Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 9:23 AM:
That would mean that taxes do not have to paid to general revenue, but can be paid to whatever recipient the government declares.
The handbasket has just taken a huge leap towards its final destination.
Replies (136)
All the more reason to vote Obama out and someone in that will turn this around with an Obama-like "executive order".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 9:27 AM
Well he stuffed it down our throats. Let's see if Americans stuff it up his in November.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 9:29 AM
If you call it a tax - I guess you can do whatever you want.
The signers to the Constitution are turning over in their graves.
-- Posted by justbob on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 9:38 AM
ASccording to Chief Justice Roberts:
"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."
I agree that it cannot be upheld by the Commerce Clause, and I applaud him for that decision. I have to disagree with him on the tax issue. Social Security was upheld specifically because the taxes were handled as taxes in general and paid to the general revenue fund, and not earmarked in any way. Not so with mandated health care premiums. Such premiums are not taken in the form of taxes, and are paid to private insurers. As such, they do not fall within the narrow scope of the Congress' power to tax.
Shame on him.
He says, in essence, that the Supreme Court has a duty to find as constitutional any law that is passed by the Legisltature and signed by the Executive except in cases where no foundation, no matter how slight, can be found. There, again, we find the Court siding with the ever-expanding powers of government.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 9:59 AM
Wait a minute. We were told this was absolutely, possitively not a tax. Were we mislead? Tell me it ain't so!
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 10:12 AM
Where did the government acquire the ability to force someone to take a tax credit?
There is a difference between a 'credit' and a 'penalty', because a credit is voluntary and a penalty is not. That distinction is critical.
The government can say, for example, you can pay $10,000 in taxes, or we'll let you pay $9,000 in taxes if you have paid $1,000 in mortgage interest, as an encouragement to acquire a mortgage. But, that is not the same as penalizing you for not having a mortgage.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 10:26 AM
"You are not required to purchase a private policy but you will pay a tax if you don't."
True, but again an expansion of the power to tax, by mandating credits or deductions, in essence.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 10:40 AM
Elections matter very much. Supreme court appointments matter very much. This has got to be Bush's fault.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 10:42 AM
The Ryan health plan offered to cut taxes to those who purchase insurance. The Obama health plan increases taxes on those who do not.
Some do not see the difference. I do. One is a 'penalty', the other a 'credit'. A penalty is punitive and mandatory, a credit is rewarding and optional.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 10:46 AM
To not acknowledge the distinction is to say there is no difference between placing a carrot in front of a mule and kicking the mule in the arse, as long as it gets the mule moving...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 10:56 AM
So you are saying it is okay for the government to decide what people should be buying with their own money?
The consumer always pays for those who do not pay their bills through higher prices imposed by the supplier to cover the cost. However, the consumer is paying for the uninsured health care user because the government has opted to pick up the tab, and to make treating the uninsured mandatory. The government has realized that the cost of picking up the tab is more costly than anticipated. Thus, they seek to hide the cost from the taxpayer by passing a non-tax tax in the form of mandate premiums.
If the government doesn't want people writing off their bills through bankruptcy, they need to rewrite the bankruptcy laws so one cannot escape such debt, as they have done for student loans.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:17 AM
Requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions requires them to take a known or anticipated loss on some clients. This makes insurance basically a subsidy, rather than the classic definition of 'insurance'. The same is true of things such as contraception and routine care. They are not contingencies, since they are known entities.
Those, together with the removal of insurance caps, will increase the cost of insurance to the consumer. If you buy $2,000,000 worth of coverage, it has a certain cost which is contained by the limit. Removing that limit boosts the cost. There ain't no free lunch.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:23 AM
"tax" The consumer is already paying for the uninsured, why not force them to participate. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:04 AM
Please answer this - will illegal immigrants, who don't "participate" be turned away from emergency rooms and surgeries? Surely you don't believe that. Then the problem of you and I paying for the uninsured going away is a myth. Will the so-called "poor" be required to buy insurance?
When has anyone without insurance *ever* been turned away from an emergency room?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:26 AM
"Mitt Romney is the intellectual godfather of Obamacare," said Democratic consultant Jim Manley. " -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:30 AM
So a democrat hack makes a comment to cut Mitt Romney and you believe it? My answer is that Jim Manley, your democrat friend, is a liar. How about that? I'm voting for Romney.
Again, please spare us the "I haven't decided" or "I'm independent" or "don't call me a democrat" posting Theo. You're a big liberal democrat. I'm a big conservative. I wear it proudly. What are you ashamed of? Come out of the closet - the truth will set you free.
Oh - and as for Massachusetts "health care" - you need to have a good understanding of states rights vs. federal. If a liberal state like Mass.
-wants statewide mandated health care
-wants everyone covered
-wants to pay for it themselves
-and wants it by HUGE margins
-then let them have it. I can move to New Hampshire and avoid the whole thing. If California wants roll up $615 BILLION in debt let them do it - and every company and wage earner will move out before being taxed to death to pay for benefits to illegals, etal.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:46 AM
But it is _their_ money. So you are saying you are okay with telling people, via your government, how to spend _their_ money.
The fact that hospitals permit people get away without paying their bills does not make it the government's responsibility to make them by financing packages, which is what insurance is.
Insurance has not always been a subsidy. It is the purchase of financial aid for unexpected costs due to accidents or health emergencies. At least, it used to be. Only when it is used to pay for routine, elected, or anticipated costs as means of reducing one's own share of the expenses does it become a subsidy.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM
Sorry, that was supposed to be 'make they buy.."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:48 AM
Subsidiarity, again. Democrats don't seem to understand that.
The states have the power to impose legislation that the federal government does not. Even if the State of Massachusetts decided it wanted to pass a version of Obamacare with Mr. Romney as governor, that is a Massachusetts issue, not a federal one.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:50 AM
I'm tired of responsible individuals picking up the tab for those who "choose" to spend their money on wanted luxuries rather than on needs. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:41 AM
Still haven't answered the tough question. What about illegals that don't "participate"? And you also forgot this little gem in Obama care:
Tax credits and subsidies available to individuals making up to 400 percent of federal poverty line, for insurance coverage - set to take effect in 2014.
You say "I'm tired of responsible individuals picking up the tab for those who choose to spend their money on wanted luxuries". Guess what - you LOST today because YOU will now be forced to "pick up the tab" for individuals making up to 400% of federal poverty AND illegals. It's funny when people get excited about something that has completely turned on them. YOU LOST if you're objective is to avoid paying for someone elses insurance. It just got worse for you.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:51 AM
People complain about the use of the term 'dictator' when applied to United States presidents. Yet, many here have no qualms about the president dictating to the people how they have to spend their money.
As I've said, there is a difference between punishment and reward. Too many don't seem to care, in this instance, as long as it achieves the goal.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:57 AM
Dug, You seem to be a sore loser. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:55 AM
Not sore - I'll be fine whatever the consequence of this. So will my children.
You seem to be a happy loser. That I am definitely not. So, what do you think about your new obligation to pay for the 400% above poverty line and illegal insurance? You thought Obamacare got you out of it. You just stepped into it big time. Apparently you didn't realize this or you would have an answer. Didn't read the bill did you?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 11:59 AM
I find that very sad...(just my opinion) -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:02 PM
I find it sad that you believe if Obama was a republican I would vote for him. Sorry to disappoint, but NO.
Clinton did some good things, some bad. Bush did some good things, some bad. Obama did some good things, some bad. But still, Obama is a clueless disaster that has destroyed our economy and our future if we can't stop him. I'm voting for Romney who has (shock!) some good, some bad.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:11 PM
Theorist,
I find it sad that one votes 'for the person', especially in a nation where 'character' is not supposed be the issue.
People run for office on a party platform, usually because that party platform represents the position of the majority of the members of the party. Thus, I first look at the party and the platform on which a candidate is running, and then at the candidate to make sure he holds to the majority of the party's position on the issues.
Candidates lie, mislead, and shift positions. Parties, however, shift more slowly. Also, the President can generally be persuaded on an issue more readily by his own party than by the opposition. Thus, they are more likely to shift towards the party platform than away from it on issues of doubt. For this reason, methinks party is more important than personality.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:15 PM
For this reason, methinks party is more important than personality. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:15 PM
Theorist will never admit this. She believes that "ideology" is important but that "party platform" is a bad word in the lexicon.
I believe that ideology and party platform are both important and will vote for the party that best represents my ideology. And that ain't democrat right now. :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:25 PM
Wait a minute. We were told this was absolutely, possitively not a tax. Were we mislead? Tell me it ain't so!
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 10:12 AM
Mislead hell!!! You were lied to by Obama and the Obama Democrats. November will be our turn at bat!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:33 PM
Still waiting for the
"Impeach Chief Justice Roberts" postings.
Where are they?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:37 PM
I am merely pointing out that you vote for the party not the person. It doesn't matter who Candidate Romney is, what he has done, or what he supports...he is representing the Republican party, and you intend to vote for him.
I find that very sad...(just my opinion)
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:02 PM
Theorist,
There is one compelling reason that I find to vote for Romney.... He is not perfect, but he is far less objectionable than Obama, and we are left with no other choice in the matter.
And in my opinion.... you are everything you accuse Dug of.
You speak often what is wrong with Romney, because he has a speck in his eye... maybe you need to remove the plank from yours first.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:39 PM
Still waiting for the "Impeach Chief Justice Roberts" postings. Where are they? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:37 PM
Vive la Roberts! (long live Roberts)
I think he single-handedly may have dealt Obama the biggest blow in the election. When the true costs of this comes out (now up to $1.7 TRILLION for 10 years) and the true coverages come out (free for illegals and those 400% above the poverty line) Obama will have some 'splainin to do.
For the first time in 4 years Mr. Obama will have to answer some tough questions and can't pre-select them come the presidential debates. It will be interesting to see this press-coward squirm.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:42 PM
I think as you watch some of the comments, you may be able to make some observations about who of the big supporters of Obama Care might just be a taker... Food Stamps, MedicAid, Assisted Housing and any other programs they may have managed to fudge themselves into.
One of our biggest abuses has become the Disability Game.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:44 PM
One other final note on the SCOTUS decision. The supreme court rejected Obama's claims that this was not a tax. They specifically said it was a tax.
Obama and the democrat party has now foisted the largest tax increase in US history on Americans - to pay for the health care of illegals and those that refuse to buy insurance.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:49 PM
Next to come is more federal gov blackmail of the states to put more people on medicare and raise the poverty level.
---------------------------
When young folks opt out of buying insurance and pay the tax based on entry level wages then run out and get a policy when they need high dollar repairs later on in life, and older people's insurance rates continue to rise, that's when the govenrment will start looking at all your pensions and savings to pay for the programs.
I see nothing in the whole thing about health care but everything about financing.
Never mind the higher price, we can finance it for you!
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:56 PM
The law is about HealthInsurance costs , not HealthCare costs .
-- Posted by Rickʘ on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 1:13 PM
Or is about Federal Control and more of our money to handle and spend as they please.
Vote out all supporters of Obama Care.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 1:30 PM
"...largest tax increase in US history on Americans..."
More Limbaugh BS. There will be no tax increase when the uninsured acquire their own health insurance. Pretty simple and straightforward.
One would think conservatives would be especially pleased now that the leeches that demand free health care in emergency rooms will have to purchase their own insurance, or pay a fine/tax.
No more sticking their hands in my pocket, or Dug's, or Rick's, or Old John's, or SH's, or "Have_Wheels_Will_Travel's" to pay for their treatment. Finally the leeches will have to pay for their own care!!!
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 1:32 PM
One would think conservatives would be especially pleased now that the leeches that demand free health care in emergency rooms will have to purchase their own insurance, or pay a fine/tax.
No more sticking their hands in my pocket, or Dug's, or Rick's, or Old John's, or SH's, or "Have_Wheels_Will_Travel's" to pay for their treatment. Finally the leeches will have to pay for their own care!!!
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 1:32 PM
Common you are so full of it! How are these leaches going to pay for the policy if they cannot now pay to go to the doctor. Let me give you a hint. The government will put adds on TV to the tune of a few million dollars to tell them how they can get a check to pay for it. Who's pocket will that be coming from.
And so far as the emergency rooms are concerned, has the law been repealed that requires them take people if or not they have money or insurance.
Dream on OW!!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 1:54 PM
"Still waiting for the
"Impeach Chief Justice Roberts" postings.
Where are they?"
They're on facebook.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 1:57 PM
Finally the leeches will have to pay for their own care!!! -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 1:32 PM
Are you calling illegals and the 400% above poverty line people leeches? They won't pay for their own care!!!! If that's all you care about - people paying for their own care - then you've lost my friend.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:02 PM
some are attempting to deflect from the topic. disability, food stamps, medicare have nothing to do with the issue at hand
supreme court spoke, deal with it
-- Posted by good.for.the.gander.good.for.the.goose on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:03 PM
"No more sticking their hands in my pocket, or Dug's, or Rick's, or Old John's, or SH's, or "Have_Wheels_Will_Travel's" to pay for their treatment. Finally the leeches will have to pay for their own care!!!"
Sorry, but you're quite mistaken. Those who cannot/will not pay their health care bills will not pay their premiums.
Or, in response to the new demand for health insurance, The General and Safe Auto/Health will be offering plans to 'keep you legal for less' - offering cut-rate coverage that doesn't pay much but meets the legal obligation to be covered.
We'll still be picking up the tab for the slackers, and our premiums will increase to pay for the subsidizing of those whose pre-existing conditions and excessive costs above the caps force premiums higher, while doing nothing to address the rising cost of health care.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:06 PM
supreme court spoke, deal with it -- Posted by Alba on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:03 PM
We are.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:08 PM
I'm having more of a reaction to what this says about the Supreme Court of this country than I am about the insurance matter. I don't like the law, I hate the idea that our decision makers have decided the Constitution takes a back seat by manipulating meanings. Not only have they destroyed the importance of our country's most important document they have added new meanings to the dictionary. And it isn't because of the popularity of usage, either.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:20 PM
"There is no reason where a party is more important than a person....sorry."
A typical Theorist strawman. I did not say a party was more important than a person.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:20 PM
Unless, of course, their usage of the word tax means to ask too much of.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:23 PM
"Shap, I am amazed that you vote for an it....something without empathy or sympathy...."
I don't vote for 'it', 'it' is not running. However, the candidate that is running is a part of 'it', and 'it' helps define who he is.
The candidate may be a nice person, but if he/she does not exhibit a willingness or backbone sufficient to stand firm against his/her party if his/her party is wrong, then he/she will not get my vote. I have voted for Democrats in the past, but they are Democrats who have stood firm against their party on a number of issues.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:24 PM
some are attempting to deflect from the topic. disability, food stamps, medicare have nothing to do with the issue at hand
supreme court spoke, deal with it
-- Posted by Alba on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:03 PM
It has everything to do with it OW... Obamacare is just another way for the Federal Government to add to the welfare load. You look at some of the people on here touting Obamacare and I would make a little bet at least some of them are already doing the taking. Are you one of them?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:27 PM
I find it interesting that "Conservatives" are debating against accountability for all. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:13 PM
I like the discussion and enjoy the viewpoints of all - whether agreed upon or not. But I've got to say to you, Theorist and common - you're all spinning this "accountability" thing. Why do you ignore the fact that 10's of millions will NOT pay into this - just you and me. The illegals that get "free" medical care and those up to 400% of poverty will get "free" medical care and you will pay for it. Kinda blows your whole "accountability" support to h*ll doesn't it?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the 3 of you but you are now on the hook to pay for more leeches (commons words) or unaccountables (your words).
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:29 PM
"One would think conservatives would be especially pleased now that the leeches that demand free health care in emergency rooms will have to purchase their own insurance, or pay a fine/tax."
Commonsensematters again demonstrates his inability to comprehend the things that make a conservative conservative. He supports the 'ends justifies the means' idealogy which makes ruling such as this one possible. Just as chief Roberts sees no difference between mandating and encouraging, so commonsensematters see no problem sacrificing liberty to achieve a laudable goal.
Yes, we conservatives want 'slackers' to carry their own weight, but we do not believe it is the purpose of government to mandate it.
You see, while the liberals are only concerned with the money, we believe there are more imporant issues involved. We're not obsessed with the almighty dollar, as the liberals are.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:30 PM
Everything is constitutional.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:33 PM
When a person decides to be a politician, they know exactly what they are up against, and if there is a skeleton, it will be found.
I am looking at the total picture, Wheels...you are upset because the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:13 PM
Theorist,
I may have mistated that. You need to look for the 2 X 4 in Obama's eye.
Your statement about if there is a skelton is nto true in Obama's case. We know nothing to speak of regarding his past. Everything is sealed that could reveal him. He is a puppet on a string being manipulated by the likes of Soros who has been successful in hiding anything regarding his past that they do not want revealed. Sorry tht you cannot see that. But you are so blinded by the liberal left wing of the Democratic Party you do not think clearly.
And indeed the decision by the Supreme Court does upset me, because I think the Chief Justice is in error with his decision. So we work to repeal it, first by changing the scenery in Washington and then pressure on the people we elect.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:34 PM
"Something HAD to be done to get folks with pre-existing conditions getting insurance coverage. Something HAD to be done about life time policy maximums when one hospital stay could top an individuals coverage. And something HAD to be done about those who "choose" to gamble by not buying insurance."
No. Something HAD to be done about health care costs. This does nothing in that regard.
You don't fix the problem of rising housing costs by making mortgages easier to obtain. We found that out (well, those of us who didn't already know it) when the housing bubble burst. What are you going to say when the health-care bubble explodes?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:37 PM
Strongly suspect those whining the loudest are currently benefitting from a government subsidized health care program, Medicare.
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:39 PM
Theorist,
You left this part out:
"I am merely pointing out that you vote for the party not the person. It doesn't matter who Candidate Romney is, what he has done, or what he supports...he is representing the Republican party, and you intend to vote for him."
That was what my comment was addressing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:45 PM
"Or...are you just upset like Wheels?"
Upset? No. I'm unhappy, but I was unhappy that we had to wait for a small group of nine individuals to hand down a decision on the constitutionality of something which should never have been passed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:49 PM
Why do you ignore the fact that 10's of millions will NOT pay into this - just you and me. The illegals that get "free" medical care and those up to 400% of poverty will get "free" medical care and you will pay for it. Kinda blows your whole "accountability" support to h*ll doesn't it?-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:29 PM
Common, Theo, Me'Lange - your silence speaks volumes. There is no accountability under Obamacare with the rest of us still paying for 10's of millions who will get "free" health care. 32 million more people on the public dole now.
No answer??? Or as you said - "cat got your tongue"???
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:52 PM
Are you one of them?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:27 PM
No, but you and many of your cohorts are grey haired men with a chip on your shoulder grumping about those who are supporting your dead beat arses. I get sick and tired of reading your rants when I'm busting my balls so you can have your monthly check and you take advantage of endless health care because you can. Some of us are working ourselves to an early grave and struggle to pay for insurance coverage because one out of the five in our family has cancer. Get off you holler than now horse HWWT
-- Posted by good.for.the.gander.good.for.the.goose on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:59 PM
I see no reason to reply when your facts are incorrect. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:01 PM
Wrong Me'Lange - read the bill. My facts are correct and direct quotes from the bill. Now, either read the bill and provide where I'm wrong (you can't) or admit your huge disappointment that you were misled. 32 million additional now on the government dole and you're paying for it. So many "unaccountables" - you don't have any answer and we know why.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:06 PM
Everything is constitutional.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:33 PM
You have just entered a new diminsion,... the Post constitution era
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:09 PM
Dug, I will NOT debate an issue with someone who pulls bits out of context. Good day. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:17 PM
You've been doing it all day. Show me one post that dumped the entire 2700 pages of Obamacare on this thread. That's a cheap deflection. I gave you an exact cut and pasted section of Obamacare that provides free health care to anyone up to 400% of the poverty level. That's a bit that you can't handle. I really think you've learned something today that you were completely unaware of. Millions of unaccountables and your whole premise was supporting this to get rid of unaccountables.
It's a hard question and one you'll never see common or theo answer. I admire your attempts but I'm right - and you're wrong.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:23 PM
"One can not compare the health-care bubble to the housing bubble."
Yes, one can. There are two 'bubbles' in danger of bursting: the health care bubble and the higher education bubble. Both are bouyed by government spending and government-aided financing. This insurance bill just means that health care will have access to more dollars, and their prices will rise to abuse it.
It's obvious that you learned nothing from the health care fiasco, just as Mr. Obama did not. Let us hope someone in Washington did.
"Shapley, Many would debate, the health-care bubble should have been "pricked" a very long time ago."
And yet, we've just added more air to its already-inflated size. Many argued that the housing bubble should have been 'pricked' a long time ago, but it wasn't.
When the health-care bubble pops, the consequences will probably be as devestating as the housing bubble: Hospitals and other providers will go bankrupt, jobs will be lost, etc.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:25 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:25 PM
Or like Greece - rampant unfunded spending has led to massive cuts in their social security, pensions and health care. Not to mention the inflation.
Democrats here think that $5 Trillion in additional debt is no big deal. We need to do it to "protect" our welfare programs. When, in fact, democrat party policies will destroy social security, medicare, pensions and the future of this country. We already have more debt per person than Greece. The writing is on the wall but democrats don't care. It's all about the next election.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:32 PM
"Q: What if I make too much for Medicaid but still can't afford coverage?
"A: You might be eligible for government subsidies to help you pay for private insurance that would be sold in the new state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014.
"Premium subsidies will be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,404 to $43,320 for individuals and $29,326 to $88,200 for a family of four.
"The subsidies will be on a sliding scale. For example, a family of four earning 150 percent of the poverty level, or $33,075 a year, will have to pay 4 percent of its income, or $1,323, on premiums. A family with income of 400 percent of the poverty level will have to pay 9.5 percent, or $8,379.
"In addition, if your income is below 400 percent of the poverty level, your out-of-pocket health expenses will be limited."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:36 PM
Rhetorical question: How many housing professionals did not see the housing bubble collapse coming?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:38 PM
Oops...Wheels said he is not upset. My mistake.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:39 PM
Theorist,
Read my post again. Your reading comprehension is deplorable!
Maybe you will catch what I said the 2nd time you read it and you can admit your error.
Went to the Dentist and it will take me an hour to get back up to speed.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:46 PM
Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:36 PM
Following down that road is where the federal government mandates the states add more onto the medicare roles. IMO
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 3:48 PM
"The rest of us foot their ridiculous bills."
Only because the government has permitted it to be so. Now, the government comes to save us from our folly, by expanding its power to force us to buy protection from our own stupidity.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:04 PM
No, but you and many of your cohorts are grey haired men with a chip on your shoulder grumping about those who are supporting your dead beat arses. I get sick and tired of reading your rants when I'm busting my balls so you can have your monthly check and you take advantage of endless health care because you can. Some of us are working ourselves to an early grave and struggle to pay for insurance coverage because one out of the five in our family has cancer. Get off you holler than now horse HWWT
-- Posted by Alba on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:59 PM
And the grey haired who paid for the raising of their own children, while paying for medical care, education, clothing, housing, transportation, etc for the children of those who were unemployed,are curious why anyone would prefer to continue the cycle instead of coming up with viable, fair-to-all solutions.
Right off the bat they are extimating that at least 4 million people will refuse to buy insurance and they are licking their chops at getting to "tax" them. Then we have how many more who will be subsidized because they are below 400% of the poverty level for their particular family, or who will seek free medical help because of their illegal alien status?
Before you jump the grey-hairs, ask yourself if you really want to pay for all these others because that is what you are getting ready to do.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:10 PM
"Very small employer, who cannot afford to offer a health care plan to all..."
Understandable.
"63 year old emergecy surgery at a local hospital, no insurance, they will be paying $200 a month till both die, then one of their properties will be sold to pay it off."
A lawfully-incurred debt, which they are endeavoring to pay off within their means. Good for them, and for the provider for working out an arrangement.
"Another, 39 year old husband just battled cancer now she had a stroke, no insurance, both hard working -- but guess who will be paying their medical bills."
Also a lawfully-incurred debt. They are obligated to pay, but can't or won't. Having insurance will not change that - they most likely can't or wont' afford premiums. Same difference, as the saying goes...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:14 PM
By the way, let's look at the poverty guidelines currently in place for the continental USA.
2012 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia Persons in
family/household Poverty guideline
1 $11,170
2 15,130
3 19,090
4 23,050
5 27,010
6 30,970
7 34,930
8 38,890
For families/households with more than 8 persons,
add $3,960 for each additional person.
How many people do you know who will fall into the 400% group? In this area, it will be quite a few.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:15 PM
"What is your solution?"
Deal with the cost issue, as I've said all along. Increased financing will only encourage the overpricing, as it did in the housing market and it is doing in the higher-education market.
The problem is not a lack of insurance, it is high prices. Insurance is not health care, just as a mortgage is not a home and an education loan is not an education.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:16 PM
No, but you and many of your cohorts are grey haired men with a chip on your shoulder grumping about those who are supporting your dead beat arses. I get sick and tired of reading your rants when I'm busting my balls so you can have your monthly check and you take advantage of endless health care because you can. Some of us are working ourselves to an early grave and struggle to pay for insurance coverage because one out of the five in our family has cancer. Get off you holler than now horse HWWT
-- Posted by Alba on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:59 P
Alba,
You appear to know it all. I would like you to add ot your knowledge bank, that I am grey headed and still paying into Social Security as well as Income Taxes, both State and Federal. I have been paying into that POS program (Social Security) for 59 years now, and most of that time paying the full 15% since I was self employed. I have a printout of my contributions and I have not yet drawn what I have paid in..... not to mention the lost investment opportunities and interest. Yeah I know they call the payments into that Pyramid Scheme taxes, but it was money I could have used for my retirement much better than the government has.
So far as Medicare goes, show me the viable alternative... and I am paying in excess of $500 per month for my wife and I so that I have catasrophic coverage. Without that Part A Medicare is all but worthlesss. I have had health insurance since I was 19 years old and I am not about to drop it at this age no matter what kind of box your dumb arsed liberals put me in with Social Security and Medicare.
With no apologies to you Alba, I would like to remind you that I also worked my fingers to the bone paying for your parents and grandparents before them.
I wasn't asked if or not I wanted to participate in that system, just told... as we are being told with ObamaCare. It is time we told the left wingers.... NO!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:18 PM
My mistake, that should be contiguous. Alaska is not included in those figures.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:18 PM
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:20 PM
How are you going to mandate people purchase health insurance who have no money? Where are they to get it. I was always told money does not grow on trees.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:24 PM
"Currently the uninsured-- who if I understand your stance you do NOT want to hold accountable by forcing them to buy insurance--"
I don't want to force anybody to buy anything they don't want to buy. I don't know why you find that difficult to understand. I want them held accountable by making them pay their bills if they don't buy insurance.
If I incur a lawful debt, I am obligate to pay for it, unless circumstances prohibit me from doing so. Bankruptcy provides an escape route for those whose circumstances prohibit them from doing so.
What is the difference between forcing them to pay $8,000 per year for insurance premiums and forcing them to pay $8,000 per year on their lawfully-incurred bills? Forcing them to pay their bills only punishes those who actually incur the expenses. For those who incur no such expenses, their $8,000 is merely used to subsidize everyone else on the insurance plan.
This, of course, is what the measure is about - increasing the number of healty, young, productive citizens enrolled in order to subsidize the rest, including those whose pre-existing conditions and above-the-cap expenses would otherwise drive costs through the roof. The cost of paying non-payees will still be the same, whether we pay for them trough insurance premiums or hospital costs. It is a tax, that much is for sure, but it is a tax imposed on the healthy to pay for the unhealthy. That is why I say it is a subsidy.
The problem, as we have seen, is that they will continue to add 'benefits' to the subsidized insurance, such as the birth control measure, to consume any increase in funds available.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:24 PM
Obviously there are those who feel differently -- some have shared informed reasons why, some have not. Everyone has a right to their thoughts.-- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:20 PM
You would definitely be on the uninformed side. You didn't even know about illegals and the 400% poverty coverage. Research next time.
===========================================
At the end of the day, I feel good knowing families like the two I mentioned earlier will be mandated to cover themselves so that their financial, health care and quality of life future is not completely destroyed by moments of greed and bad choices. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:20 PM
So the two examples you gave now have insurance despite their "greed and bad choices"? And this makes you happy? You live in a dream world. Do you not realize that you will now pay for their health care costs? Do you think a $200/month premium for some slacker is going to pay for their million-dollar cancer treatment? Now who's unreasonable??? YOU will pay for their coverage. Get it?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:29 PM
some are attempting to deflect from the topic. disability, food stamps, medicare have nothing to do with the issue at hand
supreme court spoke, deal with it
-- Posted by Alba on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 2:03 PM
Getting too close to home? But those things do have a lot to do with it. We are putting bandaids on sores, but not keeping them from oozing and getting worse. What we need is a cure.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:32 PM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:18 PM
So he does have hair! :) :)
Me'Lange, Are you saying your proffessional experience is helping folks with fanancial statements and the like and then witnessing their bankruptcies? :) :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:37 PM
Me'Lange,
I'm afraid I must have missed something in your two examples regarding how greed and bad choices were responsible for destroying their lives or livelihoods. The first needed an emergency surgery, received it, and are now paying the bills. You did not state the nature of surgery, nor should you, but I gather from your post that the surgery must have been the result of greed or bad choices, unless your suggesting that their poor choice of employment or their employers inability to pay for coverage were the result of one or both.
The second example involves cancer. Now I'll grant that evidence does point to poor choices sometimes being responsible for cancer, but we all pay for the result of that, insurance or not. I assume you'll now be joining the bandwagon for the government being able to mandate that they not spend their money on fatty foods, soft drinks, and cigarettes? Now that the government can dictate spending to avoid 'bad choices', I would gather that will be next, no?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:37 PM
"...I want them held accountable by making them pay their bills if they don't buy insurance."
Therein lies significant and noteworthy difference between health care debts and other types of liability.
In many instances the health care is provided in advance prior to any knowledge of what the eventual cost will be. Other debt situations are entered in with foreknowledge of what you are buying and what the cost is.
"For those who incur no such expenses, their $8,000 is merely used to subsidize everyone else on the insurance plan."
Believe it or not, that's the principle behind insurance.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:40 PM
"Shapley, I agree "cost" a problem. However, you fail to realize insurance industry dictates the majority of health care cost."
No, they do not. They dictate prices over which they will not pay, but they do not set prices higher. The health care providers set the prices. The insurance companies negotiate the lowest possible price for the clients they represent. They only began to do that because of the rapidly-rising prices. Before that, they simply paid the covered charges.
" do not have a fix, but suggest these two industries should be regulated much like utilities."
That's the usual Democrat solution. We've certainly not seen a rise in our utility costs, have we?
"No one should profit greatly from another's medical cost. IMHO"
Why not? A doctor goes to school to learn a trade. He should be forced to make a menial living because that trade involves human lives? A corporation invests billions developing an artificial heart that allows people to live years beyond their expected lifetime. They should not earn a profit from their investment? A hospital invests monies to build a facility to treat cancer patients. They should not see a suitable return on their investment?
How long do you think health care will flourish if no one profits from it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:43 PM
"Believe it or not, that's the principle behind insurance."
I've noted as much before, but it has always been optional as to whether or not one wants to join the pool. If mandated, it becomes just another welfare programme.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:45 PM
"In many instances the health care is provided in advance prior to any knowledge of what the eventual cost will be. Other debt situations are entered in with foreknowledge of what you are buying and what the cost is."
Which makes no difference. The same can basically be said of home and auto repairs or any other repairs, for that matter. Bodies are no different. You often don't know the extent of the problem until you start tearing out the walls or disassembling the unit.
