Do they hear themselves?

[Jarhead]

Ok here's one and it directly relates to your story.

I am "paying in to the system" and now that the man in your story has insurance he will be able to see a doctor before the problem he has gets out of control. He will be able to see a general family doctor instead of using the ER as his personal physician. Yes, I am helping to pay for his coverage (just like I already was before), but at least I am doing it for a plan that will allow him to get healthcare at a much cheaper cost than rushing to the ER where the costs he would incur would be passed on to me anyway but at a much higher rate.

So there is your story from someone who is paying in to the system and is seeing benefits from the ACA.

excellent answer and one I will not attempt to refute with the exception of one point....

I highly doubt everyone who did not have insurance had to use the ER last year.

Likely, s small minority of those people did.

But now ALL of them are being suibsidized.

Seems to me it will prove to be much more costly.

Just basic logic, math and economics.

I don't disagree. Yes, it will be more costly. But in my mind, at the very least I'm glad that everyone can now partake in our shitty system.

So where does it end?

And if what you described is not wealth redistribution, then how would you define wealth redistribution?

Lets take the word "wealth" out of the formula. After all, that implies those paying into the system are wealthy.

Lets just call it income redistribution.

If it is not income redistribution and it isn't philanthropy/charity.....

Then what is it?

 

[RDD_1210]

excellent answer and one I will not attempt to refute with the exception of one point....

I highly doubt everyone who did not have insurance had to use the ER last year.

Likely, s small minority of those people did.

But now ALL of them are being suibsidized.

Seems to me it will prove to be much more costly.

Just basic logic, math and economics.

I don't disagree. Yes, it will be more costly. But in my mind, at the very least I'm glad that everyone can now partake in our shitty system.

So where does it end?

And if what you described is not wealth redistribution, then how would you define wealth redistribution?

Lets take the word "wealth" out of the formula. After all, that implies those paying into the system are wealthy.

Lets just call it income redistribution.

If it is not income redistribution and it isn't philanthropy/charity.....

Then what is it?

I'm not arguing that it isn't a redistribution. But so is paying for the fire department, police department or any other service that you may not personally benefit from but is for the good of society. And I'm ok with that. I think all people should receive the same basic access to healthcare even if that means I have to pay more to make that happen.

 

[Jarhead]

I don't disagree. Yes, it will be more costly. But in my mind, at the very least I'm glad that everyone can now partake in our shitty system.

So where does it end?

And if what you described is not wealth redistribution, then how would you define wealth redistribution?

Lets take the word "wealth" out of the formula. After all, that implies those paying into the system are wealthy.

Lets just call it income redistribution.

If it is not income redistribution and it isn't philanthropy/charity.....

Then what is it?

I'm not arguing that it isn't a redistribution. But so is paying for the fire department, police department or any other service that you may not personally benefit from but is for the good of society. And I'm ok with that. I think all people should receive the same basic access to healthcare even if that means I have to pay more to make that happen.

That is how you feel.

But what about the 27 year old guy who is down on his luck? He needs a car so he can have more options for employment. But you (theoretically) have decided he needs healthcare more...even though the car will likely prove to be more beneficial to him...and he would be thrilled to have a car and use the ER if he needed to over no car and a great healthcare plan.

So as good as your intentions are.....even the RECEIVER is being told that someone else knows better than he does as to what he wants and needs.

I have never argued welfare/foodstamps.....I believe in those programs.

But forcing healthcare on someone and forcing someone else to pay for it?

Not right.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Zzzzz, we get it. The poor people in this country are keeping you down.

That is your retort? Just a half ass slam on the poster?

His post was tired old rehash of the same crap.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what he said, but I hate it anyway since it's revealing the real nature of my agenda that I'd rather keep secret. So I'll call it names, and hope somebody thinks there's something wrong with what he said, instead of realizing something's wrong with my agenda.

 

[martybegan]

I don't disagree. Yes, it will be more costly. But in my mind, at the very least I'm glad that everyone can now partake in our shitty system.

So where does it end?

And if what you described is not wealth redistribution, then how would you define wealth redistribution?

Lets take the word "wealth" out of the formula. After all, that implies those paying into the system are wealthy.

Lets just call it income redistribution.

If it is not income redistribution and it isn't philanthropy/charity.....

Then what is it?

I'm not arguing that it isn't a redistribution. But so is paying for the fire department, police department or any other service that you may not personally benefit from but is for the good of society. And I'm ok with that. I think all people should receive the same basic access to healthcare even if that means I have to pay more to make that happen.

The police and fire department are not "redistribution." They are also local functions, paid for, as it should be, by local funding. In Obamacare people are not paying for general coverage, as in with cops or fireman, they are covering someone else's costs for a direct service, i.e. going to a doctor.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The police and fire department are not "redistribution." They are also local functions, paid for, as it should be, by local funding. In Obamacare people are not paying for general coverage, as in with cops or fireman, they are covering someone else's costs for a direct service, i.e. going to a doctor.

Of course. Police and fire departments are groups that do a service in return for what they are paid. Ditto for soldiers (even if they are poorly paid), people building govt buildings, people maintaining stat and local parks, people staffing embassies, people building fighter planes etc.

"Redistribution" refers to the govt transferring our tax money to people who did nothing to earn it.

As I said, this "redistribution" is theft, purely and simply. Theft, and the fencing of stolen goods. Whether it's done by a guy with a mask and a gun, or done by government.

 

[RDD_1210]

So where does it end?

And if what you described is not wealth redistribution, then how would you define wealth redistribution?

Lets take the word "wealth" out of the formula. After all, that implies those paying into the system are wealthy.

Lets just call it income redistribution.

If it is not income redistribution and it isn't philanthropy/charity.....

Then what is it?

I'm not arguing that it isn't a redistribution. But so is paying for the fire department, police department or any other service that you may not personally benefit from but is for the good of society. And I'm ok with that. I think all people should receive the same basic access to healthcare even if that means I have to pay more to make that happen.

That is how you feel.

But what about the 27 year old guy who is down on his luck? He needs a car so he can have more options for employment. But you (theoretically) have decided he needs healthcare more...even though the car will likely prove to be more beneficial to him...and he would be thrilled to have a car and use the ER if he needed to over no car and a great healthcare plan.

So as good as your intentions are.....even the RECEIVER is being told that someone else knows better than he does as to what he wants and needs.

I have never argued welfare/foodstamps.....I believe in those programs.

But forcing healthcare on someone and forcing someone else to pay for it?

Not right.

And that's how you feel. I'm sure there are some out there who think they are immune to becoming sick/injured. But no one is and even the young get sick and need medical attention. We can play the scenario game all day long, but where does that get us?

The ACA is by no means ideal or even a good solution, but it's better than what we had before. It's shit, don't get me wrong, but it's slightly less shitty than our system was pre-ACA.

 

[Jarhead]

That is your retort? Just a half ass slam on the poster?

His post was tired old rehash of the same crap.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what he said, but I hate it anyway since it's revealing the real nature of my agenda that I'd rather keep secret. So I'll call it names, and hope somebody thinks there's something wrong with what he said, instead of realizing something's wrong with my agenda.

Actually, he made it clear that he agrees with it as redistribution. He is sick and tired of people saying it.

Truth is, I have not heard anyone deny it as redistribution.

It is. and we all know it.

But is redistribution the right thing to do?

RDD believes it is in the case of healthcare.

But maybe some prefer OTHER necessities instead?

 

[RDD_1210]

That is your retort? Just a half ass slam on the poster?

His post was tired old rehash of the same crap.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what he said, but I hate it anyway since it's revealing the real nature of my agenda that I'd rather keep secret. So I'll call it names, and hope somebody thinks there's something wrong with what he said, instead of realizing something's wrong with my agenda.

Thanks for translating. I was having trouble understanding what I really meant. Good thing you came to the rescue.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not arguing that it isn't a redistribution. But so is paying for the fire department, police department or any other service that you may not personally benefit from but is for the good of society. And I'm ok with that. I think all people should receive the same basic access to healthcare even if that means I have to pay more to make that happen.

That is how you feel.

But what about the 27 year old guy who is down on his luck? He needs a car so he can have more options for employment. But you (theoretically) have decided he needs healthcare more...even though the car will likely prove to be more beneficial to him...and he would be thrilled to have a car and use the ER if he needed to over no car and a great healthcare plan.

So as good as your intentions are.....even the RECEIVER is being told that someone else knows better than he does as to what he wants and needs.

I have never argued welfare/foodstamps.....I believe in those programs.

But forcing healthcare on someone and forcing someone else to pay for it?

Not right.

And that's how you feel. I'm sure there are some out there who think they are immune to becoming sick/injured. But no one is and even the young get sick and need medical attention. We can play the scenario game all day long, but where does that get us?

The ACA is by no means ideal or even a good solution, but it's better than what we had before. It's shit, don't get me wrong, but it's slightly less shitty than our system was pre-ACA.

It is not about people thinking they were immune.

but the ACA had an alternative.

The ER.

But you (as a collective of healthcare supporters) decided ER is not a worthy alternative and they should be forced to take healthcare as their entitlement.

 

[RDD_1210]

So where does it end?

And if what you described is not wealth redistribution, then how would you define wealth redistribution?

Lets take the word "wealth" out of the formula. After all, that implies those paying into the system are wealthy.

Lets just call it income redistribution.

If it is not income redistribution and it isn't philanthropy/charity.....

Then what is it?

I'm not arguing that it isn't a redistribution. But so is paying for the fire department, police department or any other service that you may not personally benefit from but is for the good of society. And I'm ok with that. I think all people should receive the same basic access to healthcare even if that means I have to pay more to make that happen.

The police and fire department are not "redistribution." They are also local functions, paid for, as it should be, by local funding. In Obamacare people are not paying for general coverage, as in with cops or fireman, they are covering someone else's costs for a direct service, i.e. going to a doctor.

Police and fire are redistribution. But if you want to play semantics games, have at it. I'm not paying for someone specific health insurance coverage. I am contributing to a pool that helps cover people who need help. Same as with Fire and police.

 

[RDD_1210]

His post was tired old rehash of the same crap.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what he said, but I hate it anyway since it's revealing the real nature of my agenda that I'd rather keep secret. So I'll call it names, and hope somebody thinks there's something wrong with what he said, instead of realizing something's wrong with my agenda.

Actually, he made it clear that he agrees with it as redistribution. He is sick and tired of people saying it.

Truth is, I have not heard anyone deny it as redistribution.

It is. and we all know it.

But is redistribution the right thing to do?

RDD believes it is in the case of healthcare.

But maybe some prefer OTHER necessities instead?

I don't think anything is more important than health. Do you?

 

[martybegan]

I'm not arguing that it isn't a redistribution. But so is paying for the fire department, police department or any other service that you may not personally benefit from but is for the good of society. And I'm ok with that. I think all people should receive the same basic access to healthcare even if that means I have to pay more to make that happen.

The police and fire department are not "redistribution." They are also local functions, paid for, as it should be, by local funding. In Obamacare people are not paying for general coverage, as in with cops or fireman, they are covering someone else's costs for a direct service, i.e. going to a doctor.

Police and fire are redistribution. But if you want to play semantics games, have at it. I'm not paying for someone specific health insurance coverage. I am contributing to a pool that helps cover people who need help. Same as with Fire and police.

Not even close. With police and fire everyone gets the service, and you pay people to provide the service to everyone. With Obamacare only some people get the help, and the rest of us pay the bill. People get subsidies based on the sole fact that they meet certain income based requirements. THAT is redistribution, taking my money to pay specifically for a service to someone else.

Insurance is a risk management pool, not redistribution, if everyone paid accoridng to thier risks that is. Once you start subsidizing, you are re-distributing money.

 

[Little-Acorn]

His post was tired old rehash of the same crap.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what he said, but I hate it anyway since it's revealing the real nature of my agenda that I'd rather keep secret. So I'll call it names, and hope somebody thinks there's something wrong with what he said, instead of realizing something's wrong with my agenda.

Actually, he made it clear that he agrees with it as redistribution. He is sick and tired of people saying it.

Truth is, I have not heard anyone deny it as redistribution.

It is. and we all know it.

But is redistribution the right thing to do?

RDD believes it is in the case of healthcare.

But maybe some prefer OTHER necessities instead?

I break into your house and steal your TV, your computer, your and your son's ATVs, all your wife's jewelry, and your daughter's autographed picture of Justin Beiber.

If you later find out that I sold them and gave most of the proceedings to the poor, keeping only enough to feed myself, my family, and pay for the truck I used to haul all the stuff away from your house... and I gave one of the ATVs to my son because he really, really wanted to have an ATV....

....will you then say, "Well, that's OK, then," and drop the matter?

Theft is theft.

One of the crowning absurdities of today's leftists, is that even after that's pointed out to them... they actually start trying to find reasons to justify it!

 

[RDD_1210]

That is how you feel.

But what about the 27 year old guy who is down on his luck? He needs a car so he can have more options for employment. But you (theoretically) have decided he needs healthcare more...even though the car will likely prove to be more beneficial to him...and he would be thrilled to have a car and use the ER if he needed to over no car and a great healthcare plan.

So as good as your intentions are.....even the RECEIVER is being told that someone else knows better than he does as to what he wants and needs.

I have never argued welfare/foodstamps.....I believe in those programs.

But forcing healthcare on someone and forcing someone else to pay for it?

Not right.

And that's how you feel. I'm sure there are some out there who think they are immune to becoming sick/injured. But no one is and even the young get sick and need medical attention. We can play the scenario game all day long, but where does that get us?

The ACA is by no means ideal or even a good solution, but it's better than what we had before. It's shit, don't get me wrong, but it's slightly less shitty than our system was pre-ACA.

It is not about people thinking they were immune.

but the ACA had an alternative.

The ER.

But you (as a collective of healthcare supporters) decided ER is not a worthy alternative and they should be forced to take healthcare as their entitlement.

But the ER is not a good alternative. But the ACA does more than just that. It removes coverage caps and removes the restrictions on pre-existing conditions. Both changes that impact many people in a positive way. Again, this allows everyone to partake in our shitty system.

If you want to fight for the right of people to be able to not purchase health insurance and then show up at an ER and force me to pay for their healthcare that way, that's your right to advocate for that. But that doesn't help all the people who DO want health insurance and couldn't get it, or all those people who were denied coverage because of their pre-existing conditions or those people who had insurance and still went bankrupt due to medical bills. These are all things addresses in the ACA that to me make it a better option than what we had before.

 

[g5000]

The police and fire department are not "redistribution." They are also local functions, paid for, as it should be, by local funding. In Obamacare people are not paying for general coverage, as in with cops or fireman, they are covering someone else's costs for a direct service, i.e. going to a doctor.

Police and fire are redistribution. But if you want to play semantics games, have at it. I'm not paying for someone specific health insurance coverage. I am contributing to a pool that helps cover people who need help. Same as with Fire and police.

Not even close. With police and fire everyone gets the service, and you pay people to provide the service to everyone. With Obamacare only some people get the help, and the rest of us pay the bill. People get subsidies based on the sole fact that they meet certain income based requirements. THAT is redistribution, taking my money to pay specifically for a service to someone else.

Insurance is a risk management pool, not redistribution, if everyone paid accoridng to thier risks that is. Once you start subsidizing, you are re-distributing money.

By your definition, the mortage interest deduction is wealth redistribution, as are all other tax expenditures. We all have to pay higher tax rates to pay for all those expenditures.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not arguing that it isn't a redistribution. But so is paying for the fire department, police department or any other service that you may not personally benefit from but is for the good of society. And I'm ok with that. I think all people should receive the same basic access to healthcare even if that means I have to pay more to make that happen.

The police and fire department are not "redistribution." They are also local functions, paid for, as it should be, by local funding. In Obamacare people are not paying for general coverage, as in with cops or fireman, they are covering someone else's costs for a direct service, i.e. going to a doctor.

Police and fire are redistribution. But if you want to play semantics games, have at it. I'm not paying for someone specific health insurance coverage. I am contributing to a pool that helps cover people who need help. Same as with Fire and police.

when I pay muni tax for police and fire it is for me as well as my community.

When I pay school tax, even without a kid in school, I am paying for me as well as my community as it helps with the value of my property.

Healthcare is different. I am going to pay more and get nothing out of it except the satisfaction of knowing I am helping other people.

But I donate 10% of my income to charity and I pay a heck of a lot in taxes that support many entitlement programs.

Where does it end?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Kathy Castor (D) of Florida, during the hearings just touted how a constituent of hers has greatly benefited form the ACA.

She told of a young man who works for a small business who did not have insurance but was thrilled when he found out that he will receive a $2800 tax credit and his premium will be only $28.

Uh...hello?????

No one said it is not a great thing that people can get healthcare for next to nothing. That would be great for anyone.

But what her constituent doesn't realize is that it is not for nothing. Someone...or a group of people he does not know are the ones paying for him to get it for free...

Yep...he thanks Obama.

But he doesn't even realize that it is someone else paying for his stuff...and he cant thank that person (or group of people) for he doesn't even know who they are.

Bottom line....

I have yet to hear about a wonderful ACA story from a person who is paying INTO the system.

Has anyone?

I've told my own situation repeatedly but, since it doesn't fit YOUR agenda, its ignored or disbelieved.

Doesn't matter because there are some who will just keep lying.

 

[martybegan]

Police and fire are redistribution. But if you want to play semantics games, have at it. I'm not paying for someone specific health insurance coverage. I am contributing to a pool that helps cover people who need help. Same as with Fire and police.

Not even close. With police and fire everyone gets the service, and you pay people to provide the service to everyone. With Obamacare only some people get the help, and the rest of us pay the bill. People get subsidies based on the sole fact that they meet certain income based requirements. THAT is redistribution, taking my money to pay specifically for a service to someone else.

Insurance is a risk management pool, not redistribution, if everyone paid accoridng to thier risks that is. Once you start subsidizing, you are re-distributing money.

By your definition, the mortage interest deduction is wealth redistribution, as are all other tax expenditures. We all have to pay higher tax rates to pay for all those expenditures.

I am all for a flat tax, the problem is that most progressives can't stand it because people for once will be able to finally figure out how much of thier income goes towards the government.

Also, I have a feeling any reduction in deductions would never result in a lowering of tax rates, the progressive statist class will simply just take the additional revenue.

 

[RDD_1210]

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what he said, but I hate it anyway since it's revealing the real nature of my agenda that I'd rather keep secret. So I'll call it names, and hope somebody thinks there's something wrong with what he said, instead of realizing something's wrong with my agenda.

Actually, he made it clear that he agrees with it as redistribution. He is sick and tired of people saying it.

Truth is, I have not heard anyone deny it as redistribution.

It is. and we all know it.

But is redistribution the right thing to do?

RDD believes it is in the case of healthcare.

But maybe some prefer OTHER necessities instead?

I break into your house and steal your TV, your computer, your and your son's ATVs, all your wife's jewelry, and your daughter's autographed picture of Justin Beiber.

If you later find out that I sold them and gave most of the proceedings to the poor, keeping only enough to feed myself, my family, and pay for the truck I used to haul all the stuff away from your house... and I gave one of the ATVs to my son because he really, really wanted to have an ATV....

....will you then say, "Well, that's OK, then," and drop the matter?

Theft is theft.

One of the crowning absurdities of today's leftists, is that even after that's pointed out to them... they actually start trying to find reasons to justify it!

And if millions of people were doing that, wouldn't you think there is an underlying problem that needed to be addressed?