Esanders2008
Regular Member
I'm not advocating it, I'm seeking information. And if MY hands were TRULY in YOUR pockets right now, I would expect a severe case of acute lead poisoning!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Can Someone Please Explain Why Obamacare is Bad?
- Thread starter Esanders2008
- Start date
I'm not advocating it, I'm seeking information. And if MY hands were TRULY in YOUR pockets right now, I would expect a severe case of acute lead poisoning!
davidmcbeth
Banned
well, they could have passed a law specific to that issue, not the horrible "we tax you for breathing" obamascare
eye95
Well-known member
Sure sounds to me like you are advocating for it.
Spend YOUR money "taking care of those who, through no fault of their own, can't take care of themselves," not MINE. *I* will spend my money as God convicts me, not as YOU, the government, the parents of the child, or the child think I should.
Esanders2008
Regular Member
Just because I said I feel like we should help children doesn't mean I am advocating for Obamacare. There are many other ways that we can help those in need.
Also, you failed to respond to anything else in that post.
KBCraig
Regular Member
Esanders2008, let me ask you this:
If you were in a car accident, completely not your fault, but the other driver wasn't insured, and you didn't have comprehensive or uninsured motorist coverage, would you demand that you should be able to go out and buy a policy that would replace your already destroyed car?
If you were in a car accident, completely not your fault, but the other driver wasn't insured, and you didn't have comprehensive or uninsured motorist coverage, would you demand that you should be able to go out and buy a policy that would replace your already destroyed car?
eye95
Well-known member
Context, dude. Add that statement to your other statements, including, "I don't claim to know anything, but it is my understanding that certain portions of this reform are good," and it sure sounds like you are down with the enforced charity that is what this bill represents. There is ZERO good with a bill that FORCES me to participate. If you say there is, you are advocating enforced charity (read: socialism) (read: government taking my money to give to someone else), and, IMO, that is despicable. I will call you on it.
Esanders2008
Regular Member
No. But if you are going with this where I think you are, I'm not sure I like it... I used to have health insurance, first through my parents, and then I was covered under Tricare while I was Navy. I got out of the Navy due to a catastrophic illness, and haven't qualified for insurance since.
Esanders2008
Regular Member
Ok. I get it. You feel that socialism is bad. But aren't things like public roads, public education, fire department and police and EMS services that are covered by taxes also socialist? I don't see you complaining about those things... (well maybe the police, but that is another issue entirely...)
eye95
Well-known member
I don't believe you. If you got out *because* of a catastrophic illness, you would still be covered under the military medical system or under the VA.
Not saying that you didn't have a catastrophic illness or that you didn't get out with it, just saying that if you were put out *because* of it, you'd still be covered. Now, if you made a *choice* to get out, then that's on you. Personally, I'd call that choice unbelievably foolish.
eye95
Well-known member
There are valid functions of government. Taking my money to give it to someone "less fortunate" is not a valid function of government.
Personally, I don't care if local or State governments do socialist things. I just won't live there. I'll live in a free State where folks generally flourish in Liberty which promotes the generation of wealth that ultimately helps everyone. When the feds do it, I can't vote with my feet.
Esanders2008
Regular Member
The choice was not mine, and although I am covered by the VA, it is only for 5 years (3 years left), and I can only receive treatment at a VA facility, which is about an hour from my house. No good in case of an emergency, such as a car accident. When EMS came and pulled me out of my car and put me into an ambulance, they took me to the nearest facility. NOT covered by VA, but would be covered by insurance, IF I COULD GET IT.
Esanders2008
Regular Member
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about police, fire, school, and EMS being valid functions of government?
eye95
Well-known member
The Constitution defines the scope of the federal government. As far as State and local governments go, it is nearly silent.
Esanders2008
Regular Member
I understand that the functions I listed are functions of state and local government. But they are still paid for with YOUR tax dollars. Would you not call that socialism?
eye95
Well-known member
No, they are valid functions of government. They are not taking my money to give it to someone "less fortunate."
If you want to keep going in circles, I can do that.
Esanders2008
Regular Member
What defines a valid function of government?
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
The question of authority was answered in my tag line.....
Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)
Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)
eye95
Well-known member
That which a governmental entity is best suited or only suited to do in a way that does not deprive the People of their rights to life, Liberty, and property. Different communities will see this differently. That's OK. If you feel that your community or State oversteps what is a proper function of government, move. That is why, even though I grew up in NY and love many things about NY, I would never ever again live there.
The States created the federal government. Its proper functions (18 of them) are listed in the Constitution that represents the agreement between the States that created it. None of those 18 include taking my money to give it to someone "less fortunate." If the folks of Massachusetts decide that such is a valid function of their government, so be it. I just won't live there. Feel free to move there and live with the bloodsuckers that are drawn to places like that and NY and IL and CA that are starting to collapse under the weight of their enforced generosity.
Last edited:
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
Hospitals almost always offer a cash discount of at least 70%. Most hospitals will give you 90% off if its deemed a medical emergency.
You dont have to be rich to afford that. You just have to be ignorant to NOT be able to afford it.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I do.