[split] Frankie goes to Obamaworld (again)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 11:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You assume that. You can't make that assertion without testing it. You have not. You WANT it to be true, so you state it as such.

I'll ask you:

1. Is inflation a result of monetary policy?
2. Does inflation encourage spending and borrowing?
3. Does inflation discourage saving?

All economists (Keynesians and Austrians) and central bankers agree the answer is 'yes' to all 3. We just disagree whether it's good or bad.

(12-12-2013 11:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes as usual you cooked up a simplistic paradigm, and very purposely included me in it. Now you're trying to back away form your idiotic assumptions. You cannot categorize people when you know NOTHING about them. And now you persis in attempting to tar me by association. You are a pathetic troll.

Ok, then, rather than making an assumption, I'll ask you.

Q: Say a town desperately needs a bridge, but cannot build one because a family refuses to sell their home even though the town has offered above market value. Is it proper for the town to invoke eminent domain and use force to the family to sell and relocate against their will? yes or no.


(12-12-2013 11:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 09:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  How many atrocities have true libertarians (ie group #1) ever committed? What's the worst atrocity you can think of?

No true Scotsman falllacy, and irrelevant, and off-topic. Nice try. Fail again. Attempted deflection.
[/quote]

I'll take that as a concession. Anytime your opponent refuses to answer and uses lame cop-outs like 'irrelevant' you know that means he's trapped. Sure it's irrelevant and off topic. We are after all debating monetary policy in a post about gay sex in India. That didn't stop you before...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 02:32 AM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2013 02:36 AM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
Quote:However, I presented a spreadsheet proving that Obamacare will cost people like me who manage our own health care over $3 million. Sure, to YOU it may not be a big issue because YOU (foolishly imo) have been handing your $3 million retirement to the insurance companies all along and were going to continue doing so anyway, and you were already resigned to growing old and being dependent on government for survival. Since it's no skin off your back, and you guys are in the majority, and you have no sympathy for us minority, you don't give a fuck and tell us to shut up and deal with it.

You presented a chart that only works IF AND ONLY IF

1) You make enough money to both contribute to an HSA or other fund as well as save for retirement.

2) You have no major medical problems requiring regular and/or expensive treatments, lab work, etc.

3) You never have any major catastrophic injuries or illnesses outside of the plan.

If you meet the above conditions, fine. A catastrophic injury and illness policy combined with an HSA is a good choice for you. Incidentally ObamaCare was never intended to address you but rather was to make buying health insurance and services affordable for lower income families as well as those who are forced to pay out of pocket for medical services because they were denied insurance due to pre existing conditions. Incidentally you can still buy a catastrophic policy under ObamaCare if you so desire. The rates may change slightly, but that's life.

Now when you can demonstrate how this is possible for a low income family to do this WITHOUT gambling their life savings AND have a reasonable - though not excessive - quality of life, I'll concede.[/quote][/code]

"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
14-12-2013, 10:07 AM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Now when you can demonstrate how this is possible for a low income family to do this WITHOUT gambling their life savings AND have a reasonable - though not excessive - quality of life, I'll concede.

I hope you're a man of your word so we can put an end to this.

(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  You presented a chart that only works IF AND ONLY IF
1) You make enough money to both contribute to an HSA or other fund as well as save for retirement.

Not true. I simply demonstrate that: IF the check is written to your tax-free HSA, INSTEAD of to Blue Cross, nearly everybody will be better off. The chart makes no assumption about your other spending, and it doesn't require you to spend 1 penny more. Now, Obamacare says that if you're very poor and cannot afford insurance, the government will the write to check to Blue Cross every month for you. HOWEVER, this is NOT what I'm criticizing. I'm saying that the poor person in question would be better off to have the government write the check to his HSA, instead of to Blue Cross. So the math doesn't change whether you live in poverty or are a billionaire. If you're working for minimum wage, living at the poverty level, and, the government makes the check out to your HSA instead of Blue Cross, then when you're old you will have several million dollars in your HSA, and be able to retire in comfort, send your grandkids to Harvard, or leave your children a nice inheritance. So, the people who benefit the most from my system ARE the very poor because, right now, they will never get ahead, never be financially independent, always live paycheck to paycheck, and end up on social security STILL living at the poverty level. Whereas with my system, they'll be multi-millionaires.

(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  2) You have no major medical problems requiring regular and/or expensive treatments, lab work, etc.

You'll see in my plan it DOES include annual checkups, and assumes that throughout your life you'll have some major health problems, like needing open heart surgery, hip replacement, etc. It is conservative in that it factors in more medical spending than, I imagine, 95% of the population needs.

