Do you support Enriching Corporations through Legislation

[The T]

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

You basically just explained the actual "reasons" for invading Iraq. I wish people had been more outraged...

Yup and many other things our government has done, and plans to do.

Imagine if the government told you "Mr.Peepers, you must buy health insurance from one of these 3 government approved companies (Blue Cross, Harvard Pilgrim, or Aetna). If you do not purchase a qualifying plan from them you will face stiff penalties and possibly jail time"

To me that just sounds wrong but thats what we have going between the house and senate right now with the latest version of "reform" for health care.

I'm glad that someone wrote what I was thinking.

Good Form...

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Wilson Ave on the L train. The farthest part of Bushwick from Williamsburg. (And the least trendiest)

I've got a friend in Bushwick. She's a sculptor. I'm in between Park Slope and Greenwood cemetary in Kensington.

 

[The T]

Do you support legislation that makes big companies rich at the expense of the taxpayer?

Please vote in the poll and discuss.

Feel free to ask me anything.

It depends on the legislation. There are some forms of very legitimate and necessary legislation that winds up putting money into the cofers of private businesses. Defense contracts immediately come to mind.

What does Government manufacture? -Nothing- Zip Zero Zilch NADA...

Requiring auto insurance, requiring graduation from a private cosemetology school before issuing a license to cut hair, etc ... some are necessary measures to protect a legitimate interest of society and some are dubious imho.

And a WAY for Government to gather FEES (Taxes)...If someone is unqualified to perform these tasks? Do you not think it is incumbent upon a Business to ensure their employess can DO the task?

Auto Insurance is Required to protect the populace from Bad drivers driving upon public roadways...and therefore something government SHOULD be doing.

I really don't think you thought this out too well...

 

[nodoginnafight]

In terms of forcing people to purchase health insurance, I think that is a legitmate interest of society.

For whatever reason we have determined that we do not want to be the type of society that allows people to go untreated no matter what. So forcing those who CAN contribute to their own healthcare instead of relying solely on the rest of us to pick up the tab for them, is OK by me. Would it be better to have the government underwrite the care to keep the money out of the hands of private businesses? Is it better to create cooperatives that would have a competitive advantage over their for-profit competition? Or is it better to just funnel the business to the existing economic machines?

I was a co-op supporter myself.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wilson Ave on the L train. The farthest part of Bushwick from Williamsburg. (And the least trendiest)

I've got a friend in Bushwick. She's a sculptor. I'm in between Park Slope and Greenwood cemetary in Kensington.

I lived in Kensington for a number of years, a while ago.

And I was born and raised in Park Slope.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Do you support legislation that makes big companies rich at the expense of the taxpayer?

Please vote in the poll and discuss.

Feel free to ask me anything.

What does Government manufacture? -Nothing- Zip Zero Zilch NADA...

Requiring auto insurance, requiring graduation from a private cosemetology school before issuing a license to cut hair, etc ... some are necessary measures to protect a legitimate interest of society and some are dubious imho.

And a WAY for Government to gather FEES (Taxes)...If someone is unqualified to perform these tasks? Do you not think it is incumbent upon a Business to ensure their employess can DO the task?

Auto Insurance is Required to protect the populace from Bad drivers driving upon public roadways...and therefore something government SHOULD be doing.

I really don't think you thought this out too well...

I really don't think you got my point too well. Was I advocating requiring auto insurance or not? Was I advocating cosemetology school subsidies (essentially) or not?

I didn't say.

(just so you know NOW - I advocate requiring auto insurance, I do not advocate requiring a barber to attend a private cosemetology school. I mentioned defense contracts because I don't know of anyone who would not favor these pieces of legislation that eventually make money for the private firms.)

So you want to re-think your post?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In terms of forcing people to purchase health insurance, I think that is a legitmate interest of society.

For whatever reason we have determined that we do not want to be the type of society that allows people to go untreated no matter what. So forcing those who CAN contribute to their own healthcare instead of relying solely on the rest of us to pick up the tab for them, is OK by me. Would it be better to have the government underwrite the care to keep the money out of the hands of private businesses? Is it better to create cooperatives that would have a competitive advantage over their for-profit competition? Or is it better to just funnel the business to the existing economic machines?

I was a co-op supporter myself.

Hey I like the Co-Op idea too!!!!

I just can't bring myself to accept the government forcing people to buy health insurance, it seems wrong to me. Thats a personal decision, its my body and my choice as to if I buy it and how much coverage I want to purchase.

I know i'm being overly simple here but thats what it comes down to for me...that is my hangup....the government just seems to be taking too much power and liberty from the people and this Health care bill is the latest representation of it.

It is really a mental rollercoaster for me because I do want everyone to be able to get good quality care and coverage.

 

[Darkwind]

In terms of forcing people to purchase health insurance, I think that is a legitmate interest of society.

For whatever reason we have determined that we do not want to be the type of society that allows people to go untreated no matter what. So forcing those who CAN contribute to their own healthcare instead of relying solely on the rest of us to pick up the tab for them, is OK by me. Would it be better to have the government underwrite the care to keep the money out of the hands of private businesses? Is it better to create cooperatives that would have a competitive advantage over their for-profit competition? Or is it better to just funnel the business to the existing economic machines?

I was a co-op supporter myself.

I can show you how it would not be in the best interest of society.

But I'll just ask you a question.

Are you familiar with Pandora and her little box?

 

[Darkwind]

In terms of forcing people to purchase health insurance, I think that is a legitmate interest of society.

For whatever reason we have determined that we do not want to be the type of society that allows people to go untreated no matter what. So forcing those who CAN contribute to their own healthcare instead of relying solely on the rest of us to pick up the tab for them, is OK by me. Would it be better to have the government underwrite the care to keep the money out of the hands of private businesses? Is it better to create cooperatives that would have a competitive advantage over their for-profit competition? Or is it better to just funnel the business to the existing economic machines?

I was a co-op supporter myself.

Hey I like the Co-Op idea too!!!!

I just can't bring myself to accept the government forcing people to buy health insurance, it seems wrong to me. Thats a personal decision, its my body and my choice as to if I buy it and how much coverage I want to purchase.

I know i'm being overly simple here but thats what it comes down to for me...that is my hangup....the government just seems to be taking too much power and liberty from the people and this Health care bill is the latest representation of it.

It is really a mental rollercoaster for me because I do want everyone to be able to get good quality care and coverage.

Well, they can get good quality coverage and care. The left just thinks that no one should have to pay for it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In terms of forcing people to purchase health insurance, I think that is a legitmate interest of society.

For whatever reason we have determined that we do not want to be the type of society that allows people to go untreated no matter what. So forcing those who CAN contribute to their own healthcare instead of relying solely on the rest of us to pick up the tab for them, is OK by me. Would it be better to have the government underwrite the care to keep the money out of the hands of private businesses? Is it better to create cooperatives that would have a competitive advantage over their for-profit competition? Or is it better to just funnel the business to the existing economic machines?

I was a co-op supporter myself.

Hey I like the Co-Op idea too!!!!

I just can't bring myself to accept the government forcing people to buy health insurance, it seems wrong to me. Thats a personal decision, its my body and my choice as to if I buy it and how much coverage I want to purchase.

I know i'm being overly simple here but thats what it comes down to for me...that is my hangup....the government just seems to be taking too much power and liberty from the people and this Health care bill is the latest representation of it.

It is really a mental rollercoaster for me because I do want everyone to be able to get good quality care and coverage.

That's a concern for me too. I do want working people who are falling through the cracks to get some help too. But I also want people who CAN afford to contribute to their own care to contribute what they can instead of just relying on everyone else to pick up the WHOLE tab for them.


Darkwind above tries to frame the argument as: "The left just thinks no one should have to pay for it."

Which is the EXACT opposite of requiring people who CAN contribute to their own care through purchasing insurance to do just that.

And yes, Darkwind, I'm familiar with the mythological story of Pandora's box. And if all you can offer is cryptic promises of gloom and doom without offering a shred of support, then sorry - it just isn't going to sway me one bit.

 

[Darkwind]

In terms of forcing people to purchase health insurance, I think that is a legitmate interest of society.

For whatever reason we have determined that we do not want to be the type of society that allows people to go untreated no matter what. So forcing those who CAN contribute to their own healthcare instead of relying solely on the rest of us to pick up the tab for them, is OK by me. Would it be better to have the government underwrite the care to keep the money out of the hands of private businesses? Is it better to create cooperatives that would have a competitive advantage over their for-profit competition? Or is it better to just funnel the business to the existing economic machines?

I was a co-op supporter myself.

Hey I like the Co-Op idea too!!!!

I just can't bring myself to accept the government forcing people to buy health insurance, it seems wrong to me. Thats a personal decision, its my body and my choice as to if I buy it and how much coverage I want to purchase.

I know i'm being overly simple here but thats what it comes down to for me...that is my hangup....the government just seems to be taking too much power and liberty from the people and this Health care bill is the latest representation of it.

It is really a mental rollercoaster for me because I do want everyone to be able to get good quality care and coverage.

That's a concern for me too. I do want working people who are falling through the cracks to get some help too. But I also want people who CAN afford to contribute to their own care to contribute what they can instead of just relying on everyone else to pick up the WHOLE tab for them.


Darkwind above tries to frame the argument as: "The left just thinks no one should have to pay for it."

Which is the EXACT opposite of requiring people who CAN contribute to their own care through purchasing insurance to do just that.

And yes, Darkwind, I'm familiar with the mythological story of Pandora's box. And if all you can offer is cryptic promises of gloom and doom without offering a shred of support, then sorry - it just isn't going to sway me one bit.

Except that you cannot Constitutionally, require people to pay for anything they do not wish to pay for. But you are not asking them to contribute to their own healthcare, you are asking them to support the healthcare of others.

And in case you missed history, and I mean all of history, the world has been full of people who said that things needed to be this way for the betterment of society. It is not some gloom and doom prophecy without support or proof. History provides us with ample proof. It is just the lefts version of 'Bread and Circuses".

So, who gets to decide what is best for society when fully 2/3's of society disagrees with what is best for them?

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't agree with many farm subsidies, but you're missing the other side of this - there are millions of people in this country who can't afford to spend 5x the price for a head of lettuce. Which means people just won't buy lettuce. Which means farms will go out of business. Which will destroy what's left of our agrarian economy, making millions more poor people.

So this country is made up of millions of people who cannot afford a head of lettuce? Take away the subsidies and no one will ever sell a head of lettuce again? Gimmeabreak.

What is destroying our agriculture is restrictions on migratory labor that make it impossible to plant and harvest crops economically, driving our agriculture south of the border.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you advocating allowing migrant workers that could be paid less than minimum wage to come in and take jobs from American citizens?

Since American citizens obviously aren't doing this work, otherwise you wouldn't have crops rotting in the fields, then they arent taking jobs from anyone. So yes, that is what I am advocating.
Free movement of labor and capital is the real conservative position.

 

[The T]

In terms of forcing people to purchase health insurance, I think that is a legitmate interest of society.

NO it isn't. Government cannot compell a person to buy something they may not need. That is a personal issue. In the case of Auto Insurance? Government has a stake in protecting the public driving on Public Roadways. (Protecting YOUR liberty (Safety) on Public thouroghfares (streets) from irresponsible persons.

-YOU- do not choose to get sick, and therefore is a personal issue as to whether you wish to safeguard yourself from such a calamity.

For whatever reason we have determined that we do not want to be the type of society that allows people to go untreated no matter what.

See EMTALA

So forcing those who CAN contribute to their own healthcare instead of relying solely on the rest of us to pick up the tab for them, is OK by me.

UnConstitutional...albiet The Government [And YOU already DO, and part of this problem (no) Thanks to Government] already does it...You cannot COMPELL (Force) Commerce upon the people...as you want to do here AND what Congress is doing subsequently...

Would it be better to have the government underwrite the care to keep the money out of the hands of private businesses?

Government has NO business at all doing this...And what Charities are FOR...and pro bono works of professionals...

Is it better to create cooperatives that would have a competitive advantage over their for-profit competition?

-In short? -YES-

Or is it better to just funnel the business to the existing economic machines?

It is Better to leave Businesses ALONE, and have them Live or DIE upon patronage without interference from Government.

I was a co-op supporter myself.

Then YOU make that choice for yourself, and it is a personal one. And as it should be...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Except that you cannot Constitutionally, require people to pay for anything they do not wish to pay for.

Try that one with the IRS - try it with the cop who tickets you for not having auto insurance. sorry, that's just pure BS - please show the applicable section of the constitution.

But you are not asking them to contribute to their own healthcare, you are asking them to support the healthcare of others.

Requiring people to purchase insurance IS requiring them to contribute to their own healthcare costs. No matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise. You're just very clearly wrong about that.

History provides us with ample proof.

And yet you have not. You talk about the constitution and ample evidence in history but you can't produce ANY of this abundant evidence?

So, who gets to decide what is best for society when fully 2/3's of society disagrees with what is best for them?

Since you are so up on history - ALL OF HISTORY - then I'm sure you must have caught a class at some time or another on representative democracy and how it works. If not, then maybe you would be better served to spend a little less time in Pandora's Box and a little more time in a civics class.

Just MHO.

