Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Flopper]

Yes, because government exists to serve the people, not the privileged few who would benefit from lower cost government.

To serve them against their will?

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

How many of those Americans not in favor of cutting social welfare programs benefit from social welfare programs?

Why would those who get the handouts support cutting them. To them, it's like having someone else's credit card. You get what you want and don't have to pay for it.

Because the poor are not all liberal Democrats particular in the rural areas of the Red States. They buy into the trickle down theory of economics fed to them by conservatives. If conservatives in congress start cutting government spending the working poor depends on, they can kiss goodbye their support. Could this be why conservative congressman are not about to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

That assumes they vote.

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

 

[Arianrhod]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

 

[Flopper]

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

That support would be from either the 49% of Americans who get gov't bennies, the 48% of American workers who pay no federal income tax or some combo of the two.

No surprise there. Social programs like food stamps, welfare and Medicaid are approved of by those who benefit but are paid for by those who don't.

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

No, polls show that acceptance of social programs is wide spread, not just among the poor or those that are receiving benefits. In a 2013 Pew study on ways of reducing the deficit, respondents were asked should Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits be protected, 78% of those with income under $30,000 said yes, 69% of those with income between 30,000 and 74,999 said yes, and 61% of those with income above 75,000 said yes. In a separate poll, 84% of the general populations said Medicare and Medicaid should be maintained.

 

[Flopper]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

 

[dblack]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

 

[Conservative65]

To serve them against their will?

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

How many of those Americans not in favor of cutting social welfare programs benefit from social welfare programs?

Why would those who get the handouts support cutting them. To them, it's like having someone else's credit card. You get what you want and don't have to pay for it.

Because the poor are not all liberal Democrats particular in the rural areas of the Red States. They buy into the trickle down theory of economics fed to them by conservatives. If conservatives in congress start cutting government spending the working poor depends on, they can kiss goodbye their support. Could this be why conservative congressman are not about to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

That assumes they vote.

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

Depends on how you break it down. The higher the income, the higher percentage voting.

 

[LOki]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

 

[Conservative65]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

More like interested in voting for those that continue to provide social programs to them as poor people. It's like I've said for a long time. This country has become a split between two groups. Those that work for a living and those that vote for one.

 

[LOki]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

More like interested in voting for those that continue to provide social programs to them as poor people. It's like I've said for a long time. This country has become a split between two groups. Those that work for a living and those that vote for one.

 

[LOki]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

 

[LOki]

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

That support would be from either the 49% of Americans who get gov't bennies, the 48% of American workers who pay no federal income tax or some combo of the two.

No surprise there. Social programs like food stamps, welfare and Medicaid are approved of by those who benefit but are paid for by those who don't.

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

No, polls show that acceptance of social programs is wide spread, not just among the poor or those that are receiving benefits. In a 2013 Pew study on ways of reducing the deficit, respondents were asked should Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits be protected, 78% of those with income under $30,000 said yes, 69% of those with income between 30,000 and 74,999 said yes, and 61% of those with income above 75,000 said yes. In a separate poll, 84% of the general populations said Medicare and Medicaid should be maintained.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

That always just blows me away.

RWs voting for Repubs is like cockroaches voting for Raid. Even if one does not care about one's own self, what about their children? And the country? Its like they purposely look for what will do the most harm to America and Americans and that's the way they vote.

WTF is up with that?

As to the OP - We've been paying 100% of bills incurred at hospitals ever since Ronnie RayGun's EMTALA (including births and abortions for illegals) and the result has been job loss, loss of employee benefits, hospitals closing, the end to trauma and burn centers. ObamaCare ends that.

It has also meant runaway costs in care and incredible profits for insurance companies. ObamaCare address that as well and we're already seeing lowering costs.

Needs work though. Let's hope the damn Repubs will stop trying so damn hard to take affordable care away from the very Americans who pay for theirs. (Yeah, I know they'll do whatever they can to harm Americans.)

 

[dblack]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

That always just blows me away.

RWs voting for Repubs is like cockroaches voting for Raid. Even if one does not care about one's own self, what about their children? And the country? Its like they purposely look for what will do the most harm to America and Americans and that's the way they vote.

WTF is up with that?

Well, as difficult as it might be to comprehend, some people's sense of "self-interest" extends beyond the 'bottom line'. Some of them care about concepts that might seem quaint to you - ideas like independence and liberty are a serious matter to some people, even amongst the poor. Sure, not all - maybe not even most - Tea Partiers are enlightened thusly, but if you can climb down off your high-horse for a while, you might be surprised.

