Article about the alleged "safety net"

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Rush Limbaugh inflammatory speech 101 but we are used to it.

oh

[Danzig]

Join our new Facebook group: Stopping Tyrannical Oppressive Progressives


lol

look what i found!!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, how is making insurance obtainable a way of transferring assets to someone else?

i mean, i think the law sucks, but i get why they did what they did. but use of force? transferring assets...tyrannical??

wow.

It is making insurance less obtainable for everyone who pays. It only make it more obtainable for those who do not pay. That is a transfer of wealth. The recipient recieves and the provider pays for himself and the recipient. That is basically a transaction.

If someone's insurance goes from $400 a month to $950 a month, and they did not get $550 more in insurance or useful services, then they got ripped off. In this case the money went to pay the bill for the guy getting the freebies.

There is no free lunch and never will be, no matter how much the liberals cry.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i profusely apologize for using 'charity' since you're getting so worked up over the semantics, while completely ignoring the point.
you supposedly think life is sacred, but once a kid is born, by god he's on his own.

The fact that you think that there is merely a semantic difference between willful charitable acts and government confiscation of assets for redistribution is quite illuminating.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is making insurance less obtainable for everyone who pays. It only make it more obtainable for those who do not pay. That is a transfer of wealth. The recipient recieves and the provider pays for himself and the recipient. That is basically a transaction.

If someone's insurance goes from $400 a month to $950 a month, and they did not get $550 more in insurance or useful services, then they got ripped off. In this case the money went to pay the bill for the guy getting the freebies.

There is no free lunch and never will be, no matter how much the liberals cry.

it's not a transfer of wealth, unless i missed the tax increase to pay for this new stuff?
as for those whose premiums went up due to having their plans cancelled, they are getting more coverages. their lifetime maximums are no more.

like i said, i don't like the law. it's way too convoluted. but something had to be done, plenty still has to be done.

Originally Posted by joeydb

The fact that you think that there is merely a semantic difference between willful charitable acts and government confiscation of assets for redistribution is quite illuminating.

thanks for the laugh.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not a transfer of wealth, unless i missed the tax increase to pay for this new stuff?
as for those whose premiums went up due to having their plans cancelled, they are getting more coverages. their lifetime maximums are no more.

like i said, i don't like the law. it's way too convoluted. but something had to be done, plenty still has to be done.




thanks for the laugh.

Sure it's a transfer of wealth. You are mandated to buy insurance. Mandated. Now those rates skyrocket. So the money leaves your pocket whether you call it a tax, a fee, a fine (which is applied if you -gasp- refuse to participate), or an insurance premium. What they all have in common is the MANDATORY nature of them. The money will be taken from you - call it what you want.

[Danzig]

again, like i said, it's a bad law. i think i made myself clear on that...but then, i thought i was clear about people begrudging assistance to poor people and saying they're christian.


it's kind of funny tho...so many people said 'well, if everyone would be responsible and buy insurance, it would be better...'. now they have to, and it's wrong too. there's no pleasing some people.

i wonder if those against any help in getting insurance went back thru the history books, and took out all the anti-social security, anti-medicare and anti-unemployment screeds and just 'cut and pasted' them to fit today's 'end of the u.s. as we know it' topic du jour.

[Danzig]

joey, did you support invading iraq and toppling hussein?
us assisting nato in getting rid of qaddafi?
invading afganistan and making it our longest war ever?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, like i said, it's a bad law. i think i made myself clear on that...but then, i thought i was clear about people begrudging assistance to poor people and saying they're christian.


it's kind of funny tho...so many people said 'well, if everyone would be responsible and buy insurance, it would be better...'. now they have to, and it's wrong too. there's no pleasing some people.

i wonder if those against any help in getting insurance went back thru the history books, and took out all the anti-social security, anti-medicare and anti-unemployment screeds and just 'cut and pasted' them to fit today's 'end of the u.s. as we know it' topic du jour.

See I don't think many people are against the idea of getting insurance more affordable. The difference is that this is the same old government program retread - take more from people already paying so they can supplement others. That's what people object to.

If you could buy insurance in any state - if a NY resident liked a Nevada plan, he should be able to buy it. Increase competition by removing barriers - not taking over the industry with government run "exchanges".

Allow flexible savings accounts to accrue and not be a "use it or lose it" proposition. Someday, as you have more and more good years, you could at least partially self-insure.

When you buy insurance of any kind, you only need the amount that mitigates risk you are uneasy with. This is why people bought catastrophic-event only plans. A young guy who breaks his finger playing basketball can probably handle the bill, but if he gets in a car accident he wants to be covered since it's a lot more money.

But there's the thing - Obama and those of his party stroll in telling you "You can keep your plan." Damn straight - because you, Mr. President, should have NO meddling in my affairs.

When you have an open market, you have the option of saying no - and that is the biggest power in all of capitalism. If enough people do not buy a product at an inflated cost, the price comes down. That power has been lost by use of the unconstitutional federal mandate. Therefore, prices will skyrocket due to both the supplementing of others for insurance, AND opportunism on the part of the insurance companies. That will happen also - but strictly because the government is helping them do that by not allowing the free market to work, specifically by forcing every American to be a customer no matter how high the price is.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

joey, did you support invading iraq and toppling hussein? no no no no
us assisting nato in getting rid of qaddafi? nah
invading afganistan and making it our longest war ever?yes, one year only like i said before.

I can't help myself Joey can answer for himself..

[Danzig]

http://news.msn.com/science-technolo...s-online-games


but..uh, we can't find money to insure people. sigh

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

See I don't think many people are against the idea of getting insurance more affordable. The difference is that this is the same old government program retread - take more from people already paying so they can supplement others. That's what people object to.
If you could buy insurance in any state - if a NY resident liked a Nevada plan, he should be able to buy it. Increase competition by removing barriers - not taking over the industry with government run "exchanges".

Allow flexible savings accounts to accrue and not be a "use it or lose it" proposition. Someday, as you have more and more good years, you could at least partially self-insure.

When you buy insurance of any kind, you only need the amount that mitigates risk you are uneasy with. This is why people bought catastrophic-event only plans. A young guy who breaks his finger playing basketball can probably handle the bill, but if he gets in a car accident he wants to be covered since it's a lot more money.

But there's the thing - Obama and those of his party stroll in telling you "You can keep your plan." Damn straight - because you, Mr. President, should have NO meddling in my affairs.

When you have an open market, you have the option of saying no - and that is the biggest power in all of capitalism. If enough people do not buy a product at an inflated cost, the price comes down. That power has been lost by use of the unconstitutional federal mandate. Therefore, prices will skyrocket due to both the supplementing of others for insurance, AND opportunism on the part of the insurance companies. That will happen also - but strictly because the government is helping them do that by not allowing the free market to work, specifically by forcing every American to be a customer no matter how high the price is.

the premise isn't to take money from some and buy insurance for others. the law is based on
if everyone has coverage, there won't be people subsidizing others' care-which is what we've been doing for years. i have insurance, have had for decades. so, my bills are grossly inflated because my insurer will end up paying not just for my care, but for however many others who got care and had no way to pay. their bill was 'written off' (but not really, hospitals have to get money, so they have, from those with ability to pay, or with insuranced).
so, supposedly the overall cost of healthcare will be lower, because they can charge everyone correctly now, since everyone (conceivably) will now have coverage of some sort. that's why taxes on individuals haven't changed, because it's supposed to be revenue neutral.
the main reason why people have seen premium increases is because their substandard plans were phased out. does it stink? yep. but from what i've seen, far more people will benefit from the plan than will be adversely affected.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

I can't help myself Joey can answer for himself..

my point being those wars cost way more than obamacare will. funny what people don't mind paying for, and what they object to. i wonder how many of those who are against broadening health coverage would have to say in future if they were the one with pre-existing conditions? hit their lifetime maximum (those are gone now)? if their status changed in some way, and obamacare kept them insured?
you know, just like all these people over the years who rail against medicaid...
but when they go to the nursing home, they'll love it then.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the premise isn't to take money from some and buy insurance for others. the law is based on
if everyone has coverage, there won't be people subsidizing others' care-which is what we've been doing for years. i have insurance, have had for decades. so, my bills are grossly inflated because my insurer will end up paying not just for my care, but for however many others who got care and had no way to pay. their bill was 'written off' (but not really, hospitals have to get money, so they have, from those with ability to pay, or with insuranced).
so, supposedly the overall cost of healthcare will be lower, because they can charge everyone correctly now, since everyone (conceivably) will now have coverage of some sort. that's why taxes on individuals haven't changed, because it's supposed to be revenue neutral.
the main reason why people have seen premium increases is because their substandard plans were phased out. does it stink? yep. but from what i've seen, far more people will benefit from the plan than will be adversely affected.

Yet people argue to their death against a plan designed to protect them and lower their costs long term. They will argue for the right to not buy insurance if they choose knowing they will never do so and knowing they will be paying for those that do. Is it brainwashing?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the main reason why people have seen premium increases is because their substandard plans were phased out. does it stink? yep. but from what i've seen, far more people will benefit from the plan than will be adversely affected.

I love also how people act like premiums never, ever went up in the years prior to the ACA. Srsly?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...src=burger_bar

The real problem is that health care in the US is too expensive. We pay far more than the rest of the high-income nations and we get much poorer outcomes. We tell ourselves it's the best health care in the world, and sure, if you're rich you can afford anything. But that goes for rich people anywhere in the world. I don't see how a state that is content with 9000 people dying a year from preventable issues (back to you, Texas!) can claim it's part of a country with the best health care in the world.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I love also how people act like premiums never, ever went up in the years prior to the ACA. Srsly?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...src=burger_bar

The real problem is that health care in the US is too expensive. We pay far more than the rest of the high-income nations and we get much poorer outcomes. We tell ourselves it's the best health care in the world, and sure, if you're rich you can afford anything. But that goes for rich people anywhere in the world. I don't see how a state that is content with 9000 people dying a year from preventable issues (back to you, Texas!) can claim it's part of a country with the best health care in the world.

texas has the most uninsured i do believe. and didn't expand medicaid. you gotta be responsible, dontchaknow.
so, listen up all you kids out there, pick better mothers! texas is counting on you.

but yeah, it does cost too much, especially when one considers the ROI. good care, bad delivery. great research and development...but only for those who can pay. it's the american way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yet people argue to their death against a plan designed to protect them and lower their costs long term. They will argue for the right to not buy insurance if they choose knowing they will never do so and knowing they will be paying for those that do. Is it brainwashing?

yeah, it kills me that the koch bros and others say to the young that 'you're better off economically to pay the fine. don't buy it'.
they say that to try to kill the plan, as they are sooooo worried that people will (gasp) like it once they get it. like social security, medicare, etc.

except.....
who will be in a car accident? changes are, younger folks (or the very old). who skateboards? rides a bike? takes countless chances on countless things? young people. now, some might be financially better off to pay the fine.

but the trick is, how do you know if it's you or not? why would people say it's responsible to have insurance, so as not to burden others...and then tell others not to buy it?