Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Americans should have healthcare as affordable as what she gets as a Congresswoman

[southernhybrid]

The only thing I find a little strange about what the Congresswoman has said, is that her excellent health care is coming from an insurance company. Employees in government or in medium sized and large corporations almost always get the similar insurance offerings. While I agree we should be able to give affordable health care to all citizens, it would make more sense if somebody on Medicaid or Medicare was making a statement about how wonderful their coverage is. Very few doctors will even take Medicaid patients if that's their primary coverage, and in some large cities, there are a lot of doctors who won't even take Medicare. So, I don't think it's fair to compare a good quality insurance plan with our current public plans. But hell yeah, it would be wonderful if all Americans had the same coverage as Congress critters do.

A whopping 93 percent of primary care physicians accept Medicare – just as many who take private insurance. As a Medicare beneficiary, your only concern with accessing care will be finding doctors that are open to new patients.

https://www.healthcare.com/info/medicare/do-all-doctors-accept-medicare

There are quite a few specialists, in Atlanta that won't take Medicare. I realize that most primary care providers will take Medicare, but I've also known some primary doctors that won't take new Medicare patients until some of their current Medicare patients die or change physicians. So, while it's very easy to find a doctor who will take Medicare, it's not always the one that you'd like to have that takes Medicare. And then there's those damn Advantage Care programs. They are fine if you're in the early years of Medicare and you are fairly healthy, but if you start having a lot of health issues, you might not be satisfied. I have had quite a few former patients who had Advantage Care plans, who got sick in the middle of the year, and couldn't revert back to regular Medicare until the next open enrollment. I think Kaiser Permanents is usually pretty good, but the closest one to me is almost an hour's drive away. I like the convenience of having a doctor or NP that is close to me. Plus, it's a bitch trying to get to talk to anyone at that particular Kaiser. I know from my experience as a nurse who had two people who used Kaiser.

I'm not knocking Medicare per se, just saying that it's not nearly as wonderful as some claim. If you've never had insurance before, it's fantastic, but if you've mostly had excellent insurance coverage, Medicare can be disappointing. Medicare was originally created because insurance companies didn't want to insure old people, especially if they had preexisting conditions. If it's going to be open to all, it will take a lot of hard work, compromise and bipartisanship. Do you honestly see that happening? If so, you are far more optimistic than I am.

 

[poster]

Do you honestly see that happening? If so, you are far more optimistic than I am.

The Dems know this too, yet promise it as if they can. My bet is that all house members will vote for this unless and until the senate also turns, and at that point the coalitions will fall apart. That is unless we end up with a Democratic president as hard assed a Trump. It was Trump who demanded the Republicans live up to their promises after they played the exact same game about repealing the ACA.

 

[James Madison]

I disagree. If your house is in flames and the firefighters show up and say, "OK, just show us your fire insurance documents and we'll turn on our hoses", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. If you're lying in the street with a knife in your gut and the police say "I'm sorry, your police protection coverage was cancelled when you got laid off last month so we won't be able to look into who stabbed you unless you authorize us to bill you directly", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird.

Health care isn't different. If you need to put payment concerns over treatment concerns as an individual instead of having that done collectively as a society, I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. The fact that weird societies actually exist doesn't make them less weird.

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income ...

Ya, I get all of that. You're not providing information and it misses the point. The same thing could be said for any other aspect of public spending. Your examples could equally apply to needing to say "Hey, I'm going down to the corner store for some milk. Do you have some cash so that I can pay the toll to walk down the street?" or "Well, we found the guy who shot your brother. Here's the bill, so you'll need to mortgage your house to pay for the investigation and trial costs". If either of those is a potential conversation, you're doing residential streets and policing wrong, even though you're limiting government and the redistribution of income in a manner which may be palpable to some.

Health care for citizens should be considered a similar type of basic service. If your cancer diagnosis needs to be made worse because you're also worrying about the costs, you're doing health care wrong. If there's the potential for people holding off seeing a doctor when there's blood in their urine because they just got a new job and they don't want an official diagnosis before the three month waiting period for coverage kicks in, you're doing health care wrong. It's not different from all the other basic services which should be funded out of a communal pot of taxes.

I disagree. If your house is in flames and the firefighters show up and say, "OK, just show us your fire insurance documents and we'll turn on our hoses", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. If you're lying in the street with a knife in your gut and the police say "I'm sorry, your police protection coverage was cancelled when you got laid off last month so we won't be able to look into who stabbed you unless you authorize us to bill you directly", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird.

Health care isn't different. If you need to put payment concerns over treatment concerns as an individual instead of having that done collectively as a society, I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. The fact that weird societies actually exist doesn't make them less weird.

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income ...

Ya, I get all of that. You're not providing information and it misses the point. The same thing could be said for any other aspect of public spending. Your examples could equally apply to needing to say "Hey, I'm going down to the corner store for some milk. Do you have some cash so that I can pay the toll to walk down the street?" or "Well, we found the guy who shot your brother. Here's the bill, so you'll need to mortgage your house to pay for the investigation and trial costs". If either of those is a potential conversation, you're doing residential streets and policing wrong, even though you're limiting government and the redistribution of income in a manner which may be palpable to some.

Health care for citizens should be considered a similar type of basic service. If your cancer diagnosis needs to be made worse because you're also worrying about the costs, you're doing health care wrong. If there's the potential for people holding off seeing a doctor when there's blood in their urine because they just got a new job and they don't want an official diagnosis before the three month waiting period for coverage kicks in, you're doing health care wrong. It's not different from all the other basic services which should be funded out of a communal pot of taxes.

Ya, I get all of that. You're not providing information and it misses the point. The same thing could be said for any other aspect of public spending.

Not really, not in the U.S., under the Constitution, which demonstrates you really do not “get all of that” and you are actually missing the point.

Your examples could equally apply to needing to say "Hey, I'm going down to the corner store for some milk. Do you have some cash so that I can pay the toll to walk down the street?" or "Well, we found the guy who shot your brother. Here's the bill, so you'll need to mortgage your house to pay for the investigation and trial costs".

Nope. First, the police example is misplaced as that is a state exercise of power but what is being discussed is a national program, a national entity, created by the federal government and thereby governed by the Constitution. Same can be said for your toll example.

But regardless, I will address your broader point from a more philosophical view. The toll example is misplaced as it properly applies to people using the bridge and receiving some use of the bridge. Someone not using the bridge isn’t paying a toll, unless they volunteer money to someone.

The police example is also misplaced as a police force and the courts, conceived to maintain order in society, and to that end, money taxed and spent to create a police force and courts isn’t analogous to a government created healthcare regime funded by taxation on income.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But regardless, I will address your broader point from a more philosophical view. The toll example is misplaced as it properly applies to people using the bridge and receiving some use of the bridge. Someone not using the bridge isn’t paying a toll, unless they volunteer money to someone.

It's not a bridge. It's a privately owned residential street infront of their house. Why are you advocating that people are allowed to rob me by walking down my street for free just because their house is on it? That's communism.

The police example is also misplaced as a police force and the courts, conceived to maintain order in society, and to that end, money taxed and spent to create a police force and courts isn’t analogous to a government created healthcare regime funded by taxation on income.

The analogy between the two is that both police departments and health care are both rarely used services which people don't tend to use very often but can need a lot of when an unfortunate event arises. That's the type of thing which pooling together costs as a society works well for.

 

[untermensche]

General welfare.

The health of the people is certainly looking after the welfare of "we the people".

 

[Toni]

But regardless, I will address your broader point from a more philosophical view. The toll example is misplaced as it properly applies to people using the bridge and receiving some use of the bridge. Someone not using the bridge isn’t paying a toll, unless they volunteer money to someone.

It's not a bridge. It's a privately owned residential street infront of their house. Why are you advocating that people are allowed to rob me by walking down my street for free just because their house is on it? That's communism.

The police example is also misplaced as a police force and the courts, conceived to maintain order in society, and to that end, money taxed and spent to create a police force and courts isn’t analogous to a government created healthcare regime funded by taxation on income.

The analogy between the two is that both police departments and health care are both rarely used services which people don't tend to use very often but can need a lot of when an unfortunate event arises. That's the type of thing which pooling together costs as a society works well for.

I don’t agree that police or healthcare are rarely used. Most of us rely heaavily on a well functioning police department and a well functioning system of healthcare. Without the everyday, ongoing efforts of both police and health care, the general health, safety, and well being of the general population is greatly compromised. We rely on the fact that there are police to deter robberies, assaults, and to ensure general traffic safety. We rely on a well functioning health care system to ensure appropriate vaccinations and well child check ups and general check ups and health screenings to ensure the health of all of us. Written by someone who really hasn’t seen a doctor as a patient in a few years and who cannot remember the last time I felt the need to call the police—but it was probably because someone parked so that they blocked my driveway and I needed to get out.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, that’s what I said. They’re used every day by society as a whole but rarely by each particular individual. Some use each more or less, but when you need them you need them and they should be servicevthats just there for you without any hassles or costs.

 

[untermensche]

Since the job of the police is to serve the interests of the most wealthy can we really say the police are serving the people?

The police have attacked union protests, the Occupy Wall Street protest and the Occupy Wall Street spin off protests all over the nation.

The police were serving elite power not the people.

They do not serve the people.

They enforce the insane drug war. For the elite not the people.

The order they maintain is only so the servants can serve the masters.

Not for the well being of the people they harass.

 

[SimpleDon]

I understand the need for fundamentalism for conservatives. It is a bulwark against modernity, a way to push back against the uncomfortable progress on all of the fronts of society that press into them seemingly from all sides.

But their hanging on to the Constitution of the US as such a bulwark is singularly misplaced. It is hardly a sufficient framework for a government, much less a Stirling piece of fundamental law. It has lived so long because it is so vague and ambiguous, subject to endless interpretation. It is a hallmark in history because it was the product of political compromise among the very diverse interests that made up the nation at the time because it had to be ratified by the various states.

I think that the signers of the Constitution, the most radical politicians who have run this country, would be astounded and dismayed that their words are being mined for such a reactionary idea as "original intent" to try to apply 18th century thinking to the 21st century as if nothing had been gained in the centuries between.

For example, the idea of original intent makes real the fear that led Hamilton to oppose the Bill of Rights, that the enumeration of the rights would lead some to believe that these are the only rights that citizens have. Original intent was designed to do just this, to deny that the constitution doesn't guarantee the citizens the right to privacy, the right to be free of random gun violence, the right of gays to marry, the right of women to choose, the right to vote, etc. Or that the majority of our representatives can't tax the nation to provide us with the health care that is both low cost and high quality that private, for-profit insurance companies are incapable of providing.

 

[skepticalbip]

I understand the need for fundamentalism for conservatives. It is a bulwark against modernity, a way to push back against the uncomfortable progress on all of the fronts of society that press into them seemingly from all sides.

But their hanging on to the Constitution of the US as such a bulwark is singularly misplaced. It is hardly a sufficient framework for a government, much less a Stirling piece of fundamental law. It has lived so long because it is so vague and ambiguous, subject to endless interpretation. It is a hallmark in history because it was the product of political compromise among the very diverse interests that made up the nation at the time because it had to be ratified by the various states.

I think that the signers of the Constitution, the most radical politicians who have run this country, would be astounded and dismayed that their words are being mined for such a reactionary idea as "original intent" to try to apply 18th century thinking to the 21st century as if nothing had been gained in the centuries between.

For example, the idea of original intent makes real the fear that led Hamilton to oppose the Bill of Rights, that the enumeration of the rights would lead some to believe that these are the only rights that citizens have. Original intent was designed to do just this, to deny that the constitution doesn't guarantee the citizens the right to privacy, the right to be free of random gun violence, the right of gays to marry, the right of women to choose, the right to vote, etc. Or that the majority of our representatives can't tax the nation to provide us with the health care that is both low cost and high quality that private, for-profit insurance companies are incapable of providing.

I would agree that they would be dismayed even though the political thinking of the 21st century was predicted by Jefferson. That thinking is a return to the pre-revolutionary idea of the individual being answerable to the dictates and control of an all powerful government and being dependent on that government. He warned that continued individual freedom required eternal vigilance. The idea of the Constitution was not to grant us rights which the founders saw as inalienable but to protect us from the government.

 

[laughing dog]

I understand the need for fundamentalism for conservatives. It is a bulwark against modernity, a way to push back against the uncomfortable progress on all of the fronts of society that press into them seemingly from all sides.

But their hanging on to the Constitution of the US as such a bulwark is singularly misplaced. It is hardly a sufficient framework for a government, much less a Stirling piece of fundamental law. It has lived so long because it is so vague and ambiguous, subject to endless interpretation. It is a hallmark in history because it was the product of political compromise among the very diverse interests that made up the nation at the time because it had to be ratified by the various states.

I think that the signers of the Constitution, the most radical politicians who have run this country, would be astounded and dismayed that their words are being mined for such a reactionary idea as "original intent" to try to apply 18th century thinking to the 21st century as if nothing had been gained in the centuries between.

For example, the idea of original intent makes real the fear that led Hamilton to oppose the Bill of Rights, that the enumeration of the rights would lead some to believe that these are the only rights that citizens have. Original intent was designed to do just this, to deny that the constitution doesn't guarantee the citizens the right to privacy, the right to be free of random gun violence, the right of gays to marry, the right of women to choose, the right to vote, etc. Or that the majority of our representatives can't tax the nation to provide us with the health care that is both low cost and high quality that private, for-profit insurance companies are incapable of providing.

I would agree that they would be dismayed even though the political thinking of the 21st century was predicted by Jefferson. That thinking is a return to the pre-revolutionary idea of the individual being answerable to the dictates and control of an all powerful government and being dependent on that government. He warned that continued individual freedom required eternal vigilance. The idea of the Constitution was not to grant us rights which the founders saw as inalienable but to protect us from the government.

The idea was to protect our inalienable rights from our Federal government.

 

[James Madison]

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income, was a pervasive notion in colonial U.S. and onward. The Constitution was conceived, in part, to protect this private property. Indeed, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, while debating a term of years for the senate, Madison opined that the term of years should be considerably lengthy, greater than 6 years, to abate any public sentiment of a more “equal distribution...of life’s blessings.”

Madison in Federalist Number 10, in arguing for ratification, stated the Constitution was conceived, in part, to abate factions arising from “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property... Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”

To the end of protecting private property, which includes income, the government was created with limited powers. As Madison so famously observed, the federal government lacked a particular power. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

It was and is this context, among others, the American Republic was conceived. The debate of private property interest in income and limiting redistribution of it persists to this day, and rightfully so. After all, someone labored for the income, it belongs to the individual who so labored, and taking a portion of that income from one person and redistribute it to another, or for all people, through a governmental welfare program, implicates this very notion of a private property in income. Redistributing income though taxation by the government to other people is to take income from one and give it to another, another who didn’t personally labor for it.

The fact you find palatable the idea a considerable quantity of people’s income can be taxed to provide the wider society with affordable health insurance doesn’t not render as “weird” the debate in the U.S. as to the propriety of such a scheme.

I get it, you couldn’t care less with the fact income is private property and government should be limited to redistribution of it. Then by all means, give your income away in buckets! But others find your idea problematic since they, rightfully so, have a different idea of when and how much the government should and shouldn’t redistribute their income. After all, it’s their money, not yours.

All good stuff certainly, but I think you are engaging in a bit of constitution worship, not uncommon among people who are ideological to the point of losing their pragmatism. Who pays to use the road in front of my house? Who gets to use the water from the fire hydrant? This is all socialized wealth.

If the gist of your post is to be held dear then how does someone like FDR ever get elected? Clearly the constitution by this mere fact allows for the redistribution of wealth if for no other reason than to preserve the constitution. I see no other reason.

I like the fact that states are waking up to the fact that these services should not be taken for granted and that recipients should have an appreciation for same. But those services are certainly needed, and as a nation we will be stronger. The alternative is to just let people die from broken legs and simple infections.

Also, if the top 1 percent owns and controls 90 percent of the nation's wealth then why are they not providing 90 percent of the income to maintain its infrastructure?

All good stuff certainly, but I think you are engaging in a bit of constitution worship, not uncommon among people who are ideological to the point of losing their pragmatism. Who pays to use the road in front of my house? Who gets to use the water from the fire hydrant? This is all socialized wealth.

To be clear, the hydrant in front of your home isn’t a tax and spending issue under the constitution. Same for the road in front of your home. Those are state issues. But I digress, my point was to merely show why it is not “strange” the U.S. has yet to experience a single payer health care system, multi-payer, some hybrid, some kind of public health care regime, from the present, more private health care in the U.S.

I’m not discussing “socialized wealth.” Socialized, as used here, is related to principles of Socialism. Socialism, though having a varied meaning, is widely understood by many in academia, economists, political theorists, etcetera, to mean public control/public ownership of the means of production. Redistribution of the wealth, in the form of taxing income and redirecting that taxed income to people or to pay for more people to receive some service that some aren’t already receiving or as assistance in paying for some service, isn’t Socialism.

And I’m a bit of a pragmatist, I’m acutely aware of the societal problems that have historically occurred when the proverbial plebs, serfs, and lower class reach a critical point of impoverishment. Which is why, ideologically, the “Night Watchmen State” of Nozick in “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” and the “Treatises on Civil Government” appeal to me. However, I also question whether such a limited form of government can practically exist, and I’ve concluded it cannot.

As in Rome, it was practical to throw the masses bread to maintain order, so it is true today to also create programs needed to redistribute the wealth to maintain order. I get this notion and endorse it.

My point was a healthy debate about a more public health care system is justifiable, for reasons mentioned previously, and not at all “strange.”






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

I disagree. If your house is in flames and the firefighters show up and say, "OK, just show us your fire insurance documents and we'll turn on our hoses", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. If you're lying in the street with a knife in your gut and the police say "I'm sorry, your police protection coverage was cancelled when you got laid off last month so we won't be able to look into who stabbed you unless you authorize us to bill you directly", I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird.

Health care isn't different. If you need to put payment concerns over treatment concerns as an individual instead of having that done collectively as a society, I'd say the society this exists in is fucking weird. The fact that weird societies actually exist doesn't make them less weird.

Too bad your examples poorly make your point. People can and do receive medial treatment for life threatening scenarios presented in your examples.

And the fact you think anything is weird, while edifying, is irrelevant. Fortunately, your mere attestation of what is weird is nothing more than your mere attestation. Do attest until you’re content, it means nothing.

Now, to my original point, the fact the U.S. has this dialogue isn’t strange considering the nation’s birth in Lockean notions of private property. The Constitution’s existence was inspired, in part, by Lockean thought.

The notion that income is private property, owned exclusively by the person who labored for that income, was a pervasive notion in colonial U.S. and onward. The Constitution was conceived, in part, to protect this private property. Indeed, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, while debating a term of years for the senate, Madison opined that the term of years should be considerably lengthy, greater than 6 years, to abate any public sentiment of a more “equal distribution...of life’s blessings.”

Madison in Federalist Number 10, in arguing for ratification, stated the Constitution was conceived, in part, to abate factions arising from “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property... Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”

To the end of protecting private property, which includes income, the government was created with limited powers. As Madison so famously observed, the federal government lacked a particular power. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

It was and is this context, among others, the American Republic was conceived. The debate of private property interest in income and limiting redistribution of it persists to this day, and rightfully so. After all, someone labored for the income, it belongs to the individual who so labored, and taking a portion of that income from one person and redistribute it to another, or for all people, through a governmental welfare program, implicates this very notion of a private property in income. Redistributing income though taxation by the government to other people is to take income from one and give it to another, another who didn’t personally labor for it.

The fact you find palatable the idea a considerable quantity of people’s income can be taxed to provide the wider society with affordable health insurance doesn’t not render as “weird” the debate in the U.S. as to the propriety of such a scheme.

I get it, you couldn’t care less with the fact income is private property and government should be limited to redistribution of it. Then by all means, give your income away in buckets! But others find your idea problematic since they, rightfully so, have a different idea of when and how much the government should and shouldn’t redistribute their income. After all, it’s their money, not yours.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it is strange. You are merely describing why it is strange. But it is plainly strange in the "this one is not like the others" sense. I don't know why you feel the need to argue against that.

Not really...I’ve explained why it’s not strange.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

But regardless, I will address your broader point from a more philosophical view. The toll example is misplaced as it properly applies to people using the bridge and receiving some use of the bridge. Someone not using the bridge isn’t paying a toll, unless they volunteer money to someone.

It's not a bridge. It's a privately owned residential street infront of their house. Why are you advocating that people are allowed to rob me by walking down my street for free just because their house is on it? That's communism.

The police example is also misplaced as a police force and the courts, conceived to maintain order in society, and to that end, money taxed and spent to create a police force and courts isn’t analogous to a government created healthcare regime funded by taxation on income.

The analogy between the two is that both police departments and health care are both rarely used services which people don't tend to use very often but can need a lot of when an unfortunate event arises. That's the type of thing which pooling together costs as a society works well for.

It's not a bridge. It's a privately owned residential street infront of their house. Why are you advocating that people are allowed to rob me by walking down my street for free just because their house is on it? That's communism.

Then you do a piss poor job of articulating all the details in your analogy. I have no idea what in hell your street example is presenting. Is it a private or public street? Was it paid for by taxes or private funding? Do you live on the street? What’s the toll for in regards to the street?

police departments and health care are both rarely used services

Rarely used? Is that an attempt at humor?

That's the type of thing which pooling together costs as a society works well for.

Which doesn’t inform anyone as to whether it should be done for healthcare in the U.S. Police departments are different since they exist to provide order for all people, it is a necessity for all societies to exist. The fact it is done for X situation doesn’t mean it should also be done for Y.

And I had no intention of arguing for or against public healthcare. Instead, my view is a health debate about it in the U.S. and the philosophical objections to public healthcare, which have served as an impediment to public healthcare, are sensible, rational, and not at all strange.

After all, it is logical people are objecting to a larger portion of their privately owned income being taxed more by the government to provide health care to all.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[poster]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

 

[J842P]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

Eh, to be fair to Obama, he ran as a centrist. His whole shtick was "bring both sides together".

 

[Harry Bosch]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

Actually the military spending under Obama went down in the second term mostly due to the draw down of US troops from Iraq. What corporate welfare would you liked stopped?

 

[poster]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

Actually the military spending under Obama went down in the second term mostly due to the draw down of US troops from Iraq.

According to Wikipedia it went down slightly from 2011 to 2012 and then began rising again. We could do nicely, I'd expect, with less than half of what it was and is.

Corpoate welfare? Just about all of it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

Actually the military spending under Obama went down in the second term mostly due to the draw down of US troops from Iraq.

According to Wikipedia it went down slightly from 2011 to 2012 and then began rising again. We could do nicely, I'd expect, with less than half of what it was and is.

Corpoate welfare? Just about all of it.

Buddy! You need to be suspicious of sources. Don't let you dislike of Obama cloud the facts:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...tifact-sheet-our-guide-to-military-spending-/

Under Obama, military spending actually increased a little in 2010 and 2011, but then fell every year for the next four years after. Again, most of this was due to the US pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So you don't have any examples of corporate welfare? I'm just asking so that I can try to get some for my company. I don't know of any that I qualify for!

 

[poster]

According to Wikipedia it went down slightly from 2011 to 2012 and then began rising again. We could do nicely, I'd expect, with less than half of what it was and is.

Corpoate welfare? Just about all of it.

Buddy! You need to be suspicious of sources. Don't let you dislike of Obama cloud the facts:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...tifact-sheet-our-guide-to-military-spending-/

Under Obama, military spending actually increased a little in 2010 and 2011, but then fell every year for the next four years after. Again, most of this was due to the US pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So you don't have any examples of corporate welfare? I'm just asking so that I can try to get some for my company. I don't know of any that I qualify for!

From your link:

They say the cuts, many made as part of the funny-sounding word "sequestration," put the United States at risk in the fight against terrorism But the White House argues that it has been working to increase spending on the military, with some results.

The facts are sometimes murky, which makes it hard to know the truth.

That article is about national security, not just military Pentagon spending.

You should probably check the Wiki page I referred to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States