Sorry they are working for their healthcare just like any other employee. It is when you start giving government healthcare to people that don't work for the government that it becomes socialistic.
we are talking about a plan that the public can BUY. why does this not resonate with you?
we are talking about a plan that the public can BUY. why does this not resonate with you?
And those who cannot afford to BUY the public plan? There is no evidence that the public plan is going to cost next to nothing. It will likely be only somewhat less expensive than private insurance. After all, the dems say all they want is 'competition.' If the price is so low any bum can afford it, then it will not be competitive, nor will it be an example of someone actually BUYing it. It will be taxpayer subsidized.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
And those who cannot afford to BUY the public plan? There is no evidence that the public plan is going to cost next to nothing. It will likely be only somewhat less expensive than private insurance. After all, the dems say all they want is 'competition.' If the price is so low any bum can afford it, then it will not be competitive, nor will it be an example of someone actually BUYing it. It will be taxpayer subsidized.
God knows we don't want "bums" to be able to afford it! maintain a social elite that has access to advantages the "bums" can't get and don't deserve, right, ayn?
what was the point you were trying to make with this unfocused post?
I dont know what sort of plans they have, but I suppose they are like most government and non government employees' plans... a benefit of employment, a form of compensation. So the answer is no.
LOL, a form of compensation I would presume they gave themselves.
Great, so what about those 55 Republican Congresspersons that are on Medicare at the same time, are they participating in a socialist program?
__________________ You know who you are.
I know who you are.
Please construct a rational argument and leave the report button alone.
"Let the local communities decide how to pay the cost. They could decide on a local tax, just as an example.
Some will say that poor communities could not afford good schools.
Wake UP people! That's the idea, people would have good reason to build a better community." -a poster here.
LOL, a form of compensation I would presume they gave themselves.
Great, so what about those 55 Republican Congresspersons that are on Medicare at the same time, are they participating in a socialist program?
Is this so hard for you to figure out? If medicare is a socialist program then anyone on it is participating in a socialist program. Just because I direct most of my fire at democrats does not mean I defend the actions of all republicans.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
God knows we don't want "bums" to be able to afford it! maintain a social elite that has access to advantages the "bums" can't get and don't deserve, right, ayn?
Cant say as I am shocked that you would mischaracterize her position. But I dont know how to break this to you, but taking care of the poor is your job...reverend. It goes with the tax exempt territory and the little black book of commands.
what was the point you were trying to make with this unfocused post?
It only seems unfocused because I use capitals.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
And those who cannot afford to BUY the public plan? There is no evidence that the public plan is going to cost next to nothing. It will likely be only somewhat less expensive than private insurance. After all, the dems say all they want is 'competition.' If the price is so low any bum can afford it, then it will not be competitive, nor will it be an example of someone actually BUYing it. It will be taxpayer subsidized.
The question becomes would the somewhat less expensive insurance, or heck tax payer subsidized insurance, be a needed alternative in light of the current unsustainable system if nothing is done.
Something needs to be done, and it goes beyond labels of socialism and the "oh my God" idea of insuring the less fortunate. This has been understand for decades, at least the Dems are taking a serious stab at it while the obstructionists whip up their base with emotional code words and offer nothing that is going to effect the current unsustainable system.
__________________ You know who you are.
I know who you are.
Please construct a rational argument and leave the report button alone.
"Let the local communities decide how to pay the cost. They could decide on a local tax, just as an example.
Some will say that poor communities could not afford good schools.
Wake UP people! That's the idea, people would have good reason to build a better community." -a poster here.
Cant say as I am shocked that you would mischaracterize her position. But I dont know how to break this to you, but taking care of the poor is your job...reverend. It goes with the tax exempt territory and the little black book of commands.
It only seems unfocused because I use capitals.
i believe you ignore the obvious results of her positions. but who cares? she has been delegated to the ignored corners of the right wing and radical libertarian fringes and there she will remain. she is irrelevant to modern political realities in this country.
you're right about taking care of the poor being my domain. how i do that is also my domain. i believe in social justice and think that it can dovetail quite nicely, thank you, with the american system. one thing i do not do is eschew paying my taxes. that way i am not constrained by the government regarding how i preach. sorry. you are also myopic about how Christians relate to the bible. you are not speaking to me, but rather to a stereotype you have embraced that has no relevance to our conversation. you are making arguments against the ones i joust with regularly on these threads. go villify them. find out who you are talking with before you try to outsmart them. you'll have a fighting chance.
as for the capitals line, you've used it before. it was boring then. it's simply lazy now. perhaps you're just tired tonight.
The question becomes would the somewhat less expensive insurance, or heck tax payer subsidized insurance, be a needed alternative in light of the current unsustainable system if nothing is done.
Something needs to be done, and it goes beyond labels of socialism and the "oh my God" idea of insuring the less fortunate. This has been understand for decades, at least the Dems are taking a serious stab at it while the obstructionists whip up their base with emotional code words and offer nothing that is going to effect the current unsustainable system.
Listen, this is not that complicated. The left believes the solution is government control, what is left of the political right believes that the free market is the solution and greater state involvement is the wrong approach. The opposition to Obamas plan is largely principled just as left wing objections to a right wing plan are largely principled. If the republicans were in power and trying to deconstruct the social welfare state, the left would obstruct at every turn--on principle. That is the way the system works and expecting the other party to fall in line is expecting the other party to abandon its political principles. That likely wont happen, nor should it. This type of battle is healthy.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
Listen, this is not that complicated. The left believes the solution is government control, what is left of the political right believes that the free market is the solution and greater state involvement is the wrong approach. The opposition to Obamas plan is largely principled just as left wing objections to a right wing plan are largely principled. If the republicans were in power and trying to deconstruct the social welfare state, the left would obstruct at every turn--on principle. That is the way the system works and expecting the other party to fall in line is expecting the other party to abandon its political principles. That likely wont happen, nor should it. This type of battle is healthy.
I stopped soon as I read "The left believes the solution is government control".....because that is absolutely false. Do I have to explain how the public option works again?
__________________ You know who you are.
I know who you are.
Please construct a rational argument and leave the report button alone.
"Let the local communities decide how to pay the cost. They could decide on a local tax, just as an example.
Some will say that poor communities could not afford good schools.
Wake UP people! That's the idea, people would have good reason to build a better community." -a poster here.
Linear Mode
