Oooooh, back and classy as ever! And, you seem to have adopted the strategy of the Republican party…screw all the dying babies! We’re winning! Nanny nanny boo boo! I bet that’s going to go over well in the 2010 elections.
Those damn politicians, trying to make life better for everyone!
Kam, there is a thread in IMHO currently which discusses that issue.
Mine, reposted from that thread:
For myself and one dependent: $367 a month for health, $49 for dental. The plan has a $5,000 deductible. I pay 100% of everything up to $5000. Vision is not covered.
For another kid: $138 for health, $29 for dental. It also has a $5 k deductible. Insured pays 100% up to the $5 k. Actually I do because the kid cannot afford it.
For another kid: $29 for dental. This is the kid who can’t get health insurance. I’m paying 100% of everything for this one. I just keep my fingers crossed that an accident or catastrophic illness doesn’t occur.
My husband’s medical & dental are paid by his employer. The deductible is around $700; after that the insurance pays 80%. He is retiring next year so he will have to join the plan that I’m on.
Agreed. It’s stupid to do something just because a politician thinks it will make life better for everyone. That’s not what the US federal government is about, and that’s not what any government should be about.
Yea I mean that ain’t what American Government is about at all! If promototing the general welfare was sooooo important you’d think it’d mentioned in the preamble or something. I mean look at it:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It doesn’t say anything about that!
Oh wait what’s this, let’s zoom in for a closer look…
*in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
promote the general welfare*
Oh snap!:smack:
Yes, just because a politician thinks that something will benefit everyone, that means that it will “promote the general welfare” within the meaning of some words some dudes wrote back in 1789 or so. Also, you may want to investigate the difference between a preamble and the actual operative part of whatever the preamble is before (the “amble,” I guess)? The recent 2nd amendment case may be instructive on this point. You are quite the scholar.
Oh for heaven’s sake. How does a woman “fall pregnant”?
If you knock the vase off of the table, do you say “it broke”, or “I broke it”?
You seem to think it’s the former, in which case you’re 3 years old.
So remembering my scholarly frailties, in simple words, what do you think “promote the general welfare” means?
Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much, they get close together, and if the timing is just right, an idiomatic expression happens.
You might want to take a look at the American Psychological Association site, which has a nice piece on welfare myths. The BIG bullet points are:
It even has cites for papers and Congressional reports, if you feel like looking into it further.
Bottom line is, you have fallen prey to a number of misconceptions regarding who is on welfare, why, and for how long. I found that report in less than 5 minutes of googling “welfare myths”. People do not stay on it for generations, women do not have multiple children for the added income, and they’re on welfare not because they’re irresponsible, but because they get shit for wages.
[Note to Mods: I did not quote the entire article, just the major points. There’s lots of supporting information on the linked page.]
“Fall pregnant” seems to be common in the UK.
One of the contributors here was intrigued with the phrase & tracked it down in the OED. In 1722 a woman “fell with child”–in 1855, another women “fell pregnant.”
Where getting knocked up can be a daily occurrence for the whole family.
Wait… I’d have to look it up, but my Federal tax liability last year was probably around $6,000. So if Welfare is 1% of the Federal budget, and thus 1% of my contribution, that mean’s I’m paying like $60/year to support poor people. I can live with that.
For one thing, five bucks a month is not hurting me. For another, it’s like insurance. If worse comes to worst, I’ll get some of that back. (Actually, I won’t; since I’m male and don’t have any kids. But you know what I mean.)
One percent of my tax burden benefits me. If people are being helped by the government, they’re less likely to steal my stuff to buy a loaf of bread. I’m accosted less by people begging for money. It’s probably psychically good knowing that my taxes are helping out a fellow man. Under Obama’s plan my taxes won’t go up. (I don’t make 300 kilobucks a year.) But what if it doubled? I’d gladly pay another 1% of $6,000 per year to support health care.
I think it’s interesting that there are people here that are taking this so personally, as if my saying “there are people who have lived irresponsibly” must mean them. Anyway…
[quote=“tumbleddown, post:1233, topic:503231”]
That’s exactly my scenario. Tell me, please, which of the following made me irresponsible:
[LIST=1]
[li]When I was diagnosed with an auto-immune disorder, which could be neither predicted nor prevented, when I was a teenager?[/li][/QUOTE]
What did your parents do at that point? Did they make any arrangements to make sure you would be able to afford to deal with it?
[QUOTE]
[li]When I got an excellent full-time job with great benefits and opportunity for advancement?[/li][li]When I made a habit of paying cash for the things I wanted (including my car) and carrying absolutely no consumer debt from month to month?[/li]
[li]When I was laid off from work two months after that, before I was able to replenish the $6,100 hit my savings had taken?[/li][/QUOTE]
How long did you work in that job before you were laid off?
But then, that could be immaterial since - again! - I have said that I am fully aware that not all people who have medical emergencies they cannot pay for have been irresponsible.
OTOH, you were able to pay for/make arrangements for your emergency. Why do you feel that the taxpayer should pay for that rather than you?
No, and I don’t believe I said anything that could possibly be misconstrued to say I did.
Hardly - do you think I would want to live in a society that just dumps their workers by the wayside?
What is the problem with you people that you are taking this personally, and then twisting what I’ve said? You just said that you have worked, paid taxes, and have retirement plans. How does that equal living irresponsibly, which is the section of society I have been talking about this whole time?
Your parents just kicked you out into the world and didn’t care what happened to you? Or did you go back to school later on?
And so ends page 25 and posting for the night for me.
This is the society in which we live.
P.S., You realize that having a bunch of credit you never use is actually **bad **for your credit score, right?
… There was coherency?
When she trips onto a penis.
People are taking it personally because you’re making the rest of the human race look more wilfully ignorant every second your disgusting mouth keeps breathing.
ETA:
CURLCOAT, LEARN TO MULTIQUOTE ALREADY, YOU FUCKING CUMDUMPSTER.
Since you’re back, any possibility you could explain why it was OK for you to take other people’s money for your education, but it’s not OK for the government to take your money for other people’s health care. I’m just sure there’s a deep philosophical reason that goes way beyond “The first one benefited me.”