Obama Care Yet Again

[Knewz]

then thats where you apply for government assistance, and see if you qualify

Which means you can be denied and end up S.O.L. Why deny people care as long as they are working?

 

[mdram]

Which means you can be denied and end up S.O.L. Why deny people care as long as they are working?

read my take on gov assistance, you dont get a check, you work for the money from them, maybe cleaning an office, maybe picking up trash along a road

if your making $500 a month, your either not fully employed or a student, in which case your parents foot the bill

 

[noah way]

In response to what YOU wrote:

Tax and spend. I want government to make my decisions. I think health care is a right, not something to be earned and paid for. Tax and spend.

Health care is a basic human right. It should be readily available to everyone without regard for color, nationality or economic status.

While you are apparently perfectly happy to let some big corporation run your life, I won't allow either the government or some corporation to make decisions for me.

Tax and spend is what government does. Right now they tax the working class but not the rich and the corporations. And the taxes that they take from us go to the big corporations, which in case you were wondering are all owned by the rich.

 

[mdram]

Health care is a basic human right. It should be readily available to everyone without regard for color, nationality or economic status.

what obama care is is not what you are saying. it says you must buy healthcare even if you dont want it
and if you cant afford it we will pay for it for you, even if you dont want it

While you are apparently perfectly happy to let some big corporation run your life, I won't allow either the government or some corporation to make decisions for me.

i prefer neither, i like to run my own life with minimal interference as long as i dont harm another person or their property

Tax and spend is what government does. Right now they tax the working class but not the rich and the corporations. And the taxes that they take from us go to the big corporations, which in case you were wondering are all owned by the rich.

they tax everyone, not the working class pays a lower percentage and small portion of the total.
if the government taxed 99.9999% of the income of the wealthy and corporations they would still be in the hole, as they would spend even more

 

[noah way]

single payer is a bad thing, no competition, prices go up
if they dont then you run into them not paying fair prices, and doctors not working with them

Insurance "networks" and severely limited reimbursements for care stifles competition among health care providers by limiting your health care choices.

corporations are in it for a profit, if not then they would either close down or be called government

Thanks for serving up this particularly juicy softball. A 35% tax rate applied to GE's profits would have left them $10 billion in profit. It's OK with you that your profit is taxed and theirs is not?

economists are beginning to re-exam the new deal and the great depression. they believe now in some circles that the new deal extended the great depression by interfering with the natural order of business

"economists" or Goldman Sachs lobbyists? Some supporting links would be good if you can find any other than Glen Beck.

we are cutting taxes for everyone, not just the rich

Funny, my property tax has gone up, my state tax has gone up, my sales tax has gone up, my gas tax has gone up and there's no reduction on my 1040.

what we need to do is get rid of the current tax system and go something simplier, no deductions, but lower rates. or replace it with the fair tax. the current tax code is too large and allows to many loops holes

Agreed on deductions, especially those that favor the rich - capital gains, second homes (including yachts!), international real estate, etc., etc.

The so called "fair tax" is anything but. It's just another reduction for the rich and an increase on everyone else. It's based on what you spend, not on what you make. Proportionally the rich spend far less of their incomes than the working class (who basically spend it all). So taxing only spending would tax all working class income and radically reduce the tax liability of the rich. Do the math and figure it out for yourself.

no thats an example of stupidity (or goverment as normal) its the SECs job to watch wall street. they failed to do it properly. how large is the SEC? and why could they onlyspare 2 investigators?

No, that's an example of the power of Goldman Sachs and the Wall Street and banking interests that wrote the self-enforcement rules that congress passed. The idea was that we didn't need the SEC because the banks and investment houses would watch the hen house. Worked out pretty well, don't you think?

its special intereests that control DC, corp or otherwises
get rid of the environmentalist, allow new power plants, drilling, ect

Special interests like Goldman Sachs, GE, etc. The environmental lobbies are fairly toothless citizen-funded organizations that don't have the financial power to compete with mega-corporations.

heck you cant even build wind farms without people yelling about it killing birds or some thing. fine build nukes, build coal, what ever, just build it

"people" funded and acting as fronts for the Koch Brothers and other billionaire industrialists, kind of like the Tea Party.

 

[ElasticNinja]

get rid of the environmentalist, allow new power plants, drilling, ect
heck you cant even build wind farms without people yelling about it killing birds or some thing. fine build nukes, build coal, what ever, just build it

What about climate change, habitat destruction, pollution?

 

[mdram]

Insurance "networks" and severely limited reimbursements for care stifles competition among health care providers by limiting your health care choices.

its lack of competition among insurers imho

Thanks for serving up this particularly juicy softball. A 35% tax rate applied to GE's profits would have left them $10 billion in profit. It's OK with you that your profit is taxed and theirs is not?

GE and Taxes | GE Reports

"economists" or Goldman Sachs lobbyists? Some supporting links would be good if you can find any other than Glen Beck.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

Funny, my property tax has gone up, my state tax has gone up, my sales tax has gone up, my gas tax has gone up and there's no reduction on my 1040.

so has mine ever since dems took over

Agreed on deductions, especially those that favor the rich - capital gains, second homes (including yachts!), international real estate, etc., etc.

The so called "fair tax" is anything but. It's just another reduction for the rich and an increase on everyone else. It's based on what you spend, not on what you make. Proportionally the rich spend far less of their incomes than the working class (who basically spend it all). So taxing only spending would tax all working class income and radically reduce the tax liability of the rich. Do the math and figure it out for yourself.

its my understanding that the fair tax accounts for all this

No, that's an example of the power of Goldman Sachs and the Wall Street and banking interests that wrote the self-enforcement rules that congress passed. The idea was that we didn't need the SEC because the banks and investment houses would watch the hen house. Worked out pretty well, don't you think?

nope, congress passed it. cant blame the lobbyist, blame the government for not doing whats right. you have as much right to provide ieput as they do
this is why we need to vote em all out

Special interests like Goldman Sachs, GE, etc. The environmental lobbies are fairly toothless citizen-funded organizations that don't have the financial power to compete with mega-corporations.

"people" funded and acting as fronts for the Koch Brothers and other billionaire industrialists, kind of like the Tea Party.

but you leave out the other side like george Soros

 

[noah way]

what obama care is is not what you are saying. it says you must buy healthcare even if you dont want it
and if you cant afford it we will pay for it for you, even if you dont want it

It's not Obamacare, the law was written by thousands of corporate lobbyists. That's why it runs over 2000 pages, it's filled with protections for them, especially the one where everyone has to buy private insurance. Trust me, I won't. But I would happily buy into single payer.

i like to run my own life with minimal interference as long as i dont harm another person or their property

There's something we agree on.

they tax everyone, not the working class pays a lower percentage and small portion of the total.

Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007. Read the data here. Source: IRS.

Bush labeled this IRS report a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned immediately.

 

[mdram]

What about climate change, habitat destruction, pollution?

climate change is a farce, the earths climate is cyclical in nature

habitat destruction of what? all thats already taken care of for 99.99999 percent of permitting processes

 

[ElasticNinja]

climate change is a farce, the earths climate is cyclical in nature

look at the numbers....

habitat destruction of what? all thats already taken care of for 99.99999 percent of permitting processes

of habitats

You don't care? why?

 

[mdram]

It's not Obamacare, the law was written by thousands of corporate lobbyists. That's why it runs over 2000 pages, it's filled with protections for them, especially the one where everyone has to buy private insurance. Trust me, I won't. But I would happily buy into single payer.

corrupt politician wrote it

Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007. Read the data here. Source: IRS.

Bush labeled this IRS report a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned immediately.

they are workign the system, as long as the law is the law there is nothing to do about it

 

[mdram]

look at the numbers....

the ones that were "adjusted to hide the decline"
i did, they dont work

of habitats

You don't care? why?

never said i didnt care. in current development, if done per code, habitat is not destroyed. it may be relocated, and if so is often larger then it was before.
artificial wetlands, forest conservation, ect ect.
there is no reason to stop any development.

 

[noah way]

congress passed it. cant blame the lobbyist, blame the government for not doing whats right. you have as much right to provide ieput as they do
this is why we need to vote em all out

This is getting pointless, so I'll toss out one last thing for you to chew on.

Government and business is essentially a closed system. Business pays for candidates to run. Candidates "elected" support the businesses that funded them. Simple enough.

Political parties are funded as well, preferably because there are no limits on party funding (funding an individual candidate is restricted). This is where the really big money comes in, and the really big money usually buys BOTH sides. McCain and Obama both got money from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, etc. The "smart" money buys every candidate.

Campaigns cost lots of money. To run a congressional reelection campaign you have to raise about $10,000 per week for your entire term. This is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy.

As for voting them all out, they will just be replaced by more corporately funded candidates. For example, the astroturf Tea Party is funded by Americans for Prosperity (a group fronting special interests started by oil billionaire David Koch) and FreedomWorks (which won't disclose it's corporate donors and scammed people into membership and dues). When you think you're voting for one thing you are much more likely to be voting for another.

Ultimately your ballot is meaningless. The only vote that counts is in your pocket. You vote FOR everything you spend your money on.

It's not government that is the problem, it is a government that is owned by corporate interests (the rich). You can't fix one or the other, you have to fix both.
Government is only half the problem.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You are right Noah, the US is a plutocracy, a country run for the benefit of the rich
I often wonder when there will be a backlash... hopefully things will be sorted out before its too late

I think the UK under Thatcher, Major and Blair also turned into a bit of a plutocracy
Italy is one too

These three states all have a big thing in common - a media full of spin usually in favor of the elite

 

[noah way]

It's hard to get information when the "liberal" media is controlled by a handful of corporations.

 

[vailpass]

Forgive me, I wrote 'fyp' which stands for 'fixed your post' on other boards I read. I've since been informed of the proper protocol for this board and will follow going forward.

In response to what YOU wrote:



Health care is a basic human right. It should be readily available to everyone without regard for color, nationality or economic status.

Who the hell told you this? That is certainly not in our constitution. Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. Get your hand out of my pocket.


While you are apparently perfectly happy to let some big corporation run your life, Iwon't allow either the government or some corporation to make decisions for me.

Yet you want the US government to run our health care system? Could you contradict yourself anymore?


Tax and spend is what government does. Right now they tax the working class but not the rich and the corporations. And the taxes that they take from us go to the big corporations, which in case you were wondering are all owned by the rich.

And now I see who and what you are.

[/QUOTE]

*

 

[vailpass]

You are right Noah, the US is a plutocracy, a country run for the benefit of the rich
I often wonder when there will be a backlash... hopefully things will be sorted out before its too late

I think the UK under Thatcher, Major and Blair also turned into a bit of a plutocracy
Italy is one too

These three states all have a big thing in common - a media full of spin usually in favor of the elite

How long did you live in the US?

 

[anexanhume]

single payer is a bad thing, no competition, prices go up
if they dont then you run into them not paying fair prices, and doctors not working with them

Again, read the infographic on the first page. Multiple countries with UHC systems pay less than half, sometimes even less than a third of what Americans do for medical coverage.

we are cutting taxes for everyone, not just the rich
what we need to do is get rid of the current tax system and go something simplier, no deductions, but lower rates. or replace it with the fair tax. the current tax code is too large and allows to many loops holes

The fair tax is horribly regressive. It taxes consumption, which means poor people who must use a higher percentage of their income to get their daily essentials are the ones who are punished.

not really, i dislike any regulation, or anything that increases the size of government

people say insurance companies have red tape. ever try and get the government of any level to do anything? they invented red tape.
the only difference now is you will have multi levels.

i see nothing good coming from this

Do you understand the concept of red tape? It's putting up barriers and blockades to prevent you from accomplishing something. That's exactly what the insurance companies do because any claim they don't have to fill is more profit for them. With a government run system, there's no incentive to deny claims because it's not a for profit venture. Any excess would be returned to tax payers or utilized elsewhere.

see health care is not an entitlement

it all began in the 50's and 60's when things were booming
employers started offering benefits to entice people to stay with them, or come to them.

we have begun to believe its our right

back then health costs were lower, people carried minimal insurance and only used it for true emergencies.

now we believe it should be free.
doctors often have multiple price, if people went back to this mentality and actually paid out of pocket for physicals and routine visits and only used insurance for true emergencies then you would see insurance prices go back down

how many people do you know with insurance that go to the doc 3, 4, 5, 6 times a year or more? wasteful, and it will only get worse

So people deserve to die because they cannot afford life-saving care?

 

[vailpass]

So people deserve to die because they cannot afford life-saving care?

So people deserve to have their income/wealth redistributed because other people can't pay their own way? No thanks comrade.

 

[anexanhume]

So people deserve to have their income/wealth redistributed because other people can't pay their own way? No thanks comrade.

That's not an answer, you're avoiding the question under the pretense that some people die of health problems simply because they do not have a job and try to make their way through life.

A medical bill in the hundreds of thousands could bankrupt almost anyone and force them to no longer be able to afford their care. If you feel that they should not be covered in that case, just say it. Only the wealthy deserve to live in the event of costly illnesses.

 

[vailpass]

That's not an answer, you're avoiding the question under the pretense that some people die of health problems simply because they do not have a job and try to make their way through life.

A medical bill in the hundreds of thousands could bankrupt almost anyone and force them to no longer be able to afford their care. If you feel that they should not be covered in that case, just say it. Only the wealthy deserve to live in the event of costly illnesses.

Health care is NOT a right. The hard cold fact is that life is not fair and we don't all get trophies just for participating.
I am for taking care of our children, our elderly and those unable to care for themselves due to mental or physical limitations so long as a responsible and fiscally viable plan is enacted.

All other citizens have the right to work as hard as they can to secure whatever they want within their means. No citizen has the right to take that from another which he did not earn for himself, nor should any government.

 

[anexanhume]

Health care is NOT a right. The hard cold fact is that life is not fair and we don't all get trophies just for participating.
I am for taking care of our children, our elderly and those unable to care for themselves due to mental or physical limitations so long as a responsible and fiscally viable plan is enacted.

All other citizens have the right to work as hard as they can to secure whatever they want within their means. No citizen has the right to take that from another which he did not earn for himself, nor should any government.

Ok, so people do deserve to die if they cannot afford their care.

Could you tell a father of two's children that he didn't get the care that could have saved his life because life isn't fair and tough luck?

Maybe you could, but I don't want to live in a society, the world's richest, that puts dollars before people's lives.

 

[vailpass]

Ok, so people do deserve to die if they cannot afford their care.

Could you tell a father of two's children that he didn't get the care that could have saved his life because life isn't fair and tough luck?

Maybe you could, but I don't want to live in a society, the world's richest, that puts dollars before people's lives.

Drama queen much? I said the government can help the elderly, children, and those who are physically unable to help themselves.

In your example if the father fits these categories he is cared for. If not he is able-bodied but failed to work hard enough to care for himself. So he gets what he paid for. That is called life.

I notice that those who advocate the taking of some people's money to pay for other people's wants are almost never the people who would be required to do the paying.

 

[anexanhume]

Drama queen much? I notice that those who advocate the taking of some people's money to pay for other people's wants are almost never the people who would be required to do the paying.

That's being realistic. That's the type of people dieing because they can't afford care. You can either acknowledge it or sweep it under the rug and ascribe it to tough luck.

You are saying that a man is only worth what he is capable of producing. You're viewing him as a commodity, a financial asset. Not a person.

I also like how you assume you know my income and how much I contribute to social programs.

 

[Lando81]

Oh no! God forbid a non-republican president try to get something done.