• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would you favor an 8% sales tax to pay for national Health care?

Would you favor an 8% sales tax to finance national health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • No

    Votes: 19 67.9%

  • Total voters
    28
Engimo said:
I know this was posted on the first page, but I just read the thread.

I don't understand why you would rather trust corporations that exist only to generate a profit than a governmental bureau which has an obligation to serve everyone. Yes, governmental bureaucracies may be less efficient than profit-driven corporations, but there is not always incentive to be moral or to care adequately for those being served - especially when it comes at the cost of the corporation's bottom line.


Because one can switch insurance companies but God himself can't fire a federal employee?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because one can switch insurance companies but God himself can't fire a federal employee?

So? There is accountability in bureaucracies. Regardless, if you have a problem with a governmental office, it's not generally with a single person, and if it is you can go over the head of that person or appeal to the bureaucracy.
 
DeeJayH said:
the poor are covered by government programs
the rich have insurance
most of the rest that do not have it made poor life decisions
it is not the governments job to take money from my family to provide for an idiot who screwed up his life
This is not entirely true. Ppl hurt the most are mid-range income families. Due to these policies of "trickle-down" there is a greatly decreasing middle class and a rising class on the welfare programs. Thus ending up in a society with incredible wealth gap and no more middle class.
 
Navy Pride said:
Cab I ask you why you call yourself middleground becasue you are as far to the left as I am to the right......
When your at the extreem right side of the entire spectrum and completley arrogant, you really shouldn't wonder why NP. Everyone is left to you.
 
Engimo said:
So? There is accountability in bureaucracies. Regardless, if you have a problem with a governmental office, it's not generally with a single person, and if it is you can go over the head of that person or appeal to the bureaucracy.


Hmmmm....so, you've never had to get your ddriver's license renewed? How about going through the permit process to open a new restaurant? Only a damn fool thinks government can do things that it's not supposed to do better than the private market place.

The PRESIDENT can't even fire a civil service worker....


....needless to say, when I need a doctor, I have no problems getting one. Clearly the American health care system works perfectly, and I see no reason why I should have to pay more since I won't see an improvement for myself.
 
DeeJayH said:
i can not speak to the voracity of your claim, but i do know that Germany's unemployment is more than double the US
and its economy is not exactly firing on all cylinders
Let's put this into perspective. When it comes to Germany, the claims are not entirely fair. It has just received East Germany back into one united Germany finally, and much of the East is still riddled with Soviet socialist infrastructure that needs to be completely rebuilt. Thus there is a incredible portion of Germany that drags the entire country behind. Only after that portion has been rebuilt and restructured can Germany "Fire on all cylinders".
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
....needless to say, when I need a doctor, I have no problems getting one. Clearly the American health care system works perfectly, and I see no reason why I should have to pay more since I won't see an improvement for myself.
Innate physical wellness? being wealthy probably doesn't hurt either. Do you think then that people not as wealthy as you don't deserve any better?
How did you obtain your wealth?
 
DeeJayH said:
the poor are covered by government programs
the rich have insurance
most of the rest that do not have it made poor life decisions
it is not the governments job to take money from my family to provide for an idiot who screwed up his life

It's just that easy, eh? LOL

Yup, everything is black and white in your world.
 
jfuh said:
Innate physical wellness? being wealthy probably doesn't hurt either. Do you think then that people not as wealthy as you don't deserve any better?
How did you obtain your wealth?

I gots me a JOB! An amazing thing that. More poor people ought to find one and hang on to it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Free" medical care? Personally, I find slavery quite objectionable, not to mention that slave labor is generally of poorer quality than profit-induced self-motivated pursuits of excellence.

Who mentioned slavery????????:confused:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I gots me a JOB! An amazing thing that. More poor people ought to find one and hang on to it.

That's the problem, not everyone can find jobs, or hang onto it. Jobs aren't always available. And companies often fire their employees for multitudes of reasons.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I gots me a JOB! An amazing thing that. More poor people ought to find one and hang on to it.

There are plenty of people in the lower-class bracket who have jobs. Some ever two or three and they still cannot afford insurance.
 
Middleground said:
There are plenty of people in the lower-class bracket who have jobs. Some ever two or three and they still cannot afford insurance.

Exactly...and Bush's big solution? Allow individuals and families to have tax free health care accounts?

I guess Bush thinks a family of four making $30,000/year can afford to put a few grand away into a private health account? What a joke.
 
MrFungus420 said:
National health care sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I have a question for anyone in favour of it, do you really trust the government enough to be in charge of your health?

We have a disaster now! 45 million Americans are w/out healthcare. Could the government run it - absolutely. Just don't put "Heckuva job Brownie" or another crony in charge.

Medicare could easily be expanded over the next decade to cover every citizen - from birth to the end of life. Administrative costs are low. Patients' satisfaction is high. Unlike with many private insurers, they can still choose their doctor and their hospital.
 
Hoot said:
Exactly...and Bush's big solution? Allow individuals and families to have tax free health care accounts?

