Article about the alleged "safety net"

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

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

oh

[Danzig]

Join our new Facebook group: Stopping Tyrannical Oppressive Progressives


lol

look what i found!!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

It is making insurance less obtainable for everyone who pays. It only make it more obtainable for those who do not pay. That is a transfer of wealth. The recipient recieves and the provider pays for himself and the recipient. That is basically a transaction.

If someone's insurance goes from $400 a month to $950 a month, and they did not get $550 more in insurance or useful services, then they got ripped off. In this case the money went to pay the bill for the guy getting the freebies.

There is no free lunch and never will be, no matter how much the liberals cry.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is making insurance less obtainable for everyone who pays. It only make it more obtainable for those who do not pay. That is a transfer of wealth. The recipient recieves and the provider pays for himself and the recipient. That is basically a transaction.

If someone's insurance goes from $400 a month to $950 a month, and they did not get $550 more in insurance or useful services, then they got ripped off. In this case the money went to pay the bill for the guy getting the freebies.

There is no free lunch and never will be, no matter how much the liberals cry.

it's not a transfer of wealth, unless i missed the tax increase to pay for this new stuff?
as for those whose premiums went up due to having their plans cancelled, they are getting more coverages. their lifetime maximums are no more.

like i said, i don't like the law. it's way too convoluted. but something had to be done, plenty still has to be done.

Originally Posted by joeydb

The fact that you think that there is merely a semantic difference between willful charitable acts and government confiscation of assets for redistribution is quite illuminating.

thanks for the laugh.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not a transfer of wealth, unless i missed the tax increase to pay for this new stuff?
as for those whose premiums went up due to having their plans cancelled, they are getting more coverages. their lifetime maximums are no more.

like i said, i don't like the law. it's way too convoluted. but something had to be done, plenty still has to be done.




thanks for the laugh.

Sure it's a transfer of wealth. You are mandated to buy insurance. Mandated. Now those rates skyrocket. So the money leaves your pocket whether you call it a tax, a fee, a fine (which is applied if you -gasp- refuse to participate), or an insurance premium. What they all have in common is the MANDATORY nature of them. The money will be taken from you - call it what you want.

[Danzig]

again, like i said, it's a bad law. i think i made myself clear on that...but then, i thought i was clear about people begrudging assistance to poor people and saying they're christian.


it's kind of funny tho...so many people said 'well, if everyone would be responsible and buy insurance, it would be better...'. now they have to, and it's wrong too. there's no pleasing some people.

i wonder if those against any help in getting insurance went back thru the history books, and took out all the anti-social security, anti-medicare and anti-unemployment screeds and just 'cut and pasted' them to fit today's 'end of the u.s. as we know it' topic du jour.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

The fact that you think that there is merely a semantic difference between willful charitable acts and government confiscation of assets for redistribution is quite illuminating.