Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2017, 07:27 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 06:49 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(31-07-2017 05:43 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  The government can only give away what it steals from someone.

Governements don't steal they requisition.

Furthermore, in democratic States, how much they are allowed to requisition and for what purpose has to be approved to a wide extand by the population at large. The how, why and where this money go is also largely public thanks to budget laws and independant press and citizen access to such information at their demand. Calling it theft is a serious misnomer in the cases of tax levy for healthcare services, but it does inform people of your views on non-unanimous collective decision.

You can call it "requisition" in the instances in which they take one person's money and redistribute it to another person. But when the person being taken from does not consent...it's stealing.

And there was no process by which the "population at large" agreed to have their money taken and redistributed to others. Elected officials of this Republic did that. It's one of the reason their ilk were not reelected. Incidentally, the "population at large" was not even a majority throughout most of the implementation.
http://www.kff.org/interactive/kaiser-he...aRange=all

My views on "non-unanimous collective decision" are not demonstrated because I don't support decisions based on popularity. Tyranny of the masses isn't for me.

The basic premise of demanding one group of people should be relieved of their money, against their will, and have it redistributed to others is what I oppose. Including forced service.

Sorry for being all Constitutional but unless this is a matter of National Defense or Welfare of the Nation... I'm not for it.

I fail to see where healthcare is a right.

Additionally, the ACA is a failure as a solution for the problems regarding cost and access for healthcare. I'd prefer they just leave the ACA alone to die it's eventual death as costs continue to rise along with premiums. All while coverage and access dwindles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2017, 07:31 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 07:00 PM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  
(31-07-2017 05:43 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  Maybe her sense of right and wrong regarding theft outweighs her desire for personal benefit. The government can only give away what it steals from someone. Whether it be money or services. I suspect she's looking at it from that perspective.

> Okay, let's hear why she thinks Obamacare is theft. Let's hear her opinion on why she thinks some people benefit from it while others are allegedly screwed. Let's hear her opinion on what Republicans are supposed to replace Obamacare with. Lastly, let's see her cancel the "questionable" benefits she's now enjoying. Consider

I can't say for certain that this is her position. I was giving my thoughts on "maybe" why she wanted to see it go away even though she was currently benefiting from it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2017, 07:36 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
Why is it the hot one's are always dumb as fuck?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2017, 07:55 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 07:27 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  You can call it "requisition" in the instances in which they take one person's money and redistribute it to another person. But when the person being taken from does not consent...it's stealing.

But there isn't any way to exactly calculate what each and every individual consents to. What if an individual doesn't want National Defense, or roads, or any services? You have to have democracy and majority rule at some point just out of practicality, with protections for individual rights of course.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
31-07-2017, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2017 08:21 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 07:27 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  You can call it "requisition" in the instances in which they take one person's money and redistribute it to another person. But when the person being taken from does not consent...it's stealing.

...Unless that person didn't legitimatly own that money in the first place and/or to provide a goods/services the person required or needs to be productive and integral part of the society he depends and takes part in. In that case, it's mearly reclaiming payment for something or taking back one's propriety.

(31-07-2017 07:27 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  Sorry for being all Constitutional but unless this is a matter of National Defense or Welfare of the Nation... I'm not for it.

Healthy citizen isn't a matter of national welfare? Well what does national welfare covers? Killing and threatening foreigners seems to be one of them according to you (and I would largely agree with this one), but what else (and why)?

(31-07-2017 07:27 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  I fail to see where healthcare is a right.

I think it was considered as an implied right within the section that all citizens have the right to freedom, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, slavery, prison for debt and due process which basically suggest that people have the right to live, thus to receive medical attention should they need it. It's also a central part of humanist philosophy at the core of the democratic revolution of which the foundation of the modern USA takes part of and largely pioneer.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
31-07-2017, 08:40 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 08:02 PM)epronovost Wrote:  ...Unless that person didn't legitimatly own that money in the first place and/or to provide a goods/services the person required or needs to be productive part of the society he depends and takes part in. In that case, it's mearly reclaiming payment for something or taking back one's propriety.

By that rationale everything a person owns belongs to the government/collective. Are you going to start quoting Karl Marx next?

(31-07-2017 08:02 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Healthy citizen isn't a matter of national welfare? Well what does national welfare covers? Killing and threatening foreigners seems to be one of them according to you (and I would largely agree with this one), but what else (and why)?

No. A healthy citizen isn't a matter of national welfare. And I have no idea what you're on about with "Killing and threatening foreigners". Look up the word defense.

(31-07-2017 08:02 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I think it was considered as an implied right within the section that all citizens have the right to freedom, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, slavery, prison for debt and due process which basically suggest that people have the right to live, thus to receive medical attention should they need it. It's also a central part of humanist philosophy at the core of the democratic revolution of which the foundation of the modern USA takes part of and largely pioneer.

Sorry but your leap fails. Naming off the BOR and then suggesting that means free healthcare is absurd.
I understand that you are of a collectivist mindset in which it's easy to lump all things you find a necessity for an optimum existence as a right that should be provided by a central government via theft of others. I am not of the same opinion. A "right to live" does not mean anyone who needs services they want should get it at the expense of others. It's not remotely feasible to think the taxpayers should carry the burden of every healthcare need of every citizen.

In your worldview it seems illogical to even work. I would have a right to shelter. I would have a right to food. I would have a right to healthcare. And I don't "legitimatly" own the money I'd have earned in the first place.

And if I have the right to the same quality of healthcare as you then I have a right to the same quality of shelter and food as you too. It's my right as a citizen and you need to provide it, somehow. I don't care who you have to take it from...I deserve it as a citizen. Dodgy

The sad part is I can remember when this all went haywire in the 80's. Going to the GP for your sniffles was quite affordable. Hospitals worked out payment plans. Private outreach programs were common. Dr.s donated time. Some of the services weren't fabulous but the free market worked. Health Insurance was....Insurance. It, like car or home insurance, helped make sure people didn't go bankrupt. It wasn't meant to be a third party payor system for every visit. But changes in union policies about wages opened the door for insurance coverage. Then other employers. Then everyone thought they needed it. No copays. No deductibles. And insurance companies just payed. Then patients abused it. Dr.s/hospitals raised their prices dramatically. Insurance companies started paying a percentage and established contracts with providers. So providers just raised their rates. Along came allowable fee schedules. Fast forward and it's $140 to go to the GP to get your sniffles checked out. What low income person can afford that?

But rather than recognize that it's 3rd party payor system ideas that created this mess....we've decided to expand what we couldn't afford and deem it a mandate for all. Brilliant.

I don't have the perfect answer for solving this problem. But I know more government regulation of it is not the answer. This is the same government that tried to "help" by handing out student loan money only to have what was once a $60k degree become a $250k degree.

The end result is that the same way people in Canada have come to the US to get services they would have to wait months for at home...people are already going to Mexico to get.

We will have fewer and fewer providers. Access will be worse for all. Taxes will be higher and higher. And the people at the bottom will still not get better relative care than they did 30 years ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2017, 08:57 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
To be fair, her and Farron Cousins have a lot in common in regards to being in the business of garnering support from their chosen political audience by tossing out random insults and making irrational generalizations about the opposing side. He says some pretty stupid shit from time to time.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2017, 09:07 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 07:55 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(31-07-2017 07:27 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  You can call it "requisition" in the instances in which they take one person's money and redistribute it to another person. But when the person being taken from does not consent...it's stealing.

But there isn't any way to exactly calculate what each and every individual consents to. What if an individual doesn't want National Defense, or roads, or any services? You have to have democracy and majority rule at some point just out of practicality, with protections for individual rights of course.


I thought I made it clear that the basis of limits is established in the US Constitution.

Nobody is saying that there aren't basic premises that a group of people can agree on as a foundation for a society.

You don't have to have democracy and majority rule at any point. You made that clear "with protections for individual rights of course".

I'm sure you and I would agree that even if a majority wanted to impose a state religion we would hold up and established premise that prevents that. The First Amendment.

The US is not a direct democracy. It's a Republic that promotes a Representative Democracy. A direct democracy is precisely what the framers were trying to avoid. There are endless quotes from Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, etc..

That's why they established "protections for individual rights of course". One of those being Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. and that's were it ended.

There are countless arguments for how that was twisted..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes..._arguments

So it's my perception that the protection of my individual right to not be unduly burdened by taxation is being violated. Not only was I required to hand over $30k last year but I was required to treat patients, who have significantly better healthcare coverage than I do, at a reduced reimbursement rate. Think about that for a second. Hand over 28% of your income to people who have better coverage (I pay $750/month with a $5000 deductible) and be forced to have your income reduced continually by fee reduction from that very same entity.

If I say to you that I am "an individual that doesn't want National Defense, or roads, or any services" then you can point to the COTUS. But when I say that I don't want my taxes to pay for every single thing coming down the pike that you think I should pay for... you have nothing but a socialist philosophy to support your ideas.

I am not opposed to contributing to the National Defense or roads or all services. I simply see the limits and do not agree with forcing people beyond what has been outlined in the COTUS.

If we're seriously going to play 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' then I will have to bring in all kinds of keen authoritarian dictates our government should consider. Like forced organ donation for those on death row. Or how about sterilization of the intellectually disabled.

No thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2017, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2017 09:28 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 08:40 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  No. A healthy citizen isn't a matter of national welfare. And I have no idea what you're on about with "Killing and threatening foreigners". Look up the word defense.

Welfare:

1) the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

2) statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.

3) financial support given to people in need.

Synonyms: well-being, health, comfort, security, safety, protection, prosperity, success, fortune; More.

It seems like healthy citizen is exactly what welfare means.

Defense:

1) the action of defending from or resisting attack or threat.

That seems to involve killing and threatening foreigners when applied to a national level.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
31-07-2017, 09:25 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
You do understand that the constitution has been amended, right? In fact, the amendments are included in the very article you provided.

This is not the agrarian nation that it was in 1788. In the first census in 1790 there were only 5 cities with a population in excess of 10,000. Times change.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: