The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Are we a Police State yet? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 18:39, rockwall wrote:
Yes Bob, that one. You mean to tell me you're not sure what Obamacare refers to?

Sure I do, but I have a rep to live up to around here!

:eek:
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Lobo-

So someone decides they don't need healthcare and they'll just freeload the emergency rooms if something comes up. Is that the kind of personal responsibility you're talking about?

And, once again, I'd point out that the personal responsibility rationale was the one used by the Republicans who first came up with the idea and was touted by Romney as the justification for the mandate in Massachusetts.

Like I said, I'd much prefer a Medicare for all single payer approach.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 20:13, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 18:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Making people pay for healthcare they won't need in order to provide care to others is promoting personal responsibility?


EVERYONE eventually needs healthcare. Bigger pool, lower costs for all.


But mandatory purchasing means proves go up, and no incentive to improve.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 17:48, rockwall wrote:
Ah, thanks gdw. I think I missed the 'my last' part of that post. So, possibly my assumption was somewhat accurate.

Anyway, I agree with Bob but for obviously different reasons. "Three words: Supreme Court appointments."

I also don't think the two parties are as identical as some like to claim. One word. obamacare.

But I will admit that there are more similarities than one would think despite what the rhetoric would indicate.


Bob's point was RomneyCare, which ObamaCare was modelled on.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 20:24, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 20:13, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 18:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Making people pay for healthcare they won't need in order to provide care to others is promoting personal responsibility?


EVERYONE eventually needs healthcare. Bigger pool, lower costs for all.


But mandatory purchasing means proves go up, and no incentive to improve.


Should have read "prices go up"
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 20:17, mastermindreader wrote:
Lobo-

So someone decides they don't need healthcare and they'll just freeload the emergency rooms if something comes up. Is that the kind of personal responsibility you're talking about?

And, once again, I'd point out that the personal responsibility rationale was the one used by the Republicans who first came up with the idea and was touted by Romney as the justification for the mandate in Massachusetts.

Like I said, I'd much prefer a Medicare for all single payer approach.


I'm actually referring to something that directly plays into what you THOUGHT the ACA said - that if you don't use healthcare services, you're not subject to the penalty. That would be more in line with what I think of in connection with "personal responsibility." The fact of the matter is that even if you don't pay or use healthcare for 20 years, you're subject to 20 years of penalties, interest, and penalties on the unpaid penalties. I assume this revelation doesn't undermine whatever modicum of support you have for the ACA (despite its not being your first choice).
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 20:17, mastermindreader wrote:
Lobo-

So someone decides they don't need healthcare and they'll just freeload the emergency rooms if something comes up. Is that the kind of personal responsibility you're talking about?

And, once again, I'd point out that the personal responsibility rationale was the one used by the Republicans who first came up with the idea and was touted by Romney as the justification for the mandate in Massachusetts.

Like I said, I'd much prefer a Medicare for all single payer approach.


Not living close to Massachusetts, I hadn't heart of "Romneycare" before he became a presidential candidate, but my response would have been the same; I'm commenting on the idea, and I don't particularly care who's espousing it.

The fact that taxpayers may end up picking up the tab if one doesn't buy healthcare is also, IMO, not an example of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility, IMO, would be something like you buy healthcare or you don't; if you don't, you work out arrangements with a provider to help you out (why should we lawyers do all the pro bono work?) or you don't; if you don't, you find someone else willing to foot the bill, or you don't; if you don't...you've got problems.

None of which is to say that personal responsibility is the be-all, end-all of decision making. I'm not taking issue with the system; I'm just saying it's based on things other than personal responsibility, e.g. sharing the load, mercy (with respect to free healthcare at ERs), etc.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Of course it is based on other factors. Many other factors. I just find it ironic that those who once happily espoused the notion of personal responsibility as a rationale for a mandate, suddenly hated the idea when Obama accepted it in an attempted bi-partisan compromise to what he originally wanted.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 20:46, mastermindreader wrote:
Of course it is based on other factors. Many other factors. I just find it ironic that those who once happily espoused the notion of personal responsibility as a rationale for a mandate, suddenly hated the idea when Obama accepted it in an attempted bi-partisan compromise to what he originally wanted.


And what did the Massachusetts Democrats who love it as Obama's signature legislation think of it when it was Romney's idea?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
From what I read, the people in Massachusetts approved of it. It was jointly supported, don't forget, by both Romney and Ted Kennedy - probably another reason why Romney wants to distance himself from it now.

It's also why Rick Santorum stated during the primaries that it was Romneycare that made Romney the worst possible choice for the Republican nomination. (It should also be noted that the many of the same people who drafted the Massachusetts law drafted the ACA and have acknowledged that they are almost exactly the same.)
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 20:52, mastermindreader wrote:
From what I read, the people in Massachusetts approved of it. It was jointly supported, don't forget, by both Romney and Ted Kennedy - probably another reason why Romney wants to distance himself from it now.

It's also why Rick Santorum stated during the primaries that it was Romneycare that made Romney the worst possible choice for the Republican nomination. (It should also be noted that the many of thesame people who drafted the Massachusetts law drafted the ACA and have acknowledged that they are almost exactly the same.)


