Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Vermont Senate Passes Bill Establishing A Single Payer HealthCare System in the state

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4009974]Absolutely.

    I applaud Vermont for doing it the right way.

    I won't choose to live there (for many reasons, not just this), but I strongly support their right to do it.

    As long as the people of the State support it (and I believe they do).[/QUOTE]

    "Fish, I have a real question for you, and it is not a set up or anything, just something I thought when reading one of your posts here. You said (and I am probably paraphrasing) that you do not want your tax dollars to pay for people to get healthcare who are able bodied.

    On the other hand, some of us do want our tax dollars to go to universal healthcare.

    Now, (and I am not sure how this would work) would you support some sort of system that allows you to pick where your money does and doesn't go? Say you pay your taxes, and the dollar amount stays the same but you can decide where your money does not go. Not in percentages, like I want 74% to go here and 10% there, but the gov't would divide your tax dollars in areas you support. This way there may or may not be programs you agree with but you would have the knowledge that you don't pay for them.


    I know this should probably go in the hypothetical amendment thread, (and if I am correct you hate talking about hypotheticals) but I was just curious how you would feel about that, if it were even possible. It was something dancing around my head ever since I read your post.


    I wonder how that would change things. We want to fund defense, would that go into the war? Would war be separate, could the people then effectively defund programs? Would NPR and the like go defunded if there weren't enough people who wanted their tax dollars available?

    I don't know, just a silly thing to talk about.

  2. #22
    we already had a war about states rights

    the south lost.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=piney;4010629]"Fish, I have a real question for you, and it is not a set up or anything, just something I thought when reading one of your posts here. You said (and I am probably paraphrasing) that you do not want your tax dollars to pay for people to get healthcare who are able bodied.

    On the other hand, some of us do want our tax dollars to go to universal healthcare.

    Now, (and I am not sure how this would work) would you support some sort of system that allows you to pick where your money does and doesn't go? Say you pay your taxes, and the dollar amount stays the same but you can decide where your money does not go. Not in percentages, like I want 74% to go here and 10% there, but the gov't would divide your tax dollars in areas you support. This way there may or may not be programs you agree with but you would have the knowledge that you don't pay for them.


    I know this should probably go in the hypothetical amendment thread, (and if I am correct you hate talking about hypotheticals) but I was just curious how you would feel about that, if it were even possible. It was something dancing around my head ever since I read your post.


    I wonder how that would change things. We want to fund defense, would that go into the war? Would war be separate, could the people then effectively defund programs? Would NPR and the like go defunded if there weren't enough people who wanted their tax dollars available?

    I don't know, just a silly thing to talk about.[/QUOTE]

    Great in theory. Impossible in practice.

    I'd feel much less "Anti" if I felt the various social programs and entitlements were grotesquely inefficent and corrupt and wasteful. I'd be much less "anti" is they were State-based, as opposed to Federal Mandates. and I'd be much less "Anti" if they were really designed to help the needy, not to help a creeping definition of "needy" that to some would eventually include everyone.

    As I posted elsewhere on a whole other topic today, I am amazed to no end that simplw things like wanting effecientcy and accountabillity on Govt, limited Federal Govt. power over individuals, and a strong society based on personal accountabillity of teh able, is so detested by so many.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4010635]we already had a war about states rights

    the south lost.[/QUOTE]

    It's kinda frustrating that you, PK, Vincenzo, etc... are able to troll the poli forum at will...

    Not saying anything about the mods but it's the type of thing that will lead to a flaring temperment and eventual shutdown of the forum again.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4010645]Great in theory. Impossible in practice.

    I'd feel much less "Anti" if I felt the various social programs and entitlements were grotesquely inefficent and corrupt and wasteful. I'd be much less "anti" is they were State-based, as opposed to Federal Mandates. and I'd be much less "Anti" if they were really designed to help the needy, not to help a creeping definition of "needy" that to some would eventually include everyone.

    As I posted elsewhere on a whole other topic today, I am amazed to no end that simplw things like wanting effecientcy and accountabillity on Govt, limited Federal Govt. power over individuals, and a strong society based on personal accountabillity of teh able, is so detested by so many.[/QUOTE]

    I think you may have a persecution complex ;)

    with what you posted right here I agree with 100%.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;4010453]Holy hell. You can't be serious.[/QUOTE]

    It was a straightforward question. I can fully understand the preference for states to determine what healthplan if any they would like. What I didn't understand was the comment that they "did it the "right" way. If this was merely stating a preference, so be it. But there is absolutely no Constitutional ground for States to hold primary authority for such a decision, nor is it in any sense unconstitutional for the federal government to establish a national healthcare initiative or policy. Medicare and Medicaid are precisely that. So, yes, I'm serious. Guys like Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall would very likely have wondered the same thing.

  7. #27
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,538
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4010471]One big difference Vermont can't print there way out of an unsustainable plan like the Federal government is doing right now for their limited plans that are supposedly fully funded by each of us.

    If Vermont goes belly up my food and energy prices aren't impacted, my savings aren't stolen. Reality is Vermont, unlike the Federal government has to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. If they don't, only the good people of Vermont will be screwed.[/QUOTE]

    Wrong, they will find a way for the rest of us to subsidize it.

    [B]The federal government has agreed to help Vermont subsidize a state health insurance program. [/B]

    [URL]http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/86827/[/URL]

    MILC
    [B][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Milk Income Loss Contract Program
    [/B][/FONT]etc.

  8. #28
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,538
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4010635]we already had a war about states rights

    the south lost.[/QUOTE]


    more laughs

    that means DOMA is A-OK and Sanctuary Cities should be fined millions

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us