Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[SAYIT]

I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds...

Paying for social welfare - regardless of its potential benefits (and I have my doubts about free school) - with "a small fee on hedge funds" is not paying "for itself."

 

[SAYIT]

So we're now requiring people to have insurance just because they happen to be breathing?

And calling themselves U.S. citizens.

BTW, as a veteran, you might want to pay attention to this:

GOP Candidate Says Military Retirees Must Pay More for Health Care | Military.com

Does Cecilie know what deductibles were like before the PPACA? Of course she doesn't.

I do. I also know that the copays have doubled since Obamacare went into effect while, prior to that, they changed very little the over 10 year time I've been there.

Then you need to speak to your employer about choosing a different insurer for your group plan.

It's the same with ALL of them and it didn't happen until Obamacare went into effect. Again, do you really want to keep saying you're not a Democrat?

He must have missed the fact that many employers are looking at dropping health insurance and making their employees subject themselves to the exchanges.

Ideologically stuck on leftism, Arian tends to miss (or ignore) most facts.

 

[Flopper]

I think those questions were answered long ago

What is your answer to those questions?

Practically all state constitutions or statutes make the states responsible for public education and also regularization of healthcare. Federal health and aid to education are justified through the general welfare clause.

I'm very much NOT interested in existing statutes or constitutional interpretations. Nor do I care about predictions of what is likely or politically possible. I'm asking if you think it's a good idea to use government in this way. Do you think it's good government? Do you understand why I think it's not?

Yes, because government exists to serve the people, not the privileged few who would benefit from lower cost government.

To serve them against their will?

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

 

[Flopper]

Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.

If we're going to make health care a government responsibility, that's the only sane way to do it. Or better yet, don't nationalize it, but rather handle it like we do state funded public education.

But that's where common sense gets in the way of underlying motives.

So healthcare should be funded by the states liked public education? Counties with the wealthiest property owners and the highest property taxes should have the best medical facilities as well as the best schools?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So we're now requiring people to have insurance just because they happen to be breathing?

And calling themselves U.S. citizens.

BTW, as a veteran, you might want to pay attention to this:

GOP Candidate Says Military Retirees Must Pay More for Health Care | Military.com

Does Cecilie know what deductibles were like before the PPACA? Of course she doesn't.

I do. I also know that the copays have doubled since Obamacare went into effect while, prior to that, they changed very little the over 10 year time I've been there.

Then you need to speak to your employer about choosing a different insurer for your group plan.

It's the same with ALL of them and it didn't happen until Obamacare went into effect. Again, do you really want to keep saying you're not a Democrat?

He must have missed the fact that many employers are looking at dropping health insurance and making their employees subject themselves to the exchanges.

Ideologically stuck on leftism, Arian tends to miss (or ignore) most facts.

Oh, he ignores them, because his entire purpose for being here is to totally shut down any ability for people to discuss things substantially, by throwing up a smokescreen of erroneous, blindingly stupid and obtuse posts for everyone to wade through.

 

[SAYIT]

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

That support would be from either the 49% of Americans who get gov't bennies, the 48% of American workers who pay no federal income tax or some combo of the two.

No surprise there. Social programs like food stamps, welfare and Medicaid are approved of by those who benefit but are paid for by those who don't.

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

 

[LOki]

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

^ THIS.

 

[Arianrhod]

You can call yourself what you want. It's what you support that matters. Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.

I'm not denying anything. I've told you the truth about my voter registration status. I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for posting here. Will you expect to see a copy of my ballot next? I'm afraid I'd have to draw the line there. Again, I have to wonder why you keep interjecting this into virtually every exchange between us as if you think it enhances your credibility.

As a board member, I do know that. I wouldn't have said anything about it if it we had less than 49. That should tell you something.

It tells me that there are more the 49 employees, and therefore the PPACA employer mandate applies. What's the likelihood that the board will decide to reduce some employees to part-time status in order to do a workaround?

 

[Arianrhod]

I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds...

Paying for social welfare - regardless of its potential benefits (and I have my doubts about free school) - with "a small fee on hedge funds" is not paying "for itself."

This would be an excellent contribution to the ongoing "free stuff" topic in the Elections forum, but I'm not certain why it's in a thread discussing health insurance. Then again, this thread seems to have bifurcated more than once into a multiplicity of topics, so why not?

Since we're no longer discussing health insurance, has Trump done the math on how much his Great Big Wall will cost the taxpayer? I'd be very interested in some actual data on that, but I suspect there aren't any.

 

[Arianrhod]

Um... What do you think the common core debacle is?

Apparently no one here who's made the claim is able to defend their reasons.

 

[SAYIT]

You can call yourself what you want. It's what you support that matters. Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.

I'm not denying anything. I've told you the truth about my voter registration status. I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for posting here. Will you expect to see a copy of my ballot next? I'm afraid I'd have to draw the line there. Again, I have to wonder why you keep interjecting this into virtually every exchange between us as if you think it enhances your credibility.

As a board member, I do know that. I wouldn't have said anything about it if it we had less than 49. That should tell you something.

It tells me that there are more the 49 employees, and therefore the PPACA employer mandate applies. What's the likelihood that the board will decide to reduce some employees to part-time status in order to do a workaround?

I agree that not all leftists are Dems but most vote Dem and Con clearly stated that your voter registration is not the issue but rather your slavish adherence to your Dem-like eat-the-rich POV.

Indeed, any organization that can do a legal workaround to expensive gov't regulations and requirements certainly should and probably would despite the hurt it puts on employees.

So how does that make America better?

I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds...

Paying for social welfare - regardless of its potential benefits (and I have my doubts about free school) - with "a small fee on hedge funds" is not paying "for itself."

Since we're no longer discussing health insurance, has Trump done the math on how much his Great Big Wall will cost the taxpayer? I'd be very interested in some actual data on that, but I suspect there aren't any.

Lame dodge. You stated that free school would "pay for itself" and I merely pointed out the obvious fallacy in your leftist POV.

What you undoubtedly meant was that you wouldn't be paying for it.

 

[Arianrhod]

I agree that not all leftists are Dems but most vote Dem and Con clearly stated that your voter registration is not the issue but rather your slavish adherence to your Dem-like eat-the-rich POV.

Another poster who sees “Democrat” as something illicit. Interesting. But while we’re on the subject, can you possibly teach some of those on your side that “Democrat” is a noun and “Democratic” (as in “Democratic party”) is the adjectival form? From a linguistic POV, the misuse is jarring.

Indeed, any organization that can do a legal workaround to expensive gov't regulations and requirements certainly should and probably would despite the hurt it puts on employees.

So how does that make America better?

It doesn’t. Why would you imagine it did?

I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds...

Paying for social welfare - regardless of its potential benefits (and I have my doubts about free school) - with "a small fee on hedge funds" is not paying "for itself."

Since we're no longer discussing health insurance, has Trump done the math on how much his Great Big Wall will cost the taxpayer? I'd be very interested in some actual data on that, but I suspect there aren't any.

You stated that free school would "pay for itself."

No, I didn’t. I said the Sanders education plan would make it possible for state universities to return to tuition-free status. (Hint: It would not involve bake sales.)

What you undoubtedly meant was that you wouldn't be paying for it.

Neither would you. But until you understand that, you’re arguing from a false premise and Donald Trump is planning to tax you directly so he can build his Great Big Wall. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

 

[SAYIT]

You stated that free school would "pay for itself."

No, I didn’t...

I guess I misunderstood. When you posted - and I quote - "the Sanders plan would pay for itself" I thought you meant the Sanders plan would pay for itself. My bad.

BTW, the plan will not "pay for itself" but rather people - other than those who directly benefit - will pay for it.

Sheesh.

 

[Flopper]

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

That support would be from either the 49% of Americans who get gov't bennies, the 48% of American workers who pay no federal income tax or some combo of the two.

No surprise there. Social programs like food stamps, welfare and Medicaid are approved of by those who benefit but are paid for by those who don't.

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

That's exactly what the communist said years ago. The Americans will spend themselves to death. In a Democratic form of government the people get what they want even it's bad for them.

 

[LOki]

You can call yourself what you want. It's what you support that matters. Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.

I'm not denying anything. I've told you the truth about my voter registration status. I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for posting here. Will you expect to see a copy of my ballot next? I'm afraid I'd have to draw the line there. Again, I have to wonder why you keep interjecting this into virtually every exchange between us as if you think it enhances your credibility.

It is required so that the genetic fallacy can be more readily applied.

 

[Arianrhod]

^Thank you! Wish I could give that post more than one rating.

 

[Conservative65]

What is your answer to those questions?

Practically all state constitutions or statutes make the states responsible for public education and also regularization of healthcare. Federal health and aid to education are justified through the general welfare clause.

I'm very much NOT interested in existing statutes or constitutional interpretations. Nor do I care about predictions of what is likely or politically possible. I'm asking if you think it's a good idea to use government in this way. Do you think it's good government? Do you understand why I think it's not?

Yes, because government exists to serve the people, not the privileged few who would benefit from lower cost government.

To serve them against their will?

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

How many of those Americans not in favor of cutting social welfare programs benefit from social welfare programs?

Why would those who get the handouts support cutting them. To them, it's like having someone else's credit card. You get what you want and don't have to pay for it.

 

[Conservative65]

You can call yourself what you want. It's what you support that matters. Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.

I'm not denying anything. I've told you the truth about my voter registration status. I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for posting here. Will you expect to see a copy of my ballot next? I'm afraid I'd have to draw the line there. Again, I have to wonder why you keep interjecting this into virtually every exchange between us as if you think it enhances your credibility.

As a board member, I do know that. I wouldn't have said anything about it if it we had less than 49. That should tell you something.

It tells me that there are more the 49 employees, and therefore the PPACA employer mandate applies. What's the likelihood that the board will decide to reduce some employees to part-time status in order to do a workaround?

I don't doubt what it says. I am saying, based on what you believe, it fits that of a Democrat. I don't care what you call yourself, I care what you believe and what you believe is what Democrats believe. Denying that loses credibility on your part.

The likelihood of reducing any employees to part time is ZERO. Perhaps you didn't see what the nature of the business happens to be. Doing something like that would be far more detrimental but I understand that those with a lack of knowledge in that area would think it would be considered.

 

[Arianrhod]

The likelihood of reducing any employees to part time is ZERO. Perhaps you didn't see what the nature of the business happens to be. Doing something like that would be far more detrimental but I understand that those with a lack of knowledge in that area would think it would be considered.

First responders frequently have their hours (and sometimes their numbers) cut for budgetary reasons. If yours has not had to do so previously, they're among the lucky ones.

 

[LOki]

^Thank you! Wish I could give that post more than one rating.

Annoyingly, it's the fallacy that comprises 90% of all arguments around here, and it's weighted as if it's 100,000,000,000% valid.