New tax deal

[froggy]

Give me your take on the pros and cons of the Trumps tax deal.

 

[gipper]

Pros are the Left hates it and the cons are it is government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Give me your take on the pros and cons of the Trumps tax deal.

It’s a bad ‘deal,’ particularly for middle and low-income Americans, and those who have access to affordable healthcare, the benefit of the ACA.

It’s neither tax ‘reform’ nor a tax ‘cut’ – it’s yet another reprehensible manifestation of failed, wrongheaded rightwing economic dogma.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Give me your take on the pros and cons of the Trumps tax deal.

Many pros:
companies paying more in taxes outside of U.S. can now increase bottom line by returning/moving to U.S.
leeches siphoning money off of firms being over taxed are going to be screaming bloody murder
states can still impose there own taxes to make up the difference and businesses can decide if they want to stay and pay higher taxes or leave and pay lower taxes

cons: have to listen to the commies cry about having to get a job

 

[JGalt]

"We'll have to pass it so we can see what's in it."

That could be a "pro" or a "con".

 

[emilynghiem]

The suspension of the tax penalty mandate for not buying insurance
doesn't take effect until 2019.

Supposedly Trump is ordering the IRS not to enforce the penalty for 2018.
I looked online and there are mixed reports on that.

I still believe that health care and funding of it should be organized by state
and/or by party, where the parties have enough collective membership to
get discount rates like a group plan. If parties can't organize that for their own members, then either workers unions or banks could organizing collective benefits for their members. That would be better than trying to do it through a hostile Congress divided and fighting against each other along party lines and political beliefs.

Trying to manage health care through Congress for the entire nation is
just too complicated because people have different beliefs, needs and demands.

This really should be pushed to the states and people.
One of my libertarian friends explained that the federal funds should be allocated back to states proportionally, and then let states decided how to manage resources to meet the demands of each population.

By delegating complex social programs back to states,
that would reduce and streamline the programs Congress has to manage details for, by shifting domestic programs involving personal decisions to the people and states to work out locally.

We need to organize this better, or it just creates Frankenstein type
legislation, with Senators trying to add Amendments at the last minute.

We are lucky to get anything good out of this process.

If Democrats controlled the process of crafting ACA,
and then Republicans dominated this process of making tax reforms,
we should let taxpayers choose which tax plan to be under, ie:
"If you want your plan you can keep it."'

Why not give taxpayers a choice? Since the votes in Congress
were divided by party, why not let people choose which plan
best represents each person's beliefs and approach to govt!

 

[BULLDOG]

Just another example of repubs choosing their party over the people. Many of them know it is nothing more than a giveaway to the rich, but after the attempted healthcare repeal debacle, a win for their side is all that they cared about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The suspension of the tax penalty mandate for not buying insurance
doesn't take effect until 2019.

Supposedly Trump is ordering the IRS not to enforce the penalty for 2018.
I looked online and there are mixed reports on that.

I still believe that health care and funding of it should be organized by state
and/or by party, where the parties have enough collective membership to
get discount rates like a group plan. If parties can't organize that for their own members, then either workers unions or banks could organizing collective benefits for their members. That would be better than trying to do it through a hostile Congress divided and fighting against each other along party lines and political beliefs.

Trying to manage health care through Congress for the entire nation is
just too complicated because people have different beliefs, needs and demands.

This really should be pushed to the states and people.
One of my libertarian friends explained that the federal funds should be allocated back to states proportionally, and then let states decided how to manage resources to meet the demands of each population.

By delegating complex social programs back to states,
that would reduce and streamline the programs Congress has to manage details for, by shifting domestic programs involving personal decisions to the people and states to work out locally.

We need to organize this better, or it just creates Frankenstein type
legislation, with Senators trying to add Amendments at the last minute.

We are lucky to get anything good out of this process.

If Democrats controlled the process of crafting ACA,
and then Republicans dominated this process of making tax reforms,
we should let taxpayers choose which tax plan to be under, ie:
"If you want your plan you can keep it."'

Why not give taxpayers a choice? Since the votes in Congress
were divided by party, why not let people choose which plan
best represents each person's beliefs and approach to govt!

Are you an immigrant to this country? You obviously have no clue as to how our system of government works.

The average American is stupid on matters of politics because they are uneducated and do not seek to improve on that deficiency.

 

[emilynghiem]

The suspension of the tax penalty mandate for not buying insurance
doesn't take effect until 2019.

Supposedly Trump is ordering the IRS not to enforce the penalty for 2018.
I looked online and there are mixed reports on that.

I still believe that health care and funding of it should be organized by state
and/or by party, where the parties have enough collective membership to
get discount rates like a group plan. If parties can't organize that for their own members, then either workers unions or banks could organizing collective benefits for their members. That would be better than trying to do it through a hostile Congress divided and fighting against each other along party lines and political beliefs.

Trying to manage health care through Congress for the entire nation is
just too complicated because people have different beliefs, needs and demands.

This really should be pushed to the states and people.
One of my libertarian friends explained that the federal funds should be allocated back to states proportionally, and then let states decided how to manage resources to meet the demands of each population.

By delegating complex social programs back to states,
that would reduce and streamline the programs Congress has to manage details for, by shifting domestic programs involving personal decisions to the people and states to work out locally.

We need to organize this better, or it just creates Frankenstein type
legislation, with Senators trying to add Amendments at the last minute.

We are lucky to get anything good out of this process.

If Democrats controlled the process of crafting ACA,
and then Republicans dominated this process of making tax reforms,
we should let taxpayers choose which tax plan to be under, ie:
"If you want your plan you can keep it."'

Why not give taxpayers a choice? Since the votes in Congress
were divided by party, why not let people choose which plan
best represents each person's beliefs and approach to govt!

Are you an immigrant to this country? You obviously have no clue as to how our system of government works.

The average American is stupid on matters of politics because they are uneducated and do not seek to improve on that deficiency.

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
What I mean is proposing changes instead of trying to manage health care through govt.

No, I'm not an immigrant. But both my parents were, and taught me strong work ethics, to earn everything yourself by your own efforts and not to depend or expect others to pay for you. If you want control over your money and programs you pay for, then earn your own money yourself, and invest it directly into programs you support and respect. Don't give your power and money to "other people" then complain when they don't make the decisions that you want. DIY!

I am a Constitutionalist. I believe the limits on federal govt are designed to keep social programs and personal decisions OUT of the hands of govt and keep "freedom of choice" and rights of the people, which can be managed by states better than trying to make all these decisions on a federal level through Congress.

Now, since I've been politically active and working with Democrats and Greens on progressive issues and solutions, I've been struggling with the partisan political belief that "heath care is a right" that must be guaranteed and managed through govt to ensure protection of the general welfare.

That belief written into the Democratic party platform runs CONTRARY to conservative Republican and constitutional beliefs in limited govt and health care decisions belonging to people and states.

So Admiral Rockwell Tory: to solve this conflict between two equal political beliefs,
THIS IS WHY I AM ADVOCATING A BETTER SOLUTION
of creating collective health care provisions either through party or state, or other
means that allows "mass numbers" of enrollees to access affordable plans similar
to work benefits.

Instead of running collective health care programs through federal govt,
where people of the two major parties both have equal but contradictory beliefs,
I am saying to SEPARATE these beliefs, set up SEPARATE programs,
and let members CHOOSE which plan best represents their beliefs, interests and needs.

this would be an INNOVATION,
and yes it would require changes to tax policies
to allow people to invest in their own private programs,
deduct that from their taxes, and quit fighting over federal budgets.

Thank you for asking and I hope this is more clear!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The suspension of the tax penalty mandate for not buying insurance
doesn't take effect until 2019.

Supposedly Trump is ordering the IRS not to enforce the penalty for 2018.
I looked online and there are mixed reports on that.

I still believe that health care and funding of it should be organized by state
and/or by party, where the parties have enough collective membership to
get discount rates like a group plan. If parties can't organize that for their own members, then either workers unions or banks could organizing collective benefits for their members. That would be better than trying to do it through a hostile Congress divided and fighting against each other along party lines and political beliefs.

Trying to manage health care through Congress for the entire nation is
just too complicated because people have different beliefs, needs and demands.

This really should be pushed to the states and people.
One of my libertarian friends explained that the federal funds should be allocated back to states proportionally, and then let states decided how to manage resources to meet the demands of each population.

By delegating complex social programs back to states,
that would reduce and streamline the programs Congress has to manage details for, by shifting domestic programs involving personal decisions to the people and states to work out locally.

We need to organize this better, or it just creates Frankenstein type
legislation, with Senators trying to add Amendments at the last minute.

We are lucky to get anything good out of this process.

If Democrats controlled the process of crafting ACA,
and then Republicans dominated this process of making tax reforms,
we should let taxpayers choose which tax plan to be under, ie:
"If you want your plan you can keep it."'

Why not give taxpayers a choice? Since the votes in Congress
were divided by party, why not let people choose which plan
best represents each person's beliefs and approach to govt!

Are you an immigrant to this country? You obviously have no clue as to how our system of government works.

The average American is stupid on matters of politics because they are uneducated and do not seek to improve on that deficiency.

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
What I mean is proposing changes instead of trying to manage health care through govt.

No, I'm not an immigrant.

I am a Constitutionalist. I believe the limits on federal govt are designed to keep social programs and personal decisions OUT of the hands of govt and keep "freedom of choice" and rights of the people, which can be managed by states better than trying to make all these decisions on a federal level through Congress.

Now, since I've been politically active and working with Democrats and Greens on progressive issues and solutions, I've been struggling with the partisan political belief that "heath care is a right" that must be guaranteed and managed through govt to ensure protection of the general welfare.

That belief written into the Democratic party platform runs CONTRARY to conservative Republican and constitutional beliefs in limited govt and health care decisions belonging to people and states.

So Admiral Rockwell Tory: to solve this conflict between two equal political beliefs,
THIS IS WHY I AM ADVOCATING A BETTER SOLUTION
of creating collective health care provisions either through party or state, or other
means that allows "mass numbers" of enrollees to access affordable plans similar
to work benefits.

Instead of running collective health care programs through federal govt,
where people of the two major parties both have equal but contradictory beliefs,
I am saying to SEPARATE these beliefs, set up SEPARATE programs,
and let members CHOOSE which plan best represents their beliefs, interests and needs.

this would be an INNOVATION,
and yes it would require changes to tax policies
to allow people to invest in their own private programs,
deduct that from their taxes, and quit fighting over federal budgets.

Thank you for asking and I hope this is more clear!

That is the way the system worked BEFORE Obamacare, or did you not know that?

 

[emilynghiem]

The suspension of the tax penalty mandate for not buying insurance
doesn't take effect until 2019.

Supposedly Trump is ordering the IRS not to enforce the penalty for 2018.
I looked online and there are mixed reports on that.

I still believe that health care and funding of it should be organized by state
and/or by party, where the parties have enough collective membership to
get discount rates like a group plan. If parties can't organize that for their own members, then either workers unions or banks could organizing collective benefits for their members. That would be better than trying to do it through a hostile Congress divided and fighting against each other along party lines and political beliefs.

Trying to manage health care through Congress for the entire nation is
just too complicated because people have different beliefs, needs and demands.

This really should be pushed to the states and people.
One of my libertarian friends explained that the federal funds should be allocated back to states proportionally, and then let states decided how to manage resources to meet the demands of each population.

By delegating complex social programs back to states,
that would reduce and streamline the programs Congress has to manage details for, by shifting domestic programs involving personal decisions to the people and states to work out locally.

We need to organize this better, or it just creates Frankenstein type
legislation, with Senators trying to add Amendments at the last minute.

We are lucky to get anything good out of this process.

If Democrats controlled the process of crafting ACA,
and then Republicans dominated this process of making tax reforms,
we should let taxpayers choose which tax plan to be under, ie:
"If you want your plan you can keep it."'

Why not give taxpayers a choice? Since the votes in Congress
were divided by party, why not let people choose which plan
best represents each person's beliefs and approach to govt!

Are you an immigrant to this country? You obviously have no clue as to how our system of government works.

The average American is stupid on matters of politics because they are uneducated and do not seek to improve on that deficiency.

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
What I mean is proposing changes instead of trying to manage health care through govt.

No, I'm not an immigrant.

I am a Constitutionalist. I believe the limits on federal govt are designed to keep social programs and personal decisions OUT of the hands of govt and keep "freedom of choice" and rights of the people, which can be managed by states better than trying to make all these decisions on a federal level through Congress.

Now, since I've been politically active and working with Democrats and Greens on progressive issues and solutions, I've been struggling with the partisan political belief that "heath care is a right" that must be guaranteed and managed through govt to ensure protection of the general welfare.

