TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Not at all. “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver”
Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?
- Thread starter TheLonelySquire
- Start date
Not at all. “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver”
You're fond of Leviticus:
Leviticus 27:30 - A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord.
Render unto God that which is God's. Sounds like a command to me.
TLS is completely dishonest in this whole debate. He pretends to understand the problem in health care in the US, but opposes any reasonable solution, which has exactly the same effect as saying outright: "Let them die. If they can't pay it's their own fault." [and implicitely maybe thinking, that it's good for the country when those poor people die off...]
Yep, and God asks less of us then the government does and pays us back more than we gave.
Edit-It is also one of the few, if not the only, time God challenges us to test Him.
So God is a cheaper whore than the government?
Do you tithe?
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
When did I say I oppose reform? Um, never. But yes, if under a reformed system that provides equal access and affordability, if you cannot pay and you are able-bodied, it is indded your own fault.
That's exactly why I say you are dishonest in this debate.
You claim to support "reform" but in reality oppose all meaningful reform proposals.
DON'T call troll in this forum.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
No need to get snippy. I'm not avoiding your question.
As I have said many times, I believe in temporary social safety nets to help people out in a down time. However, for a grown up there should be no such thing as a permanent free ride.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Have I ever said I think it's wrong to give someone a hand up? There's a big difference however between people looking for a hand up and those looking for a free ride, wouldn't you say?
Portraying people who are proponents of UHC as "looking for a free ride" is, you guessed it, also dishonest.
And how is supporting a increase in taxes (on all income levels) asking for "free" healthcare.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
And yet again you are wrong. If someone is able to provide for themselves yet for whatever reason chooses not to do so, and expects someone else to pay for their health insurance, they are indeed looking for a free ride. Sorry if that's not politically correct.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Because many people will pay a big fat $0.00 into said program. Yet these people are able-bodied adults. Doesn't seem quite fair to me that people who have accomplished more get the bill for these folks. What do you think?
Which is where a tax on all income level comes in: Everyone pays, Everyone shares the burden. Only the extremely poor (homeless) would be getting "free" healthcare.
And before you bring it up, I fully support UHC and "Welfare to Work" programs designed to take the unemployed and under employed and transition them into job or better jobs through education and job retraining programs, rehab where needed, with a goal set of moving these people off other (non UHC) public assistance and making long term life style and income earning power changes.
That's the breaks. But you have to address the issue of why they're not paying in: which is why, assume their drawing more than UHC, you get them into welfare-to-work programs. If you work, you pay the tax, period. Say a flat 3% of gross pay.
Or another way that gets every: 3% national sales tax on everything retail except prescription medicine.
So, let me get this straight. I, a proponent of UHC, tell you that I am not looking for a free ride. And you are telling me that I am wrong about my own motivations?
It has been reiterated over and over again, but the point of UHC is to make sure that everyone has access to care, which is not the case in the US, and that no one will go bankrupt because of necessary care to keep them alive, which is also not the case in the US. For you to constantly cast this as "slackers looking for a free ride" indicates that your understanding of both healthcare in the US and worldwide is severely limited at best.
Similar threads
