Poll

9 votes (52.94%)
6 votes (35.29%)
2 votes (11.76%)

17 members have voted

weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 10:18:29 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

No, I do not see the connection where I do not want the government controlling my actions when I am asking nothing direct from it and with setting requirements to be on assistance.


The connection is who you think is going to decide which citizen's actions should be controlled, and which ones deserve to be left alone? It will be the government's decision. And as such, it does not matter whether the government has chosen at this particular moment to control you personally. What matters is that you don't mind giving it the power to do so. This is exactly how totalitarian governments operate. It's not that they constantly watch and control what every single citizen does, it's just that they have the power to do it if they wanted to.
I could not imagine things like this actually need to be explained to you of all people.

Quote:

I am NOT free to walk away from Obamacare. If I do not participate I am forced to pay a tax,


Sure you are. Just buy a private insurance. Or pay the penalty if you prefer. When you get hit by a stroke and need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of urgent care, the government will cough up the money and pay for you just like it pays the living expenses for that welfare guy right now. If you feel it is appropriate for the government to tell that guy what to do, you have to admit, you are getting off easy with simply being asked to contribute a meager monetary compensation for the government taking care of yourself in the time of need.

Paying taxes is your responsibility as a citizen. You are forced to pay them anyhow. But there are ways around that too. The easiest one is to just stop having income.

Quote:

I was unaware that a person reading my post would not be able to understand the context of "cost" so I will re-write the sentence more clearly. "A library has no cost *to the patron* while a casino or strip club do.


How does it matter whether it has cost to the patron or not? If it does not have cost to the patron, that means, your taxes pay for it the same way they pay for welfare. So, when a guy on welfare goes to a library, he uses your money, just as well as when he goes to a casino, just in a more direct way. What is it that makes that case different in your view?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 10:52:05 AM permalink
Of course, enacting this would mean each patron of the casino would have to prove their ID each time they visited. This would require a national/state-wide ID card scheme, and the tracking of the movements of the citizens of the US in close detail. That would appear to be against the principals of some right wing ideas (but not all).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 11:14:42 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Of course, enacting this would mean each patron of the casino would have to prove their ID each time they visited. This would require a national/state-wide ID card scheme, and the tracking of the movements of the citizens of the US in close detail. That would appear to be against the principals of some right wing ideas (but not all).

This would very easy to achieve with Obamacare. Everyone could just scan their health insurance card, and the government official would be able to gather all the info from there. Maybe, this consideration can make people like AZ here reconsider their antagonistic position towards it, as it gets us closer to their apparent goal - total government control.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 22nd, 2012 at 1:31:07 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

The connection is who you think is going to decide which citizen's actions should be controlled, and which ones deserve to be left alone? It will be the government's decision. And as such, it does not matter whether the government has chosen at this particular moment to control you personally. What matters is that you don't mind giving it the power to do so. This is exactly how totalitarian governments operate. It's not that they constantly watch and control what every single citizen does, it's just that they have the power to do it if they wanted to.
I could not imagine things like this actually need to be explained to you of all people.



Once again, what we have here is.....failure to communicate. You seem to be one of those who just can't be reached. You need to understand that the difference is choosing to accept assistance payments means you are supposed to be destitute. If you have money to go to the casino, you don't need assistance since a casino is clearly not a necessity. Make sense yet?

Quote:

Sure you are. Just buy a private insurance. Or pay the penalty if you prefer.



Sorry, that still is compelling me to be part of Obamacare. What I want is a plan where I can get a $10,000 or so deductible and put the savings of my monthly premium into my own HSA so I can make the choices. Under Obamacare this is not an option. So If I do this and refuse to pay his TAX (not fine) for not participating I could go to prison or some other draconian penalty--all for just wanting to buy the health insurance I want.


Quote:

How does it matter whether it has cost to the patron or not? If it does not have cost to the patron, that means, your taxes pay for it the same way they pay for welfare. So, when a guy on welfare goes to a library, he uses your money, just as well as when he goes to a casino, just in a more direct way. What is it that makes that case different in your view?



