Fire the government
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2013, 11:37 PM
RE: Fire the government
Chas and Girlyman, you are papering over frankksj's point that Obamacare is a new kind of tax that is unprecedented. That's one of the reasons the Supreme Court heard the case.

Despite the Democrat's insistence that this was not the tax, they used the reconciliation process to pass Obamacare in the Senate. This reconciliation process allows the Senate to pass any purely budgetary bill with just a simple majority--basically bypassing and shutting out the opposition. Any wonder this law is still contentious?

This means that Obamacare can be repealed in the same manner, and any similar legislation can be passed in the same way. The Republican version of passing similar laws, possibilities that Democrats seem willfully ignorant of, goes like this:
--abolish social security by making payroll taxes only obligatory where citizens do not open and fund brokerage accounts
--repeal Medicare, unemployment benefits, and any welfare assistance programs. replace all of these with a requirement that all citizens must buy life insurance and disability/income insurance products on the private market.
--require that all citizens tithe to their church, or government approved welfare organization. This, together with private insurance programs in the previous point would entirely replace the welfare state programs the Dems love so much.


All of the above is now possible because of Obamacare, and in particular because it has been determined that we can tax inactivity and pass it without any involvement from the minority in government. The first bullet point on social security is the GOP plan in a nutshell during the Bush years. The second point would be close to what the GOP would want to privatize Medicare. The third point is pretty much Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' whereby he provided for religious welfare organizations being able to get government funding. If the GOP had only been more like the Dems, they would have passed the above points without any support from the Dems, but they didn't do that. Don't count on it the next time the GOP is in power. The way Obamacare has passed now means that the GOP can dismantle the entire welfare state, from the New Deal to the Great Society to Obamacare, without a single Democrat's support.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:47 AM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 10:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
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.

They are required by law to offer one product, the no-frills basic package, at no profit.

They are not non-profit companies, which is what you stated.

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
09-10-2013, 08:26 AM
RE: Fire the government
@Chas,

Your last post is playing word games to dodge the issue. You keep justifying Obamacare based on what other civilized countries do, and I keep asking you to name me one other country that forces it's people to buy health management plans from for-profit corporations that make a profit on those plans and can set their own rates. I'm still waiting....

I'm also waiting for you either you or @Girlyman to respond to my 4 claims, which I state AGAIN below. Girlyman responded that my claims were invalid because I could simply pay an additional Obamacare tax penalty and keep my plans. You 'liked' his reply. But you both are ignoring the fact that the high-deductible plan I already had which covered emergencies and addressed the moral hazard, is now illegal, and the only way to not be left totally exposed, and not to expose society to a potential burden, IS to buy a full health management plan from one of Obama's approved companies. You both keep refusing to address this. So, again, I made 4 claims. I still maintain those claims are correct. If I am wrong, fine, point out how I can keep my current plan. If I am right, then why are we bickering about this? Why not just acknowledge that these 4 claims are valid?

In which case the debate would shift from you guys denying these obviously factual claims, to instead debating whether this is a denial of liberty, which is what prompted the claims in the first place.

My claims is I must:
1. give up the doctors I currently use and who I feel give my family the best care,
2. 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
3. give up access to all the new, cutting edge treatments and medicines that are in other countries, but not the US
4. 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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 08:32 AM
RE: Fire the government
(09-10-2013 08:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  forces it's people to buy health management plans from for-profit corporations that make a profit on those plans and can set their own rates. I'm still waiting....

Wait no longer, then.
There are many many "not-for-profit" health insurance companies in the US.
In some states, "for profits" are against the law.
Kaiser Permanenete is NP, as are all the Blue Cross companies in their system.
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/health-i...ermanente/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 08:37 AM
RE: Fire the government
(09-10-2013 08:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @Chas,

Your last post is playing word games to dodge the issue. You keep justifying Obamacare based on what other civilized countries do, and I keep asking you to name me one other country that forces it's people to buy health management plans from for-profit corporations that make a profit on those plans and can set their own rates. I'm still waiting....

I'm also waiting for you either you or @Girlyman to respond to my 4 claims, which I state AGAIN below. Girlyman responded that my claims were invalid because I could simply pay an additional Obamacare tax penalty and keep my plans. You 'liked' his reply. But you both are ignoring the fact that the high-deductible plan I already had which covered emergencies and addressed the moral hazard, is now illegal, and the only way to not be left totally exposed, and not to expose society to a potential burden, IS to buy a full health management plan from one of Obama's approved companies. You both keep refusing to address this. So, again, I made 4 claims. I still maintain those claims are correct. If I am wrong, fine, point out how I can keep my current plan. If I am right, then why are we bickering about this? Why not just acknowledge that these 4 claims are valid?

In which case the debate would shift from you guys denying these obviously factual claims, to instead debating whether this is a denial of liberty, which is what prompted the claims in the first place.

My claims is I must:
1. give up the doctors I currently use and who I feel give my family the best care,
2. 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
3. give up access to all the new, cutting edge treatments and medicines that are in other countries, but not the US
4. 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.

Are you against having federally-mandated health insurance in the U.S. or are you just specifically against the Affordable Care Act?

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
09-10-2013, 09:52 AM
RE: Fire the government
(09-10-2013 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you against having federally-mandated health insurance in the U.S. or are you just specifically against the Affordable Care Act?

Even though you're dodging my last questions and changing the subject by asking a new question, I will answer your new question anyway. However, you should have the common courtesy of answering the question I posed to you again in my last post. Do you acknowledge my 4 claims are valid?

To answer your question, the ACA is exceptionally egregious, and unlike anything any civilized country has done, because it applies to Americans even if they live primarily in other countries and have health care in other countries. This is the same issue as the way the US is the only country in the world that taxes based on citizenship--not residency. This goes back to our debate earlier about the American liberals' bizarre definition of 'social contract'. Other countries define social contract as a voluntary arrangement, but American liberals consider the contact enacted at birth, and binding to death, forcing every person to comply with obligations throughout his life, such as paying US taxes and NOW buying US health care, with no viable means of escape (since going stateless is not a viable option). The American liberals definition of 'social contract' is actually identical to the definition of 'debt peonage' or 'bonded slavery'. The ACA reflects that perverse, uniquely American definition by saying that even American expats who have health care in other countries STILL must buy insurance they'll never need from US corporations.

The second thing about the ACA that is egregious is that, despite what the Supreme Court said, it really is a violation of the rule of law. From the beginning Obama said that the 'individual mandate' was NOT a tax, but rather a mandate to buy insurance. This clearly violates the US Constitution because the federal government is not allowed to stray beyond a list of enumerated powers--health care is not one of them. Even the Supreme Court conceded it is unconstitutional to have such a 'mandate'. So Obama's legal team switched gears and started saying 'it's not a mandate, it's a tax'. The Supreme Court accepted this switch, however, nothing changed. The law is still the same. They only gave it a name change from 'individual mandate' to 'tax'. But that's silly word games. Changing the name doesn't change what it is--it still is a mandate. And the Supreme Court, imo, showed gross negligence by not even factoring in the fact that the ACA makes it illegal to offer true health insurance (ie insurance that covers catastrophic events). That is NOT a tax. And it's NOT one of the enumerated powers. By the Supreme Court's own logic it must be unconstitutional, and yet they didn't even consider it.

As far as what I would like to see instead... As a classic liberal (libertarian), of course I want all people to have access to health care. And I want those who have more to foot the bill of providing care to the poor. But, since classic liberalism is all about respecting free will, I would like to see it accomplished voluntarily, through charity, like we used to have before the government got involved. However, I accept that this isn't viable since the government has shut down those thousands of charity hospitals that used to ensure every poor person was given quality care. Therefore, if the government were to pull out, there would be a vacuum and the poor wouldn't be able to get care anymore.

So, sadly, I do think that because government destroyed the 'safety net' for the poor by kill charity, I agree the government has to do something to replace it. But, if we follow the rule of law, this MUST be done at the State level--not the Federal level. This would also result in a much better outcome because you'd never get a law like Obamacare that is neither left nor right, but rather a massive transfer of wealth from the people to corporations. If Obama focused on working with the 50 governors to get 50 different solutions that reflected the will of those societies, he probably could have gotten a true, single-payer health system in the predominately Democrat states. And if it worked out well, that would have put pressure on the other states. Either way, with 50 different competing solutions, the best ones would rise to the top. By doing it at the national level where there's such partisan bickering and gridlock, and it's under the absolute control of lobbyists, and far removed from the public eye, we're stuck with a piece of shit law that, imo, is total trainwreck for everyone but the insurance companies. You've said your premiums haven't changed. But just wait 5 years. It's unimaginable that once the firestorm over Obamacare dies down and the public has resigned itself to it, the insurance companies will certainly use this new, unprecedented power to line their pockets and you WILL end up paying dearly for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: Fire the government
(09-10-2013 08:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Kaiser Permanenete is NP, as are all the Blue Cross companies in their system.

With CEO compensation of $7.7 million, that's debatable.

From HuffPost:

"Kaiser reported a net income of $921 million for the first quarter of 2011. Last month the non-profit announced it would be raising premium rates by about 11 percent... 'If the organization is making a lot of money, if the executives are making a lot of money, then why do they want to take away so much?'"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 10:01 AM
RE: Fire the government
(09-10-2013 09:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you against having federally-mandated health insurance in the U.S. or are you just specifically against the Affordable Care Act?

Even though you're dodging my last questions and changing the subject by asking a new question, I will answer your new question anyway. However, you should have the common courtesy of answering the question I posed to you again in my last post. Do you acknowledge my 4 claims are valid?

To answer your question, the ACA is exceptionally egregious, and unlike anything any civilized country has done, because it applies to Americans even if they live primarily in other countries and have health care in other countries. This is the same issue as the way the US is the only country in the world that taxes based on citizenship--not residency. This goes back to our debate earlier about the American liberals' bizarre definition of 'social contract'. Other countries define social contract as a voluntary arrangement, but American liberals consider the contact enacted at birth, and binding to death, forcing every person to comply with obligations throughout his life, such as paying US taxes and NOW buying US health care, with no viable means of escape (since going stateless is not a viable option). The American liberals definition of 'social contract' is actually identical to the definition of 'debt peonage' or 'bonded slavery'. The ACA reflects that perverse, uniquely American definition by saying that even American expats who have health care in other countries STILL must buy insurance they'll never need from US corporations.

The second thing about the ACA that is egregious is that, despite what the Supreme Court said, it really is a violation of the rule of law. From the beginning Obama said that the 'individual mandate' was NOT a tax, but rather a mandate to buy insurance. This clearly violates the US Constitution because the federal government is not allowed to stray beyond a list of enumerated powers--health care is not one of them. Even the Supreme Court conceded it is unconstitutional to have such a 'mandate'. So Obama's legal team switched gears and started saying 'it's not a mandate, it's a tax'. The Supreme Court accepted this switch, however, nothing changed. The law is still the same. They only gave it a name change from 'individual mandate' to 'tax'. But that's silly word games. Changing the name doesn't change what it is--it still is a mandate. And the Supreme Court, imo, showed gross negligence by not even factoring in the fact that the ACA makes it illegal to offer true health insurance (ie insurance that covers catastrophic events). That is NOT a tax. And it's NOT one of the enumerated powers. By the Supreme Court's own logic it must be unconstitutional, and yet they didn't even consider it.

As far as what I would like to see instead... As a classic liberal (libertarian), of course I want all people to have access to health care. And I want those who have more to foot the bill of providing care to the poor. But, since classic liberalism is all about respecting free will, I would like to see it accomplished voluntarily, through charity, like we used to have before the government got involved. However, I accept that this isn't viable since the government has shut down those thousands of charity hospitals that used to ensure every poor person was given quality care. Therefore, if the government were to pull out, there would be a vacuum and the poor wouldn't be able to get care anymore.

So, sadly, I do think that because government destroyed the 'safety net' for the poor by kill charity, I agree the government has to do something to replace it. But, if we follow the rule of law, this MUST be done at the State level--not the Federal level. This would also result in a much better outcome because you'd never get a law like Obamacare that is neither left nor right, but rather a massive transfer of wealth from the people to corporations. If Obama focused on working with the 50 governors to get 50 different solutions that reflected the will of those societies, he probably could have gotten a true, single-payer health system in the predominately Democrat states. And if it worked out well, that would have put pressure on the other states. Either way, with 50 different competing solutions, the best ones would rise to the top. By doing it at the national level where there's such partisan bickering and gridlock, and it's under the absolute control of lobbyists, and far removed from the public eye, we're stuck with a piece of shit law that, imo, is total trainwreck for everyone but the insurance companies. You've said your premiums haven't changed. But just wait 5 years. It's unimaginable that once the firestorm over Obamacare dies down and the public has resigned itself to it, the insurance companies will certainly use this new, unprecedented power to line their pockets and you WILL end up paying dearly for it.

I'm not actually dodging or deflecting, I am trying to simplify to what you are objecting to.

If I can simplify your answer, it comes down to two sets of objections:
  • The provisions of the ACA as they are unreasonable and unfair, and
  • The assertion that this should not be federally mandated on Constituional grounds.

Is that a fair summary?

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
09-10-2013, 10:28 AM
RE: Fire the government
(09-10-2013 08:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm also waiting for you either you or @Girlyman to respond to my 4 claims, which I state AGAIN below.

Already did.

(09-10-2013 08:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But you both are ignoring the fact that the high-deductible plan I already had which covered emergencies and addressed the moral hazard, is now illegal, and the only way to not be left totally exposed, and not to expose society to a potential burden, IS to buy a full health management plan from one of Obama's approved companies.

No, that's not right. It's certainly not illegal to buy whatever insurance you want, it's just that if it's not ACA compliant you will have to pay the tax. And I already told you the way to fix the ACA for your situation is to open up the ACA's catastrophic coverage option to everyone who can show they are capable of managing their own health care instead of restricting it to individuals under 30 and those who can't afford anything else.

(09-10-2013 08:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You both keep refusing to address this. So, again, I made 4 claims.

Again, I already did. And it's disingenuous to continue to suggest I haven't addressed your claims just because you object to my responses.

(08-10-2013 11:37 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Chas and Girlyman, you are papering over frankksj's point that Obamacare is a new kind of tax that is unprecedented.

I don't see how it's anymore unprecedented than the taxes I pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

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
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-10-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Fire the government
(09-10-2013 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No, that's not right. It's certainly not illegal to buy whatever insurance you want, it's just that if it's not ACA compliant you will have to pay the tax.

@GirlyMan, Did you see the scanned copy of the letter I received from Anthem saying my current insurance plan will be cancelled and I _MUST_ switch to a full plan as required by ACA? I called them and they confirmed that they are NO LONGER ALLOWED to offer this type of insurance that covers emergencies. They confirmed ALL insurance companies MUST OFFER only ACA compliant plans.

Your entire argument lies on the assumption that I have a choice of continuing my current plan and just paying a new Obamacare tax. But, I've attached proof that this assumption, which forms the basis of your argument, is wrong. Again, please tell me how I can keep my current plan, and don't just repeat "just do it" since I've shown you the proof that I cannot.

Quote:Again, I already did. And it's disingenuous to continue to suggest I haven't addressed your claims just because you object to my responses

No. My claim was backed up with proof--a letter from Blue Cross. Your response is that this is wrong, but you provide nothing except "because I said so" and you do nothing to rebut the printed proof I have provided. If that's acceptable, then I could say "I hate Obamacare because it requires parents to sacrifice their first born child in a religious offering". You may have proof disputing this, so is it acceptable for me to rebut you by saying "because I said so"? So, again, please address the letter I got from Blue Cross, or provide some proof that these basic insurance plans are still allowed under ACA.

Quote:I don't see how it's anymore unprecedented than the taxes I pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Those taxes go to a government agency. Governments charge tax. That's what governments do. Private corporations do NOT have the power to tax. Obamacare FORCES you to pay private, for-profit corporations. If you refuse, you will not only face a penalty (tax) but you will ALSO lose the affordable health insurance previously available, as mentioned above.

You don't see a difference between being forced to pay a tax to a government vs. being forced to pay to a private for-profit corporation? If so, would you object to being forced to send money to my corporation? I could use it. Smile


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: