Obama says we need to "spread the wealth around"

SundaySilence

Uncle Leo wrote:

Then by definition are you not against all tax and government service? I would guess your HH income is six figures. On the other side of the tracks is a family who has a HH income of $35,000. But the military, fire and the cops do just as much to protect them as you. You are essentially paying for their protection. They are taking your wealth and serving others with it.

The military, fire, and cops are not doing just as much.

They are doing more for the person with more wealth because that person has more to protect.

Ms. Haiku

unsung wrote:

The same goes for illegal aliens, I don't want them to have anything paid for by this government, including anything in their native language.

If someone without documentation to live in this country was severly hurt on a U.S. job (that was advertised to him in his language of origin - talk about marketing), and you were the hospital administrator would you let him bleed to death?

mammasan

unsung wrote:

Are your parents now on their feet? If so have they quit collecting the check from the government? If that is also yes then kudos to them, some people have pride. The rest think they are owed something.

I agree that there are people that need it. If they are not working I can understand because of the economy right now. I'm for helping people who need it I don't think it is too much to have them take drug tests first. That is not unreasonable. As a taxpayer I'd like to know that I'm not funding an addict who continues to abuse drugs.

The ones that are making an honest effort should have no reservations about this. The ones that do, well they don't get a check.

Yes my parents are not on government assistance anymore and haven't been since I was about 2 or 3, over 30 years now. I also agree that there should be rules imposed by the government in order to collect assistance but you can't punish the people who truly need this aid by cutting funding simply because there are those that abuse it. You need to fix the problem which is mismanagement. By just cutting the funding you will be hurting those that do need it and are honest about their situation.

Welfare abuse is a problem but it doesn't even come close to being a drain as some other areas. In 2008 the government spent $324 billion on Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending. That is a 1.8% increase from the previous year. In the same year we spent $261 billion, a 9.2% increase, on paying interest on the National Debt. The budget for the Defense department is 481.4 billion, a 12.1% increase. The global war on terrorism, this does not include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, cost tax payers $145.2 billion ( a 45.8% increase). Instead of blaming our budget short falls on the poor who receive aid why don't we focus on some of these other areas, for example the $142.5 billion on the war on terrorism.

unsung

Ms. Haiku wrote:

If someone without documentation to live in this country was severly hurt on a U.S. job (that was advertised to him in his language of origin - talk about marketing), and you were the hospital administrator would you let him bleed to death?

No.

But who pays? By that person not paying it raises the rates for everyone who is legal or who is a citizen. That is one of the contributing factors of why the rates are high and why more people are without insurance.

I seriously believe it is reasonable to bill their country of citizenship. They have more responsibility for that person than I do.

unsung

mammasan wrote:

Yes my parents are not on government assistance anymore and haven't been since I was about 2 or 3, over 30 years now. I also agree that there should be rules imposed by the government in order to collect assistance but you can't punish the people who truly need this aid by cutting funding simply because there are those that abuse it. You need to fix the problem which is mismanagement. By just cutting the funding you will be hurting those that do need it and are honest about their situation.

Welfare abuse is a problem but it doesn't even come close to being a drain as some other areas. In 2008 the government spent $324 billion on Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending. That is a 1.8% increase from the previous year. In the same year we spent $261 billion, a 9.2% increase, on paying interest on the National Debt. The budget for the Defense department is 481.4 billion, a 12.1% increase. The global war on terrorism, this does not include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, cost tax payers $145.2 billion ( a 45.8% increase). Instead of blaming our budget short falls on the poor who receive aid why don't we focus on some of these other areas, for example the $142.5 billion on the war on terrorism.

Cutting spending on things is the first solution to the problem.

mammasan

unsung wrote:

Cutting spending on things is the first solution to the problem.

Cutting wasteful spending. Cost plus contracts would be a great place to start.

prytoj

Ms. Haiku wrote:

If someone without documentation to live in this country was severly hurt on a U.S. job (that was advertised to him in his language of origin - talk about marketing), and you were the hospital administrator would you let him bleed to death?

The fact is employers put illegal workers in dangerous situations. One story comes to mind in which a man in Cali was hired to clean the big Target sign
out front of one of their stores. The man hired some illegal Mexicans and supplied them with some soap and squeegees basically. No scaffold, no tie-off rope, no work boots. Of course, one of the men fell to the ground and was killed. True story.

I'd be on my way here with my family if I could find a way. I'm hard pressed to blame the guy who will risk his life to get him and his family here.

Real immigration reform starts with smart border patrol (are you telling me we can build the DMZ in Korea, but we can't build a decent fence here?) and prosecution of people who hire illegals. Putting pressure on the Mexican gub'ment probably wouldn't hurt either.

Ms. Haiku

unsung wrote:

No.

But who pays? By that person not paying it raises the rates for everyone who is legal or who is a citizen. That is one of the contributing factors of why the rates are high and why more people are without insurance.

I seriously believe it is reasonable to bill their country of citizenship. They have more responsibility for that person than I do.

Not the U.S. employer?

unsung

That will work too.

saveuplife

Ms. Haiku wrote:

If someone without documentation to live in this country was severly hurt on a U.S. job (that was advertised to him in his language of origin - talk about marketing), and you were the hospital administrator would you let him bleed to death?

It's against the law for any hospital administrator to EVER let anyone (regardless if they are insured or a U.S. citizen) bleed to death. That's current law.

Ms. Haiku

saveuplife wrote:

It's against the law for any hospital administrator to EVER let anyone (regardless if they are insured or a U.S. citizen) bleed to death. That's current law.

Point taken. Thanks for letting me know.

_

saveuplife wrote:

It's against the law for any hospital administrator to EVER let anyone (regardless if they are insured or a U.S. citizen) bleed to death. That's current law.

Seems like there are some people who would like to see that law changed.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

The redistribution of wealth is why people don't want him. Why should we work harder so those on welfare can continue to be funded? Communism must be making a comeback.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

...
Not to worry... no one cares about your chump change annual income in the big picture.

darthvedder81

scb wrote:

I don't think you can take your one experience and extrapolate that we therefore don't need Medicaid or welfare.

My experience is that many, if not most, of the people at the state hospital where I work need Medicaid or the like to get basic healthcare. Sometimes people don't qualify because of technicalities and we search high and low for ways to get them covered. If it's as easy as you suggest to get care without government assistance, why do we have such a hard time finding private assistance for our patients?

Because our entire system is out of wack. Our expectations for what health insurance is or should be are ludicrous as leaving it in the hands of employers. We need to remove all the middlemen and not add another one (i.e. the Federal Government).

floyd1975

Ms. Haiku wrote:

If someone without documentation to live in this country was severly hurt on a U.S. job (that was advertised to him in his language of origin - talk about marketing), and you were the hospital administrator would you let him bleed to death?

That should probably be paid for by the employer who illegally hired an undocumented worker.

saveuplife

scb wrote:

Seems like there are some people who would like to see that law changed.

I don't think that's true. I think everyone would love to have everyone covered by healthcare. There are different methods for doing it, that's all and it's a very hard task.

Universal healthcare is a method.... and everyone who knows anything about it, knows there's some serious issues with it. For starters, waits (lines) and lack of specialization by doctors.

I think the basic point goes something like this... keep it as is, you get great healthcare (due to specialization ect), but you miss covering some of the poorest of the poor and non-citizens. Change it to universal healthcare, you get more covered (including more poor and non-citizens), but you lose in healthcare quality... so you may actually lose healthwise on aggregate. That's not even taking into account costs. There's a good story on both sides... just like most things.

_

saveuplife wrote:

I don't think that's true. I think everyone would love to have everyone covered by healthcare. There are different methods for doing it, that's all and it's a very hard task.

Universal healthcare is a method.... and everyone who knows anything about it, knows there's some serious issues with it. For starters, waits (lines) and lack of specialization by doctors.

I think the basic point goes something like this... keep it as is, you get great healthcare (due to specialization ect), but you miss covering some of the poorest of the poor and non-citizens. Change it to universal healthcare, you get more covered (including more poor and non-citizens), but you lose in healthcare quality... so you may actually lose healthwise on aggregate. That's not even taking into account costs. There's a good story on both sides... just like most things.

Well, I disagree that we would lose quality of care if we had universal coverage.

But, that aside, I don't believe that everyone would love to have everyone covered by healthcare. Many people don't want people covered based on what country they were born in, etc.

Also, people can talk all day about wanting everyone to be covered, but when they refuse to support any plan to actually make that happen, it's kind of hard to believe them. (Kind of reminds me of my ex-boyfriend who would go on and on about how he wanted us to be in a faithful, monogamous relationship and then would turn around and sleep with other women.) There are many people who, when they believe they might stand to lose anything at all from it, would chose for others to not have care.

And, regardless even of the possibility of having to give up anything for everyone to be covered, I think there are some people who feel that some other people just aren't worthy of care.

prytoj

scb wrote:

Well, I disagree that we would lose quality of care if we had universal coverage.

But, that aside, I don't believe that everyone would love to have everyone covered by healthcare. Many people don't want people covered based on what country they were born in, etc.

Also, people can talk all day about wanting everyone to be covered, but when they refuse to support any plan to actually make that happen, it's kind of hard to believe them. (Kind of reminds me of my ex-boyfriend who would go on and on about how he wanted us to be in a faithful, monogamous relationship and then would turn around and sleep with other women.) There are many people who, when they believe they might stand to lose anything at all from it, would chose for others to not have care.

And, regardless even of the possibility of having to give up anything for everyone to be covered, I think there are some people who feel that some other people just aren't worthy of care.

Liberal spin...but just ask the Euros or Canadians how easy it is to have a baby, or elective surgery. Yeah, they might save your life in a pinch. If that's your style, be my guest.

_

prytoj wrote:

Liberal spin...but just ask the Euros or Canadians how easy it is to have a baby, or elective surgery. Yeah, they might save your life in a pinch. If that's your style, be my guest.

Ya know, we've had healthcare threads before, and the Europeans & Canadians seemed to be pretty happy with their healthcare system. And I have an American friend who just had a baby in England and she was quite satisfied with her experience as well.

People keep saying if we have universal health coverage there will be long waits for appointments, etc., but that sounds to me just like what we have now. At the hospital where I work, I am actually not even able to get new patients seen unless they are pregnant. And, even for those of us who have good health insurance, have been patients here for years, and work here, there's still frequently a wait of 3-5 months for a specialist.

prytoj

scb wrote:

Ya know, we've had healthcare threads before, and the Europeans & Canadians seemed to be pretty happy with their healthcare system. And I have an American friend who just had a baby in England and she was quite satisfied with her experience as well.

People keep saying if we have universal health coverage there will be long waits for appointments, etc., but that sounds to me just like what we have now. At the hospital where I work, I am actually not even able to get new patients seen unless they are pregnant. And, even for those of us who have good health insurance, have been patients here for years, and work here, there's still frequently a wait of 3-5 months for a specialist.

The three friends from England that I know would adamantly disagree with you. either way, I would take money from my parents sooner than I'd take it from the gub'ment. But I'm proud, excuse me. Just that simple.