Healthcare ruling:

[Kembal]

Thank you.

Edit: so the poor still go without health insurance... Again, I see the benefit to the hospitals and insurance companies, but where is the benefit for the poor? Or was this never about poor people getting health coverage? Is the main good being done here the requirement of insurance companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions then?

3 major parts:

1. Pre-existing conditions not causing denial of coverage will reduce the amount of uninsured.
2. Community rating, which means insurance companies will no longer to be able to take an individual's specific conditions into account when pricing the cost of individual insurance for them.

Both of those require a mandate of some sort, or you'll get a major free-rider problem.

3. For the poor, there are two parts. If you're at 133% of the federal poverty level or below, you're going to become eligible for Medicaid in 2014, provided your state opts for the expansion. (it's 100% funded by the federal government from 2014-2016, then goes to 90% federally funded by 2020.) The state opt-in is the one real change from the SCOTUS decision...before, if states chose to opt out, they lost all of their federal Medicaid funding. If you're above 133% of the poverty level but still unable to afford health insurance, there are federal subsidies that scale with income to make it possible to buy health insurance. I forget the cut-off.

[ClydeR]

I heard (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Business/2012-05-25-PNI0525biz-insurance-refund--PNIBrd_ST_U.htm) that Obamacare requires insurance companies that devote too much of premium payments to executive compensation to send refund checks -- or a so called "Medical Loss Rebate" or MLR -- to their customers by August. Now that the court upheld the law, the checks go out in less than a month.

Isn't it socialism to tell insurance companies how they have to spend our premiums?

You can see if you've been overcharged and will get a rebate here http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/mlr-issuer-rebates1.pdf

If your employer provides insurance, you may still get a rebate if you pay part of the premium.

My company is on the list.

[Nattor]

I heard (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Business/2012-05-25-PNI0525biz-insurance-refund--PNIBrd_ST_U.htm) that Obamacare requires insurance companies that devote too much of premium payments to executive compensation to send refund checks -- or a so called "Medical Loss Rebate" or MLR -- to their customers by August. Now that the court upheld the law, the checks go out in less than a month.

Isn't it socialism to tell insurance companies how they have to spend our premiums?

You can see if you've been overcharged and will get a rebate here http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/mlr-issuer-rebates1.pdf

If your employer provides insurance, you may still get a rebate if you pay part of the premium.

My company is on the list.

Interesting. Mine is on there too.

[Kembal]

I heard (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Business/2012-05-25-PNI0525biz-insurance-refund--PNIBrd_ST_U.htm) that Obamacare requires insurance companies that devote too much of premium payments to executive compensation to send refund checks -- or a so called "Medical Loss Rebate" or MLR -- to their customers by August. Now that the court upheld the law, the checks go out in less than a month.

Isn't it socialism to tell insurance companies how they have to spend our premiums?

You can see if you've been overcharged and will get a rebate here http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/mlr-issuer-rebates1.pdf

If your employer provides insurance, you may still get a rebate if you pay part of the premium.

My company is on the list.

That was useful, ClydeR. I'd been wondering whether my insurance company owed us a rebate back. Appears not, since we're in the small group market.

[ClydeR]

That was useful, ClydeR. I'd been wondering whether my insurance company owed us a rebate back. Appears not, since we're in the small group market.

I got my health insurance rebate check in the mail today! It was nearly two months of premiums. To celebrate, I'm going out tonight for fried catfish, hushpuppies and freedom fries. And I'm even going splurge and order the fried pickles appetizer.

[Tgo01]

Guess it's time to start boycotting Papa John's now. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ObamaLovesAll1?action=comments)


After President Obama's health care law takes full effect, the slogan for national pizza chain Papa John's may need an update. Instead of, “Better ingredients. Better Pizza,” may we suggest, “Better health care. Pricier pizza."

Papa John's CEO John Schnatter says that Obamacare will result in a $0.11 to $0.14 price increase per pizza, or $0.15 to $0.20 cents per order, Pizza Marketplace, a trade publication, reports. (Hat tip: @dkberman via Twitter.)

Under Obamacare, the company, which is the third-largest pizza takeout and delivery chain in the United States, will have to offer health care coverage to more of its 16,500 total employees or pay a penalty to the government.

The National Restaurant Association pointed out following the health care law's Supreme Court approval that it may adversely affect restaurants’ ability to maintain already slim profit margins because it requires companies of more than 50 employees to provide affordable health insurance.

One Papa John's franchise owner in Texas, Judy Nichols, says the law could interfere with her ability to open more restaurants.

“I have two options, I can stop offering coverage and pay the $2,000 fine, or I could keep my number of staff under 50 so the mandate doesn't apply,” she told Legal Newsline. Nichols added that the law may cost her between $20,000 to $30,000 extra in taxes. “Obamacare is making me think about cutting jobs instead," she said.

But with strong sales last quarter and more than 1,500 new retail locations planned in the near future, Schnatter doesn't seem all that bothered -- perhaps because he intends to pass those health care costs on to customers.

“We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry,” Schnatter was quoted as saying in Politico. “But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare."

McDonald’s also expects Obamacare to cost each of its 14,000 franchises between $10,000 and $30,000 annually, according to Businessweek. But, like Schnatter, the company remains optimistic it is well placed to handle the extra costs.

Representatives from other restaurant chains may be less hopeful, however, including Burger King, Quiznos and Dunkin’ Donuts, all which have expressed concern the law may hurt business, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Not sure what else people expected when you don't even try to reduce the actual cost of healthcare and instead just want everyone to pay more into the system.

[Cxai]

I think you'll find that most businesses will pass the extra costs on to customers. It's not realistic to boycott every business with more than 50 workers.

[Back]

Guess it's time to start boycotting Papa John's now. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ObamaLovesAll1?action=comments)



Not sure what else people expected when you don't even try to reduce the actual cost of healthcare and instead just want everyone to pay more into the system.

11 - 14 cents a pizza for kids to get decent health care? CONVUSIONY RABID VEIN POP BLOOD SPURT OWWWWW!!

[Tgo01]

11 - 14 cents a pizza for kids to get decent health care? CONVUSIONY RABID VEIN POP BLOOD SPURT OWWWWW!!

Hey if Obamacare was only affecting Papa John's I would agree with you 100%.

[Cxai]

Hey if Obamacare was only affecting Papa John's I would agree with you 100%.

Exactly, it's not just pizza you'll pay more for.

[diethx]

It's ok, Papa John's sucks anyway.

[Warriorbird]

Exactly, it's not just pizza you'll pay more for.

You're right. There's also hyperbole.

[Tgo01]

You're right. There's also hyperbole.

Hyperbole is free, otherwise you would have went bankrupt years ago :/

[~Rocktar~]

I think you'll find that all businesses will pass the extra costs on to customers. It's not realistic to boycott every business with more than 50 workers.

Fixed.

[Parkbandit]

Guess it's time to start boycotting Papa John's now. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ObamaLovesAll1?action=comments)
Not sure what else people expected when you don't even try to reduce the actual cost of healthcare and instead just want everyone to pay more into the system.

How many pizzas does Papa Johns sell per year. Figure that out.. then do the math... Obamacare is a big expense to this one billion dollar company.

And yes, this company, like every other company, will pass as much of this expense along to the customer. Any expense they can't manage to recover with price hikes will be offset by cutting costs.. which in most will be in the form of labor cuts.

[Back]

Exactly, it's not just pizza you'll pay more for.

What are you implying?

If you mean every pizza place: I eat pizza once a week. 14 cents/wk. 56 cents/m.

If you mean every take-out/restaurant: I eat take-out/restaurant 4-5 times a week. 70 cents/wk. 2.80/m.

If you mean every take-out/restaurant/store bought meal: At three meals a day thats 21 times a week. 2.94/wk. 11.76/m.

If you mean every take-out/restaurant/store bought meal/service/items purchased/gasoline etc: Food plus gas trip (1/wk), movie (1/wk), gun range (1/wk), going clubbing cause I'm sexy and you know it I work out (1/wk), library oops thats free, barber shop (1/wk): 2.94+.14+.14+.14+.14+.14= 3.64/wk. 14.56/m.

Is this how your argument works?

[AnticorRifling]

Every trip to the grocery store, every energy bill, rent, etc. Anything that you pay to a company with more than 50 employees. Now you and I can afford a slight bump but what about someone who is at their max budget and suddenly all of their needs, not wants, increase to offset? Back doesn't care about poor people.


My question is do we really believe companies with fewer than 50 employees will be exempt for long? I'm not sure if I do or not. If I could afford to hire a few more workers because my business is doing well but that would put me at the 50 person threshold and that is an expense I can't afford what do I do as a small business owner? I probably don't hire.

Right now it's a lot of unknowns and that is what scares people especially when they aren't in great financial shape but know they are well enough off they will shoulder the cost. I think the fact that it comes from a side of the aisle they don't like makes it worse. Time will tell but we can all agree that Back doesn't like poor people.

[Parkbandit]

What are you implying?

If you mean every pizza place: I eat pizza once a week. 14 cents/wk. 56 cents/m.

If you mean every take-out/restaurant: I eat take-out/restaurant 4-5 times a week. 70 cents/wk. 2.80/m.

If you mean every take-out/restaurant/store bought meal: At three meals a day thats 21 times a week. 2.94/wk. 11.76/m.

If you mean every take-out/restaurant/store bought meal/service/items purchased/gasoline etc: Food plus gas trip (1/wk), movie (1/wk), gun range (1/wk), going clubbing cause I'm sexy and you know it I work out (1/wk), library oops thats free, barber shop (1/wk): 2.94+.14+.14+.14+.14+.14= 3.64/wk. 14.56/m.

Is this how your argument works?

Man.. I miss the days where I only had to worry about 5 things to pay for a week.

I was 12.

[Parkbandit]

Every trip to the grocery store, every energy bill, rent, etc. Anything that you pay to a company with more than 50 employees. Now you and I can afford a slight bump but what about someone who is at their max budget and suddenly all of their needs, not wants, increase to offset? Back doesn't care about poor people.


My question is do we really believe companies with fewer than 50 employees will be exempt for long? I'm not sure if I do or not. If I could afford to hire a few more workers because my business is doing well but that would put me at the 50 person threshold and that is an expense I can't afford what do I do as a small business owner? I probably don't hire.

Right now it's a lot of unknowns and that is what scares people especially when they aren't in great financial shape but know they are well enough off they will shoulder the cost. I think the fact that it comes from a side of the aisle they don't like makes it worse. Time will tell but we can all agree that Back doesn't like poor people.

WHY CAN'T THE EVIL RICH PEOPLE JUST PAY FOR OBAMACARE OUT OF THE STACK OF MONEY THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH!???

[AnticorRifling]

I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD ALL PAY OUR FAIR SHARE AS LONG AS FAIR MEANS OTHER PEOPLE PAY MORE!

[Back]

The idea that we all pay a little less for healthcare for ourselves so we can all have affordable healthcare makes sense to me and I support it. Even for rich people.

[AnticorRifling]

So because you want something for yourself you are ok with requiring other people, who might not want the same things you want, to be forced into the program? Selfish.

[Atlanteax]

Obamacare = fewer jobs created = 8%+ unemployment is here to stay.

[Parkbandit]

Obamacare = fewer jobs created = 8%+ unemployment is here to stay.

Oh stop with your partisan rhetoric. It's only gone up .5% in 4 years. Obama is a miracle worker!

[Parkbandit]

The idea that we all pay a little less for healthcare for ourselves so we can all have affordable healthcare makes sense to me and I support it. Even for rich people.

Do you have a link to where the implementation of Obamacare will actually cost individuals less?

[Back]

So because you want something for yourself you are ok with requiring other people, who might not want the same things you want, to be forced into the program? Selfish.

Like car insurance. Yes. Whats selfish about wanting the best plan for everyone myself included? Oh, yeah. Nothing.

[Atlanteax]

Like car insurance.

Car insurance scales with the value of your car (not everyone can afford a $40k+ car).

Home insurance scales with the value of your home (not everyone can afford a $400k+ home).

Healthcare insurance does *not* scale !! Therein is the crux of the steadily-inflating cost issue ... with the socialist insistence that everyone gets equal healthcare.

[Tgo01]

Speaking of other forms of insurance that people are forced to buy...my home owners' insurance was just raised 100 dollars a year last week bringing it up to a 300 dollar increase in the past 7 years, and my home is worth less now than 7 years ago. Don't even get me started on my car insurance increases.

Then again maybe this increase was just in preparation for Obamacare?

[Parkbandit]

Speaking of other forms of insurance that people are forced to buy...my home owners' insurance was just raised 100 dollars a year last week bringing it up to a 300 dollar increase in the past 7 years, and my home is worth less now than 7 years ago. Don't even get me started on my car insurance increases.

Then again maybe this increase was just in preparation for Obamacare?

The extra cost you are paying will be MORE than made up for when Obamacare saves you money on your healthcare costs. I mean, it's called the AFFORDABLE Healthcare Act... so I know it will save me money.

[Deathravin]

Car insurance scales with the value of your car (not everyone can afford a $40k+ car).

Home insurance scales with the value of your home (not everyone can afford a $400k+ home).

Healthcare insurance does *not* scale !! Therein is the crux of the steadily-inflating cost issue ... with the socialist insistence that everyone gets equal healthcare.

You can have a car that is worth more than another car.
You can have a house that is worth more than another house.
You do not have a human being that is worth more than another human being.

[Atlanteax]

You can have a car that is worth more than another car
You can have a house that is worth more than another house
You do not have a human being that is worth more than another human being.

Sure you can.

A highly educated professional ... say a doctor in the ER ... is worth more (to society) than Joe Bum the hobo.

The former should get priority access to restricted healthcare (ie heart transplant, as there are only so many available) than the later.

Middle-class working stiff who works 50 hours / week to support his family, also should get priority over Hobo.

But under socialized access to healthcare, hobos and illegals get to camp out at the hospital (not like they have a *job* that would otherwise prevent them from stay-in camping) to be "first in line" for whatever care that the hospital is legally obligated to provide them with (since they cannot be turned away).

Too bad middle-class working stiff ends up having to wait hours behind the campers ... which ultimately impairs his well-being & he does not necessarily have the luxury of time to wait & wait (he's working 50hr/week).

[Wrathbringer]

You can have a car that is worth more than another car.
You can have a house that is worth more than another house.
You do not have a human being that is worth more than another human being.

Also, according to Obamacare, a 50 year old person is worth more than a 75 year old person and as such will get the expensive procedure while the 75 year old person gets morphine/pain meds until he/she dies. There's only so much money, ya know. Gotta prioritize.

[Tgo01]

You can have a car that is worth more than another car.
You can have a house that is worth more than another house.
You do not have a human being that is worth more than another human being.

You're looking at it wrong.

You can have a car that is more expensive to insure because of increased liabilities.
You can have a house that is more expensive to insure because of increased liabilities.
You can have a human being that is more expensive to insure because of increased liabilities.

Does this healthcare law allow insurance companies to charge people more because they are in worse health? If not then what is the benefit for someone to take good care of themselves?

[AnticorRifling]

Hell even if person A and person B have the same car the insurance can be different if person A has had multiple wrecks, tickets, DUIs, etc. If you're a drinker, smoker, lazy fuck your insurance should be more right?

[ClydeR]

Also, according to Obamacare, a 50 year old person is worth more than a 75 year old person and as such will get the expensive procedure while the 75 year old person gets morphine/pain meds until he/she dies. There's only so much money, ya know. Gotta prioritize.

You mean there really are death panels? Do you have a cite to back that up?

[Wrathbringer]

You mean there really are death panels? Do you have a cite to back that up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw&feature=relmfu

From the horse's mouth.

[TheEschaton]

Sure you can.

A highly educated professional ... say a doctor in the ER ... is worth more (to society) than Joe Bum the hobo.

The former should get priority access to restricted healthcare (ie heart transplant, as there are only so many available) than the later.

Middle-class working stiff who works 50 hours / week to support his family, also should get priority over Hobo.

But under socialized access to healthcare, hobos and illegals get to camp out at the hospital (not like they have a *job* that would otherwise prevent them from stay-in camping) to be "first in line" for whatever care that the hospital is legally obligated to provide them with (since they cannot be turned away).

Too bad middle-class working stiff ends up having to wait hours behind the campers ... which ultimately impairs his well-being & he does not necessarily have the luxury of time to wait & wait (he's working 50hr/week).


And that's where you fail as a human being.

[Atlanteax]

And that's where you fail as a human being.

No, I'm just not a naive idealist.

Quality healthcare is a limited resource ... it should be going to people who are net contributors to society.

Trying to ensure *everyone* gets it results in jacked-up demand (reference to the classic supply vs demand equilibrium chart) where it is no longer affordable for the working poor (and they have to go with less as well).

[Some Rogue]

No, I'm just not a naive idealist.

Quality healthcare is a limited resource ... it should be going to people who are net contributors to society.

Trying to ensure *everyone* gets it results in jacked-up demand (reference to the classic supply vs demand equilibrium chart) where it is no longer affordable for the working poor (and they have to go with less as well).


http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

[AnticorRifling]

No, I'm just not a naive idealist.

Quality healthcare is a limited resource ... it should be going to people who are net contributors to society.

Trying to ensure *everyone* gets it results in jacked-up demand (reference to the classic supply vs demand equilibrium chart) where it is no longer affordable for the working poor (and they have to go with less as well).

I don't always pretend I'm better than others but when I do I make sure I'm hidden in the internets.

[Atlanteax]

It's funny how bent-out-of-shape people get about full access to healthcare for all, but they do not clamor about ensuring everyone has a meal to eat a dinner or a roof over their head.

[TheEschaton]

It's funny how bent-out-of-shape people get about full access to healthcare for all, but they do not clamor about ensuring everyone has a meal to eat a dinner or a roof over their head.

I do clamor about that, I just do it in real life.

Edited to add your retarded quote. Are you saying people aren't entitled to food and shelter?

[Tgo01]

Are you saying people aren't entitled to food and shelter?

Don't be silly, rich white Americans are entitled to food and shelter.

[Liagala]

Edited to add your retarded quote. Are you saying people aren't entitled to food and shelter?
I don't think people are entitled to much of anything. I have no right to things merely because I exist. I think that people should have food and shelter, and if they do everything they can and are still unable to procure it I think they should receive any assistance necessary to get it. The word "entitled" however seems to imply that people should have it regardless of effort - that simply being alive and human grants me that right, even if I do nothing but sit back and wait for someone else to hand it to me.

[Parkbandit]

I do clamor about that, I just do it in real life.

Edited to add your retarded quote. Are you saying people aren't entitled to food and shelter?

Food and shelter isn't a right guaranteed by our government.. anymore than having electricity, transportation, a job, etc...

[Parkbandit]

I don't think people are entitled to much of anything. I have no right to things merely because I exist. I think that people should have food and shelter, and if they do everything they can and are still unable to procure it I think they should receive any assistance necessary to get it. The word "entitled" however seems to imply that people should have it regardless of effort - that simply being alive and human grants me that right, even if I do nothing but sit back and wait for someone else to hand it to me.

I'll take this for TheE:


And that's where you fail as a human being.

[TheEschaton]

Here's the thing: if we as a society don't see it as our obligation to feed and shelter the helpless and hungry, regardless of their ability to procure those things for themselves, then we've simply become an amoral, utilitarian society. Is that what your goal is? That everyone is a self-sufficient being and only operates within society inasmuch as it benefits them? That society only helps the helpful?

Cause that's some weird dystopian shit, and another reason I hate humanity.

It's a ridiculous sentiment, and contrary to thousands of years of moral development.

[Parkbandit]

Here's the thing: if we as a society don't see it as our obligation to feed and shelter the helpless and hungry, regardless of their ability to procure those things for themselves, then we've simply become an amoral, utilitarian society. Is that what your goal is? That everyone is a self-sufficient being and only operates within society inasmuch as it benefits them? That society only helps the helpful?

Cause that's some weird dystopian shit, and another reason I hate humanity.

It's a ridiculous sentiment, and contrary to thousands of years of moral development.

If they are "helpless"... how could they possibly "procure those things for themselves"?

I 100% agree with the truly helpless... it's our obligation as a society.

[Tgo01]

I think we as a society have an obligation to feed and provide shelter for people, up to a point. If they're disabled and they can't work obviously they need our help and support. If they fall on hard times and need a helping hand of course we should help them out.

If they are able to work but really have no desire to work well then...we should educate them if they need it and provide classes and warn them "get the fuck off the couch and get a job or else!" What kind of society are we building if we actively encourage people to sit back and do nothing?

Edit: I also think it's our obligation as a society to make sure the necessities in life are as cheap as possible as well, I'm not saying people can't make a profit so don't get me wrong. If that means more government regulation to make sure food and home heating prices don't skyrocket well then fine. But don't tell Warriorbird I'm a Republican in favor of government regulations or he'll laugh at me and call me names :(

[Liagala]

Here's the thing: if we as a society don't see it as our obligation to feed and shelter the helpless and hungry, regardless of their ability to procure those things for themselves, then we've simply become an amoral, utilitarian society. Is that what your goal is? That everyone is a self-sufficient being and only operates within society inasmuch as it benefits them? That society only helps the helpful?
Scroll back up. I said that people should do whatever they can to help themselves, and if that isn't enough, the rest of us should step in and help them. Ability is not the deciding factor, effort is. If you give it everything you've got and you're just not capable for whatever reason, then you're not at fault and deserve help. That help should be both the physical things you need (food/shelter) and training to teach you how to get better at procuring it for yourself in the future (assuming the reason you fell short is something like crappy economy and no jobs, as opposed to a disability that will always prevent you from being self sufficient).

[Wrathbringer]

More importantly, the help should be given by willing individuals and charitable groups rather than the government.

[Tgo01]

More importantly, the help should be given by willing individuals and charitable groups rather than the government.

Meh, I don't know about that. I think a government has an obligation to take care of its people.

[Wrathbringer]

Meh, I don't know about that. I think a government has an obligation to take care of its people.

I'd submit that kind of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place.

[Liagala]

More importantly, the help should be given by willing individuals and charitable groups rather than the government.
I disagree. As PB said, it's our obligation as a society to help those who truly can not help themselves. Doing things your way would put a huge share of the burden on those willing to help, and allow uncaring people to ignore the situation entirely. It would reward selfishness and punish people for acting responsibly.

[Wrathbringer]

I disagree. As PB said, it's our obligation as a society to help those who truly can not help themselves. Doing things your way would put a huge share of the burden on those willing to help, and allow uncaring people to ignore the situation entirely. It would reward selfishness and punish people for acting responsibly.

I'd also submit that were things done my way there would be a lot less needy people.

[Wrathbringer]

3854

[Liagala]

I'd also submit that were things done my way there would be a lot less needy people.
True enough, but that goes back to what TheE said. What kind of society are we if we stroll blithely past those who truly do need help, sipping our lattes and discussing last night's opera performance? Not one I particularly want to live in.

The Ben Franklin quote clarifies your reasoning a little - I thought you meant we'd have a lot less needy people because they'd all shortly starve to death, leaving the rest of us without that burden. Instead, you're ignoring the fact that PB, Tgo1, and I are all emphasising the "truly needy" part. The quote you put up implies that those getting help are perfectly capable of doing it on their own, and choose not to. We're being very careful to talk only about those who are truly incapable. We agree with you that people who are simply lazy don't deserve to have things handed to them.

[Wrathbringer]

True enough, but that goes back to what TheE said. What kind of society are we if we stroll blithely past those who truly do need help, sipping our lattes and discussing last night's opera performance? Not one I particularly want to live in.

I never suggested that.

[Tgo01]

I'd submit that kind of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Which mess? Our society as a whole or this healthcare ruling?

[Tgo01]

I never suggested that.


More importantly, the help should be given by willing individuals and charitable groups rather than the government.

Wait what?

[Parkbandit]

Wait what?

Wrathbringer suggested that help should be given by charitable organizations and not by the government. He never suggested that we simply walk on by and do nothing.

My problem with that is that when people need it most.. a depression/recession... charity is usually the first segment to take a large hit.. and that help might not be there for when people need it the most.

[Wrathbringer]

Which mess? Our society as a whole or this healthcare ruling?

both, but primarily I was talking about debt. Medicare, medicaid, social security. Government trying to take care of its people is bankrupting us.

[Wrathbringer]

Wrathbringer suggested that help should be given by charitable organizations and not by the government. He never suggested that we simply walk on by and do nothing.

My problem with that is that when people need it most.. a depression/recession... charity is usually the first segment to take a large hit.. and that help might not be there for when people need it the most.

At that point, we'd need to help our neighbors. We're capable of more as a people than we give ourselves credit. The governmental third party isn't always the answer, in my view.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/-9.img_assist_custom-640x465.png

[Liagala]

We're capable of more as a people than we give ourselves credit.
I'd love to believe this.

[TheEschaton]

If we're capable of more as a people than we give ourselves credit, we can surely be charitable and generous without making a value judgment behind it. As soon as you make a value judgment (X person is more worthy of charity than Y person) you enter into a utilitarian argument. I, for one, when asked for something by someone in need, don't ask them if they've exhausted all other methods. Charity is not a last resort - being charitable is a virtue people should strive for.

Oh, and if we want to throw out random quotes which mean nothing, I'll go with this one: "God help us all, if we all got what we truly deserved." Dorothy Day, in response to helping those who deserve it.

You people make me wish I had a Xanax prescription. That's right, you people.

[Liagala]

You people make me wish I had a Xanax prescription. That's right, you people.
I have some. I'd share, but I don't think you deserve it.

[Tgo01]

You people make me wish I had a Xanax prescription. That's right, you people.

Paid for by my tax dollars no less.

[AnticorRifling]

TheE how do you expect us to thread our stock and cull the weak from our herd? You clearly don't want our species to advance because you insist on keeping the gene pool muddy. That's right I said muddy to a brown guy, come at me bro.

[TheEschaton]

I didn't even think people still took Xanax, that's like a pill people took when I was in high school. Don't they have other shit now?

Jesus, I wish I was drunk.

[AnticorRifling]

TheE hides from his problems and his fort of choice is pills and booze!

[TheEschaton]

I didn't even like to drink til I was 25.

[Liagala]

If we're capable of more as a people than we give ourselves credit, we can surely be charitable and generous without making a value judgment behind it. As soon as you make a value judgment (X person is more worthy of charity than Y person) you enter into a utilitarian argument. I, for one, when asked for something by someone in need, don't ask them if they've exhausted all other methods. Charity is not a last resort - being charitable is a virtue people should strive for.
On a slightly more serious note, you're guilty of the same thing Wrathbringer is. You both want us to be "better than we give ourselves credit for" so you believe that we are. The reality is that some are, and some are not. You want to believe that everyone who says, "I need help" really does. In reality some will truly need help, some will think they need help but are actually capable of more than they think, and some will have a wad of cash in their back pocket and say to their buddy, "Hey look at this fool. I bet I can get $5 out of him." If everyone asking for help fell in to the first category, I'd jump on your bandwagon in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that's just not how the world works.


I didn't even think people still took Xanax, that's like a pill people took when I was in high school. Don't they have other shit now?
Hey now. Mine is legit. I'm retarded and work myself up into panic attacks over minor shit when I'm stressed.

[TheEschaton]

Ah yes, there is a percentage who will scam. I'm willing to bet it'll always be significantly small percentage. not many people choose to be homeless to scam people.

[Parkbandit]

Ah yes, there is a percentage who will scam. I'm willing to bet it'll always be significantly small percentage. not many people choose to be homeless to scam people.

So you believe that 100 million people in this country are truly "helpless"?

[TheEschaton]

Are you saying 100 million, or 1 out 3, people in this country are homeless?

[Latrinsorm]

Every trip to the grocery store, every energy bill, rent, etc. Anything that you pay to a company with more than 50 employees. Now you and I can afford a slight bump but what about someone who is at their max budget and suddenly all of their needs, not wants, increase to offset? Back doesn't care about poor people.Is that person currently paying for healthcare? BOOM.
More importantly, the help should be given by willing individuals and charitable groups rather than the government.And we're the naive idealists??? It was barely 100 years ago that hundreds of people died in the streets of New York because it was hot out. Where were your individuals and charitable groups then? All it took was Teddy Roosevelt wandering around with a bucket of ice chips to keep poor people alive. How many churches ignored the problems? How many of the 400? It's a lovely fiction to think that we can pull together in times of crisis and keep each other afloat, but it is a fiction nonetheless.

[AnticorRifling]

Latrin is right, let's not forget that the bubonic plague killed a lot of people in the streets too and that was barely 665 years ago. Where were your charities then? Nothing has changed in the ways of facilities or technologies from then or 100 years ago as compared to today so these are valid points.

[diethx]

I have some. I'd share, but I don't think you deserve it.

Um, hi. I am very, very deserving. :wubsmiley:

[Bobmuhthol]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/-9.img_assist_custom-640x465.png
In case other people are prone to ignoring disclosures (I'm not), the graph says: FIGURES INCLUDE ANYONE RESIDING IN A HOUSEHOLD IN WHICH AT LEAST ONE PERSON RECEIVED A PROGRAM BENEFIT.

I recently conducted a similar study, where I counted the number of people in every household and tallied them up as a way to estimate the number of households. You know what I found out those liberal motherfuckers are up to? Under my counting method, I've determined there are more households than households!!!!!

[Parkbandit]

Are you saying 100 million, or 1 out 3, people in this country are homeless?

So, you are only out to help the homeless?

[Latrinsorm]

Latrin is right, let's not forget that the bubonic plague killed a lot of people in the streets too and that was barely 665 years ago. Where were your charities then? Nothing has changed in the ways of facilities or technologies from then or 100 years ago as compared to today so these are valid points.If you want to compare a plague to drinking water, I guess.

[Atlanteax]

What I was attempting to get at with my earlier comment regarding the hungry and homeless... was an inquiry as to why, we *generally* take an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach by leaving such assistance to charity work and limited government assistance programs (there is not enough public housing for the homeless in a given area, as an example) ... yet the emotions behind the support of universal healthcare for all, would indicate that if said people (hungry and/or homeless) were to walk into a hospital, they're entitled to state-of-the-art healthcare (no matter what the cost is).

Access to *basic* healthcare service I'd support (like flu shots an antibiotics) ... but in a situation where we're alarmed by how much healthcare costs are rising (with premiums taking up much greater % of living expenses, choking away discretionary spending) and people worry how they can afford the costs involved in seriously unfortunate complications (like heart surgery) without seeing an excessive amount of their life savings 'go up in smoke' ... how can we possibly continue on with "sure, doesn't matter who you are, or what you do, just walk in and you're entitled to whatever care you may need" ... when quality healthcare is a limited resource?

We have local laws in various places that essentially prohibits begging (panhandling) as part of the out-of-sight-out-of-mind mentality, since apparently people would rather be able to go from place to place without 'being hassled' for spare change. So why the generosity with healthcare which can negatively impair the availability and affordability of quality healthcare for others, if there is no overwhelming desire to ensure that there is no one suffering from hunger or homelessness (we can certainly grow more food, but we have a limited supply of nurses and doctors).

[Liagala]

So what you're telling us is that you're in favor of helping them out as long as it isn't too expensive, and doesn't impact you in any material way. Got it.

[AnticorRifling]

In case other people are prone to ignoring disclosures (I'm not), the graph says: FIGURES INCLUDE ANYONE RESIDING IN A HOUSEHOLD IN WHICH AT LEAST ONE PERSON RECEIVED A PROGRAM BENEFIT.

I recently conducted a similar study, where I counted the number of people in every household and tallied them up as a way to estimate the number of households. You know what I found out those liberal motherfuckers are up to? Under my counting method, I've determined there are more households than households!!!!!

I heard you like counting households so I put a household in your household so you could count households while you count households.

[AnticorRifling]

If you want to compare a plague to drinking water, I guess.

I thought you said it was the heat..now you're saying it was the drinking water that killed them? You sir are not a pancake you are a waffle.

[Latrinsorm]

The lack of drinking water.