What happens if Republicans manage to knock 20 million Americans off health care?

[BlueGin]

A few?

Shouldn't there be hundreds out there feeding, housing and giving healthcare to the American poor?

Haha I just named some of the largest, most major ones that help in this country and around the world. And you still aren't satisfied.

UNICEF is run by the United Nations. Not the United States.

I said secular US charities.

How many homeless does the Sierra club feed, cloth and provide services for BTW?

You asked for secular charities, you didn't say what they were for. How many people does the American Red Cross feed and cloth? How many people does Goodwill help? How many people across the globe does Doctor's Without Borders help?

Goodwill was founded by a Methodist Minister BTW

Is it a secular charity? Yes or no?

Doctors Without Borders is Swiss not American also BTW.

 

[bripat9643]

No one should survive at public expense. It's not your money.

Leave charity with charitable organizations.

You don't get it... if people don't have insurance anymore and have to go to the ER, they will just get a huge ER bill they can't pay. Which then means they get their credit ruined, which means then they can't buy cars and houses, which means it hurts the economy, which means health care cost go up, because health care is REQUIRED to treat people that go to the ER, and won't be getting paid for it... so that means if you do have insurance? Yeah it's going to go up regardless, along with the out of pocket costs.

because health care is REQUIRED to treat people that go to the ER,

No one is that stupid. That's a joke, right? You were saying that as satire?

Health care and health insurance are not synonymous. Pubs (the majority of) want to keep pre existing coverage and children up to 25, so why pretend those are going to disappear?

Trump's HSA plan will not work, the concept is good for those who have the money to fund the "Savings Account" but most don't.
In my experience self employed folks used these plans more than anyone else.

They use them because the don't get healthcare from an employer. Government can fund the HSA for the poor with a tax credit. The same goes for their premiums..

 

[Iceweasel]

I know what they are. Question is do you?

You do? Once again I guess you don't know how an argument works, your opinion doesn't mean shit without something to back it up. By the way, I already posted a secular chart on here and what the political make up of each group was.

From a Study...

• Black Protestants, followed by Roman Catholics and Jews, were the most likely to give out of the desire to help the needy.

Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds

Guess what political group is a majority of those groups?

The number one ranked state that gives more than any other to charity is Utah.

Guess all Morman's are Liberals now.

As far as generosity goes the poor red states are more generous than the richer liberal states like NY and CA.

2015’s Most and Least Charitable States

No, nice fallacy. I already said they were Conservatives. Also look what their churches look like.

Where do you think the money to build those came from?

So.... Still no secular based charities you can tout?

Btw did you know The United Way was also founded by those Christian organizations liberals hate so much.

I hate to be harsh, but it seems you demand to be considered a tard. You put the ass in assumptions. Because your assumptions are ALWAYS so ignorant and tard worthy.

See that? Two thirds of Democrats consider themselves Christian.

The problem with your kind is you assume you are a main stream Christian. But your kind has drifted far away from main stream anything. Take Ryan for instance. He may be fueding with Trump, but both are part of your kind. And what do Bishops think of Ryan?


Today's Republicans have become the anti Christian, Christian party.

A Bishop is a Catholic, most Christians are Evangelical. So you make no sense. You don't know anything about Christianity, Jesus didn't say governments were to do the good works or giving was to be defined by the state. The message was quite the opposite of what you think it was. Individuals are to do those things based on their personal relationship with the Creator, not man made governments.

 

[BluesLegend]

Actually... you have a point there Owebo.

The Libs seem to think that a raise of the min wage from nat $7.25 to $15/h will fix everything. That's an increase of [gross] $310 a month. They have often claimed that this will go into the economy since the min wage workers will spend more.

ACA, for the Bonze plan, has a monthly premium of $311/m according to CNN - Is Obamacare really affordable? Not for the middle class.
They also note that they expect that will be $744/m in 2017 (with a $6k deductible)

IT stands to reason that ditching AMA would put that $311 back into the economy.

*As a note, I find how close the two figures are rather ... amusing.

How can someone who makes $15/hr afford health insurance that costs $744/mo and has a deductible of 6000? The deductible would consume half his total take home pay. The premium would consume the other half. Only a brainwashed Hillary douche bag could believe this plan was economically viable.

Irony...its called the "affordable" care act. Yes the left really are that dumb.

Have you ever tried to buy health insurance as a individual?

Prior to the ACA, my premiums were $1650/month/\. An equivalent policy when the Exchanges opened was $950.

Somebody else is paying the rest of your premiums dummy.

 

[Lewdog]

...and you have provided nothing to refute my claims, or my research findings.

I did. I pointed out that your theory was missing hard evidence.

No you didn't. And the evidence is there with a source. And you never refuted it with your own evidence. You're basically like those people that refute the moon landing by saying, "I saw it on tv but that could have been in a sound stage. So prove it."

Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?

You keep claiming victory but won't answer the challenge.

I'm done with you, I've given you a bread trail to everything I have said, and you have provided zilch...zero...nadda.

I'm not the one pushing an agenda, you are. The challenge was simple ....

"Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?"

You keep claiming victory but won't answer the challenge.

and I told you that I already presented the findings, and provided you the source to find the numbers. I'm not going to register for the site and download the study to play into your little troll game. I don't need to. The researcher already calculated the numbers and gave the findings. I'm not going to refute them, I'm not qualified to. And I seriously doubt by reading your posts you are qualified to calculate and formulate the findings of a McDonald's menu board. So what's the point? If you REALLY want to know the numbers and try to refute the researchers findings and prove me wrong, you'll look at them yourself.

But I already know what will happen next... you'll come back and say his numbers are wrong, or some other BS excuse. You're predictable.

 

[bripat9643]

No one should survive at public expense. It's not your money.

Leave charity with charitable organizations.

You don't get it... if people don't have insurance anymore and have to go to the ER, they will just get a huge ER bill they can't pay. Which then means they get their credit ruined, which means then they can't buy cars and houses, which means it hurts the economy, which means health care cost go up, because health care is REQUIRED to treat people that go to the ER, and won't be getting paid for it... so that means if you do have insurance? Yeah it's going to go up regardless, along with the out of pocket costs.

because health care is REQUIRED to treat people that go to the ER,

No one is that stupid. That's a joke, right? You were saying that as satire?

Health care and health insurance are not synonymous. Pubs (the majority of) want to keep pre existing coverage and children up to 25, so why pretend those are going to disappear?

If people could get their insurance for 40% less, then would gladly give up having their kids on their policy until they are 25.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

...and as I was going to say anyway, part of that takes into account donating to their own church, which isn't necessarily giving to those in need. From an article by MIT that can be found at this website:

So what do you think churches do with that money besides support the church itself and perhaps a school?

They pay the bills, they pay the pastor, they pay for the pastor's house...they save the money and build bigger churches...

It makes me sick every time I see these huge churches, and the money spent that could actually do something good. I used to live in Ohio, and I would regularly drive by the Solid Rock Church along I-75. It made me sick. You might know the church as the home of Butter Jesus. It was the HUGE Jesus statue that got struck by lightening and burned down. Sign from God maybe?



So what odes the church do? They build another HUGE statute in its place.

Why does it make you sick to see people spending their money for something they want? Do you think you should be entitled to a portion of that money?
Tell me something, If you see someone driving an expensive car down the road does it make you sick when you think that they could have bought a 1500 dollar beater like you drive and given the other 70,000 to you?
Why are you so jealous of things other people earn

 

[BlueGin]

A few?

Shouldn't there be hundreds out there feeding, housing and giving healthcare to the American poor?

Haha I just named some of the largest, most major ones that help in this country and around the world. And you still aren't satisfied.

UNICEF is run by the United Nations. Not the United States.

I said secular US charities.

How many homeless does the Sierra club feed, cloth and provide services for BTW?

You asked for secular charities, you didn't say what they were for. How many people does the American Red Cross feed and cloth? How many people does Goodwill help? How many people across the globe does Doctor's Without Borders help?

Goodwill was founded by a Methodist Minister BTW

Is it a secular charity? Yes or no?

It was started as part of his congregations ministry. His congregation collected used goods and trained the disabled etc...

Goodwill Industries - Wikipedia

 

[Grizz]

Look at the numbers on how premiums have risen prior to the ACA & make your comparisons.

Here is a limited study, because data was not returned from all states, but it shows that part of the outcry now for premium rate increases is because people didn't know before just how much their premiums were actually going up each year, and that the diffidences in increases is far outweighed by the advantages the ACA gives families.

New Analysis of Health Insurance Premium Trends in the Individual Market Finds Average Yearly Increases of 10 Percent or More Prior to the Affordable Care Act

(sigh) Stop with the propaganda.
You are seriously trying to make the point that folks who were purchasing their own Healthcare were not aware how much their increases were?
Do you not know how stupid that is?
I've been in the Healthcare Business since 2002, an Agents book turned over every 18-24 months because of those increases that you claim the consumers didn't know about.
Aye caramba, PLEASE think before you post propaganda, there will always be somebody who can point out the silliness of things untrue.
Now if the actual point of your post is that the people who have the ACA plans that were never insured before said that you'd have a point. But that is NOT the majority of people who are participating in this fiasco.

Ok, were you ever required prior to the ACA to report the increases to the state and get them approved?

Prior to the ACA ALL increases had to be filed with the State by May of the preceding year of it's effective date., ALL increases, large or small. ALL approved increases HAD to be sent to the insureds at least 30 days prior to the effective date.

SINCE the ACA any increases under 10% are filed with the State, any increases OVER 10% and above are filed with the Sate AND HHS.

Ok, so is that just your state, or all states? Are you saying this statement in the article is a lie?

Historically, insurers in many states were not required to file premium increases with insurance departments in any systematic manner.

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers planning to significantly increase plan premiums submit their rates to either the state or federal government for review. The threshold for this requirement is 10%.

The rate review process is designed to improve insurer accountability and transparency. It ensures that experts evaluate whether the proposed rate increases are based on reasonable cost assumptions and solid evidence and gives consumers the chance to comment on proposed increases.

The ACA also requires that a summary of rate review justifications and results be accessible to the public in an easily understandable format. This site is designed to meet that mandate."

Unified Rate Review

"Beginning September 2011, HHS announced the nationwide implementation of state-based programs to conduct rate review. HHS worked with states to strengthen or alter their programs. As detailed in the rate review regulation finalized on May 19, 2011, states with effective rate review systems must conduct reviews of proposed rates above the applicable threshold (10% from September 2011-August 2012), but if a state lacks the resources or authority to conduct the required rate reviews, HHS will conduct them."

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-rate-approval-disapproval.aspx

Prior to 2011 most states required the filings.

"Most states require insurers to submit information on the premiums and rates that they intend to charge, but beyond that, there isn't much consistency from one state to another in how regulators can react."

'Unreasonable' Insurance Rate Increases

So at best the statement is misleading.

 

[Iceweasel]

I did. I pointed out that your theory was missing hard evidence.

No you didn't. And the evidence is there with a source. And you never refuted it with your own evidence. You're basically like those people that refute the moon landing by saying, "I saw it on tv but that could have been in a sound stage. So prove it."

Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?

You keep claiming victory but won't answer the challenge.

I'm done with you, I've given you a bread trail to everything I have said, and you have provided zilch...zero...nadda.

I'm not the one pushing an agenda, you are. The challenge was simple ....

"Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?"

You keep claiming victory but won't answer the challenge.

and I told you that I already presented the findings, and provided you the source to find the numbers. I'm not going to register for the site and download the study to play into your little troll game. I don't need to. The researcher already calculated the numbers and gave the findings. I'm not going to refute them, I'm not qualified to. And I seriously doubt by reading your posts you are qualified to calculate and formulate the findings of a McDonald's menu board. So what's the point? If you REALLY want to know the numbers and try to refute the researchers findings and prove me wrong, you'll look at them yourself.

But I already know what will happen next... you'll come back and say his numbers are wrong, or some other BS excuse. You're predictable.

"Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?"

That was the challenge. I don't need to spend time refuting data you didn't present. You are just making noise trying to cover it up.

 

[Lewdog]

Haha I just named some of the largest, most major ones that help in this country and around the world. And you still aren't satisfied.

UNICEF is run by the United Nations. Not the United States.

I said secular US charities.

How many homeless does the Sierra club feed, cloth and provide services for BTW?

You asked for secular charities, you didn't say what they were for. How many people does the American Red Cross feed and cloth? How many people does Goodwill help? How many people across the globe does Doctor's Without Borders help?

Goodwill was founded by a Methodist Minister BTW

Is it a secular charity? Yes or no?

Doctors Without Borders is Swiss not American also BTW.

It's international and includes the U.S. UNICEF is based in New York by the way even though it is an international charity.

 

[Lewdog]

...and as I was going to say anyway, part of that takes into account donating to their own church, which isn't necessarily giving to those in need. From an article by MIT that can be found at this website:

So what do you think churches do with that money besides support the church itself and perhaps a school?

They pay the bills, they pay the pastor, they pay for the pastor's house...they save the money and build bigger churches...

It makes me sick every time I see these huge churches, and the money spent that could actually do something good. I used to live in Ohio, and I would regularly drive by the Solid Rock Church along I-75. It made me sick. You might know the church as the home of Butter Jesus. It was the HUGE Jesus statue that got struck by lightening and burned down. Sign from God maybe?



So what odes the church do? They build another HUGE statute in its place.

Why does it make you sick to see people spending their money for something they want? Do you think you should be entitled to a portion of that money?
Tell me something, If you see someone driving an expensive car down the road does it make you sick when you think that they could have bought a 1500 dollar beater like you drive and given the other 70,000 to you?
Why are you so jealous of things other people earn

I already explained this... and this will be the last time. I don't give two flying shits what you spend your money on. You could buy a ten foot golden pool cleaner to shove up your rectum every night... but don't tell me that you are giving your money to charity when it is going to build a huge church and to pay your pastor and the bills.

I think that is pretty simple and straight to the point.

 

[Iceweasel]

...and as I was going to say anyway, part of that takes into account donating to their own church, which isn't necessarily giving to those in need. From an article by MIT that can be found at this website:

So what do you think churches do with that money besides support the church itself and perhaps a school?

They pay the bills, they pay the pastor, they pay for the pastor's house...they save the money and build bigger churches...

It makes me sick every time I see these huge churches, and the money spent that could actually do something good. I used to live in Ohio, and I would regularly drive by the Solid Rock Church along I-75. It made me sick. You might know the church as the home of Butter Jesus. It was the HUGE Jesus statue that got struck by lightening and burned down. Sign from God maybe?



So what odes the church do? They build another HUGE statute in its place.

Why does it make you sick to see people spending their money for something they want? Do you think you should be entitled to a portion of that money?
Tell me something, If you see someone driving an expensive car down the road does it make you sick when you think that they could have bought a 1500 dollar beater like you drive and given the other 70,000 to you?
Why are you so jealous of things other people earn

I already explained this... and this will be the last time. I don't give two flying shits what you spend your money on. You could buy a ten foot golden pool cleaner to shove up your rectum every night... but don't tell me that you are giving your money to charity when it is going to build a huge church and to pay your pastor and the bills.

I think that is pretty simple and straight to the point.

You have no idea what the percentage is that goes to the church. You haven't even tried to say, only that all church giving needs to be thrown out of consideration as charity, based on your own ignorance and prejudice.

So you are just trolling or stupid beyond comprehension.

 

[Lewdog]

Here is a limited study, because data was not returned from all states, but it shows that part of the outcry now for premium rate increases is because people didn't know before just how much their premiums were actually going up each year, and that the diffidences in increases is far outweighed by the advantages the ACA gives families.

New Analysis of Health Insurance Premium Trends in the Individual Market Finds Average Yearly Increases of 10 Percent or More Prior to the Affordable Care Act

(sigh) Stop with the propaganda.
You are seriously trying to make the point that folks who were purchasing their own Healthcare were not aware how much their increases were?
Do you not know how stupid that is?
I've been in the Healthcare Business since 2002, an Agents book turned over every 18-24 months because of those increases that you claim the consumers didn't know about.
Aye caramba, PLEASE think before you post propaganda, there will always be somebody who can point out the silliness of things untrue.
Now if the actual point of your post is that the people who have the ACA plans that were never insured before said that you'd have a point. But that is NOT the majority of people who are participating in this fiasco.

Ok, were you ever required prior to the ACA to report the increases to the state and get them approved?

Prior to the ACA ALL increases had to be filed with the State by May of the preceding year of it's effective date., ALL increases, large or small. ALL approved increases HAD to be sent to the insureds at least 30 days prior to the effective date.

SINCE the ACA any increases under 10% are filed with the State, any increases OVER 10% and above are filed with the Sate AND HHS.

Ok, so is that just your state, or all states? Are you saying this statement in the article is a lie?

Historically, insurers in many states were not required to file premium increases with insurance departments in any systematic manner.

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers planning to significantly increase plan premiums submit their rates to either the state or federal government for review. The threshold for this requirement is 10%.

The rate review process is designed to improve insurer accountability and transparency. It ensures that experts evaluate whether the proposed rate increases are based on reasonable cost assumptions and solid evidence and gives consumers the chance to comment on proposed increases.

The ACA also requires that a summary of rate review justifications and results be accessible to the public in an easily understandable format. This site is designed to meet that mandate."

Unified Rate Review

"Beginning September 2011, HHS announced the nationwide implementation of state-based programs to conduct rate review. HHS worked with states to strengthen or alter their programs. As detailed in the rate review regulation finalized on May 19, 2011, states with effective rate review systems must conduct reviews of proposed rates above the applicable threshold (10% from September 2011-August 2012), but if a state lacks the resources or authority to conduct the required rate reviews, HHS will conduct them."

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-rate-approval-disapproval.aspx

Prior to 2011 most states required the filings.

"Most states require insurers to submit information on the premiums and rates that they intend to charge, but beyond that, there isn't much consistency from one state to another in how regulators can react."

'Unreasonable' Insurance Rate Increases

So at best the statement is misleading.

Soooo before the ACA people of course noticed how much more was being taken out of their pay check each year for premiums, BUT it wasn't always reported so that people could complain that it wasn't fair across the board that they were getting screwed by living in New Jersey where it went up X% verses a person in Idaho where it went up only Z% for the same coverage? And it wasn't put into a national data base?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No you didn't. And the evidence is there with a source. And you never refuted it with your own evidence. You're basically like those people that refute the moon landing by saying, "I saw it on tv but that could have been in a sound stage. So prove it."

Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?

You keep claiming victory but won't answer the challenge.

I'm done with you, I've given you a bread trail to everything I have said, and you have provided zilch...zero...nadda.

I'm not the one pushing an agenda, you are. The challenge was simple ....

"Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?"

You keep claiming victory but won't answer the challenge.

and I told you that I already presented the findings, and provided you the source to find the numbers. I'm not going to register for the site and download the study to play into your little troll game. I don't need to. The researcher already calculated the numbers and gave the findings. I'm not going to refute them, I'm not qualified to. And I seriously doubt by reading your posts you are qualified to calculate and formulate the findings of a McDonald's menu board. So what's the point? If you REALLY want to know the numbers and try to refute the researchers findings and prove me wrong, you'll look at them yourself.

But I already know what will happen next... you'll come back and say his numbers are wrong, or some other BS excuse. You're predictable.

"Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?"

That was the challenge. I don't need to spend time refuting data you didn't present. You are just making noise trying to cover it up.

the whole conversation concerning charities has nothing to do with the original issue. And that issue was other people being FORCED to contribute to cover someone elses healthcare.
If we are going to sidetrack this and start talking about charities, can we at least find the charity that forces people to pay regardless of their desire to do so?
ACA premiums are not given by free will, it is money stolen from people that work and contribute to society and given to people that do nothing for society.

 

[Lewdog]

...and as I was going to say anyway, part of that takes into account donating to their own church, which isn't necessarily giving to those in need. From an article by MIT that can be found at this website:

So what do you think churches do with that money besides support the church itself and perhaps a school?

They pay the bills, they pay the pastor, they pay for the pastor's house...they save the money and build bigger churches...

It makes me sick every time I see these huge churches, and the money spent that could actually do something good. I used to live in Ohio, and I would regularly drive by the Solid Rock Church along I-75. It made me sick. You might know the church as the home of Butter Jesus. It was the HUGE Jesus statue that got struck by lightening and burned down. Sign from God maybe?



So what odes the church do? They build another HUGE statute in its place.

Why does it make you sick to see people spending their money for something they want? Do you think you should be entitled to a portion of that money?
Tell me something, If you see someone driving an expensive car down the road does it make you sick when you think that they could have bought a 1500 dollar beater like you drive and given the other 70,000 to you?
Why are you so jealous of things other people earn

I already explained this... and this will be the last time. I don't give two flying shits what you spend your money on. You could buy a ten foot golden pool cleaner to shove up your rectum every night... but don't tell me that you are giving your money to charity when it is going to build a huge church and to pay your pastor and the bills.

I think that is pretty simple and straight to the point.

You have no idea what the percentage is that goes to the church. You haven't even tried to say, only that all church giving needs to be thrown out of consideration as charity, based on your own ignorance and prejudice.

So you are just trolling or stupid beyond comprehension.

I don't need to tell percentages to tell you the system is flawed and so are the findings. If money being "donated" in tithes is going towards building churches, paying bills, and paying pastor's salaries, it really isn't charity and shouldn't be included. That's pretty simple. Do you think building a church is a charitable act?

 

[Lewdog]

Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?

You keep claiming victory but won't answer the challenge.

I'm done with you, I've given you a bread trail to everything I have said, and you have provided zilch...zero...nadda.

I'm not the one pushing an agenda, you are. The challenge was simple ....

"Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?"

You keep claiming victory but won't answer the challenge.

and I told you that I already presented the findings, and provided you the source to find the numbers. I'm not going to register for the site and download the study to play into your little troll game. I don't need to. The researcher already calculated the numbers and gave the findings. I'm not going to refute them, I'm not qualified to. And I seriously doubt by reading your posts you are qualified to calculate and formulate the findings of a McDonald's menu board. So what's the point? If you REALLY want to know the numbers and try to refute the researchers findings and prove me wrong, you'll look at them yourself.

But I already know what will happen next... you'll come back and say his numbers are wrong, or some other BS excuse. You're predictable.

"Again, the percentage of liberals versus conservatives giving to human need projects is ....?"

That was the challenge. I don't need to spend time refuting data you didn't present. You are just making noise trying to cover it up.

the whole conversation concerning charities has nothing to do with the original issue. And that issue was other people being FORCED to contribute to cover someone elses healthcare.
If we are going to sidetrack this and start talking about charities, can we at least find the charity that forces people to pay regardless of their desire to do so?
ACA premiums are not given by free will, it is money stolen from people that work and contribute to society and given to people that do nothing for society.

And where do you live? I want to see how many of my tax dollars was spent doing something there that I didn't want to help pay for.

 

[Iceweasel]

So what do you think churches do with that money besides support the church itself and perhaps a school?

They pay the bills, they pay the pastor, they pay for the pastor's house...they save the money and build bigger churches...

It makes me sick every time I see these huge churches, and the money spent that could actually do something good. I used to live in Ohio, and I would regularly drive by the Solid Rock Church along I-75. It made me sick. You might know the church as the home of Butter Jesus. It was the HUGE Jesus statue that got struck by lightening and burned down. Sign from God maybe?



So what odes the church do? They build another HUGE statute in its place.

Why does it make you sick to see people spending their money for something they want? Do you think you should be entitled to a portion of that money?
Tell me something, If you see someone driving an expensive car down the road does it make you sick when you think that they could have bought a 1500 dollar beater like you drive and given the other 70,000 to you?
Why are you so jealous of things other people earn

I already explained this... and this will be the last time. I don't give two flying shits what you spend your money on. You could buy a ten foot golden pool cleaner to shove up your rectum every night... but don't tell me that you are giving your money to charity when it is going to build a huge church and to pay your pastor and the bills.

I think that is pretty simple and straight to the point.

You have no idea what the percentage is that goes to the church. You haven't even tried to say, only that all church giving needs to be thrown out of consideration as charity, based on your own ignorance and prejudice.

So you are just trolling or stupid beyond comprehension.

I don't need to tell percentages to tell you the system is flawed and so are the findings. If money being "donated" in tithes is going towards building churches, paying bills, and paying pastor's salaries, it really isn't charity and shouldn't be included. That's pretty simple. Do you think building a church is a charitable act?

So the findings are flawed? Thought so. And oddly, you don't consider giving money to a church charity but saving ground squirrels is.

LOL

 

[deltex1]

End Obamacare and at least 20 million Americans will be knocked off health care.

Children going to college working for degrees will no longer be able to use their parents insurance while they go.

People with pre existing conditions will suddenly lose their insurance. Say your kid has some illness, too bad.

Entrepreneurs who rely on health care will suddenly be uninsured.

Very expensive Emergency Room care becomes the primary health care of those millions.

What will that do to the economy?

How will Republicans celebrate after kicking millions of Americans off health care?

Yo Rderp...its repeal.....and replace.....doh!

 

[Maryland Patriot]

...and as I was going to say anyway, part of that takes into account donating to their own church, which isn't necessarily giving to those in need. From an article by MIT that can be found at this website:

So what do you think churches do with that money besides support the church itself and perhaps a school?

They pay the bills, they pay the pastor, they pay for the pastor's house...they save the money and build bigger churches...

It makes me sick every time I see these huge churches, and the money spent that could actually do something good. I used to live in Ohio, and I would regularly drive by the Solid Rock Church along I-75. It made me sick. You might know the church as the home of Butter Jesus. It was the HUGE Jesus statue that got struck by lightening and burned down. Sign from God maybe?



So what odes the church do? They build another HUGE statute in its place.

Why does it make you sick to see people spending their money for something they want? Do you think you should be entitled to a portion of that money?
Tell me something, If you see someone driving an expensive car down the road does it make you sick when you think that they could have bought a 1500 dollar beater like you drive and given the other 70,000 to you?
Why are you so jealous of things other people earn

I already explained this... and this will be the last time. I don't give two flying shits what you spend your money on. You could buy a ten foot golden pool cleaner to shove up your rectum every night... but don't tell me that you are giving your money to charity when it is going to build a huge church and to pay your pastor and the bills.

I think that is pretty simple and straight to the point.

Let me point out, the crudity is flowing from the lefty, this means he knows he is losing his argument and that the facts are actually showing him to be a mooch and a drain on society.
Now about this "dont tell me that you are giving your money to charity when its going to build a huge church"
again, I have to ask, what business is it of yours? did they reach into your bank account and take money without your consent to build it? if not then you have no complaint.
you are just trying to deflect from the issue of people being forced to support others that in many cases would do society a better service by passing on.