Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[Hornsby]

Ohh, so now all of the people making $15 minimum wage now have to give up 1% every year to the government to pay for healthcare?? Why didnt we just make it $20 to make sure they could afford the healthcare cost.

Doesnt that 1% tax constitute more affect to the poor person, rather than the rich person.

Flat taxes are regressive because they hurt the poor more than the rich because the rich guy has more.............. blah blah blah....


Im being a bit facetious here - but honestly I get a kick (and frsstrated) when I hear many on the left say how regressive a flat tax plan is, then turn around and use some type of taxation - be it 1% payroll or 25cents/gallon gas or some other flatly instituted tax structure to pay for healthcare. You can have it both ways if you want, just understand that there is some inconsistency there.

Again, as FB said, it's a net positive for the poor, and everyone else to not have to worry about going to the clinic or hospital. There are a million ways to fund this, if we decide that we want to do so, and the polling numbers show that the American people DO want good health care for all. How you fund it ends up being pretty irrelevant, THAT you fund it is the important point.

And again, your money WILL come out of your check, your Property taxes, your License tabs, your over the counter purchases, your Hotel stays, the Gas you put in your vehicles, and many other taxes you never realize that you're paying. You're going to pay them, you have no choice, and you have little say over the direction they they take. Let's push in the right direction to get something that benefits us all...

[baldgriff]

I fully understand and accept that MY money WILL come out of MY check, MY Property taxes, MY License tabs, MY over the counter purchases, MY Hotel stays, the Gas I put in My vehicles, and many other taxes I realize that I am paying. I am going to pay them, I have no choice, and I have little say over the direction they they take.

You are making my point for me that government is way to big and involved in more things than it ought to be.

I would prefer that government stick to the things that they are meant for - making sure the infrastructure is sound and effective and defending the borders of our country, enforcing laws and a few others.

If they stuck to these things - we all would have more money in our pockets to choose how and what we spend our money on. I would prefer to keep control over my house and my wallet. Every time we defer our responsibility and make it the governments job we lose more of our right to freely choose what we want to do with the resources we have accumulated.

[Hodor]

I fully understand and accept that MY money WILL come out of MY check, MY Property taxes, MY License tabs, MY over the counter purchases, MY Hotel stays, the Gas I put in My vehicles, and many other taxes I realize that I am paying. I am going to pay them, I have no choice, and I have little say over the direction they they take.

You are making my point for me that government is way to big and involved in more things than it ought to be.

I would prefer that government stick to the things that they are meant for - making sure the infrastructure is sound and effective and defending the borders of our country, enforcing laws and a few others.

If they stuck to these things - we all would have more money in our pockets to choose how and what we spend our money on. I would prefer to keep control over my house and my wallet. Every time we defer our responsibility and make it the governments job we lose more of our right to freely choose what we want to do with the resources we have accumulated.

But you live in a society, not by yourself and as such owe to a social contract whose terms are decided by the majority.

It's pretty much the same everywhere, I mean, can you really name me a place where your ideal exists in actual practice?

[Hornsby]

I fully understand and accept that MY money WILL come out of MY check, MY Property taxes, MY License tabs, MY over the counter purchases, MY Hotel stays, the Gas I put in My vehicles, and many other taxes I realize that I am paying. I am going to pay them, I have no choice, and I have little say over the direction they they take.

You are making my point for me that government is way to big and involved in more things than it ought to be.

I would prefer that government stick to the things that they are meant for - making sure the infrastructure is sound and effective and defending the borders of our country, enforcing laws and a few others.

If they stuck to these things - we all would have more money in our pockets to choose how and what we spend our money on. I would prefer to keep control over my house and my wallet. Every time we defer our responsibility and make it the governments job we lose more of our right to freely choose what we want to do with the resources we have accumulated.

No, we really wouldn't ALL have money in our pockets, that's a pipe dream. And people would spend foolishly, just as they currently do. They would still have no insurance, and massive debt, that's just a simple fact of human nature.

And why is YOUR opinion on what Government is for the only valid one? I'm with Doig, it's a part of what we get for living in a free society, sometimes we have to be our brother's keeper, and I rather it be a fair system that benefits us all, than something draconian lines the pockets of a few, and hurts many.

[baldgriff]

I agree I live in a society that chooses to defer its responsibility about the social contract to the government - allowing it to determine and enforce what the social contract is.

I will still pay my taxes and follow the laws of the land - I just believe that the more often we as a society cede our responsibilities of the social contract to the government we lose our personal investment in that social contract because we punt it to some entity called "the government" to take care of. If the government doesnt care about our homeless veterans, or our starving children, or making sure our bridges are safe or whatever it is - if the government is worried why should I?

The government could tax us all at 100% - and there will still be inequity in how the social contract gets carried out. People will still starve and people will be homeless.

[baldgriff]

And why is YOUR opinion on what Government is for the only valid one?

I have never ever stated that my opinion on what Government is for is the only valid one....... I am stating my OPINION. I understand the world in which I live, but I would prefer to see smaller government.

Pre 1960/70 we actually were frugal with our funds. People tended to live within their means. They didnt look to have 20,000 in personal credit card debt. Our view of debt changed - its just considered an accepted fact of life.

[Hornsby]

I have never ever stated that my opinion on what Government is for is the only valid one....... I am stating my OPINION. I understand the world in which I live, but I would prefer to see smaller government.

Pre 1960/70 we actually were frugal with our funds. People tended to live within their means. They didnt look to have 20,000 in personal credit card debt. Our view of debt changed - its just considered an accepted fact of life.

That's because before 1960, Credit Cards were at best a novelty for the rich, not for the middle class ot the poor. Now, credit is easily available, no matter what your financial situation is. That's why people were supposedly frugal. Not to mention that the wealth of the US was distributed far more equally...a CEO of a company didn't make 100 times what his average worker did. It's not a valid comparison at all.

And I'd prefer to see a Government that would take care of it's citizens in ALL areas, not just in a few. Take a percentage of that annual DOD money and put it towards single payer, they spent 598 Billion last year, probably not all wisely. It might not fund Health Care all by itself, but it would be a good start.

[baldgriff]

And I'd prefer to see a Government that would take care of it's citizens in ALL areas, not just in a few. Take a percentage of that annual DOD money and put it towards single payer, they spent 598 Billion last year, probably not all wisely. It might not fund Health Care all by itself, but it would be a good start.

I think the DOD budget is excessive also. We should continue to make sure our borders are safe, but we dont have to police to world.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I agree I live in a society that chooses to defer its responsibility about the social contract to the government - allowing it to determine and enforce what the social contract is.

I will still pay my taxes and follow the laws of the land - I just believe that the more often we as a society cede our responsibilities of the social contract to the government we lose our personal investment in that social contract because we punt it to some entity called "the government" to take care of. If the government doesnt care about our homeless veterans, or our starving children, or making sure our bridges are safe or whatever it is - if the government is worried why should I?

The government could tax us all at 100% - and there will still be inequity in how the social contract gets carried out. People will still starve and people will be homeless.

Which is why we must be active in choosing those who run our Govt. WE cede our power, they do not take it. We can change the power brokers in the Govt. if we have the temerity to do so and finally, it's those we choose to put into office that should be there to represent us making and enforcing the social contract, so in fact--WE don't defer anything we don't want to and actually have recourse if that we've deferred isn't going as we'd like.

[cardboardbox]

a CEO of a company didn't make 100 times what his average worker did. It's not a valid comparison at all.

some CEO's might be worth 100 times more. Let the company decide whats best for its shareholders.

[baldgriff]

And why is YOUR opinion on what Government is for the only valid one?

I want to come back to this. Why in the middle of a good conversation and exchange of ideas do you throw out this type of erroneous charge? Is it meant to just shut the conversation down? I just dont understand where this comes from. I fully understand that you disagree with my point of view, but it doesnt mean that we cant discuss what we see or how we see it.

If I keep saying I see heads and you keep espousing that all there is is tails...... we may never come to the agreement that we are actually looking at two sides of a quarter.

[GwynnInTheHall]

some CEO's might be worth 100 times more. Let the company decide whats best for its shareholders.

Nobody is worth 100X more than anyone else.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I want to come back to this. Why in the middle of a good conversation and exchange of ideas do you throw out this type of erroneous charge? Is it meant to just shut the conversation down? I just dont understand where this comes from. I fully understand that you disagree with my point of view, but it doesnt mean that we cant discuss what we see or how we see it.

If I keep saying I see heads and you keep espousing that all there is is tails...... we may never come to the agreement that we are actually looking at two sides of a quarter.

I'd say that not everything has two sides that are equal. There indeed can be one viewpoint more ethical (or right) than another.

One person thinks those with dark skin are inferior to those with fair skin and another thinks skin color has no bearing to a person's character or worth--Two sides of a coin or right vs wrong?

Some people feel that placing a dollar value on everything lacks integrity or an ethical base thus can't really be equated to the analogy of two sides of a coi, now can it?

[baldgriff]

Which is why we must be active in choosing those who run our Govt. WE cede our power, they do not take it. We can change the power brokers in the Govt. if we have the temerity to do so and finally, it's those we choose to put into office that should be there to represent us making and enforcing the social contract, so in fact--WE don't defer anything we don't want to and actually have recourse if that we've deferred isn't going as we'd like.

One could make the case that the implementation of Obamacare, was the government taking power as it pertains to healthcare and the mandate that everybody is required to carry it. Which is how we got such a wonderful piece of legislation - you remember - Nancy Pelosi "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it".

We may want to change the power brokers - unfortunately the parties control who we can choose from. When we get dreck in HRC and Trump to select from - there were many with the temerity to vote Trump in an attempt to hopefully change something. Once you give something to the government to take care of - you never will get it back.

[GwynnInTheHall]

One could make the case that the implementation of Obamacare, was the government taking power as it pertains to healthcare and the mandate that everybody is required to carry it. Which is how we got such a wonderful piece of legislation - you remember - Nancy Pelosi "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it".

We may want to change the power brokers - unfortunately the parties control who we can choose from. When we get dreck in HRC and Trump to select from - there were many with the temerity to vote Trump in an attempt to hopefully change something. Once you give something to the government to take care of - you never will get it back.

So since, as has been noted, the genie is out of the bottle, why not concentrate on making it a viable system rather than simply decry it for it's flaws? That's going to take funding and there are many ways we can do this, though it'd be easier if we just made healthcare a non profit industry. No insurance, just providers at a set cost, Pharma too.