Are liberals willing to give the government 50% of their paychecks for government programs? ie. health care?

Question

How about 70%

How about 80%?

Why don't we just have the government control every aspect of our lives. Give us homes, cars, healthcare, and everything else needed to live.

I like my freedoms to chose what I want out of life, and don't want the government controlling that. Liberals oppose free choices and want the government controlling everything it seems these days.

Answer 1

Are conservatives willing to give the government 50% of their paychecks to go directly into the pockets of defense contractors who don't pay their fair share of taxes--to fund an unpopular and unsuccessful war?

Answer 2

Here is what paranoid conservatives don't realize about healthcare. In a capitalist economy, the consumer should be able to dictate the cost of everything, not the producer (doctor's, insurance companies). Under Republican and George Bush rule, the health insurance companies have been allowed to run rampant with high premiums, high deductibles, and low coverage. The doctor's have raised their rates to try and recoup some of that money from the insurance companies since they are not paying out what they used to. Now doctor's offices and hospitals have to charge the same amount to everyone so that means that the uninsured or under-insured have to pay the same amount as the well-insured. Now that may not resonate with the high and mighty Republican part who consistently get campaign funds and loobyists banging down the door to give them gifts, but for the rest of us it hurts deeply. The threat of government sponsored health care serves as a buffer for the insurance companies so that they know that their free reign over how they do business is coming to an end.

As for other social government programs, I support some and not others. I support the idea of social security but not the way it is being carried out. The best thing to do is balance the budget to figure out which of these programs are feasible and which to delete of scale back. I will support any program as long as it serves a well deserved purpose and it is carried out sensibly.

Also, while on the talk of spending, you do understand that to pay off the debt that Bush has amassed over his seven years, every American would ahve to pay over $100,000. I don't know about you, but that is 100% of my paycheck for the next 3 years. And that doesn't include health care.

Answer 3

Last I checked, I already pay at least 40% of my paycheck in federal, social security, medicare, state, local, sales, gas, and all other taxes. Retirement, health care, and union charges take more than an additional 10%. So over 50% is already gone and I still cannot afford health care, food, child care, housing, and all those other things that social programs provide.

This is under a Republican administration.

I'd be perfectly happy to continue to pay 50% for free housing, food, medical care, child care, and retirement. I would no longer need a union. That would give me a huge increase in income. I'd love to have half of my paycheck free and clear!

Answer 4

In a acceptable international, (i'm one hundred% liberal by technique of ways) everybody would turn their money in to the authorities so as that the authorities splits it both. the persons who paintings and the persons who do not paintings will all get loose money from the authorities as quickly because it is chop up both between all electorate. it is not any longer acceptable, so enable me say what would nicely be executed realistically. Tax each and every of the persons in accordance to how a lot money they make. the rich might want to pay 50% taxes on their earnings. the midsection earnings might want to pay 25% taxes of the earnings, and the poor might want to pay little to no taxes. The taxes should be used to construct tremendous colleges, grant loose healthcare, and close DOWN ALL PRISONS. police officials should be paid low salaries, because with tremendous colleges and loose money from the authorities for poors, their facilities might want to no longer be needed a lot.

Answer 5

Silly boy. You're very confused.

In some countries, like France, they get free preschool, free college tuition, free health care, nannies who come to the house to help mothers with newborns and many other benefits. And yes, it's paid for out of their taxes.

Our tax money is already there; it's just a question of what we use it for. I would rather have the services I mentioned than to spend four million dollars an HOUR on the war in Iraq.

If an American parent added up what they would spend for one child for in-home help, preschool, college and health care, it would cost far less in tax money than what they are paying for those things now out of their pockets.

No one is proposing that the goverment make your medical decisions. The proposals all state that you would keep the same choices you have now, but there would be a more efficient way of paying for them.

I guess if you want to keep spending all your tax money on Iraq and then pay for all those things out of your pocket on top of that, maybe they would make an exception for you so you could do that. :)

Answer 6

Really? You like freedom in your healthcare? Do you have a plan where you can go to any doctor as often as you want with no co-pays, getting as many tests as you think you need or want, as many second opinions as you want, asking your doctors to just write you free prescription after free prescription and getting all this without prior approval from someone who is NOT a licensed doctor or healthcare worker?

Or, is it more like you are paying a HUGE premium every month to have some insurance guy call your wife, after you've had a boil on your neck lansed, to tell you your claim has been denied because you neglected to send in copy 4-Y of subsection Phreln, paragraph Norblatt within 48 hours of returning from Area 51. Or that you never added Fido onto the Health coverage so that bite your son got isn't covered, so sorry.

That's not choice. That's a contest between YOUR health and THEIR bottom line, and I PROMISE you, in ANY contest where THEY control the money, PROFIT will ALWAYS win over Health.

How much of your paycheck goes to health insurance RIGHT NOW? You are paying into a pool of money where:
1. The Insurance people take THEIR cut, so you get to pay for advertising, outrageous salaries and bonuses (plus perks), you get to pay for them to lobby your elected leaders to act against your best interests. Insurance is to helathcare what Pimps are to Prostitution. Just another level of bureacracy skimming the lion's share of profits for themselves, while adding nothing but delay and disappointment to the process of people getting the medical care they've been paying for.
2. The hospitals and doctors get THEIR cut, and you know what? YOUR premium is so high because those same hospitals and doctors treat MANY poor and indigent people who cannot pay, so you get to bear those costs TOO. How much lower will your premiumbe when those who couldn't afford insurance through some For Profit Company now CAN afford it through some Federally subsidized plan?
3. The Drug Companies get THEIR cut. And again, the money you pay them, they use to bribe your leaders into passing laws which cheat YOU, such as making it illegal for you to find cheaper Canadian alternatives to ridiculously expensive drugs, which don't even CURE anything anymore. All drug companies do is TREAT illnesses, thats where the money is, there's no profit in CURING people.

Personally, I feel Dennis Kucinich is right in this ONE issue. Health should not be a "For Profit" business. Nationalize it, make it run like the Post Office. Open little clinics in every neighborhood, offer tuition incentives for nursing students, and as far as drugs go, pass a law which makes it impossible for drug companies to patent drugs which only relieve or alleviate SYMPTOMS, as opposed to the actual disease or malady.

Answer 7

Back slid'n all the way up the hill G Bush?
"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_o...


If I am not mistaken, Bin Laden is not a threat to the US. So why on earth would G Bush use him like this?


Just goes to show how much this man is a lier!

Somebody prove me wrong please, come on cons rep, answer the question...

Did he just not lie to the world? To his country? To his fellow man?

Yes or No?

If War Denial is dangerous, then Bin Laden must be a threat! It would be nice if this so called man made up his mind for the better of our troops!

Sorry Bas;lkj;

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApTO.2oRecZ_GY0sB6b3LATQ7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071101150937AAd7Fuc

I posted a question on yahoo Q/A form and figured this would be some great ammo vs G Bush.


Sending it to you if you want to use it, feel free.

Answer 8

If that is the kind of thing that would happen no. Unfortunately the right wing scare tactics are a lot of BS. There is nothing, not one thing, being proposed that would raise your taxes or mine that high and you know it. The BS from the right is getting pretty deep, people I hope you are wearing hip boots and brought in plows to scoop it up.

Answer 9

Thats not the real question you need to ask them since taxes already approach that when you take everything into account. What you need to ask them is if they are willing to turn over their entire salary if the government provided them with 3 meals per day, an apartment to live in and health care.

Answer 10

No that would be totally unrealistic. No plan to this date even remotely approaches that number, canada has a universal health plan and their federal tax rate is no higher than ours