[grila jujitsu]

Originally Posted by AM07

Maybe if we didn't have so many irresponsible obese pieces of **** in America, health care wouldn't be so damn high.

Or maybe if they could afford it we wouldnt have so many lazy peices of shits?!?!? Do you really think it is high because of the lazy people? Tisk Tisk!

[EasyEJL]

Originally Posted by grila jujitsu

Or maybe if they could afford it we wouldnt have so many lazy peices of shits?!?!? Do you really think it is high because of the lazy people? Tisk Tisk!

do you really think different healthcare would affect what people throw down their throats?

[slow-mun]

Originally Posted by grila jujitsu

. democrats look for more services keeping jobs in the country using th power of the government, national health care, etc.

Was NAFTA part of the democrat ideology to keep jobs in the U.S.?

Originally Posted by grila jujitsu

I see your point, although, i disagree. your point is valid. At the same time you could say that many republicans dont handle money well. looking at the example of the war or whats going on with the housing market.

The initial policies that started the housing fiasco were created by Democrats. BTW, I was in the military during the Clinton administration and we didn't even have bullets to train with. The fact that his administartion crippled the military is an often forgotten reason why military spending has increased over the last several years.

Now for my last rant-

I work hard for the little money that I do make and I have very little respect for those that receive government assistance. I don't slave for others to sit on their lazy asses. I didn't fight overseas twice to watch my paychecks being eaten up by people who receive government assistance because they know how to f@ck and ensure that their checks will keep rolling as long as new mouths appear. I don't like having to attend classes with females that get to go to school free( b/c they were too stupid to not use birth control at 15), while I struggle to make tuition. If you like to pay more taxes, then f@ck it...Pay my damn taxes.

[DAdams91982]

Originally Posted by EasyEJL

do you really think different healthcare would affect what people throw down their throats?

If anything it would encourage it. Because that fat lazy piece of shlt knows that it is my dime paying for his triple bypass, as my tax dime is paying for them to support themselves, since fatness now is considered a dibilitating conditions, and can be collected upon for.

Adams

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by DAdams91982

If anything it would encourage it. Because that fat lazy piece of shlt knows that it is my dime paying for his triple bypass, as my tax dime is paying for them to support themselves, since fatness now is considered a dibilitating conditions, and can be collected upon for.

Adams

Not to keep ragging on you, but obesity rates in G7 Universal HealthCare countries like Canada, the UK, France, etc., are lower than the United States. There are obviously a myriad of factors at play there, most notably the key focus on consumption in the States.

[DAdams91982]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Not to keep ragging on you, but obesity rates in G7 Universal HealthCare countries like Canada, the UK, France, etc., are lower than the United States. There are obviously a myriad of factors at play there, most notably the key focus on consumption in the States.

Hey say what you need. But as you said, comparing Canada/UK to the US is Night and Day. So in essence irrelevent to the questions at hand. The rest of my comment still stands. I don't want my country to move in a more socialist direction, which is what the liberilistic ideals really encourage now. As said before, dems now, and historically are polar opposites.

I want people to be able to fail, well because they just are worthless. Heartless, maybe.

[Dancebot 2000]

Originally Posted by Jerry

No, they put the right to me "CHOOSING" over government mandates saying I have to pay more taxes to cover other peoples cost. We already pay for Medicare and Medicaid which take up the 2nd largest % of our annual budget.

Taxes should be there to cover the cost of those who need it most, not protect those who make the most money

If they actually thought that, they could easily mandate a government health system that would make them more money than any other private institution that requires a hell of lot less oversight than a private company. But its funny how you think the 2nd most corrupt industry (pharm companies) would be a great marriage to the largest corrupt industry (government).

Who would make more money? The government? If it's privately controlled then it can go into someones pocket. And pharm companies are corrupt, that's why all medicine should be one standard, low price, like in England. There is no need to make money off the sick.

Property ownership in the last 5 years is at an all time high because of Democratic regulations forcing banks to make sub prime and no doc loans. You see the result now....Republicans were AGAINST government regulations (CRA Amendments of 1995) forcing banks to loan money to those with questionable credit to maintain their ratings. So its funny how you blame Republicans for issues Democrats created in the first place...

Democrats are evil too. The problem isn't the bank issues. It's the bigger picture that so many people have questionable credit because the system is making impossible for them not too. My problem is that the Repulicans consistently try to ease the taxing of those who can afford it, rather than taxing them more to help those who need it.

The current sub prime crisis and its effect on the economy is a direct result of government intervention and regulation into the market.

This is unfortunately true. But the big banks do profit from the smaller ones going under. The problem may very well be that there was not enough intervention.

Yeah, I'm sure thats it

Yeah, I'm sure it is.

How do you know and who are you to determine that? If he make the money, good for him.

If he didn't have that much money, thousands of people wouldn't be starving. They go hungry so he can be rich. Yeah, good for him.

The pie does not have proportions.

That's the problem

[grila jujitsu]

Originally Posted by EasyEJL

do you really think different healthcare would affect what people throw down their throats?

This is one argument that falls under the umbrella of healthcare. to answer your question, no, i dont. you can see from this site alone many "young ones" take **** all the time that could harm them and it doesnt stop them.

My main argument is why healthcare is so expensive? Also, why are the medicare and the taxes we pay for healthcare so expensive or Why is it that we pay taxes for healthcare, but yet when we go to a pubic center or even a privet hospital does it still costs an arm and a leg. The reason is that medical companies charge up the ying yang for little drugs that we can get in mex or canada for 1/3 the price. Also, another reason is that so many people are uninsured and even with medicare they wouldnt be able to afford the bill of a public hospital. so, when these people end up not going to the doctor to take preventative measures and they get sick and sicker and sicker till finally they end up going to the emegency room and they cant pay for it, who do you think ends up paying the bill, u and I.

With public healthcare those who cant afford it now or can hardly afford it, will be able to. Also, this will cause the competition to lower there prices thus making healthcare better for the middle class and so on and so on.

now that i have answered your question, where did you get it? cause im having a hard time seeing where it came from.

[EasyEJL]

your first post on page #2 here. AM07 said

Maybe if we didn't have so many irresponsible obese pieces of **** in America, health care wouldn't be so damn high.

and what I quoted was your response to him...

[AM07]

Originally Posted by Dancebot 2000

Taxes should be there to cover the cost of those who need it most, not protect those who make the most money

And it is there to help those who need it the most, but many people abuse the system as well. What we need is a cap on welfare services provided to the "poor" in this country. Also, the definition of poor in this country is considered wealthy in other countries around the world, so to all those people that live in a government subsidized housing that drive $20k cars and have two TVs, they shouldn't be living in that housing. The government should be regulating the welfare state heavily, going into the government's homes and checking to see what the **** those people are spending all of our tax dollars on. If it's on unnecessary ****, then screw them, cut off the funds. But then people will scream racism. The Dems love that word.



Who would make more money? The government? If it's privately controlled then it can go into someones pocket. And pharm companies are corrupt, that's why all medicine should be one standard, low price, like in England. There is no need to make money off the sick.

If there is no incentive to make money off of pharmaceuticals, who the hell is going to keep coming up with different antibiotics and medicines to cure people? You think people will do it for free? If that were the case, the plague would still be killing millions of people each year and the average lifespan would be 35 years of age in America. Greed is what allows you and I to live such a great life in this country. Greed is what drives competition, leading to lower costs of products. EAS was one of the first supplement companies, and now look how many there are? Creatine is cheap as **** due to abundance of it. GREED is what drove more and more people to get involved in the supp industry (as with every other industry in this world in which competition exists), thus lowering prices for all of the supp whores here and on other forums. So I'm very happy and fortunate that we live in a society of greed.



Democrats are evil too. The problem isn't the bank issues. It's the bigger picture that so many people have questionable credit because the system is making impossible for them not too. My problem is that the Repulicans consistently try to ease the taxing of those who can afford it, rather than taxing them more to help those who need it.

The Republicans want lower taxes for everyone, not just the rich. You put money back into the hands of the people, it creates more money back into the economy, thus creating more jobs, which in turn brings more money, etc. It's a cycle. Do you really want to give 35-50% of your hard-earned money to the government, so they can fund some illegal woman's 10 kids, of which she receives a larger check every time? That's why you see these non-English speaking Mexican women walking around with 7 kids in the grocery store, and how do you think they pay for all of those groceries? Yep, you and me.


That's the problem

Humans are usually competitive. Competition has been working well for this country up until now. Why would you want to change that? Do you actually think the government will do something worthwhile with the money you give them, except for maybe the DoD? Name one thing the government has done that the private sector couldn't do more efficiently and a better job.

I put my responses in bold.

[AM07]

As for healthcare, of the 45 million that don't have it, half of them choose not to get it. I know there are many people that can't afford it, but I'm also sure that of those that don't purchase it, they can afford it if they cut their spending on other unnecessary bullshit.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by AM07

As for healthcare, of the 45 million that don't have it, half of them choose not to get it. I know there are many people that can't afford it, but I'm also sure that of those that don't purchase it, they can afford it if they cut their spending on other unnecessary bullshit.

Just asking, but do you have anything to back that up, or this an assumption based on personal experience?