Well, this is only the first of many such happenings with the Democrats in power and holding the purse strings on YOUR money. After all, someone has to pay for those new 24 year old kiddies that are now included in the childrens health coverage that the Dems are pushing for in Washington. Someone has to pay for it, and you thought it was going to be just the so called fat cats......what a bunch of 'you know what' , and you fell for it. http://money.aol.com/cnnmoney/tax/canvas3/_a/amt-ticktock-congress/20070926164009990001
Gee, now who woulda thought !!! I will noy be able to buy that new AMERICAN MADE packing and sealing machine I guess. Will continue to manual pack and put money into coins instead. Lower my wages too...and put money into coins. It's us SKINNY Cats {small business owners } who will suffer. The big fat cat $$$ goes out of the country when the big Dem grab starts.
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/REG/70906011 the Pubs are doing this not the dems (read all about it)
I personally don't give a damn how we get to health coverage for EVERY American at this point. I just know we need to get there and soon and nothing is being offered by the Republicans in office except excuses, trickle down economics, and the fallacies that the free market will solve all problems. We are an embarrassment around the world for our health care advances that so few can actually afford. Shooting down every health care initiative and offering nothing in it's place is just the overly complicated way to do nothing. I'd like to hear just one viable solution from the Right that would actually insure health care for everyone in this country. Just one.
O.K. fair enough, here is the first one off the top of my head, so it's not too complicated for anyone to understand. Get a job and earn the money needed to purchase the health care you say you want so badly. Don't spend it on fancy clothing and hot night spots, but on private insurance to provide the needed coverage. Just like all the REPUBLICANS are doing. Should that be such a hard concept for the Democrats to master? Simply put..."go to work and earn it!"
The problem with that is the huge and growing number of working poor that work hard everyday of their lives and work for employers like Wal-mart for example that provide little to no health care for their employees. Even the employers that do provide some degree of health care these day are forced to cut way back on what they can pay due to health costs rising exponentially which leaves the employee responsible for the additional payments. Even families making a relatively good living are having trouble finding affordable health care in today's market. Considering that most of the new jobs created these days are low paying service sector jobs combined with ever rising health care costs, we are experiencing the perfect storm for a huge health care crisis in this country. The days of large companies providing adequate to good health care benefits for their employees has gone the way of the Dodo. Other than the Federal government, who is capable or willing to make sure the people of this country have even basic health care for their families? In your day it was the norm for employers to provide health benefits for their employees. That just isn't the case anymore and waiting for private industry to solve this problem or the free market is just not going to happen. Times have changed the the problem isn't just going to go away. We need a leader with a vision to make that change happen and he/she will not come from the Right I'm fairly certain.
I would recommend every young American to join the service. They offer all the medical/dental perks and one can keep those benefits for life thru retirement and the Veterans Administration. You don't have to be a trigger puller, there are thousands of support jobs. The only problem todays young troop will encounter is having to start at the bottom. Seems everyone wants to start at the top. Take Care Ben
A government program by any other name is still a government program. Why not come up with a program everybody who needs health care can utilize? The military might work for a small percent of the population but it goes without saying that there is no way the military could absorb the numbers of folks that need health care in this country. I'm glad it works for your situation but I would still like to here just one proposal from the Right side of the aisle that could begin to address this growing National crisis. In the last seven years, there has been no attempt to do anything in the way of legislation with regard to health care except to reduce already existing programs that would only make the problem worse. In all fairness, this isn't a Republican or a Democratic problem. It crosses all political lines and the only group that isn't affected by the problem is those wealthy enough to pay for extremely expensive private health insurance. And even their numbers are being reduced as health costs skyrocket. I just don't know why we in this country have to wait for something to be a problem for the very wealthy before we actually do something about the situation. It only makes the eventual solution more costly and harder to implement when we wait until the eleventh hour to act.
Bad idea for girls (3 out of 10 are raped usually by fellow soldiers and rarely is anything done about it) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15005484
LOL, where the heck did you get that bit of fiction? Oh nevermind I forgot, it doesn't matter if it's fact of fiction with you... Ben
America is an embarrasment as to health care? Who is the role model? Cuba? I'll get back on thislater.....wife is draggin me off shoppin today
When you do finish up your honey-do list, think about this before you ask that question; Shouldn't we be the role model in this area and not the country saying that nobody else does it well so we shouldn't try. And there is only one party that is trying to do something about this problem that doesn't only adversely affect constituents that belong to the Republican and Democratic parties but all those citizens that couldn't care less about partisan politics, like children. The inevitable spin put on this issue is that other countries have worse health care than we do. Whether that's true or not shouldn't even be a consideration. What we can do for our own citizens should be the only driving factor. Everything else is just a distraction that even people on the Left like Michael Moore have bought into. It's total BS. We have the most resources, the best trained doctors, the most technologically advanced medicines and equipment and yet we continually compare ourselves to countries that don't have a fraction of what we take for granted. If they can achieve even a reasonable level of health care for their citizens, shouldn't we be able to put them to shame with what we can do for our citizens? It isn't that we couldn't, it's that we just haven't been forced by circumstances such as people dying in the streets for lack of medical care to jolt us into doing something about the problem, YET! That day is coming.
While I can sympathize with some of our observances and conclusions, it needs to be said that there is also the problem (and a great one) when it comes to the so called ‘working poor’ at Wal-Mart or elsewhere. I’m referring to the old gal who has had at least six kids with at least six different men. Unwed and living with a guy who also has grown children, some of which is living in the same home they are all living in. Due to the size of the family it has to be a 1,800 sq. ft. apartment fully furnished with all utilities paid for by the state government. They are on food stamps and receive subsidized assistance with food and medical supplies through Medicaid. Both the old man and his oldest son work for Mar-Mart while his old lady puts in her time at the free food store down town. The family have three SUV’s all late model vehicles. Both the son and father also spend weekends on their Harlies traveling around the country to various rallies. The young kids spend their time at Big brothers and Sisters who provide baby sitting for the new twins in the family. When ask if they have health coverage, they say ‘no’ it isn’t needed as they are aware of the fact that they (or anyone else) can go directly into any ER and have their emergencies taken care of. They do this knowing full well that they will never pay a cent to receive the service. The hospital writes it off as bad debt and/or the County/State throws in something to keep the hospital from having to add so much of this type of service to he paying customers tab. Believe it or not, there is a vast difference between the needy and the greedy, wouldn’t you agree. For this reason I could never support the medical bill now laying on the table in Congress. Be it Democratic or Republican, it makes no difference. There has to be some type of accountability for the ones receiving such service, and it must be earned in some manner. Not a handout or a feebly for voting in any particular manner. Either party, it makes no difference. Additionally. bones had a good idea. If these 24 year old people want health insurance, let them join the armed forces and earn it. Not a half bad idea, but you can imagine what kind of reception that would get from anyone in the Democratic party.
I don't know if this a hypothetical old lady, someone you read about, or just someone you know personally, but you can't actually believe that the vast, vast majority of lower and middle income households are akin to this example of someone that is clearly working the system to their own advantage. There will always, always be people that want something handed to them for nothing. Using these types of people as a justification to do nothing for those that actually deserve some sort of assistance is no kind of logic I can wrap my head around. I would counter that there are at least as many deserving families out there that don't seek any kind of government assistance that more than make up for the number that are scamming the system. In your example, you fail to recognize that this old lady and her multiple boyfriends may be living a pretty despicable lifestyle by normal societal standards and not providing for the kids they bring into this world but the kids really had no choice in the matter. They are victims of their parents stupidity but deserve a chance to have a normal life. If we can't take care of the least of our society, we will not only see generation after generation of dependent families, we will be creating a second class of citizens that are mirrored in the third world today that will one day rise up and take what they have been denied. We are doing ourselves a favor in the long run by trying to lift these people out of poverty. Welfare of the 60's and 70's proved that we can also create generations of social program dependent families. It was an imperfect solution but it was better than having children starve to death on the streets of such a wealthy society. Again. it's not that we couldn't help people better themselves and become productive citizens if we wanted to. It's just easier to label them as lazy no-goods and do nothing about a difficult problem. I think greed abounds on both ends of the economic spectrum. Both those that want everything handed to them and those that will use any type of logic to see that our collective tax dollars only go the wealthy defense contractors, insurance companies, and oil companies of this Nation. Is it more greedy to want to do as little work as possible and live hand-to-mouth while living on the edge of subsistence or is it more greedy to have 6 billion dollars and still want 12 billion? There are many levels of greed. You don't have to be poor to be greedy by any means.
Let's start a new string...: Of course it was made up and used as an example of what can and does happen with no safe guards to keep this from occuring. Safe guards are nonexisting in this childrens health plan. All I'm saying is for me to accept such plan, it must include tighter requirements than it currently has. Other wise it's just a 'give away' program, and only serves as a means of getting people to voter for you. This is why I object to this particular effort to write such a plan at especially this time. Of course they do and I support this in any way I can, but then again, why should it include 24 year old children in this program? Aren't most states grouping this age person as adults in most things when they turn 21 or even down to 19 years of age. Why would it want to include these people unless it was an attempt to gather votes? At last you have used the correct word, and that is 'Welfare'. Yes this is exactly what it amounts to, and the results will be the same as you described happening in the 60's and 70's. Be aware that this is exactly why it is so sad to visit and see how the same practice has converted a once proud and good people on the reservaions across this land. I wouldn't wish that on my dog. I personally see no difference in these two examples, they are both wrong. I would call your attention to the fact that two errors don't make it right. It's wrong both ways. I also find it ironic that you feel it is all right to stick it to those 'high-rollers' for the money to support this effort. I guess you must think those people who file income tax jointly and make $62,550 and single payers who make $42,250 are so highly payed that they should jump at the chance to provide medical coverage for these 24 year olds who are unable to support themselves.
I had to go back and read a couple of posts to figure out where you were going and what might have lead you there. I know you wrote that you wanted to start a new string but you have veered off the topic too far or gone back to an earlier topic enough so that I can't follow. I think you may have been referring to the vetoed bill recently in the news that carried a lot of support from both sides of the aisle but Bush found too expensive. Again, it comes down to a matter of priorities, billions of dollars on pallets to Iraq or billions to help those in this country regardless of the few that are over 18 but need the program just the same because of our National health crisis. It was a good program that was working and Bush doesn't even want to fund it a current levels much less expand it to more people that need the help. The Federal government is going to spend the money they collect anyway so I see no reason that they shouldn't spend it on the people of this country rather than the people of Iraq. Again citing possible fraud as a reason to do nothing isn't a solution to anything but it does seem to be the repetitive mantra of the Right. By the way, no fraud was ever found in the SCHIP program. All recipients over 18 involved in the program were cleared first. If trying to cover the uninsured is just an attempt to get more votes, I think it is exactly the right method because covering the uninsured is exactly what we need to do. They have my vote. I don't know about the reservation situation but I think conquered people that have experienced genocide tend to do worse in the long run and welfare probably had very little to do with it. Alcohol probably did the most damage to the Native Americans from what I've heard from those that have lived in reservation areas. I never said that greedy people at either end of the economic spectrum were right, I just feel that I'd rather be in the situation of having the 6 billion than living hand-to-mouth dishonestly. And, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in this paragraph... "I also find it ironic that you feel it is all right to stick it to those 'high-rollers' for the money to support this effort. I guess you must think those people who file income tax jointly and make $62,550 and single payers who make $42,250 are so highly payed that they should jump at the chance to provide medical coverage for these 24 year olds who are unable to support themselves."
Basically I would have to agree with you on the matter of spending the money here, rather than spending it outside of the country. But if you don't know what I'm talking about, then you never read the opening subject matter of this post. It refs the change proposed in the new tax structure now before Congress which changes the manner in which you pay your tax. Read the opening thread and maybe then you will get the drift of this topic,,,,,which wasn't 'child health care' but future TAX plans of the Democrats.
O.K. O.K., my fault. I had to read everything from the beginning on down. I was thinking about the health care issue and you were talking about the tax issue. I know a little bit about the the AMT issue. It's a bit like the SUV CAFE standards issue where large trucks were exempt but as time went on personal vehicles grew in size and were also exempt because they were large enough to be considered work vehicles when in reality they were only family cars. The AMT law was originally meant to make sure that corporations paid at least some taxes but as time went on and wages rose, people began to bump into the wage areas only businesses used to occupy. It is just another example of our outdated tax codes hard at work. Neither party seems to be all that willing to do anything about the problem since it has existed for quite some time under both parties watches. But I guess the current congress always gets tagged with the blame. All I can say is that there have to armies of lobbists out there making sure that those that are profitting from this old tax code keep it that way or someone would have changed it by now. On the issue of health care, we have congressmen that receive free health care for life. It doesn't seem to me that they have a lot of incentive to do anything about the problems the rest of us face in this area.
