• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Historic? Health Care Reform.

Status
Not open for further replies.

kchriste

New Member
Forum Supporter
If it's so important that everyone pay money in, so somebody else can pay the medical bills, why not just cut the middleman? We are going to end up paying higher taxes anyway, why not just pay the government, and let them pay the medical bills. Since the government demands that we all buy insurance, they had better put a cap on salaries and bonuses for the insurance industry.
I agree with you 100% on this. The insurance program should be run by the government and not by the private insurers. Unfortunately, both parties are beholden to corporate lobbyists which makes breaking out of the pork cycle very difficult if not impossible.
 

ke5frf

New Member
The hard working taxpayers will end up subsidizing them anyway through increased crime (Household theft, auto insurance premiums), lost productivity due to a poor health, etc. Do you think that a kid growing up poor, malnourished, and sick because his handicapped Mom is a "lazy welfare bum", deserves what he gets? Isn't it better to nip the cycle of poverty in the bud and produce a productive citizen who can contribute to society when he grows up instead of being bitter and turning to a life of crime? While being born poor doesn't necessarily lead to failure just as being born rich doesn't guarantee success, being well off certainly improves the odds.
It always strikes me as odd that the Bible thumping, Jesus praising, rightwing republican types are the first to turn their backs on the poor and disadvantaged. This is in direct conflict with what they claim Jesus stood for. As an Atheist, it is something I've never understood.
OMG. What a stereotype.
Churches do as much to raise money in the form of charity (voluntary) as any other organizations in the world, not to mention the non-church affiliated but faith based charities like Salvation Army etc.

It is for this very reason, voluntary charity vs socialist THEFT of our money through taxes, that us "right winger" types (I'm not a bible thumper but I do see myself as a spiritual person) loathe big government programs.

I donate 5% of my income to the United Way (a secular charity) every year to boot. I'd donate more if not for being strangleheld by socialist programs that have existed for 60 years and have yet to eliminate poverty.

Laziness isn't cured with handouts.
 

HarveyH42

Banned
OMG. What a stereotype.
Churches do as much to raise money in the form of charity (voluntary) as any other organizations in the world, not to mention the non-church affiliated but faith based charities like Salvation Army etc.

It is for this very reason, voluntary charity vs socialist THEFT of our money through taxes, that us "right winger" types (I'm not a bible thumper but I do see myself as a spiritual person) loathe big government programs.

I donate 5% of my income to the United Way (a secular charity) every year to boot. I'd donate more if not for being strangleheld by socialist programs that have existed for 60 years and have yet to eliminate poverty.

Laziness isn't cured with handouts.
We do United Way, and Children's Miracle Network, at work. You should see the salaries some of those 'volunteers' earn, the board and CEOs are out outrageous, considering the business. There have been some changes over the years, mostly is tough to find the numbers anymore. I give a little, but mostly because of the guilt trip. I prefer to help out locally, and to know that I'm actually helping people in need. United Way is fine, if you need the tax deduction, and don't really care who ends up with the donation, but I personally have a problem with they way it works. They take your money, invest some, pay their bills/salaries, and decide which charities deserve how much of what's left. You could directly donate to any of the charities they support, and do more good.
 

Mikebits

Well-Known Member
Well, this Christmas my wife and I did not buy each other gifts, instead we used our gift money to buy blankets. We then took the blankets downtown and gave them to the homeless. We did have a few close calls with a couple of wak jobs.

As for non-profits Harvey, they are not as you described. I work at a non-profit and most of the work we do is with no salary. The CEO of our outfit usesa lot of her own money with little income in return.

I can't speak for the United way but most non-profit organizations are created to cover areas that the for-profit won't take on due to the lack of economic return.

I often think that many find it easier on their conscience to feel that non-profits are on the take. This is easier than to give instead.
 
Last edited:

kchriste

New Member
Forum Supporter
I donate 5% of my income to the United Way (a secular charity) every year to boot. I'd donate more if not for being strangleheld by socialist programs that have existed for 60 years and have yet to eliminate poverty.
Laziness isn't cured with handouts.
How do you know that the persons benefiting from the United Way are not just as lazy as someone on state welfare? I don't think there is anyway to be 100% sure on this, though most wouldn't live in squalor if they were educated, mentally fit, and presented the opportunity to better themselves. Most are simply lacking the bootstraps to pull themselves up with.
Mikebits said:
Well, this Christmas my wife and I did not buy each other gifts, instead we used our gift money to buy blankets. We then took the blankets downtown and gave them to the homeless.
Good for you Mike! That's a sure way to ensure that those who deserve it are getting it. My point is that those people shouldn't have to be on the street to begin with if they don't wish it.
 

ke5frf

New Member
"How do you know that the persons benefiting from the United Way are not just as lazy as someone on state welfare?"

I never said they were or weren't. I merely pointed out that with charity it is my discretion how much I choose to give...and to some extent who it goes to. (For instance I heavily contribute to children's charities particularly Juvenile Diabetes as my 9 yr old son is Type 1).

This isn't the case with state welfare. The amount and frequency that my hard earned money is taken from me is beyond my control (past the voting booth) and where it goes is even more out of my control.

"most wouldn't live in squalor if they were educated, mentally fit, and presented the opportunity to better themselves. Most are simply lacking the bootstraps to pull themselves up with."

Very naive. Many if not most are drug/alcohol addicts, pushers, and/or petty thieves. The drug addiction is self inflicted. The pushers are quite skilled but find their sales techniques more beneficial in unregulated/untaxed markets. Thieves are often quite skilled too and often resort to thievery to feed the aforementioned addictions.

Alcoholism and addiction are ailments that, in these cases in particular, I totally am FOR subsidizing their treatment. In the long run we'd save a lot of money and grow the economy by bringing these people to sanity and getting them into the workforce as productive citizens.

Unfortunately, and this is something perhaps our Canadian friends are not familiar with, but many American (as in USA) state welfare dependent people are, quite literally, professional leaches. And they pass on that skill to the next generation. I've witnessed this with my own eyes. It is a sad thing indeed to see an able bodied 18 year old joking/bragging about their disability check and honing their generational/passed down "skills" by standing in line at the Social Security office every 1st of the month to get their check. And why wouldn't they? They learned it from their parents. A rite of passage.
 

kchriste

New Member
Forum Supporter
This isn't the case with state welfare. The amount and frequency that my hard earned money is taken from me is beyond my control (past the voting booth) and where it goes is even more out of my control.
So would you mind if other Americans objected to military spending and withheld that proportion of their taxes? What about taxes that go to roads and bridges they don't use, etc?
Very naive. Many if not most are drug/alcohol addicts, pushers, and/or petty thieves. The drug addiction is self inflicted.
That is why I said, "Mentally fit". As someone who has been there done that and don't want to do it again, I am hardly naive about the addictive effects and how easy it is to spiral downwards. Remember being a teen and thinking you knew everything and were immortal? Did you follow all the advice you were given?
Unfortunately, and this is something perhaps our Canadian friends are not familiar with, but many American (as in USA) state welfare dependent people are, quite literally, professional leaches.
Oh we have those too. The thing is not to let a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel. Should we ban all guns because a few decide to use them for evil? What about the mentally and physically handicapped? Should they be denied welfare because others are abusing the system?
 
Last edited:

HarveyH42

Banned
Nobody really knows how many people are abusing the system. I've seen plenty of people over the years, receiving disability, or public assistance, that could probably provide for themselves. We've all seen people who park in the 'Handicap' spaces, that don't seem to have any physical problems, some even run a little to get into the store. I can see the appeal of free income, why would you want time punch a time clock everyday, come home tired, and just have enough left to get yourself ready to do it again? Sure, some people really enjoy their jobs, look forward to being there. Most of use are wishing we were doing something else. Mine's hard and physical, mostly mindless, so I do a lot of thinking and planning, for when I do have some spare time and energy. Make an honest dollar, get plenty of exercise (don't need a gym membership), not the worst thing.

Anyway, taking something you don't need, and profiting from it, is just basic human greed. A lot of businesses stockpile materials they don't really need, but they know that somebody will eventually.

There is going to be huge abuses of the health care system, most people don't like to spend money, and not get something in return. Some people like the attention and sympathy they get while being treated. Some people will be taking advantage of a cheap source of drugs for resale. They are going to create a higher demand for medical services, which means higher prices, and probably lower quality. Doctors can only handle so many patients in a day, wouldn't they be inclined to focus on the ones that pay the best, with the least effort? They'll have to pick and choose, some people will be sent elsewhere, or told to try again tomorrow. Don't really think they thinking things through too well. Guess this is more about political history, than actually helping people. There are more than twice as many Americans unemployed, than uninsured, or maybe they have been added to the 30 million this bill is suppose to help, but it would look too good if they had to start stating that there are 100 million uninsured Americans, and growing...
 

ke5frf

New Member
"So would you mind if other Americans objected to military spending and withheld that proportion of their taxes? What about taxes that go to roads and bridges they don't use, etc?"

Those are not socialist programs. I object to socialist programs, i.e. lazy people getting my money and having lazy kids that get my money. I'm tired to death of working 40-60 hours a week to pay a 25 year old do nothing to sit at home and play X-box and drink malt liquor all day while all his girlfriends (i.e. illigitmate children from different single mothers) sit at home taking care of the babies (again on my dime) and also don't work because child care expenses are too high. What we need is these leaches to own up to their responsibilities and be MEN and take care of their children instead of expecting the state to do it. They all need to be tied up by their "nether regions" and beaten into doing the right thing.
 

smanches

New Member
"So would you mind if other Americans objected to military spending and withheld that proportion of their taxes? What about taxes that go to roads and bridges they don't use, etc?"

Those are not socialist programs. I object to socialist programs, i.e. lazy people getting my money and having lazy kids that get my money. I'm tired to death of working 40-60 hours a week to pay a 25 year old do nothing to sit at home and play X-box and drink malt liquor all day while all his girlfriends (i.e. illigitmate children from different single mothers) sit at home taking care of the babies (again on my dime) and also don't work because child care expenses are too high. What we need is these leaches to own up to their responsibilities and be MEN and take care of their children instead of expecting the state to do it. They all need to be tied up by their "nether regions" and beaten into doing the right thing.
Then you better get rid of all the "socialist" programs. They are already taking your money, it's nothing new. Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc, etc.
 

kchriste

New Member
Forum Supporter
"So would you mind if other Americans objected to military spending and withheld that proportion of their taxes? What about taxes that go to roads and bridges they don't use, etc?"
Those are not socialist programs. I object to socialist programs
Oh, I thought you were objecting to the way your tax dollars were being spent.
while all his girlfriends (i.e. illigitmate children from different single mothers) sit at home taking care of the babies (again on my dime) and also don't work because child care expenses are too high
I agree with you here. There should be abortion on demand available to all on welfare for free. That would help cut costs tremendously in the long run.
 

HarveyH42

Banned
There should be tighter limits on public assistance, and some accountability as to how the recipient spent the money. I know it won't happen, since it's to help the kids, who have no control of what their parents do. But, I don't think they should pay-per-child, should be a limit, both the amount, and the time period. If the parent can't get on track, and take proper care of the children, the kids should go to foster care, parents should go to jail. There is no logical reason to keep having children, if you can care for the ones you already have. It's not fair to the children, and the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pick up the tab. We have our own families to provide for. There should be an audit system, where cases are reviewed, and the people getting the assistance, should have to prove their need, and how they use the money. Those who can't, should face criminal charges. Keeping records and receipts isn't too much to ask, for public support, you want the money, work for it. There are other options and choices for assistance, it shouldn't be so convenient.

Anyone notice that most of the Heath Care changes don't go into effect until after the election year? Doesn't instill much confidence in our political leaders, if they want this so bad, but don't want to risk not getting re-elected because of it. Think they know it's going to be bad, but hope they can smooth it over in their next terms. Don't think they have put a lot of though into how they are going to implement the reform.
 

Mikebits

Well-Known Member
There should be tighter limits on public assistance, and some accountability as to how the recipient spent the money.
And how do you propose we ensure this accountability? Surely this will require more tax funds to do.

the kids should go to foster care, parents should go to jail.
I understand your frustration but have you really thought this out? More enforcement equates to more tax dollars spent. More foster kids? Who will take care of them, you? Who will fund the foster families? Taxpayers. Parents in jail!!! More tax money, holding inmates cost a lot.

There should be an audit system, where cases are reviewed, and the people getting the assistance, should have to prove their need, and how they use the money. Those who can't, should face criminal charges.
See the welfare reform act of 96. What kind of country would this be if we start criminalizing laziness, stupidity and poor judgment? One thing for sure is we would have a prison overpopulation problem and a lot more debt.
 

HarveyH42

Banned
And how do you propose we ensure this accountability? Surely this will require more tax funds to do.



I understand your frustration but have you really thought this out? More enforcement equates to more tax dollars spent. More foster kids? Who will take care of them, you? Who will fund the foster families? Taxpayers. Parents in jail!!! More tax money, holding inmates cost a lot.



See the welfare reform act of 96. What kind of country would this be if we start criminalizing laziness, stupidity and poor judgment? One thing for sure is we would have a prison overpopulation problem and a lot more debt.
We already spend a lot of tax dollars on this. We don't need to jail them all, just a few of the worst offenders, set an example, there should be consequences for the ones abusing the system. Very few are getting caught. I think a portion of them will think a little more about asking for free money, if they have to keep records of every dollar of it the spend. Maybe jail and foster care is a little much for most, maybe loss of benefits. Some do intentionally adopt a living standard, that will qualify them to receive benefits, and look for ways to get more.

There are lots, if not most inmates are in prison for poor judgment, stupidity... Anyway, it's not a crime, until somebody else has to pay the bill. How many kids were raised on welfare from day one, until graduation (GED)? How many of those kids repeat the cycle, and how many go out, and provide for themselves?
 

HiTech

Well-Known Member
What kind of country would this be if we start criminalizing laziness, stupidity and poor judgment?
This is one of my points to all of this. We should never legislate the above negative human characteristics.... afterall, they bring about their own consequences to those who are that way. The studious who prepare, plan, and execute sound decisions and intelligent ideas are the self-preserving ones who deserve the fruits of their efforts. Who and what is government to step in and order the self-prosperous to divy up their assets? Hence, why a good many business owners should still be commended for their efforts in providing products/services and employment.... despite the fact that they may choose to withold some of their profits or benefits. Afterall, the unhappy employee can choose to leave for greener pastures elsewhere rather that remain there, complain and possibly sabotage the operation. When key employees or multiple numbers of them exit a business for whatever reasons, the owner(s) are the losers then and need to self-reflect. It's all about action = consequence, be it good or bad. Government should never be a part of that equation.

Those who are born indigent or severely handicapped are understandably exempt from this and programs should be in place to provide an acceptable level of quality life for them.
 

Sceadwian

Banned
Most of that was exceptionally well said Hitech. I'm not sure I could agree with you more.

Those who are born indigent or severely handicapped are understandably exempt from this and programs should be in place to provide an acceptable level of quality life for them.
That's a very slippery slope, only slightly less so than legislating possible bad tendencies.
 

HiTech

Well-Known Member
Most of that was exceptionally well said Hitech. I'm not sure I could agree with you more.


That's a very slippery slope, only slightly less so than legislating possible bad tendencies.
More specifically, what I meant was as responsible citizens we should provide care and reasonable quality of life for our fellow citizens who are genuinely incapacitated in some manner or another.... not those who try to falsely claim it. It's morally proper.
 

Sceadwian

Banned
The road to hell is paved with good intentions as the old saying goes =) The morality is a lot stickier than you might imagine though. As far as medical advances go sick people are living longer lives and having kids. Now keep in mind we're only treating symptoms of most diseases and conditions not actually curing anything, there are very very few actual cures out there, so what we're effectively doing is polluting our own gene pool. Thing is you can't not treat sick people either as that's immoral, right up there with what Hitler was trying to do so that's right out. So what do we do? We took it out of natures hands as far as survival of the fittest goes, that's going to have some massive repurcussions in the long term, and when I say long term I mean thousands of years. Most people don't think on those time scales. As long as science and society keep advancing to better itself without self destructing we may end up saving some shred of a chance for surviving as more than a blip on the overall time scale of things.
 
Last edited:

HarveyH42

Banned
I often find it amusing, how 'treatment' and 'cure' seem to mean the same in medicine these days. You are right, there are very few actual cures, most of which don't require a doctor anyway. Our bodies do a pretty good job on their own. They do some pretty amazing surgical procedures, something I hope to never experience first hand, but they don't seem to be concern much with the cause. Physically, I feel in great shape, and fully functional, but noticing people around my age starting to have some serious medical problems. I know lifestyle has to do with some of it, and find it amazing for a 43 year old man to survive heart surgery, continue the same high risk behavior. Still smokes, fatty foods out of the vending machines, not to mention the nasty coffee that thing brews (never know, sometimes little more than hot water, sometimes strong like espresso). Why both getting the surgery, if you don't care enough to correct the choices that put you there?

Wonder if there will be a lot more people, with such a care-free attitude, since they have 'affordable' health care, there is no longer any reason to be as careful with their health. There is still plenty of room for this bill to be killed, kind of hoping they decide to scrap the two bills, and start again (some other time). They did have a few good ideas, but the bulk of it is bad for business, unless you are in the insurance business. If they had to remove all the pieces, that are purely vote-buyers, meaning only apply to a single state, wonder if the bill would still pass?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading
Top