Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:17 AM
Original message |
Why is a national catastrophic PROPERTY insurance plan okay, but health care not? |
|
I don't get it. My wife brought up this point this morning and I can't believe it hadn't occurred to me. The Republicans think it's perfectly fine to call for a national insurance program which would force all Americans to pay into an insurance pool to protect their valuable ocean-front properties, but if we want something similar to protect the health o every American, suddenly it's SOCIALISM!
This is one of the most blatant examples of GOP hypocrisy (not to mention pandering to the Floridians, who genuinely are being hammered by the insurance companies). Why should the people of Minnesota or Kentucky have to pay to subsidize the insurance costs for people who built expensive homes on sandbars or flood plains?
.
|
havocmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message |
1. People just = another renewable resouce |
|
And we know how little the powers that be think of renewable resources.
|
liberal N proud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:19 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Because the construction industry doesn't lobby like the Health Care companies |
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
American Medical Association is heavily a Republican supporter too
|
plcdude
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Follow the Money that is all we need to know and do.
|
zorahopkins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:20 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Property Is More Important Than Mere People |
|
Come on.
You know the answer to your question, don't you?
For many Americans -- especially Americans in power -- property is much more important than mere people.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message |
|
That was my mind being blown.
What an excellent point. Truly insightful. Congrats to your wife :hi:
|
raccoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message |
L. Coyote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:25 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Workers are easily replaced. Property is an investment. |
TomClash
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message |
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Bingo - no reason for national flood insurance program except for rich ownership of our shores |
bluedawg12
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 12:09 PM
Response to Original message |
11. More ammo for the national election debates for Dems to use |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 12:10 PM by bluedawg12
I know the candidates are keeping track of future debate points- and this is a good one.
Although, Rooodi, explained that the whole nation won't pay for this--but, didn't explain who will.
Tax and spend repugs.
|
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 06:01 PM by Atman
Inquiring dems want to know!
:kick:
.
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 06:11 PM
Response to Original message |
13. If it cost 100 times more for a rich person to be treated, we'd see INSTANTANEOUS national insurance |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 06:12 PM by TahitiNut
It's all about benefitting those with the MOST at the cost of those with the LEAST. In my 64 years of life, I've NEVER heard of a wealthy person unwilling to spread the costs for anything they use to those least able to pay.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 12th 2024, 11:07 AM
Response to Original message |