DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Repeal and Replace Obama Care

That was for the Jewish people specifically. The Lord brought them out of Egypt, into a land of the Canaanites, and forced out people bigger and more powerful than they were. The land He gave them had houses and cities already built. It had fields already planted, and vineyards and fruit trees that were already mature.

Because God gave them a mature land, "flowing with milk and honey", and because He dispossessed the people so the Jewish people could move in, they were to pay 10% to the Lord. Some of this was burned on the altar, to the Lord, and many other times the sacrifice was cooked for the people themselves to eat. The sacrifices also supported the Levites, who were given no inheritance in the land.

The reason the Jews were required to give of the first fruits of their fields, was to redeem their first born, whom God passed over when he slaughtered the first born of the Egyptians, when He led the Jews out of Egypt.

There is nothing that says that any other people are required to pay a set tithe. Paul said that we should give whatever we give with a joyful heart, but no set percentage. The tithe was part of the old system of sacrifice for the remission of sin. Once Jesus because our perfect and complete sacrifice, that old system went away.

Yes, I know. Swish said the 10% tithe was invented by the Churches. That is who I replied to. That was false.

Ooops. Mibad.

Go to the bad thread and bash me mercilessly. I deserve it.

Okay, I'll play. First off, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY.
It has to do with with over reaching politicians deciding how much we should pay. Then they promote the Poor like they can't help themselves and want to to depend on the Government for support. It's all about control. If the church took care of it's own like they are supposed to, the Government would not have got involved in the first place. But like anything else, give "em a inch and they take a mile.

I completely understand as it has been a long time since we had a Religious Thread and we could go WILD!!!

Never worry about upsetting a Christian, he will always forgive you.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me.

Too late for Scripture now, you blew it when you had your chance.

The Lord is not a Socialist.

Nope. He is loving, and generous. However, He did not force any rich person to give up their fortunes. In one instance, He suggested to the rich young ruler that he give up his worldly goods, and follow Jesus .... but the young ruler declined, because he was extremely wealthy. Jesus never ordered anyone to be generous, and He never ordered anyone to seize anyone else's property in order to help others.

There is a massive difference between telling people what they should do, and deciding for them what they will do, and taking their money to do those things.

Excellent point!

I will call Bernie and have him read your post.

Yes, we must ignore what he says we should do and only follow the letter of the law on what we must do.

That's why they call it free will. We get to make up are own minds, unlike what some would have you do.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

Um ... what?

It seems as though you want to live under the Law, not what Jesus (and later Paul, in God's name) taught.

Paul said to give with a joyful heart, whatever our heart leads us to give. God doesn't want someone giving their 10%, every week, suffering as they write out the check, putting on a big display of their piety .....

That's what the Pharisees did. (well, without the checks, but you get the point)

God wants us to give joyfully, with love in our hearts. He doesn't just want our money, but He wants us to give of ourselves, helping those in need on a personal level, sharing His love with those who are suffering. He wants us to give of hat which He gives us, and He wants us to give our time, love, effort, and service. He wants us to do this not because it is required of us, not to show off to other people, but because we want to, and really can't help but share the love He showed us.

Regardless of how you put it, seems like the overall message is don't be a douchebag and help people out.

Taking away healthcare from the poor and disabled isn't helping people out.

So when you guys use the religion argument in these political debates, all it does is:

A. Provides proof that the moral thing to do is to provide healthcare for all, and
B. That if you argue against it, then you're really only using the Bible as a guideline, cause when you argue against helping people, doesn't really sound like the "Christian" thing to do.

But you guys pick and choose when to invoke the good book all the time so, not surprising.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=ESV

Not true.

I once tried to give away all that I owned, every penny I had.
I called 100 charities to come to the house, the only stipulation was they had to spend one hour talking with me before I would write the check.

99 could not complete the hour and the guy from the local School for the Deaf went home with a check for $150 Grand. The rest I still have.

Y'all so cute at sniping each other with scripture. Anyone want to give my post a try?

Its too long for me to read. Maybe someone else.

There does seem to be some confusion though.
I Love giving money to those in need, it is so fulfilling.
I Hate having the government take my money and give it to those they think are in need, it is so frustrating.

It's a long book.

I have read the Book many times and that is probably why I don't have the eyes to read your post in orange on a brown background.

I posted the chapters' names and numbers. I'm hearing excuses, 40.

You are only Trolling.

Stop attacking my Christianity.

It is not yours, its YTowns.

GOP Wants to Save Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions -- But Only for Themselves

Elizabeth O'Brien
Apr 26, 2017

Republican lawmakers appear to have proposed health insurance for the American people that they don’t consider good enough for themselves -- or their staffs.

As Congressional Republicans revive their efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, they have included a loophole that would protect legislators and their staffs from weakened protections that could hurt other American insurance buyers, Vox first reported Tuesday night.

Formally known as the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare included a provision requiring members of Congress and their staffs to buy their coverage on an Obamacare marketplace; they currently get coverage through a Washington, D.C., exchange aimed at small business coverage, where they also get a significant employer contribution from the federal government. Obamacare also established strong protections for people with pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes and depression -- preventing consumers from being charged more or denied coverage on an individual marketplace because of their health status.

Now, in their replacement legislation, Republicans have proposed rolling back these protections on a national level -- but have said that those protections must remain in place for themselves and their staffs.

Critics pounced immediately. “If House Republicans are afraid of TrumpCare for themselves, they have no right to force it on hard-working American families,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. The Republican behind the amendment, Rep. Tom MacArthur, vowed later Wednesday to close the loophole, Vox reported.

One way the House proposal would weaken protections for those with pre-existing conditions is by letting states apply for a waiver that would allow insurers to charge people different premiums based on their health status. Under such a system, someone with metastatic cancer could be charged an additional $142,650 annually in premiums, according to a study by the (liberal-leaning) Center for American Progress, while someone with asthma could be charged an additional $4,340 a year.

States would also have the option, under the GOP-backed amendment, of establishing high-risk pools for state residents who would otherwise be unable to get coverage. These pools existed before Obamacare, and research showed they often failed to make coverage affordable and accessible.

It’s not surprising that Congress members seem inclined to avoid premium hikes based on their existing health conditions. In general, the prevalence of pre-existing conditions tends to rise with age -- and the average age of U.S. lawmakers has been increasing. The average age of a U.S. Representative is 57 and the average age of a Senator is 61, according to Quorum.

It remains unclear whether the replacement bill will garner enough votes to pass the House -- and whether the exemption will survive the legislative process. “It doesn’t strike me as the most politically savvy provision to include,” says Sabrina Corlette, research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.
http://time.com/money/4756211/obamacare-repeal-republican-lawmakers-preexisting-conditions/

More of the GOP looking out for the little guy... scum.

That was taken out yesterday. Only way to get Freedom Caucus to vote for it.

Thanks for the heads up, they are still snakes for trying.

More Bogus

Go eat some troll chow lil snickers! You just aren't yourself when you are hungry.

Well, once again the Republicans are trying to Pass the new healthcare plan.
Trump is meeting with them left and right, trying to get them together on this thang.

Will the Republican Party fix this mess as promised over the last 8 years?
Will the Democrats continue to say ObamaCare is just fine?
Film at 11

I think if you ask any democrat, they'll tell you the ACA needs work. It's very very far from Perfect.

But it is a framework from which improvements can be made. But it will take Bi Partisan efforts to do it and in this climate, I'm wondering if that is even possible.

The trouble is you have republicans that still have there heads up their butt, like the one from down south somewhere that says if you live a good life you won't have pre-existing conditions. (I'll try to get you the name if you want)

That is an idiotic statement... you and I disagree about Trump, that damn, I'm betting even you know that's dumb.

By the way, the idiot that made that statement was:
Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama..

No such thing as Bi Partisanship when the Democrats don't care to be part of the solution and have quit the system.

Can't fix O care when the insurance companies want out of that boondoggle.

Perhaps we could spend all of America's money or run up more huge debt to keep ObamaCare going but I don't think anyone wants that.

Yes, and the Republicans were the party of YES for 8 years.

Get the hell off your high horse.. Neither side is willing to budge and that's flat out wrong..

That blame game wears thin when you gotta look in the mirror don't you think? Wait, No, of course you don't think..

You started the crap with this statement...

"The trouble is you have republicans that still have there heads up their butt,"

And I balanced your one sided drivel with the Democrats taking their ball and going home since the election when they got butt hurt like you are now.

There is no Bi Partisanship when neither side plays.

And I stand by that statement, but to appease you, We have Democrats with their heads up there butt also.,

Feel better now?

lol why are you so angry with the dems?

i mean unless i was sleep when it happened, i could've swore the republicans have control of everything. the way you post, one would've thought Obama was still president.

i get it though. you're just salty cause you voted for these guys and they have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Republicans went from saying no to the Dems, to saying no to themselves.

do you guys not like yourselves? is it a self esteem problem? they have shrinks for that.

Now that is fair and balanced.

That's a pretty good point. Trump is doing the same thing. Blaming the Dems, Obama, Hillary and now Abe Lincoln...LOL

He can't even get his own party on board with his plans...

LOL They even had to change the rules in the senate to get Gorsuch in. (yeah I know, they just did what the Dems did prior.. except the dems never did it for a Supreme Court Justice)

If this keeps up, can you imagine how much more ineffective Trump will be after the 2018 mid term elections.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans lost both the house and senate..

Wait, how could he be less effective than he already is, he's not gotten one piece of legislation passed yet has he?

Both sides have forgotten we have checks and balances for a reason.. and that reason is to keep dictators like Trump from taking over.

Funny thing, he's failing with both the house and senate republican held.....

In all honesty, until these idiots in DC learn to get along and quit dividing us (something I think both sides want), nothing of real value will ever get done. Not a damn thing.