Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 10:33 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 10:29 AM)I and I Wrote:  You can get health coverage in china, hence you wouldn't need to get insurance.

From what I read, that's not correct. I was told it's based on the 'substantial presence test' from the IRS, and that if you spend a total of 30 days in the US in a given year, you have to buy US Obamacare-approved insurance regardless of whether you're covered by China's insurance system.

30 days?
Ok I'm clear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 10:38 AM
Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 10:32 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 10:29 AM)I and I Wrote:  You can get health coverage in china, hence you wouldn't need to get insurance.

That's what I thought too.. But I guess frank made it seem like I had to pay the US too?

Hmm research to do...

Between me and frank, we know almost everything, so feel free to ask anything.
Drinking Beverage

If a U.S. Citizen already is covered under a health plan, they don't need to get a second one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 10:58 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 08:01 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Somebody engaged in shady activities or breaking such laws is in a totally different category than totalitarian oppression.... the only example of a person who was denied this was one chess champion Bobby Fisher, a fugitive from justice - which will prevent a renunciation from taking effect until the matter is cleared, was denied citizenship while in a japanese jail? ... When you are a criminal in the legal system, you will not be granted a renunciation of citizenship until your criminal matters are cleared by the courts. Had Bobby Fisher been clean...

This shows how you're trying to distort reality. You keep referring to Bobby Fischer as a 'fugitive' and a 'criminal'. But the only crime he committed is the very one we're debating right now--namely leaving the US system. You keep leaving that point out, implying that he committed some other crime, like smuggling drugs. You don't dispute my claims that the "crime" Bobby Fischer committed is not a crime anywhere except N. Korea, Cuba and the US. You don't dispute that according to the UN it's not a crime--it's a basic human right. And you don't dispute that it caused a global uproar and several foreign countries intervened on his behalf with "Free Bobby Fischer" campaigns because the rest of the world DID see it as oppression.

Again, this is no different than if we were in Alabama in 1955 debating the morality of Jim Crow laws, and I keep arguing that it was wrong to arrest Rosa Parks, and you keep attacking me for having the audacity to defend a criminal, a fugitive, when the only "crime" she committed is the one we're debating.

You also have a very selective memory stating that Bobby Fischer is the "the only example of a person who was denied" a renunciation, when just hours earlier I gave you another example of O'Keefe.

Further, you're ignoring the fact that the ONLY reason there are only a few thousand a year who renounce their citizenship is because the US makes it damn near impossible to do so! There are 6 MILLION Americans in the same position, people who simply choose to live abroad for ANY NUMBER of reasons. Sure, for some, they hate US taxes. For others, they want to experience another culture. Others want a place with less crime. Others oppose US warmongering. Some have married foreigners and want to live near their spouse's family. I'm pretty sure that nearly every one of those 6 million deeply resent that they don't have the same freedoms the rest of the world has and that they're forced to comply with the laws and tax systems of BOTH the country they choose to live in IN ADDITION TO the one they were born in. When you read the ex-pat forums, you'll see that lots of average-income people find it impossible to live abroad and have to return to the US against their will because it's just so outrageously expensive and cumbersome to have to comply with and pay taxes to both countries. No doubt if the US removed the barriers making it so difficult for Americans to live abroad, there would be a lot more than 6 million. It's so disingenuous for you to lump all of these millions of people in the category of criminal tax evaders deserving to be locked up.

Where I chose to setup residency, in Switzerland, you can't legally remain a resident if you give up your US citizenship and become stateless. So, before you can renounce, you have to go through a 12 year process to get Swiss citizenship. THEN you have a 1 year wait at the embassy to renounce. THEN the embassy takes up to 2 years to process your application. And then if you have more than a million in assets, you've got another 10 year waiting period. So, all in all, it takes from 15 to 25 years, and during that time, you'll be forced to pay taxes to BOTH the US and Switzerland, plus, with Obama's new FATCA the US has made it nearly impossible for overseas banks to open accounts for Americans, and, to my knowledge, there are almost no Swiss banks that will do business with Americans anymore. So you have to endure those 25 years without being able to open a local bank account.

And as far as whether it's moral or immoral, you typed up a long response yet completely avoided the obvious question I asked you:

What if Texas did this? What if everyone born in Texas had to go through a 15-25 year process to relocate to another state, and during that time, even if you're living in another state and never set foot in Texas, you still have to give half your income to Texas. And Texas has pressured other states to not give Texans residence in their states (like the US did with Panama to stop them from giving Americans citizenship). And Texas passed laws like FATCA which threatened to confiscate all trade with other states if those states did not force their banks to apply special, onerous laws that only apply to Texans, with the sole purpose of making sure no Texan could open a bank account outside of Texas.

So, I ask you again, if Texas did this, and you were born in Texas but wanted to live i n Florida, would you still insist that it was not immoral or oppressive to do this? Would you not wish to have the same freedoms that people born in the other 49 states enjoy?

Please answer that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 11:26 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
http://voices.yahoo.com/how-does-obamaca...46047.html

If an american citizen is living abroad throughout the year then one doesn't have to purchase health insurance and won't be penalized.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
06-11-2013, 02:47 PM
Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 10:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 08:01 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Somebody engaged in shady activities or breaking such laws is in a totally different category than totalitarian oppression.... the only example of a person who was denied this was one chess champion Bobby Fisher, a fugitive from justice - which will prevent a renunciation from taking effect until the matter is cleared, was denied citizenship while in a japanese jail? ... When you are a criminal in the legal system, you will not be granted a renunciation of citizenship until your criminal matters are cleared by the courts. Had Bobby Fisher been clean...

This shows how you're trying to distort reality. You keep referring to Bobby Fischer as a 'fugitive' and a 'criminal'. But the only crime he committed is the very one we're debating right now--namely leaving the US system. You keep leaving that point out, implying that he committed some other crime, like smuggling drugs. You don't dispute my claims that the "crime" Bobby Fischer committed is not a crime anywhere except N. Korea, Cuba and the US. You don't dispute that according to the UN it's not a crime--it's a basic human right. And you don't dispute that it caused a global uproar and several foreign countries intervened on his behalf with "Free Bobby Fischer" campaigns because the rest of the world DID see it as oppression.

Again, this is no different than if we were in Alabama in 1955 debating the morality of Jim Crow laws, and I keep arguing that it was wrong to arrest Rosa Parks, and you keep attacking me for having the audacity to defend a criminal, a fugitive, when the only "crime" she committed is the one we're debating.

You also have a very selective memory stating that Bobby Fischer is the "the only example of a person who was denied" a renunciation, when just hours earlier I gave you another example of O'Keefe.

Further, you're ignoring the fact that the ONLY reason there are only a few thousand a year who renounce their citizenship is because the US makes it damn near impossible to do so! There are 6 MILLION Americans in the same position, people who simply choose to live abroad for ANY NUMBER of reasons. Sure, for some, they hate US taxes. For others, they want to experience another culture. Others want a place with less crime. Others oppose US warmongering. Some have married foreigners and want to live near their spouse's family. I'm pretty sure that nearly every one of those 6 million deeply resent that they don't have the same freedoms the rest of the world has and that they're forced to comply with the laws and tax systems of BOTH the country they choose to live in IN ADDITION TO the one they were born in. When you read the ex-pat forums, you'll see that lots of average-income people find it impossible to live abroad and have to return to the US against their will because it's just so outrageously expensive and cumbersome to have to comply with and pay taxes to both countries. No doubt if the US removed the barriers making it so difficult for Americans to live abroad, there would be a lot more than 6 million. It's so disingenuous for you to lump all of these millions of people in the category of criminal tax evaders deserving to be locked up.

Where I chose to setup residency, in Switzerland, you can't legally remain a resident if you give up your US citizenship and become stateless. So, before you can renounce, you have to go through a 12 year process to get Swiss citizenship. THEN you have a 1 year wait at the embassy to renounce. THEN the embassy takes up to 2 years to process your application. And then if you have more than a million in assets, you've got another 10 year waiting period. So, all in all, it takes from 15 to 25 years, and during that time, you'll be forced to pay taxes to BOTH the US and Switzerland, plus, with Obama's new FATCA the US has made it nearly impossible for overseas banks to open accounts for Americans, and, to my knowledge, there are almost no Swiss banks that will do business with Americans anymore. So you have to endure those 25 years without being able to open a local bank account.

And as far as whether it's moral or immoral, you typed up a long response yet completely avoided the obvious question I asked you:

What if Texas did this? What if everyone born in Texas had to go through a 15-25 year process to relocate to another state, and during that time, even if you're living in another state and never set foot in Texas, you still have to give half your income to Texas. And Texas has pressured other states to not give Texans residence in their states (like the US did with Panama to stop them from giving Americans citizenship). And Texas passed laws like FATCA which threatened to confiscate all trade with other states if those states did not force their banks to apply special, onerous laws that only apply to Texans, with the sole purpose of making sure no Texan could open a bank account outside of Texas.

So, I ask you again, if Texas did this, and you were born in Texas but wanted to live i n Florida, would you still insist that it was not immoral or oppressive to do this? Would you not wish to have the same freedoms that people born in the other 49 states enjoy?

Please answer that.

No, the crime of Bobby Fisher was that, as a citizen of the US, he ignored the embargo against Yugoslavia.
His crime was not renouncing his citizenship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 02:47 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  No, the crime of Bobby Fisher was that, as a citizen of the US, he ignored the embargo against Yugoslavia.
His crime was not renouncing his citizenship.

First I'm a firm believer that it's immoral for a country to give it's citizens a list of places they can and cannot visit, and even more so to say these laws apply to American expats, meaning that even if an American never sets foot on US soil, he is still bound to obey US law. Your solution of telling people that if you want to go visit Cuba you need to renounce your citizenship and be stateless and, therefore, be unable to even enter Cuba, is kind of ludicrous. Just call it like it is: the US gives a list of places that American expats are and are not allowed to go to. I firmly believe, as does the UN Human Rights Commission, that freedom of movement, the right to leave and go anywhere that is willing to accept you, is a basic civil right.

Second, Fischer's indictment was actually for not sending the money back to the US (ie tax evasion), not for going to Yugoslavia because they couldn't extradite him for that since, in the eyes of Japan (and the rest of the world) what he did wasn't a crime.

Put this in perspective. The US claims to be the 'land of the free'. It claims the President is the 'leader of the free world'. And at one point in time it was true. But things have regressed so much that today, the US, along with North Korea and Cuba, are unique in the world in putting barriers to block their people from leaving, and the rest of the world, including the UN Human Rights Commission, has condemned the US for not honoring basic human rights. Even countries like China are willing to abide by the UN charter on human rights. So, the rest of the world kind of laughs when American exceptionalists still refer to a the US as a beacon of freedom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 05:48 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 10:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 08:01 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Somebody engaged in shady activities or breaking such laws is in a totally different category than totalitarian oppression.... the only example of a person who was denied this was one chess champion Bobby Fisher, a fugitive from justice - which will prevent a renunciation from taking effect until the matter is cleared, was denied citizenship while in a japanese jail? ... When you are a criminal in the legal system, you will not be granted a renunciation of citizenship until your criminal matters are cleared by the courts. Had Bobby Fisher been clean...

This shows how you're trying to distort reality. You keep referring to Bobby Fischer as a 'fugitive' and a 'criminal'. But the only crime he committed is the very one we're debating right now--namely leaving the US system. You keep leaving that point out, implying that he committed some other crime, like smuggling drugs. You don't dispute my claims that the "crime" Bobby Fischer committed is not a crime anywhere except N. Korea, Cuba and the US. You don't dispute that according to the UN it's not a crime--it's a basic human right. And you don't dispute that it caused a global uproar and several foreign countries intervened on his behalf with "Free Bobby Fischer" campaigns because the rest of the world DID see it as oppression.

Again, this is no different than if we were in Alabama in 1955 debating the morality of Jim Crow laws, and I keep arguing that it was wrong to arrest Rosa Parks, and you keep attacking me for having the audacity to defend a criminal, a fugitive, when the only "crime" she committed is the one we're debating.

You also have a very selective memory stating that Bobby Fischer is the "the only example of a person who was denied" a renunciation, when just hours earlier I gave you another example of O'Keefe.

Further, you're ignoring the fact that the ONLY reason there are only a few thousand a year who renounce their citizenship is because the US makes it damn near impossible to do so! There are 6 MILLION Americans in the same position, people who simply choose to live abroad for ANY NUMBER of reasons. Sure, for some, they hate US taxes. For others, they want to experience another culture. Others want a place with less crime. Others oppose US warmongering. Some have married foreigners and want to live near their spouse's family. I'm pretty sure that nearly every one of those 6 million deeply resent that they don't have the same freedoms the rest of the world has and that they're forced to comply with the laws and tax systems of BOTH the country they choose to live in IN ADDITION TO the one they were born in. When you read the ex-pat forums, you'll see that lots of average-income people find it impossible to live abroad and have to return to the US against their will because it's just so outrageously expensive and cumbersome to have to comply with and pay taxes to both countries. No doubt if the US removed the barriers making it so difficult for Americans to live abroad, there would be a lot more than 6 million. It's so disingenuous for you to lump all of these millions of people in the category of criminal tax evaders deserving to be locked up.

Where I chose to setup residency, in Switzerland, you can't legally remain a resident if you give up your US citizenship and become stateless. So, before you can renounce, you have to go through a 12 year process to get Swiss citizenship. THEN you have a 1 year wait at the embassy to renounce. THEN the embassy takes up to 2 years to process your application. And then if you have more than a million in assets, you've got another 10 year waiting period. So, all in all, it takes from 15 to 25 years, and during that time, you'll be forced to pay taxes to BOTH the US and Switzerland, plus, with Obama's new FATCA the US has made it nearly impossible for overseas banks to open accounts for Americans, and, to my knowledge, there are almost no Swiss banks that will do business with Americans anymore. So you have to endure those 25 years without being able to open a local bank account.

And as far as whether it's moral or immoral, you typed up a long response yet completely avoided the obvious question I asked you:

What if Texas did this? What if everyone born in Texas had to go through a 15-25 year process to relocate to another state, and during that time, even if you're living in another state and never set foot in Texas, you still have to give half your income to Texas. And Texas has pressured other states to not give Texans residence in their states (like the US did with Panama to stop them from giving Americans citizenship). And Texas passed laws like FATCA which threatened to confiscate all trade with other states if those states did not force their banks to apply special, onerous laws that only apply to Texans, with the sole purpose of making sure no Texan could open a bank account outside of Texas.

So, I ask you again, if Texas did this, and you were born in Texas but wanted to live i n Florida, would you still insist that it was not immoral or oppressive to do this? Would you not wish to have the same freedoms that people born in the other 49 states enjoy?

Please answer that.

First off, lets cover the story - again! (groan!) - of Bobby Fisher. Mr. Fisher was in a japanese jail for outstanding arrest warrants issued against him by the US government; you see that's why they revoked his passport to begin with and the japanese arrested him. Since he was in prison and had criminal charges pending against him, the US consulate could not grant his request to expatriate because he could not comply with the instructions for expatriation.

On to the pathetic case of Kenneth O' Keefe. Discharged under less than honorable conditions from the Marine Corps, then spent his youth running around as an anti war protester. He tried a couple of times to expatriate, but was turned down twice, the first time was because tried to re-enter the US, the second time after a snit where he burned his passport and then claimed the State Dept refused to expatriate because he could not find residency somewhere (no means to independently confirm this with the State Dept.)

So a criminal anti-semite and an anti war idiot are you only examples of the state dept denying citizenship?

Next the Swiss case you mentioned. Most of the problems listed seem to lie with the Swiss government and not the United States. I imagine you could simple tell the US consulate that you accept the risk of expatriation and remaining stateless plus deportation from Switzerland. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's always possible. Also, ANY country requires a naturalization process if you want to become a citizen there. It will take approx 10-20 years anywhere you go.

Finally as I consider tax law to be an amoral subject, your argument is irrelevant. Now difficult and frustrating? You bet! Which is why, for the third time, I suggest that it should be repealed through the legislative system.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
@Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver,

You keep providing detailed response (thank you) but you keep ignoring the question that I'm asking over and over again. What if Texas did this? You keep saying it's not immoral for the Federal government to do it. So why not answer if you think it's also not immoral for a State government to do it?

Lastly, you still keep referring to Fischer as a "criminal". But what crime was he charged with? Am I missing something here, because the whole thing we're debating is if it SHOULD be criminal for an American expat to (a) visit countries the US has forbade, and (b) refuse to send his foreign earned income back to the US. As far as I know, the only laws he broke, are the very ones I'm arguing are immoral laws in the first place, and your insistence on calling him a criminal implies he broke SOME OTHER LAW besides the one we're debating.

As I've said many times, it's like me defending Rosa Parks saying the Jim Crow laws are immoral and you responding that I'm fucked up for taking the side of a criminal. Her only crime was breaking the law that we're debating! And remember, in the eyes of the rest of the world, Bobby Fischer was an oppressed victim of a tyrannical regime--not a criminal. Canada protested the US treatment, as did other US allies, and Iceland held a parliamentary session and overwhelmingly approved the government act on Fischer's behalf. You keep calling him a "criminal", the same way the Soviet's referred to defectors as "criminals".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 06:46 PM
Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 04:56 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 02:47 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  No, the crime of Bobby Fisher was that, as a citizen of the US, he ignored the embargo against Yugoslavia.
His crime was not renouncing his citizenship.

First I'm a firm believer that it's immoral for a country to give it's citizens a list of places they can and cannot visit, and even more so to say these laws apply to American expats, meaning that even if an American never sets foot on US soil, he is still bound to obey US law. Your solution of telling people that if you want to go visit Cuba you need to renounce your citizenship and be stateless and, therefore, be unable to even enter Cuba, is kind of ludicrous. Just call it like it is: the US gives a list of places that American expats are and are not allowed to go to. I firmly believe, as does the UN Human Rights Commission, that freedom of movement, the right to leave and go anywhere that is willing to accept you, is a basic civil

Second, Fischer's indictment was actually for not sending the money back to the US (ie tax evasion), not for going to Yugoslavia because they couldn't extradite him for that since, in the eyes of Japan (and the rest of the world) what he did wasn't a crime.

Put this in perspective. The US claims to be the 'land of the free'. It claims the President is the 'leader of the free world'. And at one point in time it was true. But things have regressed so much that today, the US, along with North Korea and Cuba, are unique in the world in putting barriers to block their people from leaving, and the rest of the world, including the UN Human Rights Commission, has condemned the US for not honoring basic human rights. Even countries like China are willing to abide by the UN charter on human rights. So, the rest of the world kind of laughs when American exceptionalists still refer to a the US as a beacon of freedom.

Since you brought up the UN.....
It was a United Nations embargo that included sporting events that Fisher violated!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 07:11 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 06:46 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Since you brought up the UN.....
It was a United Nations embargo that included sporting events that Fisher violated!!

Please backup this claim. UN Resolution 757 asked the US (and everyone) to not allow athletes representing Yugoslavia to compete in sporting events within the US. It did not say Americans couldn't go to Yugoslavia. See the analysis under section E, and the original text below. Yugoslavian athletes were even allowed to participate in the Olympics despite the sanctions as long as they remained apolitical and did not act as official representatives of Yugoslavia. So the UN resolution was narrow and did not ban anybody from going to events in Yugoslavia, as you maintain. This is because doing would so be a violation of basic human rights, the freedom of movement, according to the UN Human Rights commission. The US telling Yugoslavians that they're not welcome to come to the US is one thing, and is legal under international law--it's the US's prerogative to admit who it pleases. It's very different to state that Americans who are not on US soil that they are still bound to US law and can only go to countries approved by the US. This concept was uniquely American, is a violation of basic human rights. Thus Fischer was accused of violating US Executive Order 12810--not UN sanctions.

UN resolution:
(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the participation in sporting events on their territory of persons or groups representing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro);
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: