Jump to content

Looks like healthcare is a go.


InCrYsIs

Recommended Posts

If drug testing will prevent them from getting my money, then bring on the control for that. And no, it isn't socialism. Giving them money in the first place seems more socialist.

but, it's BIG GOVERNMENT control and that's bad. Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with drug testing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If drug testing will prevent them from getting my money, then bring on the control for that. And no, it isn't socialism. Giving them money in the first place seems more socialist.

If not communist :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing I'd like to add. Many of you have to go out and actually read what Socialism and Communism actually are because I'm so sick of people playing the socialism/communism card whenever anything that involves taking money from wealthier people and giving it to the less fortunate. That doesn't represent socialism or communism. Stop trying to make socialism/communism somehow stick to the whole concept of Big Bad Brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing I'd like to add. Many of you have to go out and actually read what Socialism and Communism actually are because I'm so sick of people playing the socialism/communism card whenever anything that involves taking money from wealthier people and giving it to the less fortunate. That doesn't represent socialism or communism. Stop trying to make socialism/communism somehow stick to the whole concept of Big Bad Brother.
If not "a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership ":blink:

amidoinitrite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NONE OF THAT is justification for taxing someone else who makes more money a higher percentage of their income. None of them are qualified to define how much money anybody "needs." The only person qualified to determine how much money he "needs" is the person earning it. No one else has the right to say otherwise. It may be some peoples' opinion that wealthier individuals should pay a higher percentage, but just because they think that's how it should be doesn't make it justified. I don't know what else to say to that. It's not their place to decide how other peoples' private property is utilized, and the sooner they realize that, the easier life will become for them. Your little brat friends need to realize that the only things they have in life are those things they work for. The only decisions they get to make regarding the use of assets are the decisions over the assets that are rightfully theirs. Once they have finally had to work for what they have, once they have dedicated their sweat, their tears, and their entire livelihoods towards obtaining those assets, their opinion over who has the right to decide what they do with them will be drastically different, I promise you. It's easy to sit back and justify to themselves how to best allocate something that isn't even theirs. Any self-righteous idiot can do that. The true measure of charity is to test how the rightful owner of the property decides to use it.

 

The thinking behind it is this (which is a common belief among poor people or middle class people.)

 

Many People, Philosophers, and Religions consider it is wrong to engage in the activities like Lust and Greed it should be responsibility a moral right to share your wealth with others rather than horde it for yourself.

 

At a certain point some people could say there is a wealth line (which is a subject number depending on the person) and after it is crossed you don't really gain anything by trying to make more money and the excessive money that is not being used on yourself or your interests like your business or whatever is just wasted wealth which is present in almost all rich people and it can add up to a lot if you make a lot of money and that's what some people believe should be taxed because it's not being used for any reason and taking it away does not effect the lively hood or the comfort level of the rich person.

Edited by fire_storm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because you aren't required to get a job

And many people in our society have been doing damn well at that, and living off of the things that make it all possible for that which, correct me if I'm wrong, was a largely democratic push. I'm still waiting on proper welfare reform.

 

Firestorm, and how often does that redistribution of wealth actually work out in practice? Never, if you want a free society. It's sickening that our nation was started on the ideals of self sufficiency and independence, and it's now gone down to "You're working harder than I am and making way more money than me, NOT FAIR!" Remember the Little Red Hen? Too many people today want everything for nothing, while those of us who work for a living are forced to make that fantasy a reality for them.

 

Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living Cow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firestorm, and how often does that redistribution of wealth actually work out in practice? Never, if you want a free society. It's sickening that our nation was started on the ideals of self sufficiency and independence, and it's now gone down to "You're working harder than I am and making way more money than me, NOT FAIR!" Remember the Little Red Hen? Too many people today want everything for nothing, while those of us who work for a living are forced to make that fantasy a reality for them.

 

Sure there are lazy people situations but there are many situations were the people collecting welfare aren't able to work not because there lazy but because there disabled or just don't have the ability to. Also sometimes people just get into bad situations that sometimes getting a job or hard work doesn't work and they can't get out of the situation. Know if you take away welfare from the people who really need it's like a death sentence.

 

Health care reform is more then just about coverage and who pays for it (which the debate has been mostly about) it's about fixing other problems like overcharging for medical procedures, excessive drug costs, and deny coverage to people with pre existing conditions.

 

Something has to be done and it's better try then to do nothing and saying I could careless if you get sick and die as long as I'm insured and tough luck if you can't pay for it.

Edited by fire_storm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. Obama just signed it into law. I was hoping the bill would spontaneously combust on its way over.

 

One can dream, anyway. :lol: Let's just hope that the Judiciary can still pull its weight, so that these "checks and balances" people keep harping on can prove their worth. This bill destroys our system of checks and balances, takes constitutionally-derived sovereignty away from the states, bypasses private citizens in their private decisions, and places all of the authority into the hands of central government - the legislative and executive branches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...