| 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: |
| To the people here who live under socialism...; and think it is good or great.... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 27 2008, 11:57 PM (1,470 Views) | |
| Dwayne | Oct 28 2008, 07:45 AM Post #16 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 07:48 AM Post #17 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 07:59 AM Post #18 |
|
Captain
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 08:15 AM Post #19 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 08:17 AM Post #20 |
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 09:58 AM Post #21 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 11:08 AM Post #22 |
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 11:15 AM Post #23 |
|
Captain
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 11:28 AM Post #24 |
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 11:30 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Commodore
|
Fear mongering during an election! You're kidding, right?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Oct 28 2008, 11:32 AM Post #26 |
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 11:35 AM Post #27 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 11:43 AM Post #28 |
|
Admiral
|
I see you don't know the definition.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Oct 28 2008, 11:44 AM Post #29 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I know the definition...
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 | Oct 28 2008, 11:48 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Commodore
|
Obama is a Socialist? OK, here are a couple of definitions of Socialism. From Dictionary.com
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 | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


So you say.

You're kidding, right?

2:12 PM Jul 11