Article about the alleged "safety net"
 

An article contradicting those who say the poor can just go the emergency room for treatment:

http://www.texasobserver.org/a-galve...he-safety-net/

Oh, Texas. Where nine thousand deaths a year is considered acceptable loss for sticking by principles.

i was flipping stations on the radio a few weeks back, and stumbled across a debate. then i found it was on afr (i can't stand the american family assoc). the people talking (it turns out, not much of a debate, they all were on the same side) were all railing against obamacare. which led me to wonder....

how does the party supposedly so religious, begrudge charity towards the poor? doesn't that stance clash with their so called christian values? they wear bracelets saying wwjd....well, i doubt jesus would be against medical care for the poor.
but, i'm sure the neocons can explain it and justify it.

jesus would tell them to get off their butt and get a job that has benefits..:$:
then they could feed their out of wedlock kids..
My wife is helping support those in need, went out bought new sweater made in america..





Attachment 2248

lmao

Because confiscatory taxation or mandated redistribution of wealth is not charity. Charity starts with the free giving of something, without coercion, from the giver to the recipient.

I would bet that Jesus would not be for coercion and redistribution by force, backed by the government - whether it be our government or the Roman Empire that ultimately executed him. This is all hypothetical - I don't make a habit of trying to guess what the Almighty thinks, but from what can be read in the Bible, I think he saw charity as the free act of one to another without government involvement.

On a less religious level, do you really expect that just because people are Christian, that they will just go along with a government program that turns their $400/month medical insurance into a $950/month plan with less pertinent coverage for them (or categories they don't need), and higher deductibles? That's the same as saying that the government is taking $550 more a month out of their pockets, and the equivalent food out of their kids mouths. And, the government's action in that case is decidedly un-Christian towards that family, and another step in the direction of tyrrany.

:rolleyes:

What? Running a country based upon an invisible man in the sky based upon a document that is deemed the best work of fiction ever written doesn't seem like a plan to you?

I'd love to hear a sane, lucid, thought-provoking answer to this. You would think that somebody could provide one.

It's funny actually, only 4 gospels in the bible actually document his life, and in those 4 books you'd think, as these Christians spout, all he ever gave a crap about was making sure 2 dudes didn't get married, and that you didn't heave stones at your girlfriend/wife's gut to end a pregnancy.


The reality is that he never mentioned homosexuality or ending a pregnancy one single time.

What he did discussed at length however, was that you treat everyone with the same respect and dignity "for what you do to the least you do to me" and to be very weary and fearful of the ultra-wealthy "The love of money above all is the root of evil."

I'd be willing to bet that there is going to be a lot of disappointed "Christians" when they finally get to meet him.

Speaking of works of fiction, how about all those "qualifications" that our community organizer president brought with him to the job? Or all the medical care you were going to get for free? That's fiction also.

I see no one wants to take up the salient point, which is that charity and forced compliance with redistribution are two different things.

Well I'm pretty sure He would not be for legalized abortion. Those unborn qualify in that statement "for what you do to the least you do to me".

And if he didn't address two dudes getting married as you put it, he also didn't address insider trading, gun control, drunk driving and a lot of other things that have come up over the last 2000 years.

making health care more obtainable is forced redistribution?

funny, those against others being able to get health insurance all seem to...have health insurance.


as for 'charity', you missed my point entirely. not surprised that you'd cling to that word, and ignore the actual message.

which is why society institutes laws. people like to say that all laws come from the bible, but they don't. or that we can't have morals if we don't go to church or are atheist, also false.

The mechanism is one of forced redistribution when the plan:
1) Raises the premiums people paying into the system have to pay
2) Raises the deductables of the people buying the plans
3) Provides less coverage for that mandated expenditure.
4) Forces you to participate in it
5) Reduces or eliminates the cost for those below a certain income.

Those paying more are doing so to provide insurance for others. That IS redistribution, period. (Sorry - couldn't resist that 'period.' in light of Obama's repeated lies.)

I didn't miss your point - charity is voluntary. Those who oppose ObamaCare may very well be charitable on their own terms, giving the amount they think is right to charities they support. Supporting ObamaCare has nothing whatsoever to do with charity, while opposing it is much more close to opposing a tyrannical law that is actually diametrically opposed to individual freedom protected by the Constitution. No matter what John Roberts said.

I made no such assertion. There were written laws going back to the Assyrians and the Code of Hammurabi. Which nobody would want to live under but did ensure there were no second offenders to crimes.

Especially seatbelt laws.

it was a general comment, not directed to you specifically in regards to laws.

lol
making insurance obtainable is tyrannical. wow. and people being against others getting healthcare is certainly not the christian thing to do.

i profusely apologize for using 'charity' since you're getting so worked up over the semantics, while completely ignoring the point.
you supposedly think life is sacred, but once a kid is born, by god he's on his own.

You didn't read too closely, did you? The mechanism, the way of accomplishing the alleged goal, is tyrannical. Not the objective. And if the means are tyrannical it doesn't matter what the objective is, was, or is purported to be. All you see is the use of force to transfer your former assets to someone else.

again, how is making insurance obtainable a way of transferring assets to someone else?

i mean, i think the law sucks, but i get why they did what they did. but use of force? transferring assets...tyrannical??

wow.

Rush Limbaugh inflammatory speech 101 but we are used to it.