I guess Bush thinks a family of four making $30,000/year can afford to put a few grand away into a private health account? What a joke.

why did they have a first, much less a second child until they could afford to?
if they put if off for a few years they could have used the money spent on the children to get an education or to learn a valuable trade where they could make enough money
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Despite being personally in favor of a national healthcare system, I'm opposed to sales tax, especially a high sales tax that would apply on top of the various States' sales taxes.

The sales tax is a regressive tax, disportionately placing more of the tax burden upon the poor because the poor spend more of their money on necessary consumer goods.

The income tax and capital gains taxes work, and would work better if we'd quit neutering them every 10-12 years.

You know nothing about the NST plans, the poor are exempted and their cost of goods go down.
 
Engimo said:
I know this was posted on the first page, but I just read the thread.

I don't understand why you would rather trust corporations that exist only to generate a profit

Because they have something to lose, they have a motivation to offer quality service and provide value.

than a governmental bureau which has an obligation to serve everyone.

Which has no interest other than getting more money from the taxpayer and has no need to improve or provide good servie.

Yes, governmental bureaucracies may be less efficient than profit-driven corporations,

To put it mildy

but there is not always incentive to be moral or to care adequately for those being served - especially when it comes at the cost of the corporation's bottom line.

There is the incentive that they will lose thier customers and thier money.
 
What about a system where the government is the single payer of health care but keep the health care itself private.
 
laska said:
What about a system where the government is the single payer of health care but keep the health care itself private.

Then it wouldn't be private. How about what has worked best for all these years, the individual is responsible for thier health care. Why would you trust government to do it effectively and efficiently?
 
DeeJayH said:
why did they have a first, much less a second child until they could afford to?
if they put if off for a few years they could have used the money spent on the children to get an education or to learn a valuable trade where they could make enough money

You tell 'em DeeJay! That's what they get! Serves them right for fornicating anyway. ( Not much of a solution from you, but nice to see such a love of humanity)
 
Hoot said:
You tell 'em DeeJay! That's what they get! Serves them right for fornicating anyway. ( Not much of a solution from you, but nice to see such a love of humanity)

if everybody took responsibility for themselves and their family there would be no need for most government programs.
but since there are so many losers the government is flooded with programs for them
I have all the sympathy in the world for the needy
I have none for losers who continue to foul up their life and want me and everybody else to pay for their mistakes

That above all else is why i usually vote Repbublican
It is called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
i suggest you look into it, instead of looking to the government to solve everything for you
 
DeeJayH said:
why did they have a first, much less a second child until they could afford to?
if they put if off for a few years they could have used the money spent on the children to get an education or to learn a valuable trade where they could make enough money

Mistakes happen.

Tell me DeeJay, how do you feel about abortion? Pro or against? What's the correlation you ask? Well they way I see it, unexpected pregnancies happen all the time. You can educate people to the hilt, but mistakes will always happen. So how would you feel about a poor couple or a teenager who wants to abort because of financial reasons?

Another question. How do you feel about sterilization as a mandatory procedure for the poor? After all, they drain the government coffers, right?
 
Middleground said:
Speaking of biased, Navy's evidence of "a friend told me" seems to be much better evidence than than facts. It's quite obvious you discredit my links because it's not what you want to read. It's so typical of your kind, and frankly, a waste of my time. So go on believing that our health system is dysfunctional because nothing will ever change your mind. You believe what you want to believe and that's that. After all, ignorance is bliss. Good for you.

I am not going to get into insulting your intelligence.....Your posts take care of that fine.........

As far as socialized or communist national health care goes in Canada all I know is what my doctor friend told me............................

You can take it or leave it....I could care less.........
 
Middleground said:
Mistakes happen.
yes they do but once is a mistake, a second child is irresponsibility
Middleground said:
Tell me DeeJay, how do you feel about abortion? Pro or against? What's the correlation you ask? Well they way I see it, unexpected pregnancies happen all the time. You can educate people to the hilt, but mistakes will always happen. So how would you feel about a poor couple or a teenager who wants to abort because of financial reasons?

I do not support Abortion on Demand. I would love to see Rowe v Wade overturned. if one has a child unintentionally you take responsibility for it. I did. and the joy my ONE child has brought me far outweighs the costs of not aborting him. Now i am financially stable and willing to consider having more kids. it is called TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

Middleground said:
Another question. How do you feel about sterilization as a mandatory procedure for the poor? After all, they drain the government coffers, right?.

that is just ignorant. i would point them to the unemployment office so they can get a job
i would encourage them to start a business. there are thousands of them that do not require a vehicle or an office or staff. Poverty, in large part, is a mental disorder. Neal Boortz, not Savage. Making the same decisions and expecting different results is retarded
people pull themselves out of poverty all day long, even with families weighing them down. Suck it up and do what has to be done. It really is just that easy if you are not too busy making excuses and playing the blame game
 
Navy Pride said:
I am not going to get into insulting your intelligence.....Your posts take care of that fine.........

As far as socialized or communist national health care goes in Canada all I know is what my doctor friend told me............................

You can take it or leave it....I could care less.........

I'll leave it, thanks.

Which, of course, speaks highly of my intelligence level. :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom