This is what Obamacare is going to do to our lives

[hogger129]

How very Christian of you.

You'd think that this recession would help people realise that some people are unemployed through no fault of their own and therefore shouldn't find themselves begging on the streets, but I guess I'm wrong.

The Bible doesn't say give away your money to people who don't deserve it. Welfare and charity out of the goodness of one's heart are two separate things.

That's not elaborating with sources. Please do that.

How about this to start -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...policies-could-raise-costs/?intcmp=latestnews

 

[Connoissuer]

Sometimes I don't understand why people vote anymore. Its like voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Although I am not of age to vote, all I see are the two political parties working together secretly to reach a common goal: keep the poor, poor and the rich, rich. Isn't America supposed to be the land of opportunity? Where you can start from the bottom and work your way up to being somebody? Seems like the American Dream is what it is, a dream.

 

[DK]

The Bible doesn't say give away your money to people who don't deserve it. Welfare and charity out of the goodness of one's heart are two separate things.

How do you determine who "deserves" charity and who doesn't? Do you just regurgitate it from Fox News?

I don't recall Jesus turning away "scroungers" from the Feeding of the 5000 either.

 

[hogger129]

How do you determine who "deserves" charity and who doesn't? Do you just regurgitate it from Fox News?

I don't recall Jesus turning away "scroungers" from the Feeding of the 5000 either.

You're missing my entire point. I don't work so that the government can just take away half of my income and hand it out to people who don't want to work. That is certainly not the 'charity' the Bible speaks of. When I donate to places like Salvation Army or Goodwill; that is what charity is. Giving because you want to, not because you have to.

Take someone like Kobe Bryant. He makes a lot of money playing basketball and pays away about 55% of it in taxes. That is not fair at all. He is certainly paying his fair share. So I laugh when people say the rich should pay their fair share. They already are.

Now in relation to Obamacare; do I wish that everyone had insurance? Sure. But Obamacare simply passes those costs onto successful individuals such as myself. It's my work, I should be the one who benefits from it.

 

[Chad Daddy]

I'm beginning to believe that it is best to not vote for a Republican or Democrat. These days the president is just a Zionist puppet and I'm happy that there are people who are waking up that don't approve of Obama care because let's face it, the man lies.

 

[DK]

I'm not missing the point, hogger. I'm just pointing out that not everyone who's unemployed is there by choice. In fact, it's a minority of the unemployed who have chosen that lifestyle, especially nowadays given the current recession. In Ireland, for most of the unemployed you have three choices: stay on the dole, do a "Jobbridge" internship (which are often exploited by big companies looking for cheap labour, and you get paid barely more than what the unemployment benefits offer) or emigrate.

 

[hogger129]

I'm not missing the point, hogger. I'm just pointing out that not everyone who's unemployed is there by choice. In fact, it's a minority of the unemployed who have chosen that lifestyle, especially nowadays given the current recession. In Ireland, for most of the unemployed you have three choices: stay on the dole, do a "Jobbridge" internship (which are often exploited by big companies looking for cheap labour, and you get paid barely more than what the unemployment benefits offer) or emigrate.

Unemployed is different than what I am talking about. I am talking about people who have never worked a day in their life. They pop out a bunch of kids and then collect welfare. If you're unemployed, those benefits are not paid by my paycheck. (I'm not sure how it works there in Ireland). That is money that your employer sets aside. I understand this as I was unemployed for nearly a year, but hey I got back to work because I worked hard and put together a nice resume and interviewed well. It isn't hard.

 

[Danoff]

How very Christian of you.

You'd think that this recession would help people realise that some people are unemployed through no fault of their own and therefore shouldn't find themselves begging on the streets, but I guess I'm wrong.

There's nothing Christian about taking people's property at the point of a gun. You want to help people, do it with charity.

 

[PeterJB]

Reminds me of this video:

 

[Sanji Himura]

There's nothing Christian about taking people's property at the point of a gun. You want to help people, do it with charity.

How very socialist, wouldn't you agree?

Throughout history, if one wanted change, one did it at the proper end of a weapon. Julius Ceasar transformed the Roman Republic to an Empire after he conquered land, and afterwards, turned his armies straight for Rome. Lenin overthrew the Tzars on the onset of World War I at the barrel of a gun. Finally, Chairman Mao conquered China, howbeit with help from the US, and turned it comunist just after WWII.

Now Obama is doing the same thing involving health care. He is turning this country socialist while barely lifting a finger about it. All of his Democrat lackeys in Congress are doing the job nicely by not reading legislation before voting on it, and the cops who are quick to draw guns and swat to enforce the law.

The man isn't dumb as even conservative media is making him out to be. He knows what he is doing and he is achieving those goals.

 

[huskeR32]

Now in relation to Obamacare; do I wish that everyone had insurance? Sure. But Obamacare simply passes those costs onto successful individuals such as myself. It's my work, I should be the one who benefits from it.

Let's talk about this bit for a second. This is a favorite go-to line for people against the ACA, that it's just fundamentally wrong for one person to get a benefit from somebody else's work or resources, especially if that other person is not getting any benefit of their own. So let me ask you a couple other things:

1. I assume, since you mentioned the Bible, that you're Christian. Churches in this county are exempt from paying taxes. That means that tax dollars paid by athiests, like myself, are essentially paying for churches. Because of your stance that nobody's money should benefit anybody else, can I assume you'd be in favor of subjecting churches to the same taxes as other organizations?

2. Do you eat beef? That is also heavily subsidized by our government. Vegetarians don't get to withhold the portion of their taxes that make that possible. So by your rules, that is wrong as well. By many estimates, beef would cost roughly double what it does now without subsidies, so can I assume that when you buy beef at the store, you insist on paying double for it?

3. Did you take out any student loans to go to college? If so, you most likely paid a lower interest rate on those loans thanks, once again, to government subsidization. Many tax payers, who will never directly benefit from your having an education, helped make that easier for you. Can I assume you'll be sending them all a refund?

The truth is, government subsidization makes all sorts of things more easily obtainable for all sorts of people. There's nobody who hasn't gotten a benefit from that in one way or another. Picking and choosing when you're OK with it, and when you're not OK with it, based solely on whether or not you're getting a direct benefit, is massively hypocritical.

 

[Blitz24]

I'm beginning to believe that it is best to not vote for a Republican or Democrat. These days the president is just a Zionist puppet and I'm happy that there are people who are waking up that don't approve of Obama care because let's face it, the man lies.

A Zionist puppet? Obama is hardly a sympathizer to Israel so I suggest you keep your ideas in line.

 

[David]

@huskeR32

It's not just about people who do work supporting people who don't, it's also about young, healthy people being forced to subsidize the cost of healthcare for our dear old baby boomers, as if they aren't already sucking us dry through "social security."

You indirectly call him a hypocrite but you only assume he is okay with those things, when I'm guessing he mostly isn't.

1. How in the world does a church being tax exempt equate to tax payers somehow funding a church? Unless you are of the mindset that an entity owes it's very existence to the government and thus must pay something. The churches that I am familiar with are supported by stewardship and donations from the local congregation, and possibly some funding from the larger organizations that they belong to. Our government isn't handing out money to sustain churches, and the small grants I've seen some get are to provide general community services for at risk kids, the homeless, and for medical things (surely you're okay with this right?). They aren't building churches and paying priests. This is the same for most non-profit groups. Their tax exemption hardly means that you are somehow supporting them with your taxes. They are paying their bills with willfully donated money that the government has already had it's hands in coming and going.

2. Government meddling in agriculture has little to do with making produce affordable for consumers, but nice try here. Anyway, if I was paying half as much in federal taxes, I'd have thousands of dollars more a year to spend on beef purchases even if it was more expensive. Both myself and the vegetarian would get to choose though.

3. HA. Government grants and subsidization are part of the problem with the obscene cost of getting a college education. There is no competition between schools to provide education at reasonable prices precisely because people aren't paying out of their own pockets and have less incentive to shop around. Obviously there are some people who stick to affordable education like local community colleges, but it seems like most people today are more worried about reputation and partying when they make their choice. Why wouldn't schools keep upping the prices faster than inflation when theres more taxpayer money for them to suck up.

The truth is, government subsidization makes all sorts of things more expensive for people who work for a living.

How do you determine who "deserves" charity and who doesn't? Do you just regurgitate it from Fox News?
I don't recall Jesus turning away "scroungers" from the Feeding of the 5000 either.

It doesn't matter how he (or any other individual) decides who deserves it. People with your mindset don't seem to get that this isn't about "fairness" for those on the receiving end. It is about liberty and autonomy on the side of those who have rightfully earned their take.

 

[huskeR32]

You indirectly call him a hypocrite but you only assume he is okay with those things, when I'm guessing he mostly isn't.

I asked him about his opinion on all three. If he doesn't agree with them, then he's not a hypocrite. If he does agree with them, then he's picking and choosing his stance based on whether it benefits him or not, and that's hypocrisy.

1. How in the world does a church being tax exempt equate to tax payers somehow funding a church? Unless you are of the mindset that an entity owes it's very existence to the government and thus must pay something. The churches that I am familiar with are supported by stewardship and donations from the local congregation, and possibly some funding from the larger organizations that they belong to. Our government isn't handing out money to sustain churches, and the small grants I've seen some get are to provide general community services for at risk kids, the homeless, and for medical things (surely you're okay with this right?). They aren't building churches and paying priests. This is the same for most non-profit groups. Their tax exemption hardly means that you are somehow supporting them with your taxes. They are paying their bills with willfully donated money that the government has already had it's hands in coming and going.

Anything that is subsidized or tax-exempted by the government is, in a very real sense, funded by tax dollars. Doesn't really matter which side of the ledger it's happening on, the tax-exempt status of non-profits, like churches, impact tax rates for the rest of us.

2. Government meddling in agriculture has little to do with making produce affordable for consumers, but nice try here. Anyway, if I was paying half as much in federal taxes, I'd have thousands of dollars more a year to spend on beef purchases even if it was more expensive. Both myself and the vegetarian would get to choose though.

Looks like you're right on this one. I did a little more digging around, and there's little hard evidence that eliminating subsidies would affect retail prices. Mea culpa.

3. HA. Government grants and subsidization are part of the problem with the obscene cost of getting a college education. There is no competition between schools to provide education at reasonable prices precisely because people aren't paying out of their own pockets and have less incentive to shop around. Obviously there are some people who stick to affordable education like local community colleges, but it seems like most people today are more worried about reputation and partying when they make their choice. Why wouldn't schools keep upping the prices faster than inflation when theres more taxpayer money for them to suck up.

I wasn't talking about the tuition and fees, I was talking about the subsidized interest rate on the loan itself. I shopped around pretty extensively, and it was far cheaper to go with a subsidized loan than not. Where do you think the money is coming from to make those loans possible?

The truth is, government subsidization makes all sorts of things more expensive for people who work for a living.

That's as true as what I said - we've all gotten a benefit from it at some point too.

One thing I feel compelled to point out - I didn't say I was in favor of ACA, nor did I say I wasn't. I was just playing a little devil's advocate, and trying to point out that I think that particular reasoning (people's money shouldn't be forcibly used to provide benefit for others) sounds good in a vacuum, but when set against reality, it becomes a bit of a hypocrisy to decry one government subsidy while happily accepting another.

 

[David]

Anything that is subsidized or tax-exempted by the government is, in a very real sense, funded by tax dollars. Doesn't really matter which side of the ledger it's happening on, the tax-exempt status of non-profits, like churches, impact tax rates for the rest of us.

Subsidized, yes, obviously, but I'm still not sure why you think a group being tax exempt affects the tax rates for the rest of us. Most tax-exempt groups exist to provide services to their communities. They aren't there sucking up the community's resources and burdening society. I'm not quite clear on how you figure that they owe something to the government.

Now, some of the big corporate run "non-profits" and "charities" that we are starting to see have questionable practices is a separate issue, but using a local church in your town as an example lets think about this. Members of the church contribute portions of their post-tax income to pay for the building, utilities, priest's salary, etc. Then they volunteer their time and often more of their money aiding the community, whether through food drives, soup kitchens, shelters, welfare-to-work programs, youth programs, etc... The reason that federally recognized non-profits are often also exempt from state and local property taxes and the like are because they effectively reduce some burden on the government to provide those kinds of services to the community. Thus, if your politicians aren't into wasting money on some agenda, they shouldn't have to raise your taxes a dime because a new church popped up.

I wasn't talking about the tuition and fees, I was talking about the subsidized interest rate on the loan itself. I shopped around pretty extensively, and it was far cheaper to go with a subsidized loan than not. Where do you think the money is coming from to make those loans possible?

I understand that, but my point was that we wouldn't have to rely so much on those loans if schools had to compete for real money with competitive and reasonable prices. The government pumping cash into the system (whether through subsidized interest rates, or direct grants) has done nothing to help with this. Schools have no incentive to control their spending, and thus their tuition rates, because the government will just print more money, lower rates even when the country is broke to encourage banks to offer more loans (even to people who may never be able to pay them back... hmmm where have I seen this before) and call it a day.

It's not so simple as to just say that taking away government funding would make college harder to afford. I am of the opinion that the cost is high because of government meddling in the first place.

 

[huskeR32]

Subsidized, yes, obviously, but I'm still not sure why you think a group being tax exempt affects the tax rates for the rest of us. Most tax-exempt groups exist to provide services to their communities. They aren't there sucking up the community's resources and burdening society. I'm not quite clear on how you figure that they owe something to the government.

Now, some of the big corporate run "non-profits" and "charities" that we are starting to see have questionable practices is a separate issue, but using a local church in your town as an example lets think about this. Members of the church contribute portions of their post-tax income to pay for the building, utilities, priest's salary, etc. Then they volunteer their time and often more of their money aiding the community, whether through food drives, soup kitchens, shelters, welfare-to-work programs, youth programs, etc... The reason that federally recognized non-profits are often also exempt from state and local property taxes and the like are because they effectively reduce some burden on the government to provide those kinds of services to the community. Thus, if your politicians aren't into wasting money on some agenda, they shouldn't have to raise your taxes a dime because a new church popped up.



I understand that, but my point was that we wouldn't have to rely so much on those loans if schools had to compete for real money with competitive and reasonable prices. The government pumping cash into the system (whether through subsidized interest rates, or direct grants) has done nothing to help with this. Schools have no incentive to control their spending, and thus their tuition rates, because the government will just print more money, lower rates even when the country is broke to encourage banks to offer more loans (even to people who may never be able to pay them back... hmmm where have I seen this before) and call it a day.

It's not so simple as to just say that taking away government funding would make college harder to afford. I am of the opinion that the cost is high because of government meddling in the first place.

You've got valid points on both fronts for sure. If this thread was about those topics in particular, I'd take the time to work up a proper response/rebuttal/agreement with each of your points.

As I tried saying, already, I was attempting to simply challenge the broad philosophy that he was using: namely that the government shouldn't use anybody's money to pay for/subsidize things that don't directly benefit them. There are plenty of reasons to be for/against any of these topics, I just don't think that particular reason is a good one. It's oversimplification to portray the ACA in that light, while ignoring that there are hundreds of everyday things that are also supported/subsidized/provided/exempted/etc. by the government.

 

[Danoff]

Silly argument.

No tax subsidies or exempt status should exist. Income tax should not exist. The best way for the government to collect taxes is through sales tax*, and it should be done regardless of whether the buyer or seller is an individual, a church, or a corporation.

*The best way for a government to generate revenue is through a fee-based system. But if taxes are going to be used, sales tax is far preferable to income tax.

 

[David]

@Danoff That really does get more down to the point 👍