| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote: Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. ![[image loading]](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/04/CBO10yeargraph-thumb-454x327-18160.jpg) That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote: '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. You do realize that healthy paying for unhealthy is how ALL health insurance works right? Hell, that's how all insurance works in general. If you don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare, then don't get any kind of insurance and see how that works out for you. | ||
|
scampioen
Belgium55 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:19 sc4k wrote: Oh man this is so interesting. So can anyone say who are the normal 'liberal' and the normal 'conservative' judges are and which way they voted? I thought Roberts was mostly conservative, and Kennedy is normally the swing vote. Could be wrong though. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote: 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 ? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18808 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:19 sc4k wrote: Chief Justice Roberts was the swing and wrote the majority opinion, alongside Beyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg. The dissent was Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. What is most surprising is that Roberts was the swing instead of Kennedy, who usually plays that role. I think Roberts felt that now was the time show that true constitutionalism and the current spirit of the Republican party are not one and the same.Oh man this is so interesting. So can anyone say who are the normal 'liberal' and the normal 'conservative' judges are and which way they voted? | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote: 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.Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? The system will ensure that no matter what my health problems and financial status are, I will always be able to receive treatment. It will take care of me when I'm making 100k a year and it will take care of me when I get fired and can't find a new job. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote: That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of Obamacare on the deficit. It's not an estimate on what the deficit is. It's a estimate on how much Obamacare adds and subtracts from the deficit compared to a baseline of no Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficit in the long run. Your proof that Obamacare makes the deficit worse is... Well, nothing. The CBO says it reduces the deficit compared to what it would be without Obamacare. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote: 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. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
I believe that a lot of misconceptions between free-healthcare and non-free healthcare are shown through the media outlet in the States, and I think I'd like to clear a few up in some points. This will not refer to Obamacare which tried to hard to please rightwingers and wasn't nearly socialist enough, so it is failing horribly, but it will note Canada's healthcare. -Notes 1) In the ER you are taken in with regards to the urgency of your emergency. Example, someone lost a leg but you sprained your toe, no matter how much money you throw, you go 2nd. 2) The time's can vary greatly depending on the day, yes it is longer than the states, but an average wait time in developed area would be approximately be 30-2hrs for minor issues (flu etc) and 10-1hr for medium (so like sprains/injuries etc) and instantly for all emergency issues (dying) 3) You are taken into any hospital, no matter if you have your healthcard, if you have a serious injury 4) Universal healthcare ISNT EXPENSIVE note:+ Show Spoiler + http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php Those are just a few on the top of my head that the media really misrepresents, some data revolving around the system before obamacare (and during) http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php -every 30 seconds someone goes bankrupt in America for medical costs -47million people uninsured (fucked) -Switzerland spends the 2nd most, but it's still 44% less per capita than the states Anywho, I'm just glad I wasn't born in the States. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote: My point was that I have no problems doing it.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. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:25 farvacola wrote: Chief Justice Roberts was the swing and wrote the majority opinion, alongside Beyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg. The dissent was Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. What is most surprising is that Roberts was the swing instead of Kennedy, who usually plays that role. I think Roberts felt that now was the time show that true constitutionalism and the current spirit of the Republican party are not one and the same. Thank you for this  Random blog my mum read said that Roberts might have voted the way he did because he has epilepsy, and might have been persuaded by the fact that if he wanted to set up his own law practice now he would find it hard to get backing from an insurer due to his pre-existing condition? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15268 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote: 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. Extraction is taking place because people aren't intelligent enough to realize the benefits or are unwilling to give up a little to make a big difference. The fact is, joe schmoe is usually an idiot and shouldn't actually be able to determine the direction of a country. The ACA accomplishes a lot and takes away decision making. I am comfortable with it, because I know it is serving a greater purpose. Its helping people who need the help. Myself and my girlfriend are both on our way to very wellpaying careers and will not exactly need handouts, but I am still very pleased this went through. Selfishness lost, collectivist nature won. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
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. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote: CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. | ||
|
JoelB
Germany311 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote: 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. The system will ensure that no matter what my health problems and financial status are, I will always be able to receive treatment. It will take care of me when I'm making 100k a year and it will take care of me when I get fired and can't find a new job. It is unnecessary indeed but if you keep in mind how many americans especially rightwing politicians are emphasizing their "christianity" you will understand why i added this as a sort of a mockery another thing i might add ... we have a public and "forced" healthcare since decades and our debt per person is 10 times lower then yours in america. Please explain. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Less than 1%... you can't call that but anything other than deficit neutral. (and I havent' checked) but I'd bet that chart dosen't include a permanent "Doc Fix" to medicare. Doc Fix has to happen. And that is what is going to blow the numbers out of the water. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote: CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. And to argue that those effects are negative, you base yourself on... what? | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
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 + http://www.globalenvision.org/2008/07/07/cost-health-care http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php User was warned for this post | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On June 29 2012 00:17 Kaitlin wrote: Before or after the "Medicaid Expansion" of this Act ? A simple "I'm pissed about the ruling and in no mood to discuss things rationally" would have sufficed... | ||
| ||
|
|
OlimoLeague
Wardi Open
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
SC Evo Complete
PassionCraft
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
