Don't Biatch Conservatives

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Don't Biatch Conservatives

Postby MSimon » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:14 pm

It is for your own good. You just don't know what is good for you.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/ob ... rican.html

What next? Well in med pot states traffic fatalities are down 9%. You can see what is coming. And it is for your own good. And to lower health care costs.

The nanny state will have finally caught up with the nannies on the right. Totally delicious to contemplate.

As I keep telling you guys - any power you give to government will eventually be used against you. And man up.

===

I'd like to go back to the Republican understanding of 1900. The Federal State stays out of economics and social issues. You know - the libertarian thing. The Republican thing - before Republicans became Progressives.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6014
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:34 pm

It is only a new tax for those people that have not had health insurance before. For everybody else nothing changes. Those that did not have health insurance before ended free riding (something usually critizised by the right) on everybody elses backs when the government had to pay their emergency treatments. Now they will at least have to pay into the pot too. Also there is finally regulation about people having to be allowed access to health insurance that were previously denied such. All in all, I dont see why people are so upset about it. Whoever is, is doing it for ideological reasons, not for practical reasons.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:15 pm

I have no health insurance. I'm screwed.

BTW SJ. If you were in business and the cost of healthcare was $5000 a year and the tax was $2000 a year if you dropped it what would you do?

I don't mind being a free rider on the government. I can screw all the folks that LIKE big government. A twofer.

You are so correct about ideological motives - look for a Dem wipe out bigger than 2010. I'd like to see the Republican nanny staters get their sails trimmed back too.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

jnaujok
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Postby jnaujok » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:58 pm

Skipjack wrote:It is only a new tax for those people that have not had health insurance before.


No, Skippy, this is a decision by the SCOTUS that the Congress has the right to tax non-behavior. That means that any future Congress can pass a law to tax you if you don't do something.

You didn't buy a Chevy Volt? Tax!

You didn't buy a house? Tax!

Or to drive it home for you -- You didn't vote for a Republican? TAX!

That's the real disaster in this decision. If you think that's no big deal, then maybe you should send Queen Elizabeth a letter explaining how the whole Declaration of Independence thing was just a really late April Fools joke.

hanelyp
Posts: 2253
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby hanelyp » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:12 pm

As I understand the ruling the supreme court handed down, congress could impose a tax on any activity, or inactivity, they like.

Don't have solar collectors on your roof? They could tax that.
Running a computer without approved anti-virus software? Could be part of a botnet, tax it.
Grow an herb they don't like? Another tax. Don't grow an herb they like? A tax.

Remember, Cesar asked the Roman Senate for only control of taxes and the Legions. He didn't need anything more to take control of anything else.

paperburn1
Posts: 2446
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Postby paperburn1 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:52 pm

Skipjack wrote:It is only a new tax for those people that have not had health insurance before. For everybody else nothing changes. Those that did not have health insurance before ended free riding (something usually critizised by the right) on everybody elses backs when the government had to pay their emergency treatments. Now they will at least have to pay into the pot too. Also there is finally regulation about people having to be allowed access to health insurance that were previously denied such. All in all, I dont see why people are so upset about it. Whoever is, is doing it for ideological reasons, not for practical reasons.

The tax will force 17 million peolple on to health insurance but the change in medicaid laws move an additional 20 million on the goverments dime. the only clear winner here is the insurance company.

Skipjack
Posts: 6014
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:34 pm

The tax will force 17 million peolple on to health insurance but the change in medicaid laws move an additional 20 million on the goverments dime. the only clear winner here is the insurance company.

No, the new laws will give health insurance to (I believe it is actually) 40 million americans. Many of them always wanted it, but could not get it due to a preexisting condition, or because they were unable to afford it. The "tax" if you dont get health insurance on your own is a mere 59 USD a month, from what I see. You only have to pay that if you make more than a certain amount a month. So it will only apply to those that can afford it.
I think that 59 USD a month is a bargain for full coverage health insurance. It will also prevent some 650,000 bankruptcies (more than 60% of all bankruptcies in the states) that are due to medical bills.

JaMorg
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:03 am

Postby JaMorg » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:04 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The tax will force 17 million peolple on to health insurance but the change in medicaid laws move an additional 20 million on the goverments dime. the only clear winner here is the insurance company.

No, the new laws will give health insurance to (I believe it is actually) 40 million americans. Many of them always wanted it, but could not get it due to a preexisting condition, or because they were unable to afford it. The "tax" if you dont get health insurance on your own is a mere 59 USD a month, from what I see. You only have to pay that if you make more than a certain amount a month. So it will only apply to those that can afford it.
I think that 59 USD a month is a bargain for full coverage health insurance. It will also prevent some 650,000 bankruptcies (more than 60% of all bankruptcies in the states) that are due to medical bills.



I don't often post here but this compelled me to. The decision does several things, one very hazardous thing and one that puts many blue collar workers in a bind.

The Obamacare law did not do very much to the basic flaw regarding health insurance. Group plans are still state localized and most states have functional monopolies of health insurance companies to choose from. Contrast that with car insurance where a US Citizen can purchase a mandated auto insurance from a national company or choose from many different companies all offering the mandated minimum coverage.

The analogy to this is giving a utility monopoly power and no restriction on what they can charge for their services. Healthcare premiums have skyrocketed since the passage of the healthcare bill with the expectation that business and individuals will be required to purchase and no controls over what the monopoly can charge.

The medicare expansion strike down means that states do not have to cover the indigent or those unable to afford the mandated insurance coverage and who have no employer able to supply insurance. This was a provision added to the bill to cover employees of small business to whom find it cheaper to pay the fine than cover their employees. This provision was also expected to cover the working class employees of the large corporations who have been granted an exemption to the law by Presidential fiat.(should be illegal, wish the argument had been made before the Supreme Court on this fact)

The result of the strikedown plus the ability of the Obama administration to grant exemptions to individual corporations mean that there will be a sizable number of people whose employers received an exemption but who can't afford health insurance and the states are no longer forced to cover them. Huge tax on the working poor. Please bear in mind that your 50 some dollars a month does NOT provide that individual with health insurance. It is a punitive tax.

The movement of the individual mandate from commerce clause to tax means that the government can in effect tax for a lack of something. i.e. we could potentially look forward to a "non hybrid vehicle" tax or a "no treadmill or health club membership" tax.

Skipjack
Posts: 6014
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:14 pm

Please bear in mind that your 50 some dollars a month does NOT provide that individual with health insurance. It is a punitive tax.

True, but then everyone is getting basic coverage now anyway. So in the end it is the same.
Also if you are not making enough income to finance health insurance, the government will support you to a level where you actually end up paying less than 50 USD a month for a family of 4!

Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies[28] on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).[29]


I do agree with some of your issues, like the fact that insurance still does not cross state borders, which is IMHO really stupid. You can thank the lobbyists in congress for that.

jnaujok
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Postby jnaujok » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:22 pm

Skipjack wrote:Also if you are not making enough income to finance health insurance, the government will support you to a level where you actually end up paying less than 50 USD a month for a family of 4!


Oh thank God, the government is going to subsidize it. I was worried for a minute that someone would have to pay for it. But since the government has the giant fairy-dust bag filled with unlimited money, we won't have to worry about anything. Lucky for us they don't have to pay for that $600 billion in extra medical expenses through something like additional taxes.

Barack Obama, 2008 wrote:Health Care Should "Never Be Purchased With Tax Increases On Middle Class Families."


Whew, that's a relief.

Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies[28] on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).[29]



Four times poverty... Hmmm. That's about $76,000 a year. Good thing those poor people who have no insurance at their $38 an hour job can now get insurance on the public dime. Of course, it could just be a stealth means of getting to single-payer, since no company in the world is going to pay $5,000 a year to pay for insurance when they can foist it off on the employee for a $2,000 a year fine. And when 80% of the US population is on government subsidized healthcare, then it's just a tiny step until we see single payer and socialized medicine. Can't wait for the rationed health care and the 140,000 murders a year that the English NHS is now being investigated for. Because that's so much better than the system we have now.

Dennis Kucinich wrote:"#SCOTUS clears the path for #SinglePayer,” tweeted Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).


Clearly this has been the plan all along.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:30 pm

MSimon wrote:I have no health insurance. I'm screwed.

BTW SJ. If you were in business and the cost of healthcare was $5000 a year and the tax was $2000 a year if you dropped it what would you do?

I don't mind being a free rider on the government. I can screw all the folks that LIKE big government. A twofer.

You are so correct about ideological motives - look for a Dem wipe out bigger than 2010. I'd like to see the Republican nanny staters get their sails trimmed back too.


Did you retire from the navy or quit?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:49 pm

ladajo wrote:
MSimon wrote:I have no health insurance. I'm screwed.

BTW SJ. If you were in business and the cost of healthcare was $5000 a year and the tax was $2000 a year if you dropped it what would you do?

I don't mind being a free rider on the government. I can screw all the folks that LIKE big government. A twofer.

You are so correct about ideological motives - look for a Dem wipe out bigger than 2010. I'd like to see the Republican nanny staters get their sails trimmed back too.


Did you retire from the navy or quit?


Exited gracefully many years ago. So I guess in a real emergency I could go to a VA hospital in Chicago or Madison, WI. My experience from 25 or so years ago - nice people, lousy service. And they don't like dealing with 1 tour folks much these days. So I hear. Much less so than way back when - and they kinda discouraged one tour guys back then.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Postby ScottL » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:50 pm

Not sure why it should be called ObamaCare, its pretty darn close to what Republicans proposed counter to Clinton's proposal in the 90s. In the end, this does not effect me in the slightest. Preventive care, pre-existing condition coverage, and low-income coverage were no-brainers here that should've been covered long ago. We can't be bothered to take care of our own, but we can be bothered to occupy other nations and spend many 100s of times the amount it would cost to cover everyone here.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:12 pm

Scott, how can you possibly think that something that manipulates 1/6 of the economy won't affect you?

Are you familiar at all with the GAO appraisal of this? This is going to be much, much more expensive than a war.

It's one thing to say you're in support of these general principles. It's another thing entirely to pretend they won't cost anything, create new hardships and cause huge changes.

I agree forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is a good thing, but I'd be out of my mind to say this isn't going to cost a fortune and affect everyone.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Postby ScottL » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:32 pm

The projections I've seen show the healthcare reform won't een come close to the war cost.

Health Care = $1/trillion over 10 years.

Combined wars = $20/trillion over 20 years or $1/trillion a year by 2019 due to compounding costs of the war(s) and after them.

As for not effecting me, I have full coverage health as a benefit. I'm at 0 risk of being laid off or fired. If anything I'm considered a major asset and should probably try to renegotiate for a higher wage. So unless I start making $200k+ or start going to sun tanning businesses, probably not effected.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests