Republicans Please Explain to Me . . .

[Anonymous]

Here is how this needs to work, you have insurance and go to the doctor or ER, it is covered, if you don't you get a bill, if you don't pay, you have it on your credit report until you pay it off or you end up serving time.

if a person does not value their own health enough to get insurance, forcing them to get insurance is not going to fix it. I am all in favor of reforming the system but it can't be a band aid, it need to be fixed.

Everyone has a chance to get insurance, everyone has a chance to get an education, there are ones that have parents that make sure they get one and some who have parents that fail to be good parents. As a matter of fact, I think our President often talks about how his mother made sure he didn't end up like that and made him get up at 5 am every morning to do his homework.

If more parents took advantage of the education system for their kids, they would be able to afford insurance down the road.
[Report Post]

My mom was dumped from her health insurance company in 1997 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had to cash out her life savings (retirement) to pay for her chemotherapy. She's been cancer free since 1999, and has also been uninsurable. She's been denied by more an 10 companies. Please explain to me how she fits into your model.

[Anonymous]

The lawsuits get to the constitutionality of the bill. Regardess of its impact on costs, service, etc. the basic question is does the government have the power to compel you to buy a private product?

Obama initially said this was not a tax. Now he and the Justice Department want to claim this is a tax. Otherwise, they have no grounds for it.

What Republicans know is that this program will be like Social Security and Medicare. The real costs were way over initial estimates and once the government got it's foot in the door, they were in your wallet for good.

[Report Post]

wait a minute....... so you would have supported this had there been a public option? Because then the government wouldn't have been compelling anyone to buy a private product.

If you are against government run public programs, do you plan to opt out of social security and medicare, and just fend for yourself so you can preserve your ethics and values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The lawsuits get to the constitutionality of the bill. Regardess of its impact on costs, service, etc. the basic question is does the government have the power to compel you to buy a private product?

Obama initially said this was not a tax. Now he and the Justice Department want to claim this is a tax. Otherwise, they have no grounds for it.

What Republicans know is that this program will be like Social Security and Medicare. The real costs were way over initial estimates and once the government got it's foot in the door, they were in your wallet for good.

[Report Post]

wait a minute....... so you would have supported this had there been a public option? Because then the government wouldn't have been compelling anyone to buy a private product.

If you are against government run public programs, do you plan to opt out of social security and medicare, and just fend for yourself so you can preserve your ethics and values?

A public option is...an...option...which wouldn't preclude the requirement to buy insurance some of which is private. The details of the bill would dictate the public/private issues.

Second question with a question: Do you donate money, in addition to your taxes, to the US Treasury voluntarily because you believe in government run programs to preserve you ethics and values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The lawsuits get to the constitutionality of the bill. Regardess of its impact on costs, service, etc. the basic question is does the government have the power to compel you to buy a private product?

Obama initially said this was not a tax. Now he and the Justice Department want to claim this is a tax. Otherwise, they have no grounds for it.

What Republicans know is that this program will be like Social Security and Medicare. The real costs were way over initial estimates and once the government got it's foot in the door, they were in your wallet for good.

[Report Post]



wait a minute....... so you would have supported this had there been a public option? Because then the government wouldn't have been compelling anyone to buy a private product.

If you are against government run public programs, do you plan to opt out of social security and medicare, and just fend for yourself so you can preserve your ethics and values?



A public option is...an...option...which wouldn't preclude the requirement to buy insurance some of which is private. The details of the bill would dictate the public/private issues.

Second question with a question: Do you donate money, in addition to your taxes, to the US Treasury voluntarily because you believe in government run programs to preserve you ethics and values?
[Report Post]

I believe in government, taxes, and public services. If I thought the fire department were some sort of horrid abuse of human rights and the constitution, I couldn't legally stop paying taxes but I could chose not to use their services when the time comes. This is the hypocrisy I'm speaking of. You bitch and moan, but you have no problem benefiting from public programs such as social security and medicare when it suits you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The lawsuits get to the constitutionality of the bill. Regardess of its impact on costs, service, etc. the basic question is does the government have the power to compel you to buy a private product?

Obama initially said this was not a tax. Now he and the Justice Department want to claim this is a tax. Otherwise, they have no grounds for it.

PP here. This is just semantics, isn't it? If it is a tax, it is legal, just like any other government run program. Republicans are REALLY just mad that he's not calling it a tax, because then they can use "increased taxes" against democrats in the next election. So you are fine with the program, you just want it classified properly so you can use it against Obama?

[Anonymous]

What Republicans know is that this program will be like Social Security and Medicare. The real costs were way over initial estimates and once the government got it's foot in the door, they were in your wallet for good.

[Report Post]



wait a minute....... so you would have supported this had there been a public option? Because then the government wouldn't have been compelling anyone to buy a private product.

If you are against government run public programs, do you plan to opt out of social security and medicare, and just fend for yourself so you can preserve your ethics and values?



A public option is...an...option...which wouldn't preclude the requirement to buy insurance some of which is private. The details of the bill would dictate the public/private issues.

Aaah, so what you really want was a universal health care program like Canada? Where no one is obligated to purchase anything? Because your main concern is the legality of people having to buy it. Funny how the more conservative you get, the more liberal you seem. It all comes full circle. Some of the most out-there liberals I know are freakishly similar to Dick Cheney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The lawsuits get to the constitutionality of the bill. Regardess of its impact on costs, service, etc. the basic question is does the government have the power to compel you to buy a private product?

Obama initially said this was not a tax. Now he and the Justice Department want to claim this is a tax. Otherwise, they have no grounds for it.

What Republicans know is that this program will be like Social Security and Medicare. The real costs were way over initial estimates and once the government got it's foot in the door, they were in your wallet for good.

[Report Post]



wait a minute....... so you would have supported this had there been a public option? Because then the government wouldn't have been compelling anyone to buy a private product.

If you are against government run public programs, do you plan to opt out of social security and medicare, and just fend for yourself so you can preserve your ethics and values?



A public option is...an...option...which wouldn't preclude the requirement to buy insurance some of which is private. The details of the bill would dictate the public/private issues.

Second question with a question: Do you donate money, in addition to your taxes, to the US Treasury voluntarily because you believe in government run programs to preserve you ethics and values?
[Report Post]

I believe in government, taxes, and public services. If I thought the fire department were some sort of horrid abuse of human rights and the constitution, I couldn't legally stop paying taxes but I could chose not to use their services when the time comes. This is the hypocrisy I'm speaking of. You bitch and moan, but you have no problem benefiting from public programs such as social security and medicare when it suits you.

So you only give what is required of you not what you think is needed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The lawsuits get to the constitutionality of the bill. Regardess of its impact on costs, service, etc. the basic question is does the government have the power to compel you to buy a private product?

Obama initially said this was not a tax. Now he and the Justice Department want to claim this is a tax. Otherwise, they have no grounds for it.

What Republicans know is that this program will be like Social Security and Medicare. The real costs were way over initial estimates and once the government got it's foot in the door, they were in your wallet for good.

[Report Post]



wait a minute....... so you would have supported this had there been a public option? Because then the government wouldn't have been compelling anyone to buy a private product.

If you are against government run public programs, do you plan to opt out of social security and medicare, and just fend for yourself so you can preserve your ethics and values?



A public option is...an...option...which wouldn't preclude the requirement to buy insurance some of which is private. The details of the bill would dictate the public/private issues.

Second question with a question: Do you donate money, in addition to your taxes, to the US Treasury voluntarily because you believe in government run programs to preserve you ethics and values?
[Report Post]

I believe in government, taxes, and public services. If I thought the fire department were some sort of horrid abuse of human rights and the constitution, I couldn't legally stop paying taxes but I could chose not to use their services when the time comes. This is the hypocrisy I'm speaking of. You bitch and moan, but you have no problem benefiting from public programs such as social security and medicare when it suits you.

So because I'm legally bound to a system I was born into i.e. pay or go to jail, I must support all future federal programs? That makes no sense. There is no hypocrisy here. In fact what I'm saying is that current federal entitlement programs are so screwed up I can't support a new one. Social Security and Medicare are fiscal disasters. Half of all medical costs in the country are born by the USG. If they want to control costs, they can start with those programs

Your example simply doesn't translate. The government forced me into a contract and took my money. Now you're saying because I don't like the contract I should refuse their measley attempt at paying me back without interest.? Your arguing that my disagreement with the policy should compel my to reject my money. If that were true. you should be paying more than just your taxes because you feel that the the government needs more than just what is required. Your personal credo should compel you. To do less would be selfish and hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

I believe in government, taxes, and public services. If I thought the fire department were some sort of horrid abuse of human rights and the constitution, I couldn't legally stop paying taxes but I could chose not to use their services when the time comes. This is the hypocrisy I'm speaking of. You bitch and moan, but you have no problem benefiting from public programs such as social security and medicare when it suits you.

So because I'm legally bound to a system I was born into i.e. pay or go to jail, I must support all future federal programs? That makes no sense. There is no hypocrisy here. In fact what I'm saying is that current federal entitlement programs are so screwed up I can't support a new one. Social Security and Medicare are fiscal disasters. Half of all medical costs in the country are born by the USG. If they want to control costs, they can start with those programs

Your example simply doesn't translate. The government forced me into a contract and took my money. Now you're saying because I don't like the contract I should refuse their measley attempt at paying me back without interest.? Your arguing that my disagreement with the policy should compel my to reject my money. If that were true. you should be paying more than just your taxes because you feel that the the government needs more than just what is required. Your personal credo should compel you. To do less would be selfish and hypocritical.

Aaah, but I already do! I donate many thousands of dollars to various charities that are in line with my beliefs. I donate many hours of my time to public service projects I support. For example, I believe in universal health care. I think health care is a basic human right. The government doesn't offer that option, so I donate my money to pay for health care services for the underprivileged. This is money above and beyond what I pay for taxes.

I support more strict gun control laws. I may have the "right" to have a weapon, but I don't exercize that right because I don't agree with it. Social security is a tax. You are compelled to pay a tax, but if you think the system is wrong, you don't have to accept the services. You absolutely have a right to use the services, because you have that right. But no one is forcing you. It is a free country.

[Anonymous]

So because I'm legally bound to a system I was born into i.e. pay or go to jail, I must support all future federal programs? That makes no sense. There is no hypocrisy here. In fact what I'm saying is that current federal entitlement programs are so screwed up I can't support a new one. Social Security and Medicare are fiscal disasters. Half of all medical costs in the country are born by the USG. If they want to control costs, they can start with those programs

Your example simply doesn't translate. The government forced me into a contract and took my money. Now you're saying because I don't like the contract I should refuse their measley attempt at paying me back without interest.? Your arguing that my disagreement with the policy should compel my to reject my money. If that were true. you should be paying more than just your taxes because you feel that the the government needs more than just what is required. Your personal credo should compel you. To do less would be selfish and hypocritical.

Also - you should really start thinking of social security as just a tax you pay, and not some fee-for-contract type arrangement with the federal government. Because depending on your age, it may not be there when you retire. You aren't entitled to it because you paid in, the laws could (and probably will) change at any time. It is a tax. Don't expect it or think you are entitled to it, because you are going to end up burned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So because I'm legally bound to a system I was born into i.e. pay or go to jail, I must support all future federal programs? That makes no sense. There is no hypocrisy here. In fact what I'm saying is that current federal entitlement programs are so screwed up I can't support a new one. Social Security and Medicare are fiscal disasters. Half of all medical costs in the country are born by the USG. If they want to control costs, they can start with those programs

Your example simply doesn't translate. The government forced me into a contract and took my money. Now you're saying because I don't like the contract I should refuse their measley attempt at paying me back without interest.? Your arguing that my disagreement with the policy should compel my to reject my money. If that were true. you should be paying more than just your taxes because you feel that the the government needs more than just what is required. Your personal credo should compel you. To do less would be selfish and hypocritical.

Also - you should really start thinking of social security as just a tax you pay, and not some fee-for-contract type arrangement with the federal government. Because depending on your age, it may not be there when you retire. You aren't entitled to it because you paid in, the laws could (and probably will) change at any time. It is a tax. Don't expect it or think you are entitled to it, because you are going to end up burned.

You are incorrect to classify it as simply a federal tax like any other (gas, income, etc.). It is in fact much more than that and there are reams of government documents and case law to back that up. In fact you are entitled to it because you paid in which why people who retire aboad continue to get their checks. Legally, it is a government run retirement and disability insurance program. Operationally, it is simply a tranfer of funds, but that's different from it's legal basis. This is why means testing is such a big issue. You can't deny someone a check simply because they already have a large income. They are entitled to the check. You can tax their income and as my previous post indicated it wasn't always taxable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I believe in government, taxes, and public services. If I thought the fire department were some sort of horrid abuse of human rights and the constitution, I couldn't legally stop paying taxes but I could chose not to use their services when the time comes. This is the hypocrisy I'm speaking of. You bitch and moan, but you have no problem benefiting from public programs such as social security and medicare when it suits you.