Health care providers could do a better job of establishing up-front pricing, if they had an incentive to do so. As it is, there is no incentive to do so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:54 PM
Melange
Who is going to pay the premiums for the illegal aliens and those non greedy folks who can't afford the premiums?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:54 PM
"Believe it or not, that's the principle behind insurance."
That's not entirely true, either. The principle component of insurance is risk. People buy into insurance to protect against a contingent, uncertain loss. If the loss is known or anticipated, then the risk factor does not exist (as in the case of an existing condition), then what is being purchased is not 'insurance' in the classical sense, but a subsidized system to reduce their own share of costs by spreading them among the pool of others. In other words, a welfare programme.
One does not buy auto insurance after having an accident and expect it to cover the accident. Nor does one buy life insurance after one is dead and expect it to pay a death benefit. To do so is considered 'insurance fraud'. Not so, it seems, with health care. This plan says that people who already have the suffered the contingency should be able to insure themselves against it. The government's solution, therefore, is to promote fraud.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:03 PM
Tiwercs, As I mentioned before, wait for it. Obama promises to reduce the medicare budget, the states will have to make that part up plus pay for the non greedy folks or lose all federal medicade and medicare money.
We are not that far from the principals of the 1860 election regarding state rights.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:04 PM
According to Obamacare:
"Also starting in 2014, employers with more than 50 workers will have to pay penalties starting at $2,000 per employee if they didn't offer a set level of health benefits."
There will be a lot of companies with 49 employees as of January !, 2014.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:05 PM
Melange - Who is going to pay the premiums for the illegal aliens and those non greedy folks who can't afford the premiums?- Posted by Tiwercs on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:54 PM
Melange has no answer for that. You will now be charged with posting "inaccurate" information.
===========================================
Theo - I'm not mad, just intolerant of liberal jabber. As I posted earlier I will be fine and so will my kids. I can cover the additional tens of thousands they will have to pay. Will your kids thank you some day for putting the $37,000 noose around their neck while they work hard and pay for millions that don't? You'll have to answer that question for them. I will sleep very good at night.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:15 PM
Time will tell if you all have lost years off your life for no reason at all...
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:11 PM
Theorist,
When this country is in the shape Greece is now in.... will you admit your liberal left policies were wrong?
As a Teacher, I am surprised you are not aware of the effects of history constantly repeating itself. There is not a long term socialistic system out there that works. And by long term I do not mean 50 years.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:21 PM
Theorist - more straw man stuff. Are you SURE you're in education? It's scary!
Read S L O W L Y MeLanges post:
"At the end of the day, I feel good knowing families like the two I mentioned earlier will be mandated to cover themselves so that their financial, health care and quality of life future is not completely destroyed by moments of greed and bad choices." -- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 4:20 PM
WOW... you support greed and bad choices? Tell me Theorist... how many people do you want to support that choose greed and bad choices? You're stepping into a new territory here.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:22 PM
I also do not choose Cancer. Do you? Please answer the questions Dug. -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:26 PM
I'll answer it if you'll answer another. No - I don't believe people choose cancer.
Here's your question: Do you believe that 14 years olds should be able to murder their parents and live in their house?
Makes as much sense as your question. I never said people choose cancer and nobody else did. You are easily confused. Here's another completely unrelated question for you that no one said or asked:
Should the Cardinals have traded Pujols? I don't mean the Catholic Cardinals, I mean the baseball team. Hope that helps.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:32 PM
Comprehension - it's not a city in Idaho!
Not testy. Just finished some construction work in the hot temps and sitting inside drinking some tea and educating a few liberals. It's my hobby! Heading to the lake for 3 days with the wife to float and drink some brew with a bunch of friends. Life is good!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:41 PM
Hmmmm!
Guess that means Theorist is not going to answer my question either. Nor did she admit she read my post incorrectly and was wrong. But what else is new?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:43 PM
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:41 PM
Dug.... now you know you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labors. That money could be given to the poor that you are going to waste on yourself this weekend.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:46 PM
Thank you Me'Lange for confirming your post. I took it that way as well. I see what you are saying, but I disagree that we should protect people from their bad choices. I think it reinforces bad behavior.
I have a nephew that refuses to work and is doing just fine while his 2 sisters and brother work their tails off. This nephew is now covered under Obamacare and is living on unemployment and housing assistance. Why? Because you and I allow it - and his sisters and brother. If the "safety net" were pulled from underneath him he would move off the couch.
You've seen the videos of baby-mamas bragging about all the free government "stuff" they get - mostly cash money.
This has been credited to Reagan but I'm not sure - "If you want more of something subsidize it. If you want less of something tax it."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:52 PM
Dug.... now you know you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labors. That money could be given to the poor that you are going to waste on yourself this weekend. -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:46 PM
I will feel guilty the entire weekend - NOT! :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:53 PM
"From my experience, MOST people need to be protected from themselves."
I totally disagree! If people were held responsible for their bad choices, they would soon stop making those bad choices. One bad choice rarely condemns a person or family to a life of poverty if they truly want to better themselves through their own self reliance.
That kind of flawed thinking is what has put America in the position we are in today.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:53 PM
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:53 PM
Enjoy yourself and do not get overheated. Just pulling your leg. :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM
Enjoy yourself and do not get overheated. Just pulling your leg. :-) -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM
I knew you were pulling my leg! You have a great weekend as well if you can in this heat. It's miserable. The last time I insulated an attic it was about this hot - last year. And here I was today doing the same thing! With plenty of breaks.
Take care!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 5:57 PM
Wheels, Believe what you like, very very few prepare for their future.
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:00 PM
If they do not.... who's fault is that? My rationale is they do not prepare bedcause they know the government will take care of them with our money.
Do you have another reason for their irresponsibilty that better explains it?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:03 PM
Then when it does happen, they expect the government (taxpayers) to step up to the plate and fix their problem.
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:10 PM
So.... what if we said no? You are a victim of your own stupidity. Deal with it!!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:12 PM
Melange
Who is going to pay the premiums for the illegal aliens and those non greedy folks who can't afford the premiums?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:22 PM
But we won't, we are a compassionate society. So the next best thing, make them step up and participate in the process.
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:16 PM
A compassionate society does not turn masses of people into dependants... robbing them of their dignity and the joy of doing something on their own.
Compassion can be tough love that let's people deal with what they created. When my oldest daughter, was in kindergarten she simply loved it. My wife was in the hospital with a new baby and it was just my daughter and me at home. She had to be dragged out of bed to get her ready for school. That night I explained to her. You had better be out of bed and ready to go without my help or you stay home tomorrow. She got me out of bed the next morning. She knew I meant it whenever I told her something snd took me seriously. She is a very responsible person to this day.... and I am not ashamed of making her that way.
These irresponsible deadbeats in America today are victims of their government not laying it on the line to them.
Compassion is not enslaving people into dependancy by being an enabler.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:26 PM
Who is going to pay the premiums for the illegal aliens and those non greedy folks who can't afford the premiums?
-- Posted by Tiwercs on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:22 PM
The rich of coarse.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:34 PM
Compassion is not enslaving people into dependancy by being an enabler.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:26 PM
But being an enabler can make you the master.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:36 PM
Melange
Who is going to pay the premiums for the illegal aliens and those non greedy folks who can't afford the premiums?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:44 PM
Do you have another reason for their irresponsibilty that better explains it?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:03 PM
I think I have a different reason, not sure it is better.
Children were at one time educated with some real life expectations. There was home economices and vocational agriculture classes, typing, general business and other subjects that implied the expectation of leaving mom and dad and making one's own way.
The government school influence has evolved into teaching the students to believe the state creates one's destiny by financing higher education to assure all are equal in life's lottery and those that lose in the great lottery of life will be provided for. They tried so we owe them!
The few that think out of the box and work to get well ahead of the norm are persecuted as being greedy and the ones that refuse to better themselves are the unfortunate of which the middle class are obligated to support by way of taxes or general spread the wealth programs.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 6:45 PM
"Many do not like to think about "risk" or unpleasant contingences."
I didn't like thinking about them either... but I did. I grew up poor. I was born in 1938 and we got our first motorized transportation, a one year old pickup truck in 1950. I do not like being poor! I do not want to be poor ever again! And I have done what I was required to do to keep my shoulder to the wheel and plan ahead. A man told me once, you only have to be poor if you want to. I believe that, in the respect that you can do something about it if you want to bad enough. If Social Security goes away tomorrow, I will be OK. If Medicare goes away, there is little I can do about it, since it is the only avenue left open at the moment.
The only thing that was given to me, to work my way out of poverity, was opportunity. I hired people who wanted to get ahead and I left people go who did not.
I did it and the next guy can as well... if he really has the desire. If he does not... why should I worry about him.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 7:05 PM
Old John,
Not sure how you move people to action that have been taught to sit on their arses and draw off the working people of America.
I think they are going to have to reach rock bottom before they see the light.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 7:13 PM
Rick,
Did you get your "B" and "T" confused?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 7:15 PM
Rick,
You did get the B & T confused. But anyway...
The $1.7 Trillion will be our tax money that will be used to pay the insurance premiums and healthcare costs for the millions of folks that will not be required to pay for their own insurance premiums and healthcare costs under obamacare.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 7:40 PM
If there is one thing to be learned from this discussion, it is this:
Democrats are obsessed with money: other people's money - how much they make, how much they have, and how they spend it.
Republicans are obsessed with money: their own money - how much they can make, how much they can keep, and how free they are to spend it.
That's why I'm a Republican. I don't think it's any of my business what another man does with his own money, but I think it's my business what he does with mine.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 9:17 PM
But if everyone is required to pay their own insurance by mandate , how come some are not to be required ?
Because obama picks the winners and losers. The winners will have their insurance premiums and healthcare costs paid by you and me, the losers. In exchange, the winners will reward obama with their votes come November.
Aren't we back to square one?
No, not really. Now the losers (you and me) are required by law to foot the bill for the winner's insurance premiums which is the purpose of obamacare in the first place.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 9:18 PM
I find it sad that you believe if Obama was a republican I would vote for him. Sorry to disappoint, but NO.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 12:11 PM
You know Dug, I totally believe you on this.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Jun 28, 2012, at 10:16 PM
RickO,
If you have paid attention for the past years of the Obama administration, many doctors are closing their offices and choosing to work on the staff of hospitals and large clinics. As you say, the day of private practice is over. The doctors are going on salary and allowing health organizations to take over the burden of paperwork and compliance with regulations.
-- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 6:51 AM
Just now got on here, but so glad of the supreme court justices' decision yesterday.
It was and is the right thing to do. Soon milliions of americans will now be covered and have the same ability to have affordable healthcare. That is what is great about it. I know i have family members and friends who are blad of the ruling.
I agree with the majority of the justices and common sense. If you can afford insurance, then you need to have it. I notice the most complainers are the ones who can afford it. What????. So stop whinning and get insurance. The overall cost spread out for everyone will make it affordable for the majority.
One thing is for sure. Of all the bickering and mudslinging and down right not cooperating by mainly republican croonies in washington and around the country. one thing is for sure. President Obama gets what he wants. When he sets out to do something, like the affordable healthcare plan, he gets it. No matter what, they can't stop this man. That is great!
Becasue of his tenacity and endurance and strong backbone, he gets it done. He takes it to em. Let em come with it and he is right there to send it back to them. He is definitely one of the most courageous presidents we ever had. The man don't stop and as much as they try to stop him, he breaks em down everytime!
His vision for the country and people of America as a whole is more than what the republicans can even muster up against him.
Now that the healthcare plan has declaired consititional, do you really think that white, black, hispanic women, hispanic men, all african americans, poor, and even some rich people are gonna vote to remove him in november. NOT! If you believe that, you must be "el loco poco"
Common sense tells you that to be responsible, hhich i believe most are, then if one can afford to have health insurance, then they would have it. With his help and the supreme court's ruling, he really ensured himself another term come november.
And it might have had a chance to be a very close election (obama and romney). But now, it may not even be close. Obama will win decisively. The majority of Americans will not turn their backs on him come november and they will come out once again to seal the deal for him.
By getting this decision from the highest court in the land passed shows americans he is the one who can get it done under pressure.
Yes, he difinitely has brought "change" to America. Now keep kickin butt Mr. President!
-- Posted by kcknown on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:16 AM
He won't win Missouri Caddy/BigDawg/kc!!!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:21 AM
Theorist,
Let me rephrase that. Obama will not win Missouri's electroial vote.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:46 AM
If you have paid attention for the past years of the Obama administration, many doctors are closing their offices and choosing to work on the staff of hospitals and large clinics. -- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 6:51 AM
Wow, haven't seen this. As a matter of fact, what I have seen here is new offices opening and others expanding. And still, doctors have some of the the nices homes around.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:53 AM
i meant missouri's a wrap.
-- Posted by kcknown on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:57 AM
Rick,
I don't like mandates of any kind!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:58 AM
rick, you are turning it into race. i mentioned nothing about race. i told you obama didn't need missouri. he gets ad got his votes he needed from missouri from only two cities. kansas city and st. louis. that's it . face the music genious.
-- Posted by kcknown on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 12:11 PM
rick, you are turning it into race. i mentioned nothing about race. i told you obama didn't need missouri. he gets ad got his votes he needed from missouri from only two cities. kansas city and st. louis. that's it . face the music genious.
-- Posted by kcknown on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 12:11 PM
Are you saying that Kansas City and St. Louis will be the only places in Missouri who go for him? Why would they? Black people have suffered more under this President than most. If they do go for him, it will be only because of skin color... and that is racist my friend!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 12:29 PM
wheels, are you saying that kansas and st. louis only have black people who live there and vote for obama. you are really really ignorant.
You continue to show me. you are saying that only black people from missouri wil vot for obama. my goodness, i been gone this long, but you are still stupid.
you need to go away for a long while. dang! Stop bringing up race fool. we aleady know what the majrity is going to do anyway. play on something else.....like out in traffic on kingshighway.
-- Posted by kcknown on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 12:51 PM
Wow, haven't seen this. As a matter of fact, what I have seen here is new offices opening and others expanding. And still, doctors have some of the the nices homes around.
-- Posted by username1 on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:53 AM
Uh you need to look harder. What he said is a fact. I have docs in the family so I get their perspective. Sure there are new clinics and physicians but it has slowed tremendously. Why do you think docs tell kids wanting to be a doc to find another field. We will lose many bright students to be replaced by average kids. Maybe one of them can make the wrong life saving decision on one of your children or grandchildren someday. You can chalk it down as being necessary for the good of all and be happy about it.
Now when you say you see their nice homes you make me think wealth envy. BTW my home is nice but I am not a doc. Just a guy that worked hard instead of wasting my time being envious of others. Anyone can do it unless you have been brainwashed into thinking you cant.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 1:25 PM
I always heard that when you found the nicest house in town, you found where the parts store owner lives. Of course it's been a long time since I've heard that. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 1:28 PM
Ther
Last time it was all but 9 counties for McCain. With the continued downturn of the economy I cant see Obama doing much better. BTW have they corrected STL county voting rolls. They had more voters than people of age to vote in 08.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 1:37 PM
"wheels, are you saying that kansas and st. louis only have black people who live there and vote for obama. you are really really ignorant."
Not at all dummy! But I am not blind. And I well remember when we had to get a judge to hold the polls open as a special concession to those that could not get up off the couch and turn off Oprah long enough to go vote on time.
And I do understand Caddy.... it is hard to wake up the dead to get them to the polls on time.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 2:22 PM
"BTW my home is nice but I am not a doc."
Regrets,
I had a nice home on a golf course and I'm just an HVAC guy. Then Obama became President.... and now I'm homeless. ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 2:28 PM
Wheels
I thought you had a mobile home? :)
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 2:38 PM
Regrets,
I'm homeless, I have to sleep in my motorhome, you know a camper.
Rick,
Someday... I promise you, I'm going to get even with you for putting those gluegites onto my location. ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 2:48 PM
Theorist,
Have you heard one of my favorite sayings.... 'Smile when you call me a SOB' ?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 2:57 PM
So many think "the rich" will pay for those hapless souls who fall into the poverty to 400% of poverty guidelines for outright medical provision and subsidies. I doubt it. The rich will be smart enough to buy insurance because, for them, it will be cheaper than paying the penalty. Many also live off inheritances and retirement accounts which pay no employment taxes.
The money to pay for the expanded insurance program will come out of the pockets of America's laborers and other middle income workers....the folks who have been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions and high premiums.
It would have been better if Congress had written a law that forced insurance companies to provide insurance at equitable rates for all individuals without discrimination as to history and if we had continued to provide medical care under the existing guidelines to registered American citizen with some review and removal of unnecessary services.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:52 PM
Wow, haven't seen this. As a matter of fact, what I have seen here is new offices opening and others expanding. And still, doctors have some of the the nices homes around.
-- Posted by username1 on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:53 AM
What you have seen is what you've convinced yourself what you want to see .
Cape is not a small community .
-- Posted by Rickʘ on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 10:07 AM
Rick, I don't live in Cape and my doctor's office is expanding and new doctors are coming in - that's why they are expanding. They should be finished later in the summer.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 11:11 PM
username1, Gubment subsidized?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 30, 2012, at 12:26 AM
For those who are looking for a way to decrease the price of health care. Having lately had my own contact with our health care system, I have learned one very good tactic to decrease costs.
When you go up to the window and the nice lady asks for your insurance information, offer to pay cash on the barrel head. You will probably be surprised at the discount that is available; 50% is not unheard of.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Jun 30, 2012, at 4:36 PM
username1
Would those be doctors or interns ?
-- Posted by Rickʘ on Sat, Jun 30, 2012, at 6:13 AM
All I know is the office manager told me they were expanding and new doctors were coming in.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Sat, Jun 30, 2012, at 11:55 PM
I know someone that is expanding and yes new doctors are coming in. Not sure if it's due to the expansion or just age related. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 1, 2012, at 12:10 AM
Many also live off inheritances and retirement accounts which pay no employment taxes.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Jun 29, 2012, at 9:52 PM
Those that inherited much got to pay inheritance tax and most of the retirement accounts already had taxes taken out. A million will only get you about 7K to 20K a year if you play safe. That is poverty by the liberals standard.
We ALL should have a retirement account but many blew their money instead. Now the ones that took NO personal responsibility are saying no fair.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 1, 2012, at 12:10 AM
Age related is a good answer. Yes there are expansions but the hospitals are gearing up to run the stand alone docs out of business and into their employment. Hospitals are going get fat on Obamacare. The grants alone are an administrators dream.
Also our new Docs will be nurse practitioners. Just like a drug store has to have one pharmacist on duty to oversee the pill counters. There are more mistakes made at pharmacy's than people know about. Sure would hate to see my grandchildren be misdiagnosed because the doc is too busy overseeing the practitioners and makes a mistake.
Also like Wheels says...."Get use at looking at the wallpaper". Ain't nobody going to be in a hurry.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 1, 2012, at 10:11 PM
Menu
That would mean that taxes do not have to paid to general revenue, but can be paid to whatever recipient the government declares.
The handbasket has just taken a huge leap towards its final destination.
Replies (136)