Now, IF you are unfortunate enough to be in the 5% that DOES need REGULAR, EXPENSIVE procedures, then, yes, you'll be better off with insurance, and particularly with Obamacare so you can get coverage for your pre-existing conditions and not be canceled. However, I never said this system works better for EVERYONE. I said that if your health is in the 'good', 'average', or even 'below average' category, you will be better off. However, if your health is in the 'very bad' category, and you have lots of medical issues, sure, it won't work for you.

(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  3) You never have any major catastrophic injuries or illnesses outside of the plan.

Not true. First, remember that I DID budget in the plan for catastrophic health insurance that WOULD cover such major events. So if you get leukemia at age 25, or need a kidney transplant at 30, the catastrophic plan WOULD cover it. Yes, it has a $15,000 deductible, BUT, if you start setting the money aside at age 20, by the time you're 23 you'll already have that much in your HSA anyway. The ONLY time it doesn't work is if you have a major problem EVERY YEAR, in which case you'd be forking out that $15,000 deductible each time. But, my guess is that 95% of all 20 year olds will NOT have catastrophic illnesses every year, and will be able to build their HSA for a few years

(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  ObamaCare … was to make buying health insurance and services affordable for lower income families

As I said earlier, I am NOT protesting Obamacare because the government writes a check to help lower income families get health insurance. I am simply making the point that if the government really wanted to help the family, they'd write the check to the family's HSA account so they could become financially independent. Instead the government writes the check to Blue Cross, which rakes in billions in profit, and the family will have nothing and no savings. IMO, the reason for this is simply the insurance lobby. IF Obama presented a plan to cut them out as a middle-man, and build everyone's HSA, and empower them to manage their own healthcare, and gain financial independence, the insurance companies would never have allowed the bill to pass. They'd have pulled out every stop to be sure it got shut down, and they, along with their bought-off politicians, would have twisted and convoluted the issue so badly that the gullible public would have thought they were being saved from a terrible mistake.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 10:55 AM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(14-12-2013 10:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Now when you can demonstrate how this is possible for a low income family to do this WITHOUT gambling their life savings AND have a reasonable - though not excessive - quality of life, I'll concede.

I hope you're a man of your word so we can put an end to this.

(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  You presented a chart that only works IF AND ONLY IF
1) You make enough money to both contribute to an HSA or other fund as well as save for retirement.

Not true. I simply demonstrate that: IF the check is written to your tax-free HSA, INSTEAD of to Blue Cross, nearly everybody will be better off. The chart makes no assumption about your other spending, and it doesn't require you to spend 1 penny more. Now, Obamacare says that if you're very poor and cannot afford insurance, the government will the write to check to Blue Cross every month for you. HOWEVER, this is NOT what I'm criticizing. I'm saying that the poor person in question would be better off to have the government write the check to his HSA, instead of to Blue Cross. So the math doesn't change whether you live in poverty or are a billionaire. If you're working for minimum wage, living at the poverty level, and, the government makes the check out to your HSA instead of Blue Cross, then when you're old you will have several million dollars in your HSA, and be able to retire in comfort, send your grandkids to Harvard, or leave your children a nice inheritance. So, the people who benefit the most from my system ARE the very poor because, right now, they will never get ahead, never be financially independent, always live paycheck to paycheck, and end up on social security STILL living at the poverty level. Whereas with my system, they'll be multi-millionaires.

(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  2) You have no major medical problems requiring regular and/or expensive treatments, lab work, etc.

You'll see in my plan it DOES include annual checkups, and assumes that throughout your life you'll have some major health problems, like needing open heart surgery, hip replacement, etc. It is conservative in that it factors in more medical spending than, I imagine, 95% of the population needs.

Now, IF you are unfortunate enough to be in the 5% that DOES need REGULAR, EXPENSIVE procedures, then, yes, you'll be better off with insurance, and particularly with Obamacare so you can get coverage for your pre-existing conditions and not be canceled. However, I never said this system works better for EVERYONE. I said that if your health is in the 'good', 'average', or even 'below average' category, you will be better off. However, if your health is in the 'very bad' category, and you have lots of medical issues, sure, it won't work for you.

(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  3) You never have any major catastrophic injuries or illnesses outside of the plan.

Not true. First, remember that I DID budget in the plan for catastrophic health insurance that WOULD cover such major events. So if you get leukemia at age 25, or need a kidney transplant at 30, the catastrophic plan WOULD cover it. Yes, it has a $15,000 deductible, BUT, if you start setting the money aside at age 20, by the time you're 23 you'll already have that much in your HSA anyway. The ONLY time it doesn't work is if you have a major problem EVERY YEAR, in which case you'd be forking out that $15,000 deductible each time. But, my guess is that 95% of all 20 year olds will NOT have catastrophic illnesses every year, and will be able to build their HSA for a few years

(14-12-2013 02:32 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  ObamaCare … was to make buying health insurance and services affordable for lower income families

As I said earlier, I am NOT protesting Obamacare because the government writes a check to help lower income families get health insurance. I am simply making the point that if the government really wanted to help the family, they'd write the check to the family's HSA account so they could become financially independent. Instead the government writes the check to Blue Cross, which rakes in billions in profit, and the family will have nothing and no savings. IMO, the reason for this is simply the insurance lobby. IF Obama presented a plan to cut them out as a middle-man, and build everyone's HSA, and empower them to manage their own healthcare, and gain financial independence, the insurance companies would never have allowed the bill to pass. They'd have pulled out every stop to be sure it got shut down, and they, along with their bought-off politicians, would have twisted and convoluted the issue so badly that the gullible public would have thought they were being saved from a terrible mistake.

You just went on a long winded diatribe and completely dodged what you intended to refute. How does a low income family follow this plan without having to use their life savings to pay for healthcare?

"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
14-12-2013, 11:09 AM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
Quote:Not true. I simply demonstrate that: IF the check is written to your tax-free HSA, INSTEAD of to Blue Cross, nearly everybody will be better off. The chart makes no assumption about your other spending, and it doesn't require you to spend 1 penny more. Now, Obamacare says that if you're very poor and cannot afford insurance, the government will the write to check to Blue Cross every month for you. HOWEVER, this is NOT what I'm criticizing. I'm saying that the poor person in question would be better off to have the government write the check to his HSA, instead of to Blue Cross. So the math doesn't change whether you live in poverty or are a billionaire. If you're working for minimum wage, living at the poverty level, and, the government makes the check out to your HSA instead of Blue Cross, then when you're old you will have several million dollars in your HSA, and be able to retire in comfort, send your grandkids to Harvard, or leave your children a nice inheritance. So, the people who benefit the most from my system ARE the very poor because, right now, they will never get ahead, never be financially independent, always live paycheck to paycheck, and end up on social security STILL living at the poverty level. Whereas with my system, they'll be multi-millionaires.

No, your plan required an annual contribution of $6000 ($500/mo x 12 mo). An HSA limits this $3600/yr per IRS regs. What you're proposing is more inline with putting the money in non tax free financial tools eg mutual funds, etc.

But again, you've proved my point that you're asking a poor family to gamble with its life savings on a potential payout. My reply is that it is risky to attempt that if that is your only source of savings. And if you're making 30 grand per year you may only save a max of $400-$500 per month depending on expenses.

So again it's easy for someone like myself who earns good money to suggest a poor person should 'simply' put $500/mo in an HSA. It's another story (as I recall from an earlier period of my life) to actually do that plus save a few hundred a month for retirement.

"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
14-12-2013, 11:49 AM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
I won't speak for Frank, but I think he did clearly answer that question in his reply. With an HSA funded by the government instead of the government paying for insurance, the family would be able to use the funds for needed health care. If they don't need the money for health care they end up with savings and wealth they would otherwise been unable to attain.

Back to his original point and how it relates to the OP, it really comes down to a very simple question, which Frank has posed in several different ways. The question is what do you see as the role of government? And he's asked it directly to try to clarify some of the responders position, which they have simply replied with resorting to name calling and hurling insults.

The question as I see it is this:

Do you see government's role to be to enforce the will of many on everyone in society even if force is required?

OR

Do you see the role of government to protect individual rights, liberties and freedoms and to protect the minority from the opinions and preferences of the majority?

Most of us here probably agree that criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults is immoral. We obviously disagree on whether it's ok for the government to make a law requiring us to purchase health care. I consider the ACA wrong because it is an imposition on our individual liberty. Many think it is good because it is provides health care to those who couldn't have otherwise attained it.

The intent of a law can at its core can be good or at least seem good. That does not make it moral. The real question is what do we want to attain as a society and then how do we solve the problem. The libertarian position is set on a philosophy of government that removes tyranny and force from the equation. I'm appalled at how many people view government legislation that forces people to behave a certain way to be fine as long it complies with their viewpoint or grants something they think is good. On its face that makes it wrong from the get go. The ACA is a good example of that type of law. It's good to provide health care to people who couldn't attain it previously, but to force everyone to purchase health care as part of that law is simply not the appropriate way to accomplish this IMO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostCyborg's post
14-12-2013, 12:25 PM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(14-12-2013 11:09 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  No, your plan required an annual contribution of $6000 ($500/mo x 12 mo).

You're making up fantasy arguments. I only said that _IF_ somebody is writing a check for $6,000/year to Blue Cross, whether it be the individual or the government, most people would be better off if that was instead written to an HSA.

(14-12-2013 11:09 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  An HSA limits this $3600/yr per IRS regs. What you're proposing is more inline with putting the money in non tax free financial tools eg mutual funds, etc.

Yes, Obamacare does reduce the tax-free status of HSA's, discouraging people from managing their own health care, and pressuring them instead to put their faith in insurance companies. And I am arguing that this benefits the insurance companies and hurts the individual.

(14-12-2013 11:09 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  But again, you've proved my point that you're asking a poor family to gamble with its life savings on a potential payout.

Huh? I'm not suggesting we touch a poor family's savings. I'm only suggesting the poor family get an EXTRA savings they otherwise wouldn't have. The only time there is a risk of dipping into some other savings is between the ages of 20 and 23 when the balance in the HSA won't yet cover the $15k deductible of a catastrophic plan. BUT, if you can make it those 3 years without a major illness (which 95% of the population can), the risk is gone, and your reward for taking the risk will likely be around $3 million.

(14-12-2013 11:09 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  My reply is that it is risky to attempt that if that is your only source of savings.

Consider what you're saying. If the HSA is your ONLY savings, then WITH my plan, you end up with $3 million in your HSA account. If you give it to the insurance companies, you end up with ZERO savings. No nest egg, no cushion, no money for a rainy day. The people who benefit the most are those who do NOT have any other savings, because with this plan you go from having zero to having $3 million. It's much less advantageous for the wealthy person who already has $10 million, since he just goes from $10m to $13m..

(14-12-2013 11:09 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  And if you're making 30 grand per year you may only save a max of $400-$500 per month depending on expenses.

I'm NOT suggesting you touch that $400-500 savings. _IF_ you're writing a check to Blue Cross for $500/month, and putting $500/month into a savings account, all I'm suggesting is you change the 'pay to the order of' line from Blue Cross to your tax-free HSA account, which, being tax free (before Obamacare) will give you a much greater rate of return than your normal savings/investment account.

(14-12-2013 11:09 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  So again it's easy for someone like myself who earns good money to suggest a poor person should 'simply' put $500/mo in an HSA.

No, I'm saying _IF_ the poor person is ALREADY putting $500/month in the bank account of Blue Cross, he is better off putting it in his own HSA account. If the government is writing the $500/month check because you're too poor to pay it yourself, all I'm saying is the government should make it payable to your HSA account instead of Blue Cross. I'm not suggesting a poor person have to set even 1 penny away for savings; it's a matter of taking the money that's already being given to Blue Cross, and instead giving it to the individual so that it builds wealth for the individual--not for Blue Cross.

I've made this very clear, and you can see LostCyborg understands it. I think you're trying to weasel out of your pledge "When you can demonstrate how this is possible for a low income family... I'll concede." I HAVE demonstrated that, and my guess is you're just pretending not to understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 12:42 AM
RE: [split] Frankie goes to Obamaworld (again)
we all head of the stories of the ACA going wacky.

these many people who first experience with health insurance is with the ACA. I am not talking about 20 years old, but 40 and 50 years olds.

a poor person, as defined by TANF, is unlikely to have 500 dollars to put in a HSA a month. poor people, who are more likely to be uninsured, do not earn enough to benefit from the tax breaks offered by HSAs. These tax breaks are too modest, when compared to the actual cost of insurance, to persuade significant numbers to buy this coverage. when you are making less then 18000 a year the benefits from a HSA are little.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: [split] Frankie goes to Obamaworld (again)
Are you fucking kidding me? For post after post I keep pointing out that under the ACA, if you are poor, the government will write a check each month to pay for your health care. That's fine. The _ONLY_ thing I'm arguing is that the poor person would be better off if the check was made out to HIS OWN HSA, which he owns, which grows over his lifetime, and which for 90% of the population would be millions of dollars by the time they retire, thus breaking the cycle of poverty for 90% of poor, letting them retire in comfort with dignity, and empowering them.

For post after post, you keep refuting this saying "a poor person is unlikely to have 500 dollars to put in a HSA a month." WTF does that have to do with anything?! We've already established the poor person won't be setting aside the $500/month--the government will. The only issue we're debating is if the poor person is better off to have (a) the government's $500/month check made payable to "UnitedHealth Group", so that UnitedHealth Group gets to use the money, invest the money, and it becomes part of the $67 billion in assets they've accumulated, OR (b) the check is made payable to the poor person himself and put into his own HSA so the poor person is no longer poor.

You won't come right out and say that you favor (a), presumably because you realize how callous it sounds to say the money should go to the insurance company and not the person. So, instead you repeatedly keep rebutting (b) with some annoying red herring that poor people don't have $500/month, which has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. WTF!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: [split] Frankie goes to Obamaworld (again)
(19-12-2013 09:01 AM)frankksj Wrote:  you
you keep
You
you
you repeatedly

Who are you talking to?

It cannot be shallwechat71, who made one post, and thus cannot "keep" "repeatedly" doing anything.

Is this one of those things where you can't tell people apart again?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: