The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality

12728303233119

Comments

  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    Surprised he hasn't threatened you and Midwinter with the ignore feature as quite a few are on the dreaded list of his.



    I for one am glad to see you both back.



    Me to!
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    Anyone who suggests that I need to be responsible for someone else's sustenance.



    Since I became an adult, the only thing I've gotten in this life is what I earned.



    WOW Taskiss, you've changed your tune.



    Quote:



    "With the extremly good fortune I've enjoyed in the last few years, I'd be selfish if I didn't share with others. Taxes allow me to share in a way that provides social solidarity. I'd like much more fiscal responsibility in the distribution of those monies, but all in all, I'd rather provide for someone who didn't need it than not provide for someone that does."



    "Part of the good fortune I've received was made possible by involuntary contributions"



    "In my opinion, there's a certain obligation a person owes to society - pretty much the whole difference between living in a cave in the woods and an urban subdivision is attributed to the benefits of society."



    "Still, if I have to provide some minimal sustenance to a few folks who don't deserve it to help more that do, then I'm ok with that. I have too much I have earned (but really can't say I deserve) to complain about someone who's shoes I haven't walked in."

    ~ http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...highlight=galt
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    /me steps into pedant mode: do you want houses modeled on the old poor laws or the new poor laws?



    Welcome to Ron Paul's America!\
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    WOW Taskiss, you've changed your tune.



  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    WOW Taskiss, you've changed your tune.



    Quote:



    "With the extremly good fortune I've enjoyed in the last few years, I'd be selfish if I didn't share with others. Taxes allow me to share in a way that provides social solidarity. I'd like much more fiscal responsibility in the distribution of those monies, but all in all, I'd rather provide for someone who didn't need it than not provide for someone that does."



    "Part of the good fortune I've received was made possible by involuntary contributions"



    "In my opinion, there's a certain obligation a person owes to society - pretty much the whole difference between living in a cave in the woods and an urban subdivision is attributed to the benefits of society."



    "Still, if I have to provide some minimal sustenance to a few folks who don't deserve it to help more that do, then I'm ok with that. I have too much I have earned (but really can't say I deserve) to complain about someone who's shoes I haven't walked in."

    ~ http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...highlight=galt



    Huh. That does seem like quite the, um about face.



    Is this a thought experiment?
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    A lot of "Lazies" need a good hard kick in the back side to get them up from that comfy chair lifestyle they've grown accustomed to thanks to "MY" hard work-



    "While current national data are not available, the number of schoolchildren in homeless families appears to have risen by 75 percent to 100 percent in many districts over the last two years, according to Barbara Duffield, policy director of the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, an advocacy group.



    There were 679,000 homeless students reported in 2006-7, a total that surpassed one million by last spring, Ms. Duffield said.



    ?It?s hard enough going to school and growing up, but these kids also have to worry where they?ll be staying that night and whether they?ll eat,? said Bill Murdock, chief executive of Eblen-Kimmel Charities, a private group in Asheville that helps needy families with anything from food baskets and money for utility bills to toiletries and a prom dress.



    ?We see 8-year-olds telling Mom not to worry, don?t cry,? Mr. Murdock said.

    ~ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ed...less.html?_r=1
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,705member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    You're right Frank. We should cut all that "social safety net" jazz and let the poor harvest.... some stuff.....from the edges of some other stuff. The frozen food aisle, maybe.



    That's not even close to what I said. I think your side is so broken by the public's dumping on Obama's agenda, you're losing the ability to think rationally.



    To expand on my original post, the issue that the 'gleaning' example raises is how to apply the ideas of encouraging work, building strong families, and rewarding individual initiative through 21st century social programs.



    But don't get me wrong.

    Many liberals could benefit from learning about an honest day's labour through farm work.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    FYI, on the matter of health care reform the American right has been saying, essentially, "Slow down, let's not rush into anything" for the last 60 years.



    Well, while that may be true, I can't speed up or slow down the process where I sit, I can just say what I want to see happen.

    Quote:

    The issues in play at the moment have little to do with fine tuning, and they have everything to do with fundamental hostility to using the government as an instrument to deliver affordable health care.



    Honestly, at first it was that for me. I have looked over the plans as they sit since then and I have many reservations, but I have less problem with health care being provided. However, if it is going to be done, it needs to be done right, even if it takes along time. This is a MAJOR system they are trying to put into effect, and it will take massive amounts of resources and money, especially up front, to make it happen. To try to push it through without working out the finer details by procedural shenanigans is not earning my trust at all.



    I will get behind a system that goes through the fire and comes out approved mostly by both sides of the aisle and is fully explained to the public before it is voted into law.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    A lot of "Lazies" need a good hard kick in the back side to get them up from that comfy chair lifestyle they've grown accustomed to thanks to "MY" hard work-



    "While current national data are not available, the number of schoolchildren in homeless families appears to have risen by 75 percent to 100 percent in many districts over the last two years, according to Barbara Duffield, policy director of the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, an advocacy group.



    There were 679,000 homeless students reported in 2006-7, a total that surpassed one million by last spring, Ms. Duffield said.



    ?It?s hard enough going to school and growing up, but these kids also have to worry where they?ll be staying that night and whether they?ll eat,? said Bill Murdock, chief executive of Eblen-Kimmel Charities, a private group in Asheville that helps needy families with anything from food baskets and money for utility bills to toiletries and a prom dress.



    ?We see 8-year-olds telling Mom not to worry, don?t cry,? Mr. Murdock said.

    ~ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ed...less.html?_r=1



    Your source shows almost precisely why the NY Times isn't really a news source anymore but more like a propaganda mill churning out nothing but opinion pieces posing as news.



    Let's break it down a bit.....



    Quote:

    She vowed to try harder and bring her grades back up from the C?s she got last spring ? a dismal semester when her parents lost their jobs and car and the family was evicted and migrated through friends? houses and a motel.



    Gee I'm pretty sure those grades weren't all A&B's or else it would have been "Former Honor Student" but it does tug on the heart strings. Isn't it convenient that she happens to be named "Charity."



    Quote:

    Still, Charity said of her last semester, ?I couldn?t go to sleep, I was worried about all the stuff,? and she often nodded off in class.



    Charity wasn't lacking for sleep under the stars. She was worried. I suppose if the government would just buy them a new life, no one would have to ever worry again. In the meantime the school food service program provides two meals a day.



    Quote:

    There were 679,000 homeless students reported in 2006-7, a total that surpassed one million by last spring, Ms. Duffield said.



    Ms. Duffield is apparently not curious as to who began running the federal government in 2006 at the legislative level.



    Quote:

    Since 2001, federal law has required every district to appoint a liaison to the homeless, charged with identifying and aiding families who meet a broad definition of homelessness ? doubling up in the homes of relatives or friends or sleeping in motels or RV campgrounds as well as living in cars, shelters or on the streets. A small minority of districts, including Buncombe County, have used federal grants or local money to make the position full time.



    No mention of who put this federal law out there. What a wonderful omission! It couldn't have been that nice No Child Left Behind Act under George Bush could it?



    Quote:

    While the law?s goals are widely praised, school superintendents lament that Congress has provided little money, adding to the fiscal woes of districts. ?The protections are important, but Congress has passed the cost to state and local taxpayers,? said Bruce Hunter, associate director of the American Association of School Administrators.



    Gee we wouldn't want to mention who is the president and who controls that Congress now would we?



    A few more omissions of curiosity and conclusions....



    *Charity and her brother have different last names because they have different fathers.

    *Mom is referred to as Ms. Crowell indicating she hasn't been married.

    *It does not state whether either father happens to currently reside with the mother.

    *It does state that her currently partner does not make enough to help them avoid eviction even though he does work. So Charity's father lost his job but Katrina's partner did not.

    *The father of the son is not even mentioned but the story claims the partner is Charity's "stepfather"

    *It does not state whether they receive Section 8 housing assistance.

    *Charity is nine and her mother is 28 years old

    *Charity wants to raise her grades by reading Berenstain Bear picture books.



    Finally.....charged with identifying and aiding families who meet a broad definition of homelessness ? doubling up in the homes of relatives or friends or sleeping in motels or RV campgrounds as well as living in cars, shelters or on the streets.



    Why should I feel sorry for a "family" or "household" that includes at least one mother and two/three men who can't seem to get their act together well enough to help two children? The omissions are very telling here. Why can Mom not look for work when the city is actually not very large, but still has a public transit system?



    The reason for the large numbers is because "homeless" has been redefined to be so broad as to include anyone living in less than ideal circumstances. By the definition, doubling up, or having one family move back with parents or in with siblings now makes them "homeless."
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Why should I feel sorry for a "family" or "household" that includes at least one mother and two/three men who can't seem to get their act together well enough to help two children?



    If you cannot answer this question for yourself then no one can answer it for you. Basic human compassion and understanding is not something you teach.



    Hang the child for the sins of the father, eh?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    If you cannot answer this question for yourself then no one can answer it for you. Basic human compassion and understanding is not something you teach.



    Hang the child for the sins of the father, eh?



    The children receive two meals a day at school. The photos showed two bikes, new clothes and plenty of school supplies.



    We don't need to hang the children for the sins of the father, but we also don't have to leave the children in possession of the parents doing the sinning.



    Basic human compassion and understanding would show that leaving a child in such a circumstance is the truly callous position. Remove the child from it and let the adults suffer for their actions.



    Anyone who can't see that is suffering from a lack of basic human compassion and understanding.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    The children receive two meals a day at school. The photos showed two bikes, new clothes and plenty of school supplies.



    If someone has bike, clothes, and plenty of school supplies they are … what? Finish the thought.



    Quote:

    We don't need to hang the children for the sins of the father, but we also don't have to leave the children in possession of the parents doing the sinning.



    What are the alternative options? Specifically.



    Quote:

    Basic human compassion and understanding would show that leaving a child in such a circumstance is the truly callous position. Remove the child from it and let the adults suffer for their actions.



    Who makes the determination that the kids need to be taken?

    Who actually takes them?

    Who takes them in?



    What you seem to be advocating is an even larger expansion of government power into parenting decisions. Not only that, but a logically unsupported as simply improving the economic situation of existing families is an overall much better idea than breaking up what families exist.
  • stinkbugstinkbug Posts: 170member
    A great % of people stay in jobs they hate because they get health insurance.

    How again is this freedom?

    How again is this choice?

    How again is this liberty?



    So many posts here talk about how beautiful and "free" the current system is, but people are literally chained to jobs they hate to get health care for their families.



    People are told they can not change their health plan because they are in treatment for a condition.

    How again is this freedom?

    How again is this choice?

    How again is this liberty?



    Healthnet just upped my premium by 180% their explanation: My wife turned 45.

    How again is this freedom?

    How again is this choice?

    How again is this liberty?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    I would definitely be in favor of insurance that stays with the individual, even when he/she changes jobs.



    I do not believe a government-run healthcare system is necessary for this to be accomplished.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    What level of government involvement do you think would be necessary?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    If someone has bike, clothes, and plenty of school supplies they are ? what? Finish the thought.



    Having their needs taken care of by the state despite the trainwreck parents.



    Quote:

    What are the alternative options? Specifically.



    Foster care, orphanages, anything that allows the state to deliver care more directly without the need to prop up the trainwreck intermediary parent.



    Quote:

    Who makes the determination that the kids need to be taken?

    Who actually takes them?

    Who takes them in?



    The foster care system already exists. It isn't a figment of our collective imaginations. These questions already have answers.



    Quote:

    What you seem to be advocating is an even larger expansion of government power into parenting decisions. Not only that, but a logically unsupported as simply improving the economic situation of existing families is an overall much better idea than breaking up what families exist.



    This is not a lightening strike, an isolated incident where help is needed as a result of that unforeseeable circumstance.. This is clearly not a temporary situation. There are other considerations as well. The child claims to be losing sleep due to the inability of mom to provide a decent home environment. She has been unable to avoid being evicted twice despite the help of multiple people cited in the article with whom they lived temporarily. The fathers aren't cited as being deadbeats in the article. The "partner" is cited as helping but not enough to fix the situation. She gets aid but declares she cannot feed her kids properly for the month even with the aid. She also appears unable to get housing assistance even after several months.



    This isn't an expansion. The next steps already exist. The article refuses to get into it but there clearly are reasons why mom cannot double-up with another family member or even another person of similar circumstance. It likely has much to do with partying and drug use. Whatever the root causes, the condition is clearly chronic at this stage and not temporary which means the state should step in. The children are losing sleep and suffering mental anxiety. Mom cannot provide food even with the schools providing two meals a day and while receiving food stamps. Even when having two/three men in her life and public transportation available in her city, she cannot attempt to find a job or get housing assistance.



    There is a reason for next steps.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post


    A great % of people stay in jobs they hate because they get health insurance.

    How again is this freedom?

    How again is this choice?

    How again is this liberty?



    So many posts here talk about how beautiful and "free" the current system is, but people are literally chained to jobs they hate to get health care for their families.



    People are told they can not change their health plan because they are in treatment for a condition.

    How again is this freedom?

    How again is this choice?

    How again is this liberty?



    Healthnet just upped my premium by 180% their explanation: My wife turned 45.

    How again is this freedom?

    How again is this choice?

    How again is this liberty?



    The current system is in place thanks to Democrats freezing wages during WWII. There are solutions being offered to free people from their employers with regard to health care but they are not part of the current reform attempt. Currently employers are allowed to offer health insurance tax free which means they can buy more expensive plans since the purchase is subsidized. This needs to be extended to individual purchases as well. If health saving plans were allowed to be tax exempt it would definitely improve the problem. Many more of them were noted in this article which made Obamacare supporters go nuts and demand boycotts for actually submitting solutions.



    All the solutions noted there could be easily enacted with little to no opposition from Republicans.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    What level of government involvement do you think would be necessary?



    As outlined by our Constitution, the Federal government should have very little, if any involvement in health care.



    This is a matter to be handled by the individual states or by the people per the 10th Amendment.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    As outlined by our Constitution, the Federal government should have very little, if any involvement in health care.



    This is a matter to be handled by the individual states or by the people per the 10th Amendment.



    What if it's an option?



    I mean the private sector's made a pretty big ineffective mess of it up until now.



    Ah! Arizona! Always on top of things! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_A...s_Constitution



    Quote:

    while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state.[3]





  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Having their needs taken care of by the state despite the trainwreck parents.



    Great... what does this have to do with the article?



    Quote:

    This is not a lightening strike, an isolated incident where help is needed as a result of that unforeseeable circumstance.



    From the first paragraph of the article:

    She vowed to try harder and bring her grades back up from the C’s she got last spring — a dismal semester when her parents lost their jobs and car and the family was evicted and migrated through friends’ houses and a motel.



    What indication here exists that this is not "an isolated" circumstance?



    Quote:

    It likely has much to do with partying and drug use



    "Likely"?



    Just as likely she was raised by social conservatives who distrusted intelligence and therefore didn't mind that she lived a life of incurious stupidity, limped weakly through public school, and got knocked up at 19 with no prospects for self-improvement.



    trumptman's dream headline:

    Drug Addict Whore Mother Gets What She Deserves, Men Needed To Fix Society, Government Should Take The Children Of Drug Addict Whores Away



    Wait... I forget that to truly be the dream headline it's got to have that FOX question-mark angle...



    Should Government Take The Kids Of Drug Addict Whores Away? Are All Women Whores Probably On Drugs?



    Quote:

    Whatever the root causes, the condition is clearly chronic at this stage and not temporary which means the state should step in.



    There is no indication that this is "clearly chronic". As a matter of fact, the fact that the little girl (child of filthy welfare whore, you see) wants to get back to better grades indicates precisely the opposite.



    But it's all a lie, probably, because aren't women whore liars?



    Quote:

    Mom cannot provide food even with the schools providing two meals a day and while receiving food stamps.



    False (read the last paragraph).
Sign In or Register to comment.