That belief written into the Democratic party platform runs CONTRARY to conservative Republican and constitutional beliefs in limited govt and health care decisions belonging to people and states.

So Admiral Rockwell Tory: to solve this conflict between two equal political beliefs,
THIS IS WHY I AM ADVOCATING A BETTER SOLUTION
of creating collective health care provisions either through party or state, or other
means that allows "mass numbers" of enrollees to access affordable plans similar
to work benefits.

Instead of running collective health care programs through federal govt,
where people of the two major parties both have equal but contradictory beliefs,
I am saying to SEPARATE these beliefs, set up SEPARATE programs,
and let members CHOOSE which plan best represents their beliefs, interests and needs.

this would be an INNOVATION,
and yes it would require changes to tax policies
to allow people to invest in their own private programs,
deduct that from their taxes, and quit fighting over federal budgets.

Thank you for asking and I hope this is more clear!

That is the way the system worked BEFORE Obamacare, or did you not know that?

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory

The Democrats have not yet figured it out we'd be better off investing our taxes, our labor and business investments, our charity and school funding, our charity and political donations DIRECTLY into building medical programs and services OURSELVES PER DISTRICT.

When I started proposing to give taxpayers a choice of separating funding on issues of conflicting political beliefs (starting with the death penalty, and war funding and now health care, similar to prolife advocates demanding the right to defund abortion and birth control they don't believe in), I've been told it's very complicated to change.

I agree that Obamacare made the situation worse, especially with that mandate I have argued was Unconstitutional from the very beginning.

At this point, I believe it will take separating tax plans. Not only partisan priorities and beliefs from each other, but really delegating all the social programs, educational and other funding back to states. And reserving the federal budget for national security and other programs that absolutely require central Constitutional govt to manage for the 50 states. The social programs affecting people can be decided and represented locally for better accountability and accommodation of diverse populations and individual needs.

What Obama and Democrats have done is made it absolutely necessary to address "political beliefs" and quit ramming these through govt against the beliefs of others.

* Right to health care vs beliefs in free market and limited govt not authorized to regualte health care decisions
* Right to life vs beliefs in free choice of individuals in reproductive heath care
* LGBT beliefs and Christian beliefs about gender, orientation, marriage, spiritual healing and reparative therapy, etc.

We used to have free choice in paying and providing for health care before ACA started trying to mandate and manage this through govt even PENALIZING people for not complying with these govt regulated choices including on religious membership to qualify for exemptions.

We used to have no problem with transgender people using the restroom of their choice, until this got politicized due to cases of bullying at schools, and ordinances and laws were pushed to force LGBT beliefs to be recognized instead of leaving it to free choice.

Somehow starting with the prochoice/prolife politics, Christianity got politicized left and right which led to LGBT beliefs getting politicized. And with Obama's election where he was given an unchecked unquestioned free ride to push his agenda, this allowed political beliefs from "right to health care" to "right to marriage" to get railroaded through govt.

So to fix this, that's why I'm saying we need to recognize political beliefs for what they are, a form of "religion" specifically a "political religion" which mixes beliefs with government.

Admiral Rockwell Tory
we've always had this battle going on with ideologies. We call it left vs right, or liberal vs. conservative, or Democrat vs Republican.

But basically we have two political RELIGIONS fighting for dominance in govt.
By the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to either Establish nor prohibit free exercise of religion. And by the Fourteenth, all persons are supposed to have equal protection of the laws, including civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

So what I'm asking is to recognize the political beliefs of parties as
political religions, and start policing these equally as religious beliefs!
keep them OUT of govt, keep govt neutral, and only where people
AGREE on such beliefs can they be incorporated into policies and laws
by CONSENT of the people governed and affected by those policies
so we are equally represented. But NOT abusing govt to push beliefs on the public,
whether these are "organized religious" beliefs or political religious beliefs by party.

The Constitution should rule first, by which people of all beliefs should have
equal protection and representation without discrimination by creed

 

[Old Rocks]

The suspension of the tax penalty mandate for not buying insurance
doesn't take effect until 2019.

Supposedly Trump is ordering the IRS not to enforce the penalty for 2018.
I looked online and there are mixed reports on that.

I still believe that health care and funding of it should be organized by state
and/or by party, where the parties have enough collective membership to
get discount rates like a group plan. If parties can't organize that for their own members, then either workers unions or banks could organizing collective benefits for their members. That would be better than trying to do it through a hostile Congress divided and fighting against each other along party lines and political beliefs.

Trying to manage health care through Congress for the entire nation is
just too complicated because people have different beliefs, needs and demands.

This really should be pushed to the states and people.
One of my libertarian friends explained that the federal funds should be allocated back to states proportionally, and then let states decided how to manage resources to meet the demands of each population.

By delegating complex social programs back to states,
that would reduce and streamline the programs Congress has to manage details for, by shifting domestic programs involving personal decisions to the people and states to work out locally.

We need to organize this better, or it just creates Frankenstein type
legislation, with Senators trying to add Amendments at the last minute.

We are lucky to get anything good out of this process.

If Democrats controlled the process of crafting ACA,
and then Republicans dominated this process of making tax reforms,
we should let taxpayers choose which tax plan to be under, ie:
"If you want your plan you can keep it."'

Why not give taxpayers a choice? Since the votes in Congress
were divided by party, why not let people choose which plan
best represents each person's beliefs and approach to govt!

Are you an immigrant to this country? You obviously have no clue as to how our system of government works.

The average American is stupid on matters of politics because they are uneducated and do not seek to improve on that deficiency.

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
What I mean is proposing changes instead of trying to manage health care through govt.

No, I'm not an immigrant.

I am a Constitutionalist. I believe the limits on federal govt are designed to keep social programs and personal decisions OUT of the hands of govt and keep "freedom of choice" and rights of the people, which can be managed by states better than trying to make all these decisions on a federal level through Congress.

Now, since I've been politically active and working with Democrats and Greens on progressive issues and solutions, I've been struggling with the partisan political belief that "heath care is a right" that must be guaranteed and managed through govt to ensure protection of the general welfare.

That belief written into the Democratic party platform runs CONTRARY to conservative Republican and constitutional beliefs in limited govt and health care decisions belonging to people and states.

So Admiral Rockwell Tory: to solve this conflict between two equal political beliefs,
THIS IS WHY I AM ADVOCATING A BETTER SOLUTION
of creating collective health care provisions either through party or state, or other
means that allows "mass numbers" of enrollees to access affordable plans similar
to work benefits.

Instead of running collective health care programs through federal govt,
where people of the two major parties both have equal but contradictory beliefs,
I am saying to SEPARATE these beliefs, set up SEPARATE programs,
and let members CHOOSE which plan best represents their beliefs, interests and needs.

this would be an INNOVATION,
and yes it would require changes to tax policies
to allow people to invest in their own private programs,
deduct that from their taxes, and quit fighting over federal budgets.

Thank you for asking and I hope this is more clear!

That is the way the system worked BEFORE Obamacare, or did you not know that?

Like hell. Sure, I had good healthcare. I switched jobs several times to maintain that. But way too many Americans had no access to healthcare, other than the emergency room. After the party of Groping Old Perverts loses the House and Senate, it is time to go to a universal single payer system. It works in every other first world industrial nation. There costs per citizen are lower, their longevity and infant mortality are way better numbers than ours.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The suspension of the tax penalty mandate for not buying insurance
doesn't take effect until 2019.

Supposedly Trump is ordering the IRS not to enforce the penalty for 2018.
I looked online and there are mixed reports on that.

I still believe that health care and funding of it should be organized by state
and/or by party, where the parties have enough collective membership to
get discount rates like a group plan. If parties can't organize that for their own members, then either workers unions or banks could organizing collective benefits for their members. That would be better than trying to do it through a hostile Congress divided and fighting against each other along party lines and political beliefs.

Trying to manage health care through Congress for the entire nation is
just too complicated because people have different beliefs, needs and demands.

This really should be pushed to the states and people.
One of my libertarian friends explained that the federal funds should be allocated back to states proportionally, and then let states decided how to manage resources to meet the demands of each population.

By delegating complex social programs back to states,
that would reduce and streamline the programs Congress has to manage details for, by shifting domestic programs involving personal decisions to the people and states to work out locally.

We need to organize this better, or it just creates Frankenstein type
legislation, with Senators trying to add Amendments at the last minute.

We are lucky to get anything good out of this process.

If Democrats controlled the process of crafting ACA,
and then Republicans dominated this process of making tax reforms,
we should let taxpayers choose which tax plan to be under, ie:
"If you want your plan you can keep it."'

Why not give taxpayers a choice? Since the votes in Congress
were divided by party, why not let people choose which plan
best represents each person's beliefs and approach to govt!

Are you an immigrant to this country? You obviously have no clue as to how our system of government works.

The average American is stupid on matters of politics because they are uneducated and do not seek to improve on that deficiency.

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
What I mean is proposing changes instead of trying to manage health care through govt.

No, I'm not an immigrant.

I am a Constitutionalist. I believe the limits on federal govt are designed to keep social programs and personal decisions OUT of the hands of govt and keep "freedom of choice" and rights of the people, which can be managed by states better than trying to make all these decisions on a federal level through Congress.

Now, since I've been politically active and working with Democrats and Greens on progressive issues and solutions, I've been struggling with the partisan political belief that "heath care is a right" that must be guaranteed and managed through govt to ensure protection of the general welfare.

That belief written into the Democratic party platform runs CONTRARY to conservative Republican and constitutional beliefs in limited govt and health care decisions belonging to people and states.

So Admiral Rockwell Tory: to solve this conflict between two equal political beliefs,
THIS IS WHY I AM ADVOCATING A BETTER SOLUTION
of creating collective health care provisions either through party or state, or other
means that allows "mass numbers" of enrollees to access affordable plans similar
to work benefits.

Instead of running collective health care programs through federal govt,
where people of the two major parties both have equal but contradictory beliefs,
I am saying to SEPARATE these beliefs, set up SEPARATE programs,
and let members CHOOSE which plan best represents their beliefs, interests and needs.

this would be an INNOVATION,
and yes it would require changes to tax policies
to allow people to invest in their own private programs,
deduct that from their taxes, and quit fighting over federal budgets.

Thank you for asking and I hope this is more clear!

That is the way the system worked BEFORE Obamacare, or did you not know that?

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory

The Democrats have not yet figured it out we'd be better off investing our taxes, our labor and business investments, our charity and school funding, our charity and political donations DIRECTLY into building medical programs and services OURSELVES PER DISTRICT.

When I started proposing to give taxpayers a choice of separating funding on issues of conflicting political beliefs (starting with the death penalty, and war funding and now health care, similar to prolife advocates demanding the right to defund abortion and birth control they don't believe in), I've been told it's very complicated to change.

I agree that Obamacare made the situation worse, especially with that mandate I have argued was Unconstitutional from the very beginning.

At this point, I believe it will take separating tax plans. Not only partisan priorities and beliefs from each other, but really delegating all the social programs, educational and other funding back to states. And reserving the federal budget for national security and other programs that absolutely require central Constitutional govt to manage for the 50 states. The social programs affecting people can be decided and represented locally for better accountability and accommodation of diverse populations and individual needs.

What Obama and Democrats have done is made it absolutely necessary to address "political beliefs" and quit ramming these through govt against the beliefs of others.

* Right to health care vs beliefs in free market and limited govt not authorized to regualte health care decisions
* Right to life vs beliefs in free choice of individuals in reproductive heath care
* LGBT beliefs and Christian beliefs about gender, orientation, marriage, spiritual healing and reparative therapy, etc.

We used to have free choice in paying and providing for health care before ACA started trying to mandate and manage this through govt even PENALIZING people for not complying with these govt regulated choices including on religious membership to qualify for exemptions.

We used to have no problem with transgender people using the restroom of their choice, until this got politicized due to cases of bullying at schools, and ordinances and laws were pushed to force LGBT beliefs to be recognized instead of leaving it to free choice.

Somehow starting with the prochoice/prolife politics, Christianity got politicized left and right which led to LGBT beliefs getting politicized. And with Obama's election where he was given an unchecked unquestioned free ride to push his agenda, this allowed political beliefs from "right to health care" to "right to marriage" to get railroaded through govt.

So to fix this, that's why I'm saying we need to recognize political beliefs for what they are, a form of "religion" specifically a "political religion" which mixes beliefs with government.

Admiral Rockwell Tory
we've always had this battle going on with ideologies. We call it left vs right, or liberal vs. conservative, or Democrat vs Republican.

But basically we have two political RELIGIONS fighting for dominance in govt.
By the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to either Establish nor prohibit free exercise of religion. And by the Fourteenth, all persons are supposed to have equal protection of the laws, including civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

So what I'm asking is to recognize the political beliefs of parties as
political religions, and start policing these equally as religious beliefs!
keep them OUT of govt, keep govt neutral, and only where people
AGREE on such beliefs can they be incorporated into policies and laws
by CONSENT of the people governed and affected by those policies
so we are equally represented. But NOT abusing govt to push beliefs on the public,
whether these are "organized religious" beliefs or political religious beliefs by party.

The Constitution should rule first, by which people of all beliefs should have
equal protection and representation without discrimination by creed

I hate to tell you this, especially after your verbose response. All you support is getting rid of Obamacare and going back to the way it was before. The federal government has business in healthcare for the public. They have enough to handle with Medicare and the VA. Let the state's handle it if they wish for the indigent (Medicaid).

 

[emilynghiem]

The suspension of the tax penalty mandate for not buying insurance
doesn't take effect until 2019.

Supposedly Trump is ordering the IRS not to enforce the penalty for 2018.
I looked online and there are mixed reports on that.

I still believe that health care and funding of it should be organized by state
and/or by party, where the parties have enough collective membership to
get discount rates like a group plan. If parties can't organize that for their own members, then either workers unions or banks could organizing collective benefits for their members. That would be better than trying to do it through a hostile Congress divided and fighting against each other along party lines and political beliefs.

Trying to manage health care through Congress for the entire nation is
just too complicated because people have different beliefs, needs and demands.

This really should be pushed to the states and people.
One of my libertarian friends explained that the federal funds should be allocated back to states proportionally, and then let states decided how to manage resources to meet the demands of each population.

By delegating complex social programs back to states,
that would reduce and streamline the programs Congress has to manage details for, by shifting domestic programs involving personal decisions to the people and states to work out locally.

We need to organize this better, or it just creates Frankenstein type
legislation, with Senators trying to add Amendments at the last minute.

We are lucky to get anything good out of this process.

If Democrats controlled the process of crafting ACA,
and then Republicans dominated this process of making tax reforms,
we should let taxpayers choose which tax plan to be under, ie:
"If you want your plan you can keep it."'

Why not give taxpayers a choice? Since the votes in Congress
were divided by party, why not let people choose which plan
best represents each person's beliefs and approach to govt!

Are you an immigrant to this country? You obviously have no clue as to how our system of government works.

The average American is stupid on matters of politics because they are uneducated and do not seek to improve on that deficiency.

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
What I mean is proposing changes instead of trying to manage health care through govt.

No, I'm not an immigrant.

I am a Constitutionalist. I believe the limits on federal govt are designed to keep social programs and personal decisions OUT of the hands of govt and keep "freedom of choice" and rights of the people, which can be managed by states better than trying to make all these decisions on a federal level through Congress.

Now, since I've been politically active and working with Democrats and Greens on progressive issues and solutions, I've been struggling with the partisan political belief that "heath care is a right" that must be guaranteed and managed through govt to ensure protection of the general welfare.

That belief written into the Democratic party platform runs CONTRARY to conservative Republican and constitutional beliefs in limited govt and health care decisions belonging to people and states.

So Admiral Rockwell Tory: to solve this conflict between two equal political beliefs,
THIS IS WHY I AM ADVOCATING A BETTER SOLUTION
of creating collective health care provisions either through party or state, or other
means that allows "mass numbers" of enrollees to access affordable plans similar
to work benefits.

Instead of running collective health care programs through federal govt,
where people of the two major parties both have equal but contradictory beliefs,
I am saying to SEPARATE these beliefs, set up SEPARATE programs,
and let members CHOOSE which plan best represents their beliefs, interests and needs.

this would be an INNOVATION,
and yes it would require changes to tax policies
to allow people to invest in their own private programs,
deduct that from their taxes, and quit fighting over federal budgets.

Thank you for asking and I hope this is more clear!

That is the way the system worked BEFORE Obamacare, or did you not know that?

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory

The Democrats have not yet figured it out we'd be better off investing our taxes, our labor and business investments, our charity and school funding, our charity and political donations DIRECTLY into building medical programs and services OURSELVES PER DISTRICT.

When I started proposing to give taxpayers a choice of separating funding on issues of conflicting political beliefs (starting with the death penalty, and war funding and now health care, similar to prolife advocates demanding the right to defund abortion and birth control they don't believe in), I've been told it's very complicated to change.

I agree that Obamacare made the situation worse, especially with that mandate I have argued was Unconstitutional from the very beginning.

At this point, I believe it will take separating tax plans. Not only partisan priorities and beliefs from each other, but really delegating all the social programs, educational and other funding back to states. And reserving the federal budget for national security and other programs that absolutely require central Constitutional govt to manage for the 50 states. The social programs affecting people can be decided and represented locally for better accountability and accommodation of diverse populations and individual needs.

What Obama and Democrats have done is made it absolutely necessary to address "political beliefs" and quit ramming these through govt against the beliefs of others.

* Right to health care vs beliefs in free market and limited govt not authorized to regualte health care decisions
* Right to life vs beliefs in free choice of individuals in reproductive heath care
* LGBT beliefs and Christian beliefs about gender, orientation, marriage, spiritual healing and reparative therapy, etc.

We used to have free choice in paying and providing for health care before ACA started trying to mandate and manage this through govt even PENALIZING people for not complying with these govt regulated choices including on religious membership to qualify for exemptions.

We used to have no problem with transgender people using the restroom of their choice, until this got politicized due to cases of bullying at schools, and ordinances and laws were pushed to force LGBT beliefs to be recognized instead of leaving it to free choice.

Somehow starting with the prochoice/prolife politics, Christianity got politicized left and right which led to LGBT beliefs getting politicized. And with Obama's election where he was given an unchecked unquestioned free ride to push his agenda, this allowed political beliefs from "right to health care" to "right to marriage" to get railroaded through govt.

So to fix this, that's why I'm saying we need to recognize political beliefs for what they are, a form of "religion" specifically a "political religion" which mixes beliefs with government.

Admiral Rockwell Tory
we've always had this battle going on with ideologies. We call it left vs right, or liberal vs. conservative, or Democrat vs Republican.

But basically we have two political RELIGIONS fighting for dominance in govt.
By the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to either Establish nor prohibit free exercise of religion. And by the Fourteenth, all persons are supposed to have equal protection of the laws, including civil rights principles of no discrimination by creed.

So what I'm asking is to recognize the political beliefs of parties as
political religions, and start policing these equally as religious beliefs!
keep them OUT of govt, keep govt neutral, and only where people
AGREE on such beliefs can they be incorporated into policies and laws
by CONSENT of the people governed and affected by those policies
so we are equally represented. But NOT abusing govt to push beliefs on the public,
whether these are "organized religious" beliefs or political religious beliefs by party.

The Constitution should rule first, by which people of all beliefs should have
equal protection and representation without discrimination by creed

I hate to tell you this, especially after your verbose response. All you support is getting rid of Obamacare and going back to the way it was before. The federal government has business in healthcare for the public. They have enough to handle with Medicare and the VA. Let the state's handle it if they wish for the indigent (Medicaid).

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
And citizens, by our BELIEFS, have the right to fund the health care we believe in by free choice!

Conservatives DON'T BELIEVE in funding Planned Parenthood, birth control/abortion,
but DO BELIEVE in funding VA reform either as public or private or both.
So let's GIVE taxpayers a CHOICE which system to fund, and QUIT FIGHTING OVER BELIEFS.

Democrats who want to DEFUND the death penalty and fund universal care can do so WITHOUT IMPOSING on others who don't want their taxes or labor to go to inmates or immigrants on welfare!

When the Catholic church funds adoptions or helps families, they have their own "terms and conditions" on funding and services.

We need to respect the same.

Otherwise Admiral Rockwell Tory BOTH parties argue that people of the "other beliefs" are infringing on THEIR beliefs! So that is Unconstitutional to abuse govt to do that!

 

[Indeependent]

Opinion | Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and the Con Man Caucus
Opinion | The Biggest Tax Scam in History

The husband of my wife's friend in Ocean Side, NY, is a Tax Attorney in Manhattan to the Elite of America.
In other words, he's in the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of the 1%.
But he's honest...this Tax Reform bill, as explained in these 2 very short articles, is a long term disaster for the Middle Class.
Yes, I know Republicans hate Paul Krugman.

 

[sartre play]

Smart or a con job? the tax plan is set up so that any benefit average America gets is in the 1st 2 years, that takes us past the 2020 election, then they take away most every thing given. so who ever runs in 2024 has a big mess to clean up, plus the deficit adds over trillion dollars. my crystal balls not working today, maybe things will get better.it just looks like we(working/middle class always lose more than we win.