I just did some reading that showed it passed overwhelmingly in both Houses in Massachusetts with bipartisan support. Props to the MA Democrats for their consistency.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Jeff J.
View Profile
Special user
Connecticut
787 Posts

Profile of Jeff J.
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 19:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying that it's written into the ACA text that we know there are people who won't need or use healthcare services, but we still want their money to pay for others, and that doesn't entirely sound like what I think of when I hear "personal responsibility." It's not saying that I have to pay because I might need healthcare; it's saying that I have to pay because OTHERS need healthcare. Now, you can say it's good, it's neighborly, it's the only moral thing to do, etc. I'm just questioning the "personal responsibility" tag.

Although with all of the distaste you express in the religiously based threads about people "imposing their moral beliefs on others," I'm just shocked that you'd approve of such a thing. [/irony]


Distaste? As an atheist, people hate on me all the time for no other reason than that label. If there's any distate, it's Christians who feel that anyone who doesn't think the way they do will go to Hell and they make sure we know it. I don't knock on people's doors on the weekend and tell them there's no good news.

Back on topic though, you are shocked about my views on healthcare? I'm an atheist. All that means is that I have no belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with my political views, or any other aspect in my life. I believe in doing what's right for people, and access to healthcare for all is right.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 21:15, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 19:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying that it's written into the ACA text that we know there are people who won't need or use healthcare services, but we still want their money to pay for others, and that doesn't entirely sound like what I think of when I hear "personal responsibility." It's not saying that I have to pay because I might need healthcare; it's saying that I have to pay because OTHERS need healthcare. Now, you can say it's good, it's neighborly, it's the only moral thing to do, etc. I'm just questioning the "personal responsibility" tag.

Although with all of the distaste you express in the religiously based threads about people "imposing their moral beliefs on others," I'm just shocked that you'd approve of such a thing. [/irony]


Distaste? As an atheist, people hate on me all the time for no other reason than that label. If there's any distate, it's Christians who feel that anyone who doesn't think the way they do will go to Hell and they make sure we know it. I don't knock on people's doors on the weekend and tell them there's no good news.

Back on topic though, you are shocked about my views on healthcare? I'm an atheist. All that means is that I have no belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with my political views, or any other aspect in my life. It's just that simple.


The "[/irony]" tag was intended to convey that I wasn't really shocked; I was just making a point.

In the religious threads, you've expressed your displeasure for those who attempt to enforce moral views on others. The ACA, whether you agree with it or not, is most certainly an effort to impose moral views on others.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Jeff J.
View Profile
Special user
Connecticut
787 Posts

Profile of Jeff J.
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 21:20, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 21:15, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 19:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying that it's written into the ACA text that we know there are people who won't need or use healthcare services, but we still want their money to pay for others, and that doesn't entirely sound like what I think of when I hear "personal responsibility." It's not saying that I have to pay because I might need healthcare; it's saying that I have to pay because OTHERS need healthcare. Now, you can say it's good, it's neighborly, it's the only moral thing to do, etc. I'm just questioning the "personal responsibility" tag.

Although with all of the distaste you express in the religiously based threads about people "imposing their moral beliefs on others," I'm just shocked that you'd approve of such a thing. [/irony]


Distaste? As an atheist, people hate on me all the time for no other reason than that label. If there's any distate, it's Christians who feel that anyone who doesn't think the way they do will go to Hell and they make sure we know it. I don't knock on people's doors on the weekend and tell them there's no good news.

Back on topic though, you are shocked about my views on healthcare? I'm an atheist. All that means is that I have no belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with my political views, or any other aspect in my life. It's just that simple.


The "[/irony]" tag was intended to convey that I wasn't really shocked; I was just making a point.

In the religious threads, you've expressed your displeasure for those who attempt to enforce moral views on others. The ACA, whether you agree with it or not, is most certainly an effort to impose moral views on others.


There's a major difference. If everyone get's health care, nobody is FORCED to see a doctor. When laws based on religious beliefs are passed, we HAVE to abide by them.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
You're not forced to see a doctor, but you're forced to buy healthcare. You're also forced to support a trillion+ dollar system with tax dollars. It's absolutely the direct imposition of a moral belief on people who don't agree with it. The only real difference is, they didn't say the 'G' word.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Before my last few posts are misconstrued TOO many times, let me point out that they're not criticisms of the ACA; they're simply a reductio-ish look at the oft-heard ridiculous notions that "You can't legislate morality," and that the effort to do so is the exclusive province of the religious right.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Jeff J.
View Profile
Special user
Connecticut
787 Posts

Profile of Jeff J.
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
You're not forced to see a doctor, but you're forced to buy healthcare. You're also forced to support a trillion+ dollar system with tax dollars. It's absolutely the direct imposition of a moral belief on people who don't agree with it. The only real difference is, they didn't say the 'G' word.


You are talking about 2 different beasts. One is based in economics and one is based on law. If I have to pay a couple dollars so someone less fortunate than me can see a doctor, I'm fine with that. If I have to spend my life in a wheelchair because a politician decided stem cell research was against his religion, I'm not fine with that.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Not at all. They're both based in law, and they're both based in morality.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Jeff J.
View Profile
Special user
Connecticut
787 Posts

Profile of Jeff J.
Who's morals? Stem cell research is based on religious morals, healthcare is based on secular morals.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 22:18, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Who's morals? Stem cell research is based on religious morals, healthcare is based on secular morals.


Right. So you're fine with using the political and legal system to impose moral beliefs on others who disagree with them, just as long as they keep God out of it. That's all I was saying.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Are we a Police State yet? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL