OBAMACARE...JUST A SMOKESCREEN

[ax1]

Interesting. So you would rather the government running healthcare? A single payer system?

No...I want options. It would be nice if goverment had a buy in optional not for profit program. I have other idea's too as Ive mentioned such as halting spending on things I mentioned this morning and just financing low cost/free walk up clinics across the country.

 

[Touey]

I think I missed where the explaining for why the those that made obamacare are opted out if it is a good way of health care why do they care not to have it

 

[ax1]

I think I missed where the explaining for why the those that made obamacare are opted out if it is a good way of health care why do they care not to have it

Yes...isnt that lovely.

Senator Paul recently proposed a constitutional amendment from this ever happening again.

Its to prevent the goverment from passing laws that dont equally apply to them as well.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[thebigt]

I understand fully but I don't quite understand how you are upset that employee coverage would go away (which is run through private insurance) and the government is subsidizing you, yet you are in favor of shifting that large of percentage of teh economy to the government to run FULLY.

it's an easy fix...those under a certain income would now become eligible for medicaid. if you have a business backed plan you could CHOSE to keep it.

don't you see the problem with letting the insurance companies set rates for previously uninsured with pre-existing conditions and the government paying for it.....GREAT CAESAR'S GHOST, if you don't see where eliminating the insurance companies would be much more cost effective.....

like i said, insurance company's stock is going to skyrocket...better buy now!!!

 

[Touey]

Yes...isnt that lovely.

Senator Paul recently proposed a constitutional amendment from this ever happening again.

Its to prevent the goverment from passing laws that dont equally apply to them as well.

Invalid Link Removed

I see thanks for this link though still trying to understand they do not like the plan is why they making themselves exempt?

But they think it is a good plan and tell citizens so but it seems though that it is hard to see why they will not expect citizens to wonder why if it is such a good program those people planning out the care system would not too like to partake.

 

[ax1]

I see thanks for this link though still trying to understand they do not like the plan is why they making themselves exempt?

But they think it is a good plan and tell citizens so but it seems though that it is hard to see why they will not expect citizens to wonder why if it is such a good program those people planning out the care system would not too like to partake.

Its not difficult. If I was lobbied by the insurance industry to pass this law, Id be sure not to mandate myself either.

 

[Touey]

But the way it will look to the citizens I would think they would worry on the way it looks in kind

 

[ax1]

But the way it will look to the citizens I would think they would worry on the way it looks in kind

Well...as you can see, many are upset. Simultaneously, you will get support. There is a segment of the population that will support it no matter what due to its immediate benefits they individually obtain.

Then there is a segment of the population that is hypnotized by Obama. The fact is you can go on the street and get people to sign a petition to eliminate the Bill of Rights for Obama. Key words..."for Obama." They will think your a racist just because you dont support Obama's policies.

 

[Touey]

This notion of plan constructors betterment for citizens and expecting them then to do as they say then saying we though do not want this for us is inconceivable to me.

 

[ax1]

This notion of plan constructors betterment for citizens and expecting them then to do as they say then saying we though do not want this for us is inconceivable to me.

Its conceivable to the corporate monopoly over both Republican/Democrat single party system who give you a endless continuous illusion of hope, change and choice to tell you whats best for you, and their pockets.

 

[Touey]

This notion of plan constructors betterment for citizens and expecting them then to do as they say then saying we though do not want this for us is inconceivable to me.

Its conceivable to the corporate monopoly over both Republicans and Democratic single party system who give you a endless continuous illusion of hope, change and choice to tell you whats best for you, and their pockets.

Why should it not inconceivably be for Republicans and Democratic there surely must be some that do care about the constituent who vote them in surely they are not most of them corrupted if so why then are they voted in time after time

 

[Montego1]

Why should it not inconceivably be for Republicans and Democratic there surely must be some that do care about the constituent who vote them in surely they are not most of them corrupted if so why then are they voted in time after time

You just broke character.....

 

[Touey]

No am not broke and not anything but hope for help to people from the system. I do not mind paying more if it will help but the question I am having trouble with is why if this is good and will work they deciding to opt out.

 

[ax1]

Why should it not inconceivably be for Republicans and Democratic there surely must be some that do care about the constituent who vote them in surely they are not most of them corrupted if so why then are they voted in time after time

Most high level elections come down to money, advertising, and also taking advantage of inexperienced young people or catering to the weaknesses of the needy.

Remember, people vote based on what they are told as well, not necessarily what will be done.

No, not all goverment is bad imo, not everyone is bad but a majority is bought and payed for by the same people resulting in no significant change to major polices such as wars, IRS, auditing the Federal Reserve and others.

 

[Beau]

Flashback: Obama's Campaign to Transition American Health Care to Single Payer System

by Kerry Picket
29 Oct 2013

President Barack Obama made it no secret he was a proponent of a single payer health care system in America when he first came on to the national scene.

However, he explained to his supporters over the years that a "potential transition" would be necessary to break away from the current system.

Interestingly, as the implementation of the Obamacare exchanges face problems and millions begin to lose coverage from their private insurers, something President Obama promised would not happen, Democrats and their liberal allies are now beginning to suggest a single payer system as a solution to the rickety exchanges.

Rep. John Larson (D - CT) said last Wednesday that under a single payer system Americans would not be losing their private health care coverage, claiming, "You would be covered automatically. But that’s not the law. The law is that it’s a free enterprise system and they have the right not to enter into the exchange or not to provide for you in the exchange. That is their right."

Yet video abounds on YouTube of Obama explaining to supporters his views over the years about how he would transition the United States into a single payer system. At the same time he criticizes his detractors, saying the Affordable Care Act is not a "government take over" of American health care.

Obama - Remarks to AFL - CIO
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care plan. The United States of America--the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent--14 percent of its gross national product on health care and cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody and that's what Jim is talking about when he says, 'Everybody in. Nobody out.' A single payer health care credit--universal healthcare credit. That's what I'd like to see, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House and we've got to take back the Senate and we've got to take back the House."

Obama - Remarks - 8/4/07
"This is a two trillion dollar part of our economy and it is my belief that it's not just politically but economically it is better for us to start getting a system in place--a universal healthcare system signed into law by the end of my first term as president and build off that system to further to make it more rational..."

"By the way, Canada did not start immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step. "

Obama- New Hampshire Public Radio 11/21/07

OBAMA: It's a transitional system building on the existing systems that we have.

HOST: Transitional to what?

OBAMA: Transitional, hopefully, because the system is currently a patchwork of inefficiency that over time I would want to see Medicaid, Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--all those integrated more effectively.

Obama - Public Remarks 4/3/07
"Let's say that I proposed a plan that moved to a single payer system--Let's say Medicare plus. Essentially, everybody can buy Medicare, for example..."

"Transitioning a system is a very difficult and costly and lengthy enterprise. It's not like you can turn on a switch and you go from one system to another. So it's possible that up front, you wouldn't need not just-- you might need an additional ninety or a hundred billion dollars a year."

Obama - (SEIU Healthcare Forum) - 3/24/07
"But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.."Obama - Public Remarks - 1/27/05
"There's no denying that part of the solution in the health care arena as we transition and deal with the legacy systems that we've inherited will probably require some additional money."

Obama - Remarks to American Medical Association - 6/15/2009
"The public option is not your enemy. It is your friend...Let me also address an illegitimate concern that is being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single payer system."

Obama - (SEIU Healthcare Forum) - 3/24/07
"My commitment is to make sure we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president..."

"I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can't go through their employers to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort...but I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.."

Rep. Barney Frank (D - MA) - 7/27/09
"I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer and that's the best way to reach single payer."

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D - IL) - 4/18/09
"And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying, 'It wouldn't let private insurance compete--that a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer.' He was right. The man was right."

Obama - Public Remarks
"Nobody is talking about some government take over of health care."

 

[Admin]

it's an easy fix...those under a certain income would now become eligible for medicaid. if you have a business backed plan you could CHOSE to keep it.

Umm...every business in America would dump their group policy and tell you to go into Medicaid. Do you actually think business's want to have group insruance? They hate it....its expensive and they don't want to hire HR people to have to deal with employees health coverage.

So your solution would actually cause the very issue you seem to be against.

 

[thebigt]

Umm...every business in America would dump their group policy and tell you to go into Medicaid. Do you actually think business's want to have group insruance? They hate it....its expensive and they don't want to hire HR people to have to deal with employees health coverage.

So your solution would actually cause the very issue you seem to be against.

lol...look at my 1st post. the whole premise of obamacare is to get business out of healthcare benefits, that is the smokescreen!!!

i am not for government run medical care, even though i would surely benefit from it...but if we are going to have government run healthcare, i think tweaking the already existing medicaid system is more cost effective and would provide better care than turning loose the insurance companies...

 

[Admin]

lol...look at my 1st post. the whole premise of obamacare is to get business out of healthcare benefits, that is the smokescreen!!!

i am not for government run medical care, even though i would surely benefit from it...but if we are going to have government run healthcare, i think tweaking the already existing medicaid system is more cost effective and would provide better care than turning loose the insurance companies...

Yes but what you don't understand is business WANTS OUT. All you are doing is having the government subsidize your healthcare instead of the business...which business's WANT.

Its not a smokescreen at all. Its pretty clear to everyone in the industry but you seem to think there is something magical about your business group plan...its not..its now the same as your individual plan in which the business doesn't have to foot the bill.

 

[ax1]

Yes but what you don't understand is business WANTS OUT. All you are doing is having the government subsidize your healthcare instead of the business...which business's WANT.

Its not a smokescreen at all. Its pretty clear to everyone in the industry but you seem to think there is something magical about your business group plan...its not..its now the same as your individual plan in which the business doesn't have to foot the bill.

Thats what he says in the first post, that business wants out and that they have been wining about it for years.

Anyways...I dont see how all this can be financed without raising premiums as well as income/payroll tax. Business will be hit no matter what.

This country is broke, there is no way I see the system maintaining itself over the next couple decades unless I was President.

 

[Admin]

Thats what he says in the first post, that business wants out and that they have been wining about it for years.

Anyways...I dont see how all this can be financed without raising premiums as well as income/payroll tax. Business will be hit no matter what.

This country is broke, there is no way I see the system maintaining itself over the next couple decades unless I was President.

Yeah but he's complaining about losing his business group insurnace (which I agree, is a scary thing when you're used to it), yet proposes an expansion in Mediaid that will amost certainly remove his business insurnace for good.

 

[Admin]

Thats what he says in the first post, that business wants out and that they have been wining about it for years.

Anyways...I dont see how all this can be financed without raising premiums as well as income/payroll tax. Business will be hit no matter what.

This country is broke, there is no way I see the system maintaining itself over the next couple decades unless I was President.

1. Group rates right now resemble the premiums of individual plans. They are in essesnce, the same. No preexisting, guarantee issued...

2. The savings a business will recieve by dropping their group plan far outwirghs any tax increase...by a LARGE margin.

 

[Touey]

Remember, people vote based on what they are told as well, not necessarily what will be done.

.

Maybe on some little degree but I do not see how is that coinciding with obama and planers opting then out then getting a reelection after even the people in America have find out that not even a good enough plan for them to take but still expect the citizens to

 

[ax1]

Yeah but he's complaining about losing his business group insurnace (which I agree, is a scary thing when you're used to it), yet proposes an expansion in Mediaid that will amost certainly remove his business insurnace for good.

Hmmm...he will have to explain himself clearer on that one.

1. Group rates right now resemble the premiums of individual plans. They are in essesnce, the same. No preexisting, guarantee issued...

2. The savings a business will recieve by dropping their group plan far outwirghs any tax increase...by a LARGE margin.

We dont really know how much a tax increase we may get in the future.

If Obamacare needs much more than its getting in, lets say 3-4 times as much, where will all the money come from? How can this be maintained in the long run?

Im sure you understand my natural concern here. Im not sure how much tax's may increase in the future. If there is a collapse in loom anything can happen.

Id rather see small businesses at risk than the Federal Government.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[thebigt]

Yes but what you don't understand is business WANTS OUT. All you are doing is having the government subsidize your healthcare instead of the business...which business's WANT.

Its not a smokescreen at all. Its pretty clear to everyone in the industry but you seem to think there is something magical about your business group plan...its not..its now the same as your individual plan in which the business doesn't have to foot the bill.

exactly...i like the idea of business taking care of healthcare, but they wanted out...i think business came up with the idea of obamacare as a way out of healthcare...with obama/democrats playing their role as advocates and republicans as adversaries. that is why i call obamacare a smokescreen...

to be clear...i think business was the originator of obamacare...and obama is just the salesman.

 

[ax1]

to be clear...i think business was the originator of obamacare...and obama is just the salesman.

The insurance companies basically wrote it, and Obama was just the salesman. I believe stocks went up as soon as is passed, nothing like making some good ca$$$$

Lets wait and see if loopholes and ponzi schemes start coming out, and people who are really sick dont get treated anyways and get a screw job (outside of those who already are needing to pay higher premiums, are mandated to buy a premium, and those who are punished for refusing to buy this corporate policy.)

And lets see what happens when more comes out of the system than gets put in, which his pretty much a guarantee.

Maybe on some little degree but I do not see how is that coinciding with obama and planers opting then out then getting a reelection after even the people in America have find out that not even a good enough plan for them to take but still expect the citizens to

Mind control.

Hey I voted for Obama back in 08 and I was already calling for his arrest for in spring of 09.

 

[thebigt]

The insurance companies basically wrote it, and Obama was just the salesman. I believe stocks went up as soon as is passed, nothing like making some good ca$$$$

everyone knows the government gets over charged for everything...no more group policies which gets rates much cheaper....and insuring pre-existing illnesses, holy cow with the government paying the bill can you imagine what the insurance companies are going to charge?

 

[ax1]

everyone knows the government gets over charged for everything...no more group policies which gets rates much cheaper....and insuring pre-existing illnesses, holy cow with the government paying the bill can you imagine what the insurance companies are going to charge?

Well...its not just a question on how much they can charge...but keep in mind alot of doctors dont even know much much money they are getting payed. That can also factor into the future. This is a reason why more doctors arent even excepting insurance anymore.

 

[thebigt]

Well...its not just a question on how much they can charge...but keep in mind alot of doctors dont even know much much money they are getting payed. That can also factor into the future. This is a reason why more doctors arent even excepting insurance anymore.

we might just go back to the days of doctors like marcus welby md...who cared more about helping people than getting rich, lol.....imo, the medical profession as a whole has become less than honorable, hell even nasty assed lawyers do pro bono.

 

[ax1]

we might just go back to the days of doctors like marcus welby md...who cared more about helping people than getting rich, lol.....imo, the medical profession as a whole has become less than honorable, hell even nasty assed lawyers do pro bono.

Thats exactly where Ive been getting at very early in this thread. For decades goverment has gotten their grubby paws in the system and costs have skyrocketed, free church clinics nearly extinct, trillions have been made by people that have nothing to do with healthcare and the idea of what it means to work in the medical system has completely changed.

 

[thebigt]

Thats exactly where Ive been getting at very early in this thread. For decades goverment has gotten their grubby paws in the system and costs have skyrocketed, free church clinics nearly extinct, trillions have been made by people that have nothing to do with healthcare and the idea of what it means to work in the medical system has completely changed.

hell, these days doctors are nothing but glorified pill pushers...if you see a doctor and don't get a prescription you feel like you have wasted your time...besides the fact that todays doctors couldn't diagnose their way out of a wet paper bag without running test after test. i remember when doctors would listen to symptoms do a thorough exam and know what was wrong 90% of the time. just like todays music, todays doctors aint got no soul!!!

if i could go online and look up my own syptoms, diagnose my own ailment and write my own prescription i would never see a doctor again, except for emergency like a car crash....imo, todays doctors are mostly money grubbing quacks who care about amassing wealth more than the welfare of patients.

 

[ax1]

hell, these days doctors are nothing but glorified pill pushers...if you see a doctor and don't get a prescription you feel like you have wasted your time...besides the fact that todays doctors couldn't diagnose their way out of a wet paper bag without running test after test. i remember when doctors would listen to symptoms do a thorough exam and know what was wrong 90% of the time. just like todays music, todays doctors aint got no soul!!!

if i could go online and look up my own syptoms, diagnose my own ailment and write my own prescription i would never see a doctor again, except for emergency like a car crash....imo, todays doctors are mostly money grubbing quacks who care about amassing wealth more than the welfare of patients.

The doctor patient relationship is a result of a failure of goverment policies. With the introduction of Managed Care during the Nixon years the health care system transformed into Corporate Medicine when those who were best at gathering up the mandated money became the chief lobbyists which included the insurance industry, drug companies, health management companies and some other and what happened is that they started running the show since then. The very people that have lobbied Obamacare. Result is that much of the money started going to big management with corporate middle men and both the patient and doctors have suffered as a result.

There is much talk about Obamacare and figuring out how to get on board with a system that is already so complicated, bureaucratic and expensive and double down on that with even bigger corporatism instead of addressing the root causes of all the issues we have today.

 

[Touey]

hell, these days doctors are nothing but glorified pill pushers...if you see a doctor and don't get a prescription you feel like you have wasted your time...besides the fact that todays doctors couldn't diagnose their way out of a wet paper bag without running test after test. i remember when doctors would listen to symptoms do a thorough exam and know what was wrong 90% of the time. just like todays music, todays doctors aint got no soul!!!

if i could go online and look up my own syptoms, diagnose my own ailment and write my own prescription i would never see a doctor again, except for emergency like a car crash....imo, todays doctors are mostly money grubbing quacks who care about amassing wealth more than the welfare of patients.

we might just go back to the days of doctors like marcus welby md...who cared more about helping people than getting rich, lol.....imo, the medical profession as a whole has become less than honorable, hell even nasty assed lawyers do pro bono.

Thats exactly where Ive been getting at very early in this thread. For decades goverment has gotten their grubby paws in the system and costs have skyrocketed, free church clinics nearly extinct, trillions have been made by people that have nothing to do with healthcare and the idea of what it means to work in the medical system has completely changed.

The doctor patient relationship is a result of a failure of goverment policies. With the introduction of Managed Care during the Nixon years the health care system transformed into Corporate Medicine when those who were best at gathering up the mandated money became the chief lobbyists which included the insurance industry, drug companies, health management companies and some other and what happened is that they started running the show since then. The very people that have lobbied Obamacare. Result is that much of the money started going to big management with corporate middle men and both the patient and doctors have suffered as a result.

There is much talk about Obamacare and figuring out how to get on board with a system that is already so complicated, bureaucratic and expensive and double down on that with even bigger corporatism instead of addressing the root causes of all the issues we have today.

lol very interesting watching the back forth between you two, I will say my doctor is neighbor from down the street and I truly do believe he is ethical man doing his best in one mess of a system to helping his patience.

In fact he telling me sometimes they get on to him for not running enough unneeded test for making more money.

 

[ax1]

In fact he telling me sometimes they get on to him for not running enough unneeded test for making more money.

Oh uh...some of those quotes up there are flipped around, lol

Yeah...of course there are good doctors out there with good relationships with patients.

Didnt mean to sound totally pessimistic about all doctors. Im trying to stick up for them too, as Ive said in my last post both patients and doctors have it more difficult.

 

[Touey]

I think maybe it will be much more hard now for doctors to fit in the league now with lawyers and such practices from the monetarily aspect which is in a sense sad that I think it is a noble calling to try helping fellow man and that I think should be rewarded but maybe those for who truly have this call they will not care about the money

 

[ax1]

I think maybe it will be much more hard now for doctors to fit in the league now with lawyers and such practices from the monetarily aspect which is in a sense sad that I think it is a noble calling to try helping fellow man and that I think should be rewarded but maybe those for who truly have this call they will not care about the money

Doctors should be able to handle 100% of the money going through their office.

Also doctors should be 100% exempt from paying any income tax (well, that should be across the board).

The consumer pays for those losses.

Another big issue with doctors are the lawsuits. Something needs to be done about this as this drives up medical costs on the rest of us consumers as well. There should be no need for doctors to live in constant fear of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. There should either be a cap, and/or allow the patient and doctor to negotiate a settlement without a lawyer something in those lines.

 

[thebigt]

I think maybe it will be much more hard now for doctors to fit in the league now with lawyers and such practices from the monetarily aspect which is in a sense sad that I think it is a noble calling to try helping fellow man and that I think should be rewarded but maybe those for who truly have this call they will not care about the money

there is [or at least should be] more to life than accumulating wealth...the biggest problem i have with capitalism is that a man's worth is judged by his wealth...

 

[ax1]

there is [or at least should be] more to life than accumulating wealth...the biggest problem i have with capitalism is that a man's worth is judged by his wealth...

Well...that is the case is some instances, in other instances there are people that generate wealth and give and are judged along those lines. A good example is how many athletes help their home community or start organizations to help poeple

Any system is going to have good and bad people. In socialism the idea of judging a man based on wealth is null, but in reality the dictator(s) in charge control the majority of it.

We dont exactly live in a capitalist society anyways here in the USA. To some extent yes especially compared to many other countries, but its primarily banker/corporatist.

 

[thebigt]

Well...that is the case is some instances, in other instances there are people that generate wealth and give and are judged along those lines. A good example is how many athletes help their home community or start organizations to help poeple

Any system is going to have good and bad people. In socialism the idea of judging a man based on wealth is null, but in reality the dictator(s) in charge control the majority of it.

We dont exactly live in a capitalist society anyways here in the USA. To some extent yes especially compared to many other countries, but its primarily banker/corporatist.

charity as a tax write off is not charity.....starting a foundation in your own name...hmmm, charity or vanity???

i wonder how many buildings carnegie and rockefeller would have endowed if they couldn't put their name on it?

 

[ax1]

charity as a tax write off is not charity.....starting a foundation in your own name...hmmm, charity or vanity??? i wonder how many buildings carnegie and rockefeller would have endowed if they couldn't put their name on it?

I would rather have people choose what to do with the fruits of their labor anyways rather then the government stealing it.

Yeah....people may use their name, and that may be a good thing because it helps generate money to the cause.

I know it's unfortunate that there are also cases where it's about ego boosting or remolding an image, but really we don't know what most people are thinking.

 

[Touey]

charity as a tax write off is not charity.....starting a foundation in your own name...hmmm, charity or vanity???

i wonder how many buildings carnegie and rockefeller would have endowed if they couldn't put their name on it?

I would rather have people choose what to do with the fruits of their labor anyways rather then the government stealing it.

Yeah....people may use their name, and that may be a good thing because it helps generate money to the cause.

I know it's unfortunate that there are also cases where it's about ego boosting or remolding an image, but really we don't know what most people are thinking.

I think both these to being interesting philosophical point of view on human nature it would be fascinating to learn how much endowing been put forth anonymous for every carnegie and rockefeller though down the course in history, then too they giving much when they have little to those giving much but little in comparison to that much the aforementioned would be the higher moral ground anonymous or no.

 

[thebigt]

I would rather have people choose what to do with the fruits of their labor anyways rather then the government stealing it.

Yeah....people may use their name, and that may be a good thing because it helps generate money to the cause.

I know it's unfortunate that there are also cases where it's about ego boosting or remolding an image, but really we don't know what most people are thinking.

trading is still different than giving, lol.

 

[ax1]

I think both these to being interesting philosophical point of view on human nature it would be fascinating to learn how much endowing been put forth anonymous for every carnegie and rockefeller though down the course in history, then too they giving much when they have little to those giving much but little in comparison to that much the aforementioned would be the higher moral ground anonymous or no.

George Steinbrenner was known for that...he would randomly help people in trouble but not promote himself on it or ever talk about it publicly. Just one example...not that he was perfect neither am I.I wish I was in a position to do more than the pocket bills I may give away time to time.

 

[ax1]

trading is still different than giving, lol.

Some wealthy have genuine causes that may have been triggered by events that happened in their lives....such as Superman or Jorge Posada w/ his kids illness.

 

[Beau]

As to this income redistribution scheme, here is an analogy I've heard:

If person A is hungry, and person B has a sandwich that person B paid for, then person B may choose gift the sandwich to person A. If so, both feel good about the exchange. That is charity; a magnanomous act.

If person A is hungry, and person B has a sandwich that person B paid for, and person B is forced by the government to give his sandwich to person A, then something of value has been taken from person B without his consent or will. That is income redistribution. The government claims this is a magnanomous act of the government; however the government did not use their own assets, they used the assets of person B. In this case, person B does not feel good, and person A may feel a sense of entitlement, something which the government has fostered by claiming they were making a magnanomous act.

In the later case, what does person B get?

Cornholed.

The end.

 

[Touey]

As to this income redistribution scheme, here is an analogy I've heard:

If person A is hungry, and person B has a sandwich that person B paid for, then person B may choose gift the sandwich to person A. If so, both feel good about the exchange. That is charity; a magnanomous act.

If person A is hungry, and person B has a sandwich that person B paid for, and person B is forced by the government to give his sandwich to person A, then something of value has been taken from person B without his consent or will. That is income redistribution. The government claims this is a magnanomous act of the government; however the government did not use their own assets, they used the assets of person B. In this case, person B does not feel good, and person A may feel a sense of entitlement, something which the government has fostered by claiming they were making a magnanomous act.

In the later case, what does person B get?

Cornholed.

The end.

lol what does the govt. get some skimming off the money before going to A

 

[ax1]

lol what does the govt. get some skimming off the money before going to A

Votes.

 

[Touey]

they take all meat off the sandwich but at least A get some bread with pickles

 

[ax1]

they take all meat off the sandwich but at least A get some bread with pickles

Yes...chicken feed and some comments on how great you have it.Then you can be sent to war so some company can make more meat on oil.

 

[thebigt]

As to this income redistribution scheme, here is an analogy I've heard:

If person A is hungry, and person B has a sandwich that person B paid for, then person B may choose gift the sandwich to person A. If so, both feel good about the exchange. That is charity; a magnanomous act.

If person A is hungry, and person B has a sandwich that person B paid for, and person B is forced by the government to give his sandwich to person A, then something of value has been taken from person B without his consent or will. That is income redistribution. The government claims this is a magnanomous act of the government; however the government did not use their own assets, they used the assets of person B. In this case, person B does not feel good, and person A may feel a sense of entitlement, something which the government has fostered by claiming they were making a magnanomous act.

In the later case, what does person B get?

Cornholed.

The end.

if person A owns all the sandwiches and person B is hungry....then person A can get person B to do almost anything for very little....

$7.50 minimum wage is insane....but since business knows their employees can get entitlements from the government why should they pay a livable wage...the same now applies to healthcare, why should business shoulder employee healthcare when the government is willing to do it for them...

american business and their practice of profit at any cost is what is bringing down this country, imo.

 

[Beau]

if person A owns all the sandwiches and person B is hungry....then person A can get person B to do almost anything for very little....

$7.50 minimum wage is insane....but since business knows their employees can get entitlements from the government why should they pay a livable wage...the same now applies to healthcare, why should business shoulder employee healthcare when the government is going to do it for them...

american business and their practice of profit at any cost is what is bringing down this country, imo.

I hate to come across like a jerk (maybe its way too late for that), but I do not believe it was ever the intention for the minimum wage to equate to a livable wage. For instance, when I was about 15, I worked cleaning a machine shop - at minimum wage. For a very short while in college, I made minimum wage. Those jobs were to get by, not to fully support my financial needs on an ongoing basis.

That is part of the motivation we have to advance, go to college, etc. - because we do not want to make minimum wage. In fact, we want to make a lot more than minimum wage. People want to increase their standard of living - and you have to be able to afford that. There is a certain price to pay, investing time now to pay dividends later.

If all of one's needs are met based on minimum wage, then there may be little motivation to advance.

Oh, funny thing about increasing the minimum wage -- because increasing the minimum wage will increase all prices (since increases to cost of goods sold will be passed on to consumers), it will increase prices to those who can least afford it -- those making minimum wage.