Covered California -- the states Obamacare exchange-- is mailing voter registration cards to 4 million Californians who shopped on the exchange for insurance. The cards are being sent out in hard to miss envelopes, in different languages and their postage paid.
Democrats/Communists have all the power in this state and use it to just walk all over Republicans all the time. Republicans stand no chance and won't for the foreseeable future.
[This message has been edited by V8 Vega (edited 05-17-2014).]
Why would they want to link Obamacare with voter registration in anyone's mind? If Obamacare is as disadvantageous for most people as many have said it is, on this forum. Seems like it might backfire against any candidate who supports Obamacare, or is not perceived to be ardently opposed to it.
I guess the theory could be that low information voters would not realize that Obamacare is actually a step backwards in terms of their health care insurance and medical needs.
Why would they want to link Obamacare with voter registration in anyone's mind? If Obamacare is as disadvantageous for most people as many have said it is, on this forum. Seems like it might backfire against any candidate who supports Obamacare, or is not perceived to be ardently opposed to it.
I guess the theory could be that low information voters would not realize that Obamacare is actually a step backwards in terms of their health care insurance and medical needs.
Look Rinsel, I know you think you're being clever here, but it's pretty simple. Socialism is about the non-productive part of society taking advantage of the productive part of society. They know that the majority of the people who will be signing up for Obamacare will all likely be on the non-productive side, the have nots, and those who have LEARNED to rely or have become reliant permenantly on government hand-outs. The Democrats know these are people who are compliant with their vision of America and they want to reach out to them. They know that the overwhelming vast majority of people who will sign up for Obamacare are potential Democrats. This is them abusing their power by trying to take advantage of it.
Can you imagine the outcry from the Democrats if every tax-break or business license came with a voter registration form?
So, don't be coy, and stop pretending to be silly here. It's very obvious what this was.
Socialism is about the non-productive part of society taking advantage of the productive part of society.
Where you're wrong in this statement is that it assumes that those two groups are monolithic blocks from cradle to grave and that's not true. Someone who's not productive at one point of their life may become productive and vice versa. It's rather that the ones who at a certain point in time are capable to help others keep afloat do so with the expectation that if and when they need the same one day, they will get it.
Where you're wrong in this statement is that it assumes that those two groups are monolithic blocks from cradle to grave and that's not true. Someone who's not productive at one point of their life may become productive and vice versa. It's rather that the ones who at a certain point in time are capable to help others keep afloat do so with the expectation that if and when they need the same one day, they will get it.
Nothing I said makes the assumption that people can't try to better themselves. YOU made that assumption, is that what you believe? Socialism is wealth re-distribution, not keeping others afloat. What I said completely stands still, and now you're totally changing the subject from voter registration under Obamacare, to semantics about what is and what isn't socialism in defense of it.
But haven't some posters here been saying that almost no one (except for certain health insurance companies) benefits from Obamacare?
I think that I would rather have the nonproductives (who are living not that far from where I live) receiving basic healthcare, than not. I don't want to see them scurrying around spreading disease, or putting a financial burden on the private hospitals and county-funded hospitals by going to the ER for their routine medical needs. Those are hospitals that I might need to use.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-17-2014).]
But haven't some posters here been saying that almost no one (except for certain health insurance companies) benefits from Obamacare?
I think that I would rather have the nonproductives (who are living not that far from where I live) receiving basic healthcare, than not. I don't want to see them scurrying around spreading disease, or putting a financial burden on the private hospitals and county-funded hospitals by going to the ER for their routine medical needs. Those are hospitals that I might need to use.
So now you're saying that you're concern is for the private hospitals?
Come on man, this was a huge disaster, and it had nothing at all to do with helping the poor. This had to do with controlling and regulating 1/6th of the US economy. If they were REALLY concerned about helping the poor, they could have easily raised the income maximums and increased the funding to Medicaid. Then, pass a SINGLE bill that eliminates the pre-existing condition clause. It would have cost 1/4 per year what we're spending right now, and would have done a lot more for people. It wouldn't have set heavy burdens on corporations, caused people to be laid off or converted to part time, etc. I mean, corporations were more than happy to offer healthcare to their employees as they had been doing for decades, but now with Obamacare, more than half of them have been REMOVED from corporate healthcare, and moved to Medicaid and on the taxpayer dime. There has been NOTHING positive about Obamacare, I mean, even the pre-existing condition clause hasn't been honored under this plan. It's been a huge disaster, I almost seriously question whether or not it was intentional for the purpose of weaning everyone off of private insurance so they could move to a socialist single-payer system.
Covered California -- the states Obamacare exchange-- is mailing voter registration cards to 4 million Californians who shopped on the exchange for insurance.
Getting more people to use their voting right by all possible means if a good thing IMO. It should be done at every opportunity and targeted at any demographic.
quote
Originally posted by V8 Vega:Democrats/Communists have all the power in this state and use it to just walk all over Republicans all the time. Republicans stand no chance and won't for the foreseeable future.
I assume that you smell a communist plot behind this scheme. But why would the "Democrats/Communists" need to do this if, as you yourself said, "Republicans stand no chance and won't for the foreseeable future."?
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-17-2014).]
Where you're wrong in this statement is that it assumes that those two groups are monolithic blocks from cradle to grave and that's not true. Someone who's not productive at one point of their life may become productive and vice versa. It's rather that the ones who at a certain point in time are capable to help others keep afloat do so with the expectation that if and when they need the same one day, they will get it.
That's a great idea and it may work that way in other nations, but the implementation in the US breeds dependence, not assistance. Too many programs to make poverty "easy" and not enough to help people get OUT of poverty.
Too many programs to make poverty "easy" and not enough to help people get OUT of poverty.
I agree completely that public assistance should not enable people to live a comfortable life. It needs to require individuals to show that they're trying to better themselves and be indexed to local cost of living.
Getting more people to use their voting right by all possible means if a good thing IMO. It should be done at every opportunity and targeted at any demographic.
Yep, seems to be the way our government is working this. "By all possible means."
If you can't detect a vote grab... ...there is no need for us to explain it to you.
What I said before...
quote
Getting more people to use their voting right by all possible means if a good thing IMO. It should be done at every opportunity and targeted at any demographic.
Of course, it would be easier if there was a central registry of citizens with their current addresses (e.g. for an ID card scheme) and voter registration could be done from that. Then there could be no favoritism/grab, real or perceived.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-17-2014).]
Getting more people to use their voting right by all possible means if a good thing IMO. It should be done at every opportunity and targeted at any demographic.
A "vote grab" is an intent to gain votes of a very specific voting block for the benefit of ONE party. DMV... I don't care how wealthy you are... you'll be waiting in line at the DMV to get your drives license. Obamacare, ONLY Democrats. Again... imagine the uproar from Democrats if we included voter registration forms when President Bush sent out the $300-$600 check to every US citizen in the mail to spur the economy?
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone:
I assume that you smell a communist plot behind this scheme. But why would the "Democrats/Communists" need to do this if, as you yourself said, "Republicans stand no chance and won't for the foreseeable future."?
No, not a communist plot. It's not like there haven't actually been some in the past (we know this as fact here in the United States), but I don't think it's a communist plot. What I DO think, however, is that many people who are very well intentioned, are extremely misguided on the way people work. I'm sure you've heard the proverb... give a man fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, you feed him for life. Well, that has far more impact on our society than you think. I make the assumption that YOU have good intentions (I just believe you are misguided). I think Rinselberg (since he's in this discussion too) is also well intentioned, though I think he enjoys playing "team sports" sometimes when it comes to politics. But what I don't think you guys realize is that the more you try to help people who DON'T WANT to help themselves, the even less they will want to help themselves and the more dependent upon government programs they will become.
Under the Clinton administration, with the Newt Gingrich "great compromise", welfare was corrected, in a way that I would say had an excellent balance. Welfare was put on time limits... you only got section 8, or assistance for a period of time. And that's how it should be.
Now, all bets are off... there's basically no time limits. People are on permenant section 8 housing, people get free internet, free cell-phones, free healthcare, free subsidy, free food... I mean, there are literally people who's entire existence, everything is free.
If you can tell me that you think this is how it should be, and that this isn't really screwed up, then I think you're gravely mistaken if you actually think that ANY of the people in THAT situation have any intention of looking for a job and getting off welfare.
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone:
I agree completely that public assistance should not enable people to live a comfortable life. It needs to require individuals to show that they're trying to better themselves and be indexed to local cost of living.
So then why do you constantly back the Democrat party? For all your anti-conservativeness... what you just posted there is the ANTITHISES of the Democrat party.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-17-2014).]
So then why do you constantly back the Democrat party? For all your anti-conservativeness... what you just posted there is the ANTITHISES of the Democrat party.
I don't, per se. I just think that they're less crazy than the other guys, in many ways. I also dislike the much stronger role displays of religion play in the Republican party. Since there are only two parties in the US, I'd have to default to the Dems. I'm for welfare, just controlled and limited, so it can be sustainable for the long term.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-17-2014).]
I don't, per se. I just think that they're less crazy than the other guys, in many ways. I also dislike the much stronger role displays of religion play in the Republican party. Since there are only two parties in the US, I'd have to default to the Dems. I'm for welfare, just controlled and limited, so it can be sustainable for the long term.
You're back-tracking now... the current Democrat party has no interest in controlled and limited welfare... they use it as a means to acquire more votes and a dependent class that they can rely on for continued votes.
You're back-tracking now... the current Democrat party has no interest in controlled and limited welfare... they use it as a means to acquire more votes and a dependent class that they can rely on for continued votes.
I was stating what my opinion in the matter is... no matter what the Democratic Party thinks about it.
...there is no need for us to explain it to you.
