|
Re: Bush vows to veto children's health care bill ... because it's too costly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannotoronto
Really? They receive free health care, free meals and free training.
Ask Steve if he turned down the free health care while in the military and paid for his own health insurance. If that's not subsidized health care, then what is it?
By choosing the join the military Steve obligated the taxpayer to support their own health care, their family's health care as well as Steve's health care for 20 years.
By choosing the join the military Steve obligated the taxpayer to feed themselves, their own family as well as pay for Steve's meals.
In the real-world we need to train ourselves. I didn't walk into my employer and demand that they pay for a marketing degree. I had to pay for that myself. My employer didn't pay for computer courses. I had to learn Word and Excel myself. I had to pay for courses. Steve didn't. His training was paid for by the government, provided by the taxpayer.
How many people here go to work and receive free food every day? How many people here have had their employer pay for 20 years worth of education and training?
So why is Steve entitled to all of this taxpayer support but will support the vetoing of a bill for taxpayer subsidized health care for children? That's blatant hypocrisy. It would take an extreme bias to perceive it otherwise.
|
Is this really that hard to understand? Steve, like myself, performed a service for the United States Government. We were EMPLOYEES. We recieved pay and benefits in exchange for work. All the benefits you listed were part of the employment contract. Did you sign a employment contract with your current employer, in which your wages and benefits are all laid out? We did the same. It just so happens that our former employer (US Government) offered more benefits in exhange for our services than most places.
__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.
|