How many of you think socialism simply rewards the lazy?

[Vanquish]

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?

 

[Annie]

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?

Nope, I think most of us want everyone to be able to get health care. We don't want the government involved with our own care or relationship with our doctors. If the 'reforms' were to fix portability, tort reform, closing pre-existing conditions, providing for 'high risk' policies, it would not be controversial.

However, it's a 1k+ monstrosity that simply cannot be read with all the add ons. It addresses taxes and gives information from physicians to IRS. Something real 'fishy' about it and that's what has people really angry.

 

[Zoom-boing]

There are lazy, don't want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings, as well as illegals, who will get a free ride from a government-run program. While I'm fine with providing affordable health care for people who need it, I'm not a fan of doing this for anyone who is taking advantage of the system in any way.

Having said that, I'm against government-run health care because it's not the government's job to provide this. Is the health care system in need of repair? Yes. Is the government opening up it's own branch of health insurance the answer? No. Fix the problems that exist in the current system we have - as Annie noted, pre-existing conditions, affordable health care for individuals outside of employers providing it, portability, etc. But to create another government-run program as a solution? Nope.

If they really wanted to fix the problems they could and they wouldn't have people reacting the way they are. But as I've stated numerous times, the health care reform that's being presented has little to do with reform and everything to do with growing the government.

 

[Vanquish]

Interesting that you say portability...a lot of people are screaming over this information card that has your insurance and medical information on it. I can see how that might be Orwellian to some, but it addresses the issue of portability of healthcare information quite well I think.

And when you say you want "everyone" to get healthcare...watch out...that's socialism, if the everyone you're talking about includes people who can't pay for it themselves.

Tort reform is a crock and I've addressed that in the other thread.

A bill being 1000 pages is nothing new and it doesn't make it unable to be read. In law school I often had to read over 200 pages a night, in addition to clerking, and other work, and doing my chores for my wife, and going over to my dad's to help him out (he had a stroke and needs help)...etc etc. you get the picture. It's a lot to read in one sitting...but it's not a lot to read over the span of a week.

But my wife really shocked me when she pulled out the old "urban welfare types are just going to take advantage" argument. I'm betting there are more people who believe that way out there.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

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)

 

[Maple]

Right on Zoom, the liberals in the democratic party are already fighting to keep in the public option, this is all about total control of health care, total control of the American people and THEIR MONEY.

They could easily fix the HEALTH INSURANCE problems we all face with tort reform, opening up competition in the states, health insurance savings accounts. They won't do it.

 

[midcan5]

Access to healthcare is essential in a free society, it is similar to other services provided by the society to its members. That only the rich have this access in America is discriminatory.

I feel all American citizens should have the same rights and privileges. It is a constitutional and moral argument position. I'm sure there are lots of lazy freeloaders with excellent healthcare, the argument the lazy will somehow benefit is bizarre to me. Most people have a bit of laziness in them. And if the sick get well maybe they won't be lazy. lol

 

[Annie]

Interesting that you say portability...a lot of people are screaming over this information card that has your insurance and medical information on it. I can see how that might be Orwellian to some, but it addresses the issue of portability of healthcare information quite well I think.

And when you say you want "everyone" to get healthcare...watch out...that's socialism, if the everyone you're talking about includes people who can't pay for it themselves.

Tort reform is a crock and I've addressed that in the other thread.

A bill being 1000 pages is nothing new and it doesn't make it unable to be read. In law school I often had to read over 200 pages a night, in addition to clerking, and other work, and doing my chores for my wife, and going over to my dad's to help him out (he had a stroke and needs help)...etc etc. you get the picture. It's a lot to read in one sitting...but it's not a lot to read over the span of a week.

But my wife really shocked me when she pulled out the old "urban welfare types are just going to take advantage" argument. I'm betting there are more people who believe that way out there.

You asked if we were dolts as you seem to assume your wife is. It's not the ability or inability to read 1000 pages, I've no problem reading long texts. The problem if you bothered to read it, is the 'additions' thrown throughout, sections and subsections that are related to other titles within. Even lawyers are having trouble reading the bill, imagine what implementation would be like, if it were to pass.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I completely agree with your wife. I think she is right on the money with her thoughts. If I understand it correctly, passing this health care reform will cause us to be paying for the health care of about a third of the population. My guess is that third will be all lower income individuals, illegal aliens, and most specifically people who generally live off of the public dole anyway. I don't think the Constitution makes a provision for the government handing out this kind of freebies. Health care/insurance is not a "right" that is to be provided by the government. The government has no business in this pot of stew and neither do they in the auto industry, banking and mortgage industry either. It would be nice if they paid more attention to the Consititution and the actual real will of the working people of this country. Simply put, why would I want to pay more taxes just so a "no load freeloader" could get free health care?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Access to healthcare is essential in a free society, it is similar to other services provided by the society to its members. That only the rich have this access in America is discriminatory.

I feel all American citizens should have the same rights and privileges. It is a constitutional and moral argument position. I'm sure there are lots of lazy freeloaders with excellent healthcare, the argument the lazy will somehow benefit is bizarre to me. Most people have a bit of laziness in them. And if the sick get well maybe they won't be lazy. lol

Who has access to excellent health care -- the rich or the lazy freeloaders?

 

[cunclusion]

That is the funny thing I know people who are on welfare and all of them are working just dont make enough to support the families they have. They were working at factories etc then the factories left, they worked in service or retail the pay is alot less and they use welfare(food stamps) to fill the gaps. 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. It like going overseas and people calling you something because some Americans act ignorant when they go overseas. In the end if someone really believes that they need to go and actually see there are alot who are trying even some going back to school to learn new skills.

 

[Dis]

There are lazy, don't want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings, as well as illegals, who will get a free ride from a government-run program. While I'm fine with providing affordable health care for people who need it, I'm not a fan of doing this for anyone who is taking advantage of the system in any way.

The above pretty much sums everything up. Discussion over.

 

[Agnapostate]

There's no element of our economic structure that's "part socialist"; socialism necessitates public ownership of the means of production. Reference to the mixed economy as a "combination of capitalism and socialism" is based on corruption of the textbook economic spectrum, which ranges from "pure" laissez-faire economic structure to "pure" command economic structure without acknowledgment that neither has ever enjoyed historical implementation. The capitalist economy has always been mixed in nature.

As for the answer to your question, legitimate socialism is typically based on measurement of personal contribution, while capitalism is based on flawed measurement of personal contribution in addition to the contribution of one's property, which of course is related to the ever-present issue of the sluggardly millionaires reaping more than the hard-working indigent.

 

[Gudrid]

A couple of things from this thread - first off, there's a provision in the bill that excludes illegal aliens from the program explicitly, so people to get off that horse.

Second, this plan really does the opposite. When you're talking "for the lazy" - well, that really applies more to the public health care we already have, as it's income-based. And that debate is over; Medicaid isn't going anywhere.

 

[Dis]

That is the funny thing I know people who are on welfare and all of them are working just dont make enough to support the families they have. They were working at factories etc then the factories left, they worked in service or retail the pay is alot less and they use welfare(food stamps) to fill the gaps. 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. It like going overseas and people calling you something because some Americans act ignorant when they go overseas. In the end if someone really believes that they need to go and actually see there are alot who are trying even some going back to school to learn new skills.

These are not the people being referred to, and in fact, are exactly the type of people the system should be for. Education is ALWAYS acceptable - it shows you're taking initiative to try and change your circumstances. So if you're getting pissed off, you're getting pissed off for the wrong reason.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A couple of things from this thread - first off, there's a provision in the bill that excludes illegal aliens from the program explicitly, so people to get off that horse.

Second, this plan really does the opposite. When you're talking "for the lazy" - well, that really applies more to the public health care we already have, as it's income-based. And that debate is over; Medicaid isn't going anywhere.

Rep. Heller had an amendment that would require the use of existing citizenship verification tools to determine eligibility for taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits. The amendment was defeated. Why? Figure it out.

Congressman Heller - U.S. House of Representatives

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Right on Zoom, the liberals in the democratic party are already fighting to keep in the public option, this is all about total control of health care, total control of the American people and THEIR MONEY.

They could easily fix the HEALTH INSURANCE problems we all face with tort reform, opening up competition in the states, health insurance savings accounts. They won't do it.

Great Post. We have similar opinions.

 

[Care4all]

the tools to keep illegal aliens from qualifying are ALREADY in this huge bill, why add this separate amendment other than to say the guy's right and it is needed?

and even if the alien were covered, which they are not....but if they were, and their employer did not offer a group insurance plan to buy, then their EMPLOYER WOULD BE SANCTIONED and have to pay a few thousand dollars an employee for not offering it....

THEY CAN NOT QUALIFY for a health plan paid for by our government, that is for CERTAIN in the bill....illegals, if paying taxes and on the books, might be able to BUY a group plan their company offers....but they are paying their share.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If an employer of illegal immigrants is caught then they should be jailed not sanction.

IMO.

 

[Care4all]

If an employer of illegal immigrants is caught then they should be jailed not sanction.

IMO.

yes, i agree.... employers are the main problem with keeping the illegal alien black market of labor, alive...damnit!

but we also need to raise our legal immigrant levels as well during good times....where more labor might be needed.