Once again the failure to communicate. The library is for everybody. Some have restrictions that only locals can check out books, but for the most part anybody can come in and use it. But the person on welfare is taking a check only they can use. If they have money for a casino, strip club, lottery, etc then they should not take the assistance check since they do not need it.

Just skip to the part at about 2:00 to get the point of going to a casino when someone else gives you money.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 2:30:00 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

O You need to understand that the difference is choosing to accept assistancep


Your choice to not have health insurance is choosing to accept assistance. No difference. Except, the current government is offering you a way out with money, while you are advocating total control.

Quote:

If you have money to go to the casino, you don't need assistance since a casino is clearly not a necessity. Make sense yet?


Certainly. But why do you only apply it to casinos? How about buying groceries? Surely some are a necessity, but should they really be allowed to go wild with it and shop freely for whatever they want?
Also ... why stop at getting assistance? If the amount of taxes you pay annually is less then the median, that makes you a public charge in a way, doesn't it?
Why not require that everyone presents their tax return before entering a casino (or a grocery store for that matter), and, if the amount of taxes paid is not high enough, just send them walking?

Quote:

The library is for everybody.


Surely, you don't dispute the fact that the more customers it has the higher is the cost?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 22nd, 2012 at 2:45:40 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Your choice to not have health insurance is choosing to accept assistance.



I do not see how. I am not asking the government to pay my way. Not asking them for anything but to be allowed to make my own choices.

Quote:

Certainly. But why do you only apply it to casinos? How about buying groceries? Surely some are a necessity, but should they really be allowed to go wild with it and shop freely for whatever they want?



I would absolutely support limiting food stamps to nutritional products only. Bread, yes. Pepsi, no.


Quote:

Also ... why stop at getting assistance? If the amount of taxes you pay annually is less then the median, that makes you a public charge in a way, doesn't it?



Nope. You are not taking any kind of direct assistance.

Quote:

Surely, you don't dispute the fact that the more customers it has the higher is the cost?



If you want to break that off into a different thread please do so, but the point is there is no cost to the patron, thus they are not spending money there that they could be spending on their well being. Not the case with the casino or strip club.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 2:58:55 PM permalink
With the definition of what food can be brought by food stamps, AZ is proposing an interesting dichotomy of government. IF you receive welfare, you would be under a neo-communistic, centrally planned system where your economic decisions are limited and directed. IF you do not receive welfare, you would be under very liberal free market system, where a persons choice are individual and based on the persons own economic spending power.

These two feel incompatible to me.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 22nd, 2012 at 3:14:47 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

With the definition of what food can be brought by food stamps, AZ is proposing an interesting dichotomy of government. IF you receive welfare, you would be under a neo-communistic, centrally planned system where your economic decisions are limited and directed. IF you do not receive welfare, you would be under very liberal free market system, where a persons choice are individual and based on the persons own economic spending power.

These two feel incompatible to me.



Very well worded, thank you as that really does explain my thought process.

The sad part is, about 40% of the USA would be happy to live under the neo-communist system IF they thought their most basic needs would be met. Communism/socialism/fascism, which are all just different faces of the same thing, always seems to appeal to a class of people who just want to get by.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 3:22:37 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I do not see how. I am not asking the government to pay my way.


What are you talking about? Do you just want to die on the street?

Quote:

I would absolutely support limiting food stamps to nutritional products only. Bread, yes. Pepsi, no.


Don't change the topic. Who is talking about food stamps?
You come to a grocery store. Fill your shopping cart. Now, scan your health insurance card. The government will decide what you can or cannot buy based on your latest tax return amount.

Quote:

Nope. You are not taking any kind of direct assistance.


Who cares about "direct"? Who even knows what it means? Surely, you are making use of your local fire station. Why should I be paying more for it than you are? If you don't earn enough money to pay for your fire protection, you should be excluded from the casino!

