Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[ishii]

I’m not sure how many people are on Obamacare, but I know we are NOT – we get insurance from our workplace, and now that we’re retiring, from Medicare (as primary) & workplace health coverage (as secondary). From what I understand Obamacare is only for the uninsured and underinsured, and it is a shame that we have not been covering their backs all along. I would have been willing to pay more taxes to know that my all my brethren were covered.

And even with Obamacare, there are very poor Americans without any health coverage. I know of a few. They live from health crisis to health crisis of themselves and their children, and all their money plus personal loans go into that, not to mention the main provider parent has lost jobs having to stay with her sick children & not being able to afford childcare.

In France OTOH, our niece is fully covered by the gov and when she had a difficult pregnancy & childbirth complications they even paid for her off-time from work for 6 months & all her medical expenses. And when she went back to work, free professional childcare and not “the baby-sitter from hell.” It not “free,” of course. They pay high taxes, but, as they say, you get what you pay for.

lynnvinc, when Harry Reid was asked whether the goal was to move from Obamacare to a single payer system, he answered, “yes, yes, absolutely yes.”

We didn’t need to revamp completely our healthcare system in order to help some people without coverage get coverage, but for the left, “never wast a tragedy” right?

The left cannot openly implement their programs without an electoral backlash, so they have to do things through the backdoor. This might please liberal catholics, but it should alarm those who value openness and transparency in how our laws are changed.

forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/10/sen-harry-reid-obamacare-absolutely-a-step-toward-a-single-payer-system/

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Well, I began working when I was sixteen and paid into the SS system for half a century. I am now retired, receive SS benefits and don’t understand how this could properly be construed as “welfare”.

I’ll put it this way: if the government would return all I paid into the SS system during those fifty years, plus an equitable return, I would go away happy. But it seems you want to totally discount the reality that what you term “welfare” involves funds I (and of course millions of others) earned by legitimate work. And that is why both I and all those others are entitled to it.

And I gather you would know that the term “welfare” is charged with a host of connotations.

 

[Tomdstone]

They simply favor a different “flavor” of socialism. Instead of favoring communism, they favor more of the fascist flavor where companies are privately owned, but heavily regulated and controlled by govt. It’s still socialism.

I don’t think that regulated capitalism is socialism.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I’m not sure how many people are on Obamacare, but I know we are NOT – we get insurance from our workplace, and now that we’re retiring, from Medicare (as primary) & workplace health coverage (as secondary). From what I understand Obamacare is only for the uninsured and underinsured, and it is a shame that we have not been covering their backs all along. I would have been willing to pay more taxes to know that my all my brethren were covered.

And even with Obamacare, there are very poor Americans without any health coverage. I know of a few. They live from health crisis to health crisis of themselves and their children, and all their money plus personal loans go into that, not to mention the main provider parent has lost jobs having to stay with her sick children & not being able to afford childcare.

In France OTOH, our niece is fully covered by the gov and when she had a difficult pregnancy & childbirth complications they even paid for her off-time from work for 6 months & all her medical expenses. And when she went back to work, free professional childcare and not “the baby-sitter from hell.” It not “free,” of course. They pay high taxes, but, as they say, you get what you pay for.

:clapping: I agree and God bless you for saying it is a shame we have not been covering backs all along. Individuals and faith based groups can’t possibly do it all and pay for everyone’s expensive surgeries and other healthcare needs. And yes you’re not alone. Many get their coverage still through their workplace. In fact Obama said himself that was why he would not pursue something like your niece is blessed with. Because we had an employer based system. But yes so sadly even now some still are without because they don’t make enough to qualify for a subsidy and whose states won’t expand Medicaid. And now the Republicans are cheering for the SCOTUS to throw out subsidies for millions who finally have affordable coverage. IOW sending them back to where they were. Without. But kudos to you for understanding higher taxes might just be the cost to help your brethren. I find neither party perfect. The Republicans certainly had their chances though. But as with most things however, the topic of climate included, I haven’t found the Republicans having much to offer in workable alternatives beyond simply opposition. That much at least I’ve found they’re very good at.

 

[estesbob]

You’ve spent many, many hours on these boards blurring the lines to hide any differences between the two parties. It’s especially ironic coming from you, a person who specializes in focusing on trivialities for argumentation sake.

If you don’t feed them they will go away

 

[ishii]

You’ve spent many, many hours on these boards blurring the lines to hide any differences between the two parties. It’s especially ironic coming from you, a person who specializes in focusing on trivialities for argumentation sake.

If you don’t feed them they will go away

True, but how many people will they mislead with their sophistry? Therefore I respond, even if it is this: :banghead:

Ishii

 

[ishii]

:clapping: I agree and God bless you for saying it is a shame we have not been covering backs all along. Individuals and faith based groups can’t possibly do it all and pay for everyone’s expensive surgeries and other healthcare needs. And yes you’re not alone. Many get their coverage still through their workplace. In fact Obama said himself that was why he would not pursue something like your niece is blessed with. Because we had an employer based system. But yes so sadly even now some still are without because they don’t make enough to qualify for a subsidy and whose states won’t expand Medicaid. And now the Republicans are cheering for the SCOTUS to throw out subsidies for millions who finally have affordable coverage. *** IOW sending them back to where they were. Without. *** But kudos to you for understanding higher taxes might just be the cost to help your brethren. I find neither party perfect. The Republicans certainly had their chances though. But as with most things however, the topic of climate included, I haven’t found the Republicans having much to offer in workable alternatives beyond simply opposition. That much at least I’ve found they’re very good at.

Regarding the bold part - you are wrong:

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/17/house-leaders-offer-plan-deal-obamacare-ruling/?page=all

And regarding covering those without healthcare, it did not require the complete overhaul of our healthcare system to achieve it. This is nothing more than the left exploiting a small problem to implement its program surreptitiously. Again, liberal catholic may applaud this, but imagine if the GOP did something similar - institute a tax cut or entitlement cut in the same way. Something tells me liberal catholics would scream bloody murder. But since its the Democrats doing it, its okay.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

True, but how many people will they mislead with their sophistry? Therefore I respond, even if it is this: :banghead:

Ishii

Dou you dispute that the Republican Party is the party of big government and welfare? Are you arguing that because the democrats are also the party of big government and welfare that no other party can support big government either?

By the way, I never claimed both parties are exactly the same. You keep repeating that lie over and over again.

 

[ishii]

Dou you dispute that the Republican Party is the party of big government and welfare?

Yes.

Are you arguing that because the democrats are also the party of big government and welfare that no other party can support big government either?

Reject the premise of your question (See previous answer).

By the way, I never claimed both parties are exactly the same. You keep repeating that lie over and over again.

I would say that you spend the overwhelming majority of your time pointing out how you think the parties are the same, and only mention a difference when pressed. So it would seem that you consider their differences to be insignificant and not worth mentioning much? That said, I don’t read all of your posts.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes.

Ok, so how many billions does a government have to spend to be considered the party of big government? If a government spends $500 billion a year giving health insurance to those who can pay for there own health insurance, is that a sign of the welfare state?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Regarding the bold part - you are wrong:

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/17/house-leaders-offer-plan-deal-obamacare-ruling/?page=all

And regarding covering those without healthcare, it did not require the complete overhaul of our healthcare system to achieve it. This is nothing more than the left exploiting a small problem to implement its program surreptitiously. Again, liberal catholic may applaud this, but imagine if the GOP did something similar - institute a tax cut or entitlement cut in the same way. Something tells me liberal catholics would scream bloody murder. But since its the Democrats doing it, its okay.

Ishii

You may call that quite a substantive plan… extending subsidies for just the next 6 mos and then the entire framework expiring in just 18 mos. I don’t.

 

[ishii]

Ok, so how many billions does a government have to spend to be considered the party of big government? If a government spends $500 billion a year giving health insurance to those who can pay for there own health insurance, is that a sign of the welfare state?

How much demagoguery do Republican leaders who propose entitlement reform have to endure before you admit that political reality prevents small government Republicans from reducing the size of government at this time ?

usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/05/20/democrats-distort-newt-gingrichs-medicare-comments-again

creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/obama-demagogues-private-enterprise.html

Ishii

 

[ishii]

You may call that quite a substantive plan… extending subsidies for just the next 6 mos and then the entire framework expiring in just 18 mos. I don’t.

So now its that they don’t have a “substantive” plan. Nice to see you change your story. Of course if Obamacare is thrown onto the ash heap of history where all bad ideas belong, then the Republicans will have to come up with their own plan to replace it long term. Rest assured, no matter what the Republicans come up with, liberals will automatically demagogue it as anti-poor, etc.

Ishii

 

[Sy_Noe]

So now its that they don’t have a “substantive” plan. Nice to see you change your story. Of course if Obamacare is thrown onto the ash heap of history where all bad ideas belong, then the Republicans will have to come up with their own plan to replace it long term. Rest assured, no matter what the Republicans come up with, liberals will automatically demagogue it as anti-poor, etc.

Ishii

No story change. If it’s not substantive, it’s certainly not a workable alternative. 2 peas in a pod. The same thing. Same ol’ same ol’ from the Grand Old Party.

 

[ishii]

No story change. If it’s not substantive, it’s not workable.

The Republicans have a plan to deal with the immediate aftermath of the ruling, then obviously they will come up with an alternative to Obamacare, which you may or may not think is the best plan. Do you think that Republicans swear an oath to stick it to people who don’t have health insurance and gleefully watch them die in the streets?

Ishii

 

[Sy_Noe]

The Republicans have a plan to deal with the immediate aftermath of the ruling, then obviously they will come up with an alternative to Obamacare, which you may or may not think is the best plan. Do you think that Republicans swear an oath to stick it to people who don’t have health insurance and gleefully watch them die in the streets?

Ishii

I guess time will tell. But it’s not so obvious to me that they will come up with anything that works better based on their inaction in the past to do much, if anything at all, for people who did not have health insurance. And we have Republican governors and state legislators now who are doing nothing more than refusing to expand Medicaid, keeping people from health care coverage.

 

[stinkcat_14]

How much demagoguery do Republican leaders who propose entitlement reform have to endure before you admit that political reality prevents small government Republicans from reducing the size of government at this time ?

usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/05/20/democrats-distort-newt-gingrichs-medicare-comments-again

creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/obama-demagogues-private-enterprise.html

Ishii

The demagoguery comes from republican voters themselves. Chris Cristy suggests minor means testing for social security and the issue goes nowhere among republican voters. That is the true sign of a party that is in bed with big government and the welfare state.

 

[ishii]

The demagoguery comes from republican voters themselves. Chris Cristy suggests minor means testing for social security and the issue goes nowhere among republican voters. That is the true sign of a party that is in bed with big government and the welfare state.

That is a stretch stinkcat - I don’t think even you believe that the demagoguery comes equally from Republicans and the left. But I see you need to say that to promote the theme of Republican = big govt. party.

Historically the reforms of entitlements *** promoted by the Republicans *** were met with smear campaigns and demagoguery from the left and the Democratic party. You cannot deny those two facts at all.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

That is a stretch stinkcat - I don’t think even you believe that the demagoguery comes equally from Republicans and the left. But I see you need to say that to promote the theme of Republican = big govt. party.

When did I say that demagoguery on social security comes equally from both parties? I never said any such thing. What I did say is that republicans do not have enough support among themselves to bring about the ending of social security. Who needs democrats fighting against reducing the welfare benefits when it doesn’t even have enough support among republicans.

Now, my hypothesis is that the republican party supports big government. The evidence for that is they support welfare programs like SS and Medicare and they spend a lot of money. What evidence do you have that refutes that? From what I have seen, the answer is none.

 

[ishii]

When did I say that demagoguery on social security comes equally from both parties? I never said any such thing. What I did say is that republicans do not have enough support among themselves to bring about the ending of social security. Who needs democrats fighting against reducing the welfare benefits when it doesn’t even have enough support among republicans.

Now, my hypothesis is that the republican party supports big government. The evidence for that is they support welfare programs like SS and Medicare and they spend a lot of money. What evidence do you have that refutes that? From what I have seen, the answer is none.

My evidence is their efforts to reform both Medicare and Social Security (through partial privitization, etc.) but unfortunately those efforts get demagogued by the left / Democrat controlled media. This isn’t esoteric economics theory, stinkcat, its politics!

Now, in an effort to find common ground with stinkcat, I would agree that:

• the Republican party does have members who are fine with big government and entitlement programs.
• the Republican party could do a much, much better job educating the voters on the reasons why we need to eliminate or seriously reform certain entitlements. (even in spite of how any education is filtered through the left-wing media which is wholeheartedly for big government / entitlements).

That said, I think it is way too simplistic to portray this as you have, that “the Republican party is the party of big government.”

Ishii