. Then decisions will have to be made as to who is worthy of certain procedures as the resources will continue to diminish.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

But just like federal income taxes, everyone doesn't pay in. If the public option is funded along the same lines as income taxes are paid, almost 50% will not pay into a program but will benefit. The top earners will pay in the most, but as with taxes, not come close to getting out what they paid in. You will still be in fear of HC being "ripped" away as the % of people paying in will only be able to sustain their portion of payments until the number of users become too many for the funds to support. Then decisions will have to be made as to who is worthy of certain procedures as the resources will continue to diminish.

You don't think that 36 million people paying in $20-$50 a month wouldn't be self-sustaining enough for all who subscribe? Why are you talking about taxes? My public option would have nothing to do with taxes whatsoever, it's self-sustaining.

 

[The Rabbi]

But just like federal income taxes, everyone doesn't pay in. If the public option is funded along the same lines as income taxes are paid, almost 50% will not pay into a program but will benefit. The top earners will pay in the most, but as with taxes, not come close to getting out what they paid in. You will still be in fear of HC being "ripped" away as the % of people paying in will only be able to sustain their portion of payments until the number of users become too many for the funds to support. Then decisions will have to be made as to who is worthy of certain procedures as the resources will continue to diminish.

You don't think that 36 million people paying in $20-$50 a month wouldn't be self-sustaining enough for all who subscribe? Why are you talking about taxes? My public option would have nothing to do with taxes whatsoever, it's self-sustaining.

Yup. Just like Social Security and every other government "insurance" program. Right?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There was a time when that was the goal, but it seems as though control is the new goal. What do you think?

I would think that answer if more than obvious. It's a resounding no.

 

[jeffrockit]

But just like federal income taxes, everyone doesn't pay in. If the public option is funded along the same lines as income taxes are paid, almost 50% will not pay into a program but will benefit. The top earners will pay in the most, but as with taxes, not come close to getting out what they paid in. You will still be in fear of HC being "ripped" away as the % of people paying in will only be able to sustain their portion of payments until the number of users become too many for the funds to support. Then decisions will have to be made as to who is worthy of certain procedures as the resources will continue to diminish.

You don't think that 36 million people paying in $20-$50 a month wouldn't be self-sustaining enough for all who subscribe? Why are you talking about taxes? My public option would have nothing to do with taxes whatsoever, it's self-sustaining.

The tax comment is an analogy. I assume you know what that is? My point is that everyone won't have to pay in to the PO just as everyone doesn't pay in to federal income taxes if they are below the poverty level. So just as with taxes, the top earners pay the most while almost have pay nothing and yet reap the benefits equally. You stated that "gasp, everyone will pay in". That is simply not true. Liberals seem to think there is an endless supply of funds and that it is a level playing field as far a "everyone" paying in to the PO. It is neither. Nothing is free as someone has to pay. Usually it is the evil rich paying the most.

 

[hortysir]

Money
Power
Repeat

 

[calvin]

thanx for shring

 

[Freedomfan1776]

But just like federal income taxes, everyone doesn't pay in. If the public option is funded along the same lines as income taxes are paid, almost 50% will not pay into a program but will benefit. The top earners will pay in the most, but as with taxes, not come close to getting out what they paid in. You will still be in fear of HC being "ripped" away as the % of people paying in will only be able to sustain their portion of payments until the number of users become too many for the funds to support. Then decisions will have to be made as to who is worthy of certain procedures as the resources will continue to diminish.

You don't think that 36 million people paying in $20-$50 a month wouldn't be self-sustaining enough for all who subscribe? Why are you talking about taxes? My public option would have nothing to do with taxes whatsoever, it's self-sustaining.

The tax comment is an analogy. I assume you know what that is? My point is that everyone won't have to pay in to the PO just as everyone doesn't pay in to federal income taxes if they are below the poverty level. So just as with taxes, the top earners pay the most while almost have pay nothing and yet reap the benefits equally. You stated that "gasp, everyone will pay in". That is simply not true. Liberals seem to think there is an endless supply of funds and that it is a level playing field as far a "everyone" paying in to the PO. It is neither. Nothing is free as someone has to pay. Usually it is the evil rich paying the most.

You make a very good point. However, aside from the 'money problem' associated with providing a service for someone without an equivalent payment, the result will be a decrease quality/quantity of service. This has to happen under the constraints placed on the market. As the wages of doctors falls, so will the amount of people wanting to become doctors. As an aside, the AMA is in large part responsible for the high doctor salaries and restriction of entry into the profession. For those of you interested in how this has happend, you may want to check out this article 100 Years of US Medical Fascism - Dale Steinreich - Mises Daily