"Obamacare"

[doubtingmerle]

No its not. It simply says that its a question I cannot or do not have the resources to answer. I'm not a politician and I'm not going to pretend to be one. I simply put forth an alternative idea, I don't see why you feel the need to grill me over the details.

OK, so you don't know if the tax credit you are suggesting to give to poor people that buy health insurance is closer to $500 or $10,000. As I said, unless it is close to what the poorest actually pay in health insurance, it does nothing to help them. So unless you are willing to say we should (if reasonably possible) pay at least 90% of the premiums for health insurance for the poorest people, I am going to write this off as something that really does not address the problem.

Since you seem to like interrogating others - how about some questions on the Obama plan. You do realize that the plan uses 10 years of taxes to fund 6 years of spending, do you not?

No, I don't know about this. What is your source?

That is borrows from SSI and double counts some of its figures in order to make it appear as though the bill will not increase the deficit?

No, I don't know about this. What is your source?

My point remains that while your cause may be a noble one, it does no good to the sick if in seeking to help them you drive up deficits and put the economy at greater peril. So my question to you is, how are you going to pay for all of this?

We could start with the plan listed here, which seems to cover it. http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/Mahar_BetterCareforLess.pdf/++atfield++file .

As I previously stated, I believe the alternative that I have put forth offers a bit more flexibility.

I didn't ask if it was flexible. I am asking if you are interested in doing something that will solve the problem. Because so far the (flexible) things you are proposing will do little to solve the problem.

 

[MarkSB]

Sir, in this post I note that you did not copy back my entire post!

If responding while omitting parts of the previous post is "taking out of context" then you just did what you condemn!

But sorry, there is no rule that says you need to copy all of another person's post before you can respond.

Is there anything at all in the context of your post that makes your statement, "If said military spending was only to build a military defense for our country, or to defend or launch an attack against hostiles; then no I would say their rights are not being violated" not mean that you think the government can spend money on defense without violating their rights?

Do you or do you not think the government can spend money on military without being guilty of violating the personal religious rights of Mennonites who oppose all military spending?

If you and I agree that this is not a violation of the Mennonite's personal religious rights, then your statements that explain why you agree with me need not be echoed back. I can simply state that you agree with me on this without repeating your entire argument.

This conversation is stupid.

Motivation is the key. You can omit parts of a post and not take things out of context. The point is that you ignored the explanation I gave - did not address it at all - and instead chose to only quote the part which you thought you could incriminate me with.

Yes, I did say that military spending could be done without violating religious rights. But my reasoning is that it is part of the constitution - the contract between the individual and the government - by which the government can do this. By living in the U.S. a citizen must recognize they are agreeing to that contract.

I think it goes without saying that a nation could not protect its borders were the federal government not permitted to spend money on defense. It is a neccessity for the nation to exist, in most cases. However, I think one could easily argue that the current defense budget is excessive.

 

[MarkSB]

No, I don't know about this. What is your source?

Paul Ryan addressed it at the health care summit. The president and democratic representatives were able to offer any explanation for the figures which Ryan gave.

I have not read the bill myself, and I'm not one to take politicians at their word - but Ryan critisized the way the bill was being funded and the president/democrats were not able to offer any rebuttal.

Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn't Reduce Spending - YouTube

If you wish to see the president's/democratic reaction to this critisizm you can see it at c-span.com. I think the only place where Ryan may have been a bit off was in his assesment of how the bill handles Medicare Advantage - and this is the only part of Ryan's critisizm which the president addressed.

I didn't ask if it was flexible. I am asking if you are interested in doing something that will solve the problem. Because so far the (flexible) things you are proposing will do little to solve the problem.

Running up deficits to handle the issue is not "solving" the problem, it is exacerbating it. I'll ask again, with the national debt our nation is facing, how do you justify the spending of the current administration?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The point is that you ignored the explanation I gave - did not address it at all - and instead chose to only quote the part which you thought you could incriminate me with.

The question is whether you think the government can sometimes spend money on defense without violating the Mennonite's freedom of religion. Your answer is yes. That is all I need.

I don't need to know why you answered yes. I just need to know that you answered yes.

Yes, I did say that military spending could be done without violating religious rights.

And that is what I said you said! Case closed! You said exactly what I said you said.

I am not quoting you out of context when I say that you say, "that military spending could be done without violating religious rights."

But my reasoning is that it is part of the constitution - the contract between the individual and the government - by which the government can do this. By living in the U.S. a citizen must recognize they are agreeing to that contract.

The question is not whether it is constitutional. The question is whether it is a violation of his personal freedom of religion to spend government money on something his religion says is wrong.

Regardless of whether it is in the constitution, the Mennonite thinks it is wrong.

I think it goes without saying that a nation could not protect its borders were the federal government not permitted to spend money on defense. It is a neccessity for the nation to exist, in most cases. However, I think one could easily argue that the current defense budget is excessive.

You are turning to reason. The Mennonite is basing his faith on faith, not necessarily on reason. His faith says that it is wrong for the government to spend money on defense.

But you and I both agree that it is permissible for the government to spend money on defense, even if the Mennonite's religion says it is wrong.

For the same reason, it is permissible for the government to spend money on birth control, even if your religion says it is wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'll ask again, with the national debt our nation is facing, how do you justify the spending of the current administration?

I justify some of the spending of the government, not all of it.

The affordable care act pays for itself according to the CBO. So since it pays for itself and does not contribute to the debt, the debt is a separate issue.

 

[MarkSB]

I justify some of the spending of the government, not all of it.

The affordable care act pays for itself according to the CBO. So since it pays for itself and does not contribute to the debt, the debt is a separate issue.

According to the figures which were presented to the CBO. Figures which are deceptive and unrealistic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have not read the bill myself, and I'm not one to take politicians at their word - but Ryan critisized the way the bill was being funded and the president/democrats were not able to offer any rebuttal.

First, this video is dated, since he talks about the House and Senate versions of the bill, so obviously this occurs before the final bill was agreed to. So this doesn't necessarily apply to the final bill.

Second, the video ends with Obama's start at a rebuttal, but does not actually show us anything he says, so we cannot tell from this whether he had a good rebuttal.

Third, the analysis I linked to deals with the actual bill, and it shows how the final version of the bill is fully funded. http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/Mah...+atfield++file

Fourth, if it is true that it does not fund itself, then we always have the option of raising taxes to make up for the deficit. If you had to choose between 40,000 people dying each year for lack of health insurance, or a slight raise in taxes, which would you choose?

 

[doubtingmerle]

According to the figures which were presented to the CBO. Figures which are deceptive and unrealistic.

The CBO is a respected non-partisan organization for evaluating bills. How do you know the figures are deceptive and unrealistic?

 

[MarkSB]

The CBO is a respected non-partisan organization for evaluating bills. How do you know their figures are deceptive and unrealistic?

I did not say their figures, I said the figures which were presented to them. Please pay attention.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I did not say their figures, I said the figures which were presented to them. Please pay attention.

I did not say "their figures" either. I said, "the figures".

So who exactly is it that needs to pay more attention?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I did not say "their figures" either. I said, "the figures".

So who exactly is it that needs to pay more attention?

He changed the "the" to "their" when he quoted you. Guess that makes you wrong.

 

[MarkSB]

I did not say "their figures" either. I said, "the figures".

So who exactly is it that needs to pay more attention?

Lol, you edited your post 3 minutes after I quoted you. What did you do change the word?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Lol, you edited your post 3 minutes after I quoted you. What did you do change the word?

Yes, I had changed the word to "the" but I did that before I saw your post. I see now that your post was before the change.

 

[doubtingmerle]

MarkSB, you tell us you are concerned about the uninsured, but you resist providing them all with insurance coverage through Obamacare because you think it will cost too much. How can $0.00 be too expensive? The link I sent to you shows that this bill pays for itself, and puts no new burden on the taxpayer. Of course that analysis is only as good as the assumptions and data behind it, so one cannot say for certain it will cost $0.00. But it appears that the net cost is very low.

But even if there is substantial cost to the taxpayer, might that not be better than letting 50 million go uninsured and letting 40,000 die each year because they don't have health insurance? What pricetag do we put on a life? Yes, I know we could come to the point where the price is just too much, and we would not be able to afford it. Then we might need to turn people away, and tell them we just cannot afford to help. But it does not appear that we are anywhere near that point. We can afford this. Otherwise thousands will die. Then why not go ahead with Obamacare?

 

[MarkSB]

The question is whether you think the government can sometimes spend money on defense without violating the Mennonite's freedom of religion. Your answer is yes. That is all I need.

I don't need to know why you answered yes. I just need to know that you answered yes.

And that is what I said you said! Case closed! You said exactly what I said you said.

I am not quoting you out of context when I say that you say, "that military spending could be done without violating religious rights."


The question is not whether it is constitutional. The question is whether it is a violation of his personal freedom of religion to spend government money on something his religion says is wrong.

Regardless of whether it is in the constitution, the Mennonite thinks it is wrong.

You are turning to reason. The Mennonite is basing his faith on faith, not necessarily on reason. His faith says that it is wrong for the government to spend money on defense.

But you and I both agree that it is permissible for the government to spend money on defense, even if the Mennonite's religion says it is wrong.

For the same reason, it is permissible for the government to spend money on birth control, even if your religion says it is wrong.

MarkSB, you tell us you are concerned about the uninsured, but you resist providing them all with insurance coverage through Obamacare because you think it will cost too much. How can $0.00 be too expensive? The link I sent to you shows that this bill pays for itself, and puts no new burden on the taxpayer. Of course that analysis is only as good as the assumptions and data behind it, so one cannot say for certain it will cost $0.00. But it appears that the net cost is very low.

But even if there is substantial cost to the taxpayer, might that not be better than letting 50 million go uninsured and letting 40,000 die each year because they don't have health insurance? What pricetag do we put on a life? Yes, I know we could come to the point where the price is just too much, and we would not be able to afford it. Then we might need to turn people away, and tell them we just cannot afford to help. But it does not appear that we are anywhere near that point. We can afford this. Otherwise thousands will die. Then why not go ahead with Obamacare?

You've put forth some good points here and made a good argument, and I would like to respond to some of them but unfortunately I am pressed for time this week. Perhaps I will get the chance to respond sometime in the near future, God willing.

Good discussion.

 

[MarkSB]

Yes, I had changed the word to "the" but I did that before I saw your post. I see now that your post was before the change.

Fair enough.

For a second there I wasn't sure what had happened.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm still waiting for those who want to repeal Obamacare to tell me their alternative that will save those 40,000 who die each year without insurance. What is your plan? Let them die?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

We've discussed this in other threads. Why go back to August to start over?

You have never proven Obamacare will save 40,000 lives, so your premise is false.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

We've discussed this in other threads. Why go back to August to start over?

You have never proven Obamacare will save 40,000 lives, so your premise is false.

Do you know anything about medicine? Expanding coverage reduces morbidity and cost. You can argue all day about how we should expand coverage, but the bottom line is that expanding coverage is mandatory if we want the health system of this country to work.

Example: poor person without health insurance has diabetes. No insurance, no primary care doctor to monitor his glucose. Comes into the ED with a gangrenous foot. Or a stroke. Or end-stage renal disease. This all would have been prevented if the glucose was under control, which is impossible to do without a primary care provider.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Do you know anything about medicine? Expanding coverage reduces morbidity and cost. You can argue all day about how we should expand coverage, but the bottom line is that expanding coverage is mandatory if we want the health system of this country to work.

Example: poor person without health insurance has diabetes. No insurance, no primary care doctor to monitor his glucose. Comes into the ED with a gangrenous foot. Or a stroke. Or end-stage renal disease. This all would have been prevented if the glucose was under control, which is impossible to do without a primary care provider.

Yes, I do. I have relatives in health care. States, including mine, have programs that help those who have no insurance. Expanding state, not federal, programs is the right idea. We don't need more big government programs. You fond of the 15 doctor board that under Obamacare would decide what treatments you would given access to for what conditions?