|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 01 2013 14:20 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:19 SnipedSoul wrote:On October 01 2013 14:18 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Until what ends? Government shutdown. All non-essential personnel (congresspeople are essential, of course) are expected to work for free until the government is revived. Why is that happening? And why wouldn't they all just strike?
GO READ THE FUCKING NEWS.
also they won't strike because
A: they should get paid after the end of it (they have in the past)
B: I don't think government workers are allowed to collectively bargain
C: they already have a pretty good deal anyway.
|
On October 01 2013 14:15 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:14 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2013 14:01 tree.hugger wrote:
What is it with the Republican obsession with hurting poor people? If you presume Obamacare to be helping poor people, you are very wrong. It's hurting their ability to get a job, it's hurting their abilty to advance within their current job, and it's a very bad means of welfare for the rest. Those are some mighty fine talking points you have there. Mind if I ask where you got them?
He deserves that quality. Alleging irrational hatred of poor people doesn't merit much of a response. Maybe you think the Republicans are against apple pie and motherhood as well?
|
On October 01 2013 13:45 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:24 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:15 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I mean really, what the hell are you talking about? Some crazy broad definition of creditor? My definition of creditor is the same as yours. What on earth are you talking about? Paying creditors is a small portion of Federal spending. ^ I think the treasury can cover that tyvm. Your definition of realistic isn't the same as mine. Unless you think we can cut government spending by roughly 20% in seventeen days? We need to cut by 20%? Source? My apologies. 40%, not 20%. SourceAnd that's if we only consider those people to be creditors as opposed to, say, everybody the US government owes money to. Source
It sounds like the 44% number is relative to all spending and specifically for August.
Also, the article made a point of: The BPC does not see it likely there will be an actual default on bond payments.
On October 01 2013 13:48 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:26 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
They're writing broadly for the general public.
Creditor usually means debt holder. Do you have a source that contradicts the Treasury? It seems pretty clear that the ability to spend money is not at all the same thing as the ability to honor repayments. The treasury borrows cash to meet the government's cash commitments. Some of those commitments are creditor claims (interest payments and more broadly entitlement claims). Other commitments are 'essential' government services. Other claims are non-essential services. When we talk about 'default' we mean one specific thing - not making interest / principal payments on bonds. That's a very small portion of spending that can be prioritized. Hence, we'll have a government shutdown where non-essential spending will stop in order to preserve cash for higher priority items. You must have misunderstood me. I asked for a source that contradicts the Treasury's statement, not a couple of sentences by an anonymous TL poster. Unless you happen to be the personal embodiment of the Treasury. That's not the definition of default, either. Defaults happen when you can't pay for your obligated expenditures.
The Treasury doesn't contradict me, so why do I need a source to contradict the Treasury? The Treasury wrote that meeting cash commitments =/= new spending. That doesn't contradict what I wrote.
|
On October 01 2013 14:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:15 SnipedSoul wrote:On October 01 2013 14:14 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2013 14:01 tree.hugger wrote:
What is it with the Republican obsession with hurting poor people? If you presume Obamacare to be helping poor people, you are very wrong. It's hurting their ability to get a job, it's hurting their abilty to advance within their current job, and it's a very bad means of welfare for the rest. Those are some mighty fine talking points you have there. Mind if I ask where you got them? He deserves that quality. Alleging irrational hatred of poor people doesn't merit much of a response. Maybe you think the Republicans are against apple pie and motherhood as well?
I think it's reasonable to think that they don't much care for poor people when all republicans talk about is cutting programs intended to prevent poor people from experiencing starvation, homelessness, and lack of health care.
|
On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:45 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:24 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:15 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I mean really, what the hell are you talking about? Some crazy broad definition of creditor? My definition of creditor is the same as yours. What on earth are you talking about? Paying creditors is a small portion of Federal spending. ^ I think the treasury can cover that tyvm. Your definition of realistic isn't the same as mine. Unless you think we can cut government spending by roughly 20% in seventeen days? We need to cut by 20%? Source? My apologies. 40%, not 20%. SourceAnd that's if we only consider those people to be creditors as opposed to, say, everybody the US government owes money to. Source It sounds like the 44% number is relative to all spending and specifically for August. Also, the article made a point of: Show nested quote +The BPC does not see it likely there will be an actual default on bond payments. Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:48 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:26 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
They're writing broadly for the general public.
Creditor usually means debt holder. Do you have a source that contradicts the Treasury? It seems pretty clear that the ability to spend money is not at all the same thing as the ability to honor repayments. The treasury borrows cash to meet the government's cash commitments. Some of those commitments are creditor claims (interest payments and more broadly entitlement claims). Other commitments are 'essential' government services. Other claims are non-essential services. When we talk about 'default' we mean one specific thing - not making interest / principal payments on bonds. That's a very small portion of spending that can be prioritized. Hence, we'll have a government shutdown where non-essential spending will stop in order to preserve cash for higher priority items. You must have misunderstood me. I asked for a source that contradicts the Treasury's statement, not a couple of sentences by an anonymous TL poster. Unless you happen to be the personal embodiment of the Treasury. That's not the definition of default, either. Defaults happen when you can't pay for your obligated expenditures. The Treasury doesn't contradict me, so why do I need a source to contradict the Treasury? The Treasury wrote that meeting cash commitments =/= new spending. That doesn't contradict what I wrote.
Even if you're right that you don't technically have to default, both articles clearly show that the US credit rating will suffer and that overall not raising the debt limit is bad news bears.
|
On October 01 2013 14:20 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:15 MarlieChurphy wrote:I don't see any such button. On October 01 2013 13:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 13:30 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Sorry, Can someone enlighten me on what exactly the Affordable Care Act is, and what it's supposed to do (and/or what it is actually doing?)
I actually got a phone survey call a few months back asking me tons of questions about it and I basically just answered I don't know/I don't care to most of the stuff. It seems pretty convoluted at the least. 3 basic parts: -No one can be denied healthcare or charged more due to preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, etc, and all healthcare plans have at least a minimum standard of benefits -Everyone must get healthcare or be fined. Nothing changes if you already have healthcare. -There are subsidies to buy healthcare on exchanges here for low income families that can't afford it. Some plans are as cheap as $100 a month. Currently I have no job and am broke, and don't have any conditions or care about insurance. What do/should I do? PS- I see a bunch of people on fb complaining right now they aren't going to be paid for the next 2 weeks or something. I think they all work for the TSA or airport or something? They aren't being very receptive to my questions, what are they bitching about? What you should do is go to https://www.healthcare.gov/ and after answering a few questions, it will tell you the price of health insurance and whether you are eligible for subsidies. And then decide for yourself whether you want to buy it. Shit happens, you might be in a car crash, randomly becomes sick etc, and then you'll need healthcare.
Yea, in the past if something ever came up. I just went to the hospital and either a family member or myself after the fact just went to a hospital social worker or whatever and filled out a bunch of forms and I don't think I paid anything. What is the difference from that? Like I fail to see what ACA even does. There is/was already MSI and stuff like that anyways.
|
On October 01 2013 14:27 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 14:15 MarlieChurphy wrote:I don't see any such button. On October 01 2013 13:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 13:30 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Sorry, Can someone enlighten me on what exactly the Affordable Care Act is, and what it's supposed to do (and/or what it is actually doing?)
I actually got a phone survey call a few months back asking me tons of questions about it and I basically just answered I don't know/I don't care to most of the stuff. It seems pretty convoluted at the least. 3 basic parts: -No one can be denied healthcare or charged more due to preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, etc, and all healthcare plans have at least a minimum standard of benefits -Everyone must get healthcare or be fined. Nothing changes if you already have healthcare. -There are subsidies to buy healthcare on exchanges here for low income families that can't afford it. Some plans are as cheap as $100 a month. Currently I have no job and am broke, and don't have any conditions or care about insurance. What do/should I do? PS- I see a bunch of people on fb complaining right now they aren't going to be paid for the next 2 weeks or something. I think they all work for the TSA or airport or something? They aren't being very receptive to my questions, what are they bitching about? What you should do is go to https://www.healthcare.gov/ and after answering a few questions, it will tell you the price of health insurance and whether you are eligible for subsidies. And then decide for yourself whether you want to buy it. Shit happens, you might be in a car crash, randomly becomes sick etc, and then you'll need healthcare. Yea, in the past if something ever came up. I just went to the hospital and either a family member or myself after the fact just went to a hospital social worker or whatever and filled out a bunch of forms and I don't think I paid anything. What is the difference from that? Like I fail to see what ACA even does. There is/was already MSI and stuff like that anyways.
Going to the hospital to get basic health care costs SIGNIFICANTLY more than if you were to just go to the doctor. You're not paying for your treatment so other tax payers have to pay for it, the hospital is going to get its money at the end of the day. If you can actually go to the doctor before something gets too far out of hand it costs less and has better results.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
|
On October 01 2013 14:27 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 14:15 MarlieChurphy wrote:I don't see any such button. On October 01 2013 13:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 13:30 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Sorry, Can someone enlighten me on what exactly the Affordable Care Act is, and what it's supposed to do (and/or what it is actually doing?)
I actually got a phone survey call a few months back asking me tons of questions about it and I basically just answered I don't know/I don't care to most of the stuff. It seems pretty convoluted at the least. 3 basic parts: -No one can be denied healthcare or charged more due to preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, etc, and all healthcare plans have at least a minimum standard of benefits -Everyone must get healthcare or be fined. Nothing changes if you already have healthcare. -There are subsidies to buy healthcare on exchanges here for low income families that can't afford it. Some plans are as cheap as $100 a month. Currently I have no job and am broke, and don't have any conditions or care about insurance. What do/should I do? PS- I see a bunch of people on fb complaining right now they aren't going to be paid for the next 2 weeks or something. I think they all work for the TSA or airport or something? They aren't being very receptive to my questions, what are they bitching about? What you should do is go to https://www.healthcare.gov/ and after answering a few questions, it will tell you the price of health insurance and whether you are eligible for subsidies. And then decide for yourself whether you want to buy it. Shit happens, you might be in a car crash, randomly becomes sick etc, and then you'll need healthcare. Yea, in the past if something ever came up. I just went to the hospital and either a family member or myself after the fact just went to a hospital social worker or whatever and filled out a bunch of forms and I don't think I paid anything. What is the difference from that? Like I fail to see what ACA even does. There is/was already MSI and stuff like that anyways.
Not everyone is as fortunate as you.... the system has issues, this bill was to fix it. That was the intent, the effect is less clear, to be even about it.
|
On October 01 2013 14:26 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:45 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:24 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:15 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I mean really, what the hell are you talking about? Some crazy broad definition of creditor? My definition of creditor is the same as yours. What on earth are you talking about? Paying creditors is a small portion of Federal spending. ^ I think the treasury can cover that tyvm. Your definition of realistic isn't the same as mine. Unless you think we can cut government spending by roughly 20% in seventeen days? We need to cut by 20%? Source? My apologies. 40%, not 20%. SourceAnd that's if we only consider those people to be creditors as opposed to, say, everybody the US government owes money to. Source It sounds like the 44% number is relative to all spending and specifically for August. Also, the article made a point of: The BPC does not see it likely there will be an actual default on bond payments. On October 01 2013 13:48 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:26 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
They're writing broadly for the general public.
Creditor usually means debt holder. Do you have a source that contradicts the Treasury? It seems pretty clear that the ability to spend money is not at all the same thing as the ability to honor repayments. The treasury borrows cash to meet the government's cash commitments. Some of those commitments are creditor claims (interest payments and more broadly entitlement claims). Other commitments are 'essential' government services. Other claims are non-essential services. When we talk about 'default' we mean one specific thing - not making interest / principal payments on bonds. That's a very small portion of spending that can be prioritized. Hence, we'll have a government shutdown where non-essential spending will stop in order to preserve cash for higher priority items. You must have misunderstood me. I asked for a source that contradicts the Treasury's statement, not a couple of sentences by an anonymous TL poster. Unless you happen to be the personal embodiment of the Treasury. That's not the definition of default, either. Defaults happen when you can't pay for your obligated expenditures. The Treasury doesn't contradict me, so why do I need a source to contradict the Treasury? The Treasury wrote that meeting cash commitments =/= new spending. That doesn't contradict what I wrote. Even if you're right that you don't technically have to default, both articles clearly show that the US credit rating will suffer and that overall not raising the debt limit is bad news bears.
We'll suffer more and more the longer this goes on, absolutely.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
mint that 1 trillion dolla coin
|
On October 01 2013 14:23 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:22 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2013 14:15 SnipedSoul wrote:On October 01 2013 14:14 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2013 14:01 tree.hugger wrote:
What is it with the Republican obsession with hurting poor people? If you presume Obamacare to be helping poor people, you are very wrong. It's hurting their ability to get a job, it's hurting their abilty to advance within their current job, and it's a very bad means of welfare for the rest. Those are some mighty fine talking points you have there. Mind if I ask where you got them? He deserves that quality. Alleging irrational hatred of poor people doesn't merit much of a response. Maybe you think the Republicans are against apple pie and motherhood as well? I think it's reasonable to think that they don't much care for poor people when all republicans talk about is cutting programs intended to prevent poor people from experiencing starvation, homelessness, and lack of health care.
Oh far from. I'm talking about tree.hugger's alleged obsession with hurting poor people. The Republicans are sub-human, they have an obsession and it's against the poor.
It's nothing new.
Five months ago I proposed my balanced budget plan. It balances the budget in the right way. It cuts hundreds of wasteful and outdated programs, but it upholds our fundamental values -- to provide opportunity, to respect our obligations to our parents and our children, to strengthen families and to strengthen America -- because it preserves Medicare and Medicaid, it invests in education and technology, it protects the environment, and it gives the tax cuts to working families for child rearing and for education. Unfortunately, Republican leaders in Washington have put ideology ahead of common sense and shared values in their pursuit of a budget plan.
We can balance the budget without doing what they seek to do. We can balance the budget without the deep cuts in education, without the deep cuts in the environment, without letting Medicare wither on the vine, without imposing tax increases on the hardest-pressed working families in America. I am fighting for a balanced budget that is good for America and consistent with our values. If they'll give me the tools, I'll balance the budget.
I vetoed the spending bill sent to me by Congress last night because America can never accept under pressure what it would not accept in free and open debate. I strongly believe their budget plan is bad for America. I believe it will undermine opportunity, make it harder for families to do the work that they have to do, weaken our obligations to our parents and our children, and make our country more divided. So I will continue to fight for the right kind of balanced budget.
Remember, the Republicans are following a very explicit strategy announced last April by Speaker Gingrich, to use the threat of a government shutdown to force America to accept their cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, to accept their cuts in education and technology and the environment.
President Clinton in a speech, November 1995. The rhetoric isn't anything new. Only the gullible believe and pay attention to one side's rhetoric and ignore the other side's. This is a battle of competing ideas and no one side owns the cause of the poor.
|
On October 01 2013 14:43 oneofthem wrote:
mint that 1 trillion dolla coin
The first time it was suggested I thought it would be a classless move, but after some of the tea baggers demands I'm fairly certain I would support that. Could they put ted cruz's head on because reasons?
|
Need to end parties being able to draw the lines of their own districts. That is where the first solution starts to what has happened to the US. Computers need to be used to make districts as simple(shapes) and even as possible(parties). Right now the opposite is happening and look what we have. This is a bunch of bullshit.
|
Danglars, please provide some examples of legislation proposed by the republicans in the house that would actually benefit poor people.
Spending cuts don't count because the republicans are rather selective about what should be cut. Social security, healthcare, the EPA, food stamps, and education are all fair game, but why don't they try to cut the military or subsidies to oil companies? Do oil companies seriously need government handouts when oil has been at ~$100 per barrel for the past 5 years and they're making billions in profits?
Is it really absolutely necessary to have more military spending than the 13 next highest countries combined? Couldn't it be cut by even a few percent? Did I miss all the republican proposals to at least reduce the growth of the military budget?
I'd be impressed if there has been any such legislation put forth by the republicans in the house since they've spent all their time trying to repeal the ACA over forty times now.
|
On October 01 2013 14:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:27 MarlieChurphy wrote:On October 01 2013 14:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 14:15 MarlieChurphy wrote:I don't see any such button. On October 01 2013 13:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 13:30 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Sorry, Can someone enlighten me on what exactly the Affordable Care Act is, and what it's supposed to do (and/or what it is actually doing?)
I actually got a phone survey call a few months back asking me tons of questions about it and I basically just answered I don't know/I don't care to most of the stuff. It seems pretty convoluted at the least. 3 basic parts: -No one can be denied healthcare or charged more due to preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, etc, and all healthcare plans have at least a minimum standard of benefits -Everyone must get healthcare or be fined. Nothing changes if you already have healthcare. -There are subsidies to buy healthcare on exchanges here for low income families that can't afford it. Some plans are as cheap as $100 a month. Currently I have no job and am broke, and don't have any conditions or care about insurance. What do/should I do? PS- I see a bunch of people on fb complaining right now they aren't going to be paid for the next 2 weeks or something. I think they all work for the TSA or airport or something? They aren't being very receptive to my questions, what are they bitching about? What you should do is go to https://www.healthcare.gov/ and after answering a few questions, it will tell you the price of health insurance and whether you are eligible for subsidies. And then decide for yourself whether you want to buy it. Shit happens, you might be in a car crash, randomly becomes sick etc, and then you'll need healthcare. Yea, in the past if something ever came up. I just went to the hospital and either a family member or myself after the fact just went to a hospital social worker or whatever and filled out a bunch of forms and I don't think I paid anything. What is the difference from that? Like I fail to see what ACA even does. There is/was already MSI and stuff like that anyways. Going to the hospital to get basic health care costs SIGNIFICANTLY more than if you were to just go to the doctor. You're not paying for your treatment so other tax payers have to pay for it, the hospital is going to get its money at the end of the day. If you can actually go to the doctor before something gets too far out of hand it costs less and has better results. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
I don't just randomly or regularly go to the doctor at all. I only go when there is an emergency. Examples of the last 5 times I've been to the doctor/hospital over the course of like 10 years: Appendicitis, Back Sprain, Tonsilitis, Hairline Fractured Ankle, A silver nitrite? suture (had a small cut on my back that wouldn't stop bleeding).
So again, I see no use for health insurance for me and it makes no difference to me. You can call me fortunate, or selfish but I still don't see how MSI or Medical or whatever is different than ACA.
|
On October 01 2013 15:02 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 01 2013 14:27 MarlieChurphy wrote:On October 01 2013 14:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 14:15 MarlieChurphy wrote:I don't see any such button. On October 01 2013 13:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 13:30 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Sorry, Can someone enlighten me on what exactly the Affordable Care Act is, and what it's supposed to do (and/or what it is actually doing?)
I actually got a phone survey call a few months back asking me tons of questions about it and I basically just answered I don't know/I don't care to most of the stuff. It seems pretty convoluted at the least. 3 basic parts: -No one can be denied healthcare or charged more due to preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, etc, and all healthcare plans have at least a minimum standard of benefits -Everyone must get healthcare or be fined. Nothing changes if you already have healthcare. -There are subsidies to buy healthcare on exchanges here for low income families that can't afford it. Some plans are as cheap as $100 a month. Currently I have no job and am broke, and don't have any conditions or care about insurance. What do/should I do? PS- I see a bunch of people on fb complaining right now they aren't going to be paid for the next 2 weeks or something. I think they all work for the TSA or airport or something? They aren't being very receptive to my questions, what are they bitching about? What you should do is go to https://www.healthcare.gov/ and after answering a few questions, it will tell you the price of health insurance and whether you are eligible for subsidies. And then decide for yourself whether you want to buy it. Shit happens, you might be in a car crash, randomly becomes sick etc, and then you'll need healthcare. Yea, in the past if something ever came up. I just went to the hospital and either a family member or myself after the fact just went to a hospital social worker or whatever and filled out a bunch of forms and I don't think I paid anything. What is the difference from that? Like I fail to see what ACA even does. There is/was already MSI and stuff like that anyways. Going to the hospital to get basic health care costs SIGNIFICANTLY more than if you were to just go to the doctor. You're not paying for your treatment so other tax payers have to pay for it, the hospital is going to get its money at the end of the day. If you can actually go to the doctor before something gets too far out of hand it costs less and has better results. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" I don't just randomly or regularly go to the doctor at all. I only go when there is an emergency. Examples of the last 5 times I've been to the doctor/hospital over the course of like 10 years: Appendicitis, Back Sprain, Tonsilitis, Hairline Fractured Ankle, A silver nitrite? suture (had a small cut on my back that wouldn't stop bleeding). So again, I see no use for health insurance for me and it makes no difference to me. You can call me fortunate, or selfish but I still don't see how MSI or Medical or whatever is different than ACA.
Do you think the care you received is free? It's basically sheer luck that you haven't had to pay for those services. Many (uninsured) people have been bankrupted by healthcare fees.
You don't seem to understand the concept of insurance. The whole point of insurance is risk management. Insurance is there so next time you fracture your ankle, your costs are covered. Obviously, you always have the option to play the roulette. You can hope you don't get sick or hope you won't have to pay for any healthcare services you receive in case you do get sick.
|
United States43219 Posts
Charlie, this is just you not understanding how the world works again. You need to stop posting and read some wikipedia.
|
On October 01 2013 14:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:The first time it was suggested I thought it would be a classless move, but after some of the tea baggers demands I'm fairly certain I would support that. Could they put ted cruz's head on because reasons?
Printing more money doesn't solve the issue at all. It just serves to devalue it, which is in turn followed by massive inflation and all sorts of ridiculous stuff, like printing money in this form for every-day use by the citizens:
![[image loading]](http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/images/Thumbnails/zim-currencySIZE388x200.jpg)
On 1 August 2008, the Zimbabwe dollar was redenominated by removing 10 zeroes and ZWD 10 billion became 1 dollar after the redenomination. On 16 January 2009, Zimbabwe issued a ZWD100 trillion bill (100,000,000,000,000 ZWD). A roll of toilet paper in Zimbabwe costs $145,750, which is about 69 American cents.
|
On October 01 2013 15:02 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 01 2013 14:27 MarlieChurphy wrote:On October 01 2013 14:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 14:15 MarlieChurphy wrote:I don't see any such button. On October 01 2013 13:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 01 2013 13:30 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Sorry, Can someone enlighten me on what exactly the Affordable Care Act is, and what it's supposed to do (and/or what it is actually doing?)
I actually got a phone survey call a few months back asking me tons of questions about it and I basically just answered I don't know/I don't care to most of the stuff. It seems pretty convoluted at the least. 3 basic parts: -No one can be denied healthcare or charged more due to preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, etc, and all healthcare plans have at least a minimum standard of benefits -Everyone must get healthcare or be fined. Nothing changes if you already have healthcare. -There are subsidies to buy healthcare on exchanges here for low income families that can't afford it. Some plans are as cheap as $100 a month. Currently I have no job and am broke, and don't have any conditions or care about insurance. What do/should I do? PS- I see a bunch of people on fb complaining right now they aren't going to be paid for the next 2 weeks or something. I think they all work for the TSA or airport or something? They aren't being very receptive to my questions, what are they bitching about? What you should do is go to https://www.healthcare.gov/ and after answering a few questions, it will tell you the price of health insurance and whether you are eligible for subsidies. And then decide for yourself whether you want to buy it. Shit happens, you might be in a car crash, randomly becomes sick etc, and then you'll need healthcare. Yea, in the past if something ever came up. I just went to the hospital and either a family member or myself after the fact just went to a hospital social worker or whatever and filled out a bunch of forms and I don't think I paid anything. What is the difference from that? Like I fail to see what ACA even does. There is/was already MSI and stuff like that anyways. Going to the hospital to get basic health care costs SIGNIFICANTLY more than if you were to just go to the doctor. You're not paying for your treatment so other tax payers have to pay for it, the hospital is going to get its money at the end of the day. If you can actually go to the doctor before something gets too far out of hand it costs less and has better results. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" I don't just randomly or regularly go to the doctor at all. I only go when there is an emergency. Examples of the last 5 times I've been to the doctor/hospital over the course of like 10 years: Appendicitis, Back Sprain, Tonsilitis, Hairline Fractured Ankle, A silver nitrite? suture (had a small cut on my back that wouldn't stop bleeding). So again, I see no use for health insurance for me and it makes no difference to me. You can call me fortunate, or selfish but I still don't see how MSI or Medical or whatever is different than ACA.
I don't know anything about MSI. Never heard of it before. According to Google, it's a program that provides healthcare for poor people in Orange County. Apparently, there's going to be some changes about moving people to other programs due to the Affordable Care Act. Maybe you should look it up.
|
On October 01 2013 14:57 SnipedSoul wrote:
Danglars, please provide some examples of legislation proposed by the republicans in the house that would actually benefit poor people.
Spending cuts don't count because the republicans are rather selective about what should be cut. Social security, healthcare, the EPA, food stamps, and education are all fair game, but why don't they try to cut the military or subsidies to oil companies? Do oil companies seriously need government handouts when oil has been at ~$100 per barrel for the past 5 years and they're making billions in profits?
Is it really absolutely necessary to have more military spending than the 13 next highest countries combined? Couldn't it be cut by even a few percent? Did I miss all the republican proposals to at least reduce the growth of the military budget?
I'd be impressed if there has been any such legislation put forth by the republicans in the house since they've spent all their time trying to repeal the ACA over forty times now.
I don't think you get it SnipedSoul. Killing the ACA helps businesses save money so they can hire more people who are out of work. Government handouts help oil companies pay for labor, allowing them to hire more workers. Austerity also helps the poor because then small businesses and large businesses will have fewer taxes to pay, so they can, you guessed it, hire more people. If only we could do away with minimum wage we'd be set.
Cutting military spending is a bad idea man. It cuts jobs and hurts the poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
