Freedom Caucus balks at Republican leadership's Obamacare replacement

[Wingnut]

Great story Lando!  Our local Eagle Fraternal Order held an annual EE hunt.  There was no limit on the number of eggs one could recover.  However, it seems the Moms had made an evil pac that If their kid had what they felt were "to Many" he was told to give some of his eggs to the smaller kids who the big kids had previously knocked down and/or out of the way and thus stealing those eggs from the smaller more helpless youngins..

Communism pure and simple.

[Lando Lincoln]

C'mon, Lando...

Thank you.  However, I am diametrically opposite your statement as presented; as stated.  It was impeccably unambiguous in my view, and stated a philosophy I cannot abide. 

That is not to say changes can't be made to the tax laws and availability of health insurance.  Let's start with tossing our tax code and the ACA in a flaming dumpster. 

[txradioguy]

C'mon, Lando, you're one of the good guys here.  What did you think I was referring to?   The current employer-based system is driving by government tax policy -  an employer can deduct the cost of insurance it provides to its employees, and employees can exclude the value of insurance from their taxable incomes.   But those who purchase insurance in the individual marketplace must pay for insurance with after-tax dollars.  Do you consider that fair?

Life is not fair.

Do you see how that's caused arbitrary differences in health insurance access to arise, based entirely on one's good fortune to work for a generous company that provides benefits?

Complete class warfare BS right there.

You do understand the concept of freedom of choice right?  And how people are free to decide what company they go to work for...whether they choose to have their employer provide their health insurance or pay for it themselves?

I worked for the biggest radio corporation in the country...Clear Channel Radio...guess what I paid for my own health insurance for myself and my daughters.

Why?  Because I chose to.  Yeah I turned down their benefits because I wanted to do things on my own.

It's really amazing to myself and others here how you pick and choose when you're for individual rights and when you believe we're better off being a nanny state.

[Cyber Liberty]

Just going to whip this out ....

No.

She MADE options, wasn't given them. Virtue has jack all to do with it. Work and being willing to get out there and hustle does.

I look out for my own first. If that's selfish - tough shit.

Notice he fails to mention how she took extra classes at her own expense, or how I chose poverty spinning records for years, to get to where we are today?  Completely ignored our labors and sacrifices, and then ignored our telling of them.  No wonder progs never learn, they won't listen.

[INVAR]

Great story Lando!  Our local Eagle Fraternal Order held an annual EE hunt.  There was no limit on the number of eggs one could recover.  However, it seems the Moms had made an evil pac that If their kid had what they felt were "to Many" he was told to give some of his eggs to the smaller kids who the big kids had previously knocked down and/or out of the way and thus stealing those eggs from the smaller more helpless youngins..

Communism pure and simple.

It's why my eldest daughter argues that women should never have been given the right to vote.

[INVAR]

You do understand the concept of freedom of choice right? 

C'mon now Tx, you know full-well that the only freedom of choice Jazzy subscribes to and defends is the right for a mother to murder her infant in the womb.

Everything else is up to government to redistribute, parcel-out and 'make fairness' for everyone.

[XenaLee]

I think it is perfectly wonderful that we have a Christian-bashing Liberal Socialist on the board so we can use his ideological arguments for combat practice.

He would garner more respect for his presence here if he would simply stop lying about what his real ideology and agenda is.

Sadly he admitted that 'getting under our skin' is the main motivation for his posting here.  A true hallmark of a troll - if indeed that is the only reason he is here.

That said, I think his liberal socialist presence is a benefit to the board for our sharpening of iron against the ideology and agenda he embodies.

Agreed.   

[XenaLee]

It's why my eldest daughter argues that women should never have been given the right to vote.

Wait....what???  Grrrrr!!!!

lol

[INVAR]

Wait....what???  Grrrrr!!!!

lol

My wife and I have tried to persuade her against that viewpoint, but sadly - our arguments she finds unconvincing.

Outside of Maggie Thatcher, providing her with a list of Conservative women that have positively impacted our ideology has been lacking.

For every argument against her view, she has about twenty to support it.

We simply no longer discuss that issue at Thanksgiving because women are vicious and girls having a food fight in the kitchen where giblets, gravy and mashed potatoes are present is an exercise in mop work for sufficiently frightened husbands.

[Suppressed]

How does everyone feel about this? http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,253442.0.html

Is everyone on this thread so hands-off about letting companies require genetic information for employment?

[truth_seeker]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

The complete paragraph containing Marx's statement of the creed in the 'Critique of the Gotha Program' is as follows:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

Some interesting info on that wiki page.

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How does everyone feel about this? http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,253442.0.html

Is everyone on this thread so hands-off about letting companies require genetic information for employment?

No...


laissez faire is a tool to use for our benefit, and 99% of the time it is. This is an exception.


Limited government, not anarchy.

[Jazzhead]

Life is not fair.

Of course life isn't fair.  But when that unfairness is the direct result of government policy,  it seems to me that there's a moral imperative to try to fix or ameliorate it.   The current employer-based system creates arbitrary winners and losers without regard to hard work or virtue.   

[XenaLee]

My wife and I have tried to persuade her against that viewpoint, but sadly - our arguments she finds unconvincing.

Outside of Maggie Thatcher, providing her with a list of Conservative women that have positively impacted our ideology has been lacking.

For every argument against her view, she has about twenty to support it.

We simply no longer discuss that issue at Thanksgiving because women are vicious and girls having a food fight in the kitchen where giblets, gravy and mashed potatoes are present is an exercise in mop work for sufficiently frightened husbands.

L M A O !!!  I would pay good money to see that show!

[INVAR]

L M A O !!!  I would pay good money to see that show!

I still have nightmares.

[txradioguy]

Of course life isn't fair.  But when that unfairness is the direct result of government policy,  it seems to me that there's a moral imperative to try to fix or ameliorate it.   The current employer-based system creates arbitrary winners and losers without regard to hard work or virtue.

No it doesn't. You're completely wrong on this.

[Cyber Liberty]

No it doesn't. You're completely wrong on this.

I think when the government screws something up and creates a disaster, it needs to GTFO and stop helping.  They'd done enough already.  Only fools think the solution to a government screw-up is another government screw-up.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I think when the government screws something up and creates a disaster, it needs to GTFO and stop helping.  They'd done enough already.  Only fools think the solution to a government screw-up is another government screw-up.

Couldn't say it better, so I went with saying it louder.

[truth_seeker]

It is collectivism, to claim a right to equal outcomes for shelter, food, medical care, etc.

Those collectivists are called "democrats," "socialists," or "communists" in this country and others.

My time in the military, was to oppose the USSR, which pushed those ideas.

 

[Jazzhead]

It is collectivism, to claim a right to equal outcomes for shelter, food, medical care, etc.

Those collectivists are called "democrats," "socialists," or "communists" in this country and others.

My time in the military, was to oppose the USSR, which pushed those ideas.

I don't disagree,  but equal outcomes is not the goal of the ACHA (or the ACA, for that matter).  These laws attempt to address the most serious failure of our employer-based health care financing system -  the inability of folks who don't work for large employers, and who have pre-existing health conditions,  to access health insurance.

 The ACA failed because it didn't make health insurance more affordable, because it distorted the insurance market by forcing the young to subsidize the old, and careful consumers of health care to subsidize profligate consumers,  and because it  placed such burdens on employers that many employees lost their jobs.   The ACHA addresses each of these problems.   No, it isn't perfect - not even close - but it's a YUGE improvement on the ACA, IMO,  and furthers the Trump administration's goal of loosening the grip of oppressive regulations that cost jobs. 

[Jazzhead]

I think when the government screws something up and creates a disaster, it needs to GTFO and stop helping.  They'd done enough already.  Only fools think the solution to a government screw-up is another government screw-up.

That's a rant, not a policy prescription.   To my mind, if the problem is the direct creation of government, then the government has an obligation to fix it.   

[Jazzhead]

No it doesn't. You're completely wrong on this.

That's your rebuttal?   Give it up, txradioguy, it's the weekend, have yourself a drink.   

[Cyber Liberty]

That's a rant, not a policy prescription.   To my mind, if the problem is the direct creation of government, then the government has an obligation to fix it.   

Nope.  Get The Bleep Out is indeed a "policy prescription."  What's foolish is expecting the same people who bleeped it up to fix it.  See Einstein's definition of insanity.  Call it a rant if it makes you feel better, but you are a fool if you think government has the best interests of the people who've been screwed at heart.  News for ya, scooter:  They don't.

[txradioguy]

That's your rebuttal?   Give it up, txradioguy, it's the weekend, have yourself a drink.

Quite frankly...after several people here explaining how all of your nanny state ideas fly in the face of not only Conservatism but America in general...and are closer in ideology to Marx and Lenin than Goldwater and Reagan...that's the only response you deserve.

[truth_seeker]

I don't disagree,  but equal outcomes is not the goal of the ACHA (or the ACA, for that matter).  These laws attempt to address the most serious failure of our employer-based health care financing system -  the inability of folks who don't work for large employers, and who have pre-existing health conditions,  to access health insurance.

 The ACA failed because it didn't make health insurance more affordable, because it distorted the insurance market by forcing the young to subsidize the old, and careful consumers of health care to subsidize profligate consumers,  and because it  placed such burdens on employers that many employees lost their jobs.   The ACHA addresses each of these problems.   No, it isn't perfect - not even close - but it's a YUGE improvement on the ACA, IMO,  and furthers the Trump administration's goal of loosening the grip of oppressive regulations that cost jobs.

I can see you totally miss the point many attempt to make.

Why is it the proper role of government, to be involved with health insurance or health care, for that matter ?

First you state that government messes up health insurance. So why not merely get out of it entirely?

It seems like with many things, government's involvement drives costs up drastically, through by ridiculous requirements, excessive record keeping, etc.

Our society and culture have become degraded, by the elimination of consequences for unsuccessful behaviors.

An example is people that have children, they cannot afford to house, feed and provide medical care for.

Collectivist national health care is merely another such scheme, to shield people from their life's consequences.

Section 8 housing, EBT food stamps, national health care. Paid by the people that follow rules, benefitting those who do not.

And on top, a government which intentionally admits low-skilled workers, to drive down wages for the lowest skilled of OUR own workers.

I want government to stop MESSING up things, be it health insurance, or low-skilled low paid work.

As Reagan stated, government is the problem, not the solution.