Topic: Obama,"Public Option : private coverage :: USPS : UPS/FedEX" | |
---|---|
The post office has only survived because of raising their only resource...
The tax on stamps. (which I believe needs to be repealed) as they are not a viable government entitiy they sould not be receiving OUR money. There is no tax on stamps. The only revenue the USPS gets is from postage. The gov does not subsodize the USPS. The USPS has not recieved any federal money. US Postal Service is a government entity... If we pay for stamps that is a tax... Period. Cost is not the problem... Government has proven it can not effectivily run a service so many times in the past... I can not believe some would even consider placing them that far in the loop for our MEDICAL CARE. |
|
|
|
The post office has only survived because of raising their only resource...
The tax on stamps. (which I believe needs to be repealed) as they are not a viable government entitiy they sould not be receiving OUR money. There is no tax on stamps. The only revenue the USPS gets is from postage. The gov does not subsodize the USPS. The USPS has not recieved any federal money. US Postal Service is a government entity... If we pay for stamps that is a tax... Period. That's true. Other countries are much more expensive. We also get our mail a lot sooner then other countries get theirs. |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Wed 08/12/09 04:24 PM
|
|
I am advocating nothing, nor to I subscribe to your views as described above. I have a healthy skepticism of both sides of this issue, but won't decide until it's all said and done. This is not the final bill and one can hope that the vies of both sides will be taken into consideration in the end, but that one side will not deprive the other side of a compromise. that healthy skepticism doens't seem to extend to an entity that when pitted against the private sector can only survive with the help of tax-payer subsidies.. Amtrak, USPS etc.. besides.. what's the point in deciding how you feel about an issue once it's been settled? that seems slightly, umm, like cowardice.. Did Ben Franklin, or Jefferson or Adams wait to see who would win at Concord Bridge to decide on what side they would support? do you sit on the fence in all matters? just blow where ever the wind takes you? I think we may all agree that there are problems with the lack of availability to care in some places and for some people. Where we differ is in our philosophy on the approach to the solution. The Democrats are in control of both chambers of congress and control the white house. Give them a chance to solve a problem and it should come as no big surprise, their solution to this problem involves a massive new beauracracy and the spending untold amounts of money yet to be taxed from the American people.. If you recall, there were repeated calls from the Bush White House for tort reform and the easing of restrictions barring insurance companies from competing across state lines but that didn't happen. (There were also repeated calls to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they wrought their destruction on the country but that didn't happen either thanks to Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Co.) By and large, affordable health insurance is available to people. Those that don't have it** either don't want it at all or don't want it bad enough to give up the booze or cigarettes or copies of People magazine or a dozen other things that, if they went without, they'd likely be able to afford that low premium/high deductible policy that could get them in to see the proper doctors when needed.. I saw one today.. they advertise them on broadcast tv all the time, during the day during soaps, late at night after all the re-runs are over... It's out there to buy.. but that's not what they want.. they want someone to give it to them.. just like they've been given "free lunch" all through public school (by the way, the vary concept violates one of the most basic American principles ie, "no such thing as a free lunch") just like they were given no money down loans on a house they couldn't afford (we all saw how well that turned out for the economy), just like they were given $3500-4500 to trade in an old car in exchange for a new car (payment)... by the way.. all those people that screamed from the roof tops how awfull the Bush budget deficit was need to look at how much Obama has pile on.. $1.8T with another $1.3T for the coming fiscal year.. that's more than $3T in the first half of his term in office onto a deficit that's taken over 230 years to accumulate to just over $11 trillion.. (that's an increase of oer 25% for those keeping score at home) and more than quadruple even the largest deficit year of the Bush Admin.. Hope and Change (** with the exception of those that have been dropped for coming down with catastrophic illness and the like. I'm not sure how big a problem that is exactly but to the extent that it exist it needs to be addressed.. and the pre-existing conditions folks out there need to know that they're basically bringing in a wrecked car and asking for collision insurance.. ) |
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Wed 08/12/09 05:51 PM
|
|
I am advocating nothing, nor to I subscribe to your views as described above. I have a healthy skepticism of both sides of this issue, but won't decide until it's all said and done. This is not the final bill and one can hope that the vies of both sides will be taken into consideration in the end, but that one side will not deprive the other side of a compromise. that healthy skepticism doens't seem to extend to an entity that when pitted against the private sector can only survive with the help of tax-payer subsidies.. Amtrak, USPS etc.. besides.. what's the point in deciding how you feel about an issue once it's been settled? that seems slightly, umm, like cowardice.. Did Ben Franklin, or Jefferson or Adams wait to see who would win at Concord Bridge to decide on what side they would support? do you sit on the fence in all matters? just blow where ever the wind takes you? I think we may all agree that there are problems with the lack of availability to care in some places and for some people. Where we differ is in our philosophy on the approach to the solution. The Democrats are in control of both chambers of congress and control the white house. Give them a chance to solve a problem and it should come as no big surprise, their solution to this problem involves a massive new beauracracy and the spending untold amounts of money yet to be taxed from the American people.. If you recall, there were repeated calls from the Bush White House for tort reform and the easing of restrictions barring insurance companies from competing across state lines but that didn't happen. (There were also repeated calls to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they wrought their destruction on the country but that didn't happen either thanks to Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Co.) By and large, affordable health insurance is available to people. Those that don't have it** either don't want it at all or don't want it bad enough to give up the booze or cigarettes or copies of People magazine or a dozen other things that, if they went without, they'd likely be able to afford that low premium/high deductible policy that could get them in to see the proper doctors when needed.. I saw one today.. they advertise them on broadcast tv all the time, during the day during soaps, late at night after all the re-runs are over... It's out there to buy.. but that's not what they want.. they want someone to give it to them.. just like they've been given "free lunch" all through public school (by the way, the vary concept violates one of the most basic American principles ie, "no such thing as a free lunch") just like they were given no money down loans on a house they couldn't afford (we all saw how well that turned out for the economy), just like they were given $3500-4500 to trade in an old car in exchange for a new car (payment)... by the way.. all those people that screamed from the roof tops how awfull the Bush budget deficit was need to look at how much Obama has pile on.. $1.8T with another $1.3T for the coming fiscal year.. that's more than $3T in the first half of his term in office onto a deficit that's taken over 230 years to accumulate to just over $11 trillion.. (that's an increase of oer 25% for those keeping score at home) and more than quadruple even the largest deficit year of the Bush Admin.. Hope and Change (** with the exception of those that have been dropped for coming down with catastrophic illness and the like. I'm not sure how big a problem that is exactly but to the extent that it exist it needs to be addressed.. and the pre-existing conditions folks out there need to know that they're basically bringing in a wrecked car and asking for collision insurance.. ) |
|
|
|
The post office has only survived because of raising their only resource...
The tax on stamps. (which I believe needs to be repealed) as they are not a viable government entitiy they sould not be receiving OUR money. There is no tax on stamps. The only revenue the USPS gets is from postage. The gov does not subsodize the USPS. The USPS has not recieved any federal money. US Postal Service is a government entity... If we pay for stamps that is a tax... Period. How is it a tax? The USPS is regulated by the government. But all salaries are payed buy postage. No tax money is used for anything by the USPS. Buying a stamp is no where near a tax. Thats like saying buying milk is a tax. |
|
|
|
The post office has only survived because of raising their only resource...
The tax on stamps. (which I believe needs to be repealed) as they are not a viable government entitiy they sould not be receiving OUR money. There is no tax on stamps. The only revenue the USPS gets is from postage. The gov does not subsodize the USPS. The USPS has not recieved any federal money. US Postal Service is a government entity... If we pay for stamps that is a tax... Period. How is it a tax? The USPS is regulated by the government. But all salaries are payed buy postage. No tax money is used for anything by the USPS. Buying a stamp is no where near a tax. Thats like saying buying milk is a tax. Government entity. Each time you use a stamp you are paying a tax. When you buy milk you are paying a tax to the farmer. (I am ok with that). You did manage to derail the actual fact into this side track. GOVERNMENT CAN NOT run a program within budget... It never has been able to do that. We are 13 trillion in debt as a nation. Yet many think it is OK to ADD to that debt... and if you mention it you will be called names and ridiculed. Use to be we ridiculed DEADBEATS. Not those that point out FACTS. Or government is a DEADBEAT. It lives of of US. It has become so large it must squeeze more from us if it is to survive (at its current bloated size). That is the BOTTOM line. |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Thu 08/13/09 12:10 PM
|
|
I am advocating nothing, nor to I subscribe to your views as described above. I have a healthy skepticism of both sides of this issue, but won't decide until it's all said and done. This is not the final bill and one can hope that the vies of both sides will be taken into consideration in the end, but that one side will not deprive the other side of a compromise. that healthy skepticism doens't seem to extend to an entity that when pitted against the private sector can only survive with the help of tax-payer subsidies.. Amtrak, USPS etc.. besides.. what's the point in deciding how you feel about an issue once it's been settled? that seems slightly, umm, like cowardice.. Did Ben Franklin, or Jefferson or Adams wait to see who would win at Concord Bridge to decide on what side they would support? do you sit on the fence in all matters? just blow where ever the wind takes you? I think we may all agree that there are problems with the lack of availability to care in some places and for some people. Where we differ is in our philosophy on the approach to the solution. The Democrats are in control of both chambers of congress and control the white house. Give them a chance to solve a problem and it should come as no big surprise, their solution to this problem involves a massive new beauracracy and the spending untold amounts of money yet to be taxed from the American people.. If you recall, there were repeated calls from the Bush White House for tort reform and the easing of restrictions barring insurance companies from competing across state lines but that didn't happen. (There were also repeated calls to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they wrought their destruction on the country but that didn't happen either thanks to Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Co.) By and large, affordable health insurance is available to people. Those that don't have it** either don't want it at all or don't want it bad enough to give up the booze or cigarettes or copies of People magazine or a dozen other things that, if they went without, they'd likely be able to afford that low premium/high deductible policy that could get them in to see the proper doctors when needed.. I saw one today.. they advertise them on broadcast tv all the time, during the day during soaps, late at night after all the re-runs are over... It's out there to buy.. but that's not what they want.. they want someone to give it to them.. just like they've been given "free lunch" all through public school (by the way, the vary concept violates one of the most basic American principles ie, "no such thing as a free lunch") just like they were given no money down loans on a house they couldn't afford (we all saw how well that turned out for the economy), just like they were given $3500-4500 to trade in an old car in exchange for a new car (payment)... by the way.. all those people that screamed from the roof tops how awfull the Bush budget deficit was need to look at how much Obama has pile on.. $1.8T with another $1.3T for the coming fiscal year.. that's more than $3T in the first half of his term in office onto a deficit that's taken over 230 years to accumulate to just over $11 trillion.. (that's an increase of oer 25% for those keeping score at home) and more than quadruple even the largest deficit year of the Bush Admin.. Hope and Change (** with the exception of those that have been dropped for coming down with catastrophic illness and the like. I'm not sure how big a problem that is exactly but to the extent that it exist it needs to be addressed.. and the pre-existing conditions folks out there need to know that they're basically bringing in a wrecked car and asking for collision insurance.. ) low premium/high deductible policies are how young healthy people who don't sit at the doctor's office all the time save money on the monthly expenses.. If I can make a $20/mo payment rather than a $100/mo payment and in exchange go from a $200 or $400 deductbible to 600 or 800, that's a risk I'm willing to take. I save $80 for food, car ins, beer, etc.. or just save it twd the deductible. So you can see that over the course of a few months, I've covered my deductible and still kept my monthly cost down.. Doesn't anyone remember high school economics?? (But I hit on the key word there, didn't I? risk... little word. risk. but it means huge things. it could be called something else too. life.) Now, It doesn't make sense if you have some chronic disease, but if you're generally healthy, it makes sense. It's just betting on yourself not to go to the hospital for anything short of a broken arm.. If i get a cold, I go see the GP, the family doctor and she writes me a script for whatever it is that's bugging me, ask me how life's treating me and if I'm still off the cigarettes.. office visit, no big deal, $50 bucks and 15-20 in meds.. she knows to write me up for the generic and that I don't need the expensive stuff. I'm out of there for under a bill.. most people spend that going out at night, more if you're married with chillins.. get it? tcob. don't come to me every time you get a splinter in your hand. You've been shown how to take one out plenty of times. Its time you took it out yourself. get what I'm saying? I could go on but I think I've made my point.. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Thu 08/13/09 12:41 PM
|
|
I am advocating nothing, nor to I subscribe to your views as described above. I have a healthy skepticism of both sides of this issue, but won't decide until it's all said and done. This is not the final bill and one can hope that the vies of both sides will be taken into consideration in the end, but that one side will not deprive the other side of a compromise. that healthy skepticism doens't seem to extend to an entity that when pitted against the private sector can only survive with the help of tax-payer subsidies.. Amtrak, USPS etc.. besides.. what's the point in deciding how you feel about an issue once it's been settled? that seems slightly, umm, like cowardice.. Did Ben Franklin, or Jefferson or Adams wait to see who would win at Concord Bridge to decide on what side they would support? do you sit on the fence in all matters? just blow where ever the wind takes you? I think we may all agree that there are problems with the lack of availability to care in some places and for some people. Where we differ is in our philosophy on the approach to the solution. The Democrats are in control of both chambers of congress and control the white house. Give them a chance to solve a problem and it should come as no big surprise, their solution to this problem involves a massive new beauracracy and the spending untold amounts of money yet to be taxed from the American people.. If you recall, there were repeated calls from the Bush White House for tort reform and the easing of restrictions barring insurance companies from competing across state lines but that didn't happen. (There were also repeated calls to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they wrought their destruction on the country but that didn't happen either thanks to Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Co.) By and large, affordable health insurance is available to people. Those that don't have it** either don't want it at all or don't want it bad enough to give up the booze or cigarettes or copies of People magazine or a dozen other things that, if they went without, they'd likely be able to afford that low premium/high deductible policy that could get them in to see the proper doctors when needed.. I saw one today.. they advertise them on broadcast tv all the time, during the day during soaps, late at night after all the re-runs are over... It's out there to buy.. but that's not what they want.. they want someone to give it to them.. just like they've been given "free lunch" all through public school (by the way, the vary concept violates one of the most basic American principles ie, "no such thing as a free lunch") just like they were given no money down loans on a house they couldn't afford (we all saw how well that turned out for the economy), just like they were given $3500-4500 to trade in an old car in exchange for a new car (payment)... by the way.. all those people that screamed from the roof tops how awfull the Bush budget deficit was need to look at how much Obama has pile on.. $1.8T with another $1.3T for the coming fiscal year.. that's more than $3T in the first half of his term in office onto a deficit that's taken over 230 years to accumulate to just over $11 trillion.. (that's an increase of oer 25% for those keeping score at home) and more than quadruple even the largest deficit year of the Bush Admin.. Hope and Change (** with the exception of those that have been dropped for coming down with catastrophic illness and the like. I'm not sure how big a problem that is exactly but to the extent that it exist it needs to be addressed.. and the pre-existing conditions folks out there need to know that they're basically bringing in a wrecked car and asking for collision insurance.. ) low premium/high deductible policies are how young healthy people who don't sit at the doctor's office all the time save money on the monthly expenses.. If I can make a $20/mo payment rather than a $100/mo payment and in exchange go from a $200 or $400 deductbible to 600 or 800, that's a risk I'm willing to take. I save $80 for food, car ins, beer, etc.. or just save it twd the deductible. So you can see that over the course of a few months, I've covered my deductible and still kept my monthly cost down.. Doesn't anyone remember high school economics?? (But I hit on the key word there, didn't I? risk... little word. risk. but it means huge things. it could be called something else too. life.) Now, It doesn't make sense if you have some chronic disease, but if you're generally healthy, it makes sense. It's just betting on yourself not to go to the hospital for anything short of a broken arm.. If i get a cold, I go see the GP, the family doctor and she writes me a script for whatever it is that's bugging me, ask me how life's treating me and if I'm still off the cigarettes.. office visit, no big deal, $50 bucks and 15-20 in meds.. she knows to write me up for the generic and that I don't need the expensive stuff. I'm out of there for under a bill.. most people spend that going out at night, more if you're married with chillins.. get it? tcob. don't come to me every time you get a splinter in your hand. You've been shown how to take one out plenty of times. Its time you took it out yourself. get what I'm saying? I could go on but I think I've made my point.. PS And I take out my own splinters |
|
|