|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
"not that expensive" lol ... you can get a basic health care PLUS almost all things you could imagine for that price in germany as a young and healthy person. And by that i mean: single rooms in hospitals, chief physician treatment and fucking golden bed sheets if you want to.
|
On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
The problem is that while you have the means with which to make that healthcare choice, millions of Americans had 0 choice, whether it be due to pre-existing conditions or lack of funds. In other words, you speak so highly of your personal volition. Why not champion the volition of everyone?
|
On June 29 2012 00:58 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
FYI, the CBO numbers on Obamacare are bullshit because they are structured such that revenues are front-loaded and expenditures are back-loaded during the 10-year period of CBO analysis. If you really want to see the real impact of the law, you have to look at it from like 2021 outward. Impact on the Federal Budget Beyond the First 10 Years CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year projection period, but certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of the broad changes in the health care and health insurance systems that will result from these laws. That impact, however, becomes more and more uncertain the farther into the future one projects. Over a longer time span, a wide range of changes could occur—in people’s health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care—that are very difficult to predict but that could have a significant effect on federal health care spending, both under current law and under the law prior to passage of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act. Therefore, CBO developed a rough outlook for the second decade after enactment by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories will increase over time. On the basis of its February 2011 analysis, CBO effectively projected that PPACA
and the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal budget deficits by an amount in a
broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for the 2022–
2031 period, assuming that all provisions of the legislation were fully implemented. That estimate has not been updated since the February analysis. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdfThe problem with conservatives -- they are anti-intellectual, preferring polemics to analysis and facts. Anyway, this is a good day to be an American. Congratulations and welcome to the universal and unconditional healthcare coverage that every other citizen of an advanced country has the privilege of.
You'd think xDaunt and Kaitlin would want to actually read the report instead of getting proven completely wrong quote after quote, but the level of cognitive dissonance displayed here by them and some of the other conservative posters (not all of them) indicates it probably would make no difference regarding their stances and arguments.
|
On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
Actually, you don't. The supreme court upheld the ACA. 
You already had to buy car insurance.
|
On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
You aren't losing any freedoms with this bill. The government isn't forcing you to buy health insurance; they are taxing you if you don't. The written ruling makes this clear; you aren't breaking the law and being punished in a legal sense if you don't buy health insurance. The only time that happens is when you don't pay the tax that is levied on those not buying health insurance.
|
Wow it passed :O and I like how the judges noted it should be like a new tax, which I hope makes it closer to single-payer (what I think we should have)
But yeah baby steps
|
On June 29 2012 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:
[quote]
'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism'
How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. Actually, you don't. The supreme court upheld the ACA. You already had to buy car insurance.
Indeed. The whole point here is that if you willingly refrain from buying health insurance, but then get sick, you still have access to healthcare through emergency room treatment at any hospital in the U.S. If you don't have the money to pay, then the hospital eats the costs. There are two alternatives to the individual mandate if we actually want to reduce the astronomical costs of healthcare in the U.S.: 1) Get rid of emergency room treatment options for uninsured people who can't pay (a.k.a. let the poor die when they get sick), or 2) Switch over to a single-payer, government-controlled system. The second option isn't possible in the U.S. due to the existing private insurance industry's power. The first option is morally bankrupt.
|
I don't get how people can say that small business wont work with medical "taxes". In europe it's just fine, we are five people working in my company and paying taxes for medical care is the least of our concern. Being critical to changes are fine but when most of the countrys in the world has social health care why are some so resistant? I don't mind paying taxes for something I need or might not need knowing that when I get old and dim witted, there's someone out there paying for my healthcare, just as I paid for thier grandparents when they got old.
|
I thought Kennedy would be the swing vote, Roberts seemed the more unlikely option. But still a decent result.
|
On June 29 2012 01:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:
[quote]
'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism'
How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The problem is that while you have the means with which to make that healthcare choice, millions of Americans had 0 choice, whether it be due to pre-existing conditions or lack of funds. In other words, you speak so highly of your personal volition. Why not champion the volition of everyone?
He did say that he wouldn't be that opposed to an increase in funds to provide healthcare for the poor. Just that he didn't want to be forced to buy insurance himself.
On face value that's completely reasonable.
The only problem is that basically the entire insurance/actuarial community thinks that if you force insurers to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, then you also have to force everybody to buy insurance. Otherwise a) healthy people drop their coverage and average rates start moving upwards exponentially and b) people realize that you can game the system by dropping coverage until you are sick then applying for coverage before going to the doctor (and they can't deny you for the condition).
|
Really not much changes for me, i get insurance under my mom's work insurance provider as long as im in school, and i could get insurance from my current work provider if i had to. What i'm interested in knowing is how much this tax penalty actually is.
|
|
|
On June 29 2012 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:
[quote]
'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism'
How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. Actually, you don't. The supreme court upheld the ACA. You already had to buy car insurance.
How do you know he drives ?
|
On June 29 2012 01:16 JoelB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:
[quote]
'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism'
How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. "not that expensive" lol ... you can get a basic health care PLUS almost all things you could imagine for that price in germany as a young and healthy person. And by that i mean: single rooms in hospitals, chief physician treatment and fucking golden bed sheets if you want to.
Uhhhh yeah those things are included lol. When I say basic health insurance, I'm taking like not higher co-pays and not including dental. Obviously it covers hospital visits. Also, your hyperbole isn't convincing.
On June 29 2012 01:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:
[quote]
'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism'
How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The problem is that while you have the means with which to make that healthcare choice, millions of Americans had 0 choice, whether it be due to pre-existing conditions or lack of funds. In other words, you speak so highly of your personal volition. Why not champion the volition of everyone?
I'm not arguing the system is perfect. It's broke as fuck and needs fixing. My issue is with the individual mandate, you're taking away my freedom to chose. If I want to be a stupid morong and risk going without insurance, I ought to be allowed to do so. If I develope a pre-existing condition, too fucking bad.
And there already are systems in place for individuals who have disabilities that prevent them from working, that's exactly what Medicaid is. The problem is Medicaid is very poorly run, is defrauded by corrupt doctors and patients for literally billions of dollars a year, and doesn't always get the right help to those who need it. The story is the same with every large Federal entitlement program that's ever existed.
That's partly where the Ryan budget plan comes in, which gives the money to states who can better monitor the system and can run the programs in the ways they see fit.
Listen, I know I'm not going to convince any of you. Most of you are Europeans who've already got common sense systems and don't understand how fucked up the federal entitlement programs are, the other half of you are students or younger who've not actually entered the US workforce yet and don't really understand how easy it is to get basic insurance. You also don't understand how completely fucked up the US economy is due to employer's fears over Obamacare.
Bottom line is, it's a bad law and needs to go. I have nothing more to say about it.
|
On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
Except me and everybody else had to pay taxes to funds that go towards helping hospitals because people don't have insurance and can't pay their bills.
|
On June 29 2012 01:14 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:00 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
FYI, the CBO numbers on Obamacare are bullshit because they are structured such that revenues are front-loaded and expenditures are back-loaded during the 10-year period of CBO analysis. If you really want to see the real impact of the law, you have to look at it from like 2021 outward. Impact on the Federal Budget Beyond the First 10 Years CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year projection period, but certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of the broad changes in the health care and health insurance systems that will result from these laws. That impact, however, becomes more and more uncertain the farther into the future one projects. Over a longer time span, a wide range of changes could occur—in people’s health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care—that are very difficult to predict but that could have a significant effect on federal health care spending, both under current law and under the law prior to passage of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act. Therefore, CBO developed a rough outlook for the second decade after enactment by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories will increase over time. On the basis of its February 2011 analysis, CBO effectively projected that PPACA
and the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal budget deficits by an amount in a
broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for the 2022–
2031 period, assuming that all provisions of the legislation were fully implemented. That estimate has not been updated since the February analysis. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf ... and for the "Doctor fix" ? It's not part of Obamacare. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-doc-fix-myth
That's kind of the point. The Doc Fix isn't part of Obamacare. It should have been. That would have made it a much better bill, or much less bad bill depending on your opinion.
Obamacare = deficit neutral (on paper)
Obamacare + permanent Doc Fix = Kaboom!
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/216397-obama-budget-adds-35-trillion-in-deficits-cbo-finds
The truth is the president and his allies in Congress worked overtime to pull together every Medicare cut they could find — nearly $500 billion in all over ten years — and put them into the health law to pay for the massive entitlement expansion they so coveted. They could have used those cuts to pay for the “doc fix” if they had wanted to, as well as for a slightly less expansive health program. But that’s not what they did. That wasn’t their priority. They chose instead to break their agenda into multiple bills, and “pay for” the massive health entitlement (on paper) while claiming they shouldn’t have to find offsets for the “doc fix.” But it doesn’t matter to taxpayers if they enact their agenda in one, two, or ten pieces of legislation. The total cost is still the same. All of the supposed deficit reduction now claimed from the health-care law is more than wiped out by the Democrats’ insistent march to borrow and spend for Medicare physician fees.
|
In related news, this is very good for China and India's labor markets.
|
On June 28 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:03 CaptainCrush wrote:On June 28 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 21:43 BluePanther wrote:
It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone. Every other advanced country in the world has universal healthcare. So how bad is the precedent really? But when you have an extremely bad/ rare case, which doctors do you consult? I'll give you a hint, its usually not a doctor that works under socialized medicine... What has this got to do with the precedent set by upholding Obamacare? In other countries with universal coverage, you consult with whatever doctor you want to.
Many of you have missed my point - America has the best doctors in the world, and they came about simply because we DONT have socialized medicine. I will admit that I think that socialized medicine will never be the answer, however, Obama is a flaming retard and if anyone is going to bring socialized medicine to the states, I sure hope its not him.
|
On June 29 2012 01:26 HeavenS wrote:
Really not much changes for me, i get insurance under my mom's work insurance provider as long as im in school, and i could get insurance from my current work provider if i had to. What i'm interested in knowing is how much this tax penalty actually is.
According to Fox News, the penalty breaks down this way -
2014 - 1% of total income (above certain amount) or $95, whichever is greater
2015 - 2% of income or $325
2016 - 2.5% or $695
The idea here is that the penalty would hit those WITH an income who CHOOSE not to buy insurance the hardest. Those without income would be encouraged, if not forced but obviously my word choice can be suspect, to get into Medicaid, basically. And with this gradual increase in the penalties, hopefully people will realize that the longer they go without being 'responsible' as the president said and buy into some insurance plan, the higher the penalty becomes.
However - and this is a key point - it's not yet clear what enforcement mechanism will be used to penalize those who don't pay the penalty. SSN and Medicare are written into the tax codes themselves - they're considered taxes in the eyes of the Supreme Court - so Roberts was simply putting the Affordable Care Act in the same boat. I do NOT know if this means that the IRS, basically, will become responsible for collecting all these penalties that people may choose to pay instead of buying health insurance. At a certain point, the states themselves will hopefully offer good health insurance exchanges both to get the promised federal money to help fund the increased rolls and because it's simply good policy to not have uninsured citizens raising premiums for everyone else (insert opinion on the act.. here!). So, hope this post isn't entirely hogwash once the law is digested by the White House and Congress and both branches of government take their respective next steps.
|
On June 29 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
In related news, this is very good for China and India's labor markets.
In related news, Kaitlin seems unable to acknowledge the positive effects of the reform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
