Palin pick?
Find a Conversation
Palin pick?
| Wed, 09-03-2008 - 2:02pm |
Palin pick?
- Always planned on voting for McCain
- Now voting for McCain because of pick
- Now voting for Obama because of pick
- Always planned on voting for Obama
You will be able to change your vote.

Pages
Not to mention in order to share the cost there shouldn't be an opt out action. Coverage should be mandatory.
A system that allows the taxpayer to fund their own health insurance and then fund the cost of those who refuse to purchase health insurance because they think they don't need it...i.e. the young....is broke.
There is no consequence for not purchasing insurance. You get sick, need emergency care, you get it. You don't want to pay the bill, you walk away and the taxpayer makes up for it once again. You have no assets to protect there is no incentive to fork out the funds to pay for the "what if" I get get cancer and need treatment...especially when you're young.
The only way to give the system any hope of working is to mandate it through payroll deduction for everyone. It's one of the things I can support Mrs. Clinton on.
Obama is just saying what his followers want to hear. He frankly frightens me and I don't believe he has a chance at winning. :-)
I think EMC had an excellent point - there are already government programs in place for families who can't afford coverage. And while I don't agree they are the best - low income families DO have that option. I'm honestly not sure how there is anyone without healthcare coverage, especially children. I've seen firsthand that these programs ARE offered for low income families...but, as EMC pointed out, you DON'T get very good treatment. Why expand a program that, while it is available, doesn't provide very good care? On the other hand - it is better than no healthcare a tall.
How does the government plan on enforcing that all children are covered?
Will they not allow treatment now for indivuals who don't have health insurance? That certainly doesn't sound like a good solution.
Only if you don't know how to budget perhaps.
But actually you're wrong. It's wrong to force a business to borrow money to pay taxes in a certain quarter when the bulk of their revenue is earned in another quarter. The payments are supposed to be spread equally--they don't really care that you may have earned nothing in the second quarter and 50% of your profits in the 4th. If you pay too little in the second quarter, you're penalized. It matters not if you made up for it later.
How is that fair?
About the only good thing is that you're only required to pay over the course of a year 110% of your previous year's liability. So if you're making more you can save it to the end to pay without penalty as long as you meet that basic requirement. That's come in handy for us as we've grown.
Why not? Do you think only those in higher tax brackets have the societal responsibility to pick up the tab for those who can't or won't pay for their own coverage?
What is my guarantee that you won't cancel your coverage when it becomes too much to manage? Having everyone contribute allows everyone to fairly be covered under a bare bones government plan. Now if you want a more robust plan with better benefits or a lower deductible well then that's what insurance should be for. Similar to the way medicare works now.
It's frankly wrong to expect the few to pay for the health care needs of those who pay little to nothing.
But actually I like the idea of a VAT tax even better. This way everyone really does pay...illegals, those working under the table, drug dealers, etc....you buy something, you're contributing.
Payroll deductions are interesting, but we still run into the group in our society that do not pay taxes.
<>
i would like to see your statistics on that. but it would be pointless, because it doesn't matter who is healthier and who is sicker. it matters who is less empowered to help themselves.
<>
" The test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members" Pearl Buck. "My Several Worlds" 1954
The point is not how it helps the nation. the point is what it says about our ability to care.
Bea
"Will I get taxed, even though I already have health insurance, to pay for health insurance for others? (more so than I'm already doing?)"
Welcome to the reality of this concept.
But low income familes ALREADY have the option! that's what I'm not understanding. There are ALREADY services we are ALL paying for, to help low income families gain health coverage, and nothing comes out of their pocket in doing so.
So no, I don't buy the point that they're powerless to gain coverage for themselves and their children - b/c those programs are already in place.
Pages