|
28 Jun 12 - 05:40 PM (#3369231) Subject: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger The Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled today that Obamacare is legal. Basically, it's okay because it's a tax. So now, Americans will be forced to buy health insurance because it's a "tax" (nudge nudge wink wink). What will we be required to buy next because it's a "tax?" This is the largest single tax hike in the history of humanity, by the way. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 05:46 PM (#3369239) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 Yes. And it's a good one. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 05:48 PM (#3369241) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Please combine this with Spaw's thread on the same topic or everyone with a differing opinion will be forced to start their own thread with their opinion as the headline. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 05:48 PM (#3369242) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger It's the foot in the door. What's next, the mandatory Tootsie Roll tax? The middle class will now be taxed out of existence. Your children will starve to death. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 05:51 PM (#3369243) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger Oh, yeah. You'd better hide this news. Combine it, bury it. All you bastards who don't pay your Obamacare "tax" will soon have IRS SWAT teams kicking in your doors. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 05:52 PM (#3369244) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 Songwronger, you are being foolish. Your so-called middle class doesn't exist. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 05:59 PM (#3369248) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bill D "...will soon have IRS SWAT teams kicking in your doors." If you read...or listened... to the explanations, you'd know that there is very little penalty for not paying the tax. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 06:00 PM (#3369250) Subject: BS: Affordable Heathcare Act -Roberts vote? From: Jack the Sailor I thought I would join the headline contest started by wronger. Jump in everyone. the water is fine! But I do think that the Chief's decision was interesting. But then, he still thinks Corporations are people and money is speech. Like threads will be combined. Two already have been. --mudelf |
|
28 Jun 12 - 06:00 PM (#3369249) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth "This is the largest single tax hike in the history of humanity, by the way." Not so, Wrong-o. You completely misunderstand (or more likely, intentionally misrepresent) what the law is all about. And as far as being the largest tax hike in the history of humanity, that's just bloody rediculous. It affects only those who don't already have or refuse to get health insurance, because if they THEN get sick and need health care service, it throws the burden of paying for it on other taxpayers who already HAVE health insurance. DO try to understand these things! Don Firth |
|
28 Jun 12 - 06:03 PM (#3369252) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bill D ...and besides, the real penalty for NOT paying the tax should be NOT getting benefits when you have an emergency. I suspect that 'most' will just opt into the system and be glad they did. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 06:32 PM (#3369261) Subject: RE: BS: Affordable Heathcare Act -Roberts vote? From: Jack the Sailor Mandates are great!! ask the expert! |
|
28 Jun 12 - 06:44 PM (#3369274) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Rapparee I've read the syllabus prepared by SCOTUS. I suggest others, who don't seem to understand the decision, do the same. (Look it up yourself! -- I'm retired.) |
|
28 Jun 12 - 06:58 PM (#3369281) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor This what you read rap? |
|
28 Jun 12 - 07:52 PM (#3369302) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: robomatic I think the decision is a victory for Democracy in that it presents the argument that if you want to institute a total health system, the government is the only power that can bring it off, and if they can tax the people, they can mandate the people. (Distinction without a difference?). Meanwhile, if you think there is no difference between the candidates, you are not paying attention. Obama drove the health care act and has the Supremes behind his right to institute it. Romney, after driving a health care act in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has now decided, with some help from his base, that this time he's going to oppose it. There's reason to get out there and fight the good fight! |
|
28 Jun 12 - 07:54 PM (#3369303) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Rapparee Yes. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 08:01 PM (#3369307) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Stilly River Sage Now that's out of the way lets kick the for-profit insurance folks out and get a single-payer plan. Really piss off the GOP. SRS |
|
28 Jun 12 - 08:04 PM (#3369310) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos Sadwronger, you really mixed it up in your haid, dude. A |
|
28 Jun 12 - 08:15 PM (#3369314) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Ebbie I think he may have misled us with his title; Handwringer is more like it. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 08:50 PM (#3369330) Subject: RE: BS: SCOTUS rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert The wrongman is playing the sour grapes boogie... Obama was smart to go out of his way to say that he he thought the legislation was constitutional and put Roberts on notice that it was time for the court to get out of politics (even for one day)... Roberts knows that after Bush v. Gore and Citizen's United that he and his boys were running out of holes to be punched on the card before there was going to be hell to pay... The fact that people have been camped out before the court demanding that these people set aside politics and act like judges but additional pressure on Roberts... He did what he felt he had to do to and not what he wanted to do... B~ |
|
28 Jun 12 - 10:13 PM (#3369344) Subject: BS: Chances of Repealing Obamacare Zero... From: Bobert Lets get real here... Romeny says that he's going to repeal "Obamacare"... The Republican House says it's going to repeal "Obamacare"... Under existing Senate rules it will take 60 votes to repeal "Obamacare"... The votes aren't there now and the TeaPubs ain't gonna pick up ii seats in November... Vegas odds-makers have them breaking even, at best... So, what we are seeing is more subterfuge, more obstructionism, more sandbagging and more game-playing by the TeaPubs... And in the words of the late Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it is"... B~ |
|
28 Jun 12 - 10:24 PM (#3369350) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Elmore No New Taxis! |
|
28 Jun 12 - 10:24 PM (#3369351) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Rapparee If you didn't bother to read the syllabus -- the Supremes did NOT state that the Act was a tax, it stated that part of the Act fell under the taxing authority of Congress -- the part related to Medicare. Wrongsonger, love it or leave it!! |
|
28 Jun 12 - 10:25 PM (#3369352) Subject: RE: BS: Chances of Repealing Obamacare Zero... From: Elmore Thank Dog. |
|
28 Jun 12 - 10:29 PM (#3369354) Subject: RE: BS: Chances of Repealing Obamacare Zero... From: Bobert Well, Elmore... Not too sure about which dog to thank but "zero" is probably on the high side of the TeaPubs chances of repealing the Affordable Care Act... It's more like in the minuses.. B~ |
|
28 Jun 12 - 11:02 PM (#3369370) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Sawzaw Now that I have heard the chief justice's reasoning, it does not sound bad like a bad ruling at all. My concern is where is there anything in the act to make health care more affordable? Has anyone's health insurance gone down? |
|
28 Jun 12 - 11:09 PM (#3369375) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Joe Offer I've had significant savings, since my 23-yr-old stepson is still covered under my insurance policy. I'm sure people with "existing conditions" have found the same. -Joe- |
|
28 Jun 12 - 11:09 PM (#3369377) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert The part that Obama made reference to is the part that seems to be the ele4phant in the room and.. ... the reason why health insurance companies hate this legislation... They have to spend 85% of premiums on, ahhhhhh, health care... That's what Obama meant by folks would be receiving checks in the mail from their health insurance companies... Least spoken aspect but BIGGER than big!!! B~ |
|
28 Jun 12 - 11:14 PM (#3369380) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Joe Offer This "Obamacare" legislation isn't socialized medicine. It's American-style, corporate healthcare. The legislation attempts to force the insurance corporations to give the people what they're paying for. What a concept! Too bad we can't trust the corporations to do that without being forced to. -Joe- |
|
28 Jun 12 - 11:37 PM (#3369386) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: JohnInKansas Calling the payment that uninsured people must pay a "penalty" is a political fiction. There are numerous established processes in which persons can "opt out" of "legal requirements" by making "payments in kind" of by "bonding" (frequently with annual forfeitures of the bond amounts - i.e. annyal "payments.") This is especially prevalent in state laws mandating liability insurance for drivers/vehicles. It gives those who can't, or won't, buy insurance to pay a nominal "fee" that (theoretically) shows "ability to pay" in lieu of having conventional insurance. The "fines" for not being insured under the health insurance act are, at least for now, quite nominal compared to typical payments for existing insurance policies in effect prior to the act. They are in (inadequate) part, a perfectly appropriate payment for the cost to the people as a whole of being an uninsured burden. A goal of the act was to create more affordable policies available to the uninsured before the fees escalate; and there has been visible progress on that front, although of course we'd like to see a lot more of that kind of progress. Congress has plenty of time to work the wrinkles out of the act, if there are still valid objections, although that's unlikely until Republicans abandon their stated policy of obstruction based on their principle that the party is more important than the Country, and the "big donors" are the only ones that the party needs to satisfy. John |
|
29 Jun 12 - 12:38 AM (#3369397) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 I shall come back to the question: what will they tell the bear when they have no more cookies? The American people are within inches of regaining their democracy. Do so. The rest can be sorted later. As a btw, President Obama just got re-elected. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 01:38 AM (#3369406) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Would you please explain who is the bear and what are the cookies? Do you mean these cookies? I know one of these guys must be the bear! |
|
29 Jun 12 - 01:57 AM (#3369410) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,888--I'm under the weather The guy ya watch out for is second from the left. As for the cookie, cool. Watch, admire. Gives new meaning to pride. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 02:04 AM (#3369413) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,guest from Sanity Stereo politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths ..and Romney, "The first thin i will do is I will repeal Obamacare...."...Blah blah blah......... .........and GfS...... I told you the provisions were all screwed up!!! GfS |
|
29 Jun 12 - 06:35 AM (#3369473) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: kendall Universal health care is the only answer. The cost? we would have to stop invading other countries that pose no threat to us, and borrowing billions to fund those invasions. You listening George? |
|
29 Jun 12 - 06:39 AM (#3369476) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: kendall The solution is simple. Doing it is next to impossible. Re elect NO ONE! |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:03 AM (#3369503) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert "Stop invading other countries", Capt'n??? Horrors??? B;~) |
|
29 Jun 12 - 10:04 AM (#3369548) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity kendall: "The solution is simple. Doing it is next to impossible. Re elect NO ONE!" As I posted before, They should have a place on the ballot, as a Choice, we could check, "None of the above!" Good post, kendall! GfS |
|
29 Jun 12 - 10:10 AM (#3369552) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: bobad New York Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman writes, "In short, unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people's lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society." |
|
29 Jun 12 - 11:06 AM (#3369573) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: artbrooks That would be Nobel-laureate in Economics Paul Krugman, I think. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 11:11 AM (#3369575) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Lighter I started a thread on this yesterday before anybody else. It was called "Obamacare." It vanished after about fifteen minutes. Joe, what gives? (Not that it matters at this point.) |
|
29 Jun 12 - 11:52 AM (#3369600) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bill D "Has anyone's health insurance gone down?" We have saved a bundle because of the help on immunosuppressant drugs my wife needs. The 'donut hole' keeps shrinking. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 12:41 PM (#3369618) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Greg F. Has anyone's health insurance gone down? In a word: YES. Lots of folks, and more to come. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 12:53 PM (#3369621) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Lighter Latest Tea Party spin: conservative Chief Justice Roberts (appointed by GWB) was "intimidated in his decision" by the liberal media. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 01:07 PM (#3369629) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: artbrooks Ya think Roberts reads the HuffPost or MSNBC.com? The rest of the "main-stream media" isn't exactly liberal, as the right defines the term. BTW, my health insurance hasn't gone down, but that's because I'm covered by two federal government managed health care systems called Medicare and Tricare. My daughter is anxiously waiting for the establishment of insurance exchanges in Texas so that, as a self-employed person, she can get any insurance. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 01:23 PM (#3369639) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert First of all, there is no such thing as the liberal media, Lighter... I'm not sure if there has even been a liberal media but certainly not in the last 2 or 3 decades... I do recall back in the 60's "documentaries" on all kinds of things which were not only interesting by informative... I guess that seeing as the media was spreading the truth that made it "liberal"... lol... My own feeling on why Roberts did what he did comes down to three aspects: 1. After Bush v. Gore and Citizens United another decision against liberals (actually moderates) would be seen as the straw that broke the camels back... 2. Roberts promised the Senate that he was going to try to bring some fairness to the court and has not lived up to that which leads us to... 3. Roberts knows that historians will one day be writing about his legacy and he needed to move away from #1 and #2 to have much of one... That's my take on it one day after the decision... B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 01:54 PM (#3369667) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor >>there is no such thing as the liberal media, Lighter... I'm not sure if there has even been a liberal media but certainly not in the last 2 or 3 decades.<< Not so! There is "Democracy Now" and "the Pacifica radio network." They've been around for years. Never heard of them? Could that be because the big cable networks won't carry them and the government won't give them seed money and FCC support like they did "liberal" NPR? Nah.... |
|
29 Jun 12 - 02:02 PM (#3369678) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton You dont think the ruling actually advances right wing ideology Bob? |
|
29 Jun 12 - 02:04 PM (#3369679) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Its certainly the opposite of Socialism......sorry about the d/post |
|
29 Jun 12 - 02:45 PM (#3369695) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 I need glasses. I have been reading the thread title as it's a TAXI and for a few days now I've wondered what it meant. Another mystery bites the dust. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 03:06 PM (#3369706) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor More liberal media http://www.examiner.com/article/5-republican-facts-that-every-american-should-be-pissed-about |
|
29 Jun 12 - 03:17 PM (#3369711) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Yes, Jts... I am aware of the few outlets... What I was referring to is the ***general*** all encompassing right wing Big Lie about - horrors - "the liberal media"... Sorry, if I didn't make that plain enough... B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 03:31 PM (#3369724) Subject: BS: Con(servative) reaction Affordable Healt From: Jack the Sailor Conservative reaction to the Affordable Health Care Act decision. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:04 PM (#3369736) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor You mean that Disney owned ABC and Viacom owned CBS are "liberal?" Who is stupid enough to think that? |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:20 PM (#3369769) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Read for content, JtS... You have missed what I've said twice... Drenk a chilly one and reread what I have said... Sheesh... B;~) |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:22 PM (#3369771) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jeri JtS: "Who is stupid enough to think that? " A bunch of conservatives. Well, I don't know that they actually believe it, but they hope the people they're talkin' at do. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:34 PM (#3369778) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Bobert does this mean "tongue in cheek" :-p if show it should have been included in both posts addressed to you. I was agreeing with you in principle but not in detail the first time. In the second I was being ironic... sorry that those things did not come across. My Bad.... |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:28 PM (#3369855) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger Well, I was for extending Medicaire to all Americans, but no, the Dems/Repubs had to bring the robber barons into the game. And that's what this is. Big insurance companies wrote this abomination, and the big insurance companies will benefit. And the insurance companies are just extensions of the big banks, so in effect this is just another banking bailout. And what crap about the penalty for not having health insurance being insignificant. The last figure I saw said a person would be fined...I mean "taxed"...$695 per year for not having insurance. Sure that's less than the hundreds per month that healthcare costs now, so all of you yuppies are right about it being just a fraction of that, but $695 is a big chunk of change when you can't afford bread for your kid's school lunch. Yeah, the liberal love of the poor is really showing through on this. As far as the tax increase...the court chose to call the penalty a tax, so that's what it is. Mainstream news claims there are 30-35 million uninsured Americans. But it's probably around 100 million. You know how the mainstream media (arm of the government) likes to keep the bad numbers down. But say it's 30 million who will now have to pay the penalty...I mean "tax"...then that's $695 times 30 million. But there'll be surcharges and other add-ons, so the "tax" will be a thousand bucks, times the true number of uninsured. What's 1000 times 100 million? Name me a tax increase that was larger. Obama let the robber barons in on the action, and now Romney is posing like he'll fight it. But Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. They're plugging you in your fore and aft orifices and you're loving it. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:36 PM (#3369858) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bill D 'Most' of the general national media tries to adhere to fair, accurate reporting and to coherent, logical analysis. That sort of thing can sure look like a 'liberal' slant to those who are used to distorted viewpoints from their own side.. ;>) |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:49 PM (#3369860) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Wrongman = 100% TeaPublican and ...liar!!! Where did you ever post that you were for Medicare for everyone??? No where... You are trying to BS us with that, "Oh geeze... I was for expanding Medicare to everyone but..." Liar!!! B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 09:46 PM (#3369883) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger I don't have to justify myself to you, you hysterical jackoff. But since you asked: detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=3348415 You "liberals" just imposed a crushing tax on tens of millions of Americans. People will die by the millions because of this. You've been taught to hate humanity. This is the flowering of your "liberal arts" educations. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 10:03 PM (#3369885) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert My apologies... You did get it right on extending Medicare... Great... Now time to get off the Republican bandwagon as if if taxing 1% of the nation is this big ass assault on the entire universe... It's not and since 99% of the people who won't participate are poor then we're really talking about nothing here... The big talking point for TeaPub Nation is that the IRS is going to become the Gestapo and that is as right winged reactionary, tin foil, as it comes... B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 10:50 PM (#3369896) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 I do not know how so many people can hate Songwronger. He is, I think, American. He has family and he cares for them. His ideas may differ from yours, but that means he has what you Americans believe in: freedom. So far, instead of listening to and thinking about his fears and thoughts, many people here have pilloried him. IMO, it's wrong to do that. I have on a few occasions disagreed with his views, but in truth, I do see where he is coming from. Calling him names and subjecting him to ridicule is beneath anyone's dignity, and that means ours. Likely, sitting down with a beer and a guitar, lots could be understood. From all of us. That is not as eloquent as I meant to say it, but it is the best I can do for now. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 11:02 PM (#3369900) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: dick greenhaus Since we're picking nits, here, the SOTUS didn't say it was a tax...just that the power to penalize those who didn't sign up for health insurance came under the Right to Tax provisions of the Constitution. The "Crushing Tax" that will "kill tens of millions of Americans" is a pretty modest penalty for those who want to gamble that they won't need medical care, or that if they do someone else will pick up the tab. It seems that the way to eliminate Obamacare is to vote for the guy that invented it. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 11:18 PM (#3369907) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST Here's the real deal on wrongman... Now that we have the "only" step forward that was possible people like wrongman jump on it as not enough... Hey, it was all there to be gotten... Reality was that the Repubs were going to filibusterer this thing into us getting "zero"... In other words, business as usual... We got all we could... Wrongman gets no credit here for holding out for something that wasn't going to happen... That's games... Seen it before... "Oh, I would have supported this or that but_________________" BS B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 11:26 PM (#3369911) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 No offense old friend, but my post stands as is. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 11:53 PM (#3369918) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor 999 Mick starts a thread about this decision. wronger starts this argument thread. Songwronger is constantly, deliberately picking fights here. You are on his side. Fine. You want to feed the troll? Fine. Do you have to be quite so condescending? |
|
30 Jun 12 - 01:49 AM (#3369919) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: michaelr "It seems that the way to eliminate Obamacare is to vote for the guy that invented it." Good one, Dick! -- except that Romney implemented it in Mass, but he did not invent it. That credit goes to Liz Fowler, vice president of WellPoint, a major insurance company. "Big insurance companies wrote this abomination, and the big insurance companies will benefit." Songwronger is dead right about this one. It's a huge giveaway to the useless bloodsucking soulless cabal of middlemen that is the US version of health insurance. That said, it's looking to be better -- and cover more people -- than what we had. And it's a first step in the right direction toward Medicare for all. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:22 AM (#3369923) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well, I'd have to say, I agree with Michaelr, and Songwronger on this one, with one addendum...there is a trade-off compromise, between the insurance companies and the government....the government writes a law, that everyone buys the insurance companies' product...and the government, in turn gets even more power and control over people's lives..Such a deal!! As I've posted before, we DO need health care reform, that's a given!..but this particular bill wasn't the one....and rather than writing up a good comprehensive bill, that wouldn't intrude into so many people's lives, to the degree that it does, they just used Romney's, for the most part..and spent bu-coups time making it as air tight as they could to FORCE people into having to purchase the product..however, appeasing the people, by providing a form of health care...even thought it WILL include rationing, and decisions are not made by doctors and the patients, but by political appointees. I could go into all the 'considerations' that would sway a medical decision, but I'd rather do that with someone who wasn't illiterate on the subject....in other words, someone who actually is familiar with the details, and not just bellowing the 'party line's' talking points....because in the real world, talking point parrots are just intellectually lazy, illiterate brainless drones...oh wait!..'Drones in America'...oh, that's another thread..... Oh, and before the 'Teapub' drone starts droning....what I just posted, I'm not aware of anything like it coming from the Tea Party, just like a lot of stuff I've been accused of....though what I've been saying, I've been saying for several years, before there was a Tea party..or even the concept of one!!!!!!! GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:49 AM (#3369931) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Well I like most people who contribute here whether I agree with them or not...as long as they are honest. and I agree with Bruce, Songwrongers posts are valid and interesting, they provoke debate. Is that not why we are all here? |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:57 AM (#3369933) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Akenaton: "....they provoke debate. Is that not why we are all here?" ...and hopefully come to an understanding of the truth..after cutting through the fog of political pollution! ...and the truth, would make us whole though understanding, as opposed to, dividing us with resentment, fear and loathing.....or becoming one of Bobert's recruits into the Tea Party!! GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 01:47 PM (#3369953) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Here's the part that Obama eluded to in his short talk after the decision and it's why the insurance companies have spent so much $$$ to defeat this... The legislation forces them to pay out 85% of premiums in health care... I've brought this up before but folks just don't get the implications... Millions of Americans will be receiving a check later this summer from their insurance companies that will reimburse them for a share of their premiums going back to the bill's implementation for excessive CEO salaries, stock holder dividends and administrative costs that exceed the lawful 15%... That's the fly in the ointment... B~ |
|
30 Jun 12 - 01:54 PM (#3369960) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: dick greenhaus That 85% means that, at best, the consumer is paying 17.6% more for his health care than it should be costing. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:01 PM (#3369962) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Administration has to be done and paid for. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:14 PM (#3369970) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor >>>Well I like most people who contribute here whether I agree with them or not...as long as they are honest. and I agree with Bruce, Songwrongers posts are valid and interesting, they provoke debate. Is that not why we are all here?<<< His posts are no worse than Bobert's. They are no better. Songwrongers posts and threads are often shrill and hyperbolic. Among them, there is fear mongering and personal attacks on The President. Sure songwronger has a right to fair speech. As does Bobert have a right to say that Songwronger is full of crap. The person who is out of line here is Bruce. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:20 PM (#3369973) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Please explain your math, Dick... B~ |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:22 PM (#3369975) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,josepp /////I do not know how so many people can hate Songwronger. He is, I think, American. He has family and he cares for them. His ideas may differ from yours, but that means he has what you Americans believe in: freedom.///// It might have morre to do with responses as this: "I don't have to justify myself to you, you hysterical jackoff." When someone's a prick and as asshole, don't defend it by saying it's because he cares about his family or whatever, that implies that if I really cared as much about my family as he does his that I'd be more of a prick and an asshole too. When someone is a prick and an asshole, it's because they are prick and an asshole. I don't care if they are, I'm no saint myself, but stop trying to sugar-coat it--just say it outright. With that said, Justice Roberts voted in favor of the health care bill, I believe, for one main reason: It's the first time anyone has really done anything about reforming health care and if SCOTUS kills it, it will probably be the last time and it CLEARLY needs to be reformed. We can't kill it and then go back to complaining that no one ever does anything about the spiraling costs and degenerating services in the American health care system. As for the experts here who know that it's all about only filling the pcokets of the rich and that it will do absolutely no good whatsoever and if it really was going to do any good, it wouldn't have been allowed to be implemented and that millions will die and have to sacrifice their children to pay for the premiums and services and madications--why don't we button it and just see how it shakes out? It's not like you have a choice now. You don't know what's going to happen any more than I do and I have no idea. One thing I do know: we'd better do something and something has finally been done. So, for now, I prefer to have hope. At worst, it will be no better than what we have. To paraphrase George Bush: Give the chance a plan to work. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:30 PM (#3369978) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 josepp, he was attacked and that response though not cool was at least in line with what people were saying to him. So, I do not agree with you. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:48 PM (#3369983) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert I agree with josepp in his analysis of the legislation in general... We falt out weren't going to get single payer... Too many blue dog Dems said the would not vote for it... And Joe Lieberman, the 60th vote in the so-call super majority said he wouldn't vote for it either... So rather than waste time, Obama and the Dems advanced the only bill that at best is just a first step in fixing the problem... It gets more people into the pool... That is a good thing... By 2025 we will have a single payer system because it's cheaper... The cost to administer Medicare is 2% as opposed to the 15% the ACA allows... That's a lot of dough... And Medicare doesn't play games like the insurance companies... One other thing that would bring down costs would be for Medicare to negotiate pricing with Big Pharma... The Bush plan was a $T give away to them... That alone would bring our overall costs down considerably... B~ |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:57 PM (#3369991) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor hmmmmm... Still at it Bruce? >>I do not know how so many people can hate Songwronger. << Nobody does, zilch, zero, that is how many. That statement is you being shrill and hyperbolic in the same way that wronger is. He is deliberately saying provocative untrue things (like "Obama" is going to put you on his "kill list") in order to provoke a reaction. You would defend his right to provoke but not others' right to call bullshit? Look! You are Canadian. I am aware that righteous indignation as perceived by the self-appointed manners police which appears to be nearly every Canadian over the age of 10 west of Quebec trumps free speech in Canada. It doesn't in the US. In the US, between Americans, the right to free speech applies to all. :-p |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:59 PM (#3369992) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,josepp Two wrongs still don't make a right last I checked. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:59 PM (#3369993) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jack the Sailor: "Administration has to be done and paid for." Shouldn't that read, "THE Administration has to be done and paid for." Bobert: "...Here's the part that Obama eluded to in his short talk after the decision and it's why the insurance companies have spent so much $$$ to defeat this..." That would be logic for the 'simpleton' ....how do you account for the fact that Americans will be FORCED to buy insurance, from those companies that 'lobbied against it'??....unless they want the cheap crap from the government, and be fined for not buying it?? Jack the Sailor: "The person who is out of line here is Bruce." WHAT?????????????!!!!???!!! Josepp: "To paraphrase George Bush: Give the chance a plan to work." To paraphrase George Bush: "Welcome to the New World Order!!...Glad so many of you were so enthusiastic to join!!!" GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 03:03 PM (#3369996) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: pdq Songwronger is dead right about this one. It's a huge giveaway to the useless bloodsucking soulless cabal of middlemen that is the US version of health insurance. ~ michaelr Songwronger and the few original thinkers on Mudcat need to be respected by those who parrot the "party line". This place gets real boring when ten to twenty people in a row spout the same old tired BS. BTW, if Obama & Co. really wanted to do health reform, they would have started by building hundreds of state-of-the-art medical training centers, hospitals, clinics and the like. We need more doctors and more equipment, not more government/insurance manipulation. Obama's Stimulus Bill alone spent 887 billion dollars. Did any of it go to help train more doctors? |
|
30 Jun 12 - 03:04 PM (#3369997) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor josepp Bruce is saying that what wronger does is not wrong. But he is saying that responding in kind is wrong. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 03:05 PM (#3369998) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Whoever first said it: ">>I do not know how so many people can hate Songwronger.<<" Well, I do....Partisans tend to 'hate' people whose common sense trumps their partisan propagandized dogmas!!..........I KNOW!!!! GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 03:08 PM (#3370000) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Q (Frank Staplin) Several states will not implement the provisions, so their citizens will not benefit. The option granted to the states by the Supreme Court allows them not to expand their Medicaid programs. NY Times, June 29, Reluctance in Some States Over Medicaid Expansion. The states include Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, New Jersey, Mississippi and possibly Texas (which has 25% of citizens without health coverage). NY Times, June 29. For Uninsured in Texas, Supreme Court Ruling Adds Uncertainty. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 03:20 PM (#3370006) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Q: "Several states will not implement the provisions, so their citizens will not benefit." Good for them!!!!..matter of fact, the states would be freer if they refused most all federal government enticements and bribes!! GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 03:25 PM (#3370010) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,josepp ////Bruce is saying that what wronger does is not wrong. But he is saying that responding in kind is wrong.//// Thanks, I know that and I'm saying that two wrongs don't make a right. If he can defend what he's saying then he should defend it instead of responding in the same wrong fashion that he was attacked with. If he can't do that then he cannot defend his position and that calls into question the idea that he is one of mudcat's few original thinkers. He sounds more like one of mudcat's many foamers-at-the-mouth when confronted with ideas and thoughts that he can't process or tolerate because they run counter to his own. Mudcat has enough of those and too many of them get free passes because other posters seem to regard them highly for no fair reason accept they agree with that person's attitude regardless of how puerile it may be. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 03:43 PM (#3370019) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Joe, "original thinker" or not. wronger's tone and lines of attack is what invites the response. He is very similar to GfS this way. It is not enough for them to criticize the Administration. They have to call people who do not share their views stupid. They have to say untrue things to back up their views. I can put up with those sorts of things a few times without responding. And I did. But comes a time when it seem appropriate to point out where what they are saying is wrong and to point out that they are the ones being stupid. Bobert is always fair and above board in these discussions. He make his opinions clear and he makes it clear what he thinks of those who disagree. Whether it is Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney or Songwronger, if you take certain stands you know you are going to predictable reactions from Bobert. There is no need to take that personally. They is no justification for calling that hate. There is especially no need for third parties, who have engaged it their share of political back and forth themselves (I'm looking at you Brucie!) to butt in and say that is wrong. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 04:07 PM (#3370024) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Q: "Bobert is always fair and above board in these discussions. He make his opinions clear and he makes it clear what he thinks of those who disagree." What a crock of shit!! If he has nothing, he calls you a 'bigot', 'hater', 'racist' or 'Tea Pub'!....Dear 'Q', if you wanna be taken seriously, then get serious! Many people see Bobert, as the resident drunk, when he answers other people's post as he does. I personally like Bobert, and all his anality...in a way...but that doesn't mean his responses have anything whatsoever to do with accuracy, or intelligence!..Most of it, is blithering blather of Democrat party talking points, which is already known, and a given, just bull diarrhea.......the good thing, though is when he does post, it's good to see how weak those same talking points are...so he gets Don to help him, and post together, as he thinks it makes his 'case' stronger'......and, Boy, is that DUMB! I'd rather get HIS opinions as a human being, rather than a party rat. .......and he's called on it, all the time. ..but we love him anyway....and BTW, Bobert, I've never heard any of your music...anyplace to hear it? I have a feeling, it is your strong point!!!! GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 04:14 PM (#3370028) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor "Whether it is Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney or Songwronger, OR GfS if you take certain stands you know you are going to predictable reactions from Bobert." |
|
30 Jun 12 - 04:35 PM (#3370034) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yes, Jack..you are correct....and that's because Bobert's response, is always the same...so it's not hard to pick which 'one' he'll come up with. It starts with name calling, and goes downhill from there, into the land of sheer talking point nonsense!...oh, and of course Tea....(rolls eyes), GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 04:35 PM (#3370035) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor GfS, I think if there was a pole taken, "Who is the Village Idiot of the Mudcat?" You would get a lot more votes than Bobert. Keep in mind that when Bobert is not talking politics, he engages in self-depricating humor. Many people remember your history from the Democratic nominating contest of 2008. You were calling everybody who disagreed with you stupid then. In fact, isn't your name a constant message to us all that you think of yourself as the lone sane visitor in this insane place. You are not making any friends like that. Anyone who tells you otherwise. Anyone who tells you you are better than Bobert is just winding you up because they enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself. There are plenty of people on this forum who will do that. Here is a suggestion. Start calling yourself "Likes the Blues" or something that says something about you that doesn't make you seem so nuts. Here is another suggestion. Register for the forum. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 04:36 PM (#3370036) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor sorry... poll taken. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 04:38 PM (#3370038) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert First. lets clean up some of the misinformation about the ACA... 1. The "opt out" is not an "opt out" for the act itself... It is an option for states in how they deal with Medicaid (income eligible) folks... These are the poorest of the poor... These are ***not*** the folks who will be required to purchase insurance nor those who will be subsidized... The states that elect to opt out are, in essence, depriving their poorest from getting health care... (Note; GfinS and others may think that's a fine thing... Personally, I think is immoral and will kill many people who now have some level of Medicaid coverage)... 2. "Administrative" as JtS used it was in reference to the ***costs*** of administering the program... Not the Obama administration... 3. No one is forced to purchase health insurance... The penalties are not all that steep for not doing so and in most cases would just be deducted from tax refunds which, BTW, when we are talking about people who now do not have insurance and get low income credits means that it won't cost them anything out of their pockets... Them's is for starters... Yo, GfinS... Yeah, there's plenty of my music out there... Google "Sidewalk Bob) (me) and check me out live (well, I was on the day it was video'd) on YouTube... Then you can get some clips on my 1st CD "13 Shades of Blue" off either CDBaby or CigarBoxNation... And ya' can sent me $10 and get my latest CD "Sidewalk Bob Live @ Archie Edwards Barbershop" which was recorded last September... B~ |
|
30 Jun 12 - 04:40 PM (#3370040) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jack: "GfS, I think if there was a pole taken, "Who is the Village Idiot of the Mudcat?" But then...it might be you, for not knowing the difference between a pole, and a poll!! Waving! GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 05:07 PM (#3370056) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor GfS Very clever of you posting that 4 minutes after I apologized and made the correction. You are like the Secretariat of idiots. Your lead keeps growing and growing..... |
|
30 Jun 12 - 07:38 PM (#3370102) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: dick greenhaus Bobert- If you pay $100 for $85 worth of service, you're overpaying by 17.6470588% Jack the Sailor- THat 's in addition to any Federal administrative costs. it goes for advertising, bonuses, management salaries and lawsuits. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 07:55 PM (#3370108) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Dick... Your math doesn't make sense... The ACA requires private insurance companies to pay out 85 cents on the dollar for actual claims to providers... How one can take that single piece of information and make a statement that by making that a requirement will increase anyone's rate is mind boggling... Here's an example: Acme Health Insurance charges you $200 a month for health insurance but only pays out $100 to providers... What percentage of you premium went to the provider??? Well, that's purdy simple... 1/2 or 50%... Right??? Under the ACA Acme would either: 1. Have to pay out $170 to the provider (85% of premium) or... 2. Lower your premium (hark... this is why the health insurance companies have spent so much to defeat the ACA...) B~ |
|
30 Jun 12 - 07:59 PM (#3370110) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos The ACA is a positive step and will provide insurance coverage for millions of people who would other wise be denied it. Songwronger's rabid assertions are, I think, unfounded. HEre's a fairly clear general explanation of what it does, and when. Here's a discussion of the pros and cons of the bill's impact on doctor compensation. HEre's a government page dedicated to the health care act and related issues. Enjoy! |
|
30 Jun 12 - 08:27 PM (#3370117) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Good stuff, Amos ol' buddy... Oh??? And... ...100... B;~) |
|
30 Jun 12 - 08:33 PM (#3370118) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos . |
|
30 Jun 12 - 08:36 PM (#3370119) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos Full copy of the Act Timeline of provisions and when they go into effect. If any of these frothing arm-wavers would like to address specific flaws about specific provisions, I am all ears. Otherwise I am all some other body part. A |
|
30 Jun 12 - 11:24 PM (#3370146) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jack: "Very clever of you posting that 4 minutes after I apologized and made the correction." Thanks for pointing that out..we may have cross threaded, and i didn't see it...but hey, how could I have resisted?...and the fact you did correct it, and were cool....you've, at least temporarily removed your self from the candidates for your 'Village Idiot Award'!...should I wish you better luck, next time?...(just messin' with ya' Jack)..hey, Do you play anything, or have a link? GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 11:26 PM (#3370147) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: dick greenhaus Bobert- You don't base things on what you pay, but by what you get. It doesn't not a matter of what percentage of your premium goes to the provider, it's what percentage of the actual cost of your care you wind up paying.In your example, there's a markup of 200% |
|
01 Jul 12 - 05:37 AM (#3370189) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Amos...As AWC (arm waver in chief), i am still awaiting a reply regarding the quality of care provided by Medicare. Does match up to what those who can afford the new levy will receive? Does President Obama believe in a two tier health service? Do you think this legislation is a "move in the right direction"? Or is it a move towards a fully privatised service, which will further divide your nation into "haves and have nots"? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 07:19 AM (#3370204) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: dick greenhaus Amos- The quality of care provided by Medicare is as good as thedoctors in your area cn provide.A helluva improvement over private Mangled Health Care programs I formerly subscribed to. I pick the doctor--referrals aren't required, and I have much less red tape than before. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 08:25 AM (#3370226) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton That is not what I am asking Dick. To say the quality of care is "as good as the doctors in your area can provide", is absolutely meaningless. How does it compare with the service provided to people who have private insurance? Does it mean a two tier service? If you want a National Health Service funded by taxation and available to all, regardless of ability to pay, isn't this privatisation a move in the wrong direction? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 08:50 AM (#3370229) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Greg F. How does it compare with the service provided to people who have private insurance? In my experiance, the same if not better. Most of the time, its the same physicians & health professionals. Does it mean a two tier service? No. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 09:05 AM (#3370232) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: dick greenhaus Private plans limit your choice of doctors. Medicare doesn't. If your area lacks competent doctors and hospitals, no insurance plan will give you good healthcare. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 09:15 AM (#3370241) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: artbrooks Speaking for myself only, the quality of care under Medicare is superior to that under the semi-private insurance I had before I turned 65. I am using exactly the same doctors and other health-care providers, except that pre-approval is not required under Medicare and (so far) I have not had any episode of care denied because it was not "medically necessary". Under the "new system", which is not yet operational and really not fully defined, a person will choose from among a variety of insurance providers with variety of options. There will be a fixed set of required coverages and, I expect, the various carriers will vie among themselves to offer additions to attract customers. That is how the open market works. These will also vary in cost, so a person gets what he can (or wants to) pay for, but everyone will get that required fixed set, unless he chooses to pay the fee for remaining uncovered, which will eventually grow to about $700 per year or $2100 per family. I have no idea if Mr. Obama believes in a two tier health service. His beliefs, as far as I know, are his own. He did not write this law, and there is no reason to think that it embodies his own thinking. I really don't think of this as "two tier", in the sense that there are only two levels of care possible. There are a multitude of levels available within the system, and there will always be that minority who choose to remain under self-pay. Is this a "move in the right direction"? Of course, in the sense that any move away from a cliff is a good move. IMHO, there is certainly a great deal of room for improvement - and that goes far beyond any minimal tweaking. Is this a "move toward a fully privatized service"? Certainly not. I didn't look very far, but the Kaiser Foundation said that 26% of the US population was covered by Medicare and Medicaid in 2004 - I'd expect that these numbers have grown with the aging of the Baby Boomers. Nothing in this law moves these individuals into any kind of private/commercial insurance coverage. It would be more accurate to say that it moves the bulk of the population into the kind of program that has covered Federal government employees and the military for years, in which the basic standards for care are set, but individuals decide for themselves where to go to get that care and (in the case of civilian employees) decide what options they want and want to pay for. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 10:00 AM (#3370247) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Your math/logic leaves a lot to be desired, Dick... Yes, I agree with you 100% that a single payer, such as Medicare, is infinitely fairer and attractive... But once again on the math: Example A: premium paid - $200 amount paid to provider - $100 gross profit for insurer - $100 % paid out by insurer - 50% Under ACA : premium paid - $200 amount paid to provider - $170 gross profit to insurer - $30 % paid out by provider - 85% Note: Under the ACA the premium would have to drop considerably if only $100 were paid out... This is why people are going to get rebate checks from their health insurance companies retro back to when the "85%" rule kicked in... If you need me to explain it again, I'll take another crack at it, dick... B~ |
|
01 Jul 12 - 10:27 AM (#3370260) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor I have experienced three tier health care in the USA. Top tier corporate provided health care, which was about the same as the provincial version of the nation care plan that I got in Ontario, Canada. I bought private insurance through Blue Cross that was very expensive and hard to manage. I now have no insurance and we are putting the money aside that we would for insurance and paying as we go at the doctors' offices. It is not like the UK at all here Akeneton. It can also vary state to state, city to city. Blue Cross across the river in Alabama at the time would not even cover us. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 10:54 AM (#3370268) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: dick greenhaus Bobert- Your math works if you're an insurance company...not so if you're a patient. Try this one: If your car gets 15 mpg and you swap it for one getting 30 mpg, over the course of driving 15,000 miles you'd save 500 gallons. If you want to swap again, what gas mileage would your newest car have to have to provide the same yearly savings compared to car #2? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 11:16 AM (#3370275) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert 15,000 miles = 500 gal savings So if you want to save another 500 gallons then the next swap need to be for a car that gets 45 MPG... 30mpg + 15 mpg = 45 mpg... And yes my math does work seeing as the insurance company has to rebate any premiums above: 15% administration 85% paid to providers So if they are paying out $100 to providers they can only charge $15 to administer and then they can't charge you any more than $115 in premiums rather than the $200 that I used in my last example... In other words, they either have to lower the premium or they have to rebate you back $85... That's the part that drives the health insurance companies batty... That is why they have spent all that money to get Tea Party people elected... This is some serious $$$ here.. B~ |
|
01 Jul 12 - 11:23 AM (#3370281) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Thank you Greg, Art, Dick,...very interesting. It seems so different to the service we have and take so much for granted. The reason I asked about quality of service, was a photograph in the UK Times showing a Medicare treatment area....I think it was Chicago, the area was like a huge warehouse and there were dozens of patients on trollies lying in rows with perhaps two or three health workers walking round...it all seemed very primitive. Good enough for the poor? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 11:27 AM (#3370283) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Ake, I think I know what you saw. If I am right that was not medicare. It was a free program where doctors and dentists volunteer their services for the uninsured. Basically a doctor said, if we can have there programs in Haiti and other 3rd world places, why can't we do it here? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 11:38 AM (#3370284) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Bobert, I know you realize this but I will put it forth for the benefit of others. The math that counts is this. Say you want to implement Medicare For All, with as someone else has said a 1 to 2% Admin costs. If marketed as an insurance product That would put the Insurance companies out of business. If there is no law limiting how much of the insurance premiums can be spent on things other than providing service, In a trillion dollar industry, with no alternative other than to defeat you or go out of business, how much of their client's money would the insurance companies spend to defeat you? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 11:57 AM (#3370290) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Thanks Jack you may well be right, but if Medicare works so well, why would this program be needed? It rather answers my question..no? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 12:23 PM (#3370298) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor You have to be 65 years old for Medicare. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 12:35 PM (#3370306) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: dick greenhaus Bobert: Try again. A car getting 45 mpg would burn 333.33 gallons over 15,000 miles----a net saving over the 30 mpg car of 166.67 gallons. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 12:41 PM (#3370308) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Ebbie "...a photograph in the UK Times showing a Medicare treatment area....I think it was Chicago, the area was like a huge warehouse and there were dozens of patients on trollies lying in rows with perhaps two or three health workers walking round...it all seemed very primitive." ake This is a classic example of misunderstanding each other's countries. There is NO way that this scene would happen with Medicare; it is simply not the way Medicare works. I don't believe that it would be MedicAID either. Medicaid is "needs-based" but people sign up for it. It is an official plan; it is not a random method. So, the photo you saw must have have been of a free clinic, as JtS suggested. If that was Chicago, or some other large city, I suppose a "huge warehouse" setting could happen. A couple of times a year many towns and cities advertise free medical services where medical personnel offer blood pressure checks, AIDS blood work, dental checkups and other stand-alone services. I think the aim is to encourage the populace to follow through on perceived problems. The goal is a healthier society. Some of the 'patients' are homeless, of course, but many others are simply taking advantage of a quick checkup. I don't know whether other countries have similar services. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 12:54 PM (#3370315) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Many people see Bobert, as the resident drunk, when he answers other people's post as he does."" Name some! Your own long winded ramblings seem much more akin to the utterances of the well oiled lush than Bobert's. Behind that down home hillbilly persona that he often adopts, Bobert seems to have a keen and incisive mind, and he says what he thinks in a clear and unmistakeable fashion. The bottom line is that he, in common with several others here, talks about issues, as well as expressing his opinion of those who seek power, an opinion to which he is just as entitled as you are to yours. The difference is that your opinion is never clear except when denigrating other forum members who fail to recognise your self proclaimed genius. Don T. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 01:13 PM (#3370325) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor >>>""Many people see Bobert, as the resident drunk, when he answers other people's post as he does."" Your own long winded ramblings seem much more akin to the utterances of the well oiled lush than Bobert's.<<< You think so? Doesn't everyone think that GfS usually, posts like a meth head?? Hyper, grandiose, paranoid..... Just asking?? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 01:35 PM (#3370331) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth If anyone around here comes on like a bellicose drunk, it's GoofuS! Don Firth |
|
01 Jul 12 - 01:53 PM (#3370339) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Q (Frank Staplin) That auto mileage comparison if a bad one, if you figure in the cost of the new vehicle as well as the environmental damage involved in mining of raw materials and energy needed to fabricate your gas saver. (OK, not strictly pertinent, but the thought came to mind). GodforSaken guest, it was Jack the Sailor who said that Bobert was always fair, etc. not me. (However, I don't quarrel with his assessment) It is good practice to delete or ignore unsolicited emails; this treatment should apply to posts from non-members unless they are honest requests concerning music in some form. If we ignore this trolling pest, eventually he (she, it) will go away. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 02:11 PM (#3370345) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Ebbie Bob doesn't need protests or protection from me- let me just agree that the statement from GfS is ludicrous. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 04:47 PM (#3370380) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor From: GUEST,999 - PM Date: 30 Jun 12 - 02:30 PM josepp, he was attacked and that response though not cool was at least in line with what people were saying to him. So, I do not agree with you. I missed this before... The "attack" Wrongman = 100% TeaPublican and ...liar!!! The response... I don't have to justify myself to you, you hysterical jackoff. Keeping in mind that wronger who was the guy who warned us that Obama was going to put us on his "kill list" because police departments were "thinking about" "Arming" Drones. I think that 999 is right that the response was not cool. I still wonder why 999 feels the need to try to offer the protection of his massive accumulated good will. Wronger seems like he can handle himself. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 05:19 PM (#3370400) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Jack...On another thread Becky said that inthe US, anyone on the breadline qualified for Medicare....to answer my query about what was to happen to those who could not afford the new levy. Now you say that only those over 65 qualify. So....what DOES happen to those who cant pay? "Curiouser and curiouser" said Alice |
|
01 Jul 12 - 07:01 PM (#3370446) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Ebbie "On another thread Becky said that inthe US, anyone on the breadline qualified for Medicare." ake What thread was that, ake? There is an apparent misunderstanding. That is not the function of Medicare. Medicare is for the support of people of 65 and over, or of dependents (until age 18) of a deceased person or of - wait, here is the official word: "Before age 65, you are eligible for free Medicare hospital insurance if: You have been entitled to Social Security disability benefits for 24 months; or You receive a disability pension from the railroad retirement board and meet certain conditions; or If you receive Social Security disability benefits because you have Lou Gehrig's disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis); or You worked long enough in a government job where Medicare taxes were paid and you meet the requirements of the Social Security disability program; or You are the child or widow(er) age 50 or older, including a divorced widow(er), of someone who has worked long enough in a government job where Medicare taxes were paid and you meet the requirements of the Social Security disability program. You have permanent kidney failure and you receive maintenance dialysis or a kidney transplant and: You are eligible for or receive monthly benefits under Social Security or the railroad retirement system; or You have worked long enough in a Medicare-covered government job; or You are the child or spouse (including a divorced spouse) of a worker (living or deceased) who has worked long enough under Social Security or in a Medicare-covered government job." |
|
01 Jul 12 - 07:25 PM (#3370462) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth Washington State, where I live, and perhaps all states (but I'm not totally sure about this) have a system called "Medicaid," which will take care of those people who do not qualify for Medicare, but who are below the poverty line, need emergency care, and are simply unable to pay. I'm not sure what all the qualifications are, but it is paid for by state taxes I believe. But no, this certainly could not replace the Affordable Health Care Act. Don Firth |
|
01 Jul 12 - 07:27 PM (#3370463) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Thank you Ebbs I think the thread was "America again" its on the board now, or perhaps just dropped off. So what is to happen to a person of say forty, who develops cancer, cant afford the levy and does not meet the criteria you quoted? Is there any "safety net" for poor sick people? Is president Obama suggesting that they just die quietly? |
|
01 Jul 12 - 08:17 PM (#3370478) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos One of the provisions of the ACA is to extend the benefits of Medicare to a larger pool of those even under 65 who cannot afford insured service, as I understand it. A |
|
01 Jul 12 - 08:20 PM (#3370480) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: artbrooks I'm not sure what the "levy" is that you refer to, but a person who develops a major illness, or any other covered medical condition, and meets neither the requirements for Medicare nor Medicaid (the latter varies from state to state) and cannot afford to pay for his own insurance, is supposed to receive a grant to allow him to enroll in the lowest-cost plan that meets all requirements. This doesn't go into effect for a couple of years yet, and exactly how it will work in practice is still very much a moving target. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 08:46 PM (#3370491) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Ebbie "Is there any "safety net" for poor sick people? Is president Obama suggesting that they just die quietly? " See, right there is why I hesitate to engage you in conversation, ake. Caustic, barbed statements do not induce civil and informative answers. |
|
01 Jul 12 - 09:34 PM (#3370501) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth "Is there any 'safety net' for poor sick people? Is president Obama suggesting that they just die quietly?" Ake, read my post just above yours. President Obama is trying to improve on what already exists in some states and make it nationwide. By the way, your second sentence there drips with sarcasm. A clear tip-off of your preconceptions. Don Firth |
|
01 Jul 12 - 10:34 PM (#3370520) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Medicare/AID does provide pretty good care....problem is, and I'm sure many people in here have seen this, when you go into MANY doctor's offices, and see a little sign on the wall, "We Do Not Accept Medicaid Patients-Thank You"...and more and more that is the rule...and the reason is, they will tell you that the paperwork is too much hassle, and they have to wait too long to get reimbursement....if you go into a doctor's office and use insurance, often there is a co-pay, until you've used up your deductible for the year, then there is no charge after that....AND with the co-pay, the price is generally higher, when the insurance and the cash is combined. IF you PAY cash, with NO insurance, usually the cost is at least 1/3 less than the insurance, with or without co-pay, reason is the paperwork....and then there are some doctors, who also work in reduced costs or free clinics, either one day a week, or a couple a month...same doctor, same care, but it's affordable, or free. ...and that's the way it is. Don Firth: "If anyone around here comes on like a bellicose drunk, it's GoofuS!" I don't drink...another one of your misconceptions...no pun intended!! Ebbie: "Caustic, barbed statements do not induce civil and informative answers." I have found that Akenaton is very polite, and informative until he is needlessly attacked for presenting FACTS, contrary to politically dogmatic parrots...and even then, I've seen him display quite a generous amount of forbearance! ..You might want to check the post BEFORE his, to see the caustic crap being thrown his way. ...(Same with me, but that's a different story..I get attacked for an interpretation of something I never said..and then I fire back..and what REALLY pisses them off, is that mine are usually more witty, incisive and creative..so I get even a worse rep!!) For instance, once in a while, some clown brings up the 'Tin Foil Hat' thing...which, when I first read it, I thought it was funny...and then people get into arguing about who's wearing the 'tin foil hat' or 'No I'm not', and/or 'Yes you are'...etc, etc....and things get petty and nasty, on a rather juvenile level......But in YOUR case, instead of arguing about a 'Tin Foil Hat', if I disagreed with you....I'd be nice and not argue about a 'Tin Foil Hat'..but go HERE! Waving!! GfS |
|
01 Jul 12 - 11:22 PM (#3370538) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Sorry, GfinS but I'm a little too rattled fromm a very interesting evening with nature to read your post with a cognizant mind but... ...look above the line... I know you don't do above the line but... B~ |
|
02 Jul 12 - 01:14 AM (#3370559) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Huh???...Jeez, from your last post, it sounds like you are doing lines. but nonetheless, I'm really glad you are having an interesting time with nature...have you ever noticed, that after spending time in nature, that the shift of one's mindset, to start thinking about politics, is as far as east is to west?? We should ALL spend more time in nature!!...then you'd all understand that politics just isn't our nature..or natural environment!! ..and furthermore, politics is not as inspiring as spending time in nature, and the creativity it brings...nor beauty....one is peaceful and orderly, and the other is chaotic, and very warlike.....and not only that, a good sense of humor and music comes from God....maybe even 'Mother Nature'!! The irony of politics, is that those who embrace Obamacare, and hate Romney..is that Romney came up with the identical model of Obamacare,(or assigned someone to put it together) from which we have what we have now....and yet, a lot of the left, hate Romney!!..My position is that they are both pretty much the same, AS EVIDENCE should have given you a clue, working on the behalf of those behind the scenes, pulling the strings, to accomplish the same goal!...Now as it is, we are saddled with this huge monstrosity, which should by all accounts bankrupt the country, only to be 'saved' by whatever concoction of a government they'll decide what it should be. It will neither be liberal nor conservative, but you can bet your bottom dollar(if you'll have any left), that it will be a mega oppressive, domineering tyranny..with the gloves off!!!...They have put in place all the bureaucracy, and infrastructure and 'laws' and programs, complete with internment camps to just about pull it off...and now they'll have the 'justification'....'Patriotic participation to pull ourselves out of bankruptcy'...and if you don't co-operate, or are not productive enough...off you go! As for me...I'm just going to play and compose music...and of course talk to you fine folks, and try to nudge you to do the same....and NOT participate in the destruction of our country, and the inhabitants thereof! Romney is a liar??..of course he is...and so is Obama..how much proof do you need???...Just look at the title of this thread!!...and repeatedly, he said it wasn't a tax..matter of fact, he said the same AFTER the Supreme Court ruled it as such!! congress is going to whip up a repeal of it...the Senate won't pass it, those who vote against it, will probably not be re-elected to the majority...Romney will have the House and Senate...but why should he repeal his own baby????....OR..Obama will somehow pull it off, and win..but not the Congress....and we still go bankrupt. Figure it out for yourselves. It is as predictable as hearing a cadence, in music, and anticipating the resolve.(the 'one' note). don Firth could probably explain that to the musicians in here who don't understand 'music theory-speak'...but your ears will tell you! Spend more time in nature....with your instrument....you'll see it all clearly!!..sing and play to God, in nature.....and you'll know your part!! Regards! GfS ..and P.S. Ebbie, my previous post was only meant as satire(as opposed to this one)..and hope it might have brought a wry grin on your mug!!....if not, well...'You can keep your hat on....' |
|
02 Jul 12 - 01:24 AM (#3370560) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity No sooner was I closing down, and getting ready to get off the computer, when I closed Mudcat, and it went to my home page, which had this topic, to click on..so I did....read it carefully....note the characters named, and who they worked for, and who appointed him to his administration....and then tell me, that I've been wrong all this time!!! I hope Little Hawk is reading, as 999 and Ake..and a few others...WE 'get it'! GfS |
|
02 Jul 12 - 01:29 AM (#3370561) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity jeez..what a ding-dong!..I forgot to post the link to my previous post..so here it is!! OK..Now it will make sense! Good night, folks! GfS |
|
02 Jul 12 - 02:26 AM (#3370569) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Ebbie I won't bother responding to your last two or three posts- looking at the link it seems to me that you thought you were on a different thread... But looking at this: "what REALLY pisses them off, is that mine are usually more witty, incisive and creative..so I get even a worse rep!!)", I realize that I am severely lacking in humor because, frankly, I have never considered you "witty, incisive and creative". Well, maybe I can give you "creative"- you do seem to have a different take on a lot of things. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 09:28 AM (#3370696) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos Kinda the same way carbon dioxide is creative when you open a Coke. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 10:44 AM (#3370730) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: artbrooks @Ebbie & Amos: brilliant and cogent comments, both. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 12:26 PM (#3370775) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Well thank you all for the information, and GfS for the much needed support. It seems to me that you have been sold a "pup" You have been given more privatisation disguised as improved service. In the UK, as providing health care has become more expensive, the service has been privatised with the quality always ending up worse than it was before....this is what happens to all public service in a capitalist system. As an example, the last "labour" govt made use of a scheme call Private Finance Initiative, which used private finance to build new hospitals and finance health infrastructure. It was supposed to save the health service money, but now we have discovered that the terms associated with the funding mean that the National Health service is heaped with debt to pay off what was basically a loan at extortionate interest rates. Doctors surgeries became private businesses in league with the private drug companies giving doctors the financial incentive to prescribe more and more pills....the more they prescribe the more they get payed. The service is becoming a money trough for GPs and consultants, when it should be for the benefit of patients. Beware of private medicine, it can seriously damage your health! |
|
02 Jul 12 - 01:04 PM (#3370793) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos MOst doctors in this country have been private practice or employees of corporate entities, for as long as I've been around, and it seems not to have compromised the quality of care much. Our problem has never been the quality of our best medical technologies, but the distribution of them. A |
|
02 Jul 12 - 02:06 PM (#3370826) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: kendall The drug companies and the medical pros have their hands in the deepest pockets in the world and they want it to stay that way. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 02:21 PM (#3370835) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor "Well thank you all for the information, and GfS for the much needed support. It seems to me that you have been sold a "pup" You have been given more privatisation disguised as improved service." At the beginning of this thread you apparently knew next to nothing about the plan. and you made unfounded pronouncements, Now after several of your many points of ignorance have addressed, you make more another pronouncement. All I can say is that if you don't like the Health systems here, stay in the UK. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 03:31 PM (#3370882) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Thanks Jack.....So its true what my friends tell me, the US and its people are so welcoming and friendly? Anyway you'll all be made welcome in Bonnie Scotland after Independence.........as long as you leave your nukes at home... :0) |
|
02 Jul 12 - 03:33 PM (#3370884) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton AND.......you'll get yer false teeth an' specs for nuthin'... ;0) |
|
02 Jul 12 - 03:35 PM (#3370887) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Bring Ebbie!! |
|
02 Jul 12 - 03:36 PM (#3370888) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor No one likes to be told that their home is bad by people who haven't bothered to research their opinions. I like you personally from what I have seen here and would be happy to welcome you to my home for some BBQ. But I would hesitate to show you the town without getting a promise that, when dealing with people we meet, you would keep negative opinions of this country to yourself. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 04:06 PM (#3370907) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor "Anyway you'll all be made welcome in Bonnie Scotland after Independence." You WANT that after what happened to Ireland, Iceland, Portugal and Greece? ....OK....... |
|
02 Jul 12 - 04:30 PM (#3370921) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos I'd love to go to Bonnie Scotland and see youse, and get some lessons in stonemasonry while I'm at it. And should you ever find yourself on the Left Coast of the STates, come on by and we'll run up some chow and have some lessons in diplomacy! :D Oh, we also have learned some lessons about operating independently of Great Britain, in case you're up for tips.. A |
|
02 Jul 12 - 04:36 PM (#3370923) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton I like you too Jack.....and I dont think your home is bad. I have friends who live in America and they have told me of the generosity shown to them.....and of course there are links between our respective countries historically. We are both labouring under the same evil and corrupt system remember. That is what I believe to be bad, bad here and bad with you. Maybe we will never agree on that .... but we will still be here. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 05:01 PM (#3370947) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor You may want to ask those other countries, the ones about the same size as yours what NOT to do in the European community. Hint.. Don't let the ROYAL Bank of Scotland run up more debt than you can repay. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 05:10 PM (#3370949) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor akenaton, It may be worthwhile to point out that pretty much all of us on this forum who support the ACA are well aware of the limitations that you point to. We know that the provisions are 80% Republican ideas which were put forth to save money in the long run. But in exchange for that we get limits on the amount the insurance companies can remove from the system as profits and millions of more poor people insured, which ironically will also save money in the long run. It is not ideal by a long shot. But every President and every Congress from Nixon has tried to do this. That is 40 years of trying with basically nothing to show but Bush's unfunded drug boondoggle with the infamous "donut (doughnut if you prefer) hole." We now have something to build upon. We now have a start. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 05:28 PM (#3370952) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Watch out Amos...I may take you up on that kind offer. Dont know about the diplomacy tho'...dont think its my scene man! I'll be pleased if we DO get Independence, remove nukes from our soil. Leave NATO and never go to war no more. Can I bring my bagpipes? |
|
02 Jul 12 - 05:31 PM (#3370955) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor From what I know about the history of Scotland, I can see it breaking with the UK. But breaking with NATO and abandoning its martial history seems less likely. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 05:36 PM (#3370959) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Amos OF course you can bring your bagpipes. Unfortunately we have severe import restrictions on chanters... |
|
02 Jul 12 - 06:03 PM (#3370970) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Hmmm.....That's chanter discrimination!!! See, I would make a great American "liberal"... ;0) |
|
02 Jul 12 - 06:18 PM (#3370977) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert My exact sentiments, JtS... In the words of the late Ted Kennedy, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good"... B~ |
|
02 Jul 12 - 06:33 PM (#3370985) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger This bill is essentially a tax on the poor. The bottom 10% of the socioecononic scale can't afford health insurance now, and they won't be able to in five years. The only difference will be that in the coming years they'll be fined for not having insurance. Sorry...they'll be "taxed" for not having insurance. And if they can't pay, well the bill brings the IRS (Inland Revenue, I believe the Brits call it) into the mix. The IRS will have the authority to garnish wages and seize the property of those who don't pay the penalty. Sorry, the "tax." |
|
02 Jul 12 - 06:51 PM (#3370995) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: artbrooks The ACA, for those who don't pay attention, specifically forbids garnishment of wages and seizure of property for failure to pay the nonenrollment penalty. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 06:59 PM (#3370999) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth You're neglecting an important bit of information, Wrong-o. For those who are simply too poor to afford to buy insurance, Obama's plan includes a provision for government subsidies to assist them. It's amazing--and revealing--what people who detest this plan (or any health care plan, for that matter) choose to ignore in their rants. What we want here is a healthy horse. But in an effort to get around Republican opposition and have any kind of health care plan, we wound up with a a six-legged camel with a head on both ends. But at least it will carry the load until we can get something better past the snarling dogs. Don Firth |
|
02 Jul 12 - 07:18 PM (#3371008) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor "This bill is essentially a tax on the poor. The bottom 10% of the socioecononic scale can't afford health insurance now, and they won't be able to in five years. The only difference will be that in the coming years they'll be fined for not having insurance. Sorry...they'll be "taxed" for not having insurance." Why do you say these things? Is it willful ignorance or cynical polemics? |
|
02 Jul 12 - 07:35 PM (#3371017) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Wrongman missed the target again... Google up low income tax credit... Ya' see, some folks get back more in a tax refund than they paid in... Huh??? That's right, they do... It's called a low income tax credit that is supposed to help the folks living at or near poverty... The folks most likely to take on the penalty as opposed to the subsidies to buy insurance are going to fall into that segment of the population... So, they check a box that indicated they have not purchased insurance... All that happens in that case is that the "subsidy" we give them thru the low income tax credit will be slightly less... Very few will have to pay out-of-pocket... B~ |
|
02 Jul 12 - 07:43 PM (#3371021) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger You folks need to quit believing what the government tells you. They've brought the IRS into the picture. The IRS--the thug collection branch of the government. That's a game changer. According to the wording of the bill the government can't use liens and wage garnishment to collect this "tax" (and you need to quit calling it a penalty, it's now a tax, which changes the rules). So the wording of the bill is reassuring, but the government can take your healthcare tax out of your end-of-year tax refund. You've been paying withholding tax all year and expect a refund, but you won't get it if you owe your healthcare "tax." As one person put it: Suppose the IRS assesses me a $1,000 penalty for failing to obtain health insurance. It is true that the law prohibits the IRS from using liens or incarceration to collect that $1,000. But, money being fungible, the IRS may simply deem my first $1,000 of income-tax withholding to be payment of that penalty. As a result, I would owe an additional $1,000 in income tax at the end of the year, and the IRS could come after me with every tool at its disposal, including liens and incarceration. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelfcannon/2012/05/29/yes_the_irs_can_use_liens_and_incarceration_to_enforce_obamacar This is a form of wage garnishment, too, since you've paid that withholding all year long out of your wages and you don't get it back like you used to. It's beginning to look like they pitched this abomination at old people in a way to keep them happy. As long as you've got yours, right? But you won't have it for long. If poor people can't pay, and the wealthy won't pay, then who's going to pay for that "low-cost insurance" that will be provided to 40 million Americans? You will, through higher premiums and reduced benefits. This thing's more like a dead horse, and you can only put so many coats of paint on it before it starts to reek. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 07:52 PM (#3371026) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Song wronger. We are so lucky to have a Tea Party website reading person like you to interpret what the government is saying. We are so honored to have such a learned and well informed person to tell us how stupid we are. |
|
02 Jul 12 - 09:24 PM (#3371046) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert You have missed the "Reality Train" wronger... Bottom line??? First, we are talking about approximately 1% of the population that will be effected by the "penalty/tax" Now when we examine the folks in that pool, 90% will be eligible for a "low income credit" (welfare from the rest of us and not withheld $$$) so... No out of pocket $$$!! ...this entire idea that the IRS is going to come down on us is mind-boggling void of facts... Ain't gonna happen... The proof will become evident once the ACA goes into effect.. The rest of this is just right wing Republican "scare tactics" and Big Lies... B~ |
|
02 Jul 12 - 10:18 PM (#3371066) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert BTW, I am of the opinion that Obama's warning to Roberts was a seed planted and Roberts re-thought his position... Seems there is a strain between Roberts and Scalia... B~ |
|
03 Jul 12 - 01:04 AM (#3371106) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth Wrong-O, where did you get the half-baked notion that we believe what the government tells us? Don Firth |
|
03 Jul 12 - 02:56 AM (#3371126) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don Firth: "... where did you get the half-baked notion that we believe what the government tells us?" Well, well, well....OK!!!....BTW, did the two parties succeed from the government? GfS |
|
03 Jul 12 - 06:02 AM (#3371183) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""BTW, did the two parties succeed from the government?"" "SECEDE" maybe?? Seesh! Don T. |
|
03 Jul 12 - 01:43 PM (#3371363) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: akenaton Shame!! |
|
03 Jul 12 - 02:49 PM (#3371403) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor did the two parties succeed from the government? I think it is fair to say that they do. They do drive many benefits. Aside from the poor grammar it is a fair point. But is it the point you are trying to make? |
|
03 Jul 12 - 03:47 PM (#3371451) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor do drive many benefits derive... I'm beginning to wonder if there is some form of auto-correct enabled that I am not aware of. Or maybe I'm taking the spelling for granted because Firefox underlines obvious mistakes. |
|
03 Jul 12 - 03:50 PM (#3371453) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Ebbie Your "drive", JtS, made me laugh. I think it is a law of nature or something that makes me stumble whenever I point out anyone's tripping. |
|
03 Jul 12 - 04:04 PM (#3371463) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor franky, "drive" is a valid point as well. Just not the one I intended to make. :-p |
|
03 Jul 12 - 11:38 PM (#3371669) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger So my last quote came from a guy who writes for the Cato Institute. So what? He's still right. If the IRS can hold onto your tax return because you don't have health insurance, that's wage garnishment. Income tax is taken straight from your wages and you "get back" some of your wages at the end of the year if you overpaid. When you don't "get back," then you're not getting back some of your wages. They've been garnished. So the columnist is right, and truth is truth no matter where it comes from, left or right. I tuned in to the first few minutes of Rush Limbaugh's program today. He was frothing about how we should let go of calling the insurance penalty a "tax." He was desperately trying to defuse this issue. And if you check the internet today you'll see lots of articles about federal taxes only being legal if they originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare originated in the Senate. So when the Supreme Court declared the penalty a tax, it became illegal. Anyway, Limbaugh frothed, and as he tried to divert attention away from the tax question, he trashed Romney as the originator of the whole thing. Romneycare. Limbaugh is now attacking Romney the way he did John McCain. As soon as McCain secured the Republican nomination, Limbaugh began saying he couldn't win. Limbaugh HELPED Obama get elected, and now it looks as though he's trying to help him get re-elected. The Limbaugh/NPR machine is the voice of the unipolar police state. |
|
04 Jul 12 - 12:28 AM (#3371679) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor "The Limbaugh/NPR machine is the voice of the unipolar police state. " Did you get this from The Onion? |
|
04 Jul 12 - 02:07 PM (#3371969) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert I've heard that they are coming out with a new & improved ton foil hat that is guaranteed to keep 99.9% of those wacky radio transmissions from space out of your head... 19.95 (plus S & H) 1-800-HAT4YOU |
|
04 Jul 12 - 02:16 PM (#3371974) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity The use of 'succeed' was a 'double entendre', in place of 'secede'...and consistent with most my posts about the corruption in them, and the fact that they are merely 'fronts' for the string-pullers, behind the curtain....as in "Right wing and left wing are one the same bird"...to some, a great eagle...to others a turkey! GfS |
|
04 Jul 12 - 02:27 PM (#3371981) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor So GfS you are saying that you used a double entendre that completely negated the point you were trying to make. Very clever of you. |
|
04 Jul 12 - 02:52 PM (#3371992) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity No..but it was reason to cause people to reason!! GfS |
|
04 Jul 12 - 03:01 PM (#3371997) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth Now that's rich!! Say something totally wrong and incredibly brainless in order to get other people to think? Jeez!! When Aristotle wrote up his rules for logic and principles of rational discussion, how did he manage to miss THAT one!?? Don Firth |
|
04 Jul 12 - 03:32 PM (#3372012) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert There's a reason for the "in" in Gf"in"S... BTW, folks... Anyone see Chris Wallace interview of Mitch Mc(Con)nell on Fox??? Geeze Louise was Mitchy a tad bitchy 'cause he wasn't expecting real questions in Foxland... Yup, Wallace had Mitch stuttering over questions about "replace"... Mitchy never gave him one straight answer and looked and sounded flustered during the entire interview... B~ |
|
04 Jul 12 - 03:41 PM (#3372019) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor The only thing I have seen Mitch say straightfowardly is that bit about making President Obama a one term President. I don't think Fox Likes Mitt Romney. I am starting to think the would prefer Obama. Which makes sense in a peverse way, because if Romney is still the guy who used to govern Mass. He is much more likely to get what they consider "left wing" agenda items passed. Obama, they might reason, has spent his political capital and would not be able to deal with what they see as "Republican moderates" whereas Romney might swing the whole country to the middle. I don't think that. I believe in "etch-a-sketch" Romney more than "lefty mole" Romney. |
|
04 Jul 12 - 07:59 PM (#3372093) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Obama is good for FOX seein' as the Fox-ites are into that hate-thang... Eat up with the stuff... If hate was a cancer we'd have nothin' to worry about 'cause all these wackos would be dead long before the election... But it seems that hate keeps these folks going on and on and on... Maybe the health stores should look into bottlin' it up an sellin' it as an anti-aging agent... But never mind that... Yo, righties and tea-drinkers... Ya'll blow that "repeal and replace" crap all over the place... Reminds me of a manure spreader... Then ya'll get asked what yer gonna do to replace it and all we've gotten so far is "freedom"??? Huh??? I never thought of "freedom" as a health care plan... "Well, Ralph, just check the "freedom box" for the best health care..." Huh??? "That's right, Ralph... Just check the f'n box... You'll love it..." "But what if I get sick???" "Don't worry, be happy... We're all going to die, Ralph..." Welcome to the Ayn Rand/GfinS Health Care Plan... Just sign the f'n box... B~ |
|
04 Jul 12 - 11:59 PM (#3372159) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Oh Don, and Bobert..Let reality be reality, OK? and Bobert: "Welcome to the Ayn Rand/GfinS Health Care Plan..." You gotta be kidding me!...Ayn Rand????? As for me, music will make you well! GfS |
|
05 Jul 12 - 01:42 AM (#3372183) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth You STILL don't know who Ayn Rand is or what she's all about, do you, GoofuS? Or much else, for that matter. . . . Don Firth |
|
05 Jul 12 - 02:51 AM (#3372188) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don, Let reality be reality..OK?..(for you a novel concept). GfS |
|
05 Jul 12 - 08:33 AM (#3372290) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Here's the reality that came out of the John Robert's smoke bomb... States will now be able to all but opt out of Medicaid... In other w2ords, inJustice Johnny legislated that the poorest of our population are going to get the Ron Paul Health Plan: Death!!! That's right... I mean, I read somewhere that one state is going to set the annual income at less than $3000 in order to get Medicaid??? "Sorry, Ralph, but seein' as you are makin' $4000 a year that means you are rich so you don't qualify..." WTF??? BTW, if inJustice Johnny wants to be a legislator then I'd suggest he read up on that Constitution thing... He might want to look into a career change... B~ |
|
05 Jul 12 - 08:39 AM (#3372294) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Lighter See my comment on the "ACA" thread. |
|
05 Jul 12 - 12:01 PM (#3372391) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well Bobert..look at the bright side of it..with Obamacare, though it may be a noble idea, the whole country goes bankrupt, and nobody cane afford anything. The $3000 might look like a million, by then...if you can find anyone to even take it, being as even that will be only worth toilet paper. Just a happy thought! GfS |
|
05 Jul 12 - 03:24 PM (#3372488) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth I don't have any problems with reality, GoofuS. Except that I find it hard to accept that YOU are for real! There you are, floating around in space, obviously suffering from oxygen deprivation. Don Firth |
|
05 Jul 12 - 03:55 PM (#3372503) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I thought you said you didn't have any problem with reality...and then you type that!!......Delusions in themselves are wonderful, don't you think!! GfS |
|
05 Jul 12 - 04:37 PM (#3372522) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth Yep. Obviously brain damage from oxygen deprivation. He can't even come up with a comeback of his own, he has to ride piggy-back on other people's. Don Firth |
|
05 Jul 12 - 04:50 PM (#3372534) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Maybe GfinS's got a bad disconnection, Don... You ever consider that??? Reality is that with more folks in the pool that the cost of health care will go down for everyone in the pool except for the freeloaders... It has to... That's why large employers have lower premiums than do small businesses... Basic economics... B~ |
|
05 Jul 12 - 04:52 PM (#3372537) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Guest from Sanity: "I thought you said you didn't have any problem with reality...and then you type that!!......Delusions in themselves are wonderful, don't you think!! Don Firth: "Yep. Obviously brain damage from oxygen deprivation. He can't even come up with a comeback of his own, he has to ride piggy-back on other people's." Thanks for one of your personalities explaining it. The other one should listen.............. ......AND, this is NOT going to turn into one of you diversion tactics, and screwing up a thread, AGAIN. Let it go, and chalk it up to some 'light entertainment'....because you have a propensity to foment hostile interactions, based on your selective fictitious interpretations of people's post. Stick to music..you shine there! Fair enough? GfS |
|
05 Jul 12 - 04:53 PM (#3372538) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity ..and 200 GfS |
|
05 Jul 12 - 04:56 PM (#3372539) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Ebbie Not so fast there - 200! |
|
05 Jul 12 - 04:59 PM (#3372543) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Sorry, Eb... You got 201... Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then... B;~) |
|
05 Jul 12 - 05:03 PM (#3372544) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Bobert! You put me in an awkward position. How can I mock GfS for getting it wrong without having it spill over on to you? JtS 202nd post (unless someone sneaks in another.) |
|
05 Jul 12 - 05:05 PM (#3372546) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Jack the Sailor Wow! It says 203 now. But it said 201 when Bobert's was the last post! Very odd! |
|
05 Jul 12 - 09:55 PM (#3372656) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity That's because GfS has PCS!!! GfS |
|
05 Jul 12 - 10:54 PM (#3372668) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert PCS = Pure Cheezey Shit... I mean, the kind that would make a freight train jump tracks and take a dirt road... That's some mighty cheezey stuff, ya' all... B~ |
|
05 Jul 12 - 10:58 PM (#3372669) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth Post Concussion Syndrome? Don Firth |
|
06 Jul 12 - 05:23 PM (#3372978) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Stringsinger Songwronger, you are wrong. Bigger taxes were raised by Reagan. I don't like to see this propaganda on Mudcat but it must be answered. There is nothing wrong with Americans paying taxes, especially the rich. BTW Romney did the same thing in Massachusetts. So what if it was a tax? What else would pay for infrastructure, schools, public utilities etc.? I think Libertarians should be required to finance their own roads, own schools, and pubic services and not inflict their selfishness on the taxpaying public. Better yet, we need regulations to protect us from Libertarians. As for mentioning Ayn Rand, I think it's in bad taste to curse on Mudcat. |
|
06 Jul 12 - 05:38 PM (#3372995) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Yeah, Strings... It would appear that libertarians would like everything to be privatized, down to the sidewalks in front of your house... Then Boss Hog, Inc could bill you each month for: Fire protection Police Roads Water Library usage Park usage Yes, sidewalks Health care Defense Schools Gravity (a joke, or maybe not) Yup that's is their dream... No unions so everyone other than them will be making minimum wage and have to provide shelter and food for themselves and then pay for the above list, plus be 100% responsible for their kids college and their retirement... And all on $7.25 an hour... That is the perfect world for TeaPubertarians... And here's the sad part... It really is what they think??? B~ |
|
07 Jul 12 - 04:50 PM (#3373364) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "It would appear that libertarians would like everything to be privatized, down to the sidewalks in front of your house... Then Boss Hog, Inc could bill you each month for: Fire protection..................Paid by local property taxes Police...........................Paid by local property Roads............................Paid by local propertytaxes Except interstates and special Water............................By consumer Library usage....................Paid by local property taxes Park usage...................... Paid by local property taxes Except National Parks Yes, sidewalks...................Paid by local property taxes Health care......................Any money and power grabbing freak who can exploit the needy, in an emergency! Gravity (a joke, or maybe not)...Close, they want to charge a surtax for carbon dioxide, for Christ sakes! THEN they raise your Federal income tax for the interests on the loans, to pay for it all over!! Sounds like politics to me. GfS |
|
07 Jul 12 - 05:24 PM (#3373379) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Yeah, GfinS... Your above list is accurate and the way *civilized* societies operate... B~ |
|
07 Jul 12 - 11:33 PM (#3373493) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Including "Gravity (a joke, or maybe not)...Close, they want to charge a surtax for carbon dioxide, for Christ sakes! THEN they raise your Federal income tax for the interests on the loans, to pay for it all over AGAIN!!"??? ...and that I blame on BOTH these deceptive parties..the President, the House, AND the Senate!! We are being defrauded.....well, that is if you're stupid enough to believe them! I DON'T GfS |
|
08 Jul 12 - 12:25 AM (#3373501) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Sawzaw Joe the Fumbler - err - The Vice President of the United States: "No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised, whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax." Bald faced liar? Moron? Take your pick |
|
08 Jul 12 - 02:02 AM (#3373511) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity .....are you sure that was Joe Biden who said that, Sawzaw??? ...and there is this JOKE!!!!! GET SERIOUS!! GfS |
|
08 Jul 12 - 02:18 PM (#3373642) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST Still waiting for the in-depth analysis of the Affordable Health Care Act...let alone a viable alternative. Well, we knew that promise was pure deranged bluster anyhow. |
|
08 Jul 12 - 02:56 PM (#3373647) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Start off with more astringent regulations of the insurance companies, to insure that they MUST NOT violate any part, or intent, of the Constitution of the country they are permitted to operate in..in that case, it is OURS! First: No one, in this country, under the Constitution has the 'right' to infringe your rights, with theire wills, including the right to 'pursue happiness', and be free, by providing a 'service' such a health...that includes monopolies, conglomerates, governments, state or fed, unions, pharmaceuticals, medical treatments, etc, etc. up to, and including, 'subscription' to that service, based on profit. As far as 'profit' or 'overage' based on paid in-paid out, the money must be used for research, (NOT PR!), or rebated back to the purchasers, nor be diverted to other uses, than it was intended!!!..(So if either 'party' needs funds for some hushed 'special reason', like another part of the bureaucracy, needs more funds, it may NOT ever be touch). That is OUR money, and it is NOT being spent on things that we have NO say in..other than what it was intended for.........and so far, our government, in it's entirety of both parties, have NOT shown that they can be trusted to that!! That all decisions are made by the patient/doctor relationship, and NOT by corporate insurers, or government political 'panels'. ..and that's just for starters! ...but I've got company right now,,,see ya'! GfS |
|
08 Jul 12 - 03:40 PM (#3373666) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Huh??? There is not one mention of "health insurance" in the Constitution, GfinS... Guess again... That one was more than delusional... But let's get down to the "mission statement" (the preamble) where the FFs talk about the "right to happiness"... I'm not saying that you can buy happiness but you can certainly create one boat load of misery by busting unions and creating a slave/peasant class working for the lowest minimum wage (after inflation) since it's inception 60 some years ago... Where's the happiness to be found in 1/2 of Americans now living at ***or below*** 125% of poverty... Certainly seems that misery can be bought and bought cheap... B~ |
|
08 Jul 12 - 05:00 PM (#3373696) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth An astringent is a topical compound that tends to shrink or constrict body tissues, usually locally after topical medicinal application. I believe the word you want is "stringent" (without the initial "a"), which means "rigorous standards of performance." Always happy to help the under-educated. #### But more stringent regulation of insurance companies IS a very good idea. Downright necessary, in fact. (But Firth, that's the Federal Government trying to regulate our lives again! Socialism! Fascism! Tyranny! Death! Doom! Destruction! Jackboots marching in our streets!) Don Firth |
|
08 Jul 12 - 05:26 PM (#3373702) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Stilly River Sage Read all about it - this Reddit link has been making the rounds since the decision came down. You should have seen it somewhere by now, Guest. SRS |
|
08 Jul 12 - 05:31 PM (#3373703) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert The reason why the health insurance lobby bought the Tea Party with their buddies the Koch polluters is because of the 85% reg in the Affordable Care Act... Of course the health insurance company couldn't come right out and say, "Obamacare is going to restrict us from ripping your dumb asses off" so they have use the Tea Party as their proxies using other issues, other than "We want to rip your dumb asses off" to try to defeat the Affordable Care Act... The insurance companies love the mandate but would be willing to lose those additional customers just to get back to the good ol' "We want to rip your dumb asses off" days... B~ |
|
08 Jul 12 - 05:33 PM (#3373704) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST Yup, I saw it, but thanks anyhow. Makin' a dig at a local blowhard. |
|
08 Jul 12 - 08:42 PM (#3373751) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger Time for a test. Who's been assigned to collect for Obamacare? That's right, the IRS. And what does the IRS collect? Taxes. Very good. So this makes the penalty for not buying health insurance a what? Yes. A tax. And who will pay the tax? Correct. The people who can't afford to buy health insurance. That's about 40 million Americans paying a thousand bucks apiece per year. And now for the bonus question. All of those billions will go to big banks through the insurance companies. This will be an example of: A) The poor taxing the poor. B) The poor taxing the rich. C) The rich taxing the poor. If you're an Obama supporter the answer is B. If you're sane, the answer is C. |
|
08 Jul 12 - 09:29 PM (#3373776) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Okay, wronger... Given the number of people who opted out under RomneyCare how many Americans are we talking about??? Oh, and what percentage of the entire population is going to elect/choose to opt out and pay the penalty/tax??? Por favor??? B~ |
|
08 Jul 12 - 11:09 PM (#3373813) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth "The people who can't afford to buy health insurance." Wrong-o, Wrong-O! The law states that those who are simply unable to afford insurance will be given a subsidy with which to do so. DO try to get it rignt! Don Firth |
|
09 Jul 12 - 05:23 AM (#3373861) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yes, 'astringent' was a typo...sorry.... As for 'stringent controls' an absolute, as you mentioned, YES...regulate and control the 'providers'.. Companies and government...not the individual people....(en mass). Not rocket science, in a supposed 'free society'(?). Make fraud, from ANYONE, either side of providers to patients a serious crime....not just another pile of paperwork. Just to clear that up. GfS |
|
09 Jul 12 - 05:47 AM (#3373870) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "Huh???There is not one mention of "health insurance" in the Constitution, GfinS..." No shit Sherlock!... never said it was. ....but the implementing of various laws could be violating the Constitution....take 'NDAA'....or the 'Patriot Act' both came into existence Huh???......oh, and both authored by Democrats, as well. ..GfS |
|
09 Jul 12 - 09:05 AM (#3373925) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert At least 90% of what we do as Americans is to a "strict constructionist" unconstitutional, GfinS... I mean, it's just a friggin' game... I was on the "time phone" with Thomas Jefferson the other night and telling him about some of the dumb shit that is going on in the name of him and the other FFs... You know what he told me??? He said, and I quote, "Ya'll are fucking nuts"... Yup, that's what he said... I mean, lets get real here... If it was so plain what is and isn't constitutional then there wouldn't be so many 5-4 decisions... Maybe 7-2 or 8-1... B~ |
|
09 Jul 12 - 09:21 AM (#3373929) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 "Yes, 'astringent' was a typo...sorry.... As for 'stringent controls' an absolute, as you mentioned, YES...regulate and control the 'providers'.. Companies and government...not the individual people....(en mass)." Ya missed a gooder there. Seats of power always have astringent controls. It's the first corollary to the 'I won the election' speech. |
|
09 Jul 12 - 09:53 AM (#3373942) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: number 6 A "time phone" whoa .... where can I procure one of those .. are they text capable? .... I would luv one .... think of the amazing conversations one could have ... getting down to the truth of history. biLL ... :) |
|
09 Jul 12 - 10:19 AM (#3373951) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Sorry, biLL, but I'm still waiting on my patent attorney to get the thing patented before it goes into production... Stay tuned... As for "stringent controls" that's exactly why the health insurance lobby has worked so hard to repeal the Affordable Care Act... One would think that since they are going to get 30,000,000 new customers that they would be very happy... But they aren't and have thrown billion$ to the Tea Party wackos... Why??? I've been trying to tell ya'll why forever but seems that no one seems to get it... The ACA limits the insurance companies profits + administrative costs to a combined total of 15%... Yup they must pay out 85 cents on the dollar of the premiums they take in for, ahhhhh... ...health care!!! Horrors!!! But wait.... There's more... They can't cancel your policy because you get sick or because they think that if you do get sick that it was a pre-existing condition... Horrors, Part 2 & 3... But wait... There's more... They will have to accept folks under the ACA who have been sick before... Horrors, part 4... All these provisions, IMHO, would or should fall into "stringent controls" in any civilized society but if Obama had just gone for this package the chances of it's passage would have fallen squarely in the zero-to-minus-percent category... And in the words of the late Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it is..." B~ |
|
26 Jul 12 - 10:19 PM (#3382042) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger It's still a tax. |
|
26 Jul 12 - 10:29 PM (#3382047) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 Calling a sheep a dog will not make it bark! |
|
26 Jul 12 - 10:48 PM (#3382051) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Ditto... B~ |
|
26 Jul 12 - 11:08 PM (#3382054) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger Supreme court says it can be regulated as a tax. IRS collects it (tax collection agency). Ergo, sheep bark. Obama just managed to impose a murderous tax on the poorest 10% in our country, while posing as a progressive. They don't call him Barky Obama for nothing. |
|
26 Jul 12 - 11:53 PM (#3382059) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 This was neat. I kept my scores. Doesn't surprise me. Green--87%, followed by Libertarian (and I don't really know what that means) somewhere in the low 60's. Then the Democrats in the low 40s followed--as we often will be--by Republicans in the high 30s. I don't put much stock in this type of Q/A survey that then tells me where I am politically, but if y'all got the brains God gave a parsley, vote Romney. If you have more brains than that, vote Jill Stein. |
|
27 Jul 12 - 07:28 AM (#3382173) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Jill Stein 85%, Obama 83%, Stewart Alexander 72%, Ron Paul 30% and Romney a miserable 4% with NO shared issues. And my UK friends think I'm too right wing. Don T |
|
05 Dec 12 - 05:43 PM (#3447711) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: bobad Study: Health reform saved consumers $1.5 billion in 2011 |
|
05 Dec 12 - 07:02 PM (#3447746) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Henry Krinkle It's just another way for the government to spy on you. Wait and see. =(:-( 0) |
|
06 Dec 12 - 06:18 AM (#3447940) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Somebody pass him the tinfoil. Don T. |
|
06 Dec 12 - 06:27 AM (#3447947) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Henry Krinkle I think they can see through tinfoil. =(:-( O) |
|
06 Dec 12 - 11:31 AM (#3448071) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,sciencegeek the so called Obamacare is merely the best Affordable Healthcare that the president could get out of a Congress that was filled with Republicans doing everything in their power to thwart him. Could it be better... well, duh! Of course, and every attempt to get everyone in Congress to work for the benefit of the American people, we ended up with this. But still way better than nothing. "United we stand, divided we fall." doesn't just apply to wars... unless we define the way insurance companies play the game as war on the nation's health. I've worked most of my adult life and have gone from no health insurance for some (thank goodness I have enjoyed good health) to now having employer & union benefits benefits. My paycheck shows the tax deductions for Medicare, Social Security, federal & state taxes. Let me tell you this... having insurance sure beats not having it. Many farm families need to have at least one family member working off the farm to provide health insurance. If they had their way, insurance companies would only keep the healthiest people covered - pocketing more of the premiums- and kick out anyone who actually needed the maximum benefits at some point. So the present form leaves a lot to be desired... well then -fix it for the benefit of all, not the benefit of insurance companies. If "obamacare" is a "tax"- well at least it's going to a better cause than waging war or depriving citizens of their constitutional rights. |
|
06 Dec 12 - 06:53 PM (#3448311) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger If "obamacare" is a "tax"- well at least it's going to a better cause than waging war or depriving citizens of their constitutional rights. The U.S. has a two-house legislature--the Senate and the House of Representatives. All taxing bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare is a creation of the Senate. So the mere implementation of the Obamacare "tax" is a violation of our constitution. But what are you going to do? The president's a crook on the payroll of the insurance companies, the Supreme Court decides to call a penalty a tax, and our legislature moves on to the next atrocity. Hell, even the "opposition's" presidential candidate this time around wrote the blueprint for Obamacare. Obamacare is LITERAL protection money. Under the guise of caring, the fascist Democrat/Republican party is using strong-arm mafioso tactics to extract payment from the poor and middle class. |
|
06 Dec 12 - 06:57 PM (#3448313) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Yeah, bobad... I saw that... During the debates I tried over and over to get folks to see that the "85% provision" is what the health insurance industry hated the most... Seems that is exactly correct... B~ |
|
06 Dec 12 - 09:05 PM (#3448370) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Henry Krinkle Songwronger is right. You'll see. It's all a big power grab. The Repubes and Demigods are in cahoots. =(:-( )) |
|
06 Dec 12 - 09:09 PM (#3448372) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert If songwronger lived to be as old as Mosses he would never be right... B~ |
|
06 Dec 12 - 09:41 PM (#3448384) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 In Canada, national health care was a hard sell for Tommy Douglas and Lester Pearson, too. |
|
06 Dec 12 - 09:47 PM (#3448386) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 But, dammit, we have it. |
|
06 Dec 12 - 09:59 PM (#3448389) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert And we are working ***towards*** it... We still have a long way to go... It will be another 10-12 years before the US gets it right... Sad that we are so corrupted that common sense no longer has any value... B~ |
|
06 Dec 12 - 11:40 PM (#3448422) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger So in the meantime, Bobert supports Obama's fascism. |
|
07 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM (#3448434) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth "Obama's fascism." SHEESH!! Obviously knows zippo about either Obama OR fascism! 'Cmon, Songwronger, even the most drooling and eye-rolling of Tea Partiers aren't that stoopud!! Don Firth |
|
07 Dec 12 - 03:40 AM (#3448453) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Henry Krinkle This will just give Big Brother more control. =(:-( 0) |
|
07 Dec 12 - 06:47 AM (#3448492) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Songwronger is right. You'll see. It's all a big power grab. The Repubes and Demigods are in cahoots."" I've got a broken watch at home that is right more often than Songwronger, or for that matter you, Henry. Don T. |
|
07 Dec 12 - 06:58 AM (#3448498) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Henry Krinkle Time will tell. Broken watch notwithstanding. No brag. Just fact. =(:-( )) |
|
07 Dec 12 - 09:14 AM (#3448563) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Reality is that we are spending 18% of GNP on health care... That is unsustainable for any country... The Affordable Care Act, at best, might knock that down a percentage point but won't fix the problem... The problem is that we are "consuming" too much health care and that health care is too pricey... These can be fixed but the folks who are raking in the BIG $$$ (health care providers) aren't going to like it and will run all kinds of attack ads on anyone who suggests common sense regulations... Remember the "death panels"??? Reality was that a doctor could be paid to discuss "end of life" alternatives... I know... HORRORS!!! But lert's get real here... If Medicare is paying out $50,000 to keep someone alive and extra couple months who benefits??? Not the patient... Not the patient's family... Not the taxpayers... I mean, let's get real here... Doctors have been around... They know when someone is getting ready to check out... For them to not be able to have a rational discussion with a patient and his or her family about end-of-life care doesn't serve anyone except... ...you guessed it... The health care providers... B~ |
|
07 Dec 12 - 09:24 AM (#3448568) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,sciencegeek hey Bobert... do you remember the movie with James Spader about that very thing... Critical Care??? I think was the title... oldtimers, sigh I agree with Shakespeare's attitude regarding lawyers... getting a system of rational review board evalutaions of medical issues that has to sign off on malpractice suits... it's like hitting the lottery for those guys... and if you doubt that, let me tell you that the federal Superfund Program that was supposed to be used to clean up toxic waster sites has spend far more in legal fees then actual cleanup... jeeze... imagine that... elect lawyers and you get laws that create increased legal fees... who'd a thunk it.. |
|
07 Dec 12 - 09:27 AM (#3448571) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert LOL... No, I don't remember that movie... B;~) |
|
07 Dec 12 - 09:56 AM (#3448587) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Henry Krinkle At the end of the day, the working person will just have to work harder. And pay more. No brag. Just fact. =(:-( )) |
|
07 Dec 12 - 10:55 AM (#3448612) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,999 "At the end of the day, the working person will just have to work harder. And pay more." The alternative of course is to have more people working. |
|
06 May 13 - 06:19 PM (#3512332) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger Lawmakers, aides seek Obamacare exemption while Individual policies to cost 25-50% more next year Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, sources in both parties said. The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said. http://investmentwatchblog.com/wtf-lawmakers-aides-seek-obamacare-exemption-while-individual-policies-to-cost-25-50-more-next-ye |
|
30 Sep 13 - 08:09 PM (#3563013) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger Obamacare Website Quietly Deletes Reference to 'Free Health Care' Even as President Obama and his administration are making a last minute push to encourage enrollment in Obamacare, a quiet change was made on the Healthcare.gov website regarding those who will still not be able to afford coverage after the program kicks in. From at least June 26, 2013 to as recently as September 15, under the topic, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?" the following statement appeared: "If you can't afford any health plan, you can get free or low-cost health and dental care at a nearby community health center." However, sometime between September 16 and September 23, the reference to "free" care was dropped. The title of the topic was changed as well, and now reads: "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-website-quietly-deletes-reference-free-health-care_757348.html Obama and his fascist insurance industry buddies squeezed out the turd of Obamacare, and now that it's about to splat, they remove the "free healthcare" language. THAT'S conspiracy. |
|
30 Sep 13 - 08:51 PM (#3563023) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Let's review the facts here: 1. Obama went to the Republican caucus very early in the health care reform debate and asked them for their ideas... 2. The Republicans had only one idea: Do nothing... 3. After a year of debate and hearings and deals Obama reluctantly signed into law a reform that was 100% Republican in it's origin and fashioned after Romneycare in Massachusetts... 4. The health care industry went ballistic and funneled BIG $$$ thru Freedom Works which hired "community organizers" and rented buses and printed up all kinds of stuff for the moron Tea Partiers to make asses out of themselves... 5. Now Songwronger and his fellow TeaPublican Obama haters want to shut down the government because they hate Obama because is the wrong color for them... The End B~ |
|
30 Sep 13 - 09:14 PM (#3563031) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger But Obama promised free healthcare for the poor, up until the eleventh hour, and now he's pulled that promise. Won't that disproportionately hurt people of color? Your race-hate rage has no place here. Obama is a half black, half white fascist. |
|
30 Sep 13 - 09:42 PM (#3563034) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth "The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard has been described as a 'redoubt of neoconservatism' and as 'the neo-con bible'. "Since it was founded in 1995, the Weekly Standard has never been profitable, and has remained in business through subsidies from wealthy conservative benefactors such as former owner Rupert Murdoch. "Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute. Some individuals that have written for the magazine include Elliott Abrams, Peter Berkowitz, John R. Bolton, Ellen Bork, Ed Gillespie, Roger Kimball, Harvey Mansfield, Joe Queenan, Wesley J. Smith, David Brooks and John Yoo. The magazine's website blog, titled the "Daily Standard", is edited by John McCormack and Daniel Halper and produces daily articles and commentary." Consider the source, folks. Don Firth |
|
30 Sep 13 - 10:25 PM (#3563039) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Greg F. Another un-dead thread - kept artificially alive by the brain dead. |
|
30 Sep 13 - 10:30 PM (#3563041) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger Consider the source indeed. The source is whitehouse.gov. Look at the screen captures the article posts. The white house changed its promise of free health care. Carrot and stick to get the poor to go along, then the carrot was removed. Obama just fucked tens of millions of poor Americans who thought they would get free healthcare. Now they learn that they will be offered "low-cost" care instead. |
|
30 Sep 13 - 10:33 PM (#3563043) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Greg F. Yo, ShitWringer: Blow me. |
|
30 Sep 13 - 11:10 PM (#3563046) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth No, Songwronger, the source was a neoconservative opinion magazine. Ho hum! What else would one expect from such a source? Don Firth P. S. Greg F., if one does not expose what one knows to be a lie, one then becomes morally complicit with that lie. |
|
30 Sep 13 - 11:39 PM (#3563051) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger It's healthcare.gov, not whitehouse.gov. My mistake. But the website is still a government site (hence the .gov designation). The proof that the page has been altered is in the discrepancy between the title of the topic and the URL. The title of the topic is, "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?" But the title used to be, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?" Now look up at the top of the page, at the URL in the address bar: https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-get-free-or-low-cost-care/ The webmaster making changes to the site can't remove the "free or" from the URL, because that would point the links on other pages to a dead URL. All he could do was change the title of the topic and leave the URL as is. The proof that Obama's healthcare.gov website used to promise free healthcare is in the URL. Really, Watson, it was simple. And yet the diabolical Professor Obama continues to run unchecked, causing mayhem. |
|
01 Oct 13 - 08:39 AM (#3563185) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Greg F. Don - I sure as hell wasn't referring to YOU. |
|
01 Oct 13 - 01:02 PM (#3563291) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth Okay, Greg. Got it. Don Firth |
|
01 Oct 13 - 07:05 PM (#3563387) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger Today is Obamacare Day. Obamacare is implemented today. The big "government shutdown" story is a smokescreen to cover up this dark event in American history. From the World Socialist Website: The Obamacare fraud... The process now underway demonstrates that a colossal fraud has been perpetrated against the American population in the name of Obamacare, and that all of these promises were lies. Any nominally progressive feature of the legislation has been long since stripped away or abandoned. But the truth of the matter is that it was never about improving medical care for ordinary Americans, and it was always about setting up an even more heavily class-based system of health care delivery. From the beginning, Obama promised that his "reform" would slash hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, and costs would be further cut by eliminating "unnecessary" treatments and services.... ...According to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care overhaul will leave an estimated 31 million people—about a tenth of the US population—uninsured by 2023. Undocumented workers and their families are barred from purchasing coverage on the exchanges. Due to a "family glitch" in the law, businesses are only required to provide "affordable" insurance to their employees, not to their employees' families, so those family members will not receive subsidies to purchase coverage on the exchanges.... http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/01/pers-o01.html |
|
01 Oct 13 - 08:13 PM (#3563406) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert World Socialist Website??? Sounds like a white supremacist organization... Seems they all have "socialist" in them... Never figured that out... Oh, that's right... Hitler was a "socialist", wasn't he??? B~ |
|
01 Oct 13 - 08:18 PM (#3563407) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Greg F. Never underestimate the awesome power of stupidity couples with ignorance, Bobster..... its what's got the U.S. where we are today. |
|
01 Oct 13 - 08:44 PM (#3563414) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert 10-4... B~ |
|
01 Oct 13 - 09:29 PM (#3563421) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: McGrath of Harlow Free health care good, low cost healthcare not so good, high price health care far worse. And the impression I have is that most of those crying "obamacare" favour the third option. Sadists and masochists united... |
|
02 Oct 13 - 12:13 AM (#3563443) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Songwronger The "liberal left" has been reduced to calling those who don't agree with them racists. Fact is, the Obama regime enthusiastically embraced Romneycare. And today that fascist legislation was implemented. The World Socialist website has always endorsed an expansion of Medicare to all, as I have. God you "liberals" must hate yourselves. You supported Obama while he set up fascist healthcare, and now you desperately try to blame the Republicans, or the racists. Medical is 1/6th of the US economy, and with your backing, Obama has now set up a way to feed that money directly into the coffers of the insurance companies while cutting medical services to the poor. |
|
02 Oct 13 - 04:56 AM (#3563511) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Will Fly From where I sit - in the UK - the whole business seems weird. All my life I've paid a National Insurance contribution from my salary. And all my life I've had nearly free treatment from the UK's National Health Service - I say "nearly" because, until I retired, I had to pay nominal, standard sums for prescribed medicines. Since retirement, I don't pay NI contributions and all my prescriptions, such as they are, are completely free. I'm guessing the latter is the equivalent of US Medicare (correct me if I'm wrong). My friend Chris recently broke his shoulder badly. Within 1 day it was checked, operated on by the best surgeon in the local hospital - and is now healed beautifully. All for free and without questions of any kind. We've been used to this system all our lives, and it's superb, in the main. (The problem is, it's also at the mercy of greedy, penny-pinching, critical governments who constantly interfere and are always on the edge of privatising this and that.) But what on earth is wrong with the principle? It's painless; it's part of our system; and we've all lived with it for over 60 years. Is the health of a nation not worth paying for? |
|
02 Oct 13 - 07:58 AM (#3563564) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert Lets put it this way, wrongman... Obama pushes a Republican health care plan and Congress passes it... Right??? The Supreme Court upholds it... Now Republicans are willing to shut down the government because they say they don't like their own plan... What other reason can there be for these people, who BTW represent white congressional districts in mostly southern states, to oppose their own idea??? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck... B~ |
|
03 Oct 13 - 05:27 AM (#3563869) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: John J Will Fly beat me to it.... I'm a UK resident who has the great benefit of receiving virtually free healthcare from our National Health Service. It's not actually free, I pay a small percentage of my income as National Insurance with funds the National Health Service and the Social Security system. If I'm unfortunate enough to find myself out of a job, I don't need to pay National Insurance contributions - but I still enjoy NHS healthcare. As Will Fly points out, our current government seem hell-bent on interfering with the NHS and screwing it up, but that aside: If I have a health problem I simply pop down to my doctor who does whatever is necessary - AT NO COST TO ME. If I'm unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident, an ambulance will come along, scrape me up off the ground and deliver me to hospital to be treated - AT NO COST TO ME. To use Australian parlance....'no worries'. I keep asking myself the simple question: What on earth is wrong with having a system that provides healthcare to everyone as a right? I'm a bear of little brain so simple questions suit me well. I visit the USA a couple of times a year (indeed I'm in the USA now) and I never fail to be amazed that the richest country in the world seems unable (unwilling?) to provide a competent healthcare system for its citizens. Interestingly I haven't come across an American citizen yet who thinks that a virtually free 'cradle to grave' healthcare system is a bad thing. Call me a cynic if you like, but I can't help wondering that the people (politicians) who are objecting to Obama-care are those who have a vested interest in the private health insurance companies over here - those companies will be the losers. I'll go and lie down in a darkened room. JJ |
|
03 Oct 13 - 10:07 AM (#3563949) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert We do not have a government "for the people and of the people", John J... We have one that is "for the 1% of of the 1%" and they are all greedy, immoral crybabies... B~ |
|
03 Oct 13 - 10:20 AM (#3563954) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Will Fly Is it not also true, Bobert, that a common levy on rich and poor - on which everyone can call when necessary - is seen as "socialism"? And socialism is perilously close to communism, which seems to be the dirtiest word in the US rightwinger's vocabulary (next to Obama, of course). |
|
03 Oct 13 - 10:55 AM (#3563971) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: John J That certainly seems the way it is to me Bobert. Sad that Obama got voted in yet it seems the bully-boys in the playground don't want to play - they'd rather throw their weight around and hamstring a good man with a good idea. A decent person with a social conscience, no matter what their political colour, surely wouldn't allow America to grind to a halt just because they disagree with a policy. Well actually it seems that they would. They have. I don't pretend to know much a all about American politics, and what I do know I've learned from the BBC, but Obama seems to be a good man with a social conscience. I'm sure Obama's not perfect (who is?) but he's done an enormous amount to improve much of the world's impression of America. Certainly a majority of British regard him as the best thing that could have happened to the USA. I can't help wondering whether many of those who DON'T like Obama might just have the teeniest, weeniest problem with the great man's colour. Sorry, color. Right, I'll get off my soap-box now and go back into that darkened room. Talking politics makes my brain hurt. JJ |
|
03 Oct 13 - 12:53 PM (#3564004) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don Firth Particularly in response to Songwronger's post of 02 Oct 13 - 12:13 AM just above. Political primer: Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty, and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. The Founding Fathers of the United States were Liberals. This should be obvious to anyone who stayed awake in high school history and civics classes. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and seek to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberalism is strongly opposed to systems such as Communism and Fascism, both of which rely on a strong, arbitrary central government, which Liberalism, by its very nature, opposes. Songwronger, your attempts to juxtapose and equivocate these quite different political concepts is pure Orwellian "doublespeak" and displays either your ignorance or your duplicity. Don Firth |
|
03 Oct 13 - 01:20 PM (#3564007) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: McGrath of Harlow "A common levy on the rich and poor" is far from "Socialist" - in fact, in the form of the Poll Tax it was one of the most hated policies of the Thatcher regime, and the resulting riots ensured that the Tories dumped her as a liability ( and won a subsequent election from a grateful nation). The point is, a common tax that is insignificant to a rich person is a crushing burden on a poor one. And I wouldn't agree with Will Fly calling the prescription charge modest and nominal, at £7.85 per item. If I was younger, with the same regular prescriptions as I have, I'd be in real trouble. Mind you, if I was in the USA I'd probably be dead... |
|
04 Oct 13 - 04:23 AM (#3564139) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Will Fly MoH - there's a subtle difference between the Poll Tax and NI contributions; the latter is a common fund on which all freely can draw, regardless of income or medical problem. If you think £7.58 per prescription item is expensive, then you should cast your eye over the actual cost of making up some of the items prescribed. In some cases, the prescription drug can be bought cheaper over the counter, but in the vast majority of cases, the drug costs outweigh the production costs many times - and, yes, I know that the drug companies make substantial profits. This is why there are such arguments over the availability of certain very, very expensive treatments and why some surgeries have limits on what they can afford. (My better half worked for many years in our local medical centre and saw the ins and outs of care costs both public and private in some detail. Lots of interesting stories there for some other thread...). What you don't get directly charged for is the doctor's time, the nurse's time, the pharmacist's time, the medical centre staff time, etc. - that's what NI is for. I have an American friend - a guitarist - who has an English wife and lives and works in the UK. He has many friends and family back in the US, but can't afford to live and work there because the costs of his medication would bankrupt him, even with medical insurance. As you say, he'd probably be dead. |
|
04 Oct 13 - 04:56 AM (#3564146) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Will Fly "the drug costs outweigh the production costs many times" should have read: the drug costs outweigh the prescription costs many times |
|
04 Oct 13 - 11:51 AM (#3564263) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: McGrath of Harlow I'm not saying the charge is excessive in relation to costs (though it is in many cases), but it's not nominal, particularly for low paid people. The original principle of a free health service all the way was right and of course it costs a lot. But aside from everything else, yes, it costs a lot, but a lot less than the alternatives when all is said and done (though that's a side issue - if it cost more it would still be worth it.) drug costs, and the priorities of drug production, are grossly distorted by our profit driven model. But that's another matter. |
|
05 Oct 13 - 06:59 AM (#3564414) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T "".According to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care overhaul will leave an estimated 31 million people—about a tenth of the US population—uninsured by 2023."" That would seem to be a big improvement on the 47 million who were without care under the Bush administration, a reduction of one third, which might have been so much more if it hadn't been for the gutting of the original proposal by the adamantine opposition of the Repubs, who don't give a shit about the poor. Republican take on healthcare?......."Not one cent of my money to support losers!" DESPICABLE! Don T. |
|
05 Oct 13 - 08:52 AM (#3564437) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Lighter Says it better than I can: http://news.yahoo.com/animosity-toward-affordable-health-care-hard-fathom-050012037.html Will add only that the original criticism of O-care was that it was "socialism" and impossible to pay for. Strangely I haven't heard that mantra lately. All I hear is that "The American people don't want Obamacare!" A few years back, the TP demanded to scrap the O-care plan (based as we all know on conservative Mitt Romney's system in Massachusetts) and start with "a blank sheet of paper" to work out something better. So far as I know, that sheet is still blank. Meanwhile, O-care is the law of the land, approved by all three branches of government, and the Fools on the Hill swear to hold their breath till the dog wags. That, they claim, is democracy. |
|
05 Oct 13 - 09:08 AM (#3564439) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Bobert What is increasingly clear is that more than Obamacare is at stake here... Democracy itself is the what the Tea Party is attacking in trying to force minority tyranny on all of us... If they are allowed to win then we are seriously messed up as we have no legitimate democratic governance... Oh, and please... No lectures about "republics"... Especially by people who are clueless about what "republics" are supposed to be about... B~ |
|
05 Oct 13 - 09:44 AM (#3564443) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Lighter And make no mistake: the Fools are, in effect, about 40 TP Congressmen out a House and Senate of 535 legislators. The Top Fool, at least for now, is Speaker of the House John Boehner. All he has to do is call for a vote on a no-strings resolution to "reopen the government." It would pass handily in both the House and the Senate. Instead Boehner has just called the showdown "an Epic Battle." (Over what? A law designed to help people?) What he means is, "an Epic Battle to keep me from facing a crazed TP opponent in a GOP primary in 2014." |
|
05 Oct 13 - 11:48 AM (#3564470) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: GUEST,John J on holiday in USA Re: Lighter's comment: All I hear is that "The American people don't want Obamacare!" In the last two weeks of my stay here I've not spoken to ONE American who doesn't think Obamacare is a good plan. From my observations here it seems that it's only the tossers holding the country to ransom who don't like the idea. As a Brit I find it incredible and infuriating that the USA is being shafted by those who weren't voted into power but actually have it. I get the distinct feeling from listening to the BBC that the UK in general can't believe what's happening here. It's not often I spout politics in a public forum, but to be quite honest the crew who are responsible for shutting down the USA want stuffing. They're completely irresponsible....but they've got money. JJ |
|
05 Oct 13 - 12:32 PM (#3564485) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX! From: Lighter In TP usage, "the American people" logically designates "voters in my Congressional district who voted for me rather than my Democratic opponent, and who *also* believe that fear of Obamacare is worth shutting down the government, making the US an international laughing-stock, and possibly forcing the country into catastrophic default in the next two weeks." |
