Conquer Club

isaiah40 wrote:Well Arizona passed a bill to go before the people for a vote next year as a constitution amendment basically telling the feds they have no authority under the 10th Amendment to force the people of the state of Arizona to purchase Obamacare! Read it here!

... That is great. Does it have a chance of actually becoming reality?

...

Nobunaga wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Well Arizona passed a bill to go before the people for a vote next year as a constitution amendment basically telling the feds they have no authority under the 10th Amendment to force the people of the state of Arizona to purchase Obamacare! Read it here!

... That is great. Does it have a chance of actually becoming reality?

...

I think it does considering how ticked off people are at the government trying to ram this so-called health care bill down our throats. The people said no, but our elected reps said we don't care what you say, we know you really need this. Did you know that in 2013 (if this new bill, yes new, because pelosi added another 1000 pages to it) no one will be able to purchase private health insurance?

So yes I think this constitutional amendment in Arizona will get passed!!

Nobunaga wrote:... I am curious what supporters of universal health care feel about the massive fines and prison time that will result from not purchasing government-mandated insurance.

I watched Bob Beckel last night on Hannity's program deny that those sections existed.

luns101 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... I am curious what supporters of universal health care feel about the massive fines and prison time that will result from not purchasing government-mandated insurance.

I watched Bob Beckel last night on Hannity's program deny that those sections existed.

I feel that the bill is a disgusting bastardization of what most liberals want, and I would say that it would make things even worse if I wasn't sure it couldn't get much worse than it is right now.

no doubt, WTF are they doing? Looks like a huge posturing game of musical chairs, traded favors, donations and contributions, redistricting deals

Frigidus wrote:

luns101 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... I am curious what supporters of universal health care feel about the massive fines and prison time that will result from not purchasing government-mandated insurance.

I watched Bob Beckel last night on Hannity's program deny that those sections existed.

I feel that the bill is a disgusting bastardization of what most liberals want, and I would say that it would make things even worse if I wasn't sure it couldn't get much worse than it is right now.

Is that a denial or acceptance that the criminal penalites which Nobunaga referred to are contained within the House bill?

luns101 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

luns101 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... I am curious what supporters of universal health care feel about the massive fines and prison time that will result from not purchasing government-mandated insurance.

I watched Bob Beckel last night on Hannity's program deny that those sections existed.

I feel that the bill is a disgusting bastardization of what most liberals want, and I would say that it would make things even worse if I wasn't sure it couldn't get much worse than it is right now.

Is that a denial or acceptance that the criminal penalites which Nobunaga referred to are contained within the House bill?

From my reading of the sections in question it certainly sounds like it.

Frigidus wrote:I feel that the bill is a disgusting bastardization of what most liberals want, and I would say that it would make things even worse if I wasn't sure it couldn't get much worse than it is right now.

Seconded. I hope it doesn't pass.

Phatscotty wrote:no doubt, WTF are they doing? Looks like a huge posturing game of musical chairs, traded favors, donations and contributions, redistricting deals

Gah. The whole thing is embarrassing.

luns101 wrote:Is that a denial or acceptance that the criminal penalites which Nobunaga referred to are contained within the House bill?

I haven't actually had time to read this bill myself. No one ever seems to care when you read them anyway.

Frigidus wrote:From my reading of the sections in question it certainly sounds like it.

I'm not trying to nitpick, but when you say it certainly sounds like it, are you saying that it sounds like those provisions are actually in the bill?

luns101 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:From my reading of the sections in question it certainly sounds like it.

I'm not trying to nitpick, but when you say it certainly sounds like it, are you saying that it sounds like those provisions are actually in the bill?

Yes. I openly admit that I suck at interpreting law though.

Frigidus wrote:

luns101 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:From my reading of the sections in question it certainly sounds like it.

I'm not trying to nitpick, but when you say it certainly sounds like it, are you saying that it sounds like those provisions are actually in the bill?

Yes. I openly admit that I suck at interpreting law though.

Phew! I just wanted someone to admit that it was actually in the bill. Beckel was acting like it was all made up.

Ummm......why are Jesus freaks not willing to share with their less fortunate christian neighbours?

notyou2 wrote:Ummm......why are Jesus freaks not willing to share with their less fortunate christian neighbours?

Are you having trouble recognizing the difference between sharing and extortion?

HapSmo19 wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Ummm......why are Jesus freaks not willing to share with their less fortunate christian neighbours?

Are you having trouble recognizing the difference between sharing and extortion?

Or that in general, conservatives are much more charitable than liberals. Liberals believe in the government taking from the rich to give to the poor, conservatives believe in the rich giving the poor a job or some temporary direct assistance.

Christianity is about charity, or have you forgotten that basic tenet?

notyou2 wrote:Christianity is about charity, or have you forgotten that basic tenet?

1) Is it charity when I hand a homeless person $5 and say, "Get loaded."

2) Is it charity when I sit down the same man and chat about whatever for an hour or two?

isaiah40 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Well Arizona passed a bill to go before the people for a vote next year as a constitution amendment basically telling the feds they have no authority under the 10th Amendment to force the people of the state of Arizona to purchase Obamacare! Read it here!

... That is great. Does it have a chance of actually becoming reality?

...

I think it does considering how ticked off people are at the government trying to ram this so-called health care bill down our throats. The people said no, but our elected reps said we don't care what you say, we know you really need this. Did you know that in 2013 (if this new bill, yes new, because pelosi added another 1000 pages to it) no one will be able to purchase private health insurance?

Your information is just plain wrong.

In fact, there is a good chance that the public option will be eliminated, meaning no one will be able to buy public insurance. Medicare and Medicaid will still be out there.

Night Strike wrote:

HapSmo19 wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Ummm......why are Jesus freaks not willing to share with their less fortunate christian neighbours?

Are you having trouble recognizing the difference between sharing and extortion?

Or that in general, conservatives are much more charitable than liberals. Liberals believe in the government taking from the rich to give to the poor, conservatives believe in the rich giving the poor a job or some temporary direct assistance.

No, not really. I agree that that is the claim and probably the belief, but the way conservative realities play out is to make rich people richer and to move far more of the hard-working middle class into poverty.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Christianity is about charity, or have you forgotten that basic tenet?

1) Is it charity when I hand a homeless person $5 and say, "Get loaded."

2) Is it charity when I sit down the same man and chat about whatever for an hour or two?

Just handing out money is not what Christ or the Bible dictates, but when that excuse is used to claim that my husband (who works over 40 hours a week at his paid job, PLUS being a volunteer fire fighter of over 20 years) has no right to health care that would allow him to take our son to the hospital without putting us in serious debt -- debt that, if I were not such a tightwad as to do without any new clothes for 7 years, buy all my son's clothes at yard sales, grow my own food, can etc....

would have meant we would lose our house.

THAT is what this is about!

Well said Player

Night Strike wrote:

HapSmo19 wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Ummm......why are Jesus freaks not willing to share with their less fortunate christian neighbours?

Are you having trouble recognizing the difference between sharing and extortion?

Or that in general, conservatives are much more charitable than liberals. Liberals believe in the government taking from the rich to give to the poor, conservatives believe in the rich giving the poor a job or some temporary direct assistance.

Yeah sure keep on believing that the paltry charity you guys engage in makes up for supporting a system that's leaving millions out on the street.

Isn't that the point of charity. After all if there were no one on the street to "practice" charity on, what would christians do with themselves? Charity doesn't solve problems, it takes advantage of people with problems. Munchenhausen!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Christianity is about charity, or have you forgotten that basic tenet?

1) Is it charity when I hand a homeless person $5 and say, "Get loaded."

2) Is it charity when I sit down the same man and chat about whatever for an hour or two?

Just handing out money is not what Christ or the Bible dictates, but when that excuse is used to claim that my husband (who works over 40 hours a week at his paid job, PLUS being a volunteer fire fighter of over 20 years) has no right to health care that would allow him to take our son to the hospital without putting us in serious debt -- debt that, if I were not such a tightwad as to do without any new clothes for 7 years, buy all my son's clothes at yard sales, grow my own food, can etc....

would have meant we would lose our house.

THAT is what this is about!

Right, but you're just one particular case. Not everyone's situation is like yours. In your case, seeing that he's helped the city with being a firefighter, he should receive benefits, but many people don't have that claim to justify their receiving socialized healthcare.

Perhaps, there should be limits on who gets the healthcare and who doesn't, but how would that be enforced? No idea. Maybe providing proof that one is busting their ass yet still not doing so well, but there's complications with that.

I'd say, given your circumstances, you're entitled to it. However, a lot of people simply aren't, which is why many people perceive socialized healthcare to be unfair--a mandatory handout which is provided by their own money.

Why should others be forced to pay for another person's healthcare? (Charitable, religious beliefs aside.)

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why should others be forced to pay for another person's healthcare?

Because it's cheaper for everyone?

Also, because it's not inhumane.

Snorri1234 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why should others be forced to pay for another person's healthcare?

Because it's cheaper for everyone?

Also, because it's not inhumane.

Please explain how this is cheaper.


Sure, it's humane. Wouldn't it be humane of the government to feed all its citizens? That would be humane too! It would also be humane for the government to give certain people of a certain financial status some rent money. Simply because it's humane doesn't really mean people should be entitled to it.

Sure, healthcare can be expensive, but couldn't the government subsidize the costs instead of setting up its own insurance company?