Agreed.Jay wrote:
What exactly do they provide 'just fine'? We have an uber bloated military budget that transfers billions of dollars to corrupt contractors every year.
Fair enough then.As I, and every other 'socialized health care' opponent in this thread has stated, do it at the state level, not the federal, and you won't hear a peep out of us (unless it's our own state, then we'll bitch).
?Dilbert_X wrote:
Agreed.Jay wrote:
What exactly do they provide 'just fine'? We have an uber bloated military budget that transfers billions of dollars to corrupt contractors every year.Fair enough then.As I, and every other 'socialized health care' opponent in this thread has stated, do it at the state level, not the federal, and you won't hear a peep out of us (unless it's our own state, then we'll bitch).
But why aren't the states doing it?
you still have to apply for medicare in australia + living there for at least 2 years. same thing with state run health care.DrunkFace wrote:
How is requiring someone to take out health insurance even close to systems other countries use?
You still have all the hassels and problems involved in working with an insurance company and none of the choice.
Nice fallacious argument.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
re: number 1- OK br0
I'm signing up for the military, better read the constitution word for word since i'm defending it herp derp.
but mostly no one else reads it, because they aren't defending it
Requiring people to buy insurance was a plan put out by the Republicans in the mid 90's. Around that time there was a movement to get a NHS in the shape of Europe's. The forcing people to buy insurance was their free market solution. The idea being that the insurance companies would find ways to keep healthcare cost down. It's way Mitt Romney managed to get a similar system passed in his home state. It was a meeting in the middle between the left and right. Now that the right moved even more right, the let people die thing is in vogue.DrunkFace wrote:
How is requiring someone to take out health insurance even close to systems other countries use?
Let's just see what I actually said, shall we?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What'd you expect? FEOS makes some snide remark about how most people don't read the constitution but those that serve do because that's what they're sworn to defend. There's not much you can say to that beyond rolling your eyes and saying, ok dude.
Please point to where I said anything "snide" or where I implied "those that serve" (as in ALL that serve) have read the Constitution.I wrote:
Why are we the most vocal opponents of big government? Two big reasons:
1. Unlike most others, the majority of us have read the Constitution, since we signed up to defend it with our lives.
2. Unlike most others, we've seen the beast from the inside and know how unbelievably inefficient it is--by design. And do not want something like that making critical decisions for us or our families beyond what is absolutely necessary. And I'm sorry--having the government making healthcare decisions for my family is not a necessity.
And what "kind of people" would those be, Macbeth?Macbeth wrote:
Considering the kind of people that join the military I doubt most have read it let alone were capable of comprehending what they read.
riff raffs and people who get the dole for push ups amirite.FEOS wrote:
And what "kind of people" would those be, Macbeth?Macbeth wrote:
Considering the kind of people that join the military I doubt most have read it let alone were capable of comprehending what they read.
I go to Rutgers.Cybargs wrote:
but your community college professors were good enough to teach you amirite.
Most of the people that join do it because they have no other opportunities in life. Hence why veteran unemployment is higher than the national average.FEOS wrote:
And what "kind of people" would those be, Macbeth?Macbeth wrote:
Considering the kind of people that join the military I doubt most have read it let alone were capable of comprehending what they read.
YGBSM.Macbeth wrote:
Most of the people that join do it because they have no other opportunities in life. Hence why veteran unemployment is higher than the national average.FEOS wrote:
And what "kind of people" would those be, Macbeth?Macbeth wrote:
Considering the kind of people that join the military I doubt most have read it let alone were capable of comprehending what they read.
The point is with only half the population paying for 100% of the people, that would be on yet another government run program, how can it be sustainable?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i know. what's your point?Jay wrote:
47% of the population pays zero federal income tax.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well i pay more in tax then i 'draw out' so shouldn't I be getting a fat rebate at the end of every year? That statement is an overgeneralization at best, ill-formed at worst.
Last edited by HudsonFalcon (2011-12-23 05:55:23)
omfgwttfbbqMacbeth wrote:
I go to Rutgers.Cybargs wrote:
but your community college professors were good enough to teach you amirite.
the standard of higher educationUzique wrote:
omfgwttfbbqMacbeth wrote:
I go to Rutgers.Cybargs wrote:
but your community college professors were good enough to teach you amirite.
Let's not forget the 9 (or is it 19)% who "pay" a negative tax rate every year...in addition to the 47% who pay no taxes.HudsonFalcon wrote:
The point is with only half the population paying for 100% of the people, that would be on yet another government run program, how can it be sustainable?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i know. what's your point?Jay wrote:
47% of the population pays zero federal income tax.
People just have to pay. Whether you're making $4,000 a year or $400,000 you need to pay something if we're going to continue to offer government funded programs. "Paying their fair share" is Obama rhetoric for crucifying the rich.FEOS wrote:
Let's not forget the 9 (or is it 19)% who "pay" a negative tax rate every year...in addition to the 47% who pay no taxes.HudsonFalcon wrote:
The point is with only half the population paying for 100% of the people, that would be on yet another government run program, how can it be sustainable?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i know. what's your point?
"People have to pay their fair share, now..."
Uzi is just mad I told him no cares about art in the gun thread. He will get tired of trying to snipe me in a week or so and go back to making every thread about himselfUzique wrote:
i don't really care what college anyone goes to it's just the fact macbeth has this hypocritical 'complain whenever anyone else except me is academic or deploys specialist knowledge to their advantage' tack. he'll bitch and moan whenever someone else is having an in-depth intellectual discussion of something too lofty for him, but then he'll gladly gloat to religious people about his top-class theological scholarship and his savant chess skills. what a contradictory little man.
hahaha ok, br0. I've read the constitution at least 4 times that I can remember. Go back to talking about jets or something, at least we know you're not ignorant about that topic.FEOS wrote:
Nice fallacious argument.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
re: number 1- OK br0
I'm signing up for the military, better read the constitution word for word since i'm defending it herp derp.
but mostly no one else reads it, because they aren't defending it
I didn't say those who don't defend it don't read it. I said that unlike most, the majority of the military people have read it. That doesn't exclude others who haven't joined the military from having read it, ffs. It just puts those who have bothered to read it in the minority...of which you would be one.
herp fucking derp.
