|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
|
On June 29 2012 01:30 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:14 paralleluniverse wrote: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-findsShow nested quote +
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.
Why don't you add the cost of the Iraq War to Obamacare too? That would REALLY blow up the budget.
When you judge the amount that a law adds (or subtracts) to the deficit, you need to compare it to a baseline, i.e. 2 parallel universes, one with Obamacare, one without Obamacare. Then look at the difference in deficits between these 2 parallel universes. In both of these parallel universes the doc fix would happen, just as the Iraq War would happen, because neither are part of Obamacare. Since the doc fix would have happened even if Obamacare didn't pass, and since it's not part of the Obamacare law, it's a completely separate issue.
All of this is explained in the article if you actually bothered to read it. It's deceptive Republican spin doctoring. The CBO says in black and white: Obamacare reduces the deficit.
|
On June 29 2012 01:32 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
The fact that you think any aspect of the current healthcare dynamic is "simple" is quite telling. The factors that have fed into the beast that is the healthcare industry here in the US are multivarious and complicated. And suggesting that Obamacare is somehow going to magically cheapen all of our care is presumptuous.
|
On June 29 2012 01:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So, according to your logic, in order to be against the idea of making free ice cream a right to every American, I need to emphasize that ice cream tastes good ?
|
On June 29 2012 01:32 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
Your point was precedents. And now you've done a switcharoo and changed the subject.
|
On June 29 2012 00:46 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:33 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 29 2012 00:30 TheToast wrote:
I usually don't get emotional about politics, but I'm quite pissed off right now. US Federal Government has no right to tell me to buy health insurance, nor to they have the right to continue crippling the US economy with this bullshit.
I wasn't sure if I was going to vote in November, but you better as hell believe I'm going to now. Hopefully this is the kick in the pants the republican base needed to take this election seriously.
All I can say is thank god the Republicans control the House and can block funding for the enforcement of this rediculous crap. Let's see you say that when you get cancer and have to pay 100s of thousands of dollars because you weren't insured... What an ignorant childish answer to this entire topic, don't get emotional ever again because you start talking like an absolute moron. The US economy was crippled by banking you imbecile, and furthermore (note above but I'll relink) + Show Spoiler + shows how dumb your entire argument against Obama and his attempts are... Get your shit straight, educate yourself, healthcare isn't crippling the economy and the only people against it are the ones who can afford to insure themselves or have mommy doing it for them... I won't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because I have health insurance. Basic hospitalization coverage isn't that expensive. And even so, it ought to be my damn decision if I don't want to buy health insurance. I'm a grown ass man, I can make desicions about my personal finance for my own damn self. I don't need big brother telling me what to do. It's complete BS. I wouldn't care that much if the Federal government decided to subsidize healthcare for the poor, or if they want to change how the industry is regulated to reduce costs. That would be fine. Just don't start regulating me. Also, please don't tell me to educate myself. I have a BA in Political Science from one of the top universities in the country. :/ I understand this stuff just fine, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it.
So how will the situation change for you? I don't think much is going to change for people who have insurance. It seems to me you are a reasonable person, so you got yourself health insurance (and would probably tell others that it would be stupid not to get insured if they can afford it). What it really comes down to is - the right to be stupid - isn't it? Even though this is a valid point, I don't see why people get so upset about this, since most of them choose to get insurance anyway. Defending the theoretical right of others to be stupid - should be a much less emotional debate and not one where you would think the end of america is near, imo.
|
On June 29 2012 01:36 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:30 RCMDVA wrote:On June 29 2012 01:14 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
Why don't you add the cost of the Iraq War to Obamacare too? That would REALLY blow up the budget. When you judge the amount that a law adds (or subtracts) to the deficit, you need to compare it to a baseline, i.e. 2 parallel universes, one with Obamacare, one without Obamacare. Then look at the difference in deficits between these 2 parallel universes. In both of these parallel universe the doc fix would happen, just as the Iraq War would happen, because neither are part of Obamacare. Since the doc fix would have happened even if Obamacare didn't pass, and since it's not part of the Obamacare law, it's a completely separate issue. All of this is explained in the article if you actually bothered read it.
The increase / lower deficit argument is a red herring - deficits can be managed through spending and taxation.
The real question is how much of an additional burden the law will place on the citizenry and if the citizenry thinks the benefits of the law are worth the additional burden (or not).
|
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 mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do.
And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs.
|
i dont vote, therefore im biting my tongue
|
On June 29 2012 01:36 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:30 RCMDVA wrote:On June 29 2012 01:14 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
Why don't you add the cost of the Iraq War to Obamacare too? That would REALLY blow up the budget. When you judge the amount that a law adds (or subtracts) to the deficit, you need to compare it to a baseline, i.e. 2 parallel universes, one with Obamacare, one without Obamacare. Then look at the difference in deficits between these 2 parallel universes. In both of these parallel universes the doc fix would happen, just as the Iraq War would happen, because neither are part of Obamacare. Since the doc fix would have happened even if Obamacare didn't pass, and since it's not part of the Obamacare law, it's a completely separate issue. All of this is explained in the article if you actually bothered to read it. It's deceptive Republican spin doctoring. The CBO says in black and white: Obamacare reduces the deficit.
If I recall correctly, the "Doctor fix" was a problem with Medicare funding that Congress had been funding through repeated, short-term bills. As part of Obamacare, Democrats took the reduction of not paying for this "Doctor fix" as a savings to be applied as a source of revenue for Obamacare, however, Obamacare did nothing to eliminate the need for such a fix. That's why it's considered to be a distortion, if not included. The "Doctor fix" is still needed, but Obamacare "stole" the funding, to provide for it's 'deficit neutral' status.
It would be very much akin to saying with Obamacare, we'll no longer need to fund the war in Afghanistan, so we can apply the costs of that war to make Obamacare appear budget-neutral, when in reality, Obamacare doesn't do shit to remove the need for funding the war.
|
On June 29 2012 01:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 01:30 RCMDVA wrote:On June 29 2012 01:14 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
Why don't you add the cost of the Iraq War to Obamacare too? That would REALLY blow up the budget. When you judge the amount that a law adds (or subtracts) to the deficit, you need to compare it to a baseline, i.e. 2 parallel universes, one with Obamacare, one without Obamacare. Then look at the difference in deficits between these 2 parallel universes. In both of these parallel universe the doc fix would happen, just as the Iraq War would happen, because neither are part of Obamacare. Since the doc fix would have happened even if Obamacare didn't pass, and since it's not part of the Obamacare law, it's a completely separate issue. All of this is explained in the article if you actually bothered read it. The increase / lower deficit argument is a red herring - deficits can be managed through spending and taxation. The real question is how much of an additional burden the law will place on the citizenry and if the citizenry thinks the benefits of the law are worth the additional burden (or not).
I think it can easily be shown that implementing a tax code that ACTUALLY gets major corporations to pay their taxes could alleviate any healthcare burden.
|
On June 29 2012 01:28 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:18 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 ?
If someone drives without car insurance, and they get into a crash, someone else is getting fucked over.
If someone lives without health insurance, and they get sick, someone else is getting fucked over.
Its the exact same situation. Its more mandatory, but it follows the exact same logic. It is intended to protect people in a way that is already accepted as valid, its just that people feel like they can't do whatever they want so they cry about it.
|
On June 29 2012 01:34 Xivsa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:26 HeavenS wrote:
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.
Yes, the idea is for the IRS to take over collecting the penalties from individual's wages.
The issue is, that would require funding. And currently the republican's control the house, where all US federal budgets have to originate. The point has been raised that the Republicans could just deny funding for the enforcement programs. It's not clear what would happen in such a case, but it's part of the reason this upcoming election is going to be so important.
On June 29 2012 01:40 Teradur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:46 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:33 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 29 2012 00:30 TheToast wrote:
I usually don't get emotional about politics, but I'm quite pissed off right now. US Federal Government has no right to tell me to buy health insurance, nor to they have the right to continue crippling the US economy with this bullshit.
I wasn't sure if I was going to vote in November, but you better as hell believe I'm going to now. Hopefully this is the kick in the pants the republican base needed to take this election seriously.
All I can say is thank god the Republicans control the House and can block funding for the enforcement of this rediculous crap. Let's see you say that when you get cancer and have to pay 100s of thousands of dollars because you weren't insured... What an ignorant childish answer to this entire topic, don't get emotional ever again because you start talking like an absolute moron. The US economy was crippled by banking you imbecile, and furthermore (note above but I'll relink) + Show Spoiler + shows how dumb your entire argument against Obama and his attempts are... Get your shit straight, educate yourself, healthcare isn't crippling the economy and the only people against it are the ones who can afford to insure themselves or have mommy doing it for them... I won't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because I have health insurance. Basic hospitalization coverage isn't that expensive. And even so, it ought to be my damn decision if I don't want to buy health insurance. I'm a grown ass man, I can make desicions about my personal finance for my own damn self. I don't need big brother telling me what to do. It's complete BS. I wouldn't care that much if the Federal government decided to subsidize healthcare for the poor, or if they want to change how the industry is regulated to reduce costs. That would be fine. Just don't start regulating me. Also, please don't tell me to educate myself. I have a BA in Political Science from one of the top universities in the country. :/ I understand this stuff just fine, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it. So how will the situation change for you? I don't think much is going to change for people who have insurance. It seems to me you are a reasonable person, so you got yourself health insurance (and would probably tell others that it would be stupid not to get insured if they can afford it). What it really comes down to is - the right to be stupid - isn't it? Even though this is a valid point, I don't see why people get so upset about this, since most of them choose to get insurance anyway. Defending the theoretical right of others to be stupid - should be a much less emotional debate and not one where you would think the end of america is near, imo.
I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about whether freedom is an allusion, but essentially yes to your question. It's about the right to choose, and whether the Federal government has the right to push me around.
|
On June 29 2012 01:39 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:35 kwizach wrote: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. So, according to your logic, in order to be against the idea of making free ice cream a right to every American, I need to emphasize that ice cream tastes good ?
That has literally nothing to do with my logic, that's you using a strawman. I'm simply pointing out that you have been desperately grasping at straws in the last few pages in trying to find something negative to say about the reform, while discarding/refusing to acknowledge evidence disproving your claims. If you're against the individual mandate, that's your right, but that's unrelated to the overall impact of the law on the economy. Instead, you've been trying hard to paint a grim picture of the said impact, a picture that is both unfounded in reality (and, in fact, debunked by evidence) and unrelated to your position on the validity of the individual mandate.
Here's a better picture of your reasoning: "since I am against the idea of making free ice cream a right to every American, and despite the fact that the law that passed does not do that, I am now going to argue that ice cream leads to cancer and dead puppies".
|
On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed 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 mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs.
There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever.
|
On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed 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 mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs.
The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed.
|
The whole thing about people with pre-existing conditions not being able to get insurance was unbelievably harsh and unfair, from what I can see at least that part of the bill is something everyone can be happy about surely?
|
On June 29 2012 01:47 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:39 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:35 kwizach wrote: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. So, according to your logic, in order to be against the idea of making free ice cream a right to every American, I need to emphasize that ice cream tastes good ? That has literally nothing to do with my logic, that's you using a strawman. I'm simply pointing out that you have been desperately grasping at straws in the last few pages in trying to find something negative to say about the reform, while discarding/refusing to acknowledge evidence disproving your claims. If you're against the individual mandate, that's your right, but that's unrelated to the overall impact of the law on the economy - and you've been trying hard to paint a grim picture of the said impact, which is both unfounded in reality and unrelated to your position on the validity of the individual mandate. Here's a better picture of your reasoning: "since I am against the idea of making free ice cream a right to every American, and despite the fact that the law that passed does not do that, I am now going to argue that ice cream leads to cancer and dead puppies".
Nope. I'm merely pointing out some "unintended consequences". However, I can't say that I'm totally convinced they are entirely "unintended". Just that there are consequences that some seem unable to consider or care about.
|
On June 29 2012 01:47 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[quote]
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 mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever.
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/revealed-the-democrats-devious-plan-to-compromise-with-the-republicans/2012/04/02/gIQAqdrQrS_blog.html
"Ah, right! Because Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, was saying things like “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates,” and “individual mandates are more apt to be accepted by a majority of the people in Congress than an employer mandate.”
And it wasn’t just Grassley. A New York Times columnist by the name of Ross Douthat praised Utah Sen. Bob Bennett for “his willingness to co-sponsor a centrist (in a good way!) health care reform bill with the Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden.” That health-care reform bill was the Healthy Americans Act which included, yes, an individual mandate. But while Douthat did later say that the Healthy Americans Act wasn’t his “preferred health care reform,” at no point did he accuse Bennett of “buying off some of the most influential interest groups” even as he “hid the true cost of universal coverage.”"
|
On June 29 2012 01:47 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[quote]
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 mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever.
There are conservative democrats who struck down the more liberal parts of the bill. I think you are also forgetting that this mandate was developed as a compromise in Massachusetts under Romney. The mandate is the conservative, republican position until the democrats put it into their bill. Then they switched around and attacked it. You're acting as if republicans are the Libertarian party, which they are far from.
Edit: thanks to the guy above my post for showing you are completely wrong anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://a.yfrog.com/img644/7743/7ozrf.jpg)