Quote:


If you want to break that off into a different thread please do so, but the point is there is no cost to the patron, thushey are not spending money there that they could be spending on their well being. Not the case with the casino or strip club.


They are spenind your money either way. How does it matter if the government gives the money to them first, and then they spend it (in a casino) or if the government just spends it for them (in the library)? It's the same thing. You are paying for them getting something that is not necessary for their survival.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 3:27:14 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

The government will decide what you can or cannot buy based on your latest tax return amount.



Because the gov't is is so good at everything else
they do.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 22nd, 2012 at 3:33:24 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

What are you talking about? Do you just want to die on the street?



Why are the choices limited to:

1. Participate in Obamacare
2. Die in the street

?

For all of the so-claimed "millions of uninsured" I have yet to have to step over someone dying in the street. Logically I would run into one sooner or later. Maybe there is more to it than this?


Quote:

Don't change the topic. Who is talking about food stamps?



WE ARE, in the form of assistance payments.

Quote:

You come to a grocery store. Fill your shopping cart. Now, scan your health insurance card. The government will decide what you can or cannot buy based on your latest tax return amount.



The tragedy here is liberals might think this is a good idea.


(Balance snipped since you cannot seem to handle the difference between paying taxes proportional to income and taking direct payments from taxpayers.)
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 4:27:23 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Why are the choices limited to:

1. Participate in Obamacare
2. Die in the street

?


3. Buy private health insurance.

Quote:

For all of the so-claimed "millions of uninsured" I have yet to have to step over someone dying in the street. Logically I would run into one sooner or later. Maybe there is more to it than this?


No, that's the point actually. You won't be left to die in the streets. If you don't have insurance and get really sick, they'll take care of you anyway. That's why they want you to pay a small portion of it up front.

Quote:


WE ARE, in the form of assistance payments.


No, we aren't. You can't use food stamps in a casino, can you?


Quote:


The tragedy here is liberals might think this is a good idea.


I thought you thought that? Are you a (tragical) liberal?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 22nd, 2012 at 4:50:16 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman




No, that's the point actually. You won't be left to die in the streets. If you don't have insurance and get really sick, they'll take care of you anyway. That's why they want you to pay a small portion of it up front.



So, are people "dying in the streets" or are they "clogging the ERs?" I wish liberals would make up their mind.

As for me, I just want a major-medical plan kicking in at $10,000 and the ability to put the balance in a HSA. I want freedom to buy the plan I want, not the plan Obama says for me to get.

Personal responsibility kills lefties, I know.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 4:56:41 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

So, are people "dying in the streets" or are they "clogging the ERs?" I wish liberals would make up their mind.


Yeah, I wish they did too ...
I don't see anyone dying in the streets. Do you?


Quote:

\As for me, I just want a major-medical plan kicking in at $10,000 and the ability to put the balance in a HSA. I want freedom to buy the plan I want, not the plan Obama says for me to get.


Yeah ... And I want free caviar delivered to my door Fridays.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 5:07:52 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Personal responsibility kills lefties, I know.



Are you therefore saying personality responsibility could be removable for people on welfare?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
July 22nd, 2012 at 5:18:32 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Very well worded, thank you as that really does explain my thought process.

The sad part is, about 40% of the USA would be happy to live under the neo-communist system IF they thought their most basic needs would be met. Communism/socialism/fascism, which are all just different faces of the same thing, always seems to appeal to a class of people who just want to get by.



I won't get too much into the differences between the three, but they all do depend on the large scale, overly zealous state control of some (or all) aspects of both the economy and society. I'd say the two-tier would be closest to a Right-wing Fascistic system where class is overtly expressed by money (there is left wing Fascism as well, there was a struggle between the two wings in the first decade of the Nazi Party).

Anyways, I'd expect there is plenty of folks who'd be happy for things to just work for them... until they realize what the extreme actually means (I'm thinking populist revolts, like the Khymer Rouge)... but folks in general want to get by and let the big picture be someone else's problem.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
  • Jump to: