Re: OT: A woman for president!



~Tony~ wrote:
gringo <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:cotsj.72544$Mu4.39749@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Your thinking is skewered by your oft-revealed prejudice against the
poor.

I'm may hold certain opinions that some find uncomfortable, but the truth will stand when the world is on fire.

It's all about priorities.

I've often related that I live near enclaves of "poor people" living in public housing developments. These "poor people" on public assistance don't have any problem coming up with money to pay for late model cars, HDTV's, and the cash to spend for lottery tickets by the handful each week.

I know all of the above to be true because I half own a convenience store with my brother, and we are a lottery retailer. I have friends that own rent-to-buy stores, and used car dealers.

I don't own a high definition television, and I haven't bought a new vehicle in several years. WHat I do have is paid for, and it was when I parked them in the driveway for the first time. I rarely, but sometimes do buy lottery tickets.

The point being, that if people prioritized their lives, or were taught to beginning at an early age, that healthcare insurance is a must, then some of these so called "poor people" wouldn't have anything to bitch about if they receive what they determine to be crappy healthcare.

But then, their lack of motivation tends to keep them in that rut they find themselves to be in, BECAUSE they do not prioritize things in their lives. They instead fly by the seat of their pants, expecting someone to dust them off when they fall on their ass.

Now again, as I always do, I must offer that this is not a die-hard rule, and there are many exceptions to the above, but the vast majority of people that live meager lives, make the choices that put them in that circumstance. Be it that they failed to take getting an education seriously, downloading a child as a teen, or simply doing nothing more than what they have to in order to survive, they had choices to make and they made poor choices.

I have lived my entire life with my priorities in place, as do most people who understand that it is not someone else's responsibility to take care of us when times are tough, and I assure you, at various times in my life, I have as been dirt poor as anyone can be. The difference between myself and those I speak of, is that I have amassed property of various kinds while times were good, to be able to borrow against it to ease myself through the tough times. And of course, I have always worked my ass off as needed to keep my head above water, and to fund a savings and retirement accounts.

It's the way I was raised and taught to live my life. Never in all my adult years, have I borrowed a dime from family or friends. I made it on my own. So you really won't find me feeling sorry for too many people who are not motivated to prioritize the important things that apply to their lives.

That doesn't mean I am as hard hearted as you think I am.

I am certainly aware of the pitfalls life can deal someone, and God knows I've taken money out of my wallet or written a check to help someone else, because I do know that life is not fair to all, nor are all people capable of living their life as I have do.
The 1993 plan was first-rate.

It was a disaster, and it's why it never went anywhere.

In 1993, to ensure everyone with a single-payer system like 16 of the top 17 industrialized nations enjoy
would have increased payroll costs by only about 2%.

That's a load of crap.

The proof in this is the fact that more than roughly 9% of my pay goes to specific entitlement taxes, and it is used to pay the partial or all the upkeep of those retired, who are collecting Social Security checks, and/or are also relying upon Medicare to pay for their healthcare. The collective taxes presently support approximately 23 percent of the entire population of the United States. That's aside from the fact that in every case, the benefits barely, if at all, allow people who rely solely upon them to keep them in any sort of lifestyle that could begin to be considered "comfortable".

hmmm, maybe there would be money for more social causes, if the USA was not squandering gnp (and many lives) prosecuting an illegal war in Iraq ?? how`s that grab you ?? j





If you think by any stretch of the imagination that by adding the entire healthcare burden of the remaining 77% of Americans on the shoulders of those who work and pay taxes could BEGIN to be done on a 2% increase in payroll taxes, then your either delusional, or you can only count up to the number "2", because it's laughable to think that 2% of what we make could pay for those costs.

But it would
have eliminated the thousands of dollars in yearly medical bills that
a large percentage of Americans pay. It would have lowered overall
national healthcare costs due to preventative care (i.e., is it better
to discover and treat diabetes early on, or wait till legs must be amputated and eyes go blind?).

Eliminated the bills? Hardly. Someone has to pay. Sure, it would save money being spent for co-pays by those who have more healthcare issues than others, but there is nothing to suggest that any nationalized system, even if they didn't have to pay a dime, will make people seek healthcare any more readily than it is available today.

Free and/or subsidized healthcare is absolutely available to anyone in this nation, if they will drag their lazy asses from in front of the most recent episode of Jerry Springer, and seek it.

You offer all of this, as if there were millions of legless and blind people, roaming the streets of America. The current healthcare system is sound. People are not dying in the streets for a lack of healthcare. People are not turned away for an ability to pay for care, that is unless it is clearly a non-emergency issue, and they are seeking care for a cold in an expensive emergency ward.

And for the record, I'm one of those diabetics in danger of losing my limbs at some point. It's a struggle every day, but I pay my own way.
Hillary's plan would not be administered by the government: it amounts
to opening up the healthcare plans available to Congress to everyone--and theirs are not administered by government.

That's not Hillary's plan. That's Obama's plan. Read them both. Hillary does not mention a thing about providing the same type of coverage that members of Congress currently receive, but Obama SPECIFICALLY proposes that exact wording in his plan.

Hillary has done a complete 180 degree turn on her plan proposed in 1993.

The basics she offers today, are the proposal of tax rebates to consumers and small businesses to help pay for healthcare premiums, the demand of portability of all insurance plans, and the prohibition for insurance companies to deny coverage to any American who desires to pay for a plan.

That claim is a red herring. It is demagoguing the issue.

It wasn't in 1993, and you know it. That baggage is still being carried by her, and it's completely her fault that she has to carry it.

She can attempt all she wants to wash off those stripes of socialism that plague her skin, in order to portray herself to be a Clydesdale, but the fact remains that she is and always will be a zebra.

I don't trust a word uttered from her lips, because her feet look like she bought her shoes manufactured at the local Waffle House in every town she visits.

Her only motivation in life is to be the first elected female President of the United States of America, and she'll stop at nothing to attempt to reach that goal.

As I write this, I am encouraged that for the first time, she may have something to fear, because she no longer holds the lead in the race for the Democratic delegate count, and God Bless Barack Obama, a complete unknown just a few years ago, who has shown this country that you don't have to be a career politician to find yourself in the lead for the nomination to run in the race that may well lead you to sit one day in the finest chair on earth, in the finest office job that one could ever hope to hold.

~Tony~

--
Don`t be sexist...........Broads hate that.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: A woman for president!
    ... I've often related that I live near enclaves of "poor people" living in ... have any problem coming up with money to pay for late model cars, HDTV's, ... they receive what they determine to be crappy healthcare. ... That's not Hillary's plan. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: OT: A woman for president!
    ... I've often related that I live near enclaves of "poor people" living in public housing developments. ... These "poor people" on public assistance don't have any problem coming up with money to pay for late model cars, HDTV's, and the cash to spend for lottery tickets by the handful each week. ... The point being, that if people prioritized their lives, or were taught to beginning at an early age, that healthcare insurance is a must, then some of these so called "poor people" wouldn't have anything to bitch about if they receive what they determine to be crappy healthcare. ... That's not Hillary's plan. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: OT: I Am Voting For Hillary!!!
    ... You simply pay your premiums in the form of taxation. ... there are of course a lot of poor people who make up the uninsured. ... to be nailed when it comes to funding universal healthcare. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Best comment from Judge Vinsons decision
    ... So your plan is to raise the taxes on the poor to pay for their ... Not just the poor. ... Everyone without insurance. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • `
    ... It looks to me like you are going to count any hypocrisy from any ... pay for any SS "shortfall. ... my opinion is and offer my reasoning behind it. ... to help his countymen attain a better standing than the destitute poor ...
    (rec.martial-arts)