I know that something absolutely has to be done to improve healthcare in this country, and personally I’m willing to sacrifice some freedom to improve…[/quote]
This is the problem. I am not, and never will be. I do not view it as a mere inconvenience. I view it as a fundamental assault on my rights (be they irrational, irresponsible, or not), and more importantly a violation of the Constitution. Here is the problem: there is no acceptable solution if the only solution presented violates the principles and stated laws on which our country is founded. From a fundamental standpoint, it would be better that there was NOTHING done if the only solution to the problem involved a violation of Constitutionality. This is a founding principle of our country–that no solution that violates Rights guaranteed the people is acceptable without changing the Constitution itself via amendment, no matter the scope of the problem.
Clearly, of course, I side with the dissenting 4 wrt Constitutionality.[/quote]
Very well said my friend. The democrats think that giving people things solves their problems and it doesn’t it only creates more problems.
-Out of work for short periods of time? Heres’s some money in the form of unemployment.
-Out of work for long periods of time? Here’s some money in the form of welfare.
-Can’t afford your rent? Here’s some money in the form of HUD program.
-Can’t afford grocery’s? Here’s some money to go buy food (and beer and cigarettes) in the form of food stamps.
-Can’t afford health insurance? No problem we will take money from those who have actually earned it and give it to you in the form of health insurance.
A democrat has never seen a problem that he doesn’t think can’t be fixed by stealing your money and handing it over to those who don’t deserve it.
And the irony is that while they are taking from those who have it they are also adding regulations to business to make it even harder to make money.
Eventually there won’t be enough money to steal to support this enormous welfare system that has been created. And the house of cards will come tumbling down. My only satisfaction is that those who endorse such a system will see it unravel before their very eyes.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Personally I don’t find your distinction satisfactory. [/quote]
Okay… I will try again.
No, not at all.
Do you have to buy a car?
If you choose not to buy a car does the IRS add to your tax bill?
If I do choose to buy a car, then guess what, I have to get insurance, unless I live in NH. Because the state requires you to in order to legally enjoy the privilege of driving. The state cannot force me through taxation to buy a car, therefore the state cannot force me to buy car insurance. If I want to, if I choose to, drive a car, then and only then am I required to have insurance.
I am now, whether I want it or not, required to have health insurance.
Do you still not see the difference?
If you notice, most of the people bitching about this mandate have insurance already. they already pay for health insurance, and are really really pissed off about this law.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]
Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.
You’re still an idiot!
[/quote]
ZEB,
As always you keep it classy. So the answer is of course one of your typical right wing talking points. You have no more knowledge of what will happen than anyone else, but somehow you are sure YOU will be getting screwed. Fantastic detective work ZEB, did you have to read a whole page of Drudge or Breitbart, or in lieu of reading (because it is soooo fucking hard) did you just lay on the floor in the fetal position while you listened to Fox news tell you the future as they see it. Next time just say “I have no fucking clue” at least you wouldn’t seem so dense.
What’s all the hubbub, bub? Seriously, it’s a 1% tax increase with a built in 1% deduction for having health insurance and additional deductions based on income. The federal government has been using the tax code to promote socially beneficial behaviors for decades. All of us already pay higher taxes for “not” doing or purchasing certain things, like not having children, not purchasing a home, not going to college, not purchasing solar panels, not starting a business, not investing in the stock market, not saving for retirement - the list goes on and on. The only differences here are semantic, not substantive.
[quote]Waylon wrote:
What’s all the hubbub, bub? Seriously, it’s a 1% tax increase with a built in 1% deduction for having health insurance and additional deductions based on income. The federal government has been using the tax code to promote socially beneficial behaviors for decades. All of us already pay higher taxes for “not” doing or purchasing certain things, like not having children, not purchasing a home, not going to college, not purchasing solar panels, not starting a business, not investing in the stock market, not saving for retirement - the list goes on and on. The only differences here are semantic, not substantive. [/quote]
You’re going to get flamed to death for this, perhaps even before I submit this comment, so I’ll be brief.
There are monumental problems with these changes, not the least of which is that a pre-existing condition is no longer a valid reason to deny insurance. This means people are going to pay the 1% fee until they get sick, then they will buy health insurance (it’s cheaper that way) and drain money out of the insurance company.
As more and more people do this, the cost of insurance will continue to rise to the point where buying insurance ever is more expensive than just paying out-of-pocket, which is already nearly impossible thanks to the government set barriers-to-entry in the medical field which allow for horrendously overpriced care.
The system we have is broken, but this is not the solution. It’s not even ‘A’ solution. This system will break also, and when it does it will be much, MUCH worse than the system is now.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
they needed to eliminate the model where people actually get rich off of illness.[/quote]
Bullshit. They need to make sure whomever invents the cure for cancer will be so disgustingly rich a different bimbo comes to his house, drops to her knees, and sucks him off, every day, for the rest of his life.
Aside from war, greed is, by far, the greatest motivator of human accomplishment.[/quote]
X 1000000000000 ad infinitum!
What the fuck about that is so hard for Liberals to understand?[/quote]
Two things:
One- The guy that cures cancer won’t get rich, the CEO of the company he works for will.
[/quote] And your problem with that is…? Actually, the company’s stock will rise exponentially and ALL of the shareholders will get rich. But you fucking whining liberals can’t bear the thought of THAT! They should redistribute it so EVERYONE can get a “fair share” (even though they didn’t have the foresight to invest in that stock or make ANY effort whatsoever to contribute to anything other than bitching and complaining).[quote]
Two- If greed is such a great fucking motivator then it doesn’t take much of a brain to figure out that developing a treatment/containment for a chronic or terminal illness is much better than finding a cure.
“Greed, Keeping Americans Sick for over 100 Years.”[/quote]
Last time I checked, you need PROFIT to PAY for RESEARCH. That shit ain’t free! OH, I KNOW - have the GUBMENT pay for it, right? You know who keeps “Americans” sick? AMERICANS! The sickest ones are a bunch of fat fucks living off the gubment cheese. Faking bullshit illnesses so they qualify for SSI. Using half of their food stamps to buy candy instead of healthy food and selling the other half of their food stamp check for weed.
Tiger, honestly I think your point about preexisting conditions is a good one and that we will have to see how it plays out. The only thing we have to go on so far is how the state version in Mass has worked, and so far less than 1% are paying the tax. I personally think the preexisting condition clause, excepting the protection for children, should be phased out. The ACA will adress issues like COBRA and give people the ability to pay reasonable premiums while unemployed, and a few years opportunity to rejoin the insurance pool should be sufficient for those caught by the current sytem.
My post was really a response to those running around like this is the Marxist zombie apocalypse, completly changing the nature of government control, when from a purely legal standpoint this is old hat.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Why is car insurance required in all 50 states for anyone that own a vehicle?[/quote]
It’s not.
In New Hampshire, you are only required to have either insurance or financial backing if you have been in an accident, have a conviction of driving under the influence, or have multiple reckless driving convictions.
As far as costs, this wont lower them. I know a few people without insurance and we pay less than our counterparts. When I go to the doctor (maybe once a year) I pay for doctor appointments out of pocket for less than some of my friends’ copays. Only ever had one major expense (not to major, truly) and a payment plan was worked out and the bill came out to less than the bill for someone with insurance. No middle man, the hospital got every cent vs only a fraction and they made more money even though they charged me less.
I make %50K a month and am a student. Granted, I’m single and have no kids.
NOW, I’m going to have to either pay for medical insurance I don’t need or want or pay a tax…either way, I’m going to have to pay A LOT more than I currently do. Yeah, this works great…
Obamacare is largely a revenue raising measure because the states are already going bankrupt from Medicaid. In your state, 25% of the state’s budget goes to Medicaid. Obamacare aims to force mostly young people who don’t need extensive coverage onto the program to help fund the collapsing system. These are the facts. The trustees themselves admit they’re insolvent.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]
Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.
You’re still an idiot!
[/quote]
ZEB,
As always you keep it classy. So the answer is of course one of your typical right wing talking points. You have no more knowledge of what will happen than anyone else, but somehow you are sure YOU will be getting screwed. Fantastic detective work ZEB, did you have to read a whole page of Drudge or Breitbart, or in lieu of reading (because it is soooo fucking hard) did you just lay on the floor in the fetal position while you listened to Fox news tell you the future as they see it. Next time just say “I have no fucking clue” at least you wouldn’t seem so dense. [/quote]
Somehow, I do not think that it is a “talking point”, right wing or otherwise, that money is extracted from him at gunpoint and given to other people who did nothing to deserve it.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing
Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.
You’re still an idiot!
ZEB,
As always you keep it classy.
So the answer is of course one of your typical right wing talking points. You have no more knowledge of what will happen than anyone else, but somehow you are sure YOU will be getting screwed. Fantastic detective work ZEB, did you have to read a whole page of Drudge or Breitbart, or in lieu of reading (because it is soooo fucking hard) did you just lay on the floor in the fetal position while you listened to Fox news tell you the future as they see it. Next time just say “I have no fucking clue” at least you wouldn’t seem so dense. [/quote]
You’ve said nothing in this post but I should be used to that from you. Did you even read the ramifications of this bill?
I’ll give you a quick education as to why I and the rest of WORKING America are getting screwed by your hero Obama.
To pay for this disaster called health care the following is going to take place:
A surcharge of 3.8% will be placed on all investment income. And not just stocks and (corporate) bonds, but real estate as well including rents collected. It’s so far reaching that it will be collected even on certain annuities which have normally been out of bounds.
The new law also raises the Medicare tax by 1% on wages and self-employment income. And this new levy has no deductible component for the self-employed.
In addition to the above Obama has sworn to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That will mean a 5% tax hike for every WORKING American.
Unlike you, I fully understand tax ramifications of the law. And one more principal that shoots right over your head.
That is:
The government never GIVES to anyone without it first being TAKEN from someone else.
Run along now B r i a n you’re still an idiot and I don’t hold out much hope for you showing us anything else.
[quote]Waylon wrote:
The federal government has been using the tax code to promote socially beneficial behaviors for decades. All of us already pay higher taxes for “not” doing or purchasing certain things, like not having children, not purchasing a home, not going to college, not purchasing solar panels, not starting a business, not investing in the stock market, not saving for retirement - the list goes on and on.[/quote]
I explained this, twice, in the other thread.
But feel free to correct me on the IRC. Can you give me a CPE certificate while you do it?
Based on you being the second person in two days to say this… I expect a whole lot of people are going to be spouting this bullshit.
It is, and you are, completely wrong. You are just twisting the truth to justify to yourself the theft of your freedom to spend your disposable income as you see fit.
There is a major difference between a tax incentive that promotes a particular behavior and a punishment for inaction. They are very substantively different. If you can’t comprehend the difference, I’m sorry, but don’t expect to not look like an idiot around people that do.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]
Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.
You’re still an idiot!
[/quote]
ZEB,
As always you keep it classy. So the answer is of course one of your typical right wing talking points. You have no more knowledge of what will happen than anyone else, but somehow you are sure YOU will be getting screwed. Fantastic detective work ZEB, did you have to read a whole page of Drudge or Breitbart, or in lieu of reading (because it is soooo fucking hard) did you just lay on the floor in the fetal position while you listened to Fox news tell you the future as they see it. Next time just say “I have no fucking clue” at least you wouldn’t seem so dense. [/quote]
Somehow, I do not think that it is a “talking point”, right wing or otherwise, that money is extracted from him at gunpoint and given to other people who did nothing to deserve it.
That is, like, a fact.
[/quote]
Orion,
The problem with bitching about a tax issue is that people that bitch about taxes aren’t really bitching about taxes, they are bitching about taxes they don’t like or more specifically taxes being used for something they don’t agree with (ex. insuring the lazy on my dime) but they never seem to bitch about the taxes paying for a fireman rescuing their kids, or a policeman recovering their stolen goods. You very rarely see a person on the right complaining about the tax dollars going to create a super strong military, but you will always see them complaining that their tax dollars are going to give some lazy prick a colonoscopy (discovering the cancer early and saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment bills). The facts are that we (you, me) have no idea whether the ACA will be a success or failure, a money saver or loser, we have no idea if it will be an unltimately successful program (or lead to a more successful program). At the moment the right is sure of one thing only, the ACA is the brainchild of the black, Kenyan, Socialist, closet Muslim and it must be attacked at all costs.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing
Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.
You’re still an idiot!
ZEB,
As always you keep it classy.
So the answer is of course one of your typical right wing talking points. You have no more knowledge of what will happen than anyone else, but somehow you are sure YOU will be getting screwed. Fantastic detective work ZEB, did you have to read a whole page of Drudge or Breitbart, or in lieu of reading (because it is soooo fucking hard) did you just lay on the floor in the fetal position while you listened to Fox news tell you the future as they see it. Next time just say “I have no fucking clue” at least you wouldn’t seem so dense. [/quote]
You’ve said nothing in this post but I should be used to that from you. Did you even read the ramifications of this bill?
I’ll give you a quick education as to why I and the rest of WORKING America are getting screwed by your hero Obama.
To pay for this disaster called health care the following is going to take place:
A surcharge of 3.8% will be placed on all investment income. And not just stocks and (corporate) bonds, but real estate as well including rents collected. It’s so far reaching that it will be collected even on certain annuities which have normally been out of bounds.
The new law also raises the Medicare tax by 1% on wages and self-employment income. And this new levy has no deductible component for the self-employed.
In addition to the above Obama has sworn to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That will mean a 5% tax hike for every WORKING American.
Unlike you, I fully understand tax ramifications of the law. And one more principal that shoots right over your head.
That is:
The government never GIVES to anyone without it first being TAKEN from someone else.
Run along now B r i a n you’re still an idiot and I don’t hold out much hope for you showing us anything else.
[/quote]
ZEB,
Most of the “increases” have corresponding offsets and are only triggered at certain income levels, so yes, if you make over 200k you will see some small tax increases, but if you have insurance (one not defined as a “cadillac” plan) and you make under 200k and you don’t have substantial investment income you won’t notice much if any difference at all. SOme businesses will lose some tax bennies (paper manufacturers for example lose a write-off for “bio-fuel” prdocuction from their waste material), small business owners with more than 30 employees may be looking at penalties (that are still lower than offering insurance plans) of $166-250 per month per employee (only if you have more than 30) if you don’t offer a qualifying plan, or if you offer a plan and your employee chooses the exchange.
Most of the penalties impact higher wage earners (minimally I might add) and employers that currently don’t offer health care (because if you do offer it, it is actually in most cases cheaper to discontinue it). As far as your 3.8% surcharge, it is actually an increase from 2.9% to 3.8% an increase of less than 1%.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing
Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.
You’re still an idiot!
ZEB,
As always you keep it classy.
So the answer is of course one of your typical right wing talking points. You have no more knowledge of what will happen than anyone else, but somehow you are sure YOU will be getting screwed. Fantastic detective work ZEB, did you have to read a whole page of Drudge or Breitbart, or in lieu of reading (because it is soooo fucking hard) did you just lay on the floor in the fetal position while you listened to Fox news tell you the future as they see it. Next time just say “I have no fucking clue” at least you wouldn’t seem so dense. [/quote]
You’ve said nothing in this post but I should be used to that from you. Did you even read the ramifications of this bill?
I’ll give you a quick education as to why I and the rest of WORKING America are getting screwed by your hero Obama.
To pay for this disaster called health care the following is going to take place:
A surcharge of 3.8% will be placed on all investment income. And not just stocks and (corporate) bonds, but real estate as well including rents collected. It’s so far reaching that it will be collected even on certain annuities which have normally been out of bounds.
The new law also raises the Medicare tax by 1% on wages and self-employment income. And this new levy has no deductible component for the self-employed.
In addition to the above Obama has sworn to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That will mean a 5% tax hike for every WORKING American.
Unlike you, I fully understand tax ramifications of the law. And one more principal that shoots right over your head.
That is:
The government never GIVES to anyone without it first being TAKEN from someone else.
Run along now B r i a n you’re still an idiot and I don’t hold out much hope for you showing us anything else.
[/quote]
ZEB,
Most of the “increases” have corresponding offsets and are only triggered at certain income levels, so yes, if you make over 200k you will see some small tax increases, but if you have insurance (one not defined as a “cadillac” plan) and you make under 200k and you don’t have substantial investment income you won’t notice much if any difference at all.[/quote]
It’s called redistribution of wealth. Something that Obama promised to do and just about the only promise that he’s keeping.
Every small business in America that employs 51 people or more WILL lose money. P E R I O D. I already pointed out some of the ways. One more way is if they do not give their employees health insurance they will be fined $1,900 per employee per year. That is an additional tax of $96,900 per year paid by the small business man. One more way (in addition to over regulation) that Obama punishes small business. And as I schooled you on earlier if you fail to pay the “tax” the IRS comes after you with additional fines, and if you don’t pay those J A I L!
LOL—Only higher wage earners huh? Do you even understand what an “S” corporation is? As part of the luny left probably not. But I’ll teach you, if your small business is incorporated under an “S” corporation income flows through the company as if it is your own personal income. Hence, while the company may have made 1 million dollars you actually didn’t. But Obama looks at you as one of the “evil rich” and every measure that is thrown at those actually making 1 million in income will also be thrown at the small business person.
This bill is HORRIBLE and punishes those who drive the economy! And if (the liberal media gets their way) Obama is reelected because of this health care law and the experation of the Bush tax cuts for all Americans you will see the US plunge into a major recession which will make the previous one look like an economic boon!
As I said, and you will continue to read, the government cannot give anything to anyone without first taking it from those who earned it!
When has liberalism ever worked? Show me the state, or the time period in our country where leftists policies have worked economically over a long period of time.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing
Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.
You’re still an idiot!
ZEB,
As always you keep it classy.
So the answer is of course one of your typical right wing talking points. You have no more knowledge of what will happen than anyone else, but somehow you are sure YOU will be getting screwed. Fantastic detective work ZEB, did you have to read a whole page of Drudge or Breitbart, or in lieu of reading (because it is soooo fucking hard) did you just lay on the floor in the fetal position while you listened to Fox news tell you the future as they see it. Next time just say “I have no fucking clue” at least you wouldn’t seem so dense. [/quote]
You’ve said nothing in this post but I should be used to that from you. Did you even read the ramifications of this bill?
I’ll give you a quick education as to why I and the rest of WORKING America are getting screwed by your hero Obama.
To pay for this disaster called health care the following is going to take place:
A surcharge of 3.8% will be placed on all investment income. And not just stocks and (corporate) bonds, but real estate as well including rents collected. It’s so far reaching that it will be collected even on certain annuities which have normally been out of bounds.
The new law also raises the Medicare tax by 1% on wages and self-employment income. And this new levy has no deductible component for the self-employed.
In addition to the above Obama has sworn to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That will mean a 5% tax hike for every WORKING American.
Unlike you, I fully understand tax ramifications of the law. And one more principal that shoots right over your head.
That is:
The government never GIVES to anyone without it first being TAKEN from someone else.
Run along now B r i a n you’re still an idiot and I don’t hold out much hope for you showing us anything else.
[/quote]
ZEB,
Most of the “increases” have corresponding offsets and are only triggered at certain income levels, so yes, if you make over 200k you will see some small tax increases, but if you have insurance (one not defined as a “cadillac” plan) and you make under 200k and you don’t have substantial investment income you won’t notice much if any difference at all.[/quote]
It’s called redistribution of wealth. Something that Obama promised to do and just about the only promise that he’s keeping.
Every small business in America that employs 51 people or more WILL lose money. P E R I O D. I already pointed out some of the ways. One more way is if they do not give their employees health insurance they will be fined $1,900 per employee per year. That is an additional tax of $96,900 per year paid by the small business man. One more way (in addition to over regulation) that Obama punishes small business. And as I schooled you on earlier if you fail to pay the “tax” the IRS comes after you with additional fines, and if you don’t pay those J A I L!
LOL—Only higher wage earners huh? Do you even understand what an “S” corporation is? As part of the luny left probably not. But I’ll teach you, if your small business is incorporated under an “S” corporation income flows through the company as if it is your own personal income. Hence, while the company may have made 1 million dollars you actually didn’t. But Obama looks at you as one of the “evil rich” and every measure that is thrown at those actually making 1 million in income will also be thrown at the small business person.
This bill is HORRIBLE and punishes those who drive the economy! And if (the liberal media gets their way) Obama is reelected because of this health care law and the experation of the Bush tax cuts for all Americans you will see the US plunge into a major recession which will make the previous one look like an economic boon!
As I said, and you will continue to read, the government cannot give anything to anyone without first taking it from those who earned it!
When has liberalism ever worked? Show me the state, or the time period in our country where leftists policies have worked economically over a long period of time.
They don’t!
[/quote]
Eye roll , where has a government promoted a strong private school system , an unregulated oil industry,No environmental regulations ,a culture that it is illegal to be gay , a culture that places God as first concern in Government,
Somalia , Iran , Sudan, Afghanistan and the list goes on
Beans, whether it is a “deduction” for retirement investments or a “penalty” for not having health insurance, at the end of the day my tax bill is higher if I do not engage in said behavior. You can call it a penalty, tax, deduction, toll, or a widget - I really don’t care. A dollar is a dollar and the difference IS purely semantic.
Zeb, as far as liberal controlled time period that some might consider moderately successful - From 1931 to 1981 the Dems controlled both houses of Congress (except 1 R, 1 split) and the white house the majority of the time. Even R president Eisenhower would be considered a raging liberal by today’s standards. Considering this was time period the middle class as we know it came in to existence, some poeple in that economic class may see it as a successful time.
