Dot Com
Nullius in verba
wouldn't surprise me if she got job placement assistance at the state-level either. IOW's she was SENT to her job. Now she claims to be a boot strapper
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message
- Thread starter Procrustes Stretched
- Start date
wouldn't surprise me if she got job placement assistance at the state-level either. IOW's she was SENT to her job. Now she claims to be a boot strapper
Dear Luddly:
I think you and Stephanie are equally balanced, left and right,
(or you and PoliticalChic; and Sallow and Stephanie.)
You couldn't really answer to how are the ACA regulations and mandates
"prochoice" if liberals claim to want to keep government out of personal health decisions.
So you claim to be prochoice when it comes to free choice of abortion,
but not went it comes to the free choice of health care which is not as dangerous.
Doesn't that seem just as mindless to critics?
P.S. If Political Chic is your karmic opposite evil twin,
and Sallow and Stephanie are equal evil opposites,
I think Jake Starkey may be my equal karmic opposite.
If we could all come to terms with our most extreme opposites,
maybe this would give us better insights in how to solve problems
independently of our beliefs and biases. If solutions are truly
effective in addressing objections on all sides, wouldn't people
on all sides support them? If we only push concepts that resolve our issues but
overrule the objections of others, isn't that being onesided and incomplete?
Wouldn't the best comprehensive solutions include everyone's input to satisfy all interests?
Luddly if we are to embrace diversity and include everyone's voice equally, why compete to undercut those we disagree with? isn't that the same coercive bullying tactic we oppose?
I think you and Stephanie are equally balanced, left and right,
(or you and PoliticalChic; and Sallow and Stephanie.)
You couldn't really answer to how are the ACA regulations and mandates
"prochoice" if liberals claim to want to keep government out of personal health decisions.
So you claim to be prochoice when it comes to free choice of abortion,
but not went it comes to the free choice of health care which is not as dangerous.
Doesn't that seem just as mindless to critics?
@Stephanie saying she took government aid but is against it for others, reminds me of this other rw hypocrite. How many more millions brainless rw hypocrite are there?
Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube
P.S. If Political Chic is your karmic opposite evil twin,
and Sallow and Stephanie are equal evil opposites,
I think Jake Starkey may be my equal karmic opposite.
If we could all come to terms with our most extreme opposites,
maybe this would give us better insights in how to solve problems
independently of our beliefs and biases. If solutions are truly
effective in addressing objections on all sides, wouldn't people
on all sides support them? If we only push concepts that resolve our issues but
overrule the objections of others, isn't that being onesided and incomplete?
Wouldn't the best comprehensive solutions include everyone's input to satisfy all interests?
Luddly if we are to embrace diversity and include everyone's voice equally, why compete to undercut those we disagree with? isn't that the same coercive bullying tactic we oppose?
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,931
- 9,965
- 2,040
oh shut, I was poor in my childhood, we got charity boxes of government rations, like cheese, bread, flour, etc....and we survived (which we were frikken grateful for) and at others times we had to cut back on some things..THAT'S CALL LIFE
no you were probably born with a silver spoon in your mouth it's no wonder you accuse people of wanting to stave people..it's about a low as you can crawl
being a liberal is easy, you can stand on a soap box and say and post thread like this, because if any on you had any honor you know we are not looking to starve people...but as for one penny be cut from any entitlement and this is YOUr UGLY SPEW
[MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] - Yet another rw who got a hand up but doesn't think anyone else should.
Or, are you saying you got the help you needed and it made you a lazy bum and you never again held a job?
You've also said you now get Social Security AND Medicare but you don't think others should.
Hypocrite.
wouldn't surprise me if she got job placement assistance at the state-level either. IOW's she was SENT to her job. Now she claims to be a boot strapper
What is it with certain rw's to always lie about their own circumstance? I don't think there's any shame in getting a hand up. Nor is there anything wrong with getting and using the Social Security and Medicare you paid into.
But, to deny it to others is just wrong. IMO, its the very definition of meanness of spirit.
We're all human beings, we're all just trying to live our lives the best way we know how.
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] Not every thread/forum is a platform for your ACA rant any more than every thread is a place for Gismo's bible thumping. He can post his preaching in Religion and you've got the Healthcare forum.
RandomVariable
VIP Member
- Jan 7, 2014
- 5,103
- 360
- 85
I've been reading along, taking notes, and highlighting text of Ryan's "War of Poverty" document. I was going to wait until I got through the whole thing before posting a summary. The first part is a page or two on each safety net program; short description, pros and cons, and total cost. I just got to page 85, National School Lunch Program. The document states that, "The academic literature suggests that the NSLP contributes to childhood obesity, but overall findings are inconclusive." The titles of the two comments in the pros and cons are "NSPL contributes to obesity among schoolchildren." and "Participating low-income girls see an increase in body mass index." As someone who got one filling meal a day that I ate with relish thanks to NSLP I would like to say something to a certain someone who supports tax cuts for the top tax bracket, I am not saying who, I do hope he does not take this the wrong way. I would like to say, "Please go fuck yourself."
The right just loves starving kids though. LyinRyan considers hunger a good thing - even though he was also helped by public programs.
The good news is that every time that that serial liar opens his mouth, the R loses votes.
The bad news is their gerrymandering and stealing votes will probably give them some wins.
oh shut, I was poor in my childhood, we got charity boxes of government rations, like cheese, bread, flour, etc....and we survived (which we were frikken grateful for) and at others times we had to cut back on some things..THAT'S CALL LIFE
no you were probably born with a silver spoon in your mouth it's no wonder you accuse people of wanting to stave people..it's about a low as you can crawl
being a liberal is easy, you can stand on a soap box and say and post thread like this, because if any on you had any honor you know we are not looking to starve people...but as for one penny be cut from any entitlement and this is YOUr UGLY SPEW
If your impression is as it seems to be by this post it is a very tragic concept of what Ryan proposes. The one percent understand that Ryan's budget slashes social programs drastically so they can get a tax cut. To low income people, which I am not saying you are, the Ryan budget is sold as reform and cutting the waste that is overpayment to intercity blacks. The poor Republicans believe this will improve how the government works and jobs will come to their town. Truth of the matter the 1% know the truth, these cuts are across the board and drastic. Ryan's budget cuts $135 billion from SNAP, cutting million of families from the program. This isn't a one penny cut. Under Ryan's budget every low-income family in this country would be significantly altered. If Ryan's budget was implemented the day it was would go down in American history as great as any New Deal or another declaration of a new tomorrow as anything this country has experienced. It can not be overstated just how fundamentally different this country would be after a Ryan budget. People who have absolutely no clue how the other half live sit and read biased research papers which reconfirm their beliefs and then people will billions to spare hire ad agencies to pump out the propaganda so the low income will take the very poison which will kill them.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,931
- 9,965
- 2,040
Yes. Ryan's "budget" actually adds to the debt.
RandomVariable
VIP Member
- Jan 7, 2014
- 5,103
- 360
- 85
Hi [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION], No it isn't just about ACA
it's about FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS to both this issue,
ACA and related issues like this one, AT THE SAME TIME.
A lot of issues on here have been polarized
"against rw" or "for or against liberal positions".
THAT is the same issue that PREVENTS focusing on bipartisan solutions.
ACA is just another example, which I am trying to RESOLVE AT THE SAME TIME
instead of back and forth bashing on all these as "separate" issues when they are RELATED.
I DID propose a solution. See thread for "Proposed Amendments" on Equality of Political Beliefs which INCLUDES Right to Health Care.
How many BIPARTISAN solutions have YOU Proposed Luddly???
That seek to resolve and INCLUDE issues on BOTH the left and right EQUALLY?
Shouldn't our federal govt and laws reflect CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS
that all people agree on including all parties?
If we can resolve the conflicts over ACA, the SAME SOLUTIONS can solve all related issues --
INCLUDING THIS ISSUE OF "ANTI-POVERTY" OR WELFARE THAT COULD BE REPLACED
WITH MICROLENDING IF BOTH PARTIES FOCUSED ON SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF DIFFERENCES.
ACA and this issue BOTH allow an opportunity to propose BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONS
for ALL ISSUES OF POLITICAL BELIEFS INSTEAD OF BASHING LEFT AND RIGHT.
Sorry you misunderstand my messages and intent, Luddly.
If you don't see that the SAME SOLUTIONS can solve RELATED partisan conflicts over:
ACA, corporate and social welfare, prison and immigration reform, etc. YOU MISS MY POINT!
Instead, you have grouped me along with "rw" you attack
and do not understand me as a fellow prochoice progressive liberal/Democrat
for Equal Rights. So of course you do not understand my messages either --
if you only see me as about ACA or about RW views, YOU MISS THE POINT.
P.S. I have an idea for a separate thread and project for GISMYS to work on that might solve that problem, too.
I am into SOLUTIONS to the ROOT CAUSE of conflict, not blaming one side and thinking that solves anything!
Luddly -- If you want or need to hash this issue out in a separate thread,
I am MORE than happy to resolve it so it doesn't keep coming up in other threads.
It's the "same issue" of political bias and attacking people for their beliefs,
while claiming to respect equal Constitutional rights under law.
Unlike you "attacking and excluding rw beliefs" I DO include prochoice
and progay beliefs EQUALLY as antigay and prolife/pro-govt health care beliefs.
So Luddly if you are tired of this argument, I am happy to go into the
Bullring and offer my approach and yours and see which one is more about EQUAL RIGHTS: Your approach to prochoice, pro-govt health care, pro-gay marriage that EXCLUDES the prolife, pro-free market, and anti-gay beliefs
vs. the approach I advocate that treats ALL such political beliefs EQUALLY
as choices under law and requires CONSENSUS before federal laws are passed
which are supposed to represent the entire population, regardless of views.
Luddly I don't even think we disagree: I believe prochoice positions are the default because they include both sides. Where we disagree is on the PROCESS of reaching a consensus; I do not agree with the bashing and exclusion/coercion back and forth. While you appear to "react against rw" in response to the discrimination the other way; that is where we differ.
Sorry you still see the need to bash and exclude others you fear because you disagree.
I believe in INCLUSION and resolving conflicts to reach a consensus.
That is the best way I know to treat and protect all people of all views equally.
Luddly THAT is the issue for me, and it touches everything and everyone on this forum.
It is "not just about ACA" which is merely a venue for getting this resolved in government.
Thank you, Luddly.
Let me know if we need a separate thread or debate under Bullring to get this straight.
But by the time we agree what the question or issue is, we will likely have a solution!
That's usually how the process goes.
Sorry you do not like that either, you seem to complain about that, too.
But that is the process of RECONCILING different views instead of
competing to exclude each other. It IS a different process and takes more work!
Sorry for that as well.
Yours truly,
Emily
it's about FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS to both this issue,
ACA and related issues like this one, AT THE SAME TIME.
A lot of issues on here have been polarized
"against rw" or "for or against liberal positions".
THAT is the same issue that PREVENTS focusing on bipartisan solutions.
ACA is just another example, which I am trying to RESOLVE AT THE SAME TIME
instead of back and forth bashing on all these as "separate" issues when they are RELATED.
I DID propose a solution. See thread for "Proposed Amendments" on Equality of Political Beliefs which INCLUDES Right to Health Care.
How many BIPARTISAN solutions have YOU Proposed Luddly???
That seek to resolve and INCLUDE issues on BOTH the left and right EQUALLY?
Shouldn't our federal govt and laws reflect CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS
that all people agree on including all parties?
If we can resolve the conflicts over ACA, the SAME SOLUTIONS can solve all related issues --
INCLUDING THIS ISSUE OF "ANTI-POVERTY" OR WELFARE THAT COULD BE REPLACED
WITH MICROLENDING IF BOTH PARTIES FOCUSED ON SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF DIFFERENCES.
ACA and this issue BOTH allow an opportunity to propose BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONS
for ALL ISSUES OF POLITICAL BELIEFS INSTEAD OF BASHING LEFT AND RIGHT.
Sorry you misunderstand my messages and intent, Luddly.
If you don't see that the SAME SOLUTIONS can solve RELATED partisan conflicts over:
ACA, corporate and social welfare, prison and immigration reform, etc. YOU MISS MY POINT!
Instead, you have grouped me along with "rw" you attack
and do not understand me as a fellow prochoice progressive liberal/Democrat
for Equal Rights. So of course you do not understand my messages either --
if you only see me as about ACA or about RW views, YOU MISS THE POINT.
[MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] - Yet another rw who got a hand up but doesn't think anyone else should.
Or, are you saying you got the help you needed and it made you a lazy bum and you never again held a job?
You've also said you now get Social Security AND Medicare but you don't think others should.
Hypocrite.
wouldn't surprise me if she got job placement assistance at the state-level either. IOW's she was SENT to her job. Now she claims to be a boot strapper
What is it with certain rw's to always lie about their own circumstance? I don't think there's any shame in getting a han
d up. Nor is there anything wrong with getting and using the Social Security and Medicare you paid into.
But, to deny it to others is just wrong. IMO, its the very definition of meanness of spirit.
We're all human beings, we're all just trying to live our lives the best way we know how.
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] Not every thread/forum is a platform for your ACA rant any more than every thread is a place for Gismo's bible thumping. He can post his preaching in Religion and you've got the Healthcare forum.
P.S. I have an idea for a separate thread and project for GISMYS to work on that might solve that problem, too.
I am into SOLUTIONS to the ROOT CAUSE of conflict, not blaming one side and thinking that solves anything!
Luddly -- If you want or need to hash this issue out in a separate thread,
I am MORE than happy to resolve it so it doesn't keep coming up in other threads.
It's the "same issue" of political bias and attacking people for their beliefs,
while claiming to respect equal Constitutional rights under law.
Unlike you "attacking and excluding rw beliefs" I DO include prochoice
and progay beliefs EQUALLY as antigay and prolife/pro-govt health care beliefs.
So Luddly if you are tired of this argument, I am happy to go into the
Bullring and offer my approach and yours and see which one is more about EQUAL RIGHTS: Your approach to prochoice, pro-govt health care, pro-gay marriage that EXCLUDES the prolife, pro-free market, and anti-gay beliefs
vs. the approach I advocate that treats ALL such political beliefs EQUALLY
as choices under law and requires CONSENSUS before federal laws are passed
which are supposed to represent the entire population, regardless of views.
Luddly I don't even think we disagree: I believe prochoice positions are the default because they include both sides. Where we disagree is on the PROCESS of reaching a consensus; I do not agree with the bashing and exclusion/coercion back and forth. While you appear to "react against rw" in response to the discrimination the other way; that is where we differ.
Sorry you still see the need to bash and exclude others you fear because you disagree.
I believe in INCLUSION and resolving conflicts to reach a consensus.
That is the best way I know to treat and protect all people of all views equally.
Luddly THAT is the issue for me, and it touches everything and everyone on this forum.
It is "not just about ACA" which is merely a venue for getting this resolved in government.
Thank you, Luddly.
Let me know if we need a separate thread or debate under Bullring to get this straight.
But by the time we agree what the question or issue is, we will likely have a solution!
That's usually how the process goes.
Sorry you do not like that either, you seem to complain about that, too.
But that is the process of RECONCILING different views instead of
competing to exclude each other. It IS a different process and takes more work!
Sorry for that as well.
Yours truly,
Emily
Last edited:
Yes. Ryan's "budget" actually adds to the debt.
Dear Luddly:
When is Obama or any other Democrat in Congress
going to propose implementing his "microlending" idea for shifting
from welfare to sustainable methods of hand ups instead of hand outs.
If I am the only Democrat on here pushing for a system
paying back corporate and social welfare so there are no complaints of deadbeats
at taxpayers expense, why do you insist on slamming me as just another rw opponent?
I'm sorry if you don't see the ACA as an opportunity to introduce welfare,
prison and immigration reforms. Why not solve several conflicts at once
with ONE COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION instead of fighting individual battles?
That's my point and my purpose.
To find the most cost-effective, sustainable and Constitutionally inclusive solutions
to stop abuse and waste of government resources.
Yours truly,
Emily
from the conservative Heritage Foundation
Why I do not trust conservatives when it comes to criticism of Obamacare
Heritage Foundation: 'Mandate All Households To Obtain Adequate Insurance' | ThinkProgress
[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]
Question, Dante:
Do you also find disturbing conflict of interest
in why prochoice liberals criticize regulations on abortion that risk a "slippery slope"
of controlling FREE CHOICE and reproductive freedom,
but then don't apply the same to criticisms of restrictions, mandates and penalties
on the FREE CHOICE in paying for health care in general?
Why is due process and stopping govt intrusion an issue in one case,
but there are "no real liberties lost" in the other?
If you DISCOUNT conservative arguments that seem to be politically driven,
what about liberal arguments? Does this bother you at all?
Or is regulating free choice truly justified to you in one case and not the other?
Is it politically motivated, and if so, are they both equally unfair?
- Thread starter
- #90
from the conservative Heritage Foundation
Why I do not trust conservatives when it comes to criticism of Obamacare
Heritage Foundation: 'Mandate All Households To Obtain Adequate Insurance' | ThinkProgress
[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]
Question, Dante:
Do you also find disturbing conflict of interest
in why prochoice liberals criticize regulations on abortion that risk a "slippery slope"
of controlling FREE CHOICE and reproductive freedom,
but then don't apply the same to criticisms of restrictions, mandates and penalties
on the FREE CHOICE in paying for health care in general?
Why is due process and stopping govt intrusion an issue in one case,
but there are "no real liberties lost" in the other?
If you DISCOUNT conservative arguments that seem to be politically driven,
what about liberal arguments? Does this bother you at all?
Or is regulating free choice truly justified to you in one case and not the other?
Is it politically motivated, and if so, are they both equally unfair?
Fair? Life isn't fair. Politically motivated? Depends on the individual players and their motivations. It's situational. Lots of things I agree with, laws included, may trouble me, but that is life. The payment known as the mandate/penalty is justified in my not-so-humble-opinion, but only because it was the only compromise that could get through the system. I'd prefer a single payer system for basic health care insurance as Switzerland put into affect a few years back (I should re-check out how it is working) with private insurance markets for those who wanted more... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/couchepin.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/couchepin.html
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] It appears you are a bit confused with principle and ideology.
1) abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues, ones own body and pregnancy; a medical choice that may or may not affect the life of a woman who is pregnant. It's very personal and in the opinion of many religious busy bodies or the state have no overriding interest that could possibly be of any value, unless of course one hides behind being a self-appointed protector of an unborn human being, a fetus. This choice or result of a sexual act between individuals should not be a state/government issue.
2) health care insurance: read the law ad the Supreme Court opinion where it is explained why the principles involved.
The 'free choice' is to pay for health care insurance, which historically the state will end up paying for in the end, or to accept the 'shared responsibility payment' in the law, known as the penalty within the mandate, that functions as a tax for the constitutional purposes of the ruling.
See?
Last edited:
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
[MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] - Yet another rw who got a hand up but doesn't think anyone else should.
Or, are you saying you got the help you needed and it made you a lazy bum and you never again held a job?
You've also said you now get Social Security AND Medicare but you don't think others should.
Hypocrite.
wouldn't surprise me if she got job placement assistance at the state-level either. IOW's she was SENT to her job. Now she claims to be a boot strapper
What is it with certain rw's to always lie about their own circumstance? I don't think there's any shame in getting a hand up. Nor is there anything wrong with getting and using the Social Security and Medicare you paid into.
But, to deny it to others is just wrong. IMO, its the very definition of meanness of spirit.
We're all human beings, we're all just trying to live our lives the best way we know how.
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] Not every thread/forum is a platform for your ACA rant any more than every thread is a place for Gismo's bible thumping. He can post his preaching in Religion and you've got the Healthcare forum.
^ that
and this v
BTW [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] overall I do respect your belief that this bill frees up more choices FOR YOU
because you assume insurance is needed anyway to pay costs, so to you, it is not
losing any freedom, but working within the choices anyway.
That's fine, but please understand this is the same logic of prolife advocates do not believe banning abortion
would eliminate choices either because they wouldn't chose that anyway!
Or why govt imposing Christian prayer wouldn't affect their freedom if "they would choose it anyway."
I don't think you like when people "of other beliefs" imposing THEIR choices on you through govt.
They feel similar to you, here, where if the "choice" is needed anyway, and helps more people by "mandating it through govt," why not?
Clearly this only works if you AGREE with that choice, and would choose it anyway, or you would argue that govt is abused to push someone's beliefs or agenda, wouldn't you?
Dante if you are going to impose YOUR standards of what is free choice on
people who don't agree, think about when Christians or prolife people impose
limits on choices where they don't see any loss or threat to freedom either.
I can appreciate if this bill helps YOU protect YOUR CHOICES, but please "equally respect the free choice of others" who are deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms.
Hi Dante: Thanks for the extra effort to clarify this in detail; I think it is very important to make some distinctions here:
(1a) the issue of choice is one thing - and leads to admitting the problem is "faith-based" arguments and beliefs in defending the "right to life" equally as the "right to choice."
As long as the "right to life" arguments DEPEND on faith based arguments such as "when does life begin" and what constitutes a person protected by law, etc., then these arguments "technically" don't hold up under Constitutional requirements to keep religious bias out of govt authority and laws. Otherwise, the right to life could be defended equally as right to choice -- the problem is not letting "faith based beliefs" get imposed by law.
That's ONE issue
(1b) the other is DUE PROCESS. Even if both sides AGREED against abortion, the problem remains that punitive laws "after pregnancy occurs" are going to affect the women more than the man in the decisions made, including legal burdens and punishment if this is illegal. I believe this issue should be addressed separately from the choice/life issue.
I believe it was the "due process" issue that got the law struck down by Roe v. Wade.
Again there are at least TWO different issues here, Dante
(2a) If it is a tax, then it violates the principle of "no taxation without representation"
For the taxpayers who dissent, and do not agree to the terms of the taxation, this is causing multiple layers of problems as a result.
Any person or politician who is HONEST and seeking to REPRESENT the public would LISTEN to the objections and try to work them out in good faith. Anyone who DENIES the objections and dismisses the complaints as invalid is not representing those citizens.
So the spirit of the legislation is off to begin with if it does not represent the whole public.
(2b) there are OTHER ways to pay for health care that were not even addressed.
Sorry, Dante, but it is NOT "free choice" to mandate that people buy insurance and to penalize 'all other ways' of paying for health care - especially when these "other ways" are NEEDED ANYWAY because insurance does NOT cover all costs or all people. This is punitive and regulating choices, especially where health care involves religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction.
I mentioned prison reforms where those costs taxpayers are already paying could easily pay for educational and medical loans, for example. Also immigration and drug policy reform could also free up BILLIONS of STATE dollars to pay for health care per STATE.
Dante the problem is the President wanted to make this a FEDERAL issue so he can take control as President. He wanted to initiate action, but as President he has to keep it FEDERAL.
If the health and prison problems were delegated to STATES then GOVERNORS and local reps would have responsibility, and the President could not control that process.
Dante, I cannot tell you enough that the problems need to be addressed and represented LOCALLY by STATE.
Where the FEDERAL authority comes in
is that PEOPLE and States DO reserve equal Constitutional rights to due process, petitioning and protection of the laws.
So we should INDEED take the SPIRIT of the Constitutional laws on a Federal and empower local CITIZENS and STATES to set up Constitutional protections LOCALLY using LOCAL programs and resources to manage sustainable systems.
If we delegate this to the States and people locally there is more DIRECT access, representation and accountability.
Instead, if you go through Federal levels and Congress, then it takes a lot more process to reform and make adjustments to policies/programs needed PER STATE, and each STATE has different populations to represent and serve, so their process is different.
It is selfish, shortsighted and unfair to push policies for whole states uniformly through Congress where it naturally is going to backlog the system in conflict because too many people and interests cannot be covered by one generic policy.
The federal law should have simply made it mandatory for states to manage their own health care where nobody is forced to foot the bill for expenses from other people's irresponsibility except where people AGREE to pay for those costs.
So if people AGREE to pay for insurance, or pay for hospitals or ER for others,
whatever methods or groups citizens AGREE to pay for, everyone remains free to meet their terms and work out the plans; but people CANNOT force taxpayers to pay, for example, for drug addicts who refuse to get help or commit crimes and send people to the hospital, or pay for people either to have abortions if they don't believe in that or pay to have kids as welfare tickets if they don't agree. States can set up microlending with requirements to pay back welfare, similar to educational loans, and work with charities or schools to set up medical programs where people work off their education, internships or residencies, by serving the public through clinics and teaching hospitals.
There are any number of ways to cover health care, especially by addressing prison and immigration reforms at the same time.
The federal level could oversee the security and public regulations, but the states have to address and represent their local populations to equally include all citizens.
the federal level is not designed for those specific needs.
So that is where the individual liberties or free choice are completely wiped out by these federal mandates.
The mandates selectively penalize options other than "insurance" while politically granting exemptions to whole groups. So it is not equal protection or equal choice, but only serves certain political agenda and criteria.
It makes NO sense to penalize choices such as 'charitable donations' to pay for health care or even medical facilities, programs or education directly,
when all these other avenues are NEEDED ANYWAY.
If health care reform were pursued by investing FIRST in developing programs needed to PROVIDE for public health, education and services, then people would naturally use insurance and other means to manage all the costs and services.
Instead the legislation sought to mandate insurance first, which deprived citizens of liberty to pay for health care and develop programs by FREE WILL, by business, charitable and educational outreach.
So it is basically PUNISHING people for NOT depending on federal govt to mandate insurance. Instead it should be REWARDING states and people for setting up better coverage and programs for people, and respecting natural freedom to create these locally.
because you assume insurance is needed anyway to pay costs, so to you, it is not
losing any freedom, but working within the choices anyway.
That's fine, but please understand this is the same logic of prolife advocates do not believe banning abortion
would eliminate choices either because they wouldn't chose that anyway!
Or why govt imposing Christian prayer wouldn't affect their freedom if "they would choose it anyway."
I don't think you like when people "of other beliefs" imposing THEIR choices on you through govt.
They feel similar to you, here, where if the "choice" is needed anyway, and helps more people by "mandating it through govt," why not?
Clearly this only works if you AGREE with that choice, and would choose it anyway, or you would argue that govt is abused to push someone's beliefs or agenda, wouldn't you?
Dante if you are going to impose YOUR standards of what is free choice on
people who don't agree, think about when Christians or prolife people impose
limits on choices where they don't see any loss or threat to freedom either.
I can appreciate if this bill helps YOU protect YOUR CHOICES, but please "equally respect the free choice of others" who are deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms.
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] It appears you are a bit confused with principle and ideology.
1) abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues, ones own body and pregnancy; a medical choice that may or may not affect the life of a woman who is pregnant. It's very personal and in the opinion of many religious busy bodies or the state have no overriding interest that could possibly be of any value, unless of course one hides behind being a self-appointed protector of an unborn human being, a fetus. This choice or result of a sexual act between individuals should not be a state/government issue.
Hi Dante: Thanks for the extra effort to clarify this in detail; I think it is very important to make some distinctions here:
(1a) the issue of choice is one thing - and leads to admitting the problem is "faith-based" arguments and beliefs in defending the "right to life" equally as the "right to choice."
As long as the "right to life" arguments DEPEND on faith based arguments such as "when does life begin" and what constitutes a person protected by law, etc., then these arguments "technically" don't hold up under Constitutional requirements to keep religious bias out of govt authority and laws. Otherwise, the right to life could be defended equally as right to choice -- the problem is not letting "faith based beliefs" get imposed by law.
That's ONE issue
(1b) the other is DUE PROCESS. Even if both sides AGREED against abortion, the problem remains that punitive laws "after pregnancy occurs" are going to affect the women more than the man in the decisions made, including legal burdens and punishment if this is illegal. I believe this issue should be addressed separately from the choice/life issue.
I believe it was the "due process" issue that got the law struck down by Roe v. Wade.
Dante said:2) health care insurance: read the law ad the Supreme Court opinion where it is explained why the principles involved.
The 'free choice' is to pay for health care insurance, which historically the state will end up paying for in the end, or to accept the 'shared responsibility payment' in the law, known as the penalty within the mandate, that functions as a tax for the constitutional purposes of the ruling.
See?
Again there are at least TWO different issues here, Dante
(2a) If it is a tax, then it violates the principle of "no taxation without representation"
For the taxpayers who dissent, and do not agree to the terms of the taxation, this is causing multiple layers of problems as a result.
Any person or politician who is HONEST and seeking to REPRESENT the public would LISTEN to the objections and try to work them out in good faith. Anyone who DENIES the objections and dismisses the complaints as invalid is not representing those citizens.
So the spirit of the legislation is off to begin with if it does not represent the whole public.
(2b) there are OTHER ways to pay for health care that were not even addressed.
Sorry, Dante, but it is NOT "free choice" to mandate that people buy insurance and to penalize 'all other ways' of paying for health care - especially when these "other ways" are NEEDED ANYWAY because insurance does NOT cover all costs or all people. This is punitive and regulating choices, especially where health care involves religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction.
I mentioned prison reforms where those costs taxpayers are already paying could easily pay for educational and medical loans, for example. Also immigration and drug policy reform could also free up BILLIONS of STATE dollars to pay for health care per STATE.
Dante the problem is the President wanted to make this a FEDERAL issue so he can take control as President. He wanted to initiate action, but as President he has to keep it FEDERAL.
If the health and prison problems were delegated to STATES then GOVERNORS and local reps would have responsibility, and the President could not control that process.
Dante, I cannot tell you enough that the problems need to be addressed and represented LOCALLY by STATE.
Where the FEDERAL authority comes in
is that PEOPLE and States DO reserve equal Constitutional rights to due process, petitioning and protection of the laws.
So we should INDEED take the SPIRIT of the Constitutional laws on a Federal and empower local CITIZENS and STATES to set up Constitutional protections LOCALLY using LOCAL programs and resources to manage sustainable systems.
If we delegate this to the States and people locally there is more DIRECT access, representation and accountability.
Instead, if you go through Federal levels and Congress, then it takes a lot more process to reform and make adjustments to policies/programs needed PER STATE, and each STATE has different populations to represent and serve, so their process is different.
It is selfish, shortsighted and unfair to push policies for whole states uniformly through Congress where it naturally is going to backlog the system in conflict because too many people and interests cannot be covered by one generic policy.
The federal law should have simply made it mandatory for states to manage their own health care where nobody is forced to foot the bill for expenses from other people's irresponsibility except where people AGREE to pay for those costs.
So if people AGREE to pay for insurance, or pay for hospitals or ER for others,
whatever methods or groups citizens AGREE to pay for, everyone remains free to meet their terms and work out the plans; but people CANNOT force taxpayers to pay, for example, for drug addicts who refuse to get help or commit crimes and send people to the hospital, or pay for people either to have abortions if they don't believe in that or pay to have kids as welfare tickets if they don't agree. States can set up microlending with requirements to pay back welfare, similar to educational loans, and work with charities or schools to set up medical programs where people work off their education, internships or residencies, by serving the public through clinics and teaching hospitals.
There are any number of ways to cover health care, especially by addressing prison and immigration reforms at the same time.
The federal level could oversee the security and public regulations, but the states have to address and represent their local populations to equally include all citizens.
the federal level is not designed for those specific needs.
So that is where the individual liberties or free choice are completely wiped out by these federal mandates.
The mandates selectively penalize options other than "insurance" while politically granting exemptions to whole groups. So it is not equal protection or equal choice, but only serves certain political agenda and criteria.
It makes NO sense to penalize choices such as 'charitable donations' to pay for health care or even medical facilities, programs or education directly,
when all these other avenues are NEEDED ANYWAY.
If health care reform were pursued by investing FIRST in developing programs needed to PROVIDE for public health, education and services, then people would naturally use insurance and other means to manage all the costs and services.
Instead the legislation sought to mandate insurance first, which deprived citizens of liberty to pay for health care and develop programs by FREE WILL, by business, charitable and educational outreach.
So it is basically PUNISHING people for NOT depending on federal govt to mandate insurance. Instead it should be REWARDING states and people for setting up better coverage and programs for people, and respecting natural freedom to create these locally.
Last edited:
R
rdean
Guest
we know that you all have run out of idea on how to attack and smear people
so we now have ANTI-POVERTY programs, when the hell did we get that? Get that title from the slimes folks
You all must feel desperate? must be that almost 60% disapproval of your dear leader his Democrat comrades in arms
the LAslimes is just what they are, slimy and in the back pockets of the DNC
take anything they say with a grain of salt
and the laslimes is so worried about poverty, why aren't they out raising money for "the people in poverty"?
oh wait, they expect all you TAXPAYERS to use your monies
The "master" speaks. No DB like DB.
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,880
- 265
Ryan is a 'butt boy' for the Koches.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
He's looking forward to all those campaign contributions they'll give him.Ryan is a 'butt boy' for the Koches.
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,880
- 265
He's looking forward to all those campaign contributions they'll give him.Ryan is a 'butt boy' for the Koches.
Glove Up!!!
How much money do we have to spend on LBJ's failed 50 year old "war on poverty" to convince the low information left that it freaking don't work? Poverty programs have been set up by crooked democrat administrations to make government pimps rich and destroy minority families. Somehow it translates to votes for democrats.
One thing democrats are skilled at is propaganda. How a backward reactionary party ever hijacked the word "progressive" is anybody's guess. Democrats make Putin look like a progressive. The issue ain't about helping people out of poverty. If it was, democrats would be behind an effort to streamline the "war on poverty" instead of blocking every effort to fix the failed policy that has torn Black families apart and created more poverty than it helped.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 127
- Views
- 3K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 162
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 402
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8038
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-