Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
To the people here who live under socialism...; and think it is good or great....
Topic Started: Oct 27 2008, 11:57 PM (1,470 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
whitestar
Oct 28 2008, 07:35 AM
No offence Dwayne... live right, eat right, good policy but it aint no guarantee against been run over by a bus or anything else for that matter
Dear sir, I believe you're losing sight of the point of my comment in your rush to tell me all the special circumstances you think may warrant a more socialistic approach to medical care.

You can come up with realistic scenarios or you can come up with outlandish scenarios. but either way it doesn't negate the reality that if I am forced to pay for medical care regardless whether or not I ever use it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 07:41 AM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:21 AM
Unfornutately, one persistent misstatement all of you seem to be making in describing your medical system is this...

"I can get the medical treatment I need totally free of charge"

"Hospital is free"

It is never free, you're just paying for it on the front end, through your tax system.
This is incorrect as for me personally it is totally free. However the point is it is free of charge not free of cost. That means that the cost to an individual is not related to how much they need to use the system or the costs to the system but only to their tax bill.
So, are you saying you produce no income at all? Are you incapable of producing income?

If you are incapable of producing an income, then would it surprise you to know that 100% of your medical needs would be covered in the United States?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:45 AM
whitestar
Oct 28 2008, 07:35 AM
No offence Dwayne... live right, eat right, good policy but it aint no guarantee against been run over by a bus or anything else for that matter
Dear sir, I believe you're losing sight of the point of my comment in your rush to tell me all the special circumstances you think may warrant a more socialistic approach to medical care.

You can come up with realistic scenarios or you can come up with outlandish scenarios. but either way it doesn't negate the reality that if I am forced to pay for medical care regardless whether or not I ever use it.
Look, nothing outlandish about a road accident, or a diagnosis of cancer, both have happened in my family as outlandish as they may seem to you... bad shit happens to good people no matter what you eat.
The account I gave was a road accident the second account, my grandaughter, diagnosed with cancer as a baby... here http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-gamble-that-saved-elizabeth/2007/08/04/1185648209576.html
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:32 AM
As well as, that's 2% you pay irrespective of your health... so, live right and eat right, yet still pay out at least 2% of your income.

I like my system better... I pay for what I use.
Live right, eat right - you can still get cancer.

If you were right then there would be a lot less illness in the world. You cannot always prevent everything.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
And good stuff happens to bad people too... irrespective of the adjective I chose to use which you're now having an issue, my point is still the same.

Here, let's just stick to this, in all my 42 years, I've only been in the hospital twice... once when I was born and once when I was in the Navy. If I would have been paying to the state 2% of my gross income from the past 25 years I've spent in the workforce, there are numerous things I would not been able to afford like that bicycle I ride all the time or that membership to the YMCA. I probably never could have afforded the Pontiac Grand Prix GXP I bought last year.

There are many things I could not afford if 2% of over a 25 year period had been taken out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
:rolleyes: So you say.

We are talking 2% as a levy , not 22% . You don't miss it. And it's a better proposition than paying through the nose to subsidise multinational health insurance companies , make a few shareholders (who probably live overseas) wealthy , and who have only goal - maximum profits and minimizing client benefits.

So why are so many people in the USA unable to get quality healthcare if your system is so good ?

How do people manage if they loose their job and can not find another one - not everyone is able to move to a totally different part of the country chasing the chance of work (ie family ties and family commitments or unable to sell the family home (especially now when lots of americans find they owe more on their homes that they can sell the home for)) ?
Edited by somerled, Oct 28 2008, 10:09 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
So, you pay a flat tax rate of 2%? What is your sales tax, estate tax, etc?

Basically, I want to know this:

If your gross income is $100,000 a year, how much could you expect to pay in taxes in a year, total.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 08:17 AM
And good stuff happens to bad people too... irrespective of the adjective I chose to use which you're now having an issue, my point is still the same.

Here, let's just stick to this, in all my 42 years, I've only been in the hospital twice... once when I was born and once when I was in the Navy. If I would have been paying to the state 2% of my gross income from the past 25 years I've spent in the workforce, there are numerous things I would not been able to afford like that bicycle I ride all the time or that membership to the YMCA. I probably never could have afforded the Pontiac Grand Prix GXP I bought last year.

There are many things I could not afford if 2% of over a 25 year period had been taken out.
Your missing the point Dwayne, call the 2% a levy, a tax but the reality is, it's insurance... you don't pick and choose when you need to use the hospital system.. it's a gamble. You may choose not to pay the levy by the way and opt for private medical insurance or choose none at all but risk no medical cover but your own wallet. That choice is for fools.
You have used the hospital system twice, twice more than I have and I'm 10yrs older than you, if I could recover my 2% over a lifetime I would be in front. I've never caused a car accident and needed motor insurance but I would be a fool to forgo further insurance because the odds are I'll never need it. My house has never burnt down, not once yet has it even seen a puff of smoke but it's fully insured for fire.. I wish I could have known I would not need fire insurance to this point, the premiums I could save would buy me a lot more than a bike, memberships or a car.
Dwayne, I hope your not telling me you have foregone medical insurance because you believe in the long run you will save money when balanced out with your use of medical facilities. If so Dwayne, there may come a day you may need to come up with many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to save your butt. Then tell me how you feel about that Pontiac.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
I honestly don't know why Socialism is being discussed at all in the context of this Presidential election except as a desperate right-wing fear mongering talking point.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
ImpulseEngine
Oct 28 2008, 11:28 AM
I honestly don't know why Socialism is being discussed at all in the context of this Presidential election except as a desperate right-wing fear mongering talking point.
Fear mongering during an election! :o You're kidding, right? :whistle: ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I missed nothing.

We all die and there is no insurance against that, and spending money trying to stave off the inevitable is a more foolish act imo, because the money you allowed the state to take could have been invested with returns that could be used for medical care if needed.

Oh, and if I need hundreds of thousand of dollars to keep me (or anyone else for that matter) alive, I say, what's the point?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ImpulseEngine
Oct 28 2008, 11:28 AM
I honestly don't know why Socialism is being discussed at all in the context of this Presidential election except as a desperate right-wing fear mongering talking point.
:rotfl:

Um, because obama is a socialist... That's the point of Ayers. That's the point of Joe the Plumber. And that's also the point of the radio interview obama gave in 20001 that was made public just yesterday.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
I see you don't know the definition. :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I know the definition...
Quote:
 
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism (accessed: October 28, 2008).

obama is the variety of socialist who tolerates capitalism, but wants a significant level of government control.

Now that I've educated you, I do want to note what I do see... I see you're spinning for obama.
Edited by Dwayne, Oct 28 2008, 11:48 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 11:35 AM
ImpulseEngine
Oct 28 2008, 11:28 AM
I honestly don't know why Socialism is being discussed at all in the context of this Presidential election except as a desperate right-wing fear mongering talking point.
:rotfl:

Um, because obama is a socialist... That's the point of Ayers. That's the point of Joe the Plumber. And that's also the point of the radio interview obama gave in 20001 that was made public just yesterday.
Obama is a Socialist?

OK, here are a couple of definitions of Socialism.

From Dictionary.com

Quote:
 
so·cial·ism (sô'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Quote:
 
social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.


Part of the definition from Encyclopedia Brittanica - you can see the extended entry using the link below.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=socialism%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia

So, I have the following questions.

a. What, in the above definitions, fits with Obama being a Socialist?
b. If you can find affirmative answers to a. , to what extent does his fitting those definitions of Socialism make him different or unique from other leading political figures in the U.S. e.g. John McCain?

If you're going to call Obama a Socialist and imply that is unique to him, you're going to have to show how he fits the definition and then show that he is unique in fitting that definition, otherwise your assertions lack substance and will be, as has already been said, seen as scare-mongering and dare I say, smear tactics.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus