Can we at least agree on the ROOT CAUSES of the issue? Honestly …
Americans are fat and disgusting, by and large.
Americans are increasingly focused on building the nanny state and shunning personal responsibility.
Americans feel entitled to things they don’t have. The American Dream is a journey not a gift.
If we fix #3, #2 will fix itself when people realize they need to work to earn things. If we fix #2, #1 will fix itself as people will take responsibility for their own health. This is not an issue of health care but of Americans being lazy turds and not taking care of themselves.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:
Take out a loan
Be sentenced to several months of state-run hard labor and the state pays the bill in return
Be denied care
I’m not kidding. I would imagine that a significant portion of people without insurance are unemployed anyway, so what’s the harm in putting them on highway cleanup or quarry detail? State saves money, premiums don’t go up, city looks better, etc.[/quote]
You know we agree , the problem I see is the republicans calling your suggestion Communism .
Just for the record I am NOT in favor of Debtors Prison.I think we could make a lot of Welfare recipients gainfully employed
[/quote]
Communism? How? There is no entitlement and no state intervention; sure, the state offers an OPTION to pay for you at the expense of hard labor, but this isn’t required. You can always simply be denied care if you can’t pay for it.
Welfare needs to be eliminated completely. Unemployment needs to be cut off after 12 weeks. SS and Medicaid just need to die. Just kill it. Give all the remaining money to the few million old people near retirement but it beats fucking over all the 15-40 year olds instead down the road. How is it that no one has any real foresight? Not saying my solution is the best, but what the fuck? You cannot satisfy everyone, and no one should try.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:
Take out a loan
Be sentenced to several months of state-run hard labor and the state pays the bill in return
Be denied care
I’m not kidding. I would imagine that a significant portion of people without insurance are unemployed anyway, so what’s the harm in putting them on highway cleanup or quarry detail? State saves money, premiums don’t go up, city looks better, etc.[/quote]
You know we agree , the problem I see is the republicans calling your suggestion Communism .
Just for the record I am NOT in favor of Debtors Prison.I think we could make a lot of Welfare recipients gainfully employed
[/quote]
Communism? How? There is no entitlement and no state intervention; sure, the state offers an OPTION to pay for you at the expense of hard labor, but this isn’t required. You can always simply be denied care if you can’t pay for it.
Welfare needs to be eliminated completely. Unemployment needs to be cut off after 12 weeks. SS and Medicaid just need to die. Just kill it. Give all the remaining money to the few million old people near retirement but it beats fucking over all the 15-40 year olds instead down the road. How is it that no one has any real foresight? Not saying my solution is the best, but what the fuck? You cannot satisfy everyone, and no one should try.[/quote]
I do not think you could convince a welfare recipient to work at hard labor. You would have to make welfare just barely livable and if you work any job it must pay better. Considering health care does not even start until the middle of middle class why go to work considering the Insurance welfare offers would be valued at several thousand dollars a year .
You opinion of unemployment would be fine if there were jobs but if you have 10 unemployed people and 10 employed people and 15 jobs 5 people are going to be unemployed . I would not be game to let people starve .
If there isn’t work available, find work. Make work. DO SOMETHING with your time. If you’re telling me that you can’t mow lawns or shovel driveways to stay occupied then you’re full of shit. Using the “economy” as an excuse to not work is a lame excuse. I’m not going to feed you a sob story about my youth, but let’s just say I “found” work.
One of my family members just got fired (not laid off) from a full time now. Now she’s on unemployment and two weeks later has STILL not updated her resume and only applied to one job. She lounges at our pool most of the week. She should NOT BE PAID for this.
I don’t care if I can convince a welfare recipient to work or not. You either work or starve. Even physically incapable of people can find non-physical work; I’m sure the various governments could keep them employed in return for some tiny paycheck. My issue is being paid to do NOTHING. Everyone can at least do something, however small.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. It’s just semantics. [/quote]
No, it isn’t. You aren’t paying attention, but please keep telling me about the IRC, I love it when people try and explain it to me. It isn’t like I don’t deal with it every day.
No, you don’t get it.
Look, your “semantics” comment shows you don’t understand how taxes work, I will try and break it down:
Assumptions: Your tax rate is 20%. You have a 100k AGI.
Option 1: you are single, rent and don’t give crazy amounts to charity. You pay 20k to the IRS.
Option 2: You buy a home, you can now deduct the R/E taxes & mortgage interest (Which total 20k). Your tax bill is now 16k. (100k - 20K x 20%)
You aren’t being punished for not buying the house. You are paying your original bill. The deduction is a reduction of your bill.
Option 3: same facts as #1 under Obamacare and you refuse insurance. You tax bill is now 22k, 2% higher than your tax rate.
That is a penalty, as it was assessed upon your original rate.
You can call it whatever you want, but you are, in fact wrong. So feel free to continue to be incorrect. I’m in no position to stop you.
So the people that can critically think and see the difference between two situations and the differences between what two different words mean are sheeple?
Or are they sheeple because anyone that doesn’t agree with you deserves to be put down? Good forbid your opinion is wrong.
academically, you are absolutely wrong.
I hear people complain about taxes daily, and have as long as I have been old enough to understand.
Where do you live?
[quote]By the way, I worked tirelessly getting a new house for the mid terms and informing people of the BS going on. I Regulary send letters to my congressmen, so I have a leg to stand on. I am not crying over spilled milk after the fact. You and the rest have been fooled if you think it is any different.
[/quote]
Good for you.
edit: now v. not[/quote]
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but your reply and logic is comical. I understand very well the tax code. Let me rephrase that, I don’ t even think ol Timmy boy understands the tax code. I am extremely familiar with folders of reciepts, deductions and with the exception of the last couple years, writing checks to uncle Sam every 3 months. I am paying very close attention, but I’ll make another go at it on the chalkboard for you.
Again, you can apply all the steps and procedures to the idea of deductions, but when you straighten out the corrugations, it is the same.
Alright, so you and I live in the same neighborhood, and we live right next door to each other. We happen to also work together, get paid the same, our wifey’s both have blonde hair (mine is better looking of course), and we even like each other in this scenario. So let’s apply all the same deductions, all the neat math you provided, and the same rate. The only difference is I drink bud, you drink bud light, and since I have the better looking wife, you get to own your home and I rent in this scenario. Because I have chosen not to buy a house and not become a home owner, I pay the penalty of an extra $4,000 dollars every year in taxes. In the end, check writing time comes and because I decided I didn’t want to own a home, my check to uncle Sam is a bigger than yours. Although our rates for our income bracket were the same originally in effect, you know have dropped down to a bracket equivelent to 16%. Following me here? K.
Now, let’s assume all the same comparisons ( ok, you can have the better looking wife in this one). Only I have health insurance and you don’t. I am paying about $165 dollars a month for my health insurance (I know, I don’t smoke and have 10 gym memberships). My tax rate is lower, because I get to deduct the 2% tax, for the first year anyway. However, you are paying a higher tax rate at 22% (for the first year).
Scenario 1: Since I have decided not to purchase a home, I am, when all is said and done, paying a higher tax rate than you are.
Scenario 2: Since you have decided not to purchase health insurance, you are, when all is said and done, paying a higher tax rate than I am.
With all the euphemisms and procedural loopholes holes removed, there exists no difference. So I get it, got it before we started this conversation. I am just looking at the ends and seeing the same result albeit both arrived by different means.
I use the term sheeple because most people are not paying attention close enough to realize they have wandered off the green pastures and onto a concrete floor with grass clippings, even worse is the fact they don’t care, as long as the “green” stuff keeps coming. That isn’t a put down or an opinion, it is an unfortunate reality.
By the way yes good for me, and for the good of you too.
