[quote]mathew260 wrote:
Please tell me you at least smirked at the 2 deductions comment , my thigh is still stinging from that one.[/quote]
No, I laughed.
I feel your pain as well.
Straw that broke the camels back maybe?
Or maybe there will be some new shit to complain about next week.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[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
[/quote]
One good example is that employer provided health insurance isn’t taxed as income and that employers who provide health insurance to their employees are taxed less.
By dislocating capital from wages into health insurance the demand for group health insurance is increased artificially inflating the cost. Further, the employee is not left with sufficient real wages to pay for a private(non-employer provided) health insurance plan.
Additionally this has the effect of decreasing the number of plans(buyers) squeezing out smaller health insurance providers, consolidating a pricing monopoly for the largest most politically entrenched companies.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:
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]
On number 3 doesn’t the bill come after the care?
I agree with you on this more than disagree. How would this work with other slower death diseases like cancer? Those can have a higher bill and the person is in no shape to do hard labor and if the end result is death no loan will be paid off. Emergency room situations are one thing but where do you draw the line with other diseases you know the person will die from in a year if left untreated?[/quote]
Let’s consider a few cases.
I have no family members whatsoever and I have cancer. I have no insurance. I goto the hospital for cancer care. They diagnose me with cancer and this costs the hospital a few bucks. Let’s assume I can’t pay this fee; the insurance company eats this relatively small cost. Fine. From the diagnosis onward, I RECEIVE NO CARE if I am unable to repay a loan or if a bank is unwilling to offer a loan because my credit sucks. Sustained care for terminal or near-terminal illnesses or ICU care is absolutely outrageous for anyone without insurance.
Same situation, except I have family members. If they consent to it, THEY FOOT THE BILL for the loan. Or, they chose to let me die. Humanity cannot keep pretending that delaying in inevitable is the same as medical care. Yes, there are cancer survivors, but I don’t see why my paycheck should be divested for those people.
If the person is unfit or unwilling to do hard labor, fine. Then they either pay outright, seek a loan, ask a family member to take out a loan, etc … or die. For the record, I HAVE paid for family members medical bills without insurance and it really, really sucked for me. I make no excuses nor complaints … that’s how it SHOULD be. I did not expect my fellow T-nationers to pick up that bill.[/quote]
Are you saying this as someone without insurance and who has cancer because your opinion might change if you were in that situation, especially if it were a treatable cancer.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:
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]
On number 3 doesn’t the bill come after the care?
I agree with you on this more than disagree. How would this work with other slower death diseases like cancer? Those can have a higher bill and the person is in no shape to do hard labor and if the end result is death no loan will be paid off. Emergency room situations are one thing but where do you draw the line with other diseases you know the person will die from in a year if left untreated?[/quote]
Let’s consider a few cases.
I have no family members whatsoever and I have cancer. I have no insurance. I goto the hospital for cancer care. They diagnose me with cancer and this costs the hospital a few bucks. Let’s assume I can’t pay this fee; the insurance company eats this relatively small cost. Fine. From the diagnosis onward, I RECEIVE NO CARE if I am unable to repay a loan or if a bank is unwilling to offer a loan because my credit sucks. Sustained care for terminal or near-terminal illnesses or ICU care is absolutely outrageous for anyone without insurance.
Same situation, except I have family members. If they consent to it, THEY FOOT THE BILL for the loan. Or, they chose to let me die. Humanity cannot keep pretending that delaying in inevitable is the same as medical care. Yes, there are cancer survivors, but I don’t see why my paycheck should be divested for those people.
If the person is unfit or unwilling to do hard labor, fine. Then they either pay outright, seek a loan, ask a family member to take out a loan, etc … or die. For the record, I HAVE paid for family members medical bills without insurance and it really, really sucked for me. I make no excuses nor complaints … that’s how it SHOULD be. I did not expect my fellow T-nationers to pick up that bill.[/quote]
Are you saying this as someone without insurance and who has cancer because your opinion might change if you were in that situation, especially if it were a treatable cancer. [/quote]
Why do you believe just because there is a treatment for a cancer that the government will give it to you?
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I don’t care if I can convince a welfare recipient to work or not. You either work or starve. [/quote]
What about their kids?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:
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]
On number 3 doesn’t the bill come after the care?
I agree with you on this more than disagree. How would this work with other slower death diseases like cancer? Those can have a higher bill and the person is in no shape to do hard labor and if the end result is death no loan will be paid off. Emergency room situations are one thing but where do you draw the line with other diseases you know the person will die from in a year if left untreated?[/quote]
Let’s consider a few cases.
I have no family members whatsoever and I have cancer. I have no insurance. I goto the hospital for cancer care. They diagnose me with cancer and this costs the hospital a few bucks. Let’s assume I can’t pay this fee; the insurance company eats this relatively small cost. Fine. From the diagnosis onward, I RECEIVE NO CARE if I am unable to repay a loan or if a bank is unwilling to offer a loan because my credit sucks. Sustained care for terminal or near-terminal illnesses or ICU care is absolutely outrageous for anyone without insurance.
Same situation, except I have family members. If they consent to it, THEY FOOT THE BILL for the loan. Or, they chose to let me die. Humanity cannot keep pretending that delaying in inevitable is the same as medical care. Yes, there are cancer survivors, but I don’t see why my paycheck should be divested for those people.
If the person is unfit or unwilling to do hard labor, fine. Then they either pay outright, seek a loan, ask a family member to take out a loan, etc … or die. For the record, I HAVE paid for family members medical bills without insurance and it really, really sucked for me. I make no excuses nor complaints … that’s how it SHOULD be. I did not expect my fellow T-nationers to pick up that bill.[/quote]
Are you saying this as someone without insurance and who has cancer because your opinion might change if you were in that situation, especially if it were a treatable cancer. [/quote]
Why do you believe just because there is a treatment for a cancer that the government will give it to you?
[/quote]
I didn’t say that.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I don’t care if I can convince a welfare recipient to work or not. You either work or starve. [/quote]
What about their kids? [/quote]
Who is the primary care giver for those children? If you say the government that is dynamic shift in thought for our republic!
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I don’t care if I can convince a welfare recipient to work or not. You either work or starve. [/quote]
What about their kids? [/quote]
Most conservatives are probably okay with children not getting coverage, better than them having to pay for the child’s parents mistakes. But if the child is not born yet, they seem care a lot for some odd reason.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Are you saying this as someone without insurance and who has cancer because your opinion might change if you were in that situation, especially if it were a treatable cancer. [/quote]
Why do you believe just because there is a treatment for a cancer that the government will give it to you?
[/quote]
I didn’t say that. [/quote]
Aren’t you at least implying it?
[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]
Lifty,
Actually there are programs available for the homeless. We don’t “let” people starve, we don’t “let” people be homeless, we give people options, they often choose the one they find easiest, and in many cases that comes with a box for a house. The reason you see homeless people is that over 90% of the chronically homeless have substance abuse issues, and nearly 100% of the programs that help the homeless have sobriety standards.
Who is this “we” you speak of?
In fact, I bet you don’t do any of those things at all.
Lifty,
I bet you’re wrong. Not only did I do these things when I worked for the VA, in my retirement I still do them for the Salvation Army and a few Vets groups. But I was talking about “We” in the sense of “America” we have programs available but people often choose booze over a roof.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[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
[/quote]
One good example is that employer provided health insurance isn’t taxed as income and that employers who provide health insurance to their employees are taxed less.
By dislocating capital from wages into health insurance the demand for group health insurance is increased artificially inflating the cost. Further, the employee is not left with sufficient real wages to pay for a private(non-employer provided) health insurance plan.
Additionally this has the effect of decreasing the number of plans(buyers) squeezing out smaller health insurance providers, consolidating a pricing monopoly for the largest most politically entrenched companies.[/quote]
While those sound like good motivating programs , they are not free market programs
Another problem with employer based insurance gives your employer a stronger link to an employee than the employee has on his employer
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Lifty,
I bet you’re wrong. Not only did I do these things when I worked for the VA, in my retirement I still do them for the Salvation Army and a few Vets groups. But I was talking about “We” in the sense of “America” we have programs available but people often choose booze over a roof.[/quote]
Great, why do I need to pay more in taxes if you are already doing it?
Lifty,
You are a perfect example of why.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[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]
I agree with the idea of calling it a deduction. I understand what counting beans is saying, but I don’t see how it is different… Unless I am missing a important element, it all seems like word choice. Like you guys are in agreement but don’t want to admit it 
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Lifty,
You are a perfect example of why.[/quote]
So if I don’t give to charity and volunteer then everyone should suffer higher taxes because of it?
You would make me the scapegoat while enslaving your fellow citizens?
edited
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Lifty,
You are a perfect example of why.[/quote]
Pay attention![/quote]
Well, pic got me all hot and bothered…
