Obamacare in top 10 tax increases since 1950

[MobBoss]

There's probably a lot of ways to do it better. What should we compare? It's easy to attack Obamacare when you're putting forward no solutions of your own.

Well, for starters i'm not a politician. But even I can predict this thing being defunded when the economy gets even more worse, and the middle class takes it in the pants while being forced to buy health insurance they find hard to afford because of skyrocketing rates.

If I really sat down and thought about it, I probably could come up with a better plan than this. But to really solve it depends on far more than just having health insurance, mandated or otherwise.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Perhaps if those moral atheists found it in their hearts to donate more it would help?

I dont think I could do what you do Mobboss with trouble teens. But I do run the Church breakfast charity several time a year and deliver food to poor people.

But are you sure that providing food to poor people isnt socialism ?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Perhaps if those moral atheists found it in their hearts to donate more it would help?

You mean the atheists that represent a mere... 6% of the nation?¹ Yes, I'm sure getting 6% of the nation to be more charitable will be SUCH a help, rather than asking the 94% who claim to be the only moral ones.²

1: Source here, located in Summary section: http://www.gallup.com/poll/109108/belief-god-far-lower-western-us.aspx
2: The 94% is an exaggeration.

 

[Cutlass]

Perhaps if those moral atheists found it in their hearts to donate more it would help?

They donate plenty as it is. It's the Christians that fail.

 

[Crezth]

Perhaps if those moral atheists found it in their hearts to donate more it would help?

Do you mean to suggest (for example) that during the height of Christianity in Europe, poverty was a problem entirely alleviated by charity?

Remarkable.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Let's keep religion out of this discussion, shall we?

 

[Leoreth]

Except that constitutionally, providing the security of our nation via the military is pretty much a direct responsibility of our federal government.

Providing healthcare for everyone? A lot more arguable.

Except that wasn't your argument in the beginning. Nice shifting of goalpoasts.

You said that private donations are a lot more efficient than the clumsy government. Then I'm sure the same must hold true for the military. So by making the military funded only by donation, the government would be improving the security of the nation and only follow its responsibilities even better than before!

It's nice to see conservatives always fall back on the constitution after actual arguments have been exhausted. Thing is, though, that Obamacare has just been ruled constitutional. And there are no constitutional categories of "direct responsibility" or "being more/less laughable".

moral atheists

I'm glad you acknowledge that atheists are moral.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Uhm. How much larger is our GDP than it was in the 80s? Why look at it as a percent of our GDP?

In the 4 pages, I'm yet to hear your argument for why we shouldn't look at it as a percentage of your GDP.

Perhaps if those moral atheists found it in their hearts to donate more it would help?

Moral atheists! No such thing.

 

[JollyRoger]

But to really solve it depends on far more than just having health insurance, mandated or otherwise.

Good thing the ACA contains more than just an insurance mandate. If you were to sit down and think about it, a good place to start would be the website highlighting what is in the ACA.

 

[holy king]

If our healthcare is so much worse, why do people from other nations flock here for care?

citation needed.

 

[holy king]

Perhaps if those moral atheists found it in their hearts to donate more it would help?

perhaps. but they dont. hence welfare state.

 

[MobBoss]

They donate plenty as it is. It's the Christians that fail.

Uhm. No.

Do you mean to suggest (for example) that during the height of Christianity in Europe, poverty was a problem entirely alleviated by charity?

Remarkable.

Nope. Are you saying if more gave to charities it wouldnt help?

In the 4 pages, I'm yet to hear your argument for why we shouldn't look at it as a percentage of your GDP.

I'm not sure how we should measure it to be honest. How about as a percentage of the average yearly family income? However, if one is going to view this as a % of GDP to excuse it, then why not with other tax/spending programs as well (i.e. military spending). That was my point. If one is going to rage over something like military spending being big (even if as a % of GDP its not the largest) then one should still rage over this tax increase because actual dollar wise, its going to dwarf those other 30 year plus programs due to how much larger our GDP is now.

 

[warpus]

I had already 'caught on' way before, and am simply pointing out inconsistency of how GDP is used as a comparison in various arguements.

It's not; in this case it makes sense to look at it that way since you're comparing increases.

And if you were caught on, why ask such a silly question?

 

[MobBoss]

Ah, ok, so it only makes sense to measure it as a percentage in some cases....

I see.

 

[Angst]

Perhaps if those moral atheists found it in their hearts to donate more it would help?

Gotcha, you're implicitly suggesting that you should import more Muslims!

 

[MobBoss]

So you're implicitly suggesting that you should import more Muslims?

I'm implicitly suggesting if more people gave to charity, we wouldnt need such tax increases. Or perhaps i'm implicitly suggesting there might be a better way to do this that wont hurt the middle class financially further during a time of fiscal problems.

 

[Angst]

But you blamed moral atheists. So I assumed you expected moral theists to provide. And as there are plenty of impoverished Muslims (read: moral theists) in the Middle East, they should be easy to import and influence your culture in a better direction?

Or did you refer to amoral atheists? Why the hell would they pay for charity?

If I really sat down and thought about it, I probably could come up with a better plan than this. But to really solve it depends on far more than just having health insurance, mandated or otherwise.

I'm with you bro. I actually had this idea the other day: What if (stay with me here) people pay a progressively set amount of their monthly income (Ensuring that the family's substantial financial support to this system doesn't their economy) that helps fund an overarching institution of otherwise freely available medicine and healthcare? With the progressive (and therefore, bigger) monetary support from the wealthier parts of society, people in need of money for their healthcare will have a greater ability affording it simply because they only pay a small percentage of their income! And it will be freely available for all!

 

[Leonel]

If our healthcare is so much worse, why do people from other nations flock here for care?

Because they have the money to do so, something many American's don't have. We can't all be millionaires.

Replace Bush with Obama and voila!

I've been looking for that picture forever!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not sure how we should measure it to be honest. How about as a percentage of the average yearly family income? However, if one is going to view this as a % of GDP to excuse it

So this comparing to GDP is to excuse it is it?

then why not with other tax/spending programs as well (i.e. military spending). That was my point. If one is going to rage over something like military spending being big (even if as a % of GDP its not the largest) then one should still rage over this tax increase because actual dollar wise, its going to dwarf those other 30 year plus programs due to how much larger our GDP is now.

That's right.

And you've been show to use the military spending as a % of GDP to argue it's not that big. Seems legit to me, not at all like an excuse. So why the change of heart?

 

[holy king]

because republicans are the best party in the whole world.

republicans > thinking.