I think your questions are rhetorical, but if not let me know which programs you're talking about. I couldn't tell if you were talking about something I said or something in the OP.

CG -Ummm, where will the government GET the money it hands to the poor to insure against illness? and HOW will they get it?
and you support these actions?
It's a damn shame that I, and other people of value, are gonna get what you deserve.

If they have to pay the postage, attach the envelope to a brick. They then get to pay to mail the brick.
Every little bit hurts!

That's true. But then, I only met him once. When I proposed that she should consider your offer, she laughed at me. What is this younger generation coming to? He did impress me though. I invited her brother and her and she asked if her (then) boyfriend could come. I said sure. Later when I was figuring out the waitress' tip, he took out his wallet and asked how much was his share. I assured him that it was on me. I was, however impressed. Was that just a smart move on his part or a genuine desire to pay his share? I don't know, but either way I was impressed.

Your irrational reverence for "helping" is not only silly, it is a way for you to feel superior. You and Ellsworth Toohey would be on the same page.
I tried to keep it simple so we could communicate, but I won't exchange thoughts with one who is irrational.

"Unless some grand catastrophic occurs that changes the minds of the "useful idiots" they will demand government take over health care and in that sector the last throws of capitalism will die to thunderous applause. "
I predict a less dramatic version of that unfortunate scenario. People who can afford advanced medical care will buy it as they always have. People who can't will be left with the gov't/HMO system. Enough people will use the gov't/HMO system that politicians will be justified in debating things like the number of ultrasounds to pay for and under what conditions they'll pay for more expensive medicines. This will be easier on them than debating actual gov't issues. It's really unfortunate.

"this comes down to what functions you think it is moral for a government to do. Stealing from one man to give to another is NEVER moral. I don't care if it even saves the recipients life."

Your first sentence suggests you think it's moral for government to do some things and others. Then you say taxes that are stealing, though, are wrong. This sounds like the argument that it's only stealing if it in any way sounds like helping. So if you tax to fund police jailing people it's okay. But even if you find it's cheaper and saves lifes to use some program that involves job training or subsidized rent/healthcare/etc, we can't do it b/c it sounds helpful. Whether it works doesn't matter b/c it violates the more important principle of gov't not being helpful.

If you are in favor of stealing people's earnings to pay for other people's anything then your a socialist. Plus you helped get bo elected... need I say more?

Obama pushed first for a single payer system, it failed. He then went to this. To say that Obama did not intend for this to push us where he tried to go and failed is, well a bit too innocent.

It was planned to fail and push us to the system he wanted in the first place. He wont be around to make it happen, but it will leave us with two choices eventually. Either have government run the entire health care system or go back to capitalism of the 19th century for it. Unless some grand catastrophic occurs that changes the minds of the "useful idiots" they will demand government take over health care and in that sector the last throws of capitalism will die to thunderous applause.

Obama was very smart in what he did here and it will likely run the course he planned it too.

In a society where we are ruled by law the law must also govern government as well as all other entities. The same law must apply to all entities.

If its illegal for man to steal another property it is also ill legal for that to happen with the entity taking the action being the government.

The argument above would then say its OK for all men and women to steal from each other. If the government were to set up a fund that took money voluntarily donated to take care of the poor and then used that money only for that purpose I would give to it. It would be my choice and the value I would receive from doing so would be worth it to me.

The only valid and moral system is one of trade. All parties must participate of their own will in anything that is not for everyone.

Also the only moral exclusion is ability. For example in the case of college grants. Basing them on race, financial status, country of origin... is first of discrimination as you are excluding some from availability. However if you use GPA, SAT, extra activities... as the criteria anyone can work to earn the grant. No one is excluded, no one has preferential treatment.

Any program the government does either must be done by voluntary contribution or requirements to receive must be based on merit. Otherwise the government breaks laws or discriminates. No other methods are moral.

Wow, great statement. Life is wonderful and tragic, and always precious.
By the way, it's fiancé, not boyfriend!

" How dare you say "it's cheap" and "a tiny part""
I was talking about the federal outlays. The increased premiums due to covering people who are already sick are much more than the federal outlays.

"Oh and we can't even opt out and just pay cash, which would probably be cheaper at this point, "
This is an interesting statement. People have to pay for medicine one way or other.

I've only ever paid for medicine by check, except for when my wife needed a c-section and our baby had a brief breathing problem. We went over the deductible by a few thousand. They paid the claim without trouble. When our insurance company gives us trouble, it's out of confusion and not greed. They've gotten more confused since ACA. I sense they're overwhelmed by the changing requirements.

"You actually believe socialism is freedom."
Of course not.

" So I assume since its such a small amount that surely you will pay ten times that amount just to do your fair share. Right? "
When I submit my quarterlies, esp the one in Apr which is slightly more, it feels like I pay at least a few times more than a reasonable amt. I would love to see Fed gov't cut in half in cost and intrusiveness.

Healthcare is certainly not a "free market" and has not been since the 1950's with the introduction of tax credits for employer sponsored plans and then it took a nose-dive away from the free market in the 1960's thanks to Medicare/Medicaid. The market has been grossly manipulated by government spending and regulation since before I was born. I know what you are saying though. ACA was built to fail the system.. I have read three articles already from Business Insurance and FierceHealthIT that show 1)Insurance companies are dropping small businesses 2)Medical device manufacturers are limiting production and laying off employees due to the new taxes from ACA 3)Insurance companies are now looking at their risk pools and having to boost premiums up to 500% over the next 5 years or simply go out of business. The smaller insurers will be gone within a few years and the Blues will have complete control and just complete their final merge with their biggest client.. the US government.

CG, this comes down to what functions you think it is moral for a government to do. Stealing from one man to give to another is NEVER moral. I don't care if it even saves the recipients life. It is still theft and is immoral.

"Its not just to make us dependent on the government. "
There's not a grand plan to make people on the gov't, although that's happening and it's a bad thing. We've basically made insurance against sickness illegal, by saying they have to cover perils that have already occurred. So of course costs double; that's the only possible outcome. My premium was going to go from $400 to $800, but I've managed to stay off an ACA-approved plan. They're slowly phasing in ACA requirements, though, and I'm now around $500 and change.

At the core of the problem, IMHO, is people don't want to pay for their medical care. Politicians are all to happy to come out with something like ACA that tacitly promises that somehow someone else will take care of middle class medical purchases, but one way or the other people end up paying for it, less efficiently than if they just purchased their medical care in the free market. The gov't could just hand money to the poor to insure against illness, something I would generally support, and it would be more efficient than a gov't *system*.

Before someone can say the free market has failed, we need to give it a try.

I often find life to be hilarious.
Either that, or it is unbearably tragic. I prefer hilarious. She's coming over for dinner tonight and I'll put forth your offer Boyfriends are a dime-a-dozen, but good jobs are hard to find.

"it is immoral for taxes to pay for medical care for the poor!"
This is a broad claim that I reject. If we accept taxes can be a moral way to fund non-excludable things, they can be a moral way to fund non-excludable things that happen to involve helping people. Otherwise, we're in the bizarre argument that it's fine for the gov't to tax me but only if the money is used on things that in no way sound helpful.

Herb, you're hilarious. I am located in south GA but spend as many weekends as possible at the new beachhouse we just bought on the FL panhandle.
Thanks for the chuckle

The female grandchild graduated cum laude from university, but being very young (23) I doubt if she'd move from here (Western Florida) especially since she just got engaged. I'll pass it along, and thank you for your most generous offer. By the way, where are you located?

Mamaemma,

Its not just to make us dependent on the government. The end game plan is a single payer system where the government controls outright the 15% of our economy that is the health care industry.

I completely agree, but it will get worse until they can declare that the free market has failed in health care and the government will save the day.. Single payer system is on the way.

My wife had to sign up for private insurance(according to the law) since we lost my retirement medical coverage on her starting this year. She gets no government subsidy, our insurance premium just doubles from what it was, and the company gave us $2700 ($300 a month for 9 months) to help with the increased premiums until she goes on Medicare in October. The new coverage sucks, period. After she goes on Medicare the company gives us a shared reimbursement account of $3820 ($1910 each) per year (this year). My reimbursement account balance at the end of 2014 was $35, I was reimbursed for everything including Medicare premiums and a couple of other minor medical issues I had. Thanks only to "the company", we're in better shape financially except for the lousy coverage, as long as we have no major medical issues..

LetsShrug, I think what has happened with insurance premiums has been unneccessary and deliberate in order to make all Americans dependent on the government.

You, LS & Mama summed this up well. CG & more than half of the population don't get it and will not until they cannot get or cannot afford medical care and then they will be whining & complaining about what went wrong. Most certainly blaming someone else instead of looking into the mirror. Sad!

CG, it is immoral for taxes to pay for medical care for the poor! Taxes are stolen from me at the point of a gun. Any charity I provide should be on my terms. Did you read AS? I find it outrageous that you are willing to negotiate the level of evil you will allow.