I see you changed triple to 40% more
Reading Comprehension
- Edited
Yes. From roughly $18k per year to $25/yr (subsidized).
Why should I be required to fork over $7k more per year when even the local McDonald's offers affordable healthcare insurance?
Don't want to work - do you really deserve healthcare insurance? I mean - if you're disabled - we have that covered in our taxes already. That's part of our taxation already.
If you're not willing to work, why should you feel entitled to rely on others to take care of your healthcare needs?
That's ultimately what this comes down to. People not paying into the system, versus people who are paying into the system, and then obligating those already paying into the system to cover those who aren't.
It's a huge problem. We need reform, don't get me wrong. I'm not a heartless bastard. But my wife already works until May 15th for absolutely nothing. I think that's too much, but I can stomach that for "the greater good" of those "less fortunate."
Should she have to work until July for nothing? August? September?
We should not punish those who are already helping subsidize the healthcare industry as it is. Improve the economy, put people to work. This all fixes itself.
At least for those willing to work.
I take offense to this. We are not "privileged." My wife and I worked our asses off for everything we have, which isn't much - but what little we have is paid for. And we pay more than our fair share of taxes.
We delayed our gratification. We saved. We worked ourselves out of debt (instead of declaring bankruptcy) like so many other people do when they get over-extended and can't afford liquor or smokes.
We paid our debts. We paid into the system. And fuck this noise about covering someone else's "woe is me bullshit" when we've personally "been-there, done that" without assistance from anyone else.
We worked our asses off to get where we are. We are not privileged.
Just so you know.
So stop with the blanket assumptions. You don't know what we've been through. You don't speak for me.
Peace.
- Edited
My apologies candukid
You're a good dude. I'd tee it up with you in a heartbeat.
I just feel a bit biased when it comes to someone potentially assuming that I should pay more taxes, when I'm already forking over 42% of my/our income to taxes.
I've got no issues with you. You're a good dude. 
No sweat. You are good too. 42% is a lot. That is about what I pay and I probably make more than you. For that rate we get healthcare for everybody. Your insurance companies etc are in it for profit. We up here are not. That is the fundamental problem as I see it. Everybody needs their slice of pie. America's pie would be about twice the size of ours to give the same end result. Get your costs down to a reasonable level and cut out the vultures and it would work without you paying any more money.
I think the "reform" part needs to be directed more at the insurance industry. You'll get no argument from me that these shit weasels are making entirely too much money, and although I'm not entirely opposed to them making money - they shouldn't be raking in life-changing gobs of money.
I just think that when you have an overextended industry of medical professionals (who accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars in college tuition debt just to become certified doctors) and they suddenly feel like they're not making enough money (given the level of their responsibilities, not to mention how much they have to pay annually in liability insurance in additional to their repayment of college loans) that we are quickly happening upon a time where we are going to experience a significant shortage of healthcare professionals and surgeons.
If I need open-heart surgery, the last thing I want is a disgruntled surgeon who feels he/she is sorely underpaid opening up my chest to save my life.
And if he/she has to haggle back and forth with the insurance companies to get what they feel is reasonable compensation for their efforts - then something is seriously wrong.
We do need reform. But I feel we need to reform the insurance industry more so than anything else. They are the fattest cats in the barn.
But I thought your congress was a republican majority? For 8 years they fought The Affordable Health Care Act. Saying they had something SO MUCH BETTER. Still waiting. oh and they have Senate too! All three levels and they still can't get anything done?
Well, since the conversation changed to a specific topic, it might be more manageable. The issue is third party insurance companies. They offer no service and cull their money right off the top. Tort reform is part of this problem. California has made progress because of changes they've made.
Whether or not healthcare is a right? That's more about how civilized we think we are or want to be. But, if we're gonna subsidize all the uninsured's trips to the ER, we might as well fix the damn system - the problem.
candukid
Exactly!!! But, still we're addressing the symptoms in this thread and not the problem.
- Edited
It requires both sides coming together to fix it. We were divided back in 2012, and 5 years later we're still divided. We can point fingers all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that the people that were elected to serve (then, and since then) have refused to come to the table and hash out a compromise that works for the greater good.
I have never, in my 48 years of existence on this planet, seen such a divided country.
And that doesn't bode well moving forward. Without compromise and working together - nothing improves and society suffers as a consequence.
But how is that going to happen? they hate each other and both dislike the big guy.
Time for football. Eagles will triumph
Whether they like it or not, he is our President for the next three years.
And it's worth noting that he was elected, in due part, because he wasn't the standard, run-of-the-mill polished politician who's gifted in covering up lies and saying one thing and doing another. If nothing else - the democrats know exactly where Trump stands on issues. He's not gonna flip-flop just to suit the party he represents.
He's pissed off as many people in his own party as he has those from the other side. Which, again, is primarily why he was elected to begin with.
So to answer your question - if you're a democrat - you soothe his ego. You find common ground, figure out where there's room to work, room to persuade, room to perhaps influence the perception that you're not completely against everything he "supposedly" stands for. You find out where he's willing to compromise and negotiate. And sometimes there's nothing there worth compromising. But in certain areas - there are.
And it's been this way with every US President since the inception of our nation.
It might seem like something completely unique to our political system given who has been elected, but the same premise holds true. He can certainly be influenced, but the opposing side seems bound and determined to "do what the republicans did to Obama" from 2012-2016 with the stonewalling and what have you.
Again, this gets us nowhere. Compromise is the only way forward.
PA-PLAYA
I have never seen the pubs and Dems compromise on anything important if I recall.
As for the big guy, HE has to give and take also. It cannot be my way or the highway like he is used to doing in his business life. He just doesn't seem to get that he cannot operate the government like he did his empire. Sure, you wanted change and voted him in based on his claims of locking her up and draining the swamp etc. Where'd that get you? He lies repeatedly and won't ever admit he was wrong. Will not make any friends on either side of the fence with that attitude. That is why your country is going to get nothing done while he is in the chair. Fact of life. Won't get better until you actually get a real politician back in there. It's been almost a year now and nothing has happened of any importance.
- Edited
Should people who live in apartments be able to send their kids to public schools? After all renters don't pay real estate taxes and are therefore subsidized by people who own homes. I'd rather subsidize poor people in order to get access to quality healthcare than wealthy oil companies.
The subsidy argument doesn't hold water.
- Edited
Trump is proving to be a huge flip flopper. Mainly because he has no ideology. He doesn't believe in anything (except self-aggrandizement) and is easily distracted. Just recently he agreed with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi on a deal regarding DACA, then backs off.
Tells Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray to make a short term deal on the ACA (yes including subsidies) and when they do make a deal he backs off.
But what is to be expected by someone who is a pathological liar and has no integrity.
He's clueless. But yes he managed to hoodwink enough people to get elected. P.T. Barnum was proved right. Here's the latest proof of ineptitude. The first lady has chosen to (combat) make school bullying her platform. 
How ironic. She should start with her husband the 'bullier' in chief. His daily life is all about bullying / insulting / name calling / starting fights. The latest with a gold star widow. But this is what a majority of voters wanted. An ignorant, lying, boasting, bullying buffoon. Someone who brings great stature, dignity and pride to the highest office.
A daddy figure to many I'm sure. Malfeasance is alive and well in the oval office.
candukid Wow. You seem to have completely misinterpreted my post. I was merely asking questions in the hope of stimulating some reasonable discussion.
The fundamental concept is this: human beings, in general, are best motivated by rewards. This is a proven psychological fact. What kind of long-term success of a system can be expected if rewards are removed from the equation? What is the benefit of intellect and hard work? What is going to motivate people to do their best if the rewards of doing so are taken away from them and given to people who don't even try?
- Edited
Duh. 'Other people' as in taxpayers and employers. There was a bouncing ball to follow in rsvman's and my discussion. rsvman believes healthcare is not a right and argued why should he pay for other peoples healthcare. My argument is we all ( i.e. taxpayers and employers) already do pay for healthcare for people over 65.
Not sure what your point was, but to be honest I have a hard time following a lot of your points. Next time keep your eye on the ball. 