Official: Romney a moron

[Dave4468]

I always ask and NEVER get a good response to the following question:   How do you intend to pay for a national health care program in the USA?   Seriously, how is it going to be done?

The same way everyone else does, tax. My most recent payslip, largest deduction, National Insurance.

I hate to say it but you must have a really low estimation of people in the US. Over in the UK we have the NHS, a massive benefits system, old age pensions, child tax allowances and a whole heap of other social schemes. Guess what, the vast majority of people still go to work in the morning even with all that!

At the end of the day if I get ill I can rock up to a GP surgery with no money, get seen to, issued with a prescription, pay a nominal fee for medicine and off I go. If I get seriously ill or injured then off I go to a hospital, have the surgery and or treatment I need no questions asked and free at point of service. Without presuming I would guess your thing (if its medical) would probably be covered by the NHS. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me however you spin it.

[swiftus27]

Not a good answer.  'Taxes' is not sufficient.    What type of taxes?  Jut under 1/2 of americans already pay no federal income tax.   

[[ATA] - lilius]

45634 post later...

Back to the post about robbery, because I must have completely misunderstood it.

The robbers got convicted for manslaughter because someone else fired a gun at them?

[Dave4468]

Not a good answer.  'Taxes' is not sufficient.    What type of taxes?  Jut under 1/2 of americans already pay no federal income tax.   

Well the obvious way would be in a similar manner to NI in the UK, where it works just fine. A percentage of every earning individuals wages is taken from the weekly/monthly pay before its gets to the employee. Although I assume a system similar to PAYE would be needed for that, don't know if the US has such a system.

[exchlbg]

I can only say for Germany, it´s organized as insurances normally are,by fees. And you are are forced to be a member of those insurances, with a few exceptions. Taxes are sometimes used to supplement insurances in unbalanced situations, but mostly they aren´t.
Seems we also pay more taxes than Americans, but that gives the state the possibility to take care of desaster security, such as building dikes,for example. Sorry, I have to mention that, but leaving a city like New York totally unsecured of high tides (although predicted for years),
is something that´s an American speciality ,too. Hamburg was diked in, London has a barrier, the whole Netherlands are diked.
You just can´t just let everything to private initiative. It´s a task for the state. He has to be funded for that.

[[ATA] - lilius]

swiftus. Cant you see that the healthcare could even benefit performance of your economy?

If more people can use an insurance to an operation they will faster become a part of the proud productive earners like yourself. Imagine the frustration of wanting to work but not being able to work until you have had surgery, but you cant afford the surgery until you have a job.

[ban2]

you know what, i live and work in the uk i pay NI and tax and yes every week i look at how much i pay and grumble.

but when i had appendicitis or bumped my head or needed tests and went to A&E i had no grumbles or worries about how i was going to pay my medical bill.

we are very lucky in this country we are covered by the NHS, and if i feel i need extra care i can go private. But i am glad that no matter what the ailment i can pick up the phone knowing i'm not going to need insurance before i get treated or rack up a debt.

But on a less selfish side, i know that whatever a persons social status in our community they'll be looked after if they need it even if that means me paying a little extra every week.

[Dave4468]

you know what, i live and work in the uk i pay NI and tax and yes every week i look at how much i pay and grumble.

but when i had appendicitis or bumped my head or needed tests and went to A&E i had no grumbles or worries about how i was going to pay my medical bill.

we are very lucky in this country we are covered by the NHS, and if i feel i need extra care i can go private. But i am glad that no matter what the ailment i can pick up the phone knowing i'm not going to need insurance before i get treated or rack up a debt.

But on a less selfish side, i know that whatever a persons social status in our community they'll be looked after if they need it even if that means me paying a little extra every week.

Exactly. We sit and grumble about NI and tax and the NHS everyday. But that day when life does kick you square in the balls is the day that you realise how good the NHS is and how useful that NI payment was.

The idea that social healthcare will make people lazy and stop working is just stupid.

[LemonButt]

What about the people who don't have a job and therefore can't pay taxes via their paycheck?

Also, all of this is a moot point until we can secure our borders.  We have tens of millions of undocumented immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, and various other countries who are getting a free ride because they don't have social security numbers and therefore don't pay into the system via payroll taxes.

And the argument that social welfare makes people lazy is a valid one.  We have had war on poverty for decades and have spent trillions to lift the poor out of poverty.  The goal of welfare is to destroy itself by lifting people out of poverty so they no longer need welfare--so why does it still exist?  It exists because while there are people who have picked themselves up and gone from rags to riches, there is a huge segment of society that keeps their income down etc. to qualify for the free government assistance.  It is easier to sit at home and watch TV than go get a job.  We had 99 weeks of unemployment benefits in the US and when it was taken away it was quite incredible--unemployment went down as people started taking jobs.  I am a recruiter and make a living in the job market.  There are plenty of stories of people rejecting job offers because their unemployment benefits pay out more than a potential job.  It may sound unreal being in Europe, but these stories are all too common in the US.

[Dave4468]

The people who don't have a job are protected by the social security system. I must stress NI is not the only way the NHS is funded.

Well I will have to ignore the irony of pulling the open borders arguement against Europe, a region reknowned for its issues with illegal immigration. We have it too and we all manage free healthcare. Anyway I believe with the NHS technically if you are not from the UK, EU, Switzerland or a country with a recipricol healthcare agreement you are liable to be charged for NHS services. 

Yes, there are people who abuse the system, its true for any system but the majority don't. That's why there are limits in the UK system. Yes, people do turn jobs because they get more money from handouts. IMO that's because the handouts are too generous and NMW is too low to live off.

[brique]

I dont have time right now to go google the exact figures : but there is an astonishing correlation between the total annual amount defrauded by benefit recipients ...and the amount of unpaid back taxes owed by Goldman Sachs that were 'excused' by a kindly tax administration last year. A quick study of recent news stories will show that Amazon seem unable to make any kind of profit in the UK, even with sales of 100's of millions every year.. thus, laughably little taxes paid. Its catching, Starbucks have the same problem, as do Google, Apple and a host of others. Starbucks find the UK so unprofitable, they are forced to open new branches to try and stem the awful flow of losses. and its all legal, off-shored payments for sales in the UK mean,..oh dear..no profits and taxes for the brits...

So, we have the benefit fraudsters, with their paltry few millions : and the corporate welfare queens, avoiding billions. obvious then who needs investigating and punishing ... yep... the benefit fraudsters cos its immoral!

[Infinity]

There are plenty of women who carry concealed weapons.  60% of homes in Alaska have a firearm.  How about YOU start thinking.  Why is it that you never hear about shootings at gun stores or place where people are knowingly armed?  The point isn't whether or not someone actually has a weapon--it's whether or not someone has the opportunity to protect themselves.  Liberals/Democrats want to take away individual rights to do so and trust government agencies (i.e. police) to protect you.  Sure, a woman may not carry a weapon to defend herself.  But which is more effective?  A woman with a weapon or a woman with a cell phone that she can use to call the cops.  The thing about rape is even if she does call the cops, there is a response time and there is nothing that can be done to unrape a woman.

Also, crime does vanish with an armed society.  Guns are illegal in Chicago and guess what city is having a record number of homocides this year?  Only the criminals have guns and innocent people are left defenseless.  I live in North Carolina in the year 2012 BTW and I have a concealed carry permit, but do not carry regularly.  Tell me--are the people in the northeast recovering from the aftermath of Sandy better with or without weapons?  Do you think there is more or less looting of personal property in an unarmed community?

In fact, one of the few banks in the US that allows weapons to be carried into the bank just got robbed and guess what happened?  The bad guys didn't even make it out of the parking lot: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/president-of-troy-mo-bank-pulls-gun-nabs-masked-robber/article_570b4e0b-d461-5e17-8a72-cd4baebc1539.html

I own a Glock 19--the same weapon used in the Aurora movie theater massacre and the Gabrielle Giffords incident.  Tell me, would there have been more or less deaths if there was someone with a concealed weapon at those events?  Would the shooter at the Giffords incident been able to empty his 31 round magazine into the crowd if a law abiding citizen was packing that day and able to respond?

So no, I don't live in 1860 Arkansas or a Brazilian favela--I'm just not naive.  Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.

Wow, this so doesn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL. It's just sad. Yeah, let's return to the middle ages. Someboy shooting? Just shoot back. Survival of the fittest!
Something to think about for your little brain: Of all so called civilzed nations, guess which one's the one with the BY FAR highest homicide rate? Oh, right, the US.
Just as a comparison: In Germany, the homicide rate is a solid 20% (that's a fifth for the not-so-smarts) of that in the US.

And you still want to tell me everyone carrying a gun makes it safer for all?
Do you really want to say that a woman that is being assaulted still has time or physical capacity to search her purse for her gun?
This is so far from reality it's just sickening to read.

And what's even more sickening is that you actually believe all the bulls*** you are writing.
There is absolutely NO evidence that carrying guns makes the country safer, actually, evidence points 180° into the other direction.

The point I was making was that if the German population was armed, history would have been a lot different.  

I'm just baffled by this. Just plainly baffled. Hey, if that guy you are annoying right now (me) was armed, maybe your personal history would end here. Ever thought about this? You're talking so much bulls***. Wow.

And the argument that social welfare makes people lazy is a valid one.

Thank you for just insulting all of Germany. We are lazy bitches. I always knew it :<

[Sigma]

We have tens of millions of undocumented immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, and various other countries who are getting a free ride because they don't have social security numbers and therefore don't pay into the system via payroll taxes.

1>  For over 15 years, the only 'free ride" that illegal aliens are eligible for in the US are primary education and emergency health-care.   Admittedly, they're very big things to get for free, but they cannot sit at home collecting welfare checks as illegals..

2>  Only the ones being paid in cash (which is more than a few of them, for sure) don't pay payroll taxes.  Millions of these people are undocumented workers paying into Social Security, Medicaid, etc, with fake or fraudulent numbers but are not able to ever actually collect from those services.  In fact, the IRS estimates that fully 75% of all illegal aliens working in this country are actually paying taxes for services they can never collect on.  The Social Security Administration claims to collect over $50 BILLION a year in payroll taxes from illegal aliens using fraudulent numbers that the system will never have to pay out.  Plus, all aliens contribute the same in Local/State Sales taxes as any other citizen since they still have to go buy their stuff at a store.  Which brings us to #3...

3>  I daresay that 100% of illegal aliens are working in jobs making so little money that they wouldn't pay federal payroll taxes anyways.  They fit into that same bucket as fully half the rest of the country -- they simply don't make enough to pay taxes.  The only tax liability that ANYONE in this country has that makes as little as they do, is Local/State taxes, and an illegal pays the SAME as anyone else does in that regard.  So any "free ride" they're getting is at least as much as the one that HALF the country is getting.   And one could argue that since 3/4 of them are paying Social Security or Medicaid taxes for services that they simply cannot collect, they're actually getting LESS of a free ride than that half the country.

There are plenty of stories of people rejecting job offers because their unemployment benefits pay out more than a potential job.  It may sound unreal being in Europe, but these stories are all too common in the US.

Perhaps instead of asking why unemployment pays better than taking a job, we should be asking why SO MANY jobs pay less than unemployment.  And I'll tell you -- it ain't because unemployment is a massive check, because it's not.  In Texas, if you lost a $30k/yr job, you'd get $300/wk and cannot collect more than $10,000.  Not exactly good living.  Anyone who's purposefully choosing to live on $10K/year rather than taking a job was NEVER going to be a productive member of society anyways.

And maybe it seems to "unreal" for those in Europe is because it actually pays to take a job there than not.  When fully HALF the country makes so little that they don't even have to pay a dime in taxes, that should be a clue that perhaps we have an issue with income in this country.  And one can't claim that it's because they're too lazy to take better paying jobs and move into that tax-paying bracket because if that were the case, then there'd be about 100 million $50,000+/yr jobs going unfilled in this country.  And, well, I don't think I have to tell you that's not the case.

The concept of the poor or underprivileged falling through the cracks and getting no help is a fallacy.  If I could defer all of my tax dollars that go to welfare to private charity, I would do it in a heartbeat, because private charity helps those who are actually in need versus enabling people to not take care of themselves.  Also, when the government gives you a handout, you can never return the favor.  With charity if you get a helping hand, you have the opportunity to give back.  If you ever volunteer at a charity, you'll see plenty of people that charity has helped that are actively returning the favor.

As a libertarian, I'd much rather give all (or let's say, 'most', to address the point I'm going to make) my money to a private charity too.  But to say that it's a fallacy that people 'fall through the cracks' is totally false.  I've lived all over the country -- owned homes in 20 states -- and give VERY heavily of my time and money in all of them (I'm one of those you mention who was once helped by charity and now give back with the great success I've had in life), and I've seen a MASSIVE disparity in the quality and quantity of BOTH private and public charities available to help people.  
There are areas where the number of poor simply overwhelms the infrastructure, places where the density of those in need simply doesn't support any private charities (Meals in Wheels in the rural US is getting harder and harder to function despite an aging populace particularly in these areas), and perhaps most disheartening of all -- places where the charity actually overwhelms the need.  I'll be in West Virginia where kids wear the same thing to school everyday, while there's entire buildings full of clothes in Texas.  I've volunteered at schools in Texas where kids can't get basic supplies for their education and literally the next day not 5 miles away, be standing in a warehouse FULL of brand-new school supplies donated over years that grows every year because the particular charity consistently got in more than they had a need to disperse.   And let me tell you, that's a far more common problem than you'd think.  And it is so disheartening every time I see it.

I can tell you now, from decades of personal experience, that charities by and large do not get along well together.  For every great success story of cooperation I can describe 10 situations where there was outright animosity between groups that should have been getting along.  But the fact is that they saw themselves as competitors -- competing for the same donations, the same grants, the same press.

You are absolutely right -- we do not have a charity problem in the US.  We give far more than any one else in the world.  What we have is a disparity problem -- a logistics problem.  We need a group that somehow promotes cooperation between these entities to share resources and get a better balance.  My gut feeling is that only a government agency could really fit the bill -- on the other hand, my gut feeling is that the government would totally screw it up.

[LemonButt]

Wow, this so doesn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL. It's just sad. Yeah, let's return to the middle ages. Someboy shooting? Just shoot back. Survival of the fittest!
Something to think about for your little brain: Of all so called civilzed nations, guess which one's the one with the BY FAR highest homicide rate? Oh, right, the US.
Just as a comparison: In Germany, the homicide rate is a solid 20% (that's a fifth for the not-so-smarts) of that in the US.

And what happened in the middle ages?  Better yet, what is happening today in many 2nd/3rd world countries?  Tell me--why did it take several millenia for "civilized" nations to exist?  Historically, you had societies where you had the people in power who controlled those who weren't by force.  What kind of force?  Deadly force.  Civilized society wasn't created by people coming together, holding hands, and singing kumbaya while they came to accord to not take advantage of each other.  Civilized society was created by armed people who overthrew tyrants and oppressive dictators.  There is a latin saying: Si vis pacem, para bellum.  If you want peace, prepare for war.  It's peace through strength.  If Europe is civilized, why do they have armies?  Even the landlocked countries like Switzerland has an army--why?  If things are so civilized, they shouldn't need to defend themselves from their neighbors.  Switzerland even has mandatory service for their citizens--why?  Yes, countries are different than individuals, but if Switzerland had no military and was defenseless, all it would take is one power hungry dictator to come to power and invade.  The same goes with people.  If citizens are unarmed, all it takes is one crazy person to come at them and do them harm--it doesn't even have to be a gun as most kitchen knives would do.

And you still want to tell me everyone carrying a gun makes it safer for all?
Do you really want to say that a woman that is being assaulted still has time or physical capacity to search her purse for her gun?
This is so far from reality it's just sickening to read.

I do not think a woman being raped would necessarily have the time to take a gun out of her purse, but it doesn't change the fact that she has the right to defend herself with a deadly weapon.  There are plenty of examples of people's lives being saved by concealed weapons.  Even the inventor of the Glock pistol (an Austrian) was saved by having a concealed weapon.

And what's even more sickening is that you actually believe all the bulls*** you are writing.
There is absolutely NO evidence that carrying guns makes the country safer, actually, evidence points 180° into the other direction.

There is plenty of evidence. It is well documented that the more armed a society is, the less crime that happens.  Just a simple Google search will pull up a wealth of academic studies, but here are two of them, one of which is from an anti-gun liberal: http://www.largo.org/effects.html

I'm just baffled by this. Just plainly baffled. Hey, if that guy you are annoying right now (me) was armed, maybe your personal history would end here. Ever thought about this? You're talking so much bulls***. Wow.

There is a difference between self defense and murder.  Personal attacks don't get you anywhere.

[Infinity]

There is plenty of evidence. It is well documented that the more armed a society is, the less crime that happens.  Just a simple Google search will pull up a wealth of academic studies, but here are two of them, one of which is from an anti-gun liberal: http://www.largo.org/effects.html

Haven't I just pointed out that the homicide rate in a non-armed society (Germany and basically all of Europe) is lower than that of an armed society (US)?

There is a difference between self defense and murder.  Personal attacks don't get you anywhere.

So killing a politician is self defense? That is a very interesting opinion. Just for your information: By the time the n***s were starting to evict the jews in a large scale and  had them put up in concentration camps, Hitler did not make public appearances very often any more. He didn't even speak over the radio.
So by the time the jews would really have had a reason to kill Hitler in self defense, they would not have had the chance anymore.
It might also interest you that there were dozens of attempts on Hitlers life, none of which succeeded.

Also, you obviously lack any knowledge about the social situation in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Hitler did not gain power by accident, Germany was a ticking time bomb during the Weimar Republic due to the ridiculous demands made in the Versailles Treaty and communists trying to start a revolution.
Had there been a widespread arming of the people, the result would very likely have been a civil war, WWII would have been started by Stalin instead of Hitler. What would that have gained anyone?

It is just ridiculous to name lack of widespread arming as a reason for the course of history.
It is highly speculative and even more so if one is as uninformed as you are.

[LemonButt]

@Sigma -- I'm a Libertarian, too.  The fact half the country is getting a free ride is a problem in itself.  I earn $100k/year and have no kids and end up paying over $20k in taxes each year.  My sister earns $100k/year and has 2 kids and ends up paying a negative tax rate, thanks to earned income credits and various other write offs.  Those people on welfare can also collect a fat payday by having kids, which they often do.  I can walk down the street and get stopped by a beggar asking for $1.  The way our current system is setup, I'm supposed to tell the beggar that the government took my $1 and he should go down to the government building to get his assistance.

Also, on unemployment many people will take jobs under the table and collect benefits.  Texas probably has better laws than most states--you were able to collect $450/week for 99 weeks here in NC, which means if you wanted to stay home and play video games and earn $23k/year while earning $10/hour under the table, you could.  There are thousands of unfilled truck driving jobs--most anyone can get a CDL and drive a truck--that pay upwards of $40k/year.  I do a lot of work in North Dakota--unemployment is 2.9% and Walmart is paying $19/hour to stock shelves and still can't find anyone to hire.

[Infinity]

I earn $100k/year and have no kids and end up paying over $20k in taxes each year.  

Which is too little. So why vote for tax-cut-Romney? In Germany you would pay 42k income taxes and a few thousand more for social security.

[LemonButt]

Haven't I just pointed out that the homicide rate in a non-armed society (Germany and basically all of Europe) is lower than that of an armed society (US)?

Which I don't dispute.  Many states (mostly liberal ones) don't allow concealed carry and for those that do, not everyone takes advantage of them.  Germany and most European countries are rather homogeneous compared to the US--we are the great melting pot.  As such, you have hundreds of different cultures etc. and they don't always play well together.  Gun crime is virtually non-existent in Japan where almost everyone is Japanese with the same cultural values and background.  Correlation does not imply causation because when you're talking about homicide rates, there is a whole slew of societal factors at play.  Germany probably doesn't have hate crimes like we do in the US, for example.

[brique]

just a point on the Switzerland thing : it has a civilian militia so save on the cost of a standing army. it would probably not even need that, it wouldn't have done much if n*** Germany had decided to invade in WW2 ; but Switzerland has a more effective defence than armies : its a guy standing next to a shredder with the list of numbered bank accounts...

[Infinity]

Germany probably doesn't have hate crimes like we do in the US, for example.

Sure we do.