Now turn your dam music down, I have two deductions trying to get to sleep ; )
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why is health care considered a “right” but yet food which is more essential to life is not?
Why are not clothing and shelter considered “rights”, too?
People can live in their own filth on the streets, homeless but as long as those dumb, do-gooder lefties get their “free” health care it’s all good.[/quote]Watch yer mouth. That’s coming. You’ll see. Guaranteed wage for existing.
We already have social programs for food and housing. Health care cost are going to go up regardless of whether Obama’s health care stays around or not. IMO because of partisan bickering our elected officials missed an ideal opportunity to address rising costs . IMO it is and was the major issue with health care
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We already have social programs for food and housing. Health care cost are going to go up regardless of whether Obama’s health care stays around or not. IMO because of partisan bickering our elected officials missed an ideal opportunity to address rising costs . IMO it is and was the major issue with health care [/quote]
Rising costs are the fault of politicians and bureaucrats. Adding more of that cannot lower costs no matter how much the overlords “address” it. Addressing it will no doubt make it even worse.
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but your reply and logic is comical.[/quote]
Um, okay.
I am happy that you filed a schedule C or maybe even an 1120-S. Good for you.
I work in tax well over 1,800 hours a year for around 8 years now. I need CPE’s in the field, which I get. I have pretty little letters after my name…
So I work in it, and study it. You kept receipts and paid in, what someone who does what I do, tells you to.
…
Whatever, continue to impress yourself with your enlightenment. Who am I to stop you?[/quote]
Not impressed? Not even with my sheep, people, green grass, money analogy? Please tell me you at least smirked at the 2 deductions comment , my thigh is still stinging from that one. Look I respect what you do, couldn’t do it with 2 cases of brain candy and a bottle of Xanax. I have an acronym after my name too, but thank God none of the letters ryme with bouncing or faxing, wait, uhh ok no they don’t. I am just shaking my head at the right in this country ( I am registered republican, once again for the record) acting like Obama wrapped the constitution around a M -80 and lit the fuse on the front lawn. If your going to get upset, do so about the last century, not just the last four years, because despite what the talkin heads are saying, the IRS has been using taxes to do far more than just control your healthcare shopping.
Anyway, time to be productive, good day… And enjoy the next 5 months…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We already have social programs for food and housing. Health care cost are going to go up regardless of whether Obama’s health care stays around or not. IMO because of partisan bickering our elected officials missed an ideal opportunity to address rising costs . IMO it is and was the major issue with health care [/quote]
Rising costs are the fault of politicians and bureaucrats. Adding more of that cannot lower costs no matter how much the overlords “address” it. Addressing it will no doubt make it even worse.[/quote]
The only way I could see to make free market principals drive down health care costs is to allow any one to practice medicine .
I can not understand any other option other than regulations
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The only way I could see to make free market principals drive down health care costs is to allow any one to practice medicine .
I can not understand any other option other than regulations
[/quote]
Wrong.
If there were an actual free market on insurance, medicine would focus on prevention rather than treating symptoms. Our insurance company would have a financial incentive to keep us healthy.
That would drastically reduce costs.
I agree opening the market to alternative health care would also work wonders to reduce costs. I do not worry about regulations because there are already private agencies that rate health care and help to regulate industry standards.
The regulations that are written by government almost always favor one form of care over an other and hinder medical progress and also drive up prices.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The only way I could see to make free market principals drive down health care costs is to allow any one to practice medicine .
I can not understand any other option other than regulations
[/quote]
Wrong.
If there were an actual free market on insurance, medicine would focus on prevention rather than treating symptoms. Our insurance company would have a financial incentive to keep us healthy.
That would drastically reduce costs.
I agree opening the market to alternative health care would also work wonders to reduce costs. I do not worry about regulations because there are already private agencies that rate health care and help to regulate industry standards.
The regulations that are written by government almost always favor one form of care over an other and hinder medical progress and also drive up prices.[/quote]
You are going to have to give me specifics to convince me