Confused Briton seeks clarification from right -wing Americans

[mrhockey220]

Taking on extra taxes to the common consumer plays a huge part in the economy. Hypothetically speaking, lets say the tax for healthcare was $500. I know the number isnt spot on but its an example. So lets say the tax hasnt been put into effect, the consumer can do multiple things with his money: invest it, spend it, give it away, whatever. Say he spends the money on stock in a company along with about 100 other people who invested the same amount. Thats $50,000 dollars the company has to hopefully put towards a product. Say the product hits it big in the market and loads of people buy it. That company then does well. Even if the consumer decides not to buy stock he can still buy that product that the company made and that money would make its way into the market. Now lets say the tax is on and he has to give that $500 to the government and it goes toward a budget that they split up to spend on different things including healthcare. But how much of that goes to healthcare? Thats for them to decide. There are tons of factors and different senarios for this but I will stop with these.

I never said that the least government intervention the better was a fact. I said its what the Republican party belives and that I agree.

Also how is the revelution not relevant? (besides the technological advances and that our system of government works differently) I believe it is relevant because the government is slowly turing into dictatorship of the majority.

The US economy is centered around consumer spending, not the stock market. And guess what, when the government spends tax money, they are a "consumer". The money doesn't just disappear down a well somewhere, it gets injected back into the economy.

I was getting at that. The money does get injected back but it all comes back to how and what they do with it.

 

[Vuljatar]

Why do you not want a free health service when the option for private care will still exist?

Because it won't.

Pretty soon the government will decide that private healthcare isn't "safe", and that it needs to be illegal "for your own good". Then the government will get to decide exactly who gets healthcare and who doesn't. Healthcare is yet another thing that the government has no business controlling.

Also there's the fact that it's another huge monetary expenditure for a country already more than 10 trillion dollars in debt...

 

[Skutch]

Taking on extra taxes to the common consumer plays a huge part in the economy. Hypothetically speaking, lets say the tax for healthcare was $500. I know the number isnt spot on but its an example. So lets say the tax hasnt been put into effect, the consumer can do multiple things with his money: invest it, spend it, give it away, whatever. Say he spends the money on stock in a company along with about 100 other people who invested the same amount. Thats $50,000 dollars the company has to hopefully put towards a product. Say the product hits it big in the market and loads of people buy it. That company then does well. Even if the consumer decides not to buy stock he can still buy that product that the company made and that money would make its way into the market. Now lets say the tax is on and he has to give that $500 to the government and it goes toward a budget that they split up to spend on different things including healthcare. But how much of that goes to healthcare? Thats for them to decide. There are tons of factors and different senarios for this but I will stop with these.

I never said that the least government intervention the better was a fact. I said its what the Republican party belives and that I agree.

Also how is the revelution not relevant? (besides the technological advances and that our system of government works differently) I believe it is relevant because the government is slowly turing into dictatorship of the majority.

The US economy is centered around consumer spending, not the stock market. And guess what, when the government spends tax money, they are a "consumer". The money doesn't just disappear down a well somewhere, it gets injected back into the economy.

I was getting at that. The money does get injected back but it all comes back to how and what they do with it.

True enough. But one thing a lot of fiscal conservatives don't like to admit is that time after time studies have shown that government social programs are actually some of the most efficient means of promoting economic growth. For instance, social welfare programs generate an average of $1.80 in economic stimulus for every dollar spent. That's an 80% return, and all of that goes directly into local economies.

 

[DrDeath3191]

So you essentially have to pay extra for something that you don't need? I don't need everything, so why should I pay for everything?

How can you possibly know that? How do you know you won't get syphillis next week? How do you know you won't need an arm amputation after some horrendous accident that you never saw coming? Sorry if it sounds like I'm using scare tactics, but I think my point is pretty obvious. You can get struck down by anything, so you may as well get fully covered. It's really not as expensive as a lot of people make out.

Shouldn't it be up to me whether or not I get covered for something? Of course you can get hit by anything, if I don't want to be covered for it, it's my choice. And it might not be all that expensive, but it still costs money, and I would like to spend less of it, thank you.

 

[manaman]

Just to let you all know. First I am somewhat sick of the narrominded and underhanded rhetoric that keeps getting spewed around by both sides here.

First just because you are opposed to the Oboma health care plan does not mean that you are opposed to public health care.

I keep saying this but here goes again: There are numerous flaws in the health care system proposed by Obama and I am willing to bet many of them steam from concessions made to the people who are supposed to have only our best interests at heart serving themselves a piece of the pie so to speak for their support. Until these holes get fixed with something better then sticky tape, gum, and some poor boy in Holland sticking his finger in a dike then I want nothing to do with it. The system will simply drag on costing more then it is worth until such time as it either collapses under the weight of its own built up bureaucracy or it simply gets injected with so much money it works anyway.

Rushing things for the sake of it is never the answer.

I oppose segments of socialism for a different reason. I do not believe in a nanny state, I am not so opposed to the moderate redistribution of wealth, and much of that over time has taken root in the states already with minimum wage's and tax brackets, and you will not find a lot of people that complain to loudly about it. I would rather take responsibility and invest it in people. Once you invest it in the government then you take individualism away from people, with that goes many liberties. Maybe you can live without them, but I can live without a lot of things I am willing to work to achieve. In other words I want the freedoms and am willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with them. I just wish more people felt the same.

 

[niglett]

its mostly because conservatives don't believe in abortion nor are they known for being open minded.
but also if they don't believe in something personally they don't think others should either.
I'm not conservative or anything but that's what i gathered from my conservative community.

 

[Skutch]

What I'm worried about is choice: can I choose how I'm covered by a National Healthcare System, or whether or not I'm covered at all? Insurance companies offer customization to meet exactly what you need, while from what I heard a NHS does not.

Why would you want to be covered for anything less than everything? For that matter, why would you want to have zero coverage?

Because I don't think I need insurance for something that will never happen, or I don't want to pay for insurance.

Going by statistics, I'll probably never be in a car accident. But I still wear a seatbelt, just in case.

 

[DrDeath3191]

What I'm worried about is choice: can I choose how I'm covered by a National Healthcare System, or whether or not I'm covered at all? Insurance companies offer customization to meet exactly what you need, while from what I heard a NHS does not.

Why would you want to be covered for anything less than everything? For that matter, why would you want to have zero coverage?

Because I don't think I need insurance for something that will never happen, or I don't want to pay for insurance.

Going by statistics, I'll probably never be in a car accident. But I still wear a seatbelt, just in case.

True, but you don't have to pay money to buckle up.

 

[BarkBark]

So you essentially have to pay extra for something that you don't need? I don't need everything, so why should I pay for everything?

How can you possibly know that? How do you know you won't get syphillis next week? How do you know you won't need an arm amputation after some horrendous accident that you never saw coming? Sorry if it sounds like I'm using scare tactics, but I think my point is pretty obvious. You can get struck down by anything, so you may as well get fully covered. It's really not as expensive as a lot of people make out.

Well I think I can put money down that I won't get syphilis.
So at least that is ruled out. Sure accidence happens
but the truth is the majority of people don't have
these accidents. Some people don't need any medical
coverage aside from the occasional check up. So why
do they have to help fix a problem that there not
causing. Sure it's a selfish approach. But I honestly
don't want one man's syphilis to affect how much money
I get to keep.

 

[DrDeath3191]

its mostly because conservatives don't believe in abortion nor are they known for being open minded. that's why republicans icon is an ass. its stubborn.
but also if they don't believe in something personally they don't think others should either.
I'm not conservative or anything but that's what i gathered from my conservative community.

Democrats can be stubborn too.
Plus, the democrats have the ass as their icon. Republicans have the elephant.
Ooh, irony...

 

[Skutch]

What I'm worried about is choice: can I choose how I'm covered by a National Healthcare System, or whether or not I'm covered at all? Insurance companies offer customization to meet exactly what you need, while from what I heard a NHS does not.

Why would you want to be covered for anything less than everything? For that matter, why would you want to have zero coverage?

Because I don't think I need insurance for something that will never happen, or I don't want to pay for insurance.

Going by statistics, I'll probably never be in a car accident. But I still wear a seatbelt, just in case.

True, but you don't have to pay money to buckle up.

Except technically you do, since you can't buy a new car that doesn't have seatbelts, and the cost of safety equipment is included in the production costs of the vehicle, which in part influences the sale price. But that's semantics really...

 

[Theophenes]

Three things:

First, during the Bush years, there was a VA Hospital (Walter something-or-other)that happened to have, among other problems of hygiene, understocking, and understaffing, a RAT problem. Anybody remember that? If we aren't able to keep up our Veteran's medical care, how the hell are we gonna handle the whole nation?

Second, everyone seems to think that the government is "clean" just because it's not profit-driven. I'm gonna call BS here. I don't trust politicians, because, well, most of them are professionals at the obfuscating and confusing of truth.

Third, everyone who has talked about this policy in the media, for or against, has talked about money. I haven't heard a word on exactly who can apply for this health-care, or how. If it takes me as long to get my health-care paper-work done as it did to get a social security card replaced, it may just be more convenient to die.

 

[DrDeath3191]

What I'm worried about is choice: can I choose how I'm covered by a National Healthcare System, or whether or not I'm covered at all? Insurance companies offer customization to meet exactly what you need, while from what I heard a NHS does not.

Why would you want to be covered for anything less than everything? For that matter, why would you want to have zero coverage?

Because I don't think I need insurance for something that will never happen, or I don't want to pay for insurance.

Going by statistics, I'll probably never be in a car accident. But I still wear a seatbelt, just in case.

True, but you don't have to pay money to buckle up.

Except technically you do, since you can't buy a new car that doesn't have seatbelts, and the cost of safety equipment is included in the production costs of the vehicle, which in part influences the sale price. But that's semantics really...

I suppose you're right. Allow me to correct my semantics: I don't get taxed for my seatbelt, as well as those which belong to everyone else.

 

[Imat]

They fear it because in all likelihood it will successful and become an untouchable part of American politics in the same way social security has become. The Republicans want small government and low taxes, a public healthcare system will mean an increase in both of these.

That's what it's really about, they are just using fear and lunatics to oppose it because if they had a rational debate about it, most people would be in favour of it.

I'm gonna have to ask this...Are you saying Social Security is successful or just that it's untouchable...Because only one of those is correct...

And I do not want nationalized health care because it doesn't work. It may look good on paper and it may look good in the short run, but it does not work overall. Exactly like Socialism (Notice that I am saying socialism looks good on paper and may work in the short run, not that nationalized health care is socialism).

And in all honesty you're doing the exact same thing you just described: Clearly we have no argument, according to you, so we must be a bunch of crazies who can't stand any change. And that's simply not true. We present arguments, you lot shoot them down - no matter how legitimate they are - faster than flies. As someone else said, "There is good on both sides, and bad on both sides."

 

[Skutch]

Three things:

First, during the Bush years, there was a VA Hospital (Walter something-or-other)that happened to have, among other problems of hygiene, understocking, and understaffing, a RAT problem. Anybody remember that? If we aren't able to keep up our Veteran's medical care, how the hell are we gonna handle the whole nation?

Second, everyone seems to think that the government is "clean" just because it's not profit-driven. I'm gonna call BS here. I don't trust politicians, because, well, most of them are professionals at the obfuscating and confusing of truth.

Third, everyone who has talked about this policy in the media, for or against, has talked about money. I haven't heard a word on exactly who can apply for this health-care, or how. If it takes me as long to get my health-care paper-work done as it did to get a social security card replaced, it may just be more convenient to die.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It's an Army hospital, not a VA facility. Pretty old place, it was actually slated to be closed by 2011 even before the whole scandal thing. It's not at all representative of the quality of the average military hospital though. I spent several weeks in Ireland Army Community Hospital at Fort Knox, and it was pretty nice.

 

[niglett]

its mostly because conservatives don't believe in abortion nor are they known for being open minded.
but also if they don't believe in something personally they don't think others should either.
I'm not conservative or anything but that's what i gathered from my conservative community.

Actually, the Democrats use the donkey. The Republicans use the elephant. Never forget!

i never said anything about donkeys


crazy.

 

[niglett]

its mostly because conservatives don't believe in abortion nor are they known for being open minded.
but also if they don't believe in something personally they don't think others should either.
I'm not conservative or anything but that's what i gathered from my conservative community.

Actually, the Democrats use the donkey. The Republicans use the elephant. Never forget!

there is no donkeys in my post!!!