phillybear 365 Posted June 28, 2012 I don't recall the federal government advocating the return of debtor's prisons. If you don't pay such wonderful items like student loans, whatever the hell the IRS tells you to pay, or child support even though you've been unemployed forever, your ass will be in jail. Is Wesley still in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,967 Posted June 28, 2012 The vast majority of America opposes Obamacare, so I agree this could be a rallying point for Reps. Also, the Supreme Court just ruled that Obama has increased taxes on every American. Another broken promise confirmed. :lol: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,430 Posted June 28, 2012 How do you think that the health care reform will be paid for? With our taxes, correct? So instead of paying roughly 25% of my income in taxes, it will be 50%. At least, from what I have read (here and otherwise) this is how I understand it will work. You should probably stop reading those sources, because they are flat wrong. Try thinking critically for once. You'll be surprised at what it can do for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted June 28, 2012 If you don't pay such wonderful items like student loans, whatever the hell the IRS tells you to pay, or child support even though you've been unemployed forever, your ass will be in jail. Is Wesley still in? In each of these instances, you have the ability to negotiate a payment plan without going to jail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,430 Posted June 28, 2012 My understanding of the Act is that if you are poor and cannot afford coverage, you can demonstrate your poverty to the Gov and be exempted from the individual mandate (compulsion to obtain insurance or pay the penalty), but you will still have access to healthcare. This seems not to change a whole lot for many Americans who are poor; they still get healthcare, while not paying. You, on the other hand, don't have that out. The costs shifted at least in part from Gov to you and others that can afford coverage. You can bet that taxes levied on health insurance providers will also be passed on to you. The bolded part is where you are wrong. They get health INSURANCE now, meaning that they can go to the doctor when something is wrong and not have to wait until it requires a (much more expensive) hospital visit. This should bring down healthcare costs for everyone because you'll no longer have that burden on the system. Other than that, your post is surprisingly accurate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BLS 313 Posted June 28, 2012 I don't recall the federal government advocating the return of debtor's prisons. Ever hear of Ed and Elaine Brown? They're both serving sentences for income tax evasion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,430 Posted June 28, 2012 In her defense, this ruling sets an enormous precedent. The US Federal Government can now FORCE you to purchase a product or be 'taxed' if you don't comply. Don't pay your tax? Lose your home, car, assets, retirement, bank accounts, etc. Don't have the money or hid your money? You go to jail. I'd say that the sky ain't looking stable. This is a legitimate philosophical concern with the Court's ruling. And believe it or not, I share your concern to an extent. I think the Court made the right ruling today but I'd be damned fool if I didn't admit that there were heavy and possibly bad implications from the Court's ruling. What TNG is saying...is just factually incorrect. She sounds like one of those raving loons who calls into right-wing radio shows and rants incoherently for an hour about how Obama has ruined her life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted June 28, 2012 The bolded part is where you are wrong. They get health INSURANCE now, meaning that they can go to the doctor when something is wrong and not have to wait until it requires a (much more expensive) hospital visit. This should bring down healthcare costs for everyone because you'll no longer have that burden on the system. Other than that, your post is surprisingly accurate. Pharma wins... now all these people will be hopped up on ADHD pills, depression pills (remember being on the public dole was declared demeaning) etc..etc...etc... You are also crazy to believe that lifelong care is cheaper than catastrophic care... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redtodd 7 Posted June 28, 2012 I wonder how the markets (DOW) will react today? Dow is down 146 so far. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,430 Posted June 28, 2012 Pharma wins... now all these people will be hopped up on ADHD pills, depression pills (remember being on the public dole was declared demeaning) etc..etc...etc... You are also crazy to believe that lifelong care is cheaper than catastrophic care... Preventive care is much cheaper than emergency room care. Let me put it to you this way: say you have an infected tooth. You can go to the doctor, get some antibiotics, and maybe that solves the problem for a couple hundred bucks. Or if you can't afford that and don't go to the doctor, maybe the infection spreads, then your damn near about to die, you go to the ER and spend days or even weeks in the hospital getting treated for a life-threatening condition...that could potentially cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. See how one is much cheaper than the other? But, FYI, I do agree with you on Big Pharma. I think it's a g0ddamn tragedy how we think pills are the answer to everything today. It's a Brave New World indeed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casual Observer 597 Posted June 28, 2012 The bolded part is where you are wrong. They get health INSURANCE now, meaning that they can go to the doctor when something is wrong and not have to wait until it requires a (much more expensive) hospital visit. This should bring down healthcare costs for everyone because you'll no longer have that burden on the system. Other than that, your post is surprisingly accurate. It's right on. The poor get the same access to health care that they don't pay for. That cost is shifted from the Gov directly to the people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,430 Posted June 28, 2012 It's right on. The poor get the same access to health care that they don't pay for. That cost is shifted from the Gov directly to the people. No, no, no. You're wrong. Flat out wrong. Let me start with the first premise of your post: that poor people will have the same healthcare. That's not true. The way the system works right now is, if you don't have health insurance and can't afford to pay out of pocket, you probably can't go to the doctor. But once your condition gets so bad that it has become an emergency situation, you can go to the ER and get treated regardless of whether you can pay. That's because the ER cannot turn you away by law or in accordance with the Hippocratic oath. But guess who pays for these free ER visits by the poor? YOU DO! Already! You are already paying for their healthcare. Your premiums are higher to account for the burden on the system of these people who go to the ER and can't afford to pay. Get that in to your head. So now we're going to have a different system. These people will have regular healthcare coverage now. It won't be elite coverage but it what it WILL do is allow these people to go to the doctor WHEN THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. They can get treated for that issue and hopefully cured, just like everyone else. What does that mean? It means that we will see much fewer super-expensive hospital visits that people can't pay for. Which should, in theory, reduce YOUR premiums. Is this all starting to make sense now? Anyway, that brings me to the second point of your post: the expense is not really shifted from the government to the uninsured. You were already paying for this problem through higher premiums. Sure there were some people out there who didn't have health insurance at all (despite being able to afford it), so they weren't paying for this collective problem. Now they will be. I suppose you could say that's unfair, but what it will do is bring down premiums for everyone. Because you now have more people sharing the burden of the uninsured, and the uninsured will now, in fact, be insured so they can seek preventive care and reduce the overall cost on the system. Frankly I'd rather have single payer health care than this complicated system, but you guys wanted a market driven solution. Well you got it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted June 28, 2012 Frankly I'd rather have single payer health care than this complicated system, ditto I went home for lunch and watched Marco Rubio make a complete ass of himself on CNN. The first thing he said was something like, "I just want to be clear that all today's ruling means is that Obamacare is constitutional, not that it's a good idea." Then he blathered on an on about now everyone was going to have an "IRS problem" because of the ruling, and that Obummer had broken his promise not to raise taxes. Dumb Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 365 Posted June 28, 2012 No, no, no. You're wrong. Flat out wrong. Let me start with the first premise of your post: that poor people will have the same healthcare. That's not true. The way the system works right now is, if you don't have health insurance and can't afford to pay out of pocket, you probably can't go to the doctor. But once your condition gets so bad that it has become an emergency situation, you can go to the ER and get treated regardless of whether you can pay. That's because the ER cannot turn you away by law or in accordance with the Hippocratic oath. But guess who pays for these free ER visits by the poor? YOU DO! Already! You are already paying for their healthcare. Your premiums are higher to account for the burden on the system of these people who go to the ER and can't afford to pay. Get that in to your head. So now we're going to have a different system. These people will have regular healthcare coverage now. It won't be elite coverage but it what it WILL do is allow these people to go to the doctor WHEN THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. They can get treated for that issue and hopefully cured, just like everyone else. What does that mean? It means that we will see much fewer super-expensive hospital visits that people can't pay for. Which should, in theory, reduce YOUR premiums. Is this all starting to make sense now? Anyway, that brings me to the second point of your post: the expense is not really shifted from the government to the uninsured. You were already paying for this problem through higher premiums. Sure there were some people out there who didn't have health insurance at all (despite being able to afford it), so they weren't paying for this collective problem. Now they will be. I suppose you could say that's unfair, but what it will do is bring down premiums for everyone. Because you now have more people sharing the burden of the uninsured, and the uninsured will now, in fact, be insured so they can seek preventive care and reduce the overall cost on the system. Frankly I'd rather have single payer health care than this complicated system, but you guys wanted a market driven solution. Well you got it. If government gets involved in anything, the prices skyrocket. Every time. People with regular health care now are assh0les who go to the doctor for every boo boo. You can't get appointments when you need them because the few remaining doctors who didn't get run off my malpractice insurance and bullsh!t lawsuits are booked solid for months. Now, add a jillion more chiselers into the system, and everybody's health insurance isn't just going to be more expensive, with health insurance companies with a license to print money and plenty of government waste and patronage to around, but health converage overall will suck wet, onion flavored, hairy ball sack. Now, it THAT starting to make sense. Then you have the government with a mandate to go ahead and force people to spend money on stuff they don't want. On the heels of not allowing you to buy legal products or restricting them: guns, smoking, salt, trans fat, soda, popcorn, etc. It's a ball rolling down a hill with increasing momentum. Freedom is just a fading memory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BudBro 123 Posted June 28, 2012 No, no, no. You're wrong. Flat out wrong. Let me start with the first premise of your post: that poor people will have the same healthcare. That's not true. The way the system works right now is, if you don't have health insurance and can't afford to pay out of pocket, you probably can't go to the doctor. But once your condition gets so bad that it has become an emergency situation, you can go to the ER and get treated regardless of whether you can pay. That's because the ER cannot turn you away by law or in accordance with the Hippocratic oath. But guess who pays for these free ER visits by the poor? YOU DO! Already! You are already paying for their healthcare. Your premiums are higher to account for the burden on the system of these people who go to the ER and can't afford to pay. Get that in to your head. So now we're going to have a different system. These people will have regular healthcare coverage now. It won't be elite coverage but it what it WILL do is allow these people to go to the doctor WHEN THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. They can get treated for that issue and hopefully cured, just like everyone else. What does that mean? It means that we will see much fewer super-expensive hospital visits that people can't pay for. Which should, in theory, reduce YOUR premiums. Is this all starting to make sense now? Anyway, that brings me to the second point of your post: the expense is not really shifted from the government to the uninsured. You were already paying for this problem through higher premiums. Sure there were some people out there who didn't have health insurance at all (despite being able to afford it), so they weren't paying for this collective problem. Now they will be. I suppose you could say that's unfair, but what it will do is bring down premiums for everyone. Because you now have more people sharing the burden of the uninsured, and the uninsured will now, in fact, be insured so they can seek preventive care and reduce the overall cost on the system. Frankly I'd rather have single payer health care than this complicated system, but you guys wanted a market driven solution. Well you got it. as happened in canada, doctors and hospitals will receive less money for the approved services. so, doctors that are established will help patients who can pay with cash or private insurance and will choose not to receive new "govt" patients or insurance products based upon reduced payments. or, they will leave the industry as also happened in canada. quality of care and service will be further reduced. is this all starting to make sense now? there will still be those who don't pay, just as there are now? so, it's not a mandate on all people. just the middle class because the wealthy will keep the good insurance plans. the medicaid part was struck down meaning states don't have to pick up the bill on poor people, so they will just get passed along to the middle class that is required to conform to the new tax. is this all starting to make sense now? employers will begin to drop employer plans and pass the bill on to the workers without increase their pay. that's a wage reduction in addition to the new obama tax. is this all starting to make sense now? your utopian view of "everybody gets free healthcare" is demented at best. medicare part a and b have both increased substantially over the past few years on older americans. the same system is basically going into place for those under 65. govt is a consumer, not a producer. as with tsa and every other program the govt has taken over, this will be a failure of greece, italy, and spain proportions. is this all starting to make sense now? the best news from this is that americans have a new, blatant tax that will forever be separated from all the new taxes about to be added after the election. we can forever and always associate healthcare with democrats raising our taxes with the help of a corrupt democrat supreme court. the court has jumped the shark. they share the same status as NBA referees. nothing they say or do can be taken seriously from here forward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,066 Posted June 28, 2012 employers will begin to drop employer plans and pass the bill on to the workers without increase their pay. that's a wage reduction in addition to the new obama tax. This, and adding those folks to be on the govt plan is THE plan and has been all along. The more people that are dependent on the govt and its services, well... I do think it's scary that the govt can now force us to buy ANYTHING and call it a tax. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BudBro 123 Posted June 28, 2012 This, and adding those folks to be on the govt plan is THE plan and has been all along. The more people that are dependent on the govt and its services, well... I do think it's scary that the govt can now force us to buy ANYTHING and call it a tax. mr. romney thanks you for your vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted June 28, 2012 Summary of tax increases: Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion - Check, wealth distributionAnnual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion - Check, passed on to consumers40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion - Check, wealth distributionImpose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion - Check, passed on to consumersImpose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion - Check, passed on to consumersRaise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion - Check, wealth distributionLimit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion - Check, wealth distribution All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion - TAXES? Original budget estimates included a provision to require information reporting on payments to corporations, which had been projected to raise $17 billion, but the provision was repealed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,430 Posted June 28, 2012 mr. romney thanks you for your vote. Romney campaigned on an individual mandate in the '08 primary. He is not your hero. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted June 28, 2012 Ever hear of Ed and Elaine Brown? They're both serving sentences for income tax evasion. There's a difference between being unable to pay your income taxes and willingly not paying them. And refusing to surrender to authorities after being convicted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,066 Posted June 28, 2012 mr. romney thanks you for your vote. I will most likely vote third party, but thanks for the assumption. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted June 28, 2012 I will most likely vote third party, but thanks for the assumption. I'm on you side here - Can you post another pic of yourself. The one I tried to look at in a previous link is disabled. TIA - **********Back to topic at hand************* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,066 Posted June 28, 2012 I'm on you side here - Can you post another pic of yourself. The one I tried to look at in a previous link is disabled. TIA - **********Back to topic at hand************* What does what I look like have to do with anything? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted June 28, 2012 I wonder if this thread will go on as long as the hyperinflation thread. Lots of dire predictions in both. We'll have to make sure Voltaire regularly bumps this one, too. "Six months into Obamacare, still nobody's federal taxes have risen from 25% to 50%." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,143 Posted June 28, 2012 What does what I look like have to do with anything? If you are hot, it's a lot easier to put up with your nonsense. (I'm just joking) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,430 Posted June 28, 2012 What does what I look like have to do with anything? Yay, I love it when b!tchy TNG rears her head!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted June 28, 2012 If you are hot, it's a lot easier to put up with your nonsense. (I'm just joking) I'd have to see at least a t!tty pic for that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 1,955 Posted June 28, 2012 Death panells are.coming to a hospital near you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted June 28, 2012 Death panells are.coming to a hospital near you. BunnysBastatrds =Sarah Palin? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bishop82 61 Posted June 28, 2012 Bump.... For the over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted June 28, 2012 What does what I look like have to do with anything? Not a damn thing. Was just curious. If you don't want to, that's A-ok. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,066 Posted June 28, 2012 Not a damn thing. Was just curious. If you don't want to, that's A-ok. There is one from May 2012 in the Geek Pic thread. It's working ok for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 1,955 Posted June 28, 2012 BunnysBastatrds =Sarah Palin? If you don't believe that there will be panels deciding the fates of sick people who are a drain on the system you do not undestand everything in the bill. Twenty years from now when I need a liver transplant, I guranfawkingtee I won't get it because of the lifestyle I've led and the costs associated. People over 65 are a drain on the system. You can't deny that. Decisions will have to be made about who to treat and who not to. And they will be called death panels. I would fawk Palins brains out but it looks like somebody else did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casual Observer 597 Posted June 28, 2012 No, no, no. You're wrong. Flat out wrong. Let me start with the first premise of your post: that poor people will have the same healthcare. That's not true. The way the system works right now is, if you don't have health insurance and can't afford to pay out of pocket, you probably can't go to the doctor. But once your condition gets so bad that it has become an emergency situation, you can go to the ER and get treated regardless of whether you can pay. That's because the ER cannot turn you away by law or in accordance with the Hippocratic oath. But guess who pays for these free ER visits by the poor? YOU DO! Already! You are already paying for their healthcare. Your premiums are higher to account for the burden on the system of these people who go to the ER and can't afford to pay. Get that in to your head. So now we're going to have a different system. These people will have regular healthcare coverage now. It won't be elite coverage but it what it WILL do is allow these people to go to the doctor WHEN THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. They can get treated for that issue and hopefully cured, just like everyone else. What does that mean? It means that we will see much fewer super-expensive hospital visits that people can't pay for. Which should, in theory, reduce YOUR premiums. Is this all starting to make sense now? Anyway, that brings me to the second point of your post: the expense is not really shifted from the government to the uninsured. You were already paying for this problem through higher premiums. Sure there were some people out there who didn't have health insurance at all (despite being able to afford it), so they weren't paying for this collective problem. Now they will be. I suppose you could say that's unfair, but what it will do is bring down premiums for everyone. Because you now have more people sharing the burden of the uninsured, and the uninsured will now, in fact, be insured so they can seek preventive care and reduce the overall cost on the system. Frankly I'd rather have single payer health care than this complicated system, but you guys wanted a market driven solution. Well you got it. Worms, really, you've premised a conclusion that you are absolutely certain about on a fact that you simultaneously admit is a theory. I need read no further. However, the best I read your argument is that the poor, through insurance that they don't pay for, will now be covered for preventative care, which, in turn, should decrease (unnecessary) hospital visits, which in turn, should drive down the cost of hospital visits for those that actually need to go to the hospital to be treated and, even further, drive down the cost of associated health care premiums. I think this breaks down because the outrageous costs we hear about hospitals charging are largely attributed to providing care for those who have no coverage/money and cannot pay. In effect, the cost of non-payers was already shifted to payers. Now those costs, as I've said, are shifted to private individuals who are mandated to have coverage or pay the penalty directly through their insurers or payment to the Gov. Moreover, it seems you cannot completely avoid the quality of a condition or injury and the care needed to treat it. If a person needs surgery, which can only be performed in a hospital, it must still require hospitalization for some period and the associated cost. Here agin, the cost is shifted to indivduals who provided the poor with health insurance coverage. It seems that the only way adding more users and spreading risk, costs and lowering associated premiums amongst those users, is if the newly-added users consume much less in terms of services in relation to the premiums charged for their coverage. As we know, this cannot necessarily be true based on the quality of an injury/condition. I think we must see a rise in premiums because of the costs associated with adding new users, if we haven't already seen that in advance of covering adult children to age 26 and the pre-exisiting condition coverage and use that as a model to make a reasonable prediction as to an increase in premiums. As I hinted at in an earlier post, I think this would be devastating to the presently-covered person who has coverage through their employer where the employer decides it is economically better to drop coverage for employees and pay the fine. Note also the number of presently-covered people who pay a portion of their health insurance premiums through work. Their bill is going to go up too. All this and I bet that the taxes you've paid, State and Federal, and will continue to pay, in one form or another, to support medical programs for the poor are not going to be reduced, while now footing the bill for new insureds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted June 28, 2012 If you don't believe that there will be panels deciding the fates of sick people who are a drain on the system you do not undestand everything in the bill. Twenty years from now when I need a liver transplant, I guranfawkingtee I won't get it because of the lifestyle I've led and the costs associated. People over 65 are a drain on the system. You can't deny that. Decisions will have to be made about who to treat and who not to. And they will be called death panels. I would fawk Palins brains out but it looks like somebody else did. Obviously you don't understand it because everyone has discredited this claim except for ultra right wingers and Sarah Palin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BudBro 123 Posted June 28, 2012 Romney campaigned on an individual mandate in the '08 primary. He is not your hero. you are correct. he is not my hero. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BudBro 123 Posted June 28, 2012 i agree with newbie. how is mitt romney different than obama on the healthcare issue? he's probably not different than obama on healthcare. he's different in that he's successful as a business man and has actually worked in the real world. and this will be a nice springboard for americans who are gonna be mad at having a mandated, new, separate tax they didn't approve that was done with lies and deception. so, it makes obama and pelosi and reid look even more evil to regular americans and maybe it will make them decide it's time to vote him out. people that actually pay taxes don't like new taxes and more bloated govt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted June 28, 2012 If you don't believe that there will be panels deciding the fates of sick people who are a drain on the system you do not undestand everything in the bill. You aren't actually claiming to understand everything in this bill are you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 365 Posted June 28, 2012 You aren't actually claiming to understand everything in this bill are you? How many licks does it take to get to the center of the Health Care Tax Bill? One. Two. Trreeee. The world may never know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted June 28, 2012 While I'm not thrilled with this bill by any means, it is a baby step in the right direction. Hopefully, someday we will have true universal health care like most civilized countries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
