Article about the alleged "safety net"
 

An article contradicting those who say the poor can just go the emergency room for treatment:

http://www.texasobserver.org/a-galve...he-safety-net/

Oh, Texas. Where nine thousand deaths a year is considered acceptable loss for sticking by principles.

i was flipping stations on the radio a few weeks back, and stumbled across a debate. then i found it was on afr (i can't stand the american family assoc). the people talking (it turns out, not much of a debate, they all were on the same side) were all railing against obamacare. which led me to wonder....

how does the party supposedly so religious, begrudge charity towards the poor? doesn't that stance clash with their so called christian values? they wear bracelets saying wwjd....well, i doubt jesus would be against medical care for the poor.
but, i'm sure the neocons can explain it and justify it.

jesus would tell them to get off their butt and get a job that has benefits..:$:
then they could feed their out of wedlock kids..
My wife is helping support those in need, went out bought new sweater made in america..





Attachment 2248

lmao

Because confiscatory taxation or mandated redistribution of wealth is not charity. Charity starts with the free giving of something, without coercion, from the giver to the recipient.

I would bet that Jesus would not be for coercion and redistribution by force, backed by the government - whether it be our government or the Roman Empire that ultimately executed him. This is all hypothetical - I don't make a habit of trying to guess what the Almighty thinks, but from what can be read in the Bible, I think he saw charity as the free act of one to another without government involvement.

On a less religious level, do you really expect that just because people are Christian, that they will just go along with a government program that turns their $400/month medical insurance into a $950/month plan with less pertinent coverage for them (or categories they don't need), and higher deductibles? That's the same as saying that the government is taking $550 more a month out of their pockets, and the equivalent food out of their kids mouths. And, the government's action in that case is decidedly un-Christian towards that family, and another step in the direction of tyrrany.

:rolleyes:

What? Running a country based upon an invisible man in the sky based upon a document that is deemed the best work of fiction ever written doesn't seem like a plan to you?

I'd love to hear a sane, lucid, thought-provoking answer to this. You would think that somebody could provide one.

It's funny actually, only 4 gospels in the bible actually document his life, and in those 4 books you'd think, as these Christians spout, all he ever gave a crap about was making sure 2 dudes didn't get married, and that you didn't heave stones at your girlfriend/wife's gut to end a pregnancy.


The reality is that he never mentioned homosexuality or ending a pregnancy one single time.

What he did discussed at length however, was that you treat everyone with the same respect and dignity "for what you do to the least you do to me" and to be very weary and fearful of the ultra-wealthy "The love of money above all is the root of evil."

I'd be willing to bet that there is going to be a lot of disappointed "Christians" when they finally get to meet him.

Speaking of works of fiction, how about all those "qualifications" that our community organizer president brought with him to the job? Or all the medical care you were going to get for free? That's fiction also.

I see no one wants to take up the salient point, which is that charity and forced compliance with redistribution are two different things.

Well I'm pretty sure He would not be for legalized abortion. Those unborn qualify in that statement "for what you do to the least you do to me".

And if he didn't address two dudes getting married as you put it, he also didn't address insider trading, gun control, drunk driving and a lot of other things that have come up over the last 2000 years.

making health care more obtainable is forced redistribution?

funny, those against others being able to get health insurance all seem to...have health insurance.


as for 'charity', you missed my point entirely. not surprised that you'd cling to that word, and ignore the actual message.

which is why society institutes laws. people like to say that all laws come from the bible, but they don't. or that we can't have morals if we don't go to church or are atheist, also false.

The mechanism is one of forced redistribution when the plan:
1) Raises the premiums people paying into the system have to pay
2) Raises the deductables of the people buying the plans
3) Provides less coverage for that mandated expenditure.
4) Forces you to participate in it
5) Reduces or eliminates the cost for those below a certain income.

Those paying more are doing so to provide insurance for others. That IS redistribution, period. (Sorry - couldn't resist that 'period.' in light of Obama's repeated lies.)

I didn't miss your point - charity is voluntary. Those who oppose ObamaCare may very well be charitable on their own terms, giving the amount they think is right to charities they support. Supporting ObamaCare has nothing whatsoever to do with charity, while opposing it is much more close to opposing a tyrannical law that is actually diametrically opposed to individual freedom protected by the Constitution. No matter what John Roberts said.

I made no such assertion. There were written laws going back to the Assyrians and the Code of Hammurabi. Which nobody would want to live under but did ensure there were no second offenders to crimes.

Especially seatbelt laws.

it was a general comment, not directed to you specifically in regards to laws.

lol
making insurance obtainable is tyrannical. wow. and people being against others getting healthcare is certainly not the christian thing to do.

i profusely apologize for using 'charity' since you're getting so worked up over the semantics, while completely ignoring the point.
you supposedly think life is sacred, but once a kid is born, by god he's on his own.

You didn't read too closely, did you? The mechanism, the way of accomplishing the alleged goal, is tyrannical. Not the objective. And if the means are tyrannical it doesn't matter what the objective is, was, or is purported to be. All you see is the use of force to transfer your former assets to someone else.

again, how is making insurance obtainable a way of transferring assets to someone else?

i mean, i think the law sucks, but i get why they did what they did. but use of force? transferring assets...tyrannical??

wow.

Rush Limbaugh inflammatory speech 101 but we are used to it.

oh

Join our new Facebook group: Stopping Tyrannical Oppressive Progressives


lol

look what i found!!

It is making insurance less obtainable for everyone who pays. It only make it more obtainable for those who do not pay. That is a transfer of wealth. The recipient recieves and the provider pays for himself and the recipient. That is basically a transaction.

If someone's insurance goes from $400 a month to $950 a month, and they did not get $550 more in insurance or useful services, then they got ripped off. In this case the money went to pay the bill for the guy getting the freebies.

There is no free lunch and never will be, no matter how much the liberals cry.

The fact that you think that there is merely a semantic difference between willful charitable acts and government confiscation of assets for redistribution is quite illuminating.

it's not a transfer of wealth, unless i missed the tax increase to pay for this new stuff?
as for those whose premiums went up due to having their plans cancelled, they are getting more coverages. their lifetime maximums are no more.

like i said, i don't like the law. it's way too convoluted. but something had to be done, plenty still has to be done.


thanks for the laugh.

Sure it's a transfer of wealth. You are mandated to buy insurance. Mandated. Now those rates skyrocket. So the money leaves your pocket whether you call it a tax, a fee, a fine (which is applied if you -gasp- refuse to participate), or an insurance premium. What they all have in common is the MANDATORY nature of them. The money will be taken from you - call it what you want.

again, like i said, it's a bad law. i think i made myself clear on that...but then, i thought i was clear about people begrudging assistance to poor people and saying they're christian.


it's kind of funny tho...so many people said 'well, if everyone would be responsible and buy insurance, it would be better...'. now they have to, and it's wrong too. there's no pleasing some people.

i wonder if those against any help in getting insurance went back thru the history books, and took out all the anti-social security, anti-medicare and anti-unemployment screeds and just 'cut and pasted' them to fit today's 'end of the u.s. as we know it' topic du jour.

joey, did you support invading iraq and toppling hussein?
us assisting nato in getting rid of qaddafi?
invading afganistan and making it our longest war ever?

See I don't think many people are against the idea of getting insurance more affordable. The difference is that this is the same old government program retread - take more from people already paying so they can supplement others. That's what people object to.

If you could buy insurance in any state - if a NY resident liked a Nevada plan, he should be able to buy it. Increase competition by removing barriers - not taking over the industry with government run "exchanges".

Allow flexible savings accounts to accrue and not be a "use it or lose it" proposition. Someday, as you have more and more good years, you could at least partially self-insure.

When you buy insurance of any kind, you only need the amount that mitigates risk you are uneasy with. This is why people bought catastrophic-event only plans. A young guy who breaks his finger playing basketball can probably handle the bill, but if he gets in a car accident he wants to be covered since it's a lot more money.

But there's the thing - Obama and those of his party stroll in telling you "You can keep your plan." Damn straight - because you, Mr. President, should have NO meddling in my affairs.

When you have an open market, you have the option of saying no - and that is the biggest power in all of capitalism. If enough people do not buy a product at an inflated cost, the price comes down. That power has been lost by use of the unconstitutional federal mandate. Therefore, prices will skyrocket due to both the supplementing of others for insurance, AND opportunism on the part of the insurance companies. That will happen also - but strictly because the government is helping them do that by not allowing the free market to work, specifically by forcing every American to be a customer no matter how high the price is.

I can't help myself:) Joey can answer for himself..:)

http://news.msn.com/science-technolo...s-online-games


but..uh, we can't find money to insure people. sigh

the premise isn't to take money from some and buy insurance for others. the law is based on
if everyone has coverage, there won't be people subsidizing others' care-which is what we've been doing for years. i have insurance, have had for decades. so, my bills are grossly inflated because my insurer will end up paying not just for my care, but for however many others who got care and had no way to pay. their bill was 'written off' (but not really, hospitals have to get money, so they have, from those with ability to pay, or with insuranced).
so, supposedly the overall cost of healthcare will be lower, because they can charge everyone correctly now, since everyone (conceivably) will now have coverage of some sort. that's why taxes on individuals haven't changed, because it's supposed to be revenue neutral.
the main reason why people have seen premium increases is because their substandard plans were phased out. does it stink? yep. but from what i've seen, far more people will benefit from the plan than will be adversely affected.

my point being those wars cost way more than obamacare will. funny what people don't mind paying for, and what they object to. i wonder how many of those who are against broadening health coverage would have to say in future if they were the one with pre-existing conditions? hit their lifetime maximum (those are gone now)? if their status changed in some way, and obamacare kept them insured?
you know, just like all these people over the years who rail against medicaid...
but when they go to the nursing home, they'll love it then.

:tro: Yet people argue to their death against a plan designed to protect them and lower their costs long term. They will argue for the right to not buy insurance if they choose knowing they will never do so and knowing they will be paying for those that do. Is it brainwashing?:zz:

I love also how people act like premiums never, ever went up in the years prior to the ACA. Srsly?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...src=burger_bar

The real problem is that health care in the US is too expensive. We pay far more than the rest of the high-income nations and we get much poorer outcomes. We tell ourselves it's the best health care in the world, and sure, if you're rich you can afford anything. But that goes for rich people anywhere in the world. I don't see how a state that is content with 9000 people dying a year from preventable issues (back to you, Texas!) can claim it's part of a country with the best health care in the world.

:tro:


texas has the most uninsured i do believe. and didn't expand medicaid. you gotta be responsible, dontchaknow.
so, listen up all you kids out there, pick better mothers! texas is counting on you.

but yeah, it does cost too much, especially when one considers the ROI. good care, bad delivery. great research and development...but only for those who can pay. it's the american way.

yeah, it kills me that the koch bros and others say to the young that 'you're better off economically to pay the fine. don't buy it'.
they say that to try to kill the plan, as they are sooooo worried that people will (gasp) like it once they get it. like social security, medicare, etc.

except.....
who will be in a car accident? changes are, younger folks (or the very old). who skateboards? rides a bike? takes countless chances on countless things? young people. now, some might be financially better off to pay the fine.

but the trick is, how do you know if it's you or not? why would people say it's responsible to have insurance, so as not to burden others...and then tell others not to buy it?