What will low income people do for healthcare if they lose their Obamacare?

[Claudette]

Unless I've missed something, we do not live in a socialist country. Nor have we amended our Constitution to permit Government (the taxpayers) to pay for healthcare for all.

Hence, we have the observable phenomena that :

People with money tend to eat better than people without money;

They tend to have nicer clothes;

They tend to live in safer, more posh places;

They tend to send their kids to better schools (all the way through college), whether public or private;

They get better healthcare.

To the extent that healthcare is a high priority, people who are "poor" have to seek out whatever resources are available and exploit them to the extent necessary.

But on the whole, people with resources will always get better healthcare than people without resources. AND THAT EVEN HAPPENS IN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

So if you don't mind, stop telling me that I am financially responsible to see to it that every poor bastard in this country has "adequate" health care. If you think the Constitution needs changing, and if enough people agree with you to get it done, then I will happily pay my share. But until that happens STFU. Ain't my problem.

I agree and I couldn't have said it better.

People are responsible for themselves and the taxpayers aren't responsible for their health care, their rent, food on their table or anything else.

They need to get off their asses and take care of themselves.

Republican motto

I got mine......fuck everyone else

And these are people who don't realize that a healthy population is good for everyone. Increased productivity, more stable workforce, less burdened emergency services.

Why should they pay for someone else who is sick or in pain?

Not their problem..... they have the wealthy to look after

Nope. The wealthy can look after themselves. Its the poor those suck off all around them.

And its idiots like you who like to let them.

 

[Claudette]

Unless I've missed something, we do not live in a socialist country. Nor have we amended our Constitution to permit Government (the taxpayers) to pay for healthcare for all.

Hence, we have the observable phenomena that :

People with money tend to eat better than people without money;

They tend to have nicer clothes;

They tend to live in safer, more posh places;

They tend to send their kids to better schools (all the way through college), whether public or private;

They get better healthcare.

To the extent that healthcare is a high priority, people who are "poor" have to seek out whatever resources are available and exploit them to the extent necessary.

But on the whole, people with resources will always get better healthcare than people without resources. AND THAT EVEN HAPPENS IN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

So if you don't mind, stop telling me that I am financially responsible to see to it that every poor bastard in this country has "adequate" health care. If you think the Constitution needs changing, and if enough people agree with you to get it done, then I will happily pay my share. But until that happens STFU. Ain't my problem.

I agree and I couldn't have said it better.

People are responsible for themselves and the taxpayers aren't responsible for their health care, their rent, food on their table or anything else.

They need to get off their asses and take care of themselves.

Republican motto

I got mine......fuck everyone else

And these are people who don't realize that a healthy population is good for everyone. Increased productivity, more stable workforce, less burdened emergency services.

Nope they are people who pay their own way and don't appreciate being forced to pay for others.

You want health care?? Then do like those that pay do. Pay for you're own.

It's "your."

Which reminds me, education is one of those things we all pay for, for the good of our whole society.

You may disagree. That's fine. But very few people pay for their healthcare outright. The costs are just prohibitive.

Oh a grammar natzi. How nice.

Maybe folks should pay for their health care outright. No more insurance companies.

 

[ricechickie]

I agree and I couldn't have said it better.

People are responsible for themselves and the taxpayers aren't responsible for their health care, their rent, food on their table or anything else.

They need to get off their asses and take care of themselves.

Republican motto

I got mine......fuck everyone else

And these are people who don't realize that a healthy population is good for everyone. Increased productivity, more stable workforce, less burdened emergency services.

Nope they are people who pay their own way and don't appreciate being forced to pay for others.

You want health care?? Then do like those that pay do. Pay for you're own.

It's "your."

Which reminds me, education is one of those things we all pay for, for the good of our whole society.

You may disagree. That's fine. But very few people pay for their healthcare outright. The costs are just prohibitive.

Oh a grammar natzi. How nice.

Maybe folks should pay for their health care outright. No more insurance companies.

That would result in a loss of lives that would be unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, what would that look like? Say you're in some awful accident, and you are rushed to an emergency room.....Are you going to negotiate price with the doctors and aneasthesiologists? Or are they simply to run a credit check and decide whether to trust you to pay?

 

[Claudette]

Republican motto

I got mine......fuck everyone else

And these are people who don't realize that a healthy population is good for everyone. Increased productivity, more stable workforce, less burdened emergency services.

Nope they are people who pay their own way and don't appreciate being forced to pay for others.

You want health care?? Then do like those that pay do. Pay for you're own.

It's "your."

Which reminds me, education is one of those things we all pay for, for the good of our whole society.

You may disagree. That's fine. But very few people pay for their healthcare outright. The costs are just prohibitive.

Oh a grammar natzi. How nice.

Maybe folks should pay for their health care outright. No more insurance companies.

That would result in a loss of lives that would be unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, what would that look like? Say you're in some awful accident, and you are rushed to an emergency room.....Are you going to negotiate price with the doctors and aneasthesiologists? Or are they simply to run a credit check and decide whether to trust you to pay?

Oh so now insurance companies are good?? They aren't out to get you??

You do realize that without insurance companies prices would go down. Without medicaide prices would go down. Doctors would be paid with money and wouldn't have to go through hoops to get it from insurance companies and the Govt.

Sounds good to me.

 

[ricechickie]

And these are people who don't realize that a healthy population is good for everyone. Increased productivity, more stable workforce, less burdened emergency services.

Nope they are people who pay their own way and don't appreciate being forced to pay for others.

You want health care?? Then do like those that pay do. Pay for you're own.

It's "your."

Which reminds me, education is one of those things we all pay for, for the good of our whole society.

You may disagree. That's fine. But very few people pay for their healthcare outright. The costs are just prohibitive.

Oh a grammar natzi. How nice.

Maybe folks should pay for their health care outright. No more insurance companies.

That would result in a loss of lives that would be unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, what would that look like? Say you're in some awful accident, and you are rushed to an emergency room.....Are you going to negotiate price with the doctors and aneasthesiologists? Or are they simply to run a credit check and decide whether to trust you to pay?

Oh so now insurance companies are good?? They aren't out to get you??

You really should make up your mind.

My mind is made up. Medicaid for all.

There's no contradiction. Insurance companies are meant to guarantee payment so that the scenario I presented above doesn't happen. But when insurance companies are more interested in finding ways to not pay bills on behalf of their customers, that is unacceptable, too. The consumer loses out in both situations. A catastrophic illness or accident can ruin someone financially.

 

[ricechickie]

And these are people who don't realize that a healthy population is good for everyone. Increased productivity, more stable workforce, less burdened emergency services.

Nope they are people who pay their own way and don't appreciate being forced to pay for others.

You want health care?? Then do like those that pay do. Pay for you're own.

It's "your."

Which reminds me, education is one of those things we all pay for, for the good of our whole society.

You may disagree. That's fine. But very few people pay for their healthcare outright. The costs are just prohibitive.

Oh a grammar natzi. How nice.

Maybe folks should pay for their health care outright. No more insurance companies.

That would result in a loss of lives that would be unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, what would that look like? Say you're in some awful accident, and you are rushed to an emergency room.....Are you going to negotiate price with the doctors and aneasthesiologists? Or are they simply to run a credit check and decide whether to trust you to pay?

Oh so now insurance companies are good?? They aren't out to get you??

You do realize that without insurance companies prices would go down. Without medicaide prices would go down. Doctors would be paid with money and wouldn't have to go through hoops to get it from insurance companies and the Govt.

Sounds good to me.

Ummm, I don't know how cheap you can price down surgery, chemo, transplants, etc. The demand for medical care will always be higher than the supply, meaning prices will stay up. People want to live, and they want to live regardless of the cost.

 

[Claudette]

Nope they are people who pay their own way and don't appreciate being forced to pay for others.

You want health care?? Then do like those that pay do. Pay for you're own.

It's "your."

Which reminds me, education is one of those things we all pay for, for the good of our whole society.

You may disagree. That's fine. But very few people pay for their healthcare outright. The costs are just prohibitive.

Oh a grammar natzi. How nice.

Maybe folks should pay for their health care outright. No more insurance companies.

That would result in a loss of lives that would be unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, what would that look like? Say you're in some awful accident, and you are rushed to an emergency room.....Are you going to negotiate price with the doctors and aneasthesiologists? Or are they simply to run a credit check and decide whether to trust you to pay?

Oh so now insurance companies are good?? They aren't out to get you??

You really should make up your mind.

My mind is made up. Medicaid for all.

There's no contradiction. Insurance companies are meant to guarantee payment so that the scenario I presented above doesn't happen. But when insurance companies are more interested in finding ways to not pay bills on behalf of their customers, that is unacceptable, too. The consumer loses out in both situations. A catastrophic illness or accident can ruin someone financially.

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

 

[ricechickie]

It's "your."

Which reminds me, education is one of those things we all pay for, for the good of our whole society.

You may disagree. That's fine. But very few people pay for their healthcare outright. The costs are just prohibitive.

Oh a grammar natzi. How nice.

Maybe folks should pay for their health care outright. No more insurance companies.

That would result in a loss of lives that would be unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, what would that look like? Say you're in some awful accident, and you are rushed to an emergency room.....Are you going to negotiate price with the doctors and aneasthesiologists? Or are they simply to run a credit check and decide whether to trust you to pay?

Oh so now insurance companies are good?? They aren't out to get you??

You really should make up your mind.

My mind is made up. Medicaid for all.

There's no contradiction. Insurance companies are meant to guarantee payment so that the scenario I presented above doesn't happen. But when insurance companies are more interested in finding ways to not pay bills on behalf of their customers, that is unacceptable, too. The consumer loses out in both situations. A catastrophic illness or accident can ruin someone financially.

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

 

[Claudette]

Oh a grammar natzi. How nice.

Maybe folks should pay for their health care outright. No more insurance companies.

That would result in a loss of lives that would be unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, what would that look like? Say you're in some awful accident, and you are rushed to an emergency room.....Are you going to negotiate price with the doctors and aneasthesiologists? Or are they simply to run a credit check and decide whether to trust you to pay?

Oh so now insurance companies are good?? They aren't out to get you??

You really should make up your mind.

My mind is made up. Medicaid for all.

There's no contradiction. Insurance companies are meant to guarantee payment so that the scenario I presented above doesn't happen. But when insurance companies are more interested in finding ways to not pay bills on behalf of their customers, that is unacceptable, too. The consumer loses out in both situations. A catastrophic illness or accident can ruin someone financially.

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

 

[TooTall]

The folks who want the "freedom" to pay "their own way" don't realize that, in that system, they're also paying for those who can't, in the form of taxes, higher premiums and higher costs.

Why is this so difficult to understand?
.

Here is a suggestion to answer the question.

"The 14194 clinics in this database offer medical services (some may also offer dental services) and are free, low-cost, low-cost with a sliding scale based on income, or offer some type of financial assistance. If you're under or uninsured, and looking for a nearby free clinic, sliding scale clinic, or low-cost clinic, where you and/or your family can go for lost cost medical care, NeedyMeds can help. Please note that the clinics listed are not necessarily free.

For additional information and appointments contact the clinic directly.

For a description of which clinics we include on our website and what type of information we provide on each clinic, visit our Free/Low-Cost/Sliding Scale Clinics page."

Free/Low-Cost/Sliding Scale Clinics | NeedyMeds

Can we point out that every individual in America, whether legal or otherwise, has had healthcare- by federal law- since it was mandated by the most successful President in the last hundred years.

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments from Medicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia

Here you go again. Being so stupid to think running to the ER is healthcare. It is not. It is a treatment. for a condition.
What if you make $30K with a family? Would you quality for free csare at the ER.

Do you think anyone can stop it & say " I ain't paying" & get a colonoscopy?

"Being so stupid to think running to the ER is healthcare. It is not. It is a treatment. for a condition."


Drum roll!!!!


We have a winner in the category of "Most Confused Farrago and/or Word Salad!!!"



A note to the winner.....in the future, try to keep your posts to the English language.

Every aspect of healthcare is based on the amelioration of medical conditions.

Unfortunately
, there is no known amelioration for your condition....outside of reincarnation.

He is right, its a one time treatment for a condition or accident.

Unless I've missed something, we do not live in a socialist country. Nor have we amended our Constitution to permit Government (the taxpayers) to pay for healthcare for all.

Hence, we have the observable phenomena that :

People with money tend to eat better than people without money;

They tend to have nicer clothes;

They tend to live in safer, more posh places;

They tend to send their kids to better schools (all the way through college), whether public or private;

They get better healthcare.

To the extent that healthcare is a high priority, people who are "poor" have to seek out whatever resources are available and exploit them to the extent necessary.

But on the whole, people with resources will always get better healthcare than people without resources. AND THAT EVEN HAPPENS IN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

So if you don't mind, stop telling me that I am financially responsible to see to it that every poor bastard in this country has "adequate" health care. If you think the Constitution needs changing, and if enough people agree with you to get it done, then I will happily pay my share. But until that happens STFU. Ain't my problem.

Funny Chit. We are supposed to be an advanced society where we take care of the old, poor, & sick people.

You selfish fucks should pack up your shit & move to some third world country where people starve & die in the streets while you PRETEND that you are soooooo far above them.

Funny how I hear your crock from people pretending to be Christian.

You right whiners keep telling me this is a Christian country. Well then act like it. Quit your constant ewhining.

I bet you have received some government benefits yourself.

Let's take that huge leap of imagination and picture you with an actual education.

You might comprehend the choices, and not the comic book version of life.

Here's a treatise you haven't read: Tocqueville.


Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.”

As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.”

It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”


Imbeciles like you mirror the view of Franklin Roosevelt and his condottieri....

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor:
“[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism


There is nothing Christian about socialism.

So, you trash your Christian values if you think it means socialism?

The Bible does not endorse socialism.
It is a fabrication used to persuade the most stupid among us to turn over their free will to big government.
Raise your paw.

Thanks be to God for giving Obama the insight to not trust health insurance companies anymore to do the right thing. The ACA is a gift from God to the median income,working poor and disabled and a slap in the face to the greedy for the sin of being so greedy.

Maybe looking at it that way might help you to understand.

Do you even know what is meant by the "median income?"

 

[ricechickie]

That would result in a loss of lives that would be unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, what would that look like? Say you're in some awful accident, and you are rushed to an emergency room.....Are you going to negotiate price with the doctors and aneasthesiologists? Or are they simply to run a credit check and decide whether to trust you to pay?

Oh so now insurance companies are good?? They aren't out to get you??

You really should make up your mind.

My mind is made up. Medicaid for all.

There's no contradiction. Insurance companies are meant to guarantee payment so that the scenario I presented above doesn't happen. But when insurance companies are more interested in finding ways to not pay bills on behalf of their customers, that is unacceptable, too. The consumer loses out in both situations. A catastrophic illness or accident can ruin someone financially.

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

That 48 (average) percent that doesn't pay taxes.....does that include minors? What's the percentage of the workforce who pays taxes? And if we can't pay for everyone to get healthcare maybe we could stop subsidizing large corporations. Maybe we could also stop overspending for the military. Instead of bitching about how much we spend, let's spend wisely in worthwhile stuff.

 

[Claudette]

Oh so now insurance companies are good?? They aren't out to get you??

You really should make up your mind.

My mind is made up. Medicaid for all.

There's no contradiction. Insurance companies are meant to guarantee payment so that the scenario I presented above doesn't happen. But when insurance companies are more interested in finding ways to not pay bills on behalf of their customers, that is unacceptable, too. The consumer loses out in both situations. A catastrophic illness or accident can ruin someone financially.

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

That 48 (average) percent that doesn't pay taxes.....does that include minors? What's the percentage of the workforce who pays taxes? And if we can't pay for everyone to get healthcare maybe we could stop subsidizing large corporations. Maybe we could also stop overspending for the military. Instead of bitching about how much we spend, let's spend wisely in worthwhile stuff.

I agree on the tax loopholes. Change the law and get rid of them.

I don't agree with single payer.

I'm not interested in paying for someone elses health care any more than I'm interested in paying their mortgage, car payment or feeding them.

People need to take care of themselves and do what it takes job wise to do so. They aren't my responsibility and I sure as shit won't make them mine.

 

[Penelope]

Jesus said if you see a person who needs help, help them without any question.

You & your anti-Christian ilk judge poor people. You call them lazy. You say they do not deserve help.

I have news, you will spend eternity in Hell like most of your "Oh I am so Christian" Republicans.

A lesson in religion???

Sure....I never mind teaching socialist dunces like you: take notes-

1. So.....socialism endorsed in the Bible????

Not hardly.

An accurate understanding of the Bible requires the distinction between 'redistribution' and 'generosity.'

"Some people conclude from these verses that the Bible supports government-enforced wealth redistribution. But what these verses really show is that the Bible advocates generosity.

These are two very different concepts.
Generosity springs from free will....not force, coercion, or threats.


The motivation to give and share originates in compassion, as 1 John 3:17 indicates—but there is choice involved.

With socialism, it is the opposite.
Redistribution of wealth is always by force of government. The government simply uses its overwhelming power to take what it thinks is “fair” from the “givers.” Is God a Socialist?

Generosity is based on choice....on free will....the cornerstone of Judeo-Christian tradition.
Not so with any of these six: Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, et al


2. Coercion, forced 'giving,' .....governmental theft.....is hardly the basis for charity.
Religion...the Judeo-Christian ones, at least, are based on free will.....not submission.

A principle of the Bible is that there are blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. God is not forcing people to obey His law. Blessings are the natural result of obeying His laws and principles. Generosity and sharing with those in need are biblical commands.

.... under God’s system...it is up to the giver to decide to give and how much he or she can afford to give, and, in many cases, whether he or she will give at all! God allows free choice. In fact, free will is essential to true Christianity.


Had God wanted to create robots that flawlessly keep His law, He could have. If He wanted to use the overwhelming force of government to impose His will on people, He could have. But God is concerned about people developing character, and this only happens through free choice." Is God a Socialist?




3. Two thousand years ago, Jesus taught the principle of free-market capitalism in the parable of the talents.


Matthew 25:14-30English Standard Version
The Parable of the Talents
14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a]and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents,[b] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.

19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’

22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’

24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.



29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’





Bottom line: there is no religious basis for socialism in any form. Any such suggestion is merely an attempt by one of the shameful six...
....communism, socialism, Liberalism, Nazism, Progressivism, or Fascism,...

...to cloak itself in the rectitude of the Bible.


Capiche?
Or....will you continue to be a moron?

Tithing was REQUIRED giving, not giving out of generosity.

Are you requesting a lesson in politics and religion?

My pleasure.


1. Let's go forward with the point, and underscore that the Bible, rather than authorizing taking from some and giving to others, via governmental intimidation or incarceration, prescribes a very different solution.

A form of giving..."tithing".... "is not for the poor! It is for specific individuals who could not provide for themselves because of specific circumstances. This “welfare” was for the Levites, because they did not own any land; for foreigners who temporarily needed aid while in the nation; for the fatherless, who were too young to provide for themselves and did not have family to take care of them; and for widows who likewise were too old to work or had no family to support them.



2. ...tithe was not given to able-bodied men and women who were capable of working. For able-bodied people, God’s welfare system is—work. How different from modern social welfare programs!

In fact, the Bible is clear that people should be rewarded by what they contribute to society.

The Bible is specific about what God expects of able-bodied members of society. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul said, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat”



3. The Bible is filled with many such admonitions to work and provide for your family.“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8)." Is God a Socialist?




So....redistribution is not charity a la the Bible....it is theft

And the welfare system endorsed by scripture is .....personal responsibility, and earning.



Bet you're glad you brought it up, huh?

You sure like to twist and turn things written in the Bible, much like the Snake in the Garden!

Certainly you are AWARE that there were different Tithing(s) required during different periods throughout the year...like the wealthier farmer required to leave 1/10 of his crop in the field so that the poor and hungry could eat from it....

The people on the exchange DO WORK FOR A LIVING, so your bull crud on talents, and "working" is the welfare of the Bible, has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread Miss Spinmeister!


so tell us PC, who are you in this parable of Christ Judging the Nations?

Matthew 25:31-46New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comesA)">(A) in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.B)">(B) 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separateC)">(C) the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.D)">(D) 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdomE)">(E) prepared for you since the creation of the world.F)">(F) 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,G)">(G) 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me,H)">(H) I was sick and you looked after me,I)">(I) I was in prison and you came to visit me.’J)">(J)

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’K)">(K)

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me,L)">(L) you who are cursed, into the eternal fireM)">(M) prepared for the devil and his angels.N)">(N) 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’O)">(O)

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.P)">(P)”Q)">(Q)

Hebrews 13:2New International Version (NIV)
2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers,A)">(A) for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.B)">(B)

This is really a bottom-of-the-barrel post from you.

You're trying to equate hospitality to stealing from earners for the purpose of buying votes for Democrats????


Pleeeeeezzzzzz don't play dumb.

You do not have insurance do you or you are on your parents. I hope they do not allow people like you to go to the ER, they should have a name there of free loaders like you who try to use the ER like a doctors office because you have no assets to lose. Are you insured. Answer yes or no?

 

[ricechickie]

My mind is made up. Medicaid for all.

There's no contradiction. Insurance companies are meant to guarantee payment so that the scenario I presented above doesn't happen. But when insurance companies are more interested in finding ways to not pay bills on behalf of their customers, that is unacceptable, too. The consumer loses out in both situations. A catastrophic illness or accident can ruin someone financially.

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

That 48 (average) percent that doesn't pay taxes.....does that include minors? What's the percentage of the workforce who pays taxes? And if we can't pay for everyone to get healthcare maybe we could stop subsidizing large corporations. Maybe we could also stop overspending for the military. Instead of bitching about how much we spend, let's spend wisely in worthwhile stuff.

I agree on the tax loopholes. Change the law and get rid of them.

I don't agree with single payer.

I'm not interested in paying for someone elses health care any more than I'm interested in paying their mortgage, car payment or feeding them.

People need to take care of themselves and do what it takes job wise to do so. They aren't my responsibility and I sure as shit won't make them mine.

So, no to school taxes?

 

[Penelope]

My mind is made up. Medicaid for all.

There's no contradiction. Insurance companies are meant to guarantee payment so that the scenario I presented above doesn't happen. But when insurance companies are more interested in finding ways to not pay bills on behalf of their customers, that is unacceptable, too. The consumer loses out in both situations. A catastrophic illness or accident can ruin someone financially.

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

That 48 (average) percent that doesn't pay taxes.....does that include minors? What's the percentage of the workforce who pays taxes? And if we can't pay for everyone to get healthcare maybe we could stop subsidizing large corporations. Maybe we could also stop overspending for the military. Instead of bitching about how much we spend, let's spend wisely in worthwhile stuff.

I agree on the tax loopholes. Change the law and get rid of them.

I don't agree with single payer.

I'm not interested in paying for someone elses health care any more than I'm interested in paying their mortgage, car payment or feeding them.

People need to take care of themselves and do what it takes job wise to do so. They aren't my responsibility and I sure as shit won't make them mine.

You are probably another freeloader. Do you have insurance??

 

[Penelope]

Why are any of us paying taxes??? We are stupid, we need to become smart like Donald and Political Chick and go to ER. Who in the heck needs HI when we have ER rooms and Doctors, FREE.

 

[Claudette]

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

That 48 (average) percent that doesn't pay taxes.....does that include minors? What's the percentage of the workforce who pays taxes? And if we can't pay for everyone to get healthcare maybe we could stop subsidizing large corporations. Maybe we could also stop overspending for the military. Instead of bitching about how much we spend, let's spend wisely in worthwhile stuff.

I agree on the tax loopholes. Change the law and get rid of them.

I don't agree with single payer.

I'm not interested in paying for someone elses health care any more than I'm interested in paying their mortgage, car payment or feeding them.

People need to take care of themselves and do what it takes job wise to do so. They aren't my responsibility and I sure as shit won't make them mine.

So, no to school taxes?

School taxes will always be there and taxes will always pay for schools.

 

[Claudette]

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

That 48 (average) percent that doesn't pay taxes.....does that include minors? What's the percentage of the workforce who pays taxes? And if we can't pay for everyone to get healthcare maybe we could stop subsidizing large corporations. Maybe we could also stop overspending for the military. Instead of bitching about how much we spend, let's spend wisely in worthwhile stuff.

I agree on the tax loopholes. Change the law and get rid of them.

I don't agree with single payer.

I'm not interested in paying for someone elses health care any more than I'm interested in paying their mortgage, car payment or feeding them.

People need to take care of themselves and do what it takes job wise to do so. They aren't my responsibility and I sure as shit won't make them mine.

You are probably another freeloader. Do you have insurance??

Excuse me while I stand over here and LMAO. Freeloader my ass. I'm as far from a freeloader as you will ever see.

I own everything I have and don't owe anyone a dime. I've never taken one dime of taxpayer dollars.

You bet I have insurance and the cost has gone up by 60% in the last two years because of the ACA.

 

[Penelope]

My mind says you're an idiot.

You want the Govt. to be in charge of health care for three hundred million American??

The Govt. that has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history??

The Govt. that turns into mountains of red tape, paperwork and long waits??

If that you're idea than you are one serious dumbass.

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

That 48 (average) percent that doesn't pay taxes.....does that include minors? What's the percentage of the workforce who pays taxes? And if we can't pay for everyone to get healthcare maybe we could stop subsidizing large corporations. Maybe we could also stop overspending for the military. Instead of bitching about how much we spend, let's spend wisely in worthwhile stuff.

I agree on the tax loopholes. Change the law and get rid of them.

I don't agree with single payer.

I'm not interested in paying for someone elses health care any more than I'm interested in paying their mortgage, car payment or feeding them.

People need to take care of themselves and do what it takes job wise to do so. They aren't my responsibility and I sure as shit won't make them mine.

You are probably another freeloader. Do you have insurance??

I take your smiley face as no you do not have insurance. I was right, just another freeloader, us taxpayers pay for.

 

[ricechickie]

You've bought into some propaganda. Medicaid is a cost-effective program. Furthermore, other countries have utilized universal healthcare. Making healthcare a right, not a privilege, makes sense, and is good for everyone. And no amount of foot-stomping or name-calling is going to change that.

Medicaid has never been, nor will it ever be, cost effective. Its the producers paying for those that don't pay for themselves.

We now have between 47 and 49 percent of the people in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever. The Fed, tax payer dollars that pay for it all.

What happens when it reaches 50 percent or higher.

Where hell do you think the money will come from to pay for everyone's health care when there are more takers than producers?? Those paying taxes will pay more while the others just suck off the system.

The less producers, the less money to pay for that health care you think is so great.

That 48 (average) percent that doesn't pay taxes.....does that include minors? What's the percentage of the workforce who pays taxes? And if we can't pay for everyone to get healthcare maybe we could stop subsidizing large corporations. Maybe we could also stop overspending for the military. Instead of bitching about how much we spend, let's spend wisely in worthwhile stuff.

I agree on the tax loopholes. Change the law and get rid of them.

I don't agree with single payer.

I'm not interested in paying for someone elses health care any more than I'm interested in paying their mortgage, car payment or feeding them.

People need to take care of themselves and do what it takes job wise to do so. They aren't my responsibility and I sure as shit won't make them mine.

So, no to school taxes?

School taxes will always be there and taxes will always pay for schools.

And yet education is not considered a "right" in the Constitution.