Your argument is stupid and naive. I'm sure others will tell you the same. Maybe in a longer more gentile way so not to hurt your feelings. And if you re-read my post you will notice I said, for my friends who would like to pay less taxes. So, there goes your reading comprehension skills, too.
if mayne, IF. Straight up, I don't know all the rules but I'm almost certain that anyone drawing a salary or like hourly wages is FORCED to pay in. The overwhelming majority of working people are compensated this way. I'm also pretty sure prop traders and self employed individuals aren't forced to pay in.. the point is IF you are, then you should take the bennies and that isn't being hypocritical even if you are against the system. as an aside.. what a retarded system. Someone could retire here from another country (or come illegally and be granted amnesty) and live off of savings for 5 years, or work under the table, and then be entitled to medicare without paying in a cent? No wonder it's AFU.
My statement implies that people earning on W2s are paying through FICA and/or other means. 1.45% (2.9% if self-employed, corp) of gross, IIRC. Assume that you earn an average salary of $120k for 35 years. You pay $60k into the system over your lifetime for virtually unlimited health benefits. Sure, you have a co-pay for the supplemental, but it's a pittance. Stenosis and a stent or two? You've exceeded your contribution on the first procedure. A week in ICU and you've doubled your LIFETIME contribution in benefits received. Go try and get comprehensive health insurance (not hospitalization) at age 58 with a pre-existing condition. Let's see what you'll pay... well, don't bother as you're uninsurable.
Right but somehow you are too stupid to figure out that doesn't work. Those unlimited benefits not paid for (by the recipient )were covered by whom the "tooth fairy"?
Hey numbnuts, you seem to be unfamiliar with the entire concept of the insurance business and actuarial science. We'll see what happens when your fat ass has a coronary at 65. Let's see if you refuse care. Let's hope you do. God knows YOU are not paying into the system and therein lies the problem with Medicare.
1) No we don't, you just gave a definition and the programs I listed, fit. No one said rules or regs are socialist. being forced to buy insurance from a private company is no different than being forced to buy it from the state. Besides you guys all want a single payer system right? either way that is socialism, it really is. SS may be a tax but it only exists to fund an entitlement PROGRAM, administered at the federal level. An involuntary social service is socialism. 2) The post office may be a social program but there is a key difference, it IS authorized in the Constitution while these other programs are NOT. Again these things should be decided at the state level, not federal. Also just because it is authorized doesn't mean that we need it, at least in its present form. 3) No one is saying govt is bad, I know and I think everyone on the right knows that we need govt. THIS govt is bad. It isn't just due to obama, it has been in the making for a long time. The whole point of the rules as they were established initially were to keep the govt in check. Well according to those rules the fed govt is WAY out of check and needs to be put back in place.. obama just ain't the guy to do that, in fact he is the total opposite.
I am. If you're going to implement universal healthcare then it should be feasible, BUT there is no private insurance option for the aged. Say you're well-off and you underwrite simply by net-worth (few million in retirement). You and/or your wife get C and need SPA immunophoresis and a year of Gleevec. You'll burn through a couple mil the first year. There is no alternative to U-healthcare for Seniors. U-healthcare for the 20-65 crowd is feasible, because the vast majority of catastrophic illness occurs in the aged population covered by Medicare. You're forcing Medicare (contribution or not), so a mandatory system not funded by FICA can work. The GOP was in favor during the Reagan-era. The downside to U-healthcare is that we cannot afford NOT to have a system in place for the aged. The young pay for the old, but combine the two programs. No FICA or payroll tax and some sort of private supplemental for those who didn't meet a contribution threshold (based upon a family unit). Well implemented; you can pay for Medicare with a universal system. Call it what you want, but we cannot function as a society w/o a system for the aged, and we can't pay for it w/o a U-system.
Romney Looks Like the Next Pres Some of you, who think you are ultra conservative, better just hope it is not going to be "Obama 2016". At the rate this communist is going, he may just try to pull a Putin. Look at brother Bill Clinton. He still thinks he is the president. Don't put anything past Obama. (Sorry for being on topic.)