Affordable Care Act - how much did your healthcare go up?
Forums › General Discussion › Affordable Care Act - how much did your healthcare go up?-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Being that the rest of your questions hinge on this false dilemma I'll focus on it:Do you have a right to keep what you earn and create or not?
You have the right to be fully informed on a yearly basis exactly what portion of the money you earn, should you choose to earn it, would be taxed and in general what that tax structure will be. You can then exercise your freedom to earn or create as much or as little as you choose with this agreement in mind. There is no force, no coersion. You are made fully aware of the rules of the game and you choose to play it at whatever level you are comfortable with. If you don't want to participate then don't. Someone will be happy to take your place. -
Matgie wrote:
Who decides what level of income a person enjoys?Our family income is decent (above poverty level) and I have no problem paying a little but higher in taxes than someone who brings home half of what we do (below poverty level) so that we both can afford healthcare.
I do not think there is a set percent that everyone should pay. THen again, I don't feel anyone should be having to survive with a household income below the poverty level. -
Healthcare should be an inherent human right. Not a luxury for those who can afford it.
-
False dilemma... No, it's a real dilemma that you choose to explain away.
We do not choose what level of income is taken from us. If we do not pay it, we go to prison.
In January, I'm going to take $35,000 dollars from you in order to build .3% of a park in Nebraska. Just so you know in advance... If you choose to be flat broke, you don't have to pay. It's your choice. If you do have enough to pay, I'll need that cash in advance taken out of your check, or you go to jail. You can always move to Cuba, so it's your choice to participate.
Paying taxes is a necessary evil. Spending it foolishly and always thirsting for more is something that WILL happen without intervention by the electorate.
That's YOUR job. Their job is to give us presents, your job is to set a limit. That's it. But there are always people that LOVE spending other people's money. You got behind them for some reason. You don't value your rights. You use the arguments of the other team, citizen.
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
You certainly have a right to obtain health care. Even before. The argument isn't about getting health care, because it's universal in this country. The argument is about reducing the cost. It's never "free".Healthcare should be an inherent human right. Not a luxury for those who can afford it.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
False dilemma... No, it's a real dilemma that you choose to explain away.
Sigh. Your initial loaded question posited only two possible answers. There is actually a vast range of nuanced answers, unless you are again making an absolutist argument. Hence it is a false dilemma. Your follow-ups were loaded questions and emotional arguments. The 'more more more' is a textbook slippery slope. Almost everything you've thrown at me are emotional arguments and argumentative fallacies. If you truly believe in your positions you should be able to articulate them without these crutches. You seem to be playing the role of a screaming radio host arguing against some liberal caricature. It's funny, no doubt, but hard to take seriously. Perhaps that's your intention. If so, well played. Carry on.
-
Tell me... Are you presenting logical arguments or are you simply stating your opinion? I can use logical fallacies on your non-logical statements as well. Politics is always illogical.
-
It is no "coincidence" that the countries with the highest living/quality of life standards also have the best health care.
I personally don't think health care should be only for those with that can afford it. With all the wealth in the USA, surely some can go towards the well being of the less fortunate.
Lol, I guess that makes me a communist in BN's eyes.
-
〓ＦＡＬＬＡＣＹ〓 wrote:
Not a communist... You just seem to think that a basic level of healthcare isn't available to the poor. I dunno why you think it isn't. Probably some politician started that rumor.It is no "coincidence" that the countries with the highest living/quality of life standards also have the best health care.
I personally don't think health care should be only for those with that can afford it. With all the wealth in the USA, surely some can go towards the well being of the less fortunate.
Lol, I guess that makes me a communist in BN's eyes.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Lmao, uh huh?〓ＦＡＬＬＡＣＹ〓 wrote:
Not a communist... You just seem to think that a basic level of healthcare isn't available to the poor. I dunno why you think it isn't. Probably some politician started that rumor.It is no "coincidence" that the countries with the highest living/quality of life standards also have the best health care.
I personally don't think health care should be only for those with that can afford it. With all the wealth in the USA, surely some can go towards the well being of the less fortunate.
Lol, I guess that makes me a communist in BN's eyes.
Which republican brainwashed u that public health care = loss of freedom.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
You must realize that is a completely absurd statement. All good public policy is based on facts, reason and logic and debated in public and private using those tools. I'm no huge fan of the ACA but I could easily explain to you the sound logic behind incentivizing a larger and more diverse risk pool if I thought you would hear it over your "people want free stuff" pablum.Tell me... Are you presenting logical arguments or are you simply stating your opinion? I can use logical fallacies on your non-logical statements as well. Politics is always illogical.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Ironic isn't it? That the southern strategy uses a man that in no way stands for what they do? I think so. You'd think all these Christians weren't actually reading their bibles.★Λddi★ wrote: But then people won't have the freedom to pull themselves up by their bootstraps! Hardy har har. Lol this is America. We live like Jesus did, money first.
The Jesus model is Utopia. Jesus was a socialist liberal (monarchist). Why don't you guys reclaim him? He puts society above his own personal freedom, he requires us to give everything to the poor, he loves free leper health care... It's uncanny.Let the personal freedom crowd be pro-choice for a change.
I hereby form a new political party! The MYOFB™ party.
No wait... They already have that one. Dang.
-
Luckily I live in Massachusetts. My healthcare costs stay exactly the same. I even decided to spend a little extra and become a member of a concierge practice where they offer same day appointments and do everything electronically. I can even schedule my own appointments through their smartphone app. It's pretty slick. Healthcare is great as far as I'm concerned.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
They sell the business, move to, say, Pakistan, and open a factory and pay small children to make phones. If they don't live in America, tariffs don't allow it.☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
Like they do in every first world country you mean? Or how about our military?Capitalism and socialism can coexist within the same economy.
And really jobs will be sent to china for low wages chaos? You mean like they already have because we don't have tariffs or Vat tax to keep them here?
-
Logic is a method to determine incontrovertible truth. It's what professional Christian apologists use to prove God exists. The reason their debates center around logical arguments is because when logic is applied to emotion, opinion, ideology, MORALITY... It falls apart. It's the fallacy fallacy.
I myself hated logic in college. There are scant few political statements that can't be shot down with one of hundreds of fallacies.
You can determine fact with sound (simple) logic. You CAN NOT determine "should". That REQUIRES an appeal to emotion, because it is completely intangible.
Now. Give me a logical argument that validates the redistribution of private property. Aaaaaand GO!
-
All it takes is 6 hours on CSPAN to see that politicians never use logical arguments. Why don't you go through some of Harry Reid's monologue transcripts and start enumerating his logical fallacies? It's a fun game... But it's a pointless exercise.
All of them try to persuade the masses with emotion, LIES, (what fallacy is that?), omissions, temper tantrums, etc...
I've never seen a politician saying:
Do you agree that all stealing is wrong? (Yes is required)
Do you agree that armed robbery is a form of stealing? (Yes is required)
Then robbery must be wrong.
THAT is logic. Now... Next the next step.
-
My ultimate straw man!
Do you agree that public healthcare in America is broken, and the federal government can fix it?
(Opinion. We can't agree on the first condition.)
Does the federal government have a moral responsibility to ensure equal health care to all citizens?
(Again)
??????????
We all profit.
This is a completely non-sensical argument, of course. But I await the actual logical statement where all the conditions are universally true that proves your side of the healthcare debate.
-
It's ridiculous the way the richest country in the world treats its citizens, free healthcare should've been provided a long time ago.
-
SOSA™ wrote:
Those who have the means are to greedy to share.It's ridiculous the way the richest country in the world treats its citizens, free healthcare should've been provided a long time ago.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
I'm not sure what apologists do with logic is called, but it is the opposite of the fallacy fallacy I your example. The fallacy fallacy is to assume a claim is untrue because it is argued poorly.Logic is a method to determine incontrovertible truth. It's what professional Christian apologists use to prove God exists. The reason their debates center around logical arguments is because when logic is applied to emotion, opinion, ideology, MORALITY... It falls apart. It's the fallacy fallacy.
-
My healthcare insurance is going up nearly $5000 a year. Some are now getting 'free' healthcare that others are paying for. FORCED to pay for. When I'm lucky to keep 50% of what I earn, I'm starting to feel robbed. It's easy for other people to vote to spend MY money and feel great about themselves. I'm all for helping out and give huge to charities, but I also enjoy the freedom of choice!
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
I'd love to help you out here, but again this appears to be a loaded question. What exactly is 'private property' in this statement? What do you consider to be 'redistribution'? Shit, what do you mean by 'validate'? By legal standards? Moral ones? I can't give a logical answer to a convoluted question.Now. Give me a logical argument that validates the redistribution of private property. Aaaaaand GO!
-
The point is that you are using logical fallacies to invalidate something other than logical statements.
"That doesn't have the correct number of syllables in the 3rd verse, therefore it's not a haiku!"
I'm not speaking in haiku. A logical fallacy is for invalidating a formal logical proof statement, of which I have made none.
You are using the fallacy fallacy. My arguments are untrue because they do not hold up to logical statement tests.
Since logical statements prove absolutes, they are always invalid unless the conditions are absolutes.
Your claims of slippery slope, appeals to emotion, etc... Are not appropriate in political debate.
-
〓ＦＡＬＬＡＣＹ〓 wrote:
Those who have the means can only support so much of the country, do you live in a cabin way in the woods or have you seen some of the people out there? There will always be large amounts of people willing to do nothing just for handouts.SOSA™ wrote:
Those who have the means are to greedy to share.
I have a manager friend at a fast food restaurant who works almost every day and has people who come in turning in applications and tell him flat out they don't want the job they just need to turn it in to stay on county help.
My job is always looking for people to work but there are always people who quit because its easier to get help through government than to work for it. -
A different friends sister in law has three children with three different dads, feeds them with soda and TV dinners, yet she blows money from food stamps because now you can take money off the food stamp cards at atm's. She takes all the tax returns and blows it in a month or two, this year it was tattoos and a car, Over 10,000. She live's on government help.
The system is already broken and they are just saddling working citizens with more burden to provide for everyone.
America should have healthcare for everyone but this way is a joke. Take it out of wages and have it government ran, don't work, don't get healthcare.
The fact that you call working Americans and the Americans who pay taxes greedy?! Lol wow. -
Indeed, political debate is about convincing the greatest number of people that your ideas for society are the best course of action. You may take the pulpit and present your logical truth statements that prove a first cause, therefore absolute morality, and convince a few.
But you will fail to win a majority without a passionate appeal to emotion, attacks, word games, half truths, etc.
This is what politicians do. This is what BOTH sides of this debate do. Don't claim a logical high ground when you have none.
-
I made a point of using the term 'argumentative fallacies', also known as informal fallacies. You seem to be holding me to the standards of formal logic and mathematical proofs, which of course is moving the goalposts. It's entirely appropriate to point out argumentative fallacies in the context of any debate, I'm not sure why you incorrectly believe otherwise. And for the record I never said your statements were necessarily true or untrue, merely that I don't want to waste my time trying to answer loaded questions and arguments presented on fallacious grounds. In other words, make your case in a rational way and we can have a rational conversation. Stop assuming to know my position and meandering around the topic with pointless soliloquies and maybe we can get somewhere.
-
〓ＦＡＬＬＡＣＹ〓 wrote:
Why is it greedy to want to keep at least HALF of what people EARN? Why isn't it called ENVY when someone coverts what others have earned? And then, why isnt it called robbery when those that have are forced to give to those that haven't earned it?SOSA™ wrote:
Those who have the means are to greedy to share.It's ridiculous the way the richest country in the world treats its citizens, free healthcare should've been provided a long time ago.
-
✯ᎷᎪᎠᎠᎻᎪᎢᎢᎬᏒ✯ wrote:
......
No I don't live in a cabin, I live in one of the most populated census areas in North America. I am also in the highest tax bracket here in Canada and know very well what it's like to pay taxes to support the lower classes.
I work hard, get taxed heavily, live a modest life. I guess I just have different ideals on how society should be.
-
Get somewhere?
Where would we get?
Our basis of morality is different. That's why only through long term brainwashing can our political ideas fundamentally change. That's how we each got where we are.
I believe that society is contrary to individual freedom, but individual freedom cannot practically exist without organized society.
We both want to balance the two opposing forces.
That is our only common ground in my opinion.
How we do it... Well. There is no perfect world.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC