doublegunshop.com - home Forums GOP 2016

After listening to the potential candidates stuff their feet into their mouths over the vaccine 'choice' issue, it seems that compared to any of the current crop of GOP imbeciles Hillary doesn't seem so bad.

There isn't one of those people I'd feel comfortable voting for.

McCain and Romney were poor enough choices, but this batch is going nowhere.

The election seems lost 20 months before it takes place.

Serious question, but no answer is hoped for. Is ocare meeting your healthcare needs as a retiree, particularly cost wise. Are you one of the some eighty percent that are enrolled with a subsidy.

Just wondering if you have an agenda to belittle one group and cheer lead for a pioneer of the village mentality.

I'm hardly cheerleading.

The fact is that the GOP as of today has no electable candidates.

I'm well prepared to go without a subsidy for my health insurance, but the fact is that those who have employer sponsored health insurance (like I did for 40 years) are subsidized too.

The cost to an employer to provide health insurance is and always was passed on to the consumer, so those costs are shared by society. The employee's share is a before tax deduction, in fact no SSA or medicare tax is even paid on it. By the way, you pay income tax on the SSA and Medicare tax. A tax on the tax. So you're saved that too.

Thus, group plans have always been subsidized - even encouraged. It's only been the individual ones that have not.

So, like the whore who won't work for a $1, but will for a million... we've established the situation, now we're just haggling price.

ACA in an attempt to level the field for all insurance purchasers created a huge disincentive to work. I'll not argue that the thing was botched, but the concept that everyone should have access to affordable insurance is correct.

I am and will continue to be a one issue voter. I like to shoot.

The race as of today, however, seems wide open... right after Hillary's second term.

It wouldn't surprise me if the GOP decided months ago that Rand Paul would be the nominee......

If the GOP disses its base again it will guarantee another presidential loss...Geo

At the rate the GOP is going they might as well just save their money and not even enter the race.

I don't think any American is ready for another Bush or a fAt New Jersey bully and Rand Paul has no chance of winning.

I think Scott Walker is their only chance of winning.

Gee, I always thought that I exchanged my labor and time for wages and benefits. Of course, all labor costs are always passed on to the consumer. I don't think it's subsidized if I work for it. Those of us who still work for a living don't do it for free, nor should we be expected to. There are those Democrats who have repeatedly proposed taxing benefits as income, but we never hear them wanting to tax welfare and food stamps as income. However, Unemployment Compensation given to laid off and displaced workers is taxed as income... the only insurance payout which is taxed. Workers and productive people have taken it on the chin quite enough already.

They don't even drug test Welfare recipients (or Congressmen). I think there would be a lot less Democrat voters (and Congressmen) if they did.

I have been accused of being a single issue voter, but typically, when you look at a candidate's stance on infringing upon the 2nd Amendment, those Leftist Democrats are also the ones who wish to tax me more, create a more Socialist country, and impose more government regulations which violate many other Constitutional freedoms.

All are important to me, but I can't for the life of me understand how anyone who enjoys the freedom to own guns and shoot could ever vote for extreme anti-gun politicians like Obama or Hillary. Ever!

Agree with jOe on Scott Walker, but it's still very early in the game.

Employer provided health insurance is subsidized by the consumer only insofar as all expenses are passed on to the consumer. Employer provided health insurance, as all other benefits, is part of the cost of hiring an employee and as such is a part of his salary. Were the employer not to provide health insurance, he could pay a higher salary and the employee would be responsible for his own healthcare costs. That is the way it worked in the dark ages when I first entered the labor force.

You have to laugh at the irony of those who wish to restrict the "Right to Choose" when it comes to vaccines, but are totally for free choice when it comes to aborting innocent unborn babies.

Most people recover from measles, but not too many babies recover from being aborted. For the record, I am in favor of most vaccines.

And do you all notice how the media is being very quiet about the largest pool of unvaccinated children... those of illegal aliens?
Is it any surprise then that the measles outbreak would occur in Southern California which has a very large illegal population?

Ergo, the consumer pays more for goods and services which has the exact same effect as paying a tax - the consumer has less money. The entire cost of all healthcare is borne by society as a whole. This method funds part of it.

The company has decided that their investment in developing a useful employee is protected by ensuring that the employee has access to health care. Healthy workers show up to work. They have longer productive lives.

The problem is that many workers, especially those at the lower end of the pay scales, can't be trusted to actually use their own money to buy insurance even if a reasonable allowance is provided for just that. It's the same logic that resulted in the establishment of social security, and withholding tax. Planning for the future is not a universal trait. As much as we may wish otherwise, people frequently do not behave in a responsible fashion.

We don't turn people away from emergency rooms in this country, nor should we. The cost of that bit of largess as some see it is also borne by society in the form of higher cost for all. Thus the individual mandate.

The fallacy that companies 'will' (as opposed to 'could') pay a higher wage instead of providing sponsored health care and the fallacy that people 'will' (as opposed to 'could') actually spend it on health insurance is what lead to the employer mandate.

Reality is in conflict with ideology on both sides of the debate. What we need is someone who can offer a workable compromise.

I fail to see that person.

As far as Walker... which blue states turn red with his nomination?