As to the OP - We've been paying 100% of bills incurred at hospitals ever since Ronnie RayGun's EMTALA (including births and abortions for illegals) and the result has been job loss, loss of employee benefits, hospitals closing, the end to trauma and burn centers. ObamaCare ends that.

We can address that mistake without doubling down on stupid. Without selling our souls to the insurance industry. True story!

Needs work though. Let's hope the damn Repubs will stop trying so damn hard to take affordable care away from the very Americans who pay for theirs. (Yeah, I know they'll do whatever they can to harm Americans.)

The "work" it needs is to be utterly gutted

 

[SAYIT]

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

That support would be from either the 49% of Americans who get gov't bennies, the 48% of American workers who pay no federal income tax or some combo of the two.

No surprise there. Social programs like food stamps, welfare and Medicaid are approved of by those who benefit but are paid for by those who don't.

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

No, polls show that acceptance of social programs is wide spread, not just among the poor or those that are receiving benefits. In a 2013 Pew study on ways of reducing the deficit, respondents were asked should Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits be protected, 78% of those with income under $30,000 said yes, 69% of those with income between 30,000 and 74,999 said yes, and 61% of those with income above 75,000 said yes. In a separate poll, 84% of the general populations said Medicare and Medicaid should be maintained.

Also according to Pew, those earning under $100,000/yr (85% of American personal tax filers) pay just 22% of personal taxes collected.

There's your 84% of the gen pop.

Conversely 15% of American filers are carrying 78% of the tax load.
Clearly as one's income rises, one's approval of those social programs decreases.

So which of these is not the same: Medicare, SS, or Medicaid?

I would posit that coupling Medicare and SS (legit insurance policies funded by the beneficiaries) with Medicaid (medical welfare funded by the gen pop) offered the latter some protection from the cold.

 

[Flopper]

Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.

If we're going to make health care a government responsibility, that's the only sane way to do it. Or better yet, don't nationalize it, but rather handle it like we do state funded public education.

But that's where common sense gets in the way of underlying motives.

So healthcare should be funded by the states liked public education? Counties with the wealthiest property owners and the highest property taxes should have the best medical facilities as well as the best schools?

Yep. Rich people can afford better stuff. That won't change with PPACA. But localizing state healthcare, and making it a genuine government program rather than a money funnel for corporate interests, would give the people more direct control.

You know I'm opposed to any government control of our personal health care spending, but if we do go that direction, we can at least do it in a way that isn't a crass sellout.

If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue. My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.

 

[dblack]

Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.

If we're going to make health care a government responsibility, that's the only sane way to do it. Or better yet, don't nationalize it, but rather handle it like we do state funded public education.

But that's where common sense gets in the way of underlying motives.

So healthcare should be funded by the states liked public education? Counties with the wealthiest property owners and the highest property taxes should have the best medical facilities as well as the best schools?

Yep. Rich people can afford better stuff. That won't change with PPACA. But localizing state healthcare, and making it a genuine government program rather than a money funnel for corporate interests, would give the people more direct control.

You know I'm opposed to any government control of our personal health care spending, but if we do go that direction, we can at least do it in a way that isn't a crass sellout.

If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue. My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.

Probably. I'll never dispute that a prison is more efficient than a free society.

 

[SAYIT]

If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue. My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.

Well, if we are going with guesses, I'd guess that states would have better control and be more efficient than Washington.

 

[Arianrhod]

If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue. My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.

Well, if we are going with guesses, I'd guess that states would have better control and be more efficient than Washington.

Based on what? The fact that some of them persistently take more from the feds than they contribute?

 

[SAYIT]

If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue. My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.

Well, if we are going with guesses, I'd guess that states would have better control and be more efficient than Washington.

Based on what? The fact that some of them persistently take more from the feds than they contribute?

Based on the same thing Flopper based his guess.

That some states get more than others from Washington is often a political game of wealth redistribution ... something the feds do like it's their job.

 

[Arianrhod]

If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue. My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.

Well, if we are going with guesses, I'd guess that states would have better control and be more efficient than Washington.

Based on what? The fact that some of them persistently take more from the feds than they contribute?

Based on the same thing Flopper based his guess.

That some states get more than others from Washington is often a political game of wealth redistribution ... something the feds do like it's their job.

Then we're not talking about the same thing. I was thinking of the states that give less than they take:

2015’s States Most & Least Dependent on the Federal Government