President Trump is Cancelling the Illegal ObamaCare CSR Insurance Company Payments

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

I don't want to see anyone die from illnesses, that said, this is not a zero sum game we're playing here... it isn't a "You either happily pay for them or you want them to die" situation as you're suggesting. There are a lot of options between those two... and yeah, some of them include "you know, sometimes people die." That doesn't mean I'm happy about it, it's just a fact of life. Decisions have consequences and I don't believe the rest of mankind should shoulder responsibility for people who make irresponsible decisions.

This is self serving logic. The world is awful and therefore sometimes people die, ergo we should just accept it. You are confining your view of the world to this dictum and assuming it is immutable. I on the other hand believe that the ultra rich can do without that half million dollar yearly tax break to cover the poor/sick. Are you implying that the ultra rich shouldn't shoulder the burden of the poor/sick because they deserve/need that money more than the poor/sick?

Are you aware of what the reduction in subsidies are paying for?

It's a shame so much now needs to be done via EO. Congress is a complete joke, only interested in lobbyists and furrowing their own nest. Ever since Republicans decided to make their entire party about stopping Obama, which the Democrats and RINOs have now continued to stop Trump, the entire branch of govt is basically useless.

And soldiers shouldn't be expected to die in battle? Why should they have to lose their lives for other people? Why should the fire fighters have to die on 9/11? Is the message that next time they shouldn't bother? Just accept that people die? Look out for your own only?

Some people rather make sacrifices for the greater good. I make good money and pay a lot in taxes. I'd be happy to pay a tax that helps my fellow countrymen have the healthcare they need.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's pretty short sighted. Part of our greatness is looking out for those in need. If a building's on fire, do you run out and save yourself or stay to help those in need? I'm sure some justify running out the door without a thought of anyone else.

First and foremost, I gather my wife and my kids and get them to safety, PERIOD. That's exactly what's happening here, supporting a bunch of people who I have zero logical responsibility for is disadvantageous and even damaging to the welfare and fortunes of my own family. Nobody in their right mind would focus on the needs of strangers before securing the needs of their loved ones.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Are you implying that the ultra rich shouldn't shoulder the burden of the poor/sick because they deserve/need that money more than the poor/sick? ?

I'm not implying anything, I'm clearly stating that people should keep what they earn. It's not the call of anyone outside the earner in regards to what someone "needs" money-wise... each individual family must determine their own needs and act accordingly in regards to work, investments, and financial choices. Those who shirk that responsibility... well, choices have consequences.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
And soldiers shouldn't be expected to die in battle? Why should they have to lose their lives for other people? Why should the fire fighters have to die on 9/11? Is the message that next time they shouldn't bother? Just accept that people die? Look out for your own only?

Some people rather make sacrifices for the greater good. I make good money and pay a lot in taxes. I'd be happy to pay a tax that helps my fellow countrymen have the healthcare they need.

You are conflating voluntary with forced and that's ridiculous. You could as easily say there should be no such thing as marital rape because most married women happily give it up to their husbands when approached. If you're happy paying taxes, then by all means, donate more to the cause. Just leave the rest of us out of your philanthropic slavery scheme.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sure, Captain America... wouldn't want you to have to give too much for your fellow countrymen.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Really. An ironic avatar to say the least... hey burdman, shouldn't your avatar more appropriately be The Joker?

a reply to: spiritualzombie

a reply to: jtma508

A. What part of 'Murica confuses you?
B. Ad-homs, the surest sign that your opponent has run out of intelligent things to say in your argument.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

each individual family must determine their own needs and act accordingly in regards to work, investments, and financial choices. Those who shirk that responsibility... well, choices have consequences.

So taking what you've said at face value, a poor person who spends 100% of their income just to get by is 'shirking their responsibility' to save for retirement/healthcare? I'm having trouble grasping the logical leap required to conclude this.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

each individual family must determine their own needs and act accordingly in regards to work, investments, and financial choices. Those who shirk that responsibility... well, choices have consequences.

So taking what you've said at face value, a poor person who spends 100% of their income just to get by is 'shirking their responsibility' to save for retirement/healthcare? I'm having trouble grasping the logical leap required to conclude this.

Just as it isn't my place to judge the responsibility level of a wealthy person nor how much money they determine they "need," neither is it my place to judge a person who's choices lead them to apparently "need" less. It's simply nobody's business to judge, BUT it also isn't my business or place to pick up the deficiencies in meeting their own needs. It is a logical leap for you because you are attempting to jump from a purely emotional position to understanding one of total pragmatic logic. Remove the emotional/empathetic/white knight component from it and tell me how much logic remains in the socialist model of economics.

Here's the thing... if this was a better deal for the individual it might at least be understandable why people would only care about themselves. But it's a bad deal period.

This idea that you pay hundreds into insurance premiums, and then pay additional in co-pays, and then are given a bill which you don't even know how much the insurance company will pay--- that's a bad deal. That's not good for you or anyone. And this idea that people who are desperately in need will be the ones hurt the most--- that's a total fail. So why would anyone champion a bad idea and a total fail?

Insurance companies being for-profit, where they make money by denying coverage is a perverse system.

Non-profit insurance is where it needs to go. That's just one part of a single payer system. The other part is guarantee of service. I pay big money for the so-called best insurance-- and yet more than once I've been forced to pay thousands because something wasn't covered. So with health insurance, you pay in with no real guarantee of coverage-- and a really good chance of going deeply in debt if anything really bad happens.

Not so with single payer. Single payer tax covers all of it. You need healthcare, you get it. No co-pay, no-deductible, no bill sent to you later. Peace of mind is what it offers. That's a better deal.

Cheap insurance that doesn't cover anything? That's not a good deal. That's called snake oil.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

A tired, thread-worn rebuttal. Captain America is a symbol of unity, all-for-one-and-one-for-all. Your comment was F*ck everyone else --- hardly consistent with that image. I am mightily confused about 'murica. See, in my America, we cared about one another. We were a nation --- not a collection of selfish pirates that happen to live on a particular parcel of dirt. We helped each other out. We looked-out for one another. Many sacrificed their lives for something that was called 'The Greater Good'. But that has changed. There is no more 'Greater Good'. It's all 'I, Me, Mine'. So yes, I'm confused about the new America. The new America, your America, isn't fit to wipe the ass of my America.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

each individual family must determine their own needs and act accordingly in regards to work, investments, and financial choices. Those who shirk that responsibility... well, choices have consequences.

So taking what you've said at face value, a poor person who spends 100% of their income just to get by is 'shirking their responsibility' to save for retirement/healthcare? I'm having trouble grasping the logical leap required to conclude this.

Just as it isn't my place to judge the responsibility level of a wealthy person nor how much money they determine they "need," neither is it my place to judge a person who's choices lead them to apparently "need" less. It's simply nobody's business to judge, BUT it also isn't my business or place to pick up the deficiencies in meeting their own needs. It is a logical leap for you because you are attempting to jump from a purely emotional position to understanding one of total pragmatic logic. Remove the emotional/empathetic/white knight component from it and tell me how much logic remains in the socialist model of economics.

We aren't logic machines though. If you remove the emotional/empathetic/white knight (as you put it) component you vacate the very essence of what makes us most human. If you believe purpose is defined by logical imperatives such as efficiency, profit, or deregulation then why provide any kind of social service whatsoever. I'm not implying a purely socialistic model (as its been proven we are at the very least currently incapable of sustaining such a model in modern society). I'm suggesting that those folks (who erroneously believe their success is entirely self made) pay back into the system that made them successful, and that the most efficacious way to pay back into that system is to perpetuate the lives of those that form the backbone of that system.

A free market system allows those with money to convert that money into power through political lobbying (as well as a variety of other methods) which further perpetuate the concentration of wealth among them. This is not rocket science, and also not a fact couched in emotion. Progressively taxing those with too much wealth is the only means the lower classes can actually be paid for their services (since they lack the financial power to fight on even footing against the rich).

To answer your question, 'A lot of logic, actually'. If you disagree, then you believe the concentration of wealth in the top 0.1% is the right way for things to be.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Obamacare was passed with 60%+ votes from Congress.

That's because most Repubs and Dems only care about are their next large campaign donation from the Healthcare industry. Is also why I don't support either side. As long as these large organizations fill their lobbyists pockets with money, the politicians in D.C. will sell us out no matter what the consequences. Ever wonder why those that passed it didn't want it?

originally posted by: jtma508
We were a nation --- not a collection of selfish pirates that happen to live on a particular parcel of dirt. We helped each other out. We looked-out for one another.

"We" used to do that, then gradually it became fewer and fewer involved in the "we helping" and more and more involved in the "we entitled" until "we" reached a point where roughly half provide while the other half take without gratitude or contribution. That's parasitism, not unity. If you wish to believe that's the America you want, then by all means fart in one hand, wish in the other and see which one produces fruit for you first because the free ride is coming to an end. It is the primary reason we elected Donald Trump to the White House and, if he fails to right the ship, we will elect an even more crumudgenly SOB the next time around.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'm suggesting that those folks (who erroneously believe their success is entirely self made) pay back into the system that made them successful, and that the most efficacious way to pay back into that system is to perpetuate the lives of those that form the backbone of that system.

JESUS CHRIST, when will it be enough?!?!?!
taxfoundation.org...
The top 10% accounted for 47% of the nation's earnings in 2016 and paid 71% of all income taxes collected!!! The "bottom" half pay nothing after rebates and kick backs and, in fact, most get more payouts from the IRS than they paid in the first place.
www.marketwatch.com...

The goddamned entitlements and Kept Voter horsecrap must end. This isn't sustainable nor is it even remotely logical to have this many people without actual skin in the game. Atlas is eventually going to droop his shoulders and, when he does, that bottom 50% is utterly and totally boned because they have zero idea of how to handle not being on the dole, the rest of us will survive it and most will come out the other side in massively better shape.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Do you see your own words? Might your view be too cynical to be objective? Definitely wouldn't want that cynic hired to solve any problems.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

And how much of that 71% did Trump pay again?

Republicans: "Guys clearly the best system is one where insurance companies take your healthcare money, skim millions off the top for their own wealth, and devise strategies to limit the coverage they provide."

Sounds like a bad deal to me, but I don't suck the D of insurance companies, so..... that's probably the disconnect for me.

"Okay, okay, okay... how about this... we offer very cheap insurance that doesn't cover much, and if you really need help, you're f*cked. Best we can do."
- The Republicans

Because We Care!