Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
People receiving it without paying into it makes it a socialist program. How exactly is it earned if someone receives it but never paid into it?
Socialism:
any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
That's not socialism..that's charity.
So what your against is government charity.
Medicare is NOT socialism. Medicare is a social insurance program. People PAY into it weekly their whole working lives, it is EARNED!
Wrong. Medicare is welfare. It in no way resembles an insurance plan. I could list all the differences between Medicare and insurance, but intelligent people already know them and people like you are immune to the facts.
The fact that you are taxed doesn't prove that you have "earned" the benefits. Many people receive benefits without paying a dime.
It's impossible to serve others effectively if one does not first meet his own needs.
In other words, charity begins at home.
So the Kochroaches needs have not yet been met and they need a few more billions of dollars before they might be expected to help others?
If they don't want to help others, that's their business. In a free country, you do what you like, now what others tell you to do.
Furthermore, the Kochs do help everyone by donating money to groups that are trying to overthrow our welfare kleptocracy.
People receiving it without paying into it makes it a socialist program. How exactly is it earned if someone receives it but never paid into it?
Socialism:
any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
That's not socialism..that's charity.
So what your against is government charity.
You have just been nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Month" award for your entry "government charity."
Congratulations.
Charity is voluntary. Medicare funds are taken at gunpoint.
Medicare is not a "socialist program"; the medical professionals who treat medicare recipients are generally not employed by the government. Medicare is a subsidized program which provides health insurance to Americans over the age of 65.
One might argue the VA is a socialized program, do you and other 'conservatives' advocate the elimination of medical care for vets?
So, how, exactly do you make up for 2 centuries of slavery?
You, me and Irene..are all part of this nation.
In any case, I put that up to illustrate that what you may consider "fair" hasn't always been the case.
Contrary to popular belief, if a situation becomes dire enough for a person, and their alternatives are few..they tend to act out. And not always in positive ways.
There are quite a few reasons for making sure people are healthy, well fed, sheltered and reasonably happy.
Like every revolution in every nation where there were huge gaps between rich and poor.
Those communist countries we all hate so much didn't become that way in a vaccuum.
Really
at the time of the American Revolution
Americans had a higher standard of living than the British citizen
Now that's just hogwash.
Funny you mention the Kochs and Kleptocracy in the same sentence...
You have just been nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Month" award for your entry "government charity."
Congratulations.
Charity is voluntary. Medicare funds are taken at gunpoint.
What guns?
Medicare is not insurance. It's welfare - socialism, in other words.
The VA is also socialism.
I advocate giving vets a voucher they can use to purchase private insurance.
Medicare is NOT socialism. Medicare is a social insurance program. People PAY into it weekly their whole working lives, it is EARNED!
Wrong. Medicare is welfare. It in no way resembles an insurance plan. I could list all the differences between Medicare and insurance, but intelligent people already know them and people like you are immune to the facts.
The fact that you are taxed doesn't prove that you have "earned" the benefits. Many people receive benefits without paying a dime.
LIST them...
As you work and pay taxes, you earn Social Security “credits.” In 2011, you earn one credit for each $1,120 in earnings—up to a maximum of four credits per year. (The amount of money needed to earn one credit usually goes up every year.)
Most people need 40 credits (10 years of work) to qualify for benefits. Younger people need fewer credits to be eligible for disability benefits or for family members to be eligible for survivors benefits when the worker dies.
Medicare is not insurance. It's welfare - socialism, in other words.
The VA is also socialism.
I advocate giving vets a voucher they can use to purchase private insurance.
And do you also advocate requiring private insurers to issue health insurance policies to vets when they apply, regardless of existing injuries or conditions?
Ayn Rand works for folks much like herself
more than likely, said folks will meet their end like Ayn did
~S~
I'm not sure how that issue would be handled. But some means could be devised to ensure that Vets can get a reasonably priced policy without creating some vast welfare bureaucracy.
I'm not sure how that issue would be handled. But some means could be devised to ensure that Vets can get a reasonably priced policy without creating some vast welfare bureaucracy.
Well, it's kind of a big issue, wouldn't you say? This isn't a minor detail to be filled in. If you want to keep them from being turned away by private insurers, then you need a guaranteed issue rule. And if you want to "ensure that Vets can get a reasonably priced policy" then you're going to need some kind of rating rules to prevent vets from getting hosed simply for being vets.
Except if you're going to apply a guaranteed issue rule to just one particular segment of the population, you risk prompting insurers to exit the market for that segment. See the market for child-only policies in many states following the imposition of guaranteed issue rules (not even with any rating restrictions attached to it). And I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the child population generally has a more insurer-friendly risk profile than does the population of veterans (particularly in wartime). Which means you've now got to take steps to avoid that.
The point here being that there isn't a magical policy switch to flip and get just the results you want, you're going to employ a little more finesse in designing your approach. The world is complex.
a self serving state. Serving other people and a higher cause is bullshit.
Liberals are the ones who operate on the notion that some magical policy switch will fix complex social problems. Obamacare is a classic example of that. Their solution was forcing insurance companies to issue insurance to anyone who applied for it and forcing everyone to buy insurance. That solution has numerous problems, not the least of which is the curtailing of personal freedom it requires.
I would imagine a solution like that used for auto insurance would work. The state creates pools of insurance who insure drivers who would otherwise be unmeasurable. I believe the state provides some financial incentive to insurance companies to join these pools.
a self serving state. Serving other people and a higher cause is bullshit.
Can we FINALLY call the concept of compassionate conservatism for what it was and is? It's a bullshit advertising slogan meant to soften the image of modern-day conservatives who don't really don't believe in helping anyone other than the wealthy campaign contributors who help them get elected.
One corrupting hand washes the other corrupt hand.
You forgot to flush again. 
So then you'd create separate publicly-subsidized high-risk pools just for vets? I guess now I'm wondering what the point of this exercise is--what exactly do you want to achieve by ending the VHA?
Is the thinking here simply that it's "less socialist" for the government to create and financially prop up insurance pools for vets than to just offer them integrated care directly at a lower cost?
