Fire the government
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2013, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2013 07:22 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 06:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Right now I set aside $1k/month for 'health care' that goes into an investment account (HSA) and is used to pay for my family's medical expenses in Mexico. If I have to give that $1k/month to Blue Cross, how am I ALSO going to spend it at my clinic in Mexico?

You ain't gotta give Blue Cross dick. You can always opt out and pay the tax. Whether that's in your best interest or not is individual.

(08-10-2013 06:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Further, to appease the drug lobbyists, Obama also tightened the rules on bringing prescription medicine over the border, so that even with a prescription from a Mexican doctor, it's still illegal to transport it. So please explain how I get passed this.

Don't sound right to me. Been buying pharmaceuticals from AllDayChemist in India for years, Customs inspected them and sent them on their way to me. 'Course I ain't buying scheduled shit. 'Cause they don't sell scheduled shit. Just got a delivery of hCG a couple weeks ago.

(08-10-2013 06:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The tax only applies _IF_ you fail to send money to a private, for-profit corporation to buy a service you may not want or need.

You ain't gotta give Blue Cross dick. You can always opt out and pay the tax. Whether that's in your best interest or not is individual.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 07:50 PM
RE: Fire the government
Quote:You ain't gotta give Blue Cross dick. You can always opt out and pay the tax. Whether that's in your best interest or not is individual.

Either way, I have to pay for my health care twice. Once to my current health care provider, and then additionally either to a health insurance company _OR_ to the IRS in the form of a 'health care tax', which will be $2,085 or 2.5% of income, whichever is GREATER. Either way, I cannot keep paying what I am now. I have to come up with EXTRA money for Obamacare, right? And so all you're saying is that if I have enough extra cash I can afford to pay for BOTH Obamacare AND my own health care, right?

Quote:The tax only applies _IF_ you fail to send money to a private, for-profit corporation to buy a service you may not want or need. When have you ever seen a tax like this before? What if the Republicans got a law passed that every American had to buy telephone service from AT&T, or else pay a tax? Would you still be defending the law and saying it's nothing new and there's plenty of precedence?

Why didn't you answer that question above? It's a fair question.

IMO you're just playing word games. Obamacare requires you to give money to private, for-profit insurance companies, OR pay a penalty (tax). Obviously, the purpose of the penalty/tax is to coerce people into giving money to the corporations. That _IS_ unprecedented. If you disagree, give me one other example where you pay a tax ONLY if you do not give money to some corporation? If you can't come with an example, will you concede that this is a new type of tax that we haven't seen before?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 07:57 PM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 07:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:You ain't gotta give Blue Cross dick. You can always opt out and pay the tax. Whether that's in your best interest or not is individual.

Either way, I have to pay for my health care twice. Once to my current health care provider, and then additionally either to a health insurance company _OR_ to the IRS in the form of a 'health care tax', which will be $2,085 or 2.5% of income, whichever is GREATER. Either way, I cannot keep paying what I am now. I have to come up with EXTRA money for Obamacare, right? And so all you're saying is that if I have enough extra cash I can afford to pay for BOTH Obamacare AND my own health care, right?

Quote:The tax only applies _IF_ you fail to send money to a private, for-profit corporation to buy a service you may not want or need. When have you ever seen a tax like this before? What if the Republicans got a law passed that every American had to buy telephone service from AT&T, or else pay a tax? Would you still be defending the law and saying it's nothing new and there's plenty of precedence?

Why didn't you answer that question above? It's a fair question.

IMO you're just playing word games. Obamacare requires you to give money to private, for-profit insurance companies, OR pay a penalty (tax). Obviously, the purpose of the penalty/tax is to coerce people into giving money to the corporations. That _IS_ unprecedented. If you disagree, give me one other example where you pay a tax ONLY if you do not give money to some corporation? If you can't come with an example, will you concede that this is a new type of tax that we haven't seen before?

No, your taxes for many services go to private enterprise. Who builds the roads? Who makes the weapons?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 08:00 PM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 07:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:You ain't gotta give Blue Cross dick. You can always opt out and pay the tax. Whether that's in your best interest or not is individual.

