I haven't had health insurance for years - and you will NEVER hear me whining about how the government should provide it for me. I know you're just trolling...that's okay, have your fun. But please check Kerry's voting record in the Senate - that is, when he bothered to show up and vote.
-- Since July 15 2004 --
Second week of August 2004
More than enough time to get off drugs
How will you convince a neighbor with the same question to vote for the President? That he's a lefty is beside the point. Reagan found a way to attract voters from across the spectrum. Isn't it lazy for us to not even think it's possible. Reagan also said, if I'm not mistaken, that losing an election meant we didn't properly educate. I see little or no education of a potential voter on this thread, just a lot of the usual zot nonsense.
Since when is health care anyone's res[onsibility but yours?
If you're seriously thinking about who to vote for based not on the good of the country but your own pocketbook, you should probably vote for kerry.
sincerely, someone who pays for his OWN health insurance, because it's MY responsibility, not anyone else's
Hard fact is, Kerry froze up during the Cold War ***Many leaders had a hand in Washington's Cold War triumph, but Ronald Reagan's contributions were pivotal, and Kerry opposed every one of them. Reagan's defense buildup disabused Soviet leaders of any hope that they could ultimately come out ahead of the United States. Kerry derided these military expenditures as "bloated" and "without any relevancy to the threat." In particular, Reagan's plan to seek a missile defense system against Soviet ICBMs and NATO's decision to station new missiles in Europe to counteract the new Soviet deployment there rendered futile the Kremlin's vast investment in nuclear supremacy. Instead of these measures, Kerry advocated that we adopt a one-sided "nuclear freeze."
Reagan also showed the Soviets that history was not necessarily on their side by ousting the erratic communist regime in Grenada and arming anti-communist guerrillas to challenge the leftist oligarchs of Nicaragua. Kerry condemned the U.S. action in Grenada as "a bully's show of force," and he opposed our support for guerrillas in Nicaragua as vociferously as anyone in the Senate, even traveling to Managua to try to cut a deal with Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega to thwart Reagan's policy.
Reagan also put the United States on the ideological offensive when he branded the Soviet Union an "evil empire." But Kerry's harshest words were reserved for our own country, which he accused - during his years as an antiwar leader - of "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."***
There can't be any form of free health-care Lepidopteran.
If you did go with some government version, that would be socialism.
The cost of such socialism would be over 20% of every worker's check at least.
Not only that, but if it government controlled, the quality would go to cr@p.
I have lots of doctor friends and they say LAWSUITS are the reason for the higher costs and trial lawyers and their lawsuits need to be reformed and that will get what you would like to have done.
There is no such thing as free or subsidized health-care in Kerry's idea. The big plan is to have the government take it over and to then bill you through your salary for the pleasure of government ruining it.
That is a serious answer to you question.
Have any more detailed questions to ask, do so and I'll answer or go to sources to find answers for you.
Why is it the governments job to take care of you? If politicians would stay out of private business we would all be better off.
Okay. One question: Why should you pay for my health care?
I remember! It was estimated to be in the range of $700 to $750 per month per worker in the form of taxes. If you and your spouse work, your additional monthly tax burden would be in the neighborhood of $1400 to $1500 per month, annually it is approximately $18000! If you live in a rural area, it would be a little less.
Those cost are just for starters, taxes have a way of going higher as time goes on.
Are you still interested in free government hillarycare?
Another DU'er to FreeRepublic. Welcome.
I like to put liberals on the right path, so I'll break it down:
There are three types of health care systems:
1. A consumer-based system where everybody pays as they go
2. A corporatist, employer-provided system we know have
3. a single-payer government provided system
We currently have #2 for the most part, with #3 for seniors. It's a flawed system and actually a historical fluke: companies started paying workers with health care benefits during WWII to get around wage freezes. Employees liked health care, and government noticed, so they started allowing companies to deduct money spent on health care from their taxes. But it's a truly flawed system wherein the consumer does not decide what kind of health care he recives, nor does he have ANY regard for how much healthcare he consumes (he's not paying for it!). Furthermore, "employment mobility" is stifled because people are afraid of losing coverage and big businesses have an unfair advantage over small businesses by (large group plans are cheaper per worker than small plans).
The little devil on the left shoulder, #3, is also driving up costs. Did you know medicare only pays for 90% of the bill? And what do you think the hospital does to pay for the other 90%? Pass it on to non-medicare recipients in the form of $8 aspirins, for example.
You see, both candidates want to move us away from #2. However, Kerry wants to move us towards #3 while President Bush wants to move us towards #1 with his "medical savings accounts".
The president wants to enlarge Medical Savings accounts and down the road reform the corporate tax structure so employers aren't encouraged to give employees health care they really don't need.
Simultaneously eliminating corporate taxes and the welfare that goes along with it (the two are roughly the same amount) while expanding President George W. Bush's Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to all Americans would (1) eliminate the tax incentive to "pay people in benefits" (2) allow Americans to save for their own high-deductible health insurance. This would lead to a truly consumer-driven market.
There is very little cost awareness among insured consumers of health care services. If the cost of consuming a good is relatively low, consumers will generally consume more of them! This is especially true if a consumer gains little financially from minimizing their consumption. This is precisely the case in the healthcare industry, and it should be fixed by making American consumers, already cost-conscious in other facets of life, become cost-conscious about healthcare costs. This can only be done by making consumers pick their own healthcare plans.
Vote 4 Dubya!
Here Kitty, Kitty...
THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY WOULD YOU BELEIVE ANYTHING A DAMN LIAR SAYS?!
If you are a "Swing Voter" next time you go to vote - Get rid of the boxers.
If you are a "Swing Voter" next time you go to vote - Get rid of the boxers.
The reason health insurance is so high is because of the excessive cost of malpractice insurance resulting from frivolous damage claims won by trial lawyers. Kerry/Edwards is the most pro-trial lawyer ticket in American history.
Edwards himself made millions using junk science to show a supposed link between natural child birth and cerebral palsy.