77 replies to this topic

[F3SS]

White Unicorn, on 17 December 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

IRS garnishes your paycheck before you get your paycheck unless it's under the table

Yea, I guess I wasn't really in trouble then. I'm not now either but I wouldn't hide if I was. There's no sense running from something that can probably be fixed.

[RavenHawk]

Startraveler, on 15 December 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

You mean you signed up for the insurance your company is offering;

And that is Obamacare.

Quote

"Obamacare" is not some new form of insurance.

Yes it is.  It is not the insurance I had before.

Quote

And it doesn't matter whether you enroll in your company's insurance plan or decline it, all they have to do is offer it and there's no penalty for them (which doesn't start until 2014 anyway).

If it’s just “offer” then why are companies looking at reducing their workforce to at least part time (or those just above 50 employees to cut under 50) so that they don’t have to deal with the penalty?

Quote

Higher deductibles are one of the right's favorite solutions to rising health costs. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear this.

This is neither here nor there.  Then this is one of the few Republican ideas that remained in the law.  If so then I’m sure the Republican concept was for this to work with other Republican ideas which would have made coverage less expensive, that have been thrown out.  So this isn’t really a Republican idea.  I.e. if interstate competition was included with higher deductibles then overall costs would come down.  But that’s not what is happening.

Quote

If you're over 35 (or under 35 and at risk for coronary heart disease), cholesterol checks are covered by your insurance plan without co-pays, deductibles, or cost-sharing.

Yeah, I’ve already got several calls from my insurance company asking about whether I’m at risk or not.  Well, I’m over 35 but not at risk so I can’t be pro active which *I* would consider preventative.

[RavenHawk]

ninjadude, on 15 December 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Why did you think it would be different?

I never said open enrollment would be different.

Quote

I don't have a basement, my parents have passed decades ago. I'm 53.

Then stop acting like an adolescent.  When are you going to stop quaffing the koolaid?

Quote

It is not designed to become a single payer system. That's ridiculous. And no it's not a government option. A government option would be a government insurance company. And Congress removed that provision.

It was originally designed to be.  What was designed to be can be again by regulation.  Congress removed it but regulation will act by attrition until the only thing that remains will be the government.  It is the government option because it is the law of the land.  Government controls how the participating companies will operate.

Quote

YEA!! You act as if socialism is a bad thing.

It absolutely is!!!

It is poison to human liberty.

Quote

That's possible. However, for now my companies open enrollment insurance plans have NOT changed. While health care costs have skyrocketed over the past 20 years. The people demanded these changes.

The people demanded Obamacare?  I really doubt it.  It was crammed down our throats.  The latest stat I heard was the 67% were against it.  And as you recall, all but one (??) Republican voted against it.  One would think that if the people wanted it, then it would have passed with bi-partisan support?  Doh!  Such a law with wide ranging implications should be bi-partisan.  There needs to be an amendment established to protect the people from such a travesty and make it retroactive.

[DieChecker]

smurf0852, on 16 December 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

as a brit i really dont get this .i live in a country where no matter what your income social standing or perceived social worth if you are ill you get healthcare that is free at the point of delivery.if tomorrow our goverment said they have to raise tax by 5% to keep it going i would be more than happy to pay it .so i would have less ,i wouldnt have as much of the money i had worked hard for ,but to me that is a small price to pay to make sure EVERYONE has equal access to healthcare.
everyone has a equal right to life birth right or wealth really shouldnt come into it .i realise the USA is a very diffrent nation to the UK but the hysteria i see about universal healthcare in the US is quite frankly disturbing.

I think that not so many Concervatives would be against Universal Healthcare if the people who would be running it could somehow show they have the conpetance for it. It think it is the idea that we'd see 50% of the money thrown at it just disappear into waste, fraud or corruption.

Think of the US military... is it run well? Well then know that the people running the Healthcare would not even be soldiers, or healthcare professionals... but beurocrats. Who are trying to further their own career, not help cancer or heart disease patients.

Wearer of Hats, on 16 December 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

See, that's why you lot should have signed up to universal health care when the rest of us did - decades ago.
that way, instead of worrying about costs, you can be worrying about the cavalcade of incompetence and shocking errors of judgement being made in the medical profession like the rest of us.

I read where a surprising percentage of US doctors are coming in now from India. That we somehow can't even produce enough talented doctors to fill the need. Maybe it is due to American doctors wanting to charge more, so the cheaper foreign educated doctors get more customers?? Or is it because few want to do the decade plus of school that results in 200k (or much, much more) of loans? Or, is it because everyone who gets out of high school now thinks they are going to be an million dollar Actor, Musician, Artist, Athlete or Author??

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 15 December 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

And as usual you are wrong.

As usual, you still don’t get it.

Quote

The inventor of medical, unemployment, retirement and incapability insurance is a certain National Right Winger called Otto von Bismark at the insistence of industrialists to keep and further well trained employees they needed to make Germany one of the top industrial nations in the world.

Yes, I know but just because he was a Conservative is non sequitor.  He was also an Authoritarian.  He nannyied the people with his policies.  The point is that the more government control is exhibited, the less human liberty there is.  That is what makes Democracy the same as Socialism which is the same as Communism, etc.  Obamacare is government gone wild.  It pushed control closer to 100%.  And liberty goes to 0%.  Being a top nation means nothing if there is no liberty.  For some reason you think that being the best at everything means that the government is the best.  That is just not true because liberty must be protected, not what nation has the lowest infant mortality.

Quote

It took the socialists almost  40 years (around 1900) to catch on to the concept.

Not really.  Bismark was a Socialist.  He came from Aristocracy and moved from Monarchy to an Empire with Social Democratic tendencies.

[Gromdor]

Otto von Bismark was a socialist!?

[AsteroidX]

I still wont have health care. Ill wind up getting fined. Obamacare sucks.

[smurf0852]

-Mr_Fess-, on 17 December 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

See, I like that so much better than the debacle we are about to face. I hate extra taxes but if they actually go towards something good FOR EVERYBODY that's a little different. Here, our tax handlers can't appropriate half of it properly. What's the waste factor for health system? I wouldn't believe it's 100% efficient. Do the not so well off people in your country get a pass on paying like they do here? I don't mean the unemployed, I mean people who work that don't make a lot. Or is it truly everybody who works?

It's normaly everyone in employment who pays for it via a seperate tax called national insurance this also pays for a universal old age pension .
The system can be wasteful and has a habit of wasting money by being top heavy with management but in general they do a fantastic job with the resources they are given .

[smurf0852]

-Mr_Fess-, on 17 December 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

See, I like that so much better than the debacle we are about to face. I hate extra taxes but if they actually go towards something good FOR EVERYBODY that's a little different. Here, our tax handlers can't appropriate half of it properly. What's the waste factor for health system? I wouldn't believe it's 100% efficient. Do the not so well off people in your country get a pass on paying like they do here? I don't mean the unemployed, I mean people who work that don't make a lot. Or is it truly everybody who works?

It's normaly everyone in employment who pays for it via a seperate tax called national insurance this also pays for a universal old age pension .
The system can be wasteful and has a habit of wasting money by being top heavy with management but in general they do a fantastic job with the resources they are given .

[F3SS]

DieChecker, on 17 December 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

I think that not so many Concervatives would be against Universal Healthcare if the people who would be running it could somehow show they have the conpetance for it. It think it is the idea that we'd see 50% of the money thrown at it just disappear into waste, fraud or corruption.

Think of the US military... is it run well? Well then know that the people running the Healthcare would not even be soldiers, or healthcare professionals... but beurocrats. Who are trying to further their own career, not help cancer or heart disease patients.

Die, awesome statement.
Smurf, if ever I'm not clear enough just ask Diechecker what I meant to say or what I'm going to say. He has a habit of making sense.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Gromdor, on 17 December 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Otto von Bismark was a socialist!?

Everyone who thinks "hmm, maybe we should help out the people who can't currently help themselves" are Socialists.
Like that damn commie Jesus.

[Merc14]

ninjadude, on 13 December 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

how many of those taxes affect the average person in any measurable way? dang few. This is a lot of whining about nothing.

Who do you think pays all these taxes in the end?  Every dime the government charges a business is passed directly on to the consumer.  Simple economics.

[F3SS]

Merc, businesses are supposed to eat the costs. That's the logic.

[Merc14]

-Mr_Fess-, on 17 December 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Merc, businesses are supposed to eat the costs. That's the logic.

I know that is what the democrats believe or at least preach to the idiot masses that worship them but we all know te reality of this coming nightmare.

[F3SS]

Merc14, on 17 December 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

I know that is what the democrats believe or at least preach to the idiot masses that worship them but we all know te reality of this coming nightmare.

A few weeks back there was a thread here about Walmart and unions trying to interfere and fight for $13 standard wages for all employees. Currently it's $8+. Anyhow, without modesty I'd like to say I owned that thread with logic, math and basic business economics with a touch of common sense. In every way I could figure those wages would necessitate prices for things at Walmart by nearly double. I don't need to tell you all the pros and cons of that. So, last week I was bs'n with one of my best friends of 25 years who I've come to find recently that he's pretty much a liberal which I haven't taken too well. He's never been into politics much before recently and I always figured we saw eye to eye but things were blown wide open this election year. So, the Walmart subject came up some how. We argued and I sent him the link to the thread since I am better at debating through type than through speech. After all the evidence I supplied, the math the logic ect; he ended the argument which we continued through text message, yes we need a life, with 'whatever, they're greedy sobs who need to give back to the employees and screw their profits.' His favorite documentaries are produced by Michael Moore.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 18 December 2012 - 12:08 AM.