So because I'm legally bound to a system I was born into i.e. pay or go to jail, I must support all future federal programs? That makes no sense. There is no hypocrisy here. In fact what I'm saying is that current federal entitlement programs are so screwed up I can't support a new one. Social Security and Medicare are fiscal disasters. Half of all medical costs in the country are born by the USG. If they want to control costs, they can start with those programs

Your example simply doesn't translate. The government forced me into a contract and took my money. Now you're saying because I don't like the contract I should refuse their measley attempt at paying me back without interest.? Your arguing that my disagreement with the policy should compel my to reject my money. If that were true. you should be paying more than just your taxes because you feel that the the government needs more than just what is required. Your personal credo should compel you. To do less would be selfish and hypocritical.

Aaah, but I already do! I donate many thousands of dollars to various charities that are in line with my beliefs. I donate many hours of my time to public service projects I support. For example, I believe in universal health care. I think health care is a basic human right. The government doesn't offer that option, so I donate my money to pay for health care services for the underprivileged. This is money above and beyond what I pay for taxes.

I support more strict gun control laws. I may have the "right" to have a weapon, but I don't exercize that right because I don't agree with it. Social security is a tax. You are compelled to pay a tax, but if you think the system is wrong, you don't have to accept the services. You absolutely have a right to use the services, because you have that right. But no one is forcing you. It is a free country.

If good citizens such as yourself gave more money to the government would we need the charities?
The gun control analogy is mute. It simply doesn't compare. There is no compulsory element as with FICA. There is no confiscatory component. Sometimes it's best to avoid such analogies..

[Anonymous]

The crux of political debate. Once the hypocrisy is pointed out and all the obvious contradictions that go with it, people just try to shift the debate to a different topic altogether. It is really quite pointless.

15:58 - I agree with you to the degree that you can't comprehend. I think all good citizens should give more to government so we don't need charities. I think all citizens should give more to the government so we don't need charities. I think we should have government run health care, and pretty much every other social service in the world.

It is the BAD citizens who don't want to pay more that screw it up for everyone else. You complain about social security, you scream bloody murder about it, go on an on about how screwed up it is, but the second someone suggests raising taxes to fix the program, you flip out.

You simply can not have it both ways. You can not have effective public programs without paying for them. End of story.

So tell me what you want. You don't want higher taxes, you don't want to be compelled to purchase private insurance, yet you don't want free loaders taking advantage of the system by going uninsured and passing the costs on to the rest of us. You also don't want a government run universal health care program.

Tell me, please, what is it you want?

[Anonymous]

You are incorrect to classify it as simply a federal tax like any other (gas, income, etc.). It is in fact much more than that and there are reams of government documents and case law to back that up. In fact you are entitled to it because you paid in which why people who retire aboad continue to get their checks. Legally, it is a government run retirement and disability insurance program. Operationally, it is simply a tranfer of funds, but that's different from it's legal basis. This is why means testing is such a big issue. You can't deny someone a check simply because they already have a large income. They are entitled to the check. You can tax their income and as my previous post indicated it wasn't always taxable.

Until congress passes another law to change that. Or until the fund goes bankrupt. Or until the entire government goes bankrupt, which can absolutely happen.

Yes, some groups may try to file law suits to "force" the government to pay up, but to what end? You cant get money out of a rock. The national debt is staggering. Would you really bite off your own nose to spite your face over this issue?

Don't count on this being available to you when you retire. For your own good, establish a solid enough retirement account elsewhere, and if there is some social security money left, just consider it icing on the cake.

[Anonymous]

The gun control analogy is mute. It simply doesn't compare. There is no compulsory element as with FICA. There is no confiscatory component. Sometimes it's best to avoid such analogies..

It does translate, but we are talking past each other. I'm talking about the ethics and morals behind supporting and participating in government programs you fundamentally oppose. You are talking about your legal right to try to recoup some of the money you are forced to pay to a program you oppose. I guess I understand, if at the end of the day your point is that it is more important to you to regain your $$$ than it is to opt out of a program you ethically oppose.