Has the new NHC plan collapsed?

Originally posted by whodey
I once thought that a new health care plan was inevitable. Why not when national health care plan has been the holy grail of the Democrat party for such a long time and with them now firmly in control of all aspects of government. However, last month I got a glimmer of hope that they may abandon yet another unaffordable massive entitlement program when 49% ...[text shortened]... ds and pass it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this will not be the final word if they do.

Health care for all ? Yes ! Abortion funding ? No !

A lot op people, among whom many Roman Catholic voters want to support the health care reform bill but because this reform includes government/taxpayer funding of performing abortion they oppose it.

Remove the abortion funding and you will see that a majority will be in favour of this health care reform bill !

Originally posted by monster truck
That's incorrect.
The alleged # of individuals served for 2008 is over 12K.
Number of meals served in 2008 is 952,700.

something doesn't compute.

Most people feel a certain shame over having to make use of charity handouts. It seems very strange that over HALF the town's population would have made use of this Kitchen, and consumed an average of 80 meals apiece.

I'm sure some of the other half of the population would have picked up on what was going on and called up the local newspaper to report on "Leech Town - where everyone's dinner is free". I'm sure there would have been large protests by people outraged at such a mass abuse of a service that's supposed to be only for the poor. I'm sure most of the people working at the Kitchen would've quit in disgust. Someone would've written a book about it - and the operation would've shut down long before 2008 because no one in their right mind would want to work at the Great Leechtown Kitchen.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
something doesn't compute.

Most people feel a certain shame over having to make use of charity handouts. It seems very strange that over HALF the town's population would have made use of this Kitchen, and consumed an average of 80 meals apiece.

I'm sure some of the other half of the population would have picked up on what was going on and called up ...[text shortened]... ecause no one in their right mind would want to work at the Great Leechtown Kitchen.

Something doestn't compute for sure.

In fact, our town is so popular for the quality of services provided that not only do we attract 'needy folk' from within our state but from as far away as Texas as well.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Health care for all ? Yes ! Abortion funding ? No !

A lot op people, among whom many Roman Catholic voters want to support the health care reform bill but because this reform includes government/taxpayer funding of performing abortion they oppose it.

Remove the abortion funding and you will see that a majority will be in favour of this health care reform bill !

I hate to be the one to tell you, but this bill is not being held up just because of the abortion issue. The crux of it is that they attempting to restructure about 1/6 of the US economy with this bill. As Obama has said, this is equivalent to social security being passed. This bill will have long reaching effects on the US fiscal policy just as social security has had. So driven are they, that I'm sure they might conceed the abortion issue. Then if this bill passes, how hard will it be to later "tweek" the bill and allow abortions at a later date?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So if "entitlement programs" don't work to allieviate poverty, what does?

So the only way we have to alleviate poverty are entitlements? I suppose this type of thinking is to be expected now days.

Here are a few OTHER ways to help the poor.

1. Charity is another way to help the poor. When people give to the poor, rather than being forceably taken from them to be given to the government who takes a cut and then gives to the poor, then people are able to share the gift of giving. Then people who recieve such charity are often grateful, becacuse they did not anticipate the gift. However, with entitlements, that all goes away. The gift of giving disappears as does the gratefulness of receiving the gift. In fact, it no longer becomes a gift, rather, it is due them. In addition, it often is not enough as they demand more. If it were not for the state taxing the poo out of its citizens, more people would be able to give more.
2. Oppurtunity is a way to alleviate the poor. The middle class in the US is a new phenomenon in the world. This is because capitalism has allowed them to elevate their standard of living by giving them access to high paying jobs and the oppurtunity to be inovative and start small businesses. However, as more and more small businesses get trampled by government-like large corporations and government increasingly becomes meddlesome, these oppurtunities are slowly snuffed out.

Originally posted by whodey
So the only way we have to alleviate poverty are entitlements? I suppose this type of thinking is to be expected now days.

Here are a few OTHER ways to help the poor.

1. Charity is another way to help the poor. When people give to the poor, rather than being forceably taken from them to be given to the government who takes a cut and then gives to the ...[text shortened]... ions and government increasingly becomes meddlesome, these oppurtunities are slowly snuffed out.

But Monster Truck has been arguing that "charity" might not be all it's cracked up to be. It appears that when people give to the poor, the people who receive the charity are often NOT very grateful - indeed, they tell all their friends about the free stuff being offered and you have a stream of leeches coming from as far as Texas to partake in the generous handouts.

One advantage of a government program is that it's easier to police the recipients to make sure that only the truly needy are getting benefits. Leeches can be charged with welfare fraud. But if a charity sets up a Kitchen, how does it go about keeping the leeches away?

Charity is also best for handling acute problems -- helping people cope with a temporary crisis -- where all they need is a short-term gift. The giver is glad to help, the recipient is grateful. The crisis passes and everyone is happy. But charity has trouble dealing with chronic situations where a person needs a steady flow of assistance over a long period of time.

Even the most charitable person will eventually grow weary of providing repeated handouts over a long time period - even when that person is a member of their own family. In these situations, there's some underlying cause that needs to be addressed such as physical or mental disability, illness, inability to find work, drug addiction, or maybe just chronic leechiness. And that private giver is probably not equipped with the expertise to properly evaluate these causes.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Ah. No, I wasn't thinking that. Your opinion of me is apparently very low, and off the mark to boot, to ascribe such a thought to me.

Your opinion of me is apparently very low

not at all.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b]But Monster Truck has been arguing that "charity" might not be all it's cracked up to be. It appears that when people give to the poor, the people who receive the charity are often NOT very grateful - indeed, they tell all their friends about the free stuff being offered and you have a stream of leeches coming from as far as Texas to partake in the generous handouts.

Those that recieve charity may not be very grateful, but I disagree that these are the majority from what I have seen. As far as leeches coming to get free stuff, all you have to do is find an ACORN office to help you out.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
One advantage of a government program is that it's easier to police the recipients to make sure that only the truly needy are getting benefits. Leeches can be charged with welfare fraud. But if a charity sets up a Kitchen, how does it go about keeping the leeches away?

Oh this is rich. You do know that welfare programs are ripe with fraud and inefficiency don't you? Using either system you have people taking advantage of the system whether it be giving of ones own free will or government mandated giving. So tell me, what do you think is easier to take advantage of? Is it a system with rules written in stone for all to work around or is it on someones whim to give for whatever reason?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
=Charity is also best for handling acute problems -- helping people cope with a temporary crisis -- where all they need is a short-term gift. The giver is glad to help, the recipient is grateful. The crisis passes and everyone is happy. But charity has trouble dealing with chronic situations where a person needs a steady flow of assistance over a long period of time.

But helping in a temporary crisis is part of the charm. The goal should be to help people get on their own two legs if possible. If they know that a free lunch is not garunteed them, which system do you think is most benificial in this regard?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Even the most charitable person will eventually grow weary of providing repeated handouts over a long time period - even when that person is a member of their own family. In these situations, there's some underlying cause that needs to be addressed such as physical or mental disability, illness, inability to find work, drug addiction, or maybe just chronic l ...[text shortened]... at private giver is probably not equipped with the expertise to properly evaluate these causes.[/b]

Before the advent of the entitlement mentality, families were much stronger because they relied on each other for survival. This is a plus for my type of society. Now society is full of disinfranchised members scattered among the masses. Now instead of a strong sense of community, people build large privacy fences and hide in their homes. Of course, with this system people fell through the cracks but they do so with your entitlement system as well.

From what I hear, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, is not openly calling for the death of the new health care bill. He says that this bill is an insurance companines dream because people will now be forced to buy one of their policies, of course, in the absence of a public option.

So now the bill is under attack from both the left and the right and both calling for its destruction. Cuple this with about 61% of the American people calling for the same and what you have is a dead bill.......or should be dead.

This whole thing just gets crazier and crazier. Now it is the Republicans who are oppposing cuts to medicare as where the Democrats are the ones favoring rationing. LOL. I suppose it won;t be hard to gather support from the grey hairs come next election for the RNC.

From what I have gathered, a family of 4 making $88,000 or under is entitled to subsides to pay for coverage, which will be mandatory. This same family would be paying around $15,000 per year with around $2-3,000 in subsides averaging about $13,000 per year. The penalties for not purchasing insurance still seems up in the air, however. As for the individual, the cut off is around $43,000 per year and under for subsidies. So my question is this, why not just pay a penalty, which would more than likely be much less than paying for health insurance, and then wait till you need it and then pay for it?

I liked what Senator Charles Schumer stated, "I don't think anybody likes this concpet of penalties." This man is nothing short of a genious.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/should_you_pay_a_penalty_if_you_dont_buy_health_insurance.html

Originally posted by whodey
This man is nothing short of a genious.

Bet he can even spell.

Originally posted by DrKF
Bet he can even spell.

Wat maks U so shure?