Obama's "Plan"

[apple0154]

You keep asserting that people "object to helping people", while the problem that you fail to understand is that some people object to the Government telling us how we're supposed to help; when you have no idea if any of us are already helping.

I believe many people are helping as witnessed by charitable contributions. However, the problem is who decides who needs help and how can the average person make an informed decision. Should one donate to a charity that helps wheelchair bound individuals secure their own apartment and get them out of institutions or is it more important to donate to an organization that provides snacks/lunch to poor children enabling them not only to learn but to avoid medical problems due to a bad diet? How does the average individual even know there are hungry children on the other side of town, let alone the other side of the country?

Is it a priority to help disabled children attend games (special olympics) or feed hungry children? Is the priority to help the elderly Church-going widow maintain her home by raising money for the land tax or is ensuring the single Mom with five kids have sufficient food to eat?

How does one even know about the widow or the five kids? How can proper help be offered without a central system coordinating the data?

Lastly, with all the different programs we see people slipping through the cracks precisely because of the different programs. There needs to be a comprehensive program so people are not "under-qualified" for one and "over-qualified" for another.

 

[apple0154]

You're right, it IS absurd... so why do you continue to suggest that? You know it's not the truth, you know that we "look after our elderly" like no other nation on the planet... why do you want to pretend this is not the case?

Then why were the Repubs talking about cutting social programs for the elderly, specifically Medicare?

 

[apple0154]

Another tired argument you keep making, and it keeps being debunked. How can you revert back to something you destroyed? If you burn down your house and build a new one, and you don't like the new one as well, you can't move back to your old house, it is gone... do you not understand that? What are those people supposed to "revert back" to? Nothing is there! It was destroyed so you could have government-run health care! There IS NO going back, that's the problem!

In Canada, you admitted yourself, they are filing lawsuits and lobbying to reintroduce capitalist free-market measures, because the government-run system isn't satisfying the people. This is the case in the UK as well, where government-run health care has also been a total failure and disaster.

There's no total failure or disaster. It's just that some people want special treatment. It's like when we see road rage. If all roads were toll roads people wouldn't have to wait in traffic as there would be fewer cars but the majority of people don't want all the roads to be toll roads.

As for "going back" if the majority of people wanted that, it would happen. The majority of people don't want that in any country that has a government plan. Again, show me one politician campaigning on returning to a "pay or suffer" system in any country.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Handout. Hand up. In any case, make it a decent one.

It is now apparent that you are unable to see the difference.
How sad.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Somebody has to be last.

(Excerpt) In both 2008 and 2009, the Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index ranked Canada 30th of 30 countries (the U.S. was not included in the sample) in terms of value for money spent on health care. Canadians deserve better.....

Medicare has enjoyed the resounding support of Canadians for nearly half a century. (End)
http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Advocacy/HCT/HCT-2010report_en.pdf

You'll note that the US was not included in the sample. Also note that while Canada is at the bottom of the list Canadians have overwhelmingly supported government run medical for the last 45+ years. And a little further research will show Canada spends about 1/3 less than the US while the life expectancy of Canadians is longer.

So, if you are attempting to compare the Canadian medical system to the US the waiting time and the "less value for money" attributed to the Canadian system does not interfere with longevity and shows a 1/3 savings. Also, and most important, the Canadian medical system has enjoyed the resounding support of Canadians for nearly half a century.

Government medical. Not bad for something that's been characterized as a failing, socialist, death panel riddled enslavement of the population.

I believe that someone else has already expained that the majority of people will refuse to return something that is given to them, free of charge.
After a period of time, they see it as their RIGHT to have such things given to them; without them having to do anything in return.
Kind of like a child that is given whatever it wants, as it grows up. Upon reaching adult hood, they usually have the same attitude towards life.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I believe many people are helping as witnessed by charitable contributions. However, the problem is who decides who needs help and how can the average person make an informed decision. Should one donate to a charity that helps wheelchair bound individuals secure their own apartment and get them out of institutions or is it more important to donate to an organization that provides snacks/lunch to poor children enabling them not only to learn but to avoid medical problems due to a bad diet? How does the average individual even know there are hungry children on the other side of town, let alone the other side of the country?

Is it a priority to help disabled children attend games (special olympics) or feed hungry children? Is the priority to help the elderly Church-going widow maintain her home by raising money for the land tax or is ensuring the single Mom with five kids have sufficient food to eat?

How does one even know about the widow or the five kids? How can proper help be offered without a central system coordinating the data?

Lastly, with all the different programs we see people slipping through the cracks precisely because of the different programs. There needs to be a comprehensive program so people are not "under-qualified" for one and "over-qualified" for another.

When you remove the opportunity for someone to choose who and when they help, it stops being a charity and automatically becomes a requrement.
Kind of takes away that free will idea.

 

[apple0154]

It is now apparent that you are unable to see the difference.

How sad.

The point is it's neither.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The point is it's neither.

That would only be in the tiny little world that you have created for yourself and that you keep trying to force on the rest of the sane society.

 

[NOVA]

Apples a great one with words like COMPEL, CONTRIBUTE, and FORCED CONTRIBUTION.....and never utters the word FREEDOM.....

Do we demand Apple contribute to promote the values of others ....no....but hes sees absolutely nothing wrong with demanding everyone contribute to promote his....

I worked all my life to make a comfortable life for myself, my wife, my family, my friends and even neighbors I find in need.....

I didn't work all my life to comfort and provide for my friends in Mexico, South America, Africa, Ireland, or anywhere else....

I expect them to work hard to achieve their own goals and aspirations...provide for their own needs and the needs of their families and friends....

I may not have the same good health as they do or the same foods or whatever....and they may not live as I do....

I don't demand they share their good fortunes with me and don't expect them to demand I share with them what I've worked for....

Its called freedom....

You have at it Apple....give until it hurts, share everything you have with everyone you meet....thats your freedom.....join a commune, start a collective, whatever you see fit to do.....

 

[apple0154]

I believe that someone else has already expained that the majority of people will refuse to return something that is given to them, free of charge.
After a period of time, they see it as their RIGHT to have such things given to them; without them having to do anything in return.
Kind of like a child that is given whatever it wants, as it grows up. Upon reaching adult hood, they usually have the same attitude towards life.

It's not given to them for nothing. People, well most, realize it's a combined effort on the part of all to better society.

Assuming the average citizen can afford medical care and save for retirement over their working lifetime then contributing to a fund to cover those things, through regular taxes, makes sense. If people are unable to contribute sufficiently that means the average citizen can not afford medical care or retirement which means something is drastically wrong with society.

 

[apple0154]

When you remove the opportunity for someone to choose who and when they help, it stops being a charity and automatically becomes a requrement.
Kind of takes away that free will idea.

I suppose it depends on whether one wants to live in a society where helping others is not a priority. Usually helping others is a sign a society has evolved.

 

[apple0154]

That would only be in the tiny little world that you have created for yourself and that you keep trying to force on the rest of the sane society.

Healthy, happy people strive to better themselves. When we see a child who is despondent, does not study or participate in activities, does not try to better themselves either athletically or academically, we know something is wrong. What changes at 18 or 28?

Social services, welfare, is neither a hand up or a hand out. From the people I have spoken with it is begrudgingly given further demeaning the individual. Of course, the individual has already lost everything before they qualify for the supposed hand up/hand out.

They need help. Decent, cheerfully given help starting with a complete medical check-up. Not a few dollars and told they're lazy.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not given to them for nothing. People, well most, realize it's a combined effort on the part of all to better society.

Assuming the average citizen can afford medical care and save for retirement over their working lifetime then contributing to a fund to cover those things, through regular taxes, makes sense. If people are unable to contribute sufficiently that means the average citizen can not afford medical care or retirement which means something is drastically wrong with society.

Nice that you tend to only see the parameters that you preset within your mind.
You seem to forget that it's not your idea of a contribution, is one that's requried.
That is not a contribution, that is a requirement.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I suppose it depends on whether one wants to live in a society where helping others is not a priority. Usually helping others is a sign a society has evolved.

Nice dance you do there, skirting the issue of your idea of contributing is usually referred to as something required.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Healthy, happy people strive to better themselves. When we see a child who is despondent, does not study or participate in activities, does not try to better themselves either athletically or academically, we know something is wrong. What changes at 18 or 28?

Social services, welfare, is neither a hand up or a hand out. From the people I have spoken with it is begrudgingly given further demeaning the individual. Of course, the individual has already lost everything before they qualify for the supposed hand up/hand out.

They need help. Decent, cheerfully given help starting with a complete medical check-up. Not a few dollars and told they're lazy.

It is a hand out, when it becomes a way of life or generational.
You have presented nothing, that shows how you intend to motivate people to work for somethng that they now get for free.

 

[Good Luck]

But the program can be saved. it's absurd to even suggest the richest country in the world can not look after it's elderly.

Others have posted the tax rates the wealthy used to pay before the cuts and even before that. The rates have continually fallen over the decades and now they see a problem in the future. What do you think the solution is considering we know what is leading to the potential problem?

The program is NOT sustainable, by its very design. When SS was instituted, there were 18 people in the work force for every person drawing social security benefits. Today that number is under 5 people working per person drawing benefits, and that number is still shrinking. A system based on the idea that the workers of today pay for the retirement of elderly workers cannot be sustained when the numbers of people on the benefits side grows too large, and when the people drawing benefits do so for far longer than the plan ever accounted for. Even if we extend the ceiling of SS taxes to higher incomes and increase the tax rates, would be like putting a bandaid on a patch of melanoma. As the numbers of people USING SS grows in comparison to the numbers of people PAYING into SS, the crisis will only get worse. We are already 10-30 years early (depending on which side you listened to in the 80s) in when we would have to start using the SS Trust fund as SS revenues fall behind SS obligations. Even if the trust fund were not filled with IOUs instead of cash, it means the trusts fund is smaller than anticipated when it became needed to meet obligations, which means it will run out FASTER than the 10-30 years estimates from the 80s said we had. And NO, the general fund cannot make up the difference - at least not for more than a decade or so.

The system, as currently designed, cannot HELP but fail eventually. Band-aid solutions of placing an ever-growing burden of taxation on the wealthy cannot change that. As a wise woman once said, the problem is, eventually we will run out of other people's money.

Therefore, a DIFFERENT system needs to be started, one which is economically viable and sustainable for future generations when the number of beneficiaries actually outgrows the number of contributors (that day WILL come!), and over the course of a decade or so, slowly switch over to the new design.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Then why were the Repubs talking about cutting social programs for the elderly, specifically Medicare?

Republican's haven't said one word about cutting any benefit for any current Social Security or Medicare recipient. They have proposed reforms, which would take effect on SS recipients 20 years down the road... it wouldn't effect anyone currently on SS.

There's no total failure or disaster. It's just that some people want special treatment. It's like when we see road rage. If all roads were toll roads people wouldn't have to wait in traffic as there would be fewer cars but the majority of people don't want all the roads to be toll roads.

As for "going back" if the majority of people wanted that, it would happen. The majority of people don't want that in any country that has a government plan. Again, show me one politician campaigning on returning to a "pay or suffer" system in any country.

First of all, yes it IS a disaster and failure. In the UK, they are not able to afford the shoddy health care they have... In Canada, they are not able to adequately care for the people. In some countries, they are chopping off feet to avoid having to buy corrective shoes. The entire socialist medical system is an absolute and abject failure from the ground up... from the cost of health care, to the availability and quality of health care, it is a failure.

And again, since you seem to be thick headed... people can't "go back" to something that is no longer there! It doesn't matter how much they want to, or IF their government (which isn't run by the people like America) will even let them.

 

[Phantasmal]

Well, in context....generic would mean ANY of those in the current Republican field....no need to be specific....

"English 101" and "Introduction to Reading Comprehension " for 3rd Grade

The independent voters will not vote for the current Republican candidates. Even with a bad bad approval rating, Obama still beats all current candidates in the polls.

 

[Rationalist]

The independent voters will not vote for the current Republican candidates. Even with a bad bad approval rating, Obama still beats all current candidates in the polls.

You'd be correct if Obama merely had a bad approval rating. The nail in the coffin is the bad disapproval rating. The latest Pew survey reveals 54% of independents disapprove of Obama's job performance. Unless things turn around significantly, Obama's chances aren't great.

And so long as Obama believes we can spend our way out of recession, we'll continue seeing reports like this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ession-ended/2011/07/29/gIQAhtAEgI_story.html

The bottom line: jobs are Americans' #1 priority right now. If Obama can't deliver (and so far that seems to be the case), he will not be reelected. Simple as that.

Tell me, if things are still bad (or worse) around election time, will you still vote for Obama? If so, why?

 

[Phantasmal]

Zeus, even with his high disapproval ratings he is still winning in the Presidential race against the current candidates, sorry, but that is the way the polls read. No current candidate will beat him, because as dissatisfied as they are with Obama, they stll won't vote for Mitt or Michelle.