 

[nodoginnafight]

YOU- do not choose to get sick, and therefore is a personal issue as to whether you wish to safeguard yourself from such a calamity.

Oh but because YOU CHOOSE to be involved in a traffic accident....... ????????????

I'm sorry - I don't mean to be rude. But your posts seem to indicate that you have so completely missed the boat on my posts. Perhaps my writing is unclear. Perhaps it's MY fault. But some of the illogical connections that you produce are just absurd.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So this country is made up of millions of people who cannot afford a head of lettuce? Take away the subsidies and no one will ever sell a head of lettuce again? Gimmeabreak.

What is destroying our agriculture is restrictions on migratory labor that make it impossible to plant and harvest crops economically, driving our agriculture south of the border.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you advocating allowing migrant workers that could be paid less than minimum wage to come in and take jobs from American citizens?

Since American citizens obviously aren't doing this work, otherwise you wouldn't have crops rotting in the fields, then they arent taking jobs from anyone. So yes, that is what I am advocating.
Free movement of labor and capital is the real conservative position.

So the way to save American agriculture is get a bunch of mexicans being paid 50 cents an hour to work our fields?

 

[The T]

YOU- do not choose to get sick, and therefore is a personal issue as to whether you wish to safeguard yourself from such a calamity.

Oh but because YOU CHOOSE to be involved in a traffic accident....... ????????????

You are ON a publically funded/maintained ROAD...

States have the RIGHT to demand this type of Insurance...because YOU bought the vehicle...and drive it upon PUBLIC ROADS.

I cannot help that -you- do NOT see the distinction.

 

[Darkwind]

Except that you cannot Constitutionally, require people to pay for anything they do not wish to pay for.

Try that one with the IRS - try it with the cop who tickets you for not having auto insurance. sorry, that's just pure BS - please show the applicable section of the constitution.

But you are not asking them to contribute to their own healthcare, you are asking them to support the healthcare of others.

Requiring people to purchase insurance IS requiring them to contribute to their own healthcare costs. No matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise. You're just very clearly wrong about that.

History provides us with ample proof.

And yet you have not. You talk about the constitution and ample evidence in history but you can't produce ANY of this abundant evidence?

So, who gets to decide what is best for society when fully 2/3's of society disagrees with what is best for them?

Since you are so up on history - ALL OF HISTORY - then I'm sure you must have caught a class at some time or another on representative democracy and how it works. If not, then maybe you would be better served to spend a little less time in Pandora's Box and a little more time in a civics class.

Just MHO.

Just about all of this has been answered before. But I'll just throw out a few examples from history on dictators knowing was it best for society.

The workers of the former Soviet Union were all for Lenin. How'd that work out for them? The people who have suffered under Mao Tse Tung were just malcontents and didn't know what was best for society, did they? They are still paying that price. How many tyrants do you need listed?

BTW...I do know how a representative government works. The Representatives are to do the bidding of their Constituents or face being removed from office. A majority of the constituents of the WHOLE country are against this health care because THEY know it is bad for society. The current representatives of our country know this as well and yet they are going against the will of the people.

Just remember. What can be done can be undone. The Democrats are going to lose big this cycle. because they do NOT know what is best for society.

 

[The T]

Except that you cannot Constitutionally, require people to pay for anything they do not wish to pay for.

Try that one with the IRS - try it with the cop who tickets you for not having auto insurance. sorry, that's just pure BS - please show the applicable section of the constitution.

But you are not asking them to contribute to their own healthcare, you are asking them to support the healthcare of others.

Requiring people to purchase insurance IS requiring them to contribute to their own healthcare costs. No matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise. You're just very clearly wrong about that.

History provides us with ample proof.

And yet you have not. You talk about the constitution and ample evidence in history but you can't produce ANY of this abundant evidence?

So, who gets to decide what is best for society when fully 2/3's of society disagrees with what is best for them?

Since you are so up on history - ALL OF HISTORY - then I'm sure you must have caught a class at some time or another on representative democracy and how it works. If not, then maybe you would be better served to spend a little less time in Pandora's Box and a little more time in a civics class.

Just MHO.

Your HO is flawed, and you do NOT see the distiction...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pilgrim - I've enjoyed it - as I almost always do when we agree to disagree about something. Gotta fly. Merry Christmas all - I apologize if I have insulted any of you. I really do respect your right to hold and express your own opinion and I'm sorry for every time I have failed to disagree respectfully.

Not an excuse but I've been in a bad mood lately. I'm sorry to those of you I've taken it out on. You don't deserve that.