It it acceptable to let someone die who cannot afford health care?

Sure, is there a point in there somewhere?

 

Most of the people who cannot afford health care are gainfully employed and do pay taxes. But industry knows it can pay 8 bucks an hour cause so many people are out of work.

So, rather than blaming the victim, just let them die. That way you don't have to be bothered with contributing to the well being of society, after all screw them, you got yours.

 

I simply cannot believe that you could not find any point there...

 

10% is too high for the working class, the rich should be taxed more than that anyway.

 

Because it's a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Since socialism is unconstitutional, socialized medicine is unconstitutional.

Since MessiahCare was passed out of the Senate with the vote of Al Franken, who illegally occupies that seat, MessiahCare is unconstitutional.

Since MessiahCare is a tax, as invented by Judge Bought Roberts, MessiahCare violates the Origination Clause, and, naturally, is unconstitutional cubed.

Since Article 1, Section 8, does not allow Congress to do anything remotely resembling the establishment of a national health insurance scam, MessiahCare is an unconstiutitonal tesseract.


The complete illegality of MessiahCare aside, there's one EXCELLENT way to prevent smokers from becoming a health-care burden on the taxpayer.

Obey the damn Constitution and don't confiscate tax dollars to illegally buy votes from people too cheap to buy their own insurance.

Gee, can't get simpler than that.

- - - Updated - - -

What, someone making $250,000 can't afford a $25,000 tax bill?

Clearly 10% isn't too high for the working classes.

 

Actually most of them do not pay taxes to the federal government and most people who are gainfully employed get health insurance through that gainful employment. So as I said let's stop paying people not to work so the go out and become gainfully employed.

Then how come my boss pays me LOTS more than 8 bucks an hour?

So how much is society suppose to pay to keep someone alive who will not take responsibility for their own health care? What if it takes $100,000,000 a year? Why is society obligated to pay for it?

Why is paying people not to work and to live off the labor of others more benefiting to society than requiring them to be responsible for themselves? Why is "they have theirs and I want it" more beneficial?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it is the major component of individual taxes, we do not tax wealth at the federal level and only real property at the state and local levels.

And we don't tax that so it is a specious chart.

 

What don't you understand? We DO NOT tax wealth on the federal level. We tax tax income be that earned or investment and that includes corporate taxes which are just taxes on income of the owners, people. There are lots of younger people with little wealth and high income, there are lots of older retired people with lots of wealth and smaller income. So conclusions about taxation and "wealth" are entirely specious and born of envy. And BTW lots of "wealth" is not in the form of currency in fact most wealth is jot in the form of currency. And even if you consider excise taxes the bottom 50% pays virtually nothing when it comes to taxes.

 

Then cease trying to tie levels of taxation with amount of wealth.

It is the MAJOR form of taxation the rest makes up a very small part and on the federal level wealth has nothing to do with it.

It think it is quite clear wealth and level of taxation are not functions of each other. It is simple family economics. When you are young to middle age increasing your income but also buying a house raising kids you can have lots of income and pay lots of income tax but have little accumulated wealth. As you kids move out and you pay off your house and other high cost items you begin to accumulated wealth and when you retire you have a lot of wealth but little taxable income.

Now if you want to look at level of income and level of taxation you might have a point.

What don't you understand, we don't tax the value of all those things.

Your chart is not based on income which is what we tax, the bottom 50% of income earners pay virtually nothing in federal taxes.

No it is not a well known fact but we are discussing federal taxes here so no need to try and conflate the issue. And YOUR chart is limited to FEDERAL tax liability.

Here is the latest data
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2012

 

I said let them die. That's what you want right? So what are you arguing about? Let them die.

I know lots of people who work full time who do not have employer provided health care. They don't have it because the employer doesn't pay them enough to be able to afford it.

BTW - My insurance rates keep going up because other selfish people with the same insurance cost too much to heal. Heart surgery, cancer treatment,e hip replacements, etc. I don't want to pay higher rates just because those people want to get better. We need to cut those people off. Put a limit on how much to spend. No more bypass, no more hip replacement, no more cancer therapy. Let them (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s die. I ain't paying for them.

Let them die too. Lower my insurance rates....

 

I don't wish anyone to die if that is what you are asking, but when the statement is made we must do EVERYTHING possible it begins to beg the question what exactly do you mean by EVERYTHING.

You mean health insurance. And you mean their labor doesn't produce enough for the employer to pay for it.

No one forces you to buy that insurance do they, at least they didn't until Obama stepped in. But in any insurance you and those people all contributed and shared the risk. Are any of the people you mentioned NOT paying into the pool and sharing the risk?

Ahh they paid for their insurance and coverage is limited to the amounts spelled out in the contract. If their health care exceeds to the agreed upon amount guess what happens?

 

Hey...who you call'in an oaf?

 

To use a very American expression. "Sayyyy Whaaaaaaaaattttttt"

 

LOL
Just ignore me. I go away eventually.

 

I'm sorry, please link to where I said that....

Their labor pays for lots of lobbyists, it pays to buy politicians, it pays for millions/billions in the bank for the owners and CEOs... because it's more important for a few people to have more money than they could EVER use than regular doctor visits for the lowly hourly employee. If they die, someone is there to take their place.

If they don't buy the insurance, I end up paying for it anyway. Through higher hospital bills, higher insurance rates, and higher taxes. Because those without insurance will use those hospitals and someone has to foot the bill. All I'm asking is that everyone be accountable for their own health care. Suddenly on this issue, the conservatives mysteriously don't like concept personal accountability. How very odd and self serving.

 

"Their labor pays for lots of lobbyists, it pays to buy politicians, it pays for millions/billions in the bank for the owners and CEOs... because it's more important for a few people to have more money than they could EVER use than regular doctor visits for the lowly hourly employee. If they die, someone is there to take their place. "

The above is meaningless dogma. Democrat/Socialist/liberal talking points with NO basis in fact.

"If they don't buy the insurance, I end up paying for it anyway. Through higher hospital bills, higher insurance rates, and higher taxes. Because those without insurance will use those hospitals and someone has to foot the bill. All I'm asking is that everyone be accountable for their own health care. Suddenly on this issue, the conservatives mysteriously don't like concept personal accountability. How very odd and self serving. "

When people have insurance provided, mandated, by the govt, we pay no matter what. The govt PAYS FOR NOTHING, the taxpayer pays for everything. With govt administration, the prices WILL, not maybe, double, triple, quadruple, or MORE!

And obamascam, the great savior for the poor will still leave a number of people uninsured. A number roughly EQUAL to the population of Canada!

 

Are you suggesting that health care can save every life? Cure every condition?

 

Im suggesting they should try.

 

Sure they should, because that way they'd stop hiring people and perhaps lay off more people.

- - - Updated - - -

You can use as much of your own money as you like to help your impossible dream remain impossible. Go ahead. Leave everyone else's alone, it's their money, not yours.

 

This is dumb cause people will not get life saving surgeries under obamacare, even though they are covered and paying their premiums.

 

As long as he's joined the Medically Indigent program in his state he will be taken care of.

 

actually, option a. Great effort at shaping the options though.

The simple fact is that there are too many things people might 'need', and you're trying to shape the decision by value judgements, not right and wrong. Value judgements like that are fine when made by individuals (i.e. the Titanic is sinking), but if the government has to cover this treatment, why should it not have to cover an intestine transplant for a 90 year old man? Those transplants cost over a million dollars. What if a young kid is dying and needs a transplant, but there are no organs available that his body will take? Should the government be obliged to get one, including offering $ rewards for organs?

The basic premise of government care is that you feel bad/sad about a certain situation, so the government should take money from the whole population and rectify it and anything else that makes you feel bad/sad."I feel" is not a phrase that should ever enter into justification for public policy. The government can not cover such a heart transplant and be intellectually consistent w/o offering such services to any citizen in need, from cradle to grave.