health care---almost there???
#31
03-22-2010 | 09:16 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Sounds like that would have really helped your situation. Government started ABC boards to help education costs. When that wasn't enough, they instituted lotteries. Now schools are closing and teachers are being laid off. I'm sure they will do a great job with healthcare. It will be as efficient as the post office, the dmv, and social security (Which is now running on a deficit for the first time in history)
#33
03-22-2010 | 10:43 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 711
Likes: 0
From: Memphis
Its not a question of freedom but responsibility. Not every uninsured person in this world is some lazy lowlife watching daytime TV and popping out kids...oh wait they have insurance (Medicade) provided by the state.
To give an example...my mother was a Nurse's Aid (at the same place for 13 years for one small nursing home) working for low wages most of her life and for many of those years she was uninsured because her employer didn't offer coverage. My father died when I was 11 and she had to raise me. Money was tight but she provided for me. It sure would have been easier had she had good insurance. She took care of me and didn't take care of herself and she died way too young because of medical problems that most people get treated and keep under control. By the time she got coverage she had done a lot of damage to herself and those treatable issues were more problematic.
She couldn't get any insurance...made too much for medicade (never made more that $7.50/hr) and couldn't afford private coverage. Kind of sucks, huh?
Now I realize that some see this as socialism and others feel the government is being intrusive. Is the government being intrusive to say you have to have car insurance? Where is the line in the sand? Are public schools too far toward socialism? Some will say the Federal Gov't is only there for National Defense and that is it.
I just think this is something too big for states or local government to handle. Our school systems are a sign of this. There is such a disparity between local schools...some areas have great schools and others are pitiful.
The surcharge on income puts the 5.4% on earners over 500k not 50k. Most everyone except the wealthiest 5% will never be affected by this.
The tax for non compliance, which I have heard is 8 or 9% depending on who you talk to doesn't kick in until 2016. You won't be taxed this nor suffer it until then. If you barely have any money left at the end of the month, then you are likely not in the group that will be affected anyway.
Here is some of the highlights I have found.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...hts/index.html
I hope the opposition is more about issues rather than just party lines. I also hope that it is less about "I want no government" than what helps people.
To give an example...my mother was a Nurse's Aid (at the same place for 13 years for one small nursing home) working for low wages most of her life and for many of those years she was uninsured because her employer didn't offer coverage. My father died when I was 11 and she had to raise me. Money was tight but she provided for me. It sure would have been easier had she had good insurance. She took care of me and didn't take care of herself and she died way too young because of medical problems that most people get treated and keep under control. By the time she got coverage she had done a lot of damage to herself and those treatable issues were more problematic.
She couldn't get any insurance...made too much for medicade (never made more that $7.50/hr) and couldn't afford private coverage. Kind of sucks, huh?
Now I realize that some see this as socialism and others feel the government is being intrusive. Is the government being intrusive to say you have to have car insurance? Where is the line in the sand? Are public schools too far toward socialism? Some will say the Federal Gov't is only there for National Defense and that is it.
I just think this is something too big for states or local government to handle. Our school systems are a sign of this. There is such a disparity between local schools...some areas have great schools and others are pitiful.
The surcharge on income puts the 5.4% on earners over 500k not 50k. Most everyone except the wealthiest 5% will never be affected by this.
The tax for non compliance, which I have heard is 8 or 9% depending on who you talk to doesn't kick in until 2016. You won't be taxed this nor suffer it until then. If you barely have any money left at the end of the month, then you are likely not in the group that will be affected anyway.
Here is some of the highlights I have found.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...hts/index.html
I hope the opposition is more about issues rather than just party lines. I also hope that it is less about "I want no government" than what helps people.
2, Car insurance is a completely different thing. You don't have to buy a car and it is to protect the rights of the 2nd party.
3, Yes public schools are too far toward socialism. Public schools have brought this country down, not up.
4, you believe you won't be affected because only the rich will have to pay for this.... you are in for a huge surprise
#34
03-22-2010 | 10:55 PM
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,509
Likes: 6
From: Georgia on my mind...
One of those wealthy fellers who will be affected by the tax increases owns the company I work for.
While I make a lot less per year than he does, when he gets taxed more, guess who he comes after to make the difference up?
It ain't freaking Casper the Friendly Ghost.
Health secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that this fustercluck will cover more people, and will end up costing less, which is a flat out lie. Cover more, cost less, that's like tastes great, less filling.
I mean, Jesus Christ, Obama claims that they're gonna need another 16,000 jobs at the IRS to monitor and enforce this health care plan. Who do you think is gonna end up paying their salaries?
Again, those rich dudes are getting taxed more, but when those rich dudes are business owners that employ joe schmoe working stiffs like me and many other Americans, in the long run, us losers at the bottom of the ******* pole are paying for this.
While I make a lot less per year than he does, when he gets taxed more, guess who he comes after to make the difference up?
It ain't freaking Casper the Friendly Ghost.
Health secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that this fustercluck will cover more people, and will end up costing less, which is a flat out lie. Cover more, cost less, that's like tastes great, less filling.
I mean, Jesus Christ, Obama claims that they're gonna need another 16,000 jobs at the IRS to monitor and enforce this health care plan. Who do you think is gonna end up paying their salaries?
Again, those rich dudes are getting taxed more, but when those rich dudes are business owners that employ joe schmoe working stiffs like me and many other Americans, in the long run, us losers at the bottom of the ******* pole are paying for this.
#35
03-22-2010 | 11:10 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,165
Likes: 3
From: Cabot, AR
One of those wealthy fellers who will be affected by the tax increases owns the company I work for.
While I make a lot less per year than he does, when he gets taxed more, guess who he comes after to make the difference up?
It ain't freaking Casper the Friendly Ghost.
Health secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that this fustercluck will cover more people, and will end up costing less, which is a flat out lie. Cover more, cost less, that's like tastes great, less filling.
I mean, Jesus Christ, Obama claims that they're gonna need another 16,000 jobs at the IRS to monitor and enforce this health care plan. Who do you think is gonna end up paying their salaries?
Again, those rich dudes are getting taxed more, but when those rich dudes are business owners that employ joe schmoe working stiffs like me and many other Americans, in the long run, us losers at the bottom of the ******* pole are paying for this.
While I make a lot less per year than he does, when he gets taxed more, guess who he comes after to make the difference up?
It ain't freaking Casper the Friendly Ghost.
Health secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that this fustercluck will cover more people, and will end up costing less, which is a flat out lie. Cover more, cost less, that's like tastes great, less filling.
I mean, Jesus Christ, Obama claims that they're gonna need another 16,000 jobs at the IRS to monitor and enforce this health care plan. Who do you think is gonna end up paying their salaries?
Again, those rich dudes are getting taxed more, but when those rich dudes are business owners that employ joe schmoe working stiffs like me and many other Americans, in the long run, us losers at the bottom of the ******* pole are paying for this.
#36
03-23-2010 | 07:25 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
I am not naive, I am sure this will raise costs more than lower them. When compulsory auto insurance came out, it was done under the premise that since everyone is covered that premiums would go down. Of course we all know that to be false.
The reality is this is nothing more than a shell game. We all already pay for those without coverage, just now they have a better option than the emergency room.
Which is better? Some uninsured person going to the ER for a cold and running up a bill that everyone shares in paying of $2000.00 or that same person have a fully government paid bill of $150.00? In the end, the same people are paying. Why not eat the $150.00 and save the difference. Most of those people if they could have a regular doctor would go there vs the ER but the ER has to take them and the regular doctor will turn them away if they can't pay.
I am glad that many of you can buy insurance on the open market cheaper right now, but you are probably basing this on someone who is under 25 without any medical issues. Great! Lets see where you are in 10-20 years when you have a problem...God forbid it is something major. Good luck buying insurance then.
The reality is that over 10% of our nation is unemployed right now and probably don't have health insurance. Add that to the 47 million people that didn't have insurance before this all crashed and that is a scary reality. Through fear tactics, the insurance lobby has coaxed people into the idea that something that would likely help them is harmful to them.
Lets set aside the requirement that everyone have insurance. I still think it is a matter of personal responsibility but we can agree to disagree. If you are rolling without health insurance voluntarily and have a major accident or what not, are you going to leave a living will telling the doc to only save you if the bill is under X amount? We put dogs down often because of $$, should we do the same for people?
What parts of outlawing insurance companies ability to cancel a policy just because the policyholder gets sick? Things like cancer, MS, major accidents, etc are very expensive to treat.
As far as the argument that jobs will be lost...I don't buy it totally. It is the same argument against raising minimum wages. Companies are in business to make money and to make money they have to make something. Not saying they won't find ways to be more efficient but in reality they still will have to have employees and pay them regardless. Those efficiencies aren't necessary bad. Why carry someone that is dead weight?
The reality is this is nothing more than a shell game. We all already pay for those without coverage, just now they have a better option than the emergency room.
Which is better? Some uninsured person going to the ER for a cold and running up a bill that everyone shares in paying of $2000.00 or that same person have a fully government paid bill of $150.00? In the end, the same people are paying. Why not eat the $150.00 and save the difference. Most of those people if they could have a regular doctor would go there vs the ER but the ER has to take them and the regular doctor will turn them away if they can't pay.
I am glad that many of you can buy insurance on the open market cheaper right now, but you are probably basing this on someone who is under 25 without any medical issues. Great! Lets see where you are in 10-20 years when you have a problem...God forbid it is something major. Good luck buying insurance then.
The reality is that over 10% of our nation is unemployed right now and probably don't have health insurance. Add that to the 47 million people that didn't have insurance before this all crashed and that is a scary reality. Through fear tactics, the insurance lobby has coaxed people into the idea that something that would likely help them is harmful to them.
Lets set aside the requirement that everyone have insurance. I still think it is a matter of personal responsibility but we can agree to disagree. If you are rolling without health insurance voluntarily and have a major accident or what not, are you going to leave a living will telling the doc to only save you if the bill is under X amount? We put dogs down often because of $$, should we do the same for people?
What parts of outlawing insurance companies ability to cancel a policy just because the policyholder gets sick? Things like cancer, MS, major accidents, etc are very expensive to treat.
As far as the argument that jobs will be lost...I don't buy it totally. It is the same argument against raising minimum wages. Companies are in business to make money and to make money they have to make something. Not saying they won't find ways to be more efficient but in reality they still will have to have employees and pay them regardless. Those efficiencies aren't necessary bad. Why carry someone that is dead weight?
#37
03-23-2010 | 09:07 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
So to boil it all down, K-Mac, life can be unfair.
You are willing to give up your freedoms and other peoples money to the government, so they can protect us from unfairness.
NEWSFLASH - Government control will NOT take away the unfairness in life. It will just cost you freedom and money.
But, hey, at least you are not naive, lol.
You are willing to give up your freedoms and other peoples money to the government, so they can protect us from unfairness.
NEWSFLASH - Government control will NOT take away the unfairness in life. It will just cost you freedom and money.
But, hey, at least you are not naive, lol.
#39
03-23-2010 | 10:39 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
From: Washington, WV
I went to college to get an education so I could get a better job so I could have health care and benefites and it pisses me off to see more laws that say you don't have to strive to make yourself better we the gov. will take care of you. Trust me if I lost my job today I would look for something with insurance and ben. but until I found that I would work all the less paying jobs I could stand to support my family.
I also feel that everyone on congress needs to be on this plan also, screw there exemption plans they get. Get them out of here. Yes I am pissed, I am tired of my taxes going up and working my a** off to support these lazy sob's. And for the guys that say not all of them are lazy I agree but I can point out to many in my on neighbor hood that use and abuse the system, but I have a family member who can't even pay for his medications and he is bed ridden.
Rant off, sorry.
I also feel that everyone on congress needs to be on this plan also, screw there exemption plans they get. Get them out of here. Yes I am pissed, I am tired of my taxes going up and working my a** off to support these lazy sob's. And for the guys that say not all of them are lazy I agree but I can point out to many in my on neighbor hood that use and abuse the system, but I have a family member who can't even pay for his medications and he is bed ridden.
Rant off, sorry.
#40
03-23-2010 | 10:55 AM
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: Detroit, MI
After a while it gets very tiresome to keep wiping the same noses and still get up and bust your *** for what appears to be the benifit of everyone except yourself and your family.
I am all for helping folks in this country but not for an entire lifetime.
Craigsend
#41
03-23-2010 | 11:19 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 711
Likes: 0
From: Memphis
Its not a question of freedom but responsibility. Not every uninsured person in this world is some lazy lowlife watching daytime TV and popping out kids...oh wait they have insurance (Medicade) provided by the state.
To give an example...my mother was a Nurse's Aid (at the same place for 13 years for one small nursing home) working for low wages most of her life and for many of those years she was uninsured because her employer didn't offer coverage. My father died when I was 11 and she had to raise me. Money was tight but she provided for me. It sure would have been easier had she had good insurance. She took care of me and didn't take care of herself and she died way too young because of medical problems that most people get treated and keep under control. By the time she got coverage she had done a lot of damage to herself and those treatable issues were more problematic.
She couldn't get any insurance...made too much for medicade (never made more that $7.50/hr) and couldn't afford private coverage. Kind of sucks, huh?
Now I realize that some see this as socialism and others feel the government is being intrusive. Is the government being intrusive to say you have to have car insurance? Where is the line in the sand? Are public schools too far toward socialism? Some will say the Federal Gov't is only there for National Defense and that is it.
I just think this is something too big for states or local government to handle. Our school systems are a sign of this. There is such a disparity between local schools...some areas have great schools and others are pitiful.
The surcharge on income puts the 5.4% on earners over 500k not 50k. Most everyone except the wealthiest 5% will never be affected by this.
The tax for non compliance, which I have heard is 8 or 9% depending on who you talk to doesn't kick in until 2016. You won't be taxed this nor suffer it until then. If you barely have any money left at the end of the month, then you are likely not in the group that will be affected anyway.
Here is some of the highlights I have found.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...hts/index.html
I hope the opposition is more about issues rather than just party lines. I also hope that it is less about "I want no government" than what helps people.
To give an example...my mother was a Nurse's Aid (at the same place for 13 years for one small nursing home) working for low wages most of her life and for many of those years she was uninsured because her employer didn't offer coverage. My father died when I was 11 and she had to raise me. Money was tight but she provided for me. It sure would have been easier had she had good insurance. She took care of me and didn't take care of herself and she died way too young because of medical problems that most people get treated and keep under control. By the time she got coverage she had done a lot of damage to herself and those treatable issues were more problematic.
She couldn't get any insurance...made too much for medicade (never made more that $7.50/hr) and couldn't afford private coverage. Kind of sucks, huh?
Now I realize that some see this as socialism and others feel the government is being intrusive. Is the government being intrusive to say you have to have car insurance? Where is the line in the sand? Are public schools too far toward socialism? Some will say the Federal Gov't is only there for National Defense and that is it.
I just think this is something too big for states or local government to handle. Our school systems are a sign of this. There is such a disparity between local schools...some areas have great schools and others are pitiful.
The surcharge on income puts the 5.4% on earners over 500k not 50k. Most everyone except the wealthiest 5% will never be affected by this.
The tax for non compliance, which I have heard is 8 or 9% depending on who you talk to doesn't kick in until 2016. You won't be taxed this nor suffer it until then. If you barely have any money left at the end of the month, then you are likely not in the group that will be affected anyway.
Here is some of the highlights I have found.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...hts/index.html
I hope the opposition is more about issues rather than just party lines. I also hope that it is less about "I want no government" than what helps people.
So to boil it all down, K-Mac, life can be unfair.
You are willing to give up your freedoms and other peoples money to the government, so they can protect us from unfairness.
NEWSFLASH - Government control will NOT take away the unfairness in life. It will just cost you freedom and money.
But, hey, at least you are not naive, lol.
You are willing to give up your freedoms and other peoples money to the government, so they can protect us from unfairness.
NEWSFLASH - Government control will NOT take away the unfairness in life. It will just cost you freedom and money.
But, hey, at least you are not naive, lol.
Democrats think all social programs are good, they are just the opposite when you look at what they really do...
#44
03-23-2010 | 02:17 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,895
Likes: 0
From: Starkville Mississippi
