RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it"

RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:36:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka What prevents a free market for healthcare now? The investor class...the capitalist. The last thing [he] wants is a free market and be forced to compete. The capitalist wants [his] market, either a monopoly or at best...an oligopoly. I.e.,...the most profitable market. That's why they get 20 year monopoly on drugs and exemptions from ant-trust. Not to mention a Medicare part D drug benefit...forced by law to pay retail and also prohibited by law, any state or the feds from negotiating prices.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:42:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Not like if they sent a bill later he'd refuse to sign it. If they cave to this, they are seriously spineless. You've seen me on here as a conservative. This time I'll tell you it's time for the repubs to put up or get out of office. We've done what we could at the poles to get rid of corney reps. The democrats, however, are still putting forth people like Pelosi, Schumer and Clinton (the rape apologist not the rapist). You people need to stop with whatever the party says and start electing people that represent people. But, you know what, I know you won't. I also know, just like it's starting to come out that Obama did surveillance on Trump when you all laughed at that, that Trump will fuck with the repubs if they screw this up.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:45:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX It is immoral, for many reasons You have to take the money away from someone to do it, that's stealing. Government is notoriously corrupt and inefficient, so it is wasteful. Politicians use taxpayer money to buy votes with such programs, so motivations are very often impure For the same reasons you can't provide people with everything you need as I suggested above, it is cruel to get people hooked and dependent on government handouts, especially when government may not always be there. Our current debt is unsustainable and something's got to give money isnt "moral" From a morally relativistic position that's nonsense, yet I don't expect you to understand.

Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:45:13 AM)
Anyone uses healthcare insurance as ANY equivalence to car insurance is a moron.

tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:50:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX It is immoral, for many reasons You have to take the money away from someone to do it, that's stealing. Government is notoriously corrupt and inefficient, so it is wasteful. Politicians use taxpayer money to buy votes with such programs, so motivations are very often impure For the same reasons you can't provide people with everything you need as I suggested above, it is cruel to get people hooked and dependent on government handouts, especially when government may not always be there. Our current debt is unsustainable and something's got to give money isnt "moral" From a morally relativistic position that's nonsense, yet I don't expect you to understand. Money is energy.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX It is immoral, for many reasons You have to take the money away from someone to do it, that's stealing. Government is notoriously corrupt and inefficient, so it is wasteful. Politicians use taxpayer money to buy votes with such programs, so motivations are very often impure For the same reasons you can't provide people with everything you need as I suggested above, it is cruel to get people hooked and dependent on government handouts, especially when government may not always be there. Our current debt is unsustainable and something's got to give They are cutting taxes for rich people. Even Warren Buffett said they shouldn't be cutting his taxes. Right, so we're going to cut taxes for the rich and those evil people will stockpile all of that cash in vaults aboard their yachts or actually put it to use making more business and more jobs? Your choice, let the government waste it on corney projects or let business make more business. We see that with Obama, the left believes a less than three percent growth rate control by a central government is the best thing since sliced bread. Which do you pick?

Musicmystery -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:52:49 AM)
Interesting if bizarre characterization. Let's go with the "corny projects." Start with repairing roads and bridges.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:54:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Adopt the French system that takes half your income in taxes, but provides for all healthcare costs and retirement benefits. With income tax, State tax, property tax, sales tax and on and on, they already do take half.

Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 7:56:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX It is immoral, for many reasons You have to take the money away from someone to do it, that's stealing. Government is notoriously corrupt and inefficient, so it is wasteful. Politicians use taxpayer money to buy votes with such programs, so motivations are very often impure For the same reasons you can't provide people with everything you need as I suggested above, it is cruel to get people hooked and dependent on government handouts, especially when government may not always be there. Our current debt is unsustainable and something's got to give money isnt "moral" From a morally relativistic position that's nonsense, yet I don't expect you to understand. As you are a conservative american talking about moral relativism HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAH

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:01:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Just as I thought, the WTO link shows no methodology. These comparisons are for the most part meaningless, yet organ. like the WTO put these out there as if there is something to be revealed. The problem is that all of the data comes from self-reporting entities. There’s no methodology to the ranking. Well that link was to a Canadian site reporting the rankings, not to the WHO itself. WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs). http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/ Edited to add: Looking at the link, I notice that the report is for the year 2000. Things are likely to have changed since then, but a quick look through the latest report didn't discover any country ratings. K. So two and five are q question of whether or not it's a socialist system controlled by the government.

mnottertail -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:05:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Adopt the French system that takes half your income in taxes, but provides for all healthcare costs and retirement benefits. With income tax, State tax, property tax, sales tax and on and on, they already do take half. Well, looking as you do from a perspective of moral relativism, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:10:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka What prevents a free market for healthcare now? Every State and the Feds all have laws regarding what an insurance company must offer and how much it should cost. If you look at basic healthcare, two aspects of health care cannot be insured. In both cases those two aspects of health care have gone down in cost over the last couple of decades. Plastic surgery and lasik surgery are both getting cheaper under free market conditions because they aren't reimbursed by insurance.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:20:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Interesting if bizarre characterization. Let's go with the "corny projects." Start with repairing roads and bridges. I've paid about half a dollar tax on a gallon of gas for years. That money was always supposed to be spent on roads and bridges but hasn't. Here in the People's Rublic of California it just gets dumped into leftist vote buying projects. So, ya, I'm real interested in giving them more money to do what they told us they would do for years. Please try and be less of an idiot.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Adopt the French system that takes half your income in taxes, but provides for all healthcare costs and retirement benefits. With income tax, State tax, property tax, sales tax and on and on, they already do take half. Well, looking as you do from a perspective of moral relativism, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Keep your eye on that voice mental patient. It's probably the stupidest thing you've said in a while. I won't even try to explain the idiocy. That voice is not your friend.

mnottertail -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:36:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka What prevents a free market for healthcare now? Every State and the Feds all have laws regarding what an insurance company must offer and how much it should cost. If you look at basic healthcare, two aspects of health care cannot be insured. In both cases those two aspects of health care have gone down in cost over the last couple of decades. Plastic surgery and lasik surgery are both getting cheaper under free market conditions because they aren't reimbursed by insurance. Insurance in and of itself prevents the free market. It might surprise you to know that the insurance business model is this for every insurance company. Take in more in premiums than you pay out in healthcare. I know nutsuckers do not understand it. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/SurgeryandLifeSupport/LASIK/ucm061421.htm (lasik is regulated, plastic is regulated) so the 'free-market' communist in this vignette is Insurance companies as demonstrated by you. https://www.qualsight.com/blue-cross-blue-shield-lasik

Musicmystery -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Interesting if bizarre characterization. Let's go with the "corny projects." Start with repairing roads and bridges. I've paid about half a dollar tax on a gallon of gas for years. That money was always supposed to be spent on roads and bridges but hasn't. Here in the People's Rublic of California it just gets dumped into leftist vote buying projects. So, ya, I'm real interested in giving them more money to do what they told us they would do for years. Please try and be less of an idiot. So your solution is just not pay, let the roads and bridges go to hell. Please try and be less of an idiot.

mnottertail -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:44:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Interesting if bizarre characterization. Let's go with the "corny projects." Start with repairing roads and bridges. I've paid about half a dollar tax on a gallon of gas for years. That money was always supposed to be spent on roads and bridges but hasn't. Here in the People's Rublic of California it just gets dumped into leftist vote buying projects. So, ya, I'm real interested in giving them more money to do what they told us they would do for years. Please try and be less of an idiot. The state taxes for gasoline (heavily nutsucker inflicted) are never used for transportation like they bullshit you it was gonna be when they laid the tax on you. Nutsuckers do that all the time. Federal taxes from gas products neither, and thats pure nutsucker.

mnottertail -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:46:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Adopt the French system that takes half your income in taxes, but provides for all healthcare costs and retirement benefits. With income tax, State tax, property tax, sales tax and on and on, they already do take half. Well, looking as you do from a perspective of moral relativism, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Keep your eye on that voice mental patient. It's probably the stupidest thing you've said in a while. I won't even try to explain the idiocy. That voice is not your friend. You are the feclgobbling nutsucker who retardedly cast yourself as a moral relativist when you meant mentally deficient toiletlicker, wilbur.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:49:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Interesting if bizarre characterization. Let's go with the "corny projects." Start with repairing roads and bridges. I've paid about half a dollar tax on a gallon of gas for years. That money was always supposed to be spent on roads and bridges but hasn't. Here in the People's Rublic of California it just gets dumped into leftist vote buying projects. So, ya, I'm real interested in giving them more money to do what they told us they would do for years. Please try and be less of an idiot. So your solution is just not pay, let the roads and bridges go to hell. Please try and be less of an idiot. Well, that was a really phoequing stupid thing to say. Let's see if you can figure out why. Let's start with the fact that I have paid for decades through a very high gas tax. In this state, the state and the Feds make more than the oil companies on a gallon of gas. But, your wonderful government doesn't use the money for roads and bridges, as they promised, and as the law requires. They just spend it on bullet trains to nowhere and cleaning up the urine and feces the homeless leave on sidewalks.

Nnanji -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 8:50:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Interesting if bizarre characterization. Let's go with the "corny projects." Start with repairing roads and bridges. I've paid about half a dollar tax on a gallon of gas for years. That money was always supposed to be spent on roads and bridges but hasn't. Here in the People's Rublic of California it just gets dumped into leftist vote buying projects. So, ya, I'm real interested in giving them more money to do what they told us they would do for years. Please try and be less of an idiot. The state taxes for gasoline (heavily nutsucker inflicted) are never used for transportation like they bullshit you it was gonna be when they laid the tax on you. Nutsuckers do that all the time. Federal taxes from gas products neither, and thats pure nutsucker. Well, in this state it's all leftist. So now we know your definition of a nutsucker.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875