16 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyKids who will sue parents for not providing them optimum nurturing who it could be proven had not taken due diligence to ensure that the soon to be ungrateful sprog had the perfect womb environment with the mother avoiding all those things that would detract from a perfect baby developing.
Seriously though, from one freak to another, what do you think the next great entitlement program will be or are they done?
Or Kids who will sue their parents for not having aborted them, given that they may never be afforded the lifestyle that they would have wished to have become accustomed to, and that the mind numbing disappointment and infinite sadness of living under the roof of parents who were not adroit enough to have made something of themselves, is such an onerous depressive down spiral to have to live through, to effectively constitute a fate worse than death, which is where the suit against them having been offered a substandard life style is based.
16 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87No doubt, parents would need "protection" from such law suites. Perhaps Big Brother should guarantee them coverage? Then again, they are not "human" until they exit the womb, so how could they sue them for not having an abortion before the fact they actually become human? Kinda makes your head hurt, no?
Kids who will sue parents for not providing them optimum nurturing who it could be proven had not taken due diligence to ensure that the soon to be ungrateful sprog had the perfect womb environment with the mother avoiding all those things that would detract from a perfect baby developing.
Or Kids who will sue their parents for not having aborted them, giv ...[text shortened]... ath, which is where the suit against them having been offered a substandard life style is based.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyThis could be breakthrough legislation for the kids of pro-lifers
No doubt, parents would need "protection" from such law suites. Perhaps Big Brother should garauntee them coverage? Then again, they are not "human" until they exit the womb, so how could they sue them for not having an abortion before the fact they actually become human? Kinda makes your head hurt, no?
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettI hope the US doesn't move to universal health care. Keep your system the way it is. The US system acts as a warning to every other country about the dangers of moving to a for-profit health system.
What is it with you freaks and your aversion to universal healthcare? Every industrialized nation in the world has universal healthcare except for the US. And since our system is in such a shambles, do you ever stop to consider that maybe everyone else is right and we're wrong?
Everytime some right-wing canadian politician starts to yammer on about having for-profit hospitals, we look at the US system and he is quickly told to shut the hell up.
The US system is a beacon of what not to do. Please maintain it for the rest of us as reminder.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoSo which countries exactly are "regretting moving away from a free market system"? I don't know of any European country which is considering adopting the American system.
First off calling people who disagrre with you freaks is unnecessary. Second of all every country who instituted nationalized healthcare is regretting moving away from a free market system. Who will pay for this? Services will be rationed. Perhaps if the left were not known as the party of death then us "freaks" would not mistrust them as much as how th ...[text shortened]... anyone? Next we'll have the obesity police. We already have the thought police in full swing.
16 Jun 09
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI found the article you were referring to
I can't remember where I heard it, but I found this article which states, "So for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs." The author writes that in 2006 about $354.3 bilion went to Welfare which is about 2.7% of the total GDP. Of course, as a critique of the article states, this fails to include bure the US? If so, then the poor in the US should be paying money, not receiving any.
http://polecolaw.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-much-does-welfare-cost.html
in the article he points out that $354.3Bill was spent on "means tested entitlements" in fiscal year 2006 - and that if you "exclude Medicaid, healthcare for children, and veterans pensions, it is..$117Bill". So out of ALL the tax dollars (besides social security) that government collects, about 7.5% of it goes to what can loosely be called "welfare".
I did some calculations using data from http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/hist.pdf
overall, for 2006 - the government spent 21% on social security, 20% on defense, 13% on income security (i.e. those "means tested entitlements" ), 12% on Medicare, 10% on other healthcare programs, 9% on net interest, and about 15% on everything else (education, transportation, veterans, environment, science etc).
the author takes that 13% spent on all means tested entitlements and subtracts out those things he doesn't consider to be "welfare" and arrives at $117Bill. In 2006, the government received about $2.41Trill (which was less than the $2.7Trill that it spent). Of this, more than $0.84Trill was from "social security taxes" - leaving $1.57Trill from other sources -- $117Bill is about 7.5% of 1.57Trill
So - it's not like government is "wasting" 90% of the taxes it receives on "overhead", that money is being spent on stuff like social security, medicare, national defense, healthcare, education, transportation. The number that should be of concern is that 9% going to "net interest" -- that's the money we have to pay to service the national debt - and its a number that will be rising.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyObviously, the massive spending won't be beneficial in the short-term, however, the fact that Obama has saved all those companies will prove to be good in the long-term. Just think about all the jobs saved.
Obviously you support the bail outs and the nationilzation of corporations. Either way we pay for them so the question remains, what will it cost us later compared to just letting them go belly up now? Will we regret this in the future? What say you?
We have all known the risk of a capitalistic economy such as a possible depression. You have peaks and ...[text shortened]... ll it socialism as where Obama I think is willing to call it anything but the "S" wrord. LOL.
If you don't mind the demise of the car industry in the US and the massive rise in unemployment (which would be the result), its ok.
You won't regret it in the future, as long as the govt. gradually stop expanding, and imposes some regulation in order to prevent another crisis such as today's.
It is socialism, the govt. owns 60% of GM, if that isn't socialism I don't know what it is.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyI disagree. You shouldn't interfere with other countries' affairs, that includes giving them money.
Agreed. I would even go further and say that the recent UN proposal to institute a global tax to help the worlds poor is the next issue at hand. The now liberals may turn into conservatives of the future if they begin to oppose such a plan, but then again, why should they? Are we going to discriminate against the poor simply based upon their nationality? ...[text shortened]... ght stop in for a visit. After all, we wouldn't want to discrininate against them either!!
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
The nationalization of the US healthcare system is long overdue. Sorry, but we are way behind on this one.
For those that argue against it based on the fear that it means more taxes, I say to you that our current healthcare system is already taxing us to death. I'm a small business owner and I see the cost of providing healthcare for employees on a monthly basis both in checks cut to the insurance company and in the medicare/medicaid taxes being paid by employees and employers now and it only increases every year. I believe if you get this all under one roof and cut out the insurance companies it will reduce the cost.
Also lets not forget that a big part of the cost in the US is the liability insurance that doctors must carry. If the system were nationalized I believe it would be easier for the federal government to finally enact some sane limitations on litigation that is helping to drain the system now.
As to the argument that other countries regret nationalizing their healthcare industry, I'm sorry I just don't see it. I don't hear complaints from friends I have living in Canada, Germany, Australia, and the UK complaining that they want to get rid of their current healthcare system in favor of the one in the US. I'm not seeing the envy from Canadian and European posters on this thread. Quite the opposite.
16 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimosocialism is such an icky word
It is socialism, the govt. owns 60% of GM, if that isn't socialism I don't know what it is.
It would be socialism "in the icky sense" if the govt's objective was to control the auto industry, and was forcibly taking over private enterprises in order to do so.
But in this case, the objective is to prevent the collapse of a company that is "too big too fail". The government didn't take GM over "by force" - the company was failing. The alternative to govt control over GM would be no GM at all. By assuming temporary control over GM, the govt allows the company to stay afloat until there's been enough restructuring to allow it to fend for itself.
I guess you can call this socialism as well -- but it's a far cry from anything Marx would support -- Marx would likely be calling Obama a capitalist tool for bailing out all these corporations and thus preventing the "natural failure of capitalism" to play out.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by UllrYou hit the nail on the head.
The nationalization of the US healthcare system is long overdue. Sorry, but we are way behind on this one.
For those that argue against it based on the fear that it means more taxes, I say to you that our current healthcare system is already taxing us to death. I'm a small business owner and I see the cost of providing healthcare for employees on a monthly ...[text shortened]... not seeing the envy from Canadian and European posters on this thread. Quite the opposite.