jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (78 posts)

A Feature of Obamacare Killed by the Supreme Court is Hurting the Poor

  1. My Esoteric profile image87
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    When the Robert's Court, while upholding the most important part of Obamacare, struck down the the penalty to any State not buying into the expanded Medicaid program, they condemned millions of somewhat poor Americans to no chance at healthcare at all unless they move.  That is because States were allowed to opt-out of the expanded Medicare program and 14 Conservative Bible-belt governors chose to do just that!  As a consequence there is a set of working poor who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to qualify for an Obamacare subsidy (since the law was written with idea these people would be covered by Medicaid).

    Well, it is not a surprise the Conservative Conservative government doesn't care about these working people, and my guess is would probably like to see them move anyway, what is a surprise is the deafening silence, except for  Rev. Timothy McDonald, a Baptist minister of the First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta, from the Fundamentalist and Evangelical leaders in Southern churches all across the South.  See http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/0 … tors-shun/ for more

    Personally, I call that sinful.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      First, Obamacare has nothing to do with medicare - you would be better off to get your facts straight.

      Second, if you wish to purchase worthless insurance for people, you might consider doing it out of YOUR pocket instead of requiring someone else to do it. 

      Third, it is obvious from the enactment of Obamacare that the Liberal government doesn't care about anyone at all; this piece of trash will ultimately bankrupt the country if left alone; we can all join the third world where no one gets health care. 

      Personally, I call that sinful, but it is the way of the libs.  Share the wealth until there is none left and then blame the conservatives for not having unlimited funding for liberal projects.

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, but it has a lot to do with Medicaid which I started out with before brainfarting.  Fortunately, forums let you edit, thanks for noticing.

        I am wondering @Wilderness, are you unhappy humanity discovered agriculture about 12,014 years ago?  That was time when people started helping other people at the societal level.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          People helped each other long before that; it took a group to take down a Mastodon, not a single person with a spear.  But does it mean that Jo-Jo the caveman, sitting in the cave and refusing to help, got fed?

          I wonder if you will be so eager to support non-producers when the standard of living has fallen to subsistence, as it will surely do if the trend towards ever more socialism continues much longer.  Without a truly massive increase in automation (far, far in the future) half or a quarter of the population simply cannot support the remaining 3/4 in the style we are accustomed to.

    2. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Have you checked into this beyond reading your linked article? Did you look to find out why those 14 states refused to participate in expanded Medicaid?

      Although the facts of states opting out, and the disparity between state's medicaid qualifications are true - they are subject to quite a bit of spin - depending on your perspective.

      You say they show sinful disregard for the poor, but those states are saying "we can not afford the expansion." (The Federal government is only funding the Medicaid expansion for an initial period - after which the states will have to pay for it)

      If you look a little deeper than your one article you will discover that Medicaid expenses are already stretching state budgets to their limits, and the only way for them to pay for the expanded Medicaid coverage would be with serious tax increases to their citizens. Should the rest of the state's citizens be disregarded for the benefit of a minority?

      Your article pushes one biased perspective - there are others. You should learn more about the issue before forming such a firm opinion.

      For instance: (from your article)
      One women, (with two kids), is quoted as working at Chick-fil-a for $9 hr. 18,000 p/year.
      Says she makes too much to qualify for Medicaid, and too much to qualify for Obamacare premium subsidies. Really? When the Obamacare subsidy schedules show subsidies available for a family of four with incomes up to somewhere around $74,000 - so a family of three is probably not too much less than that. Are you familiar with any of the debates concerning Obamacare other than your article? Do you really think a family of three at $18k, would not qualify for subsidies? Even in Georgia?*

      *I have not made the effort to confirm this for this discussion, but I have confirmed it for other exchanges - so I am relatively confident I am not too far off-base

      So I have doubt about the truthfulness of her statements - yet your source article used her as an example, and quoted her too.

      Like this one;
      "“It stinks,” she says. “I’ve been dealing with this hernia for two years now, and I can’t get anyone to help me because I don’t have health insurance. It absolutely stinks.”"

      Isn't that statement really saying she can't get anyone to pay for it for her?

      And it followed a statement from her that she has received medical care through emergency room visits - to the tune of $20,000. So someone is helping her, she did receive emergency medical care, she was not turned away at the door.

      Didn't the tone, and questionable validity of some of its examples and statements give you pause to consider there may be other explanations? After all, to feel as ardent as you apparently do about an issue usually indicates a familiarity with the details.

      Perhaps, Quill will pop in with some of his excellent source references that will educate both of us.

      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If I remember right, the States get a 3-year free ride (welfare in my opinion) and then only pick-up 10% or 20% of the tab.  Also, why is it too expensive for 14 states but not the other 36?

        You know as well as I that I know quite a bit about these issues, you have read enough of my hubs.  It is a matter of philosophical priorities as to what the role of government should or should not be.

        No, a family of three will not qualify for subsidies because the law written with the expectation they would be on Medicaid.  They made no provisions for the Conservative Court to find that part of the law unconstitutional nor the fact that 14 Conservative Governors and Legislatures would leave their citizens out in the cold like that.  Congress would have to pass a law to fix that and you know as well as I the Conservatives wont let that happen, and unfortunately, that one is outside of Obama's Executive powers to solve.

        You need to read the law or the many summaries on it dealing with this issue.

        Yes, you and I paid for her emergency care, the hospital and insurance companies certainly won't, and she can't.  I hope you enjoyed it, I know I didn't.

        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Quick, jump back in here with me before Quill drops by. Just step over GA's prostrate body, (he tripped over his uninformed opinion)

          First, I was badly mistaken about Georgia's Medicaid/Obamacare subsidies issues. And I was mistaken about the number of that lady's kids - she had four not two. And a single mom to boot. Might be some life-choice issues there.

          Good news - all her kids qualify for CHIP Medicaid coverage in Georgia. So they have healthcare coverage.

          Bad news - Georgia's Medicaid qualification income limits for an adult are $6000 p/year. Tough state! No Medicaid coverage for her

          Bad news - By Obamacare's structure - you have to earn at least 100% of the Fed. Poverty level to qualify for subsidies - geesh, talk about a donut hole. Somebody screwed up. *This was an area I was ill-informed on. I did not realize there was a minimum income barrier.

          So I have to eat my criticisms of her statements. Done.
          I have to rethink my opinion on state's decisions to expand medicaid coverage - or not. Not done yet. I am still digesting that.

          Here's why: (and relative to Georgia's decision not to expand)

          Everyone throws out numbers that support their position. Proponents toss out a national average for the expanded Medicaid cost increase to state budgets of .1% to 1%  - sounds like a no-brainer. But that is a national average if all states expand. Obviously some states have higher cost increases and some states actually have cost decreases. (Vermont actually sees a 7.1% budget decrease due to Federal funding contributions, in dollars that's a $355 million refund from the Feds.!)

          But after looking at several perspectives, (Kaiser Foundation and Center for Budget Policies), it appears that Georgia would be looking at an annual state budget increase of 4.1% if it expanded its medicaid program(s) *Even with the Federal funding.

          Doesn't sound too bad at first, but a look at the real numbers might present a different picture.

          Caveat: These are real seat-of-the-pants calculations, and could be way off, but I think they are close enough for this example.

          Georgia's annual state budget is $19.9 billion. A 4.1% increase is approx. $815 million.

          Georgia's population is 9.92 million,  so that would come to about $82.24 more taxes per person - hmm... maybe not too terrible, - except that is per person, not per taxpayer.

          They have a 6% state income tax. With an average tax bill per taxpayer of $726, so it looks like a single taxpayer would see a tax increase of approx 11.3%  - Not looking so good now.

          But what if you are a family wage earner?
          Wife and kid - 3 x $82.24 = $246.72 or 34% tax increase
          Wife and two lids, three kids, more? Whew!

          *these numbers looked so bad I double checked my math. Who knows maybe I misplaced a decimal point - but my double check missed it if I did.

          So, an 11.3% to 34%+ tax bill increase would be a lot of gas to throw on a tax-payer revolt fire. Maybe Georgia had good reason to resist the expanded coverage option.

          As you can see, there is much more to this type of discussion than national averages that seem so negligible when compared to the compassionate goal of providing a benefit to the needy.

          The drill-down specifics often paint quite a different picture.

          All in all I would say I was badly mistaken about the lady and Georgia's Medicaid program, and Obamacare's subsidy structure, but to your point that it is sinful for a state to opt-out, and that the Supreme Court got it wrong - I stand by my guns - you should have checked a little deeper before passing judgement.

          But thanks for prodding me to educate myself on a subject I thought I knew something about.

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image87
            My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I am not going to doubt your math and appreciate you double checking.  My question would be what is it about GA's Medicaid program that would drive such a steep increase even with the Feds picking up such a large portion of the bill?

          2. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oops.... I knew those numbers just did not look right. So I triple checked, and...

            The 4.1% increase is still Kaiser's number, but it is an increase to the Medicaid budget expenditures - not the total state budget!

            So the new number is a $254 million increase, not $815 million.
            Which means the per person cost of the increase is $25.61, not $82
            Ipso facto, ala kazamm a 3.5% tax increase for a single taxpayer

            For family wage earners it would be:
            Wife and kid, 3 x $25.61 = $76.83 or 10.5% increase
            Wife and 2 kids, 3 kids, more... getting to be a hefty increase.

            Although it is a less catastrophic tax increase, it still illustrates Georgia's reasoning for not expanding their Medicaid program.

            Sorry for the bad data.

            GA

            1. My Esoteric profile image87
              My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hey, in my former life, I was a cost analyst for the Air Force; you have no idea how many iterations and peer reviews I went through before sending my work up the chain (and we are talking the Sec AF or higher on a few occasions).  Even after all of that, embarrassments happened, fortunately not the really big ones.

              Question, is the 4.1% GAs portion after the Fed's subsidy.  Also, like all income tax structures, they are in effect means tested where the higher income earners pay a higher marginal rate than the lower income earners.  So if the bill is an extra $254 million, not that it is fair, most of that will probably be paid by individuals and businesses who won't notice it is gone, especially given these are the same people and companies who give that much and more political PACS to influence the vote in State and Federal government (granted that is a voluntary use of their money rather than a tax, but I like the benefit of the involuntary tax much better than hurt of voluntary lobbying; it is all a matter of perspective, isn't it.)

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How is it that the people without lots of money figure that the rich "won't notice it is gone" when they take a few thousand or tens of thousands from them? 

                Of course they'll notice it's gone - it's how they became rich in the first place, by paying attention to what their money is doing!  Plus, it may well mean they can't buy that new car or put as much into the PAC that is helping maintain their status of being rich.

                1. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Because it works this way @Wilderness.  If 254,000 wealthy people in GA, and I know there are at least that many, pay an extra $1,000 in taxes, which they wouldn't, since there are millions of other tax payers, each one of those would probably do what I do each month.  Sell 30 Bull Put Vertical Option contracts on $SPY with an expiration date in 45 days or so, assuming the market signs are right, with a $2 spread and they will have just gotten back their $1,000 plus some.  If the market signs show the market going down, then then they Sell Bear Call Vertical Option contracts with the same parameters and they still get back their $1,000.  If they don't know what the market is going to do, they wait until the next month, which is what I am doing right now.

                  That is how I know.

                  But that isn't the real issue is it.  The real issue is whether the State and Federal government should tax at all, whether the Preamble to Constitution were just throw-away words with zero meaning and shouldn't have been written at all.

                  From my point of view, if you don't take those words and verbs it contains to heart and literally, then you don't really believe in the Constitution but something else entirely, probably the Articles of Confederation.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course they can pay it, and without going hungry.  Will the loss of that $1,000 go unnoticed?  Of course not, which is what I said.

                    And you're counting people, at a quarter million in the state, that do not consider themselves rich.  That will absolutely miss that $1,000 (saying they can earn it by more work doesn't mean it isn't gone).

                    Don't forget that you're already hitting them for tens of thousands more in taxes than the vast majority will ever pay.  For exactly the same benefit that everyone gets, and now you want to hit them harder.  And don't forget as well that their tax rate is already going to raise considerably to pay for this giant boondoggle called Obamacare (and the associated costs like increased medicaid).  You can pretend that because it's federal money the rich aren't going to foot the bill for a massive increase in medicaid, but they are.  It can't all come from raiding SS - there isn't that much money there if they took it all.

              2. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The 4.1% is the Medicaid costs increase to Georgia after all Fed contributions have been accounted for.

                I see Wilderness already hit the next point - but...

                "...not that it is fair, most of that will probably be paid by individuals and businesses who won't notice it is gone,..."

                Geesh, really? You really want to say it might not be so bad if the rich had to pay it? And you really let the cat out of the bag with your perspective that they won't even notice it's gone.

                But that is incorrect even if you thought it might not be so bad. The average taxpayer number of $726 was just that - an average - add up all the high taxpayers and the tax refund receivers, divide by the total number of taxpayers and you get the average - $726

                You are right about it being a matter of perspective, as in you seem to believe the extra tax is OK if it achieves something you want, and even more OK if it is the rich that have to pay it. I don't see it that way, and apparently Georgia didn't either.

                GA

                1. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I probably shouldn't have said "notice" that is a euphemism for "won't be bothered by the loss of it".  Of course they will "notice", that is partly the reason they are rich in the first place, it just won't have any impact on their net worth; a drop in the bucket so to speak.

                  The reason I don't feel badly about the rich paying more is because they have benefited more from the services offered by this country which are not available to people of lesser means, such as, but not limited to access to Congress, and they need to pay their fair share for those services.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Which services did they use more of?  Which ones are devoted only to rich people?  Services paid for by taxes, of course.

                    And anyone can write to the congressman or visit congress in session.  Beyond that, the rich have paid dearly for their access, and not through taxes.

    3. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We are a Federal Constitutional Republic.  The Supreme Court - Roberts sided with the liberal justices in this one - failed to FORCE the states into an Unconstitutional expansion of Medicare at the command of the Federal government.  What is the problem?  If there is one, then it is up to each state to fix it.  Rather than FORCING the states to do YOUR will, why not win a few elections in those states and change their laws, or is that too democratic?

      Lefties love to talk about democracy until they can't get their way, then they entreat the least democratic method to change the law - the courts.  If lefties actually valued democracy they would change the law through democratic means. Campaign on the merits of their position, convince a large enough portion of voters to get elected and work with like minded legislators to change the law - but no - lets blame or praise the APPOINTED justices of the Supreme Court for by passing the electorate.

      There is nothing less democratic than a Supreme Court decision.

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My words are nevertheless true.  Roberts and the other Conservatives on the Court were well aware of the consequences of their actions, which are philosophically-based, not specifically Constitutionally-based.  If they were an absolutely clear violation of the Constitution, then Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would have been found to be Unconstitutional in other rulings as well.

        No, this is the 5 Justices 'interpretation" of the Constitution; the other 4 Justices saw it the other way.  Now, if this had been, say, a 8 - 1 ruling against that portion, you might have a point, but it wasn't, it was 5 very Conservative to mostly Conservative against 4 rather Liberal to very Liberal Justices.

        Also, you need to remember, virtually all of those who wrote and signed the Constitution were opposed to "Democracy"; they thought it the worst form of government in both theory AND practice.  That is why they really didn't want a popularly elected President and Senate, which, as we all know, didn't start out that way.  There was also heavy debate as to whether the House would be elected by the People or State Legislatures; fortunately the People won.  As to the Supreme Court - they were intended to be autocratic in their final ruling but democratic in determining the ruling; the final arbiter, the interpreter of the Constitution, and quickly were also the unchallenged adjudicator of whether Congress overstepped its authority vis-a-vis the Constitution.

        The fathers distrust of democracy led to America being a Republic, the checks and balances, and the two Houses.  There is NOTHING democratic about the House Rules or Senate Procedures;  With gerrymandering rampant in America and Citizens United being the Law of the Land, there is nothing democratic in our election process either.

        So, trying to use such "bumper sticker" phrases as "There is nothing less democratic than a Supreme Court decision" is meaningless because 1) it wasn't supposed to be and 2) there is nothing democratic about this country at this point in time, and for the most part, it was never intended to be.

        As to 'forcing' the States', that started with the ratification of the Constitution itself, didn't it; there were several States that didn't want to go along, but nevertheless had to or be left behind.  In this case, the Federal government knew States like Texas and Florida would rather keep doing wrong by American citizens than do right and jeopardize their health care, so force they will ... just like they did when they FORCED them to end slavery.  Would you have opposed that too?

        1. profile image60
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This ends the conversation, the scurrilous retreat of the scoundrel - equate any opposition to an intrusive government to support for the most DEMOCRAT of institutions - slavery.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Obviously Retief, you could use a firm refresher in civics. Was I suppose to wait for southern legislatures to abolish JIM cROW IN a segregated south? The courts have a vital role of making sure an oppressive majority do not run rough shod over fundamental constitutional right of others not in the pecking order. Obviously, the rightwinger believes in democracy only for his and her own.

            1. profile image60
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Where is the "FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" to health insurance?

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Don't go daft on me, retief, you know what I am talking about, your general attitude about the courts and their function based on your earlier comments. The bait and switch approach will not serve you well here.

                1. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  This is specifically what is being discussed, keep your personal attacks to yourself.

              2. My Esoteric profile image87
                My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Reread the Preamble to the Constitution, @Retief, absorb the true meaning of those words and direction to the perpetual Union of States and Federal governments.

                The Federal government, to steal a few words from Abraham Lincoln is Of the People, By the People, and For the People.  He did "not" say Of the States, By the States, and For the States;  only the first phrase is correct.  He chose to use People because that is what the Constitution is all about.

                Now, put that in context with the Preamble and you should get an idea how those of us not on the Right think about the purpose of government.

                1. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, that it is a religious calling to compel everyone to live within the rich fantasy world you have created.  Perhaps reacquainting yourself with Amendment 10 will clear things up for you.  It is the States that created the United States, history is rather clear on this.

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Now you just shush, Retief.  We know the conservatives want to see people die because they follow the law, and that's just how it is.  If they really cared, they would ignore the laws of both the Constitution and US as well as the laws of economics, physics and everything else, and make sure the poor always have a lavish lifestyle to enjoy.

        After, all that's what the people loving liberals do, isn't it?  Ignore the constitution as they bankrupt the country with Obamacare?

        1. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As you well know,m @Wilderness, it has never been about " make sure the poor always have a lavish lifestyle to enjoy.", it has always been about "preventing those who can  from making sure the poor don't have a lavish lifestyle, if they can."

          You see, the difference between you and me is we both don't wan't any restrictions on somebody doing as best they can given their ability and determination.  But you seem to go one step further, you don't want to put any restrictions on somebody from unfairly preventing others from using their abilities and determination to get ahead as well

          It is OK with you for a wealthy guy to use his wealth to unfairly rig the deck against you without paying a price for doing so.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not at all; we just disagree on what is "unfair".  I try to live in reality while you want to live in a make believe world where money doesn't buy anything but necessities of life.  Plus, of course, whatever else you want; the yachts and jets that some want should not be available because it takes too much money and some people can't have a big screen TV as a result of others buying that yacht.

            That and a hatred for anyone you consider rich.  There seems to be an automatic assumption that anyone with more money than you have got it both illegally and immorally.  I do not find it such, and firmly believe that there are ethical rich people; nearly as many as unethical ones. 

            I don't like the rich being unfair (although buying things with their money is not "unfair" somehow) but refuse to descend to their level in a misbegotten effort to "make things right" according to my definition of "right".  You don't; you are more than willing to get right down in the mud with them, using the power of the masses to take what is plainly theirs to "level the playing field".  Well, let me tell you - the playing field is already level.  That they have built a mountain on one end doesn't mean that at the bottom of their accomplishments it isn't level.

            1. My Esoteric profile image87
              My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Where have I ever said "... the yachts and jets that some want should not be available because it takes too much money and some people can't have a big screen TV as a result of others buying that yacht"?  They can buy anything they want that makes them happy ... except politicians and monopolies,  price gouging, price cutting to force others out-of-business,  deceptive advertising, defective products to increase profits, paying subsistence wages because the labor has no choice but to work at them, and any similar thing where others don't have the same opportunity to return the favor of ruining their life.

              I don't hate people who are rich, otherwise I would hate myself ... and I don't.  I do hate, however, rich people who are unethical and unfair and use their power(which I am not) and wealth in unfair, unethical, and immoral ways.  By opposing me, you are declaring that you don't.

              In your last paragraph you just defined the difference between a minimal-state liberal (liberal because you care about individual rights) and active-state liberal.  President Grover Cleveland was a minimal-state liberal, President Abraham Lincoln was an active-state liberal, and Thomas Jefferson was both, depending on the issue and his mood; just to give you two historic reference points. 

              I have some hubs on the two types of liberalisms and give and overview of the two men who were most responsible for formalizing and promoting each view back when.  If you look at them, you might discern your argument in one and mine in the other.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But if their money goes to yachts and jets, it cannot end up in your grasp to do with as you please.  No more excessive entitlements, no more extreme taxation of the rich.  The money that "should have" gone to help the poor is already spent on "worthless" items.

                If you don't hate rich people, why do you wish to punish them all with extra taxation, (to make up for their unethical access and buying of politicians) regardless of any wrongdoing?

                As a financial conservative, I cannot understand the desire to take what others have to re-distribute it to the "poor" or "less fortunate".  I understand the desire to distribute my OWN money that way, but not to forcibly take from others to do it.  That is, IMHO, called theft and is immoral.  So no, I cannot identify with either liberal as both will re-distribute to suit their desires and buy votes.

                1. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How about because they are "unfairly" taking it from the poor, working, and middle classes and redistributing it to themselves in the first place.  I am just proposing to return it from where it came.  That which they "fairly" earned, they can keep. 

                  If someone robs a bank, they must return the money, shouldn't they?  Or, do they get to keep it since it is theirs now?

                  It is as simple as that to me.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How about defining "unfairly" - so far you have been very reticent to do that, but if you're going to make a claim like that you're going to have to define the terms. 

                    You don't mean to return it from where it came, because it "came" under 100% agreement from the one giving it.  A sale is usually that way; not a gun held to the head while the contract is signed.

                    As simple as that, yes, as long as you define a simple buy/sell contract between two consenting adults as theft because you don't like it.  You don't have that right.

                    It always ends up here with the liberals, doesn't it?  "I don't like that the rich have money, so will make up baseless accusations (theft, unfair) as excuses to force their money from them at gunpoint.  You want the money of the rich, ethically, find the law they violated and prosecute them in a court for it.  Until then, we are a nation of law, not vigilante action, no matter how large the group of thieves is.  You've gone from punishing them with higher taxes to pay for something they already bought and paid for (access) to raising taxes because they are "unfair" when a buyer agrees to the terms and on to the final excuse that they stole with every transaction.  All excuses, all baseless, and all just spin to justify legal theft from someone that has more than you do.

                    So I imagine it IS just that simple - the rich have what you want and you will take if you can.

  2. ChristinS profile image93
    ChristinSposted 3 years ago

    I get so angry at the demonization of the working poor in this country.  When you take everything from people and then scream at them to just "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" - it does nothing to help them.  Most of the people who do this have never understood what it's like to lose everything, or to not have family available who can help, or to live in an economically depressed area where all the good jobs have gone overseas.  It's not as simplistic as it's made to sound.  I know quite a few with advanced degrees who can't find work - and it isn't because they are lazy or not determined, it's because no one will hire them when they can get a kid fresh out of college cheap or outsource the work overseas.

    If we really wanted to be the compassionate people we claim to be, we'd institute better programs to help these people, but it seems to be the hip trend now to turn on the poor - that way the attention is diverted from the real "welfare queens" - the giant corps whose employees often have to depend on govt. assistance since they are not payed a living wage or offered decent benefits. 

    Sad state of affairs to deny medicaid to people.

    1. My Esoteric profile image87
      My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We did, but the Conservatives on the Supreme Court found it Unconstitutional and 14 Conservative States took advantage of it.

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How would you suggest we help?  Just throw money at them?

      How about giving each and every one a job - sweeping streets at $15 per hour.  They maintain their dignity by staying off charity, contribute to society in a useful way, and are still able to get along, albeit without the luxuries they are used to.

 
working