Bogus radio address by the Dems.

and boomers' questions.

I'm interested in the answer to those, too.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Maybe we should talk about personal responsibility.

Don't you think people should be responsible for their own actions woiyo?

For once, you might take a moment and look at my latest posts/responses to Cyclo, and you will see I am directly talking to personal responsibility.

Maybe you have a different meaning of what personal responsibility means than I do.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Yet, if they could sell down or borrow on equity, is that not a viable option?

No! You're saying that they should go into debt 13-15k per year, in perpetuity?

That's a terrible way to run a society or to help someone.

So-called 'asset testing' is ridiculous in this case. Do you know what the penalties for taking money out of their retirement account would be? Gigantic. And the results? More people on the dole later on in life. It isn't a net gain for the taxpayers to force people to spend their retirement savings on health insurance.

I think you have no idea how much houses cost these days. There's not much chance they would find a cheaper house then the one they have; there's actually little chance they could sell their current house in the climate we're in, not for anywhere near what the supposed 'value' of the house is.

I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to go into debt to pay for health insurance for their kids. I don't know why you think this is reasonable.

Cycloptichorn

Qualified Medical expenses are allowable exemption from qualified plans, so theirare no penalties but income taxes would need to be paid, yet the medical expense is deductible since it would exceed the limits for imcome tax purposes. This may not be available to this familiy, but it is an option that could be used/considered.

Selling down could also mean renting for a while until they get back on their feet. Again, why is this not an option. Again, maybe not for this familiy but why should it not be considered.

You suggest this "debt" would be perpetual. Why? Will they never get back back on their feet? Where is the incentive for a familiy to get back on their feet if taxpayers keep "feeding them"?

I am not suggesting people go into debt.

I am suggesting that people need to be responsible financially and live within their means. I pay as much for health insurance as you or anyone else. I do not live in a 3K sq foot house because I can not afford to given all the other financial responsibilities I have to myself and my family. If I did live in a 3K sq foot house, I would be in financial trouble.

So should I move into the 3k sq foot house them come to you and ask you to pay for my kids health insurance?

Let me know and my wife and kids will thank you endlessly for giving them more room then they need to live in.

Okay, a few points.

First, it doesn't matter one bit if you get a 'tax credit' for something you can't afford in the first place. That's a bullshit response to the Health Care problem, and it's the standard Conservative line.

Second, 'tax credits' are the exact same thing as gov't subsidizing health care. The exact same thing. It just comes at the end of the year instead of the taxpayer up front.

Third, 'selling down' and renting would probably cost this family much more money then it would save them. Think for a second: they bought the house 15 years ago for 55k. There's a good chance that it's either paid off or close to it. You're asking them to sell that house, use the money to pay for health insurance, and move into a smaller place which they will have to pay an additional monthly fee for? Also, they will lose homeowners' credits on their taxes. This isn't a reasonable solution. It also means a massive amount of upheaval in their lives, something which you don't seem to care about too much.

Fourth, the 3k square foot house they live in is a very old one in what is essentially a reformed ghetto. I've been to Baltimore; not exactly the area the house is in but close. And it's a lot like it is here in Berkeley, near the Oakland border where I live; your safety and security depend on which street you live on. One block can have nicer houses, owned by young professionals and people who are trying to revitalize the neighborhood; the next block over is drug dealers and crooks. You aren't taking the entire picture into account; their location is not one which many people would consider ideal, and certainly wasn't when they bought the house.

The size of their house is immaterial to the question of whether or not they can afford health insurance, but you seem really hung up on it. I don't understand why it matters if they live in a big house or a small one; forcing them to sell their house to afford health insurance is ridiculous.

You say 'get back on their feet.' They aren't off of their feet. 45-50k per year is their life. This may be hard for you to understand but it's a reality for many folks. And when the cost of health insurance (not to mention gasoline and food) increase by 50% in just 6 years, their life becomes downright unaffordable. It makes more sense for the SCHIP program to assist them then it does to force them to abandon their entire life. You could even make the argument that it saves the taxpayers money in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

[quote="Cycloptichorn
First, it doesn't matter one bit if you get a 'tax credit' for something you can't afford in the first place. That's a bullshit response to the Health Care problem, and it's the standard Conservative line.

Second, 'tax credits' are the exact same thing as gov't subsidizing health care. The exact same thing. It just comes at the end of the year instead of the taxpayer up front.

Third, 'selling down' and renting would probably cost this family much more money then it would save them. Think for a second: they bought the house 15 years ago for 55k. There's a good chance that it's either paid off or close to it. You're asking them to sell that house, use the money to pay for health insurance, and move into a smaller place which they will have to pay an additional monthly fee for? Also, they will lose homeowners' credits on their taxes. This isn't a reasonable solution. It also means a massive amount of upheaval in their lives, something which you don't seem to care about too much.

Fourth, the 3k square foot house they live in is a very old one in what is essentially a reformed ghetto. I've been to Baltimore; not exactly the area the house is in but close. And it's a lot like it is here in Berkeley, near the Oakland border where I live; your safety and security depend on which street you live on. One block can have nicer houses, owned by young professionals and people who are trying to revitalize the neighborhood; the next block over is drug dealers and crooks. You aren't taking the entire picture into account; their location is not one which many people would consider ideal, and certainly wasn't when they bought the house.

The size of their house is immaterial to the question of whether or not they can afford health insurance, but you seem really hung up on it. I don't understand why it matters if they live in a big house or a small one; forcing them to sell their house to afford health insurance is ridiculous.

You say 'get back on their feet.' They aren't off of their feet. 45-50k per year is their life. This may be hard for you to understand but it's a reality for many folks. And when the cost of health insurance (not to mention gasoline and food) increase by 50% in just 6 years, their life becomes downright unaffordable. It makes more sense for the SCHIP program to assist them then it does to force them to abandon their entire life. You could even make the argument that it saves the taxpayers money in the long run.

Cycloptichorn[/quote]

You may be correct that the options I outlined may not be appropriate for this family.

Let's step back for a moment and look at not this particuliar family but generally, when does personal responsibility end and public assistance begin. And AGAIN, I do support these types of programs so long as the proper people are being helped.

What I can not understand though is your position that states that as a result of someones poor financial decisions, taxpayers should be held responsible to support their needs.

If I do have assets, should I not use them before I go to the taxpayers for assistance?

If I as the breadwinner, get injured and I do not have disability insurance, would I not have to have an asset test done before I qualify for public assistance? (Yes is the answer)

So why is health insurance for families any differnt? If I become disabled, who pays for my health insurance prior to my qualifying for Medicare?

Why is selling down not an option?

Life is not always fair and no one is entitled to anything. Yet, you make it sound as if everyone is entitled to part of what I work for, except me!

So again, can I move into the 3K sq foot house I can not afford and ask you for health insurance money? PLEASE SAY YES!!!

0 Replies

Woiyo, if you're not going to be serious, I'm not going to continue the conversation.

The thing that gets me is that you seem to believe that people plan on making poor financial decisions and getting you to pay the tab. I don't think there's any evidence that this is the case at all.

A few points.

First of all, 'selling down' isn't really an option in that they won't save any money that way. I know you're hung up on the size of the house, but that's meaningless; the fact is that the house isn't worth much more then the median home value these days, the market is terrible, they'd lose tax credits. Selling down is an option for some but not a solution for everyone.

I specifically challenge the notion that they made 'poor financial decisions.' They didn't make the cost of health care and health insurance skyrocket. They didn't make the cost of food and energy go up tremendously. There are a lot of financial considerations in their life which have nothing whatsoever to do with their personal decisions, yet they still have to pay for the results.

You should realize that this is a children's health insurance program that we're talking about. If you go on disability, you're likely to be on it for the rest of your life. SCHIP is by definition a limited-basis program. Therefore the background checks that they need for a lifetime of assistance are going to be stronger then those for a shorter time of assistance.

Also, there's the point that, at the end of the day, if something bad happens to your family, you shouldn't be forced to liquidate all your assets in order to pay for health care for your kids who need it. There's a definite case to be made that children in society shouldn't be punished for their parent's poor decisions. The alternative is to say, 'well, you can just die, b/c your parents made bad decisions. So sorry!' I'm not comfortable with making that statement.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie took a stab at answering my questions -- kudos for that.

But what I wonder is - should they have to insure me at the same rate they would any other family of my size?

What if doing so meant that your rates would double in order to cover such undesirable people as my family seems to be?

Should they be able to set the price at some fee that I could never afford?

What if they said "Sure, we'll insure you. That'll be $5,000 a month."

I'm not asking to start a fight but because I really don't understand how people think this should work.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Woiyo, if you're not going to be serious, I'm not going to continue the conversation.

The thing that gets me is that you seem to believe that people plan on making poor financial decisions and getting you to pay the tab. I don't think there's any evidence that this is the case at all.

A few points.

First of all, 'selling down' isn't really an option in that they won't save any money that way. I know you're hung up on the size of the house, but that's meaningless; the fact is that the house isn't worth much more then the median home value these days, the market is terrible, they'd lose tax credits. Selling down is an option for some but not a solution for everyone.

I specifically challenge the notion that they made 'poor financial decisions.' They didn't make the cost of health care and health insurance skyrocket. They didn't make the cost of food and energy go up tremendously. There are a lot of financial considerations in their life which have nothing whatsoever to do with their personal decisions, yet they still have to pay for the results.

You should realize that this is a children's health insurance program that we're talking about. If you go on disability, you're likely to be on it for the rest of your life. SCHIP is by definition a limited-basis program. Therefore the background checks that they need for a lifetime of assistance are going to be stronger then those for a shorter time of assistance.

Also, there's the point that, at the end of the day, if something bad happens to your family, you shouldn't be forced to liquidate all your assets in order to pay for health care for your kids who need it. There's a definite case to be made that children in society shouldn't be punished for their parent's poor decisions. The alternative is to say, 'well, you can just die, b/c your parents made bad decisions. So sorry!' I'm not comfortable with making that statement.

Cycloptichorn

Then we can agree to disagree.

You take a position that personal responsibility is irrelevant and the taxpayers are the saftey net for your poor decisions.

Great. I am moving into that 3K sq foot house tomorrow that I can not afford and I will send my health insurance bill to you to pay for my childrens health insurance.

Have a nice day.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Woiyo, if you're not going to be serious, I'm not going to continue the conversation.

The thing that gets me is that you seem to believe that people plan on making poor financial decisions and getting you to pay the tab. I don't think there's any evidence that this is the case at all.

A few points.

First of all, 'selling down' isn't really an option in that they won't save any money that way. I know you're hung up on the size of the house, but that's meaningless; the fact is that the house isn't worth much more then the median home value these days, the market is terrible, they'd lose tax credits. Selling down is an option for some but not a solution for everyone.

I specifically challenge the notion that they made 'poor financial decisions.' They didn't make the cost of health care and health insurance skyrocket. They didn't make the cost of food and energy go up tremendously. There are a lot of financial considerations in their life which have nothing whatsoever to do with their personal decisions, yet they still have to pay for the results.

You should realize that this is a children's health insurance program that we're talking about. If you go on disability, you're likely to be on it for the rest of your life. SCHIP is by definition a limited-basis program. Therefore the background checks that they need for a lifetime of assistance are going to be stronger then those for a shorter time of assistance.

Also, there's the point that, at the end of the day, if something bad happens to your family, you shouldn't be forced to liquidate all your assets in order to pay for health care for your kids who need it. There's a definite case to be made that children in society shouldn't be punished for their parent's poor decisions. The alternative is to say, 'well, you can just die, b/c your parents made bad decisions. So sorry!' I'm not comfortable with making that statement.

Cycloptichorn

Then we can agree to disagree.

You take a position that personal responsibility is irrelevant and the taxpayers are the saftey net for your poor decisions.

Great. I am moving into that 3K sq foot house tomorrow that I can not afford and I will send my health insurance bill to you to pay for my childrens health insurance.

Have a nice day.

You just don't f*cking get it. All you can see is the potential to abuse the system, and not the potential to help people who need it.

I think that's the real reason Republicans are against any sort of public assistance; they project what THEY would do onto other people. YOU would cheat the system (you propose doing exactly that, so don't say you wouldn't) so everyone else must be as well.

I don't understand it....

I believe that we have a responsiblity to see that kids get taken care of even if their parents have financial disadvantages, for whatever reason; you would prefer that those same kids did not receive the health care they needed, in order to teach them and their parents a lesson about personal responsibility. I find this to be a morally reprehensible position.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Woiyo, if you're not going to be serious, I'm not going to continue the conversation.

The thing that gets me is that you seem to believe that people plan on making poor financial decisions and getting you to pay the tab. I don't think there's any evidence that this is the case at all.

A few points.

First of all, 'selling down' isn't really an option in that they won't save any money that way. I know you're hung up on the size of the house, but that's meaningless; the fact is that the house isn't worth much more then the median home value these days, the market is terrible, they'd lose tax credits. Selling down is an option for some but not a solution for everyone.

I specifically challenge the notion that they made 'poor financial decisions.' They didn't make the cost of health care and health insurance skyrocket. They didn't make the cost of food and energy go up tremendously. There are a lot of financial considerations in their life which have nothing whatsoever to do with their personal decisions, yet they still have to pay for the results.

You should realize that this is a children's health insurance program that we're talking about. If you go on disability, you're likely to be on it for the rest of your life. SCHIP is by definition a limited-basis program. Therefore the background checks that they need for a lifetime of assistance are going to be stronger then those for a shorter time of assistance.

Also, there's the point that, at the end of the day, if something bad happens to your family, you shouldn't be forced to liquidate all your assets in order to pay for health care for your kids who need it. There's a definite case to be made that children in society shouldn't be punished for their parent's poor decisions. The alternative is to say, 'well, you can just die, b/c your parents made bad decisions. So sorry!' I'm not comfortable with making that statement.

Cycloptichorn

Then we can agree to disagree.

You take a position that personal responsibility is irrelevant and the taxpayers are the saftey net for your poor decisions.

Great. I am moving into that 3K sq foot house tomorrow that I can not afford and I will send my health insurance bill to you to pay for my childrens health insurance.

Have a nice day.

You just don't f*cking get it. All you can see is the potential to abuse the system, and not the potential to help people who need it.

I think that's the real reason Republicans are against any sort of public assistance; they project what THEY would do onto other people. YOU would cheat the system (you propose doing exactly that, so don't say you wouldn't) so everyone else must be as well.

I don't understand it....

I believe that we have a responsiblity to see that kids get taken care of even if their parents have financial disadvantages, for whatever reason; you would prefer that those same kids did not receive the health care they needed, in order to teach them and their parents a lesson about personal responsibility. I find this to be a morally reprehensible position.

Cycloptichorn

I do not know what republicans think nor do I care what Republicans or Democrats think.

I KNOW public assistance programs are ripe with fraud because Democrats and Republicans use these progrmas to advance their own power agendas and do not use any oversight to protect the taxpayers interests. I see the results of this fraud every day on the streets where I live. People with food stamps driving Lexus just one example.

Too many of the WRONG people are taking advantage of these generous progrmas and you know this to be a fact. Yet, when you ask someone to support their request for public assistance with facts, you find that repulsive?

Then when I bring up personal responsibility and oversight, you get your neck up and start calling me names when you know GD WELL your Democratic Party and the Republicans keep spending taxpayer dollars on progrmas that the wrong people take advantage of.

I think you are the one who does not "effing" get it.

Take your head out of the ass of the Democratic Party and start thinking objectively.

0 Replies

Quote:

But what I wonder is - should they have to insure me at the same rate they would any other family of my size?

Why not. My insurance company provides coverage based on three different models. Single coverage, employee and spouse, and then employee spouse and family. That last model doesn't care how many kids you have. I have 2 kids and my coverage wouldn't change if I had 5 more kids. Other companies have different models of coverage but it should be the same from family to family based on size.

Quote:

What if doing so meant that your rates would double in order to cover such undesirable people as my family seems to be?

If you have a larger family and the insurance company basis your coverage on family size then you should be charged more for a larger family. Unless they want to do a bulk rate type coverage.

Quote:

Should they be able to set the price at some fee that I could never afford?

That is up to them. They are a private business that is providing a service to you. You don't seem to have an issue with the govt charging different people higher taxes then you pay right? Why shouldn't a private busniess be able to charge you more for a choice you made in having more children?

Quote:

What if they said "Sure, we'll insure you. That'll be $5,000 a month."

Quote:

Then you have a choice to pay it or find a different company that will insure you for less money.

0 Replies

Why not?

That's what I want to know.

They won't insure my son at all. Did you read my earlier posts? I'm more than willing to pay for insurance but they won't insure him.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

parados wrote:
Maybe we should talk about personal responsibility.

Don't you think people should be responsible for their own actions woiyo?

For once, you might take a moment and look at my latest posts/responses to Cyclo, and you will see I am directly talking to personal responsibility.

Maybe you have a different meaning of what personal responsibility means than I do.

I am surprised that any of you would have the gall to show back up on this thread after being exposed to the fact that you are participating in a smear attack on a boy who was the victim of a horrific accident that put him in a coma for a week.

"Let us not assassinate this lad further... You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

woiyo wrote:
I am not so sure THIS particuliar family, based upon the facts presented, is what the program was designed to do.

The people who run the program - who asked the required questions - and reviewed the responses - decided that assistance to this particular family was indeed what the program was designed to do.

I don't know why this is anyone's business besides the family and the State. The only issue her IMO is the unbelievable gall of these people launching a smear attack on a permanently disabled child.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Yeah right..woiyo.. this is all about getting the facts right.

woiyo wrote:

Here is my question/issue. If they have the resources to pay for private school to the tune of 40K.yr, I would assume they have sibstantial resources. Therefore, why should I the taxpayer, subsidize their healthcare?

woiyo wrote:

So they pay 6K (500/mo) to send thier children to this private school.

woiyo wrote:

What about personal responsibility? Can the wife work?

woiyo wrote:

You are right I do not understand how someone making 50K /yr, spending 6K on private education, living in a 3K sq foot house that property taxes nust cost several thousand dollars, feed 6 kids, clothing ,so on and so on.

This is about accusing of fraud anyone that might get more money than you from the government. And you seem to be more than willing to make up "facts" to do it.

Let us not forget this thread is based on a post authored by some lunatic freeper and furthered by lunatics who don't check their facts.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Time.com exposes the shameful smear attack by the right-wing sick f***sshortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Time.com exposes the shameful smear attack by the right-wing sick f***sshortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

Hey Rox go troll the bay not the thread. If you don't think he should be a target then he shouldn't have been put on the radio for a national address. Once you go from private to public then you are a target. The Dems knew this was going to happen but didn't care, so why should we not debate the family. Just like Cindy Sheehan they made themselves a target the minute they opened their mouths in the world of politics.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

woiyo wrote:
parados wrote:
Maybe we should talk about personal responsibility.

Don't you think people should be responsible for their own actions woiyo?

For once, you might take a moment and look at my latest posts/responses to Cyclo, and you will see I am directly talking to personal responsibility.

Maybe you have a different meaning of what personal responsibility means than I do.

I am surprised that any of you would have the gall to show back up on this thread after being exposed to the fact that you are participating in a smear attack on a boy who was the victim of a horrific accident that put him in a coma for a week.

"Let us not assassinate this lad further... You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Well then you have not read my posts Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Time.com exposes the shameful smear attack by the right-wing sick f***sshortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

Hey Rox go troll the bay not the thread. If you don't think he should be a target then he shouldn't have been put on the radio for a national address. Once you go from private to public then you are a target. The Dems knew this was going to happen but didn't care, so why should we not debate the family. Just like Cindy Sheehan they made themselves a target the minute they opened their mouths in the world of politics.

Bull.

The "Dems know that Republicans are a$$holes who like to stalk and harrass families, so they shouldn't have put anyone up there" argument doesn't hold water whatsoever. Ridiculous.

President Bush had a 9 year old girl give an address on Social Security, and how his plans could help save it for people like her. And did the Dems attack her or her family for shilling for a Republican position? Hell no, because we're not scumbags, unlike many on the right wing, apparently.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Scumbag is not a strong enough word to describe these sick f***s.

0 Replies

Your really busting their arugments all over the place, Cycloptichorn. Glad its you, I would have flubbed it for sure.

0 Replies

Bogus radio address by the Dems.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know