Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[RKMBrown]

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.

That is not the case in my example. Some tax incentives are an abuse of taxation power. I argue that some tax deductions are not an abuse of taxation power. For example, sale tax, property tax, and state income tax deductions, where the amount of taxes you have paid out of your income is not also taxed by the feds. How is not taxing income that the states TOOK and abuse of power? Assuming you agree that not all tax incentives are an "abuse" of taxation power. Now explain how not taxing "voluntary" charity is and abuse of taxation power. Who is being abused? What is the abuse?

 

[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?

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...

Why do you think being in one of the two age groups you specified makes you "truly defenseless?"

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

And yet our society hasn't made access to healthcare available to everyone.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

And yet our society hasn't made access to healthcare available to everyone.

Of course it has. Nobody is denied ability to access healthcare anywhere and nobody is denied ability to live someplace where healthcare is within driving distance. People do what they have to do to build medical clinics, hospitals, and attract doctors where they are needed. Providing healthcare and making it accessible are two different things. Our society does not provide food for all, shelter for all, clothing for all, heating for all, transportation for all, etc. etc. either because most are perfectly capable of providing for themselves and their loved ones to have such necessities of life and they should provide that for themselves.

 

[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...

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

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

What the federal government does is consistently provide assistance. If you give X amount to charity when you can afford to, you probably give less when you can't--say you had a life event that required those funds or simply were saving up for something. Nobody is saying you shouldn't but what those who are on public assistance need is to be able to plan on the assistance being there.

The State does it because it is the only one who can. I'm happy it does.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

What the federal government does is consistently provide assistance. If you give X amount to charity when you can afford to, you probably give less when you can't--say you had a life event that required those funds or simply were saving up for something. Nobody is saying you shouldn't but what those who are on public assistance need is to be able to plan on the assistance being there.

The State does it because it is the only one who can. I'm happy it does.

I believe we are morally obligated to fulfill our obligations for those made dependent on government. And I believe that a moral government does not make people dependent on that government.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

What the federal government does is consistently provide assistance. If you give X amount to charity when you can afford to, you probably give less when you can't--say you had a life event that required those funds or simply were saving up for something. Nobody is saying you shouldn't but what those who are on public assistance need is to be able to plan on the assistance being there.

The State does it because it is the only one who can. I'm happy it does.

I believe we are morally obligated to fulfill our obligations for those made dependent on government. And I believe that a moral government does not make people dependent on that government.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part but agree with you on the second part. There should be no government dependency/generational welfare. The best way to ween people off? That is a matter for debate.

One way to do that is to foce them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

 

[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.

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

What the federal government does is consistently provide assistance. If you give X amount to charity when you can afford to, you probably give less when you can't--say you had a life event that required those funds or simply were saving up for something. Nobody is saying you shouldn't but what those who are on public assistance need is to be able to plan on the assistance being there.

The State does it because it is the only one who can. I'm happy it does.

The problem is, people don't need assistance consistently. Sometimes they need a lot, sometimes none at all. And what on earth make you think the state is the "one" that can help people?

 

[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...

Why do you think being in one of the two age groups you specified makes you "truly defenseless?"

Most kids do not have insurance. A great amount of seniors have to decide between medicine and food. Real life example; when I worked at Target back in the day...one lady bought cat food for herself to eat.

 

[dblack]

One way to do that is to force them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

People ought to be held accountable for their bills, but where do you get off telling them how to go about it? This is just a sales pitch by the insurance industry.

 

[candycorn]

One way to do that is to force them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

People ought to be held accountable for their bills, but where do you get off telling them how to go about it? This is just a sales pitch by the insurance industry.

Okay, play that out to the end game. Here is what happens. Ms. Jane Doe has to have an emergency appendectomy because she doesn't have insurance and doesn't go to the doctor unless she is sick; no check-ups. So she goes to County General and has an operation that would cost her $25,000 conservatively. Great. Now the County Hospital funded by your tax money has to try to collect that $25K that she isn't going to ever re-pay. Now not only are you funding a county hospital, you're funding a collections branch. And gee, when she doesn't pay, you gonna throw her in jail for theft of services? Good idea.

 

[dblack]

One way to do that is to force them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

People ought to be held accountable for their bills, but where do you get off telling them how to go about it? This is just a sales pitch by the insurance industry.

Okay, play that out to the end game. Here is what happens. Ms. Jane Doe has to have an emergency appendectomy because she doesn't have insurance and doesn't go to the doctor unless she is sick; no check-ups. So she goes to County General and has an operation that would cost her $25,000 conservatively. Great. Now the County Hospital funded by your tax money has to try to collect that $25K that she isn't going to ever re-pay. Now not only are you funding a county hospital, you're funding a collections branch. And gee, when she doesn't pay, you gonna throw her in jail for theft of services? Good idea.

No. If and when she actually does the dastardly deeds you're predicting, then you can force her to buy insurance, as her punishment, and your insurance company stocks would reap the benefits. But until she actually proves herself irresponsible, mind your own business. Guilty until proven innocent isn't the way things should work.

 

[candycorn]

One way to do that is to force them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

People ought to be held accountable for their bills, but where do you get off telling them how to go about it? This is just a sales pitch by the insurance industry.

Okay, play that out to the end game. Here is what happens. Ms. Jane Doe has to have an emergency appendectomy because she doesn't have insurance and doesn't go to the doctor unless she is sick; no check-ups. So she goes to County General and has an operation that would cost her $25,000 conservatively. Great. Now the County Hospital funded by your tax money has to try to collect that $25K that she isn't going to ever re-pay. Now not only are you funding a county hospital, you're funding a collections branch. And gee, when she doesn't pay, you gonna throw her in jail for theft of services? Good idea.

No. If and when she actually does the dastardly deeds you're predicting, then you can force her to buy insurance, as her punishment, and your insurance company stocks would reap the benefits. But until she actually proves herself irresponsible, mind your own business. Guilty until proven innocent isn't the way things should work.

Well, I don't think it's a dastardly deed. She isn't committing intentional fraud; she is going for an emergency procedure.

As for insruance company stock, whatever dude.

The ACA is the law of the land. Vote for someone who will repeal it if you don't like it. Sorry.

 

[dblack]

One way to do that is to force them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

People ought to be held accountable for their bills, but where do you get off telling them how to go about it? This is just a sales pitch by the insurance industry.

Okay, play that out to the end game. Here is what happens. Ms. Jane Doe has to have an emergency appendectomy because she doesn't have insurance and doesn't go to the doctor unless she is sick; no check-ups. So she goes to County General and has an operation that would cost her $25,000 conservatively. Great. Now the County Hospital funded by your tax money has to try to collect that $25K that she isn't going to ever re-pay. Now not only are you funding a county hospital, you're funding a collections branch. And gee, when she doesn't pay, you gonna throw her in jail for theft of services? Good idea.

No. If and when she actually does the dastardly deeds you're predicting, then you can force her to buy insurance, as her punishment, and your insurance company stocks would reap the benefits. But until she actually proves herself irresponsible, mind your own business. Guilty until proven innocent isn't the way things should work.

Well, I don't think it's a dastardly deed. She isn't committing intentional fraud; she is going for an emergency procedure.

As for insruance company stock, whatever dude.

The ACA is the law of the land. Vote for someone who will repeal it if you don't like it. Sorry.

So you have no principled defense of the law - just "get over it"? Figures.

Anyway, if you don't think racking up bills you can't pay for is "dastardly", why do you want to punish people for not buying insurance?

 

[candycorn]

One way to do that is to force them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

People ought to be held accountable for their bills, but where do you get off telling them how to go about it? This is just a sales pitch by the insurance industry.

Okay, play that out to the end game. Here is what happens. Ms. Jane Doe has to have an emergency appendectomy because she doesn't have insurance and doesn't go to the doctor unless she is sick; no check-ups. So she goes to County General and has an operation that would cost her $25,000 conservatively. Great. Now the County Hospital funded by your tax money has to try to collect that $25K that she isn't going to ever re-pay. Now not only are you funding a county hospital, you're funding a collections branch. And gee, when she doesn't pay, you gonna throw her in jail for theft of services? Good idea.

No. If and when she actually does the dastardly deeds you're predicting, then you can force her to buy insurance, as her punishment, and your insurance company stocks would reap the benefits. But until she actually proves herself irresponsible, mind your own business. Guilty until proven innocent isn't the way things should work.

Well, I don't think it's a dastardly deed. She isn't committing intentional fraud; she is going for an emergency procedure.

As for insruance company stock, whatever dude.

The ACA is the law of the land. Vote for someone who will repeal it if you don't like it. Sorry.

So you have no principled defense of the law - just "get over it"? Figures.

Oh, I have principled defense of the law; you've heard them before.

*having more insured people is better than having fewer
*allowing kids to stay on a parent's insurance until they are 26 is great because it prevents people from having to pay for insurance for college kids etc...
*Forcing insurance companies to offer coverage to people with PECs assures that persons with those diseases can get insurance
*no lifetime caps is great because some kids--newborns in fact--can require multiple surgeries that costs tens of thousands of dollars

The law is popular, easy to defend, and for the most part, nothing changed about your insurance plan. This is why the candidates have been largely mute on the subject so far.

Anyway, if you don't think racking up bills you can't pay for is "dastardly", why do you want to punish people for not buying insurance?

If your choice is death or racking up bills, I don't think it is dastardly to choose to rack up the bills--what would you do?

I want people to buy insurance. It means less tax monies to go toward County hospitals. As an incentive, the tax penalty exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

What the federal government does is consistently provide assistance. If you give X amount to charity when you can afford to, you probably give less when you can't--say you had a life event that required those funds or simply were saving up for something. Nobody is saying you shouldn't but what those who are on public assistance need is to be able to plan on the assistance being there.

The State does it because it is the only one who can. I'm happy it does.

I believe we are morally obligated to fulfill our obligations for those made dependent on government. And I believe that a moral government does not make people dependent on that government.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part but agree with you on the second part. There should be no government dependency/generational welfare. The best way to ween people off? That is a matter for debate.

One way to do that is to foce them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

How about expecting and requiring people to pay the bills they run up? That would be a pretty good incentive to buy insurane. I believe government forcing people to buy a product dictated by government is just as immoral as making people dependent on government.

 

[candycorn]

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

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

What the federal government does is consistently provide assistance. If you give X amount to charity when you can afford to, you probably give less when you can't--say you had a life event that required those funds or simply were saving up for something. Nobody is saying you shouldn't but what those who are on public assistance need is to be able to plan on the assistance being there.

The State does it because it is the only one who can. I'm happy it does.

I believe we are morally obligated to fulfill our obligations for those made dependent on government. And I believe that a moral government does not make people dependent on that government.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part but agree with you on the second part. There should be no government dependency/generational welfare. The best way to ween people off? That is a matter for debate.

One way to do that is to foce them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

How about expecting and requiring people to pay the bills they run up? That would be a pretty good incentive to buy insurane. I believe government forcing people to buy a product dictated by government is just as immoral as making people dependent on government.

Hasn't worked in the past...hence medical costs being the #1 source of personal bankruptcy in the nation.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies Study

Additionaly in the past, you couldn't get insurance if you had some PECs, and lifetime caps rendered insurance benefits almost worthless.

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly. Most of us who have been influenced by a JudeoChristian culture, even if we are not religious ourselves, still mostly support the concept that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us. But that does not translate that the state is the best or even a good means of doing that. It is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

Likewise, most of us believe that a moral society makes access to healthcare available to everybody. But it is not hateful and selfish to believe the central government is not a good or best means of doing that.

What the federal government does is consistently provide assistance. If you give X amount to charity when you can afford to, you probably give less when you can't--say you had a life event that required those funds or simply were saving up for something. Nobody is saying you shouldn't but what those who are on public assistance need is to be able to plan on the assistance being there.

The State does it because it is the only one who can. I'm happy it does.

I believe we are morally obligated to fulfill our obligations for those made dependent on government. And I believe that a moral government does not make people dependent on that government.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part but agree with you on the second part. There should be no government dependency/generational welfare. The best way to ween people off? That is a matter for debate.

One way to do that is to foce them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

How about expecting and requiring people to pay the bills they run up? That would be a pretty good incentive to buy insurane. I believe government forcing people to buy a product dictated by government is just as immoral as making people dependent on government.

Hasn't worked in the past...hence medical costs being the #1 source of personal bankruptcy in the nation.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies Study

Additionaly in the past, you couldn't get insurance if you had some PECs, and lifetime caps rendered insurance benefits almost worthless.

That became the case after government started meddling with healthcare and taking it over for large segments of the population. It was not tthe case before.

 

[candycorn]

What the federal government does is consistently provide assistance. If you give X amount to charity when you can afford to, you probably give less when you can't--say you had a life event that required those funds or simply were saving up for something. Nobody is saying you shouldn't but what those who are on public assistance need is to be able to plan on the assistance being there.

The State does it because it is the only one who can. I'm happy it does.

I believe we are morally obligated to fulfill our obligations for those made dependent on government. And I believe that a moral government does not make people dependent on that government.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part but agree with you on the second part. There should be no government dependency/generational welfare. The best way to ween people off? That is a matter for debate.

One way to do that is to foce them to buy their own insurance so they aren't just seeing a doctor when they show up at the emergency room.

How about expecting and requiring people to pay the bills they run up? That would be a pretty good incentive to buy insurane. I believe government forcing people to buy a product dictated by government is just as immoral as making people dependent on government.

Hasn't worked in the past...hence medical costs being the #1 source of personal bankruptcy in the nation.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies Study

Additionaly in the past, you couldn't get insurance if you had some PECs, and lifetime caps rendered insurance benefits almost worthless.

That became the case after government started meddling with healthcare and taking it over for large segments of the population. It was not tthe case before.

That is a false statement on your part.