Since Obamacare is a tax . . .

[tkhayes 140]

StreetScooby

Quote

More personally responsibility, mandated by federal law. as in so many other laws, it holds people accountable.

Wow, can't believe this came from you. There's lots of room for us to agree on here...

How about this - every child's birth certificate must have the father's name on it? That way, we can all hold the father responsible for raising that child. And, eliminating single motherhood would reduce poverty in America more than any other measure we could take. And, it would enforce the concept of a nuclear family, which is the cornerstone for civil society.

What do you think?

My statement was more parroting of right-wing mantra than my own personal beliefs. EVERYONE believes in personal responsibility, seldom can you mandate it without consequences.

While the right-wing bitches about the ACA, they also thought it up first and presented it first and they offer no option, so seeming they are OK with emergency rooms filled with uninsured folks that we all end up paying for in increased insurance premiums, instead of finding some way for EVERYONE to participate, EVERYONE to pay something into the system and EVERYONE benefiting from it.

The ACA is far from perfect, it is deeply flawed in the simple fact that we left insuring to the private sector, doomed to fail. But it will be replaced with a single payer system sooner that I originally predicted and I still say that it will be replaced by the Republican party once the overwhelming need for it comes around.

Maybe even a private/public system, but either way, THAT system will most definitely be a tax. It will be income tax on everyone... EVERYONE. and it will be challenged in the Supreme Court and it will prevail as well. Why? Because ideologies do not always work.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

..they offer no option,..

Markets do work, IMO. By market, I mean many buyers and many sellers. In that vein, the problem with our health care system stems from so much government intrusion that it's no longer a market. Markets require educated people willing to make their own decisions. Government intrusion has removed that "hurdle" for too many people in our society. When people rely on the government to take care of them, it doesn't work out very well. Just look at the projects in NYC, the horror stories with people trying to using government health care, the people in Sandy Hook still waiting for the government to fix their problem. The list can go on...

Quote

...emergency rooms filled with uninsured folks that we all end up paying for in increased insurance premiums, instead of finding some way for EVERYONE to participate, EVERYONE to pay something into the system and EVERYONE benefiting from it.

I live by Westchester Medical Center. Go in there on a Friday night and the place is packed with poor spanish people. I look at that and think two things -
1) These folks are living here, most probably illegally, and they work hard. Westchester has a huge illegal immigrant/undocumented alien population. Again, they work hard, and are very family oriented. Just the kind of people we need in this country, IMO.
2) They aren't paying a dime, literally nothing, and some are on the receiving end of hugely expensive medical care.
This cannot go on. I have no idea what to do about it.

Quote

It will be income tax on everyone... EVERYONE

I agree that EVERYONE should pay federal taxes. Far too many don't, and it has skewed our political system to a breaking point.

We are all engines of karma

[Southern_Man 0]

StreetScooby

Quote

More personally responsibility, mandated by federal law. as in so many other laws, it holds people accountable.

Wow, can't believe this came from you. There's lots of room for us to agree on here...

How about this - every child's birth certificate must have the father's name on it? That way, we can all hold the father responsible for raising that child. And, eliminating single motherhood would reduce poverty in America more than any other measure we could take. And, it would enforce the concept of a nuclear family, which is the cornerstone for civil society.

What do you think?

Naming the father is already required when applying for any form of federal or state assistance. States are already aggressive about going after these fathers for financial payments (which they should be). It is hard to see any meaningful difference in your proposal. The state can require financial support but it is impossible to make somebody be a good, active father in their children's lives.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Naming the father is already required when applying for any form of federal or state assistance.

Where can I find this info? My understanding for NYC and NYState is this is NOT required. I could be wrong. Looking to learn something here. Thanks.

We are all engines of karma

[Southern_Man 0]

StreetScooby

Quote

Naming the father is already required when applying for any form of federal or state assistance.

Where can I find this info? My understanding for NYC and NYState is this is NOT required. I could be wrong. Looking to learn something here. Thanks.

http://www.lawny.org/index.php/benefits-self-help-135/welfare-self-help-46/228-public-assistance-and-child-support

There are exceptions in NYState but not many.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

http://www.lawny.org/...ce-and-child-support

That page is "violently rejected" when I try to access it (i.e., it keeps getting reset, and very quickly). Are you sure that's the correct page?

Thanks!

We are all engines of karma

[jclalor 12]

Southern_Man

***

Quote

More personally responsibility, mandated by federal law. as in so many other laws, it holds people accountable.

Wow, can't believe this came from you. There's lots of room for us to agree on here...

How about this - every child's birth certificate must have the father's name on it? That way, we can all hold the father responsible for raising that child. And, eliminating single motherhood would reduce poverty in America more than any other measure we could take. And, it would enforce the concept of a nuclear family, which is the cornerstone for civil society.

What do you think?

Naming the father is already required when applying for any form of federal or state assistance. States are already aggressive about going after these fathers for financial payments (which they should be). It is hard to see any meaningful difference in your proposal. The state can require financial support but it is impossible to make somebody be a good, active father in their children's lives.

Perhaps some states require the fathers name, I'm pretty sure the Feds don't, how could they? Just watch 15 minutes of Maury Povich and you'd think half of the kids in this country have no idea who pop's is. I think the theory is why punish the kids who have mom's with mattresses strapped to their back.

[Southern_Man 0]

StreetScooby

Quote

http://www.lawny.org/...ce-and-child-support

That page is "violently rejected" when I try to access it (i.e., it keeps getting reset, and very quickly). Are you sure that's the correct page?

Thanks!

It is working for me, not sure why it isn't working on your end. The actual text of the law is here as well: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/DOM/13/236

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/DOM/13/236

That link is working, but that there is some extraordinary dense language. I'm not seeing anything about father's, only about "parties", e.g.

Quote

Additionally, the copy of any such request shall be accompanied by the name, address and social security number of the parties; the date and place of the parties' marriage; the name and date of birth of the child or children; and the name and address of the employers and income payors of the party from whom child support is sought...

A search for "father" in that document comes up empty. Am I missing something?

Hey, thanks for a meaningful link! You're always good at that, and I appreciate those things.

We are all engines of karma

[Southern_Man 0]

StreetScooby

Quote

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/DOM/13/236

That link is working, but that there is some extraordinary dense language. I'm not seeing anything about father's, only about "parties", e.g.

Quote

Additionally, the copy of any such request shall be accompanied by the name, address and social security number of the parties; the date and place of the parties' marriage; the name and date of birth of the child or children; and the name and address of the employers and income payors of the party from whom child support is sought...

A search for "father" in that document comes up empty. Am I missing something?

Hey, thanks for a meaningful link! You're always good at that, and I appreciate those things.

The original link is working on another computer and on my cell phone, so I am a bit flummoxed that you are having issues accessing it. It is a concise summary.

The second (admittedly dense) document is an attempt to get ot the underlying law. Not sure that is the best link--if you use public assistance for the search term it is a little better but not as clear as I thought it was this morning.

Lets try this one: http://www.herjustice.org/assets/pdfs/TheBasicsSeries_English/Child_Support_in_NYS.pdf which says you have to cooperate with efforts to establish support if you are getting public assistance.

Here's another link: http://newyork.earnbenefits.org/page.php?pageID=675

Basically all states have these laws because the federal government requires such laws as a condition of states participating in these financial assistance programs. There are minor differences. The vast majority of assistance programs are federal/state partnerships.

The only benefits I can think of that you would apply to a federal agency directly for are things like Social Security or Military benefits. I don't have direct experience on establishing paternity but since you are drawing off of somebody else's record I would logically think you have to in order to be eligible to collect tham.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 1,647]

turtlespeed

***Your assumption is incorrect, therefore not worth discussing. If the ACA is a 'tax', then so is your car insurance. And many other things that you pay for every day because you have to.

And no one is discussing those things.

Show me where they passed a law that every individual must purchase car insurance or get fined.

Here is a hint. What is the percentage of the population of NYC that maintain individual car insurance.

The recent mass shooting in Kennesaw, GA, reminds me that the right wingers on here didn't complain that the local government in Kennesaw mandated gun ownership.

Since guns aren't given away free, this clearly is a government requirement to buy a product.

Apparently it's OK for a right wing government to mandate purchase of a product designed to kill, but not when a Dem govenment mandates the purchase of a product that saves lives.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******Your assumption is incorrect, therefore not worth discussing. If the ACA is a 'tax', then so is your car insurance. And many other things that you pay for every day because you have to.

And no one is discussing those things.

Show me where they passed a law that every individual must purchase car insurance or get fined.

Here is a hint. What is the percentage of the population of NYC that maintain individual car insurance.

The recent mass shooting in Kennesaw, GA, reminds me that the right wingers on here didn't complain that the local government in Kennesaw mandated gun ownership.

Since guns aren't given away free, this clearly is a government requirement to buy a product.

Apparently it's OK for a right wing government to mandate purchase of a product designed to kill, but not when a Dem govenment mandates the purchase of a product that saves lives.

ACA was never, and is not, intended to save lives
the lie told was to control costs of health care
This is half right
It it is to control
Not costs of services rendered however


But you already know this and dont care
You want guns banned, (indirectly) and you want bigger government with more control and over sight
Private gun ownership and your big government goals are not compatable

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,647]

Hey Marc, try going out in the street naked. Then claim that the government isn't able to mandate that you have some product.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

Hey Marc, try going out in the street naked. Then claim that the government isn't able to mandate that you have some product.

A gear switch and a lane change

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

kallend

The recent mass shooting in Kennesaw, GA, reminds me that the right wingers on here didn't complain that the local government in Kennesaw mandated gun ownership.

Since guns aren't given away free, this clearly is a government requirement to buy a product.

The Kennesaw, GA (pop. 30,000) law...

Quote

Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine...

I can't speak for the right wingers you refer to but I haven't complained about this law primarily because while it was being passed I was busy being gestated and also a contributing factor is that it doesn't actually force you to do anything.

It, and copy-cat versions of it being passed in a handful of small towns, are toothless symbolic gestures. I think symbolic gestures are a stupid use of the legislative process, but that's another issue.

The ACA (and state and local laws being passed against firearm ownership) are not merely symbolic gestures, so I rate the comparison 2/10.

In the meantime, hopefully the two people that were more seriously injured in the shooting pull through.

[rhaig 0]

kallend

The recent mass shooting in Kennesaw, GA, reminds me that the right wingers on here didn't complain that the local government in Kennesaw mandated gun ownership.

https://library.municode.com/HTML/12813/level3/PTIICOOR_CH34CIEM_ARTIIFI.html
Kennesaw, Georgia, Code of Ordinances >> PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Chapter 34 - CIVIL EMERGENCIES >> ARTICLE II. FIREARMS >>

Quote

Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So if a similar exception were added to ACA I don't think you'd find many complaining either.

--
Rob

[kallend 1,647]

rhaig

***
The recent mass shooting in Kennesaw, GA, reminds me that the right wingers on here didn't complain that the local government in Kennesaw mandated gun ownership.

https://library.municode.com/HTML/12813/level3/PTIICOOR_CH34CIEM_ARTIIFI.html
Kennesaw, Georgia, Code of Ordinances >> PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Chapter 34 - CIVIL EMERGENCIES >> ARTICLE II. FIREARMS >>

Quote

Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So if a similar exception were added to ACA I don't think you'd find many complaining either.

I wonder how many religions have doctrine that objects to health insurance.

Did you try going out naked in public yet, to confirm that the government has not mandated that you wear clothes?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jgoose71 0]

kallend

******
The recent mass shooting in Kennesaw, GA, reminds me that the right wingers on here didn't complain that the local government in Kennesaw mandated gun ownership.

https://library.municode.com/HTML/12813/level3/PTIICOOR_CH34CIEM_ARTIIFI.html
Kennesaw, Georgia, Code of Ordinances >> PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Chapter 34 - CIVIL EMERGENCIES >> ARTICLE II. FIREARMS >>

Quote

Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So if a similar exception were added to ACA I don't think you'd find many complaining either.

I wonder how many religions have doctrine that objects to health insurance.

Did you try going out naked in public yet, to confirm that the government has not mandated that you wear clothes?

Plenty of religions have theological opposition to birth control, but they are being forced to buy it with the health insurance anyway.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 1,647]

jgoose71

*********
The recent mass shooting in Kennesaw, GA, reminds me that the right wingers on here didn't complain that the local government in Kennesaw mandated gun ownership.

https://library.municode.com/HTML/12813/level3/PTIICOOR_CH34CIEM_ARTIIFI.html
Kennesaw, Georgia, Code of Ordinances >> PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Chapter 34 - CIVIL EMERGENCIES >> ARTICLE II. FIREARMS >>

Quote

Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So if a similar exception were added to ACA I don't think you'd find many complaining either.

I wonder how many religions have doctrine that objects to health insurance.

Did you try going out naked in public yet, to confirm that the government has not mandated that you wear clothes?

Plenty of religions have theological opposition to birth control, but they are being forced to buy it with the health insurance anyway.

Plenty? Name a few for us.
How did your naked stroll down Main Street go?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jgoose71 0]

kallend

Plenty? Name a few for us.
How did your naked stroll down Main Street go?

Well, There is the "Little Sisters Poor Home for the Aged" and just about every other Catholic Organization out there for starters...

But Catholics are a dying breed. It's not like there are many left in the U.S., the left doing a great job of driving them out.

Oh wait a minute, Most hispanics are Catholic. Why are you trampling on the rights of the Hispanic? Are you racist?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[DanG 1]

Quote

But Catholics are a dying breed. It's not like there are many left in the U.S., the Vatican doing a great job of driving them out.

Fixed that for you.

Seriously, what the fuck has "the left" done to drive Catholics out of the US?

- Dan G

[rhaig 0]

kallend

I wonder how many religions have doctrine that objects to health insurance.

you're so fond of berating people for their lack of reading comprehension.

"beliefs or religious doctrine"

Does that mean belief in religious doctrine? No? It means beliefs OR religious doctrine.

Just as in Kennesaw if you believe you don't want to own a firearm, nobody is going to make you.

--
Rob

[kallend 1,647]

You're telling us that Kennesaw's ordinance is just posturing.

Oh the Humanity!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,647]

jgoose71

***
Plenty? Name a few for us.
How did your naked stroll down Main Street go?

Well, There is the "Little Sisters Poor Home for the Aged" and just about every other Catholic Organization out there for starters...



Roman Catholic is only ONE religion. Tell us a few others in accordance with your claim that there are "PLENTY"..

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

kallend

You're telling us that Kennesaw's ordinance is just posturing.

Oh the Humanity!

Put whatever label you want on it. You equated it with the individual mandate. You were wrong. You'd made assumptions about the content of the law based on what you'd read on a forum somewhere (whose posters are known for gross exaggerations). I educated you as to the facts. That is all. As an educator I thought you might appreciate that viewpoint. Unless that is you let your grad students do all the work. :)

--
Rob