The Obamacare scam is failing and exposes its built-in treachery

[Arianrhod]

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

How self-evident were they to the slaves in Thomas Jefferson's fields? How self-evident were they to the generations of American women who couldn't vote? How self-evident are they to the kid with spina bifida?

As self-evident as they are to anyone else, I'd suppose. Being a slave, a woman deprived of her voice or someone suffering from a crippling disease doesn't make one stupid. In fact, especially in the case of the slaves, these are the people most likely to have an intense, personal appreciation of liberty.

In that it applies to others, but not to them. Irony much?

 

[dblack]

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

How self-evident were they to the slaves in Thomas Jefferson's fields? How self-evident were they to the generations of American women who couldn't vote? How self-evident are they to the kid with spina bifida?

As self-evident as they are to anyone else, I'd suppose. Being a slave, a woman deprived of her voice or someone suffering from a crippling disease doesn't make one stupid. In fact, especially in the case of the slaves, these are the people most likely to have an intense, personal appreciation of liberty.

In that it applies to others, but not to them. Irony much?

What do you mean "it applies"? It sounds you're still thinking of rights as empowerment rather than freedom.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

How self-evident were they to the slaves in Thomas Jefferson's fields? How self-evident were they to the generations of American women who couldn't vote? How self-evident are they to the kid with spina bifida?

As self-evident as they are to anyone else, I'd suppose. Being a slave, a woman deprived of her voice or someone suffering from a crippling disease doesn't make one stupid. In fact, especially in the case of the slaves, these are the people most likely to have an intense, personal appreciation of liberty.

In that it applies to others, but not to them. Irony much?

What do you mean "it applies"? It sounds you're still thinking of rights as empowerment rather than freedom.

Another left wing failure.

Empowerment....or entitlement.

 

[emilynghiem]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

How self-evident were they to the slaves in Thomas Jefferson's fields? How self-evident were they to the generations of American women who couldn't vote? How self-evident are they to the kid with spina bifida?

As self-evident as they are to anyone else, I'd suppose. Being a slave, a woman deprived of her voice or someone suffering from a crippling disease doesn't make one stupid. In fact, especially in the case of the slaves, these are the people most likely to have an intense, personal appreciation of liberty.

In that it applies to others, but not to them. Irony much?

What do you mean "it applies"? It sounds you're still thinking of rights as empowerment rather than freedom.

Dear dblack
Yes,
A. the people who put church before state, see the individual as having freedom "directly from God or Nature" and the role of LAWS in the Constitution is to LIMIT GOVT FROM INFRINGING on inherently self-existing rights and freedoms we have as human beings
B. the people who put the state first as the default and the church is voluntary under that public authority do the opposite: and see the people as in danger of abusing freedom and they need the govt to establish law and order and rules for the people.
C. NOTE: where church and state authority AGREE, we have no problem. Such as with agreeing that murder is wrongful. It doesn't matter if one person uses the "church" to represent the people and puts God authority first before secular/state, or if another person uses the Govt to represent the "people" and puts secular authority first as the default. Since both standards agree, we don't notice any difference between people's justification, as religious or secular, that murder is wrong because the end result is the same. It's when we DISAGREE that we end up with groups fighting if state authority comes before church, or church authority comes before state.
Both groups will revert back to the authority THEY SEE AS THE DEFAULT: in one case it's God/Nature and natural laws that exist regardless of govt; and with the other case, it's the govt that's referred to as the default authority for all the people. So that's why the arguments are unresolvable if the CONTEXT is not even set up the same. Both sides impose their context on the other group that has set up their authorities in the opposite order (where one side puts state as the default/universal authority and the church is optional under that; while the other puts God/the church laws first as the universal law and default for all people, and the state is supposed to respect and support that, not go against it or regulate it in ways that are contrary).

Both sets believe in defending their own consent and free will, and want govt to reflect their interests, values and representation.

But when it comes to people coming from the other viewpoints, they both want protection from "those people with the other beliefs."

Thus they fight over using govt to enforce their values in defense against the people/groups with the opposite approach. (Unlike with other religious beliefs, where it is UNDERSTOOD to keep Muslim vs. Hindu, Catholic vs. Protestant, Atheist vs. Theist beliefs OUT OF GOVT, we don't do this with secular political beliefs but expect to be able to legislate these by majority rule.)

The solution I find is either
* separate the areas of conflict so all people can have their interests and beliefs independently and equally (I have proposed separation by party, similar to letting people choose and run their own programs through the "church affiliation of their choice" without penalty or imposing on other church denominations: why not do the same and let people invest taxes or tax breaks into their own Political Party platforms of their choice, to develop represent and manage the policies they believe in, without imposition or penalty.)
* resolve conflicts and agree WHAT points, principles or programs CAN be made public policy without infringing on one set or the other.

Instead of bullying, back and forth, by exclusion, coercion or majority rule to dominate over and discriminate against the other group and their values/beliefs.

 

[Arianrhod]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

How self-evident were they to the slaves in Thomas Jefferson's fields? How self-evident were they to the generations of American women who couldn't vote? How self-evident are they to the kid with spina bifida?

As self-evident as they are to anyone else, I'd suppose. Being a slave, a woman deprived of her voice or someone suffering from a crippling disease doesn't make one stupid. In fact, especially in the case of the slaves, these are the people most likely to have an intense, personal appreciation of liberty.

In that it applies to others, but not to them. Irony much?

What do you mean "it applies"? It sounds you're still thinking of rights as empowerment rather than freedom.

Describe "freedom" as it applies to a slave in Jefferson's tobacco fields. Describe "freedom" as it applies to a girl growing up knowing that her brothers can vote but she can't. Describe "freedom" as it applies to a kid with spina bifida (if you even know what it means and what causes it).

 

[dblack]

Freedom doesn't apply to a slave. What in the world are you getting at? You seem to think you're making some kind of point, but I really don't get what it is.

 

[Arianrhod]

Freedom doesn't apply to a slave. What in the world are you getting at? You seem to think you're making some kind of point, but I really don't get what it is.

So you're saying Jefferson left out a few words "...all men are created equal, but some men are allowed to enslave other men and some aren't."

Now you can explain away the generations of American women who had what you would define as "freedom," but without the freedom to vote.

We'll get to the kid with spina bifida eventually.

 

[dblack]

Freedom doesn't apply to a slave. What in the world are you getting at? You seem to think you're making some kind of point, but I really don't get what it is.

So you're saying Jefferson left out a few words "...all men are created equal, but some men are allowed to enslave other men and some aren't."

No. Where did you get that idea?

Now you can explain away the generations of American women who had what you would define as "freedom," but without the freedom to vote.

Why would I want to explain that away?

We'll get to the kid with spina bifida eventually.

Maybe. But I'm getting bored with your evasiveness. You clearly aren't interested in real discussion.

 

[Arianrhod]

Freedom doesn't apply to a slave. What in the world are you getting at? You seem to think you're making some kind of point, but I really don't get what it is.

So you're saying Jefferson left out a few words "...all men are created equal, but some men are allowed to enslave other men and some aren't."

No. Where did you get that idea?

From the fact that he wrote those words while other men – men he’d purchased – had no freedom based, not on his “Creator’s” sense of justice, but on the fact that he owned them.

So were they not men? Or were all men in Jefferson’s world not created equal?

Now you can explain away the generations of American women who had what you would define as "freedom," but without the freedom to vote.

Why would I want to explain that away?

Maybe you wouldn’t. Maybe you’d think it was reasonable that 51% of the adult population did not have the same freedom as the other 49%. Your refusal to explain the inequity suggests you approve of it. You have the freedom to explain otherwise; you can’t or won’t.

We'll get to the kid with spina bifida eventually.

Maybe. But I'm getting bored with your evasiveness. You clearly aren't interested in real discussion.

We’re discussing the fact that, while a nice, lofty ideal, “all men are created equal” is a canard. It’s obvious why you’re avoiding the kid with spina bifida under the rubric of “boredom,” which is code for “I’m getting backed into a corner and I don’t know how to answer this.”

So, off you go.

 

[dblack]

Freedom doesn't apply to a slave. What in the world are you getting at? You seem to think you're making some kind of point, but I really don't get what it is.

So you're saying Jefferson left out a few words "...all men are created equal, but some men are allowed to enslave other men and some aren't."

No. Where did you get that idea?

From the fact that he wrote those words while other men – men he’d purchased – had no freedom based, not on his “Creator’s” sense of justice, but on the fact that he owned them.

So were they not men? Or were all men in Jefferson’s world not created equal?

I have no interest in defending Jefferson's hypocrisy, or the institution of slavery. I'm trying to discuss the concept of "rights" and our government's role in protecting them. I don't understand what you mean when you use the term, but as we've acknowledged, it's clearly different than what I mean when I use it. If we have any hope of understanding each other, we need to understand what we mean by the words we use. I'm happy to talk about your version of "rights", but you've been very reluctant to describe it in any detail. I've been asking you about it, but you keep replying with examples of injustice and suffering instead.

Now you can explain away the generations of American women who had what you would define as "freedom," but without the freedom to vote.

Why would I want to explain that away?

Maybe you wouldn’t. Maybe you’d think it was reasonable that 51% of the adult population did not have the same freedom as the other 49%. Your refusal to explain the inequity suggests you approve of it. You have the freedom to explain otherwise; you can’t or won’t.

What??? I've never said I approved of any of the stuff you're going on about. Why do you keep insinuating I do?

We'll get to the kid with spina bifida eventually.

Maybe. But I'm getting bored with your evasiveness. You clearly aren't interested in real discussion.

We’re discussing the fact that, while a nice, lofty ideal, “all men are created equal” is a canard. It’s obvious why you’re avoiding the kid with spina bifida under the rubric of “boredom,” which is code for “I’m getting backed into a corner and I don’t know how to answer this.”

So, off you go.

Listen, I'm interested in discussing ideas. I'm not interested in demagoguery. When the latter overwhelms the former, I look for a different conversation. If you want to talk about rights, I'm happy to continue, but I need to know what you mean by the term.

 

[Arianrhod]

Freedom doesn't apply to a slave. What in the world are you getting at? You seem to think you're making some kind of point, but I really don't get what it is.

So you're saying Jefferson left out a few words "...all men are created equal, but some men are allowed to enslave other men and some aren't."

No. Where did you get that idea?

From the fact that he wrote those words while other men – men he’d purchased – had no freedom based, not on his “Creator’s” sense of justice, but on the fact that he owned them.

So were they not men? Or were all men in Jefferson’s world not created equal?

I have no interest in defending Jefferson's hypocrisy, or the institution of slavery. I'm trying to discuss the concept of "rights" and our government's role in protecting them. I don't understand what you mean when you use the term, but as we've acknowledged, it's clearly different than what I mean when I use it. If we have any hope of understanding each other, we need to understand what we mean by the words we use. I'm happy to talk about your version of "rights", but you've been very reluctant to describe it in any detail. I've been asking you about it, but you keep replying with examples of injustice and suffering instead.

Now you can explain away the generations of American women who had what you would define as "freedom," but without the freedom to vote.

Why would I want to explain that away?

Maybe you wouldn’t. Maybe you’d think it was reasonable that 51% of the adult population did not have the same freedom as the other 49%. Your refusal to explain the inequity suggests you approve of it. You have the freedom to explain otherwise; you can’t or won’t.

What??? I've never said I approved of any of the stuff you're going on about. Why do you keep insinuating I do?

We'll get to the kid with spina bifida eventually.

Maybe. But I'm getting bored with your evasiveness. You clearly aren't interested in real discussion.

We’re discussing the fact that, while a nice, lofty ideal, “all men are created equal” is a canard. It’s obvious why you’re avoiding the kid with spina bifida under the rubric of “boredom,” which is code for “I’m getting backed into a corner and I don’t know how to answer this.”

So, off you go.

Listen, I'm interested in discussing ideas. I'm not interested in demagoguery. When the latter overwhelms the former, I look for a different conversation. If you want to talk about rights, I'm happy to continue, but I need to know what you mean by the term.

Your definition of "rights" is "Everybody's got 'em, they're all the same. Nothing to see here."

Not acceptable.

Concrete examples where "all men are NOT created equal" intimidate you, so you dance and preachify. That is boring.

 

[dblack]

Your definition of "rights" is "Everybody's got 'em, they're all the same. Nothing to see here."

Not acceptable.

Concrete examples where "all men are NOT created equal" intimidate you, so you dance and preachify. That is boring.

What is YOUR definition? That's all I've been asking for. Does the concept of freedom mean anything to you?

 

[Arianrhod]

Your definition of "rights" is "Everybody's got 'em, they're all the same. Nothing to see here."

Not acceptable.

Concrete examples where "all men are NOT created equal" intimidate you, so you dance and preachify. That is boring.

What is YOUR definition? That's all I've been asking for. Does the concept of freedom mean anything to you?

Your third sentence implies you don't believe it does mean anything to me; therefore any definition I provide you will be rejected.

 

[leftwinger]

For tax year 2016, the penalty will rise to 2.5% of your total household adjusted gross income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, to a maximum of $2,085

If it is a "max" penalty of $2085 why does the curve keep going up at $80K?

One place they say "AGI" yet that chart says Gross? If you have refund coming they will keep it. IF you don't have HealthCare. Those without job, Those not 65. funny stuff.

How do they expect Family with kids to live in LA and pay $2085 fine at $30K income?

 

[Arianrhod]

For tax year 2016, the penalty will rise to 2.5% of your total household adjusted gross income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, to a maximum of $2,085

View attachment 91795

If it is a "max" penalty of $2085 why does the curve keep going up at $80K?

One place they say "AGI" yet that chart says Gross? If you have refund coming they will keep it. IF you don't have HealthCare. Those without job, Those not 65. funny stuff.

How do they expect Family with kids to live in LA and pay $2085 fine at $30K income?

The chart is dated 2013, meaning it represents data collected prior to 2013.

The PPACA was implemented in 2014.

Is this going to be one of those Obama the Timelord things?

 

[leftwinger]

The chart is dated 2013, meaning it represents data collected prior to 2013.

The PPACA was implemented in 2014.

Is this going to be one of those Obama the Timelord things?

OBAMACARE was put in place way back. Fines/Fees were installed up to 2017 I have found. Very complicated. You go look it up. If you can't prove approved health insurance they will keep your refund. How much they "keep" depends on income.

The fee for not having health insurance in 2016
The fee is calculated 2 different ways – as a percentage of your household income, and per person. You’ll pay whichever is higher. The fee rises with inflation in future years. Final 2017 amounts will be published when available.

 

[Arianrhod]

The chart is dated 2013, meaning it represents data collected prior to 2013.

The PPACA was implemented in 2014.

Is this going to be one of those Obama the Timelord things?

OBAMACARE was put in place way back.

The law was passed in 2010. It was fully implemented in January 2014. Writing your post in color doesn't change that. Any data gathered prior to January 2014 refer to information gathered before January 2014.

Fines/Fees were installed up to 2017 I have found.

Do you know what a "projection" is? 2017 hasn't happened yet.

 

[leftwinger]

The chart is dated 2013, meaning it represents data collected prior to 2013.

The PPACA was implemented in 2014.

Is this going to be one of those Obama the Timelord things?

OBAMACARE was put in place way back.

The law was passed in 2010. It was fully implemented in January 2014. Writing your post in color doesn't change that. Any data gathered prior to January 2014 refer to information gathered before January 2014.

Fines/Fees were installed up to 2017 I have found.

Do you know what a "projection" is? 2017 hasn't happened yet.

QUIT! STOP! the law has been in place. The fines varied each year. I posted 2016. GET OFF ME! There is a 1040 instruction booklet each year. 2.5%*AGI for 2016. If the chart was 2013........so what? you think its' gotten any cheaper? GET OFF ME! Yeah it is confusing. It takes work to figure out how they are going to charge each year. You want to know............GO LOOK IT UP. I posted facts I could find easily.

 

[Arianrhod]

The chart is dated 2013, meaning it represents data collected prior to 2013.

The PPACA was implemented in 2014.

Is this going to be one of those Obama the Timelord things?

OBAMACARE was put in place way back.

The law was passed in 2010. It was fully implemented in January 2014. Writing your post in color doesn't change that. Any data gathered prior to January 2014 refer to information gathered before January 2014.

Fines/Fees were installed up to 2017 I have found.

Do you know what a "projection" is? 2017 hasn't happened yet.

QUIT! STOP! the law has been in place. The fines varied each year. I posted 2016. GET OFF ME! There is a 1040 instruction booklet each year. 2.5%*AGI for 2016. If the chart was 2013........so what? you think its' gotten any cheaper? GET OFF ME! Yeah it is confusing. It takes work to figure out how they are going to charge each year. You want to know............GO LOOK IT UP. I posted facts I could find easily.

One more time: Full implementation of the PPACA began in January 2014. That's AFTER the data in your chart. If you don't have a chart showing the impact of the PPACA AFTER it was implemented, all you're doing is showing why the reform was needed in the first place. The projections in the chart that's over a year older than the law itself are "things that might happen if no reform is initiated."

There are dozens of threads with hundreds of posts explaining how the PPACA works, but people still don't get it. If you're interested in today's Real Life data and how they might affect you, let me know and I'll steer you toward some information you can use.

If you'd rather just keep repeating yourself and getting nowhere, you can do that instead.

 

[dblack]

Your definition of "rights" is "Everybody's got 'em, they're all the same. Nothing to see here."

Not acceptable.

Concrete examples where "all men are NOT created equal" intimidate you, so you dance and preachify. That is boring.

What is YOUR definition? That's all I've been asking for. Does the concept of freedom mean anything to you?

Your third sentence implies you don't believe it does mean anything to me; therefore any definition I provide you will be rejected.

Don't be afraid of rejection. I asked because you've been very reluctant to acknowledge any concept of freedom and rights. What's the story?