If health care is a right......
heyrob
Loc: Western Washington
MyPharo wrote:
The REPUBLICAN PARTY Version of the Bible ... SHAME on you "Good Christians " We continue to let the RICH rule because they know better.. In Fact . Many Corporations are getting billions in "Tax Welfare" that few seem to want to talk about.. That's ok for some reason .. the REPUBLICAN Party does not mind that . But for the Poor . OH NO ...
So why is the liberal logic always to go "well Billy did it so it okay for me"? The difference between corporate "welfare" and social welfare is with corporate welfare the big corporations are getting by without paying anything, while with social welfare we the tax payers are paying the way for those who don't work legitimately or not. I think as long as it's hitting me in the pocket book, I'll try to stop the bleeding first them resume battle over the rest of the cheaters.
Bmac
Loc: Long Island, NY
Frank T wrote:
In a country as rich as this one, there is no excuse for people not having access to healthcare.
Which is why they do.
Frank T wrote:
I would gladly pay more taxes to see that every child is fed, clothed and taken care of.
To accomplish this you may also have to take them away from their parents, or parent. By the way Frank, you can pay more taxes, simply send a donation to the IRS. 8-)
Frank T wrote:
Why do the Republicans try to speak for Jesus?
He was a liberal if I recall. Always speaking of taking care of the poor, the sick and the elderly.
Do you really think Jesus would support letting people suffer?
In a country as rich as this one, there is no excuse for people not having access to healthcare.
I would gladly pay more taxes to see that every child is fed, clothed and taken care of.
So, put up or shut up. In the last years I have numbers for, the data show that:
People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals.
They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families. But most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.
Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well.
More conservatives than liberals donate blood.
Young liberals make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.
For years the left in this country have run on a platform of being the compassionate party, the party that wants to help. Except, apparently, when it comes time to actually do something that requires cost or effort. The party reviled as capitalist hoarders or uncaring fat-cats are the ones that spend more of their own time and money to actually help people. Its been that way since Carnegie divested his wealth building libraries.
When Corporations do not pay taxes and get huge tax breaks / credits / grants , etc .. who do you think makes up for the short falls . Hmm You N Me .. and its not a small $ amount.
heyrob wrote:
So why is the liberal logic always to go "well Billy did it so it okay for me"? The difference between corporate "welfare" and social welfare is with corporate welfare the big corporations are getting by without paying anything, while with social welfare we the tax payers are paying the way for those who don't work legitimately or not. I think as long as it's hitting me in the pocket book, I'll try to stop the bleeding first them resume battle over the rest of the cheaters.
MyPharo wrote:
When Corporations do not pay taxes and get huge tax breaks / credits / grants , etc .. who do you think makes up for the short falls . Hmm You N Me .. and its not a small $ amount.
When corporations do pay taxes, who really pays them?
Hmm You N Me.
heyrob
Loc: Western Washington
MyPharo wrote:
When Corporations do not pay taxes and get huge tax breaks / credits / grants , etc .. who do you think makes up for the short falls . Hmm You N Me .. and its not a small $ amount.
Again, I make no excuses for the corporations who get by Scott free, but that too is the fault of our non-representative, representatives. My point is you excuse one abuse, by pointing to another. Neither is Okay, but as I pointed out when the government picks my pockets to unconstitutionally give that money to someone else, that is a completely different thing than giving big business a way to not pay taxes in the first place.
MyPharo wrote:
The REPUBLICAN PARTY Version of the Bible ... SHAME on you "Good Christians " We continue to let the RICH rule because they know better.. In Fact . Many Corporations are getting billions in "Tax Welfare" that few seem to want to talk about.. That's ok for some reason .. the REPUBLICAN Party does not mind that . But for the Poor . OH NO ...
Errr... the rich Democrats are in power now,not the republicans.
Wake up and stop drinking the kool aid.
Frank T wrote:
Why do the Republicans try to speak for Jesus?
He was a liberal if I recall. Always speaking of taking care of the poor, the sick and the elderly.
Do you really think Jesus would support letting people suffer?
In a country as rich as this one, there is no excuse for people not having access to healthcare.
I would gladly pay more taxes to see that every child is fed, clothed and taken care of.
How much of your wealth are you donating today?Any.Give us an idea of your generosity.
heyrob
Loc: Western Washington
Frank T wrote:
Why do the Republicans try to speak for Jesus?
He was a liberal if I recall. Always speaking of taking care of the poor, the sick and the elderly.
Do you really think Jesus would support letting people suffer?
In a country as rich as this one, there is no excuse for people not having access to healthcare.
I would gladly pay more taxes to see that every child is fed, clothed and taken care of.
I've always found it amusing how liberals and even atheists quote Jesus and claim he'd be a liberal. Employing modern political terms such as liberal and conservative to someone who live 2,000 years ago is an absurd game to play because those terms as they are used today do not even apply to people who lived a few centuries ago. The original meaning of liberal, for example, was what we today call a classical liberal, or someone who believes in laissez faire capitalism and small government. Followers of Adam Smith were liberals, but today are called classical liberals, or conservatives, because they want to conserve the political and economic principles of classical Enlightenment thought. Those who are vehemently opposed to these conservative principles are sometimes today called progressives, who want to progress beyondinstead of conservingclassical liberalism, and their type specimen is Franklin D. Roosevelt, who originally had the support of pro-laissez faire capitalists until he launched the New Deal. One of FDRs ideological descendents was Bill Clinton, who turned out to be one of the strongest Democratic proponents of free markets in history, which makes him, what? A conservatively classical progressive liberal? You can see how odious such label making becomes even for modern folks.
From the U S Constitution: we are "..... entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...." The key word is pursuit.
You have the right to pursue happiness but you are not automatically entitled to be happy, AND certainly not at another person's expense.
In other words, if you don't WORK to achieve your happiness, you are not entitled to have happiness.
How does one achieve happiness? You EARN it by
1. making good grades in school
2. graduating high school, not being a drop out
3. earning money by
-- finding a job and working or
-- if no job is available you create a job (entrepreneur)
Happiness is earned and that requires working towards it without any guarantee of achieving it.
Socialism does not work. It kills the human drive to achieve. I am not my brother's keeper.
Capitalism works as long as restrictions (laws) are placed on it to curtail greed without completely stifling Capitalism.
So if you are earning money, income, then you can pay for your own health care.
Bangee5 wrote:
Healthcare does not need to be soicalized... we do not need the government meddling in our health. It is not up to the government to take care of me, that is my responsibility. What the government can do is trim the fat off the pork and give back the money to the States.
I understand it is our own responsibility to take care of ourselves or even not to get sick if you will.. But..if by chance you found yourself temporally without an income and get sick..is it fair you will spend till the last penny you may have saved and even lose your home to pay for medical bills..? What about your family.?
Let me state that personally I have been lucky.I am very healthy, I never was with out a job and in my entire life I never apply for any kind of social assistance. Don't let the system be abused... but have it !!!
crissx09 wrote:
I understand it is our own responsibility to take care of ourselves or even not to get sick if you will.. But..if by chance you found yourself temporally without an income and get sick..is it fair you will spend till the last penny you may have saved and even lose your home to pay for medical bills..? What about your family.?
Let me state that personally I have been lucky.I am very healthy, I never was with out a job and in my entire life I never apply for any kind of social assistance. Don't let the system be abused... but have it !!!
I understand it is our own responsibility to take ... (
show quote)
I am living on Social Security. I have Medicare - no Medicaid. Stayed three weeks in hospital back in January and I owe on my part $2,000. More than what I get in Social Security. No matter how much I pay on what I owe, the bills keep coming in and the amount keeps getting higher. No way out.
Budnjax wrote:
why not a right to housing, food, car, education, job, welfare, etc., etc.??? I suggest that not everyone has a need for health care, but they do have a need for these other things every day. So, if health care is a right then certainly all these other necessities should be accorded right status, too, and be even higher on this list of priorities.
The only problem is, if you are entitled to anything that someone else has to pay for, then that person becomes your slave! Why is someone else required to provide you with anything? Is your right to someone else's property, money, time, knowledge and/or life greater than his right to keep what is his or hers? Is theft OK now?
why not a right to housing, food, car, education, ... (
show quote)
And that is the crux if the issue - the Progressives firmly believe in the right to enslave, expressly violating the individual right to liberty. They try to hide it behind benevolent altruism ( via government force) which is really not benevolent at all. It is wicked to it's core and everything it infects becomes polluted and is eventually destroyed. As I have said many times, these people are the most corrupt and dangerous on this earth.
Bangee5 wrote:
I am living on Social Security. I have Medicare - no Medicaid. Stayed three weeks in hospital back in January and I owe on my part $2,000. More than what I get in Social Security. No matter how much I pay on what I owe, the bills keep coming in and the amount keeps getting higher. No way out.
And you still thinking the system is fair to you...?
crissx09 wrote:
And you still thinking the system is fair to you...?
Which system do you mean? I favor the system I grew up with. I favor the system I had before I got sick. I favor the system our founding fathers laid out for us to have in the Constitution Of the United States of American. I favor the system that so many had fought for, such as I and for those that had died so that we many have freedom. Not one man fought for Socialism, nor did any die for Socialism but for Liberty.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.