Either way, I have to pay for my health care twice. Once to my current health care provider, and then additionally either to a health insurance company _OR_ to the IRS in the form of a 'health care tax', which will be $2,085 or 2.5% of income, whichever is GREATER. Either way, I cannot keep paying what I am now. I have to come up with EXTRA money for Obamacare, right? And so all you're saying is that if I have enough extra cash I can afford to pay for BOTH Obamacare AND my own health care, right?

Quote:The tax only applies _IF_ you fail to send money to a private, for-profit corporation to buy a service you may not want or need. When have you ever seen a tax like this before? What if the Republicans got a law passed that every American had to buy telephone service from AT&T, or else pay a tax? Would you still be defending the law and saying it's nothing new and there's plenty of precedence?

Why didn't you answer that question above? It's a fair question.

IMO you're just playing word games. Obamacare requires you to give money to private, for-profit insurance companies, OR pay a penalty (tax). Obviously, the purpose of the penalty/tax is to coerce people into giving money to the corporations. That _IS_ unprecedented. If you disagree, give me one other example where you pay a tax ONLY if you do not give money to some corporation? If you can't come with an example, will you concede that this is a new type of tax that we haven't seen before?

Shit's here. Shit's gonna stay here for the foreseeable future. You gonna have to deal with the shit. What else you gonna do?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
08-10-2013, 08:15 PM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 08:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Shit's here. Shit's gonna stay here for the foreseeable future. You gonna have to deal with the shit. What else you gonna do?

All I'm asking for is an acknowledgement that Obamacare really is unprecedented for coercing us to buy something for a private corporation.

If you keep defending Obamacare saying that it's nothing new, and the idea of a 'tax' for refusing to give money to corporations has been accepted for a long time, then I fear we're opening this up to much further abuse. When the Republicans get in charge, they can argue that we all have to buy NRA memberships, or else pay a tax. If Cheney gets in charge, we all have to buy shit from Halliburton, or else pay a tax.

Quote:No, your taxes for many services go to private enterprise. Who builds the roads? Who makes the weapons?

No, the taxes may ultimately get paid to private sub-contractors. But that's a big difference from being forced to write a check directly to the sub-contractor. Again, I will ask the question that all Obamacare defenders keep running from... How would you feel if the next President mandated we get our phone service from one of his approved providers, or else pay a tax? Would you still defend it? If not, how's that different?

PS: Don't use the cop-out that going without phone service doesn't hurt others, I already pointed out that pre-Obamacare there was an affordable way to eliminate any moral hazard or risk to society by buying 'emergency only' insurance, and these policies are now illegal. So Obamacare is NOT about eliminating the moral hazard, it's about forcing everyone to buy a product.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 08:30 PM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 08:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:No, your taxes for many services go to private enterprise. Who builds the roads? Who makes the weapons?

No, the taxes may ultimately get paid to private sub-contractors. But that's a big difference from being forced to write a check directly to the sub-contractor. Again, I will ask the question that all Obamacare defenders keep running from... How would you feel if the next President mandated we get our phone service from one of his approved providers, or else pay a tax? Would you still defend it? If not, how's that different?

PS: Don't use the cop-out that going without phone service doesn't hurt others, I already pointed out that pre-Obamacare there was an affordable way to eliminate any moral hazard or risk to society by buying 'emergency only' insurance, and these policies are now illegal. So Obamacare is NOT about eliminating the moral hazard, it's about forcing everyone to buy a product.

Paying through to a sub-contractor or paying directly is just paying; no substantive difference.

You are seriously asking the difference between phone service and health care? That doesn't warrant a response, it's too silly.

How about the fact that the rest of the worlds civilized countries have determined that some form of national health care is desirable?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 08:46 PM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are seriously asking the difference between phone service and health care? That doesn't warrant a response, it's too silly.

How about the fact that the rest of the worlds civilized countries have determined that some form of national health care is desirable?

Why is it silly? They're both essential services. In fact many civilized countries determined that national phone service was essential for the population, even BEFORE they determined that national health care was. Most of Europe had nationalized phone service, which included taxpayer subsidized phone service to the poor to ensure that phone service was universal for everyone BEFORE they had universal health care.

And, regarding other countries, I am not aware of one other country that forces people to buy insurance from private health insurance companies, which are making a profit and are able to set their premiums themselves. The Swiss system certainly isn't like that; the "mandatory" insurance is only delivered by non profits, and the premiums are fixed. If you cannot come up with an example of another "civilized" country that has implemented such a system, then how can you possible defend Obamacare by talking about what other countries are doing, if no other countries are doing it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 09:14 PM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 08:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are seriously asking the difference between phone service and health care? That doesn't warrant a response, it's too silly.

How about the fact that the rest of the worlds civilized countries have determined that some form of national health care is desirable?

Why is it silly? They're both essential services. In fact many civilized countries determined that national phone service was essential for the population, even BEFORE they determined that national health care was. Most of Europe had nationalized phone service, which included taxpayer subsidized phone service to the poor to ensure that phone service was universal for everyone BEFORE they had universal health care.

And, regarding other countries, I am not aware of one other country that forces people to buy insurance from private health insurance companies, which are making a profit and are able to set their premiums themselves. The Swiss system certainly isn't like that; the "mandatory" insurance is only delivered by non profits, and the premiums are fixed. If you cannot come up with an example of another "civilized" country that has implemented such a system, then how can you possible defend Obamacare by talking about what other countries are doing, if no other countries are doing it?

The Swiss health care companies are not non-profits, they are for profit companies.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 09:51 PM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 08:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  All I'm asking for is an acknowledgement that Obamacare really is unprecedented for coercing us to buy something for a private corporation.

I'm gonna jump in here, and say "Federal Reserve Banks". These are, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, "...independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The shares they issue are owned by commercial banks, which receive a dividend for their ownership. Our entire fiscal system is a government initiated, for-profit enterprise. The Affordable Care Act is small potatoes by comparison... it's really just a rearrangement of how and where profits flow.

And yeah, you or I or lots of us might get screwed along the way. That's not Obama's fault, it's capitalism's fault. There is literally no other way for capitalism to go. Reward flows toward owners of capital. If benefits flow from wealthy owners to the general population, suddenly that's "socialism," i.e. an attempt at a just society, and it has to be crushed in some profitable way.

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 10:16 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2013 10:20 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Fire the government
@Chas, @Girlyman,

You both seem to be dancing around this issue. You've both argued that I can keep my current health care solution and just pay the Obamacare penalty.

But, as I explained earlier, my current $50/month high-deductible (ie emergency only) insurance policy is now illegal under Obamacare. The insurance companies are only allowed to provide full 'health management plans', and no longer can provide 'insurance' like I have to cover emergencies. So if I don't buy a full Obamacare-approved health plan, then my family won't have any coverage if there's an unexpected emergency, and it places society at risk. So all your comments about 'just pay the penalty, you don't have to give Blue Cross shit' are nonsense. I HAVE to buy a full health management plan from one of Obama's insurance benefactors, or else I lack even the basic insurance I already have. Do you agree that the 'just pay the penalty' is not an option? If so, explain how I can pay the penalty and not lose the necessary basic insurance to cover emergencies?

If you concede that this isn't possible, then the bottom line is that I _AM_ being forced to buy a new 'health management plan' from one of Obama's insurance sponsors. Therefore, you have to concede my earlier claims that, unless I can afford to pay for TWO redundant health care plans, one of which I won't use, I must:

(a) give up the doctors I currently use and who I feel give my family the best care, (b) give up the $1 million that I would have been able to pass on to my kids when I'm hold because my current health plan is so affordable and the difference is invested into a HSA, give up access to all the new, cutting edge treatments and medicines that are in other countries, but not the US, and (d) make it harder to live in another country, like Canada, because if I do, I will have to pay for BOTH the Canadian health system AND Obama's health system even though I will never use the latter.

Quote:The Swiss health care companies are not non-profits, they are for profit companies.

Healthcare in Switzerland: "They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans." I stand by my statement earlier that the mandatory insurance in Switzerland is provided without a profit, and again, ask you to name one other country that makes you buy health insurance from private, for-profit companies that set their own rates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: