Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[RKMBrown]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

The question is whether Obamacare is the 'right thing'. I have certainly not seen any evidence of that, and if the GOP manages to repeal it, it will be because that is what their constituents want them to do. It sure isn't any skin off their nose as Obama and the Democrats conveniently exempted themselves from it when they passed the legislation.

Amy Neftzger wrote in The Orchard of Hope: "They don't see what they're doing. The only thing they see are their intentions."

Albert Camus is quoted as saying: "The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding."

John Stuart Mills wrote on the subject of liberty: ". . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, (or the good of others), is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. . . ."

No matter how pure or noble the intentions for Obamacare might have been, if it is not what the people want, and most especially if it does more harm than good, then it should not continue.

No, whether or not Obamacare is the right thing or the best thing is not the issue. The issue is whether FORCING Obamacare on the American people is the right thing. That is the issue here. Do we want to live in a free country ... or not.

 

[candycorn]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

The question is whether Obamacare is the 'right thing'. I have certainly not seen any evidence of that, and if the GOP manages to repeal it, it will be because that is what their constituents want them to do. It sure isn't any skin off their nose as Obama and the Democrats conveniently exempted themselves from it when they passed the legislation.

Amy Neftzger wrote in The Orchard of Hope: "They don't see what they're doing. The only thing they see are their intentions."

Albert Camus is quoted as saying: "The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding."

John Stuart Mills wrote on the subject of liberty: ". . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, (or the good of others), is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. . . ."

No matter how pure or noble the intentions for Obamacare might have been, if it is not what the people want, and most especially if it does more harm than good, then it should not continue.

Well, you've stumbled upon the truth; those in power make the rules. The politics will play out as follows:

If the GOP repeals, they pretty much have written off any chance of winning over the majority of the largest growing ethnic demographic; the Hispanic vote and further exacerbate the already estranged relationship the GOP has with the black community. Needless to say that the females who by and large are the ones who make the doctors visits and pay attention to the fine nuances in policies will also take note.

The "win" will be that a shrinking demographic of "wronged" citizens will rejoice all while not realizing that they are worse off for it.

Getting rid of the ACA to pacify a shrinking demographic of outraged folks will be a hollow victory at best.

 

[candycorn]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

The question is whether Obamacare is the 'right thing'. I have certainly not seen any evidence of that, and if the GOP manages to repeal it, it will be because that is what their constituents want them to do. It sure isn't any skin off their nose as Obama and the Democrats conveniently exempted themselves from it when they passed the legislation.

Amy Neftzger wrote in The Orchard of Hope: "They don't see what they're doing. The only thing they see are their intentions."

Albert Camus is quoted as saying: "The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding."

John Stuart Mills wrote on the subject of liberty: ". . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, (or the good of others), is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. . . ."

No matter how pure or noble the intentions for Obamacare might have been, if it is not what the people want, and most especially if it does more harm than good, then it should not continue.

No, whether or not Obamacare is the right thing or the best thing is not the issue. The issue is whether FORCING Obamacare on the American people is the right thing. That is the issue here. Do we want to live in a free country ... or not.

Nothing was forced. The Congress voted and the President signed the bill. Just like practically every other expenditure the government makes. Your problem is that you only want to pay for things you support. The government doesn't work that way and it never has.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

CC;

Please define "the right thing". Don't use buzz words. I would like to hear it defined in terms of variables that can be tracked and correlated (as much as possible) to inputs.

I've asked people on both sides of the aisle to define things like this for some time and I rarely get a good response.

 

[RKMBrown]

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

The question is whether Obamacare is the 'right thing'. I have certainly not seen any evidence of that, and if the GOP manages to repeal it, it will be because that is what their constituents want them to do. It sure isn't any skin off their nose as Obama and the Democrats conveniently exempted themselves from it when they passed the legislation.

Amy Neftzger wrote in The Orchard of Hope: "They don't see what they're doing. The only thing they see are their intentions."

Albert Camus is quoted as saying: "The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding."

John Stuart Mills wrote on the subject of liberty: ". . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, (or the good of others), is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. . . ."

No matter how pure or noble the intentions for Obamacare might have been, if it is not what the people want, and most especially if it does more harm than good, then it should not continue.

No, whether or not Obamacare is the right thing or the best thing is not the issue. The issue is whether FORCING Obamacare on the American people is the right thing. That is the issue here. Do we want to live in a free country ... or not.

Nothing was forced. The Congress voted and the President signed the bill. Just like practically every other expenditure the government makes. Your problem is that you only want to pay for things you support. The government doesn't work that way and it never has.

Incorrect force is force. Hiding force behind a law is does not make it voluntary.

 

[candycorn]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

CC;

Please define "the right thing". Don't use buzz words. I would like to hear it defined in terms of variables that can be tracked and correlated (as much as possible) to inputs.

I've asked people on both sides of the aisle to define things like this for some time and I rarely get a good response.

I feel that the "right thing" would be to offer free healthcare assistance to any citizen under 18 and over 65. Those are the two groups who are most affected by disease and often face the most challenges to rehabilitate their bodies. The key word is "offer" and "assistance".

The offering doesn't mean State hospitals or orphanages. It means that if you have a gap between your private insurance and the costs of your bill, Uncle Sam steps in. Costs should be no barrier for those in those two demographics to get medical care. If you're uninsured, obviously the Federal Government isn't on the hook for the entire bill...that was what the ACA is about; moving from paying all of the healthcare for the uninsured to moving those persons onto insurance policies.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

CC;

Please define "the right thing". Don't use buzz words. I would like to hear it defined in terms of variables that can be tracked and correlated (as much as possible) to inputs.

I've asked people on both sides of the aisle to define things like this for some time and I rarely get a good response.

I feel that the "right thing" would be to offer free healthcare assistance to any citizen under 18 and over 65. Those are the two groups who are most affected by disease and often face the most challenges to rehabilitate their bodies. The key word is "offer" and "assistance".

The offering doesn't mean State hospitals or orphanages. It means that if you have a gap between your private insurance and the costs of your bill, Uncle Sam steps in. Costs should be no barrier for those in those two demographics to get medical care. If you're uninsured, obviously the Federal Government isn't on the hook for the entire bill...that was what the ACA is about; moving from paying all of the healthcare for the uninsured to moving those persons onto insurance policies.

ROFL... cost should be no barrier... 1billion, no problem... 1trillion... no barrier. Cost is no object health care. Gotta love it. Oh but only if you are in the two blessed groups everyone else... bend over the prepare to receive your medicine.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

CC;

Please define "the right thing". Don't use buzz words. I would like to hear it defined in terms of variables that can be tracked and correlated (as much as possible) to inputs.

I've asked people on both sides of the aisle to define things like this for some time and I rarely get a good response.

I feel that the "right thing" would be to offer free healthcare assistance to any citizen under 18 and over 65. Those are the two groups who are most affected by disease and often face the most challenges to rehabilitate their bodies. The key word is "offer" and "assistance".

The offering doesn't mean State hospitals or orphanages. It means that if you have a gap between your private insurance and the costs of your bill, Uncle Sam steps in. Costs should be no barrier for those in those two demographics to get medical care. If you're uninsured, obviously the Federal Government isn't on the hook for the entire bill...that was what the ACA is about; moving from paying all of the healthcare for the uninsured to moving those persons onto insurance policies.

ROFL... cost should be no barrier... 1billion, no problem... 1trillion... no barrier. Cost is no object health care. Gotta love it. Oh but only if you are in the two blessed groups everyone else... bend over the prepare to receive your medicine.

Oh well, you'd have to have a 6th grade education to understand it. You don't qualify.

Perhaps you can explain what the limit is then. How much is too much for uncle samy to spend on someone's health care? This should be easy for you, you being a health care expert and all.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

CC;

Please define "the right thing". Don't use buzz words. I would like to hear it defined in terms of variables that can be tracked and correlated (as much as possible) to inputs.

I've asked people on both sides of the aisle to define things like this for some time and I rarely get a good response.

I feel that the "right thing" would be to offer free healthcare assistance to any citizen under 18 and over 65. Those are the two groups who are most affected by disease and often face the most challenges to rehabilitate their bodies. The key word is "offer" and "assistance".

The offering doesn't mean State hospitals or orphanages. It means that if you have a gap between your private insurance and the costs of your bill, Uncle Sam steps in. Costs should be no barrier for those in those two demographics to get medical care. If you're uninsured, obviously the Federal Government isn't on the hook for the entire bill...that was what the ACA is about; moving from paying all of the healthcare for the uninsured to moving those persons onto insurance policies.

ROFL... cost should be no barrier... 1billion, no problem... 1trillion... no barrier. Cost is no object health care. Gotta love it. Oh but only if you are in the two blessed groups everyone else... bend over the prepare to receive your medicine.

Oh well, you'd have to have a 6th grade education to understand it. You don't qualify.

Perhaps you can explain what the limit is then. How much is too much for uncle samy to spend on someone's health care? This should be easy for you, you being a health care expert and all.

I was asked a question and I answered it. I would never call myself an expert...but if I were to have been the one to try to re-vamp our healthcare system, I'd have started with ensuring the most at-risk. There is no reason nor justification for innocent children to suffer. Nor is there any good reason to not try to alleviate someone's suffering in their Autumn years.

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring? I'm guessing it's $0.00. It's okay. You're a conservative...hate is a product of the environment in which you were raised. You're expected to hate everything and everybody. Politically, it's the reason the GOP is still somewhat popular. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[dblack]

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring?

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

 

[RKMBrown]

CC;

Please define "the right thing". Don't use buzz words. I would like to hear it defined in terms of variables that can be tracked and correlated (as much as possible) to inputs.

I've asked people on both sides of the aisle to define things like this for some time and I rarely get a good response.

I feel that the "right thing" would be to offer free healthcare assistance to any citizen under 18 and over 65. Those are the two groups who are most affected by disease and often face the most challenges to rehabilitate their bodies. The key word is "offer" and "assistance".

The offering doesn't mean State hospitals or orphanages. It means that if you have a gap between your private insurance and the costs of your bill, Uncle Sam steps in. Costs should be no barrier for those in those two demographics to get medical care. If you're uninsured, obviously the Federal Government isn't on the hook for the entire bill...that was what the ACA is about; moving from paying all of the healthcare for the uninsured to moving those persons onto insurance policies.

ROFL... cost should be no barrier... 1billion, no problem... 1trillion... no barrier. Cost is no object health care. Gotta love it. Oh but only if you are in the two blessed groups everyone else... bend over the prepare to receive your medicine.

Oh well, you'd have to have a 6th grade education to understand it. You don't qualify.

Perhaps you can explain what the limit is then. How much is too much for uncle samy to spend on someone's health care? This should be easy for you, you being a health care expert and all.

I was asked a question and I answered it. I would never call myself an expert...but if I were to have been the one to try to re-vamp our healthcare system, I'd have started with ensuring the most at-risk. There is no reason nor justification for innocent children to suffer. Nor is there any good reason to not try to alleviate someone's suffering in their Autumn years.

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring? I'm guessing it's $0.00. It's okay. You're a conservative...hate is a product of the environment in which you were raised. You're expected to hate everything and everybody. Politically, it's the reason the GOP is still somewhat popular. What they do is take a hate-filled bag of puss like yourself and point at others and say "Hate them." Idiots like yourself are only too happy to oblige since, you know,it's ALL you know and understand.

What does ensuring the most at risk mean? Make certain that "what" shall occur?

Ensuring that no one goes without anything? How much do these poor suffering people get? 1million? 10million? 1trillion? 50trillion? How much? What limit are you setting on how much uncle sammy is gonna spend on the poor suffering people?

Try to alleviate their suffering? What does that mean? Who? Who is suffering RIGHT NOW? Who is not having their pain alleviated? What the heck are you talking about? Your call for spending is nothing but a false meme that there is some drastic problem with our old system in this country. The primary goal of Obama care was to destroy the current system by driving it bankrupt while redistributing even more income and generating more democrat voters who demand even more money from other people's income.

My limit for hand-outs is the old system of medicaid, which is welfare after means testing, though I'd really prefer to change it to an all voluntary system of welfare. Where you get to choose to spend your income on charity such as handup systems and get a 100% tax deduction. IMO charity should be voluntary not forced. Forced charity is not charity at all, it's redistribution of income by threat of violence.

We don't need a federal welfare system, charities do a better job.

 

[RKMBrown]

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring?

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

I don't understand the apparent democrat mentality that if the federal government is not doing something about welfare, it's not happening and everyone is suffering. I just don't get it. Tens of thousands of charities and they think the feds are the ones to bankroll. This cause the feds have proven to be good managers of... ___????

 

[dblack]

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring?

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

I don't understand the apparent democrat mentality that if the federal government is not doing something about welfare, it's not happening and everyone is suffering. I just don't get it. Tens of thousands of charities and they think the feds are the ones to bankroll. This cause the feds have proven to be good managers of... ___????

It's hard to not recognize what they really saying - "I want to see someone else forced to help the poor because I don't want to deal with it."

 

[RKMBrown]

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring?

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

I don't understand the apparent democrat mentality that if the federal government is not doing something about welfare, it's not happening and everyone is suffering. I just don't get it. Tens of thousands of charities and they think the feds are the ones to bankroll. This cause the feds have proven to be good managers of... ___????

It's hard to not recognize what they really saying - "I want to see someone else forced to help the poor because I don't want to deal with it."

Maybe, I guess if they don't have any significant amount of taxes, for example less than ten percent... then they would see the feds taking care of it as a "discount" on tithing to help the poor.

Me... I'd like to see some serious tax break for charity. I think that's the answer. Not just a break on taxable income but rather a 1 to 1 reduction of taxes owed. All the way up to 10% of income..

 

[dblack]

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring?

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

I don't understand the apparent democrat mentality that if the federal government is not doing something about welfare, it's not happening and everyone is suffering. I just don't get it. Tens of thousands of charities and they think the feds are the ones to bankroll. This cause the feds have proven to be good managers of... ___????

It's hard to not recognize what they really saying - "I want to see someone else forced to help the poor because I don't want to deal with it."

Maybe, I guess if they don't have any significant amount of taxes, for example less than ten percent... then they would see the feds taking care of it as a "discount" on tithing to help the poor.

Me... I'd like to see some serious tax break for charity. I think that's the answer. Not just a break on taxable income but rather a 1 to 1 reduction of taxes owed. All the way up to 10% of income..

No. No more dumbass games with the tax code. If we want to be a caring society, we will be. If we don't, we won't.

 

[RKMBrown]

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring?

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

I don't understand the apparent democrat mentality that if the federal government is not doing something about welfare, it's not happening and everyone is suffering. I just don't get it. Tens of thousands of charities and they think the feds are the ones to bankroll. This cause the feds have proven to be good managers of... ___????

It's hard to not recognize what they really saying - "I want to see someone else forced to help the poor because I don't want to deal with it."

Maybe, I guess if they don't have any significant amount of taxes, for example less than ten percent... then they would see the feds taking care of it as a "discount" on tithing to help the poor.

Me... I'd like to see some serious tax break for charity. I think that's the answer. Not just a break on taxable income but rather a 1 to 1 reduction of taxes owed. All the way up to 10% of income..

No. No more dumbass games with the tax code. If we want to be a caring society, we will be. If we don't, we won't.

How is a making charitable donations voluntary a dumb ass game with the tax code? We already have a place on the tax code where we enter our charitable donations. For which the tax code currently reduces your taxable income. My point was that if you move that from taxable income to the taxes owed line. Suddenly you have the ability to choose where your charitable donations go.. to an actual charity... or to the federal government so they can choose where your charity money goes.

 

[Ravi]

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

And that proves what ?

Supposed I said I knew several who had not paid taxes and were in jail.

What would that mean ?

you can go awhile not paying taxes I still have not paid my 2013 and now 2014 taxes to the IRS out of protest over Obama care, but then again I don't owe thousands of dollars

Thank you for being honest. Several people that have worked for me didn't pay their taxes and none are in jail. But it affects ME with paperwork and dealing with the IRS. I don't need or want high maintenance people working for me.

 

[dblack]

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

I don't understand the apparent democrat mentality that if the federal government is not doing something about welfare, it's not happening and everyone is suffering. I just don't get it. Tens of thousands of charities and they think the feds are the ones to bankroll. This cause the feds have proven to be good managers of... ___????

It's hard to not recognize what they really saying - "I want to see someone else forced to help the poor because I don't want to deal with it."

Maybe, I guess if they don't have any significant amount of taxes, for example less than ten percent... then they would see the feds taking care of it as a "discount" on tithing to help the poor.

Me... I'd like to see some serious tax break for charity. I think that's the answer. Not just a break on taxable income but rather a 1 to 1 reduction of taxes owed. All the way up to 10% of income..

No. No more dumbass games with the tax code. If we want to be a caring society, we will be. If we don't, we won't.

How is a making charitable donations voluntary a dumb ass game with the tax code?

It's not. But we don't need to dole out tax breaks to achieve that. Tax incentives are an abuse of the taxation power. They're mandates, as Justice Roberts has made very clear, and effectively the same as penalizing people who don't do as they're told.

 

[candycorn]

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring?

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

Well, as I understood the question posed by Sun Devil 92 Devil 92, I was supposed to state what I thought the winning position was (aka the right thing).

If we're going to spend money on welfare, we should aim at the truly defenseless...

 

[dblack]

But since you brought it up, tell us what is your limit for caring?

Has it ever occurred to you that caring and advocacy of state welfare are different concerns?

Well, as I understood the question posed by Sun Devil 92 Devil 92, I was supposed to state what I thought the winning position was (aka the right thing).

If we're going to spend money on welfare, we should aim at the truly defenseless...

I'm just commenting on the claim that people opposed to state welfare are hateful and selfish.