Article about the alleged "safety net"

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

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?

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

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.