AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ACT
- Thread starter p_rehbein
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare
Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support
for citizens without current means to support basic needs.
History Of United States Welfare Programs
Welfare in the United States commonly refers to the federal government welfare programs that have been put in place to assist the unemployed or underemployed. Help is extended to the poor through a variety of government welfare programs that include Medicaid, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.
Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.
Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.
When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.
Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Social Security Act was enacted in 1935. The act, which was amended in 1939, established a number of programs designed to provide aid to various segments of the population. Unemployment compensation and AFDC (originally Aid to Dependent Children) are two of the programs that still exist today.
Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support
for citizens without current means to support basic needs.
History Of United States Welfare Programs
Welfare in the United States commonly refers to the federal government welfare programs that have been put in place to assist the unemployed or underemployed. Help is extended to the poor through a variety of government welfare programs that include Medicaid, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.
Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.
Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.
When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.
Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Social Security Act was enacted in 1935. The act, which was amended in 1939, established a number of programs designed to provide aid to various segments of the population. Unemployment compensation and AFDC (originally Aid to Dependent Children) are two of the programs that still exist today.
America is going to wish it took the advice that the Prophet Samuel gave to the ancient Israelites
when they wanted to depose God as their king and put in a human king. God said He would give
them what they wanted, but that that king would make them pay—and pay, and pay and pay
—until they didn’t want to pay another tax, ever again (1 Samuel 8:10-18).
-
Looking Back to 2009
the famous New York Times economist is not worried. He boldly claims that a national health
-care plan will bring “real competition to the health insurance market.” This competition will
drive down costs, he says. But this is another lie.
Two paragraphs earlier in his New York Times piece, he contradicts himself by saying that the
“near-universal coverage plan” will accomplish cost savings through “regulation and subsidies”
Since the recession began in 2007, health care is the only private-sector industry that has
consistently added jobs—21,000 per month on average for 2009.
Regulation and subsidies are anathema to free-market competition. If the government-run plan
goes through, then a level, free-market, competition-friendly playing field is out the window.
The government will become a player (subsidized by taxpayers) in a game in which it is also
referee (regulator). Who do you think will win? Eventually, there will only be one team in town:
the government’s. That makes it a government-backed monopoly.
Any Economics 101 student can tell you that government regulation, subsidies
and monopolies reduce competition and efficiency. Not good things for an economy.
The truth is: You cannot add coverage for 45 million more people without paying more—a lot
more—unless you degrade the service. If you believe you can, your faith violates several
economic laws—such as the law of the free lunch, which is that you can’t get one.
You just can’t get something from nothing.
-
Demonstrators for and against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul protested out
side the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26 as justices prepared to hear arguments over America’s
historic health-care expansion. The law was passed a year ago and is slated to take effect in 2014.
Arguments during the three-day hearing are focusing on a provision of the law that requires every
American to either purchase insurance or pay a fine. Almost all Americans will be affected by the
final decision, and the debate has sparked intense emotion among both supporters and opponents.
Impassioned supporters say Americans have a right to government-funded health care
regardless of their income.
At the rally, political activist Mark Kramer explained the supporters’ stance, saying,
“We are a rich and prosperous nation. It is only morally right that a minimal level of
health care should be a right and not a function of income for which job you have.”
On the other side of the divide, equally fervent opponents insist that government-enforced health
care is not a right. Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum explained his contrasting view,
saying, “Rights come from our Creator, they are protected by the Constitution of this country.
Rights should not and cannot be created by a government.”
The polarizing argument has become a key issue in the 2012 presidential campaign, and reflects
the widening divide between Americans. This election year, Americans are even more divided,
and tempers are flaring even hotter. - this issuse is still flaring up and deviding us still today
-
In his 1859 “House Divided” speech, Abraham Lincoln alluded to a statement made by Jesus
Christ: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house
divided against itself shall not stand.” Lincoln understood that deep, continuing political division
ends in ruin. A close look at modern America’s health-care debate, race relations, financial
disagreement and ideological differences reveals a divide deeper than perhaps at any time
since the Civil War.
America’s health-care fiasco has proven one thing: Mankind isn’t able to solve even basic
problems on its own—despite increasing knowledge and technology. Human nature—political
ideology, self-interest, greed and so on—simply gets in the way, and America swings from
one extreme to the other.
when they wanted to depose God as their king and put in a human king. God said He would give
them what they wanted, but that that king would make them pay—and pay, and pay and pay
—until they didn’t want to pay another tax, ever again (1 Samuel 8:10-18).
-
Looking Back to 2009
the famous New York Times economist is not worried. He boldly claims that a national health
-care plan will bring “real competition to the health insurance market.” This competition will
drive down costs, he says. But this is another lie.
Two paragraphs earlier in his New York Times piece, he contradicts himself by saying that the
“near-universal coverage plan” will accomplish cost savings through “regulation and subsidies”
Since the recession began in 2007, health care is the only private-sector industry that has
consistently added jobs—21,000 per month on average for 2009.
Regulation and subsidies are anathema to free-market competition. If the government-run plan
goes through, then a level, free-market, competition-friendly playing field is out the window.
The government will become a player (subsidized by taxpayers) in a game in which it is also
referee (regulator). Who do you think will win? Eventually, there will only be one team in town:
the government’s. That makes it a government-backed monopoly.
Any Economics 101 student can tell you that government regulation, subsidies
and monopolies reduce competition and efficiency. Not good things for an economy.
The truth is: You cannot add coverage for 45 million more people without paying more—a lot
more—unless you degrade the service. If you believe you can, your faith violates several
economic laws—such as the law of the free lunch, which is that you can’t get one.
You just can’t get something from nothing.
-
Demonstrators for and against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul protested out
side the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26 as justices prepared to hear arguments over America’s
historic health-care expansion. The law was passed a year ago and is slated to take effect in 2014.
Arguments during the three-day hearing are focusing on a provision of the law that requires every
American to either purchase insurance or pay a fine. Almost all Americans will be affected by the
final decision, and the debate has sparked intense emotion among both supporters and opponents.
Impassioned supporters say Americans have a right to government-funded health care
regardless of their income.
At the rally, political activist Mark Kramer explained the supporters’ stance, saying,
“We are a rich and prosperous nation. It is only morally right that a minimal level of
health care should be a right and not a function of income for which job you have.”
On the other side of the divide, equally fervent opponents insist that government-enforced health
care is not a right. Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum explained his contrasting view,
saying, “Rights come from our Creator, they are protected by the Constitution of this country.
Rights should not and cannot be created by a government.”
The polarizing argument has become a key issue in the 2012 presidential campaign, and reflects
the widening divide between Americans. This election year, Americans are even more divided,
and tempers are flaring even hotter. - this issuse is still flaring up and deviding us still today
-
In his 1859 “House Divided” speech, Abraham Lincoln alluded to a statement made by Jesus
Christ: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house
divided against itself shall not stand.” Lincoln understood that deep, continuing political division
ends in ruin. A close look at modern America’s health-care debate, race relations, financial
disagreement and ideological differences reveals a divide deeper than perhaps at any time
since the Civil War.
America’s health-care fiasco has proven one thing: Mankind isn’t able to solve even basic
problems on its own—despite increasing knowledge and technology. Human nature—political
ideology, self-interest, greed and so on—simply gets in the way, and America swings from
one extreme to the other.
LOL. Once again Utah, like other deluded right wingers on this forum, attempts to discredit me by pretending that I have not invoked the writings of a CONSERVATIVE group. Th e group in that link completely refutes his previous illogical post. It proves him wrong, while again proving me correct.
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances
against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revelution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry.
Law students today want A revolving constituion that changes at will, or change to say what they want
-
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[8] containing
"the most potent and consequential words in American history".[9] The passage came to represent
a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham
Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that
the Declaration is a statement ofprinciples through which the United States Constitution should be interp
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/06/the-meaning-of-the-pursuit-of-happiness
The right to “the pursuit of happiness” affirmed in the Declaration of Independence is taken these days
to affirm a right to chase after whatever makes one subjectively happy. Further, the Declaration doesn’t
guarantee the right to happiness, the thought usually goes, but only the right to pursue what makes you
happy. But this reading of the Declaration’s “pursuit of happiness” is wrong on both scores.
In correspondence between James Madison and James Monroe in 1786, Madison notes that “happiness”
cannot simply be identified with meeting people’s interests, but includes a higher reference:
against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revelution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry.
Law students today want A revolving constituion that changes at will, or change to say what they want
-
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[8] containing
"the most potent and consequential words in American history".[9] The passage came to represent
a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham
Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that
the Declaration is a statement ofprinciples through which the United States Constitution should be interp
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/06/the-meaning-of-the-pursuit-of-happiness
The right to “the pursuit of happiness” affirmed in the Declaration of Independence is taken these days
to affirm a right to chase after whatever makes one subjectively happy. Further, the Declaration doesn’t
guarantee the right to happiness, the thought usually goes, but only the right to pursue what makes you
happy. But this reading of the Declaration’s “pursuit of happiness” is wrong on both scores.
In correspondence between James Madison and James Monroe in 1786, Madison notes that “happiness”
cannot simply be identified with meeting people’s interests, but includes a higher reference:
Job was the wealthiest and greatest man of the east (Job 1:3)
and a noted builder. (Compare Job 3:13-14 with God’s challenge
in Job 38:4-6.) He was so upright and perfect, God even dared
Satan to find a flaw in his character. Actually, there was a
terrible sin in his life—self-righteousness.
But God brought him to repentance. (See Job, chapters 38-42.)
and a noted builder. (Compare Job 3:13-14 with God’s challenge
in Job 38:4-6.) He was so upright and perfect, God even dared
Satan to find a flaw in his character. Actually, there was a
terrible sin in his life—self-righteousness.
But God brought him to repentance. (See Job, chapters 38-42.)
But you have to add one more provision to that - if you don't have insurance, and cannot afford to pay for your healthcare, THEN YOU DON'T GET HEALTHCARE.
When someone walks into an ER and gets "free" healthcare, guess who gets to pay for it? I do - thru my taxes and more so thru my insurance premiums. Why do think a hospital charges $15 for an aspirin? To pay for all the aspirins the law tells them they have to give away for "FREE".
You want free market healthcare? Fine. Then be prepared to be turned away in your sickness when you can't pay for care. Because making ME pay for your care is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. And God forbid we even entertain that idea!
When someone walks into an ER and gets "free" healthcare, guess who gets to pay for it? I do - thru my taxes and more so thru my insurance premiums. Why do think a hospital charges $15 for an aspirin? To pay for all the aspirins the law tells them they have to give away for "FREE".
You want free market healthcare? Fine. Then be prepared to be turned away in your sickness when you can't pay for care. Because making ME pay for your care is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. And God forbid we even entertain that idea!
You can get a bottle of aspirin in a store here for $5. But if you are in the hospital or similar facility, they will charge you 10, 15, 20 bucks for a single aspirin. Why? because Joe Capitalist, who doesn't want to be forced to buy medical insurance, can just walk into any ER and get his aspirin for free by saying he can't afford it. So the Hospital gives it to him and sticks the charge onto MY bill because I have insurance and can 'pay for it'. Yeah I pay for Joe's aspirin, if by my deductible 100%, if by beyond that 20%, and really all of it once again via my premiums. 'Cause you know the capitalist insurance company is going to stick it's little fee onto my share of it.
That's why, if Joe Capitalist really wants free market medicine, then he has to accept that if he can't pay for it HE DOESN'T GET IT. Because if he insists that I foot his bill he's now talking socialized medicine. And oh the horrors of that.
That's why, if Joe Capitalist really wants free market medicine, then he has to accept that if he can't pay for it HE DOESN'T GET IT. Because if he insists that I foot his bill he's now talking socialized medicine. And oh the horrors of that.
- Status