I heard his administration has been committing war crimes in Pakistan and Yemen.I've heard he's an incompetent mastermind. Also, he's an iron-fisted dictator who can't control the federal bureaucracy. And he's rounding up the guns. And crushing freedom of speech (this one is usually said with no sense of irony whatsoever). He's Keynesian. Or Kenyan. Or something.
He's a bad, bad man.
Yes. Yes, he is.
"Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda": The Civilian Cost of US Targeted Killings in Yemen
2. I predicted that Obamacare would result in people learning that their health care premiums would go up when they got their 2014 premium notices. Again, the news if absolutely full of stories about people who are in SHOCK about their new premiums.
Haven't they continously gone up every year? So what's new about that? If people are in SHOCK about that were they also in SHOCK when it went up this year? Or the year before? Or the year before that?
I never said anything about NOT taxing rich people. I am simply pointing out that there isn't enough money available from taxing rich people to pay the bills that the USA is wracking up. To pay those bills, they HAVE to tax the middle class. As I am sure you know.Actually, as I pointed out in one of these threads when someone made a similar, but more detailed and possibly more extreme claim, there is enough money available from the rich.
It's probably not actually practical to take as much as we need, but it is there.
Just taxing the money they have hidden away in off-shore accounts would be a good start.
Nor was money taken out of Medicaid. Money was moved out of Medicare, which is probably what you were thinking of, but it was taken from the Medicare Advantage program where it had been used to subsidize people buying private plans instead of traditional Medicare: essentially paying the private providers more than it would cost to cover the same people with Medicare. Those plans actually seem to be doing okay without the subsidy, from what little I've heard.
Only one-third of those funds. [EDIT: Woops! Forgot the link.]
PNHP claims "The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured."
2. I predicted that Obamacare would result in people learning that their health care premiums would go up when they got their 2014 premium notices. Again, the news if absolutely full of stories about people who are in SHOCK about their new premiums.Haven't they continously gone up every year? So what's new about that? If people are in SHOCK about that were they also in SHOCK when it went up this year? Or the year before? Or the year before that?
Yes, the failure of Obamacare to do anything about the skyrocketing costs of health care is one of its biggest drawbacks.
But, then again, this "health care reform" business wasn't about the American people getting better health care. It was about shifting the burden of that costs onto the laboring population.
Yay "progressives"!
Yes, the failure of Obamacare to do anything about the skyrocketing costs of health care is one of its biggest drawbacks.
No argument here. But this is kinda one of those "perfect being the enemy of the good" situations, no?
But, then again, this "health care reform" business wasn't about the American people getting better health care. It was about shifting the burden of that costs onto the laboring population.
Yay "progressives"!
All costs are ultimately borne by the proles. But why am I telling you that? Aren't you a Communist? :P
No argument here. But this is kinda one of those "perfect being the enemy of the good" situations, no?
No. The only good I see in it is the pre-existing conditions clause and the you-can-be-on-your-parents'-insurance-until-26-clause.
Repost from the old health care thread:
"PNHP’s policy experts did a line-by-line examination of the bill and, while acknowledging that it contains some modest benefits that make changes around the edges of our existing system, basically gave it two thumbs down,” [Quentin] Young [national coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP)], writes. “To this day, much to the chagrin of many of our friends who wanted reform, I remain adamant in my rejection of Obamacare.”
“Why? We want a system that excludes the private insurance companies,” Young writes. “ We demand such exclusion not because these companies are good or evil (although we think they’re pretty evil). Rather, the reason to exclude them is that they don’t address the needs of the American people.”
The ACA - like many left-leaning programs - is a beautiful idea that works well in theory. However, once it comes into contact with human nature, self-interest, and rational actors, its flaws become glaringly apparent. It's fairly simple actuarial math at work here. All the laws in the world can't increase costs dramatically - not to mention a cap on profits - on insurance companies without forcing a major give in premiums and deductibles. Human nature will result in the actuarial death spiral that will drive costs up further.I don't suppose you care to explain the mechanisms by which you see this happening? They are not glaringly apparent to me.
[BOLD]Because the basic idea (get everyone into the pool, or force them to pay a penalty to help defray the inevitable cost of treatment) seems sound.[/BOLD]
The bolded part is where I take issue. Insurance is a PONZI scheme...all insurance. It is a crock of crap requiring the able bodied to pay for the infirm if they are not family. How is it fair to those that are fit and able, working hard to pay for his bills and take care of their family and now money to cover those things are being taken out of their pocket to be put in a pool for others to use and they end up not using it at all. Besides until our government stops exempting themselves from laws they pass, like the ACA, then it is a worthless law. Our Constitution states that Congress shall pass no law that does not also apply to them. Every single politician since the passage of Social Security (another Ponzi scheme) needs to be arrested and tried for violating the Constitution.
I'm unclear about the whole politicians exempting themselves from the ACA thingie. You're not obligated to get insurance through the exchanges if you've already got insurance. Presumably, politicians already have insurance. Why should they be forced to purchase it on the exchanges?
The bolded part is where I take issue. Insurance is a PONZI scheme...all insurance.
This is literally what conservatives believe.
2. I predicted that Obamacare would result in people learning that their health care premiums would go up when they got their 2014 premium notices. Again, the news if absolutely full of stories about people who are in SHOCK about their new premiums.Haven't they continously gone up every year? So what's new about that? If people are in SHOCK about that were they also in SHOCK when it went up this year? Or the year before? Or the year before that?Yes, the failure of Obamacare to do anything about the skyrocketing costs of health care is one of its biggest drawbacks.
But, then again, this "health care reform" business wasn't about the American people getting better health care. It was about shifting the burden of that costs onto the laboring population.
Yay "progressives"!
Actually, I believe there's at least some evidence that it's already bending the cost curve. It's still skyrocketing, but not so quickly.
It's not enough, but there are measures in there to help.
The cost curve is bending. Does Obamacare deserve the credit?
The answer, after a cursory glance, seems to be "Maybe a bit" although the article states that the slowdown in rising costs started in 2005.
Beats me.
EDIT: Couldn't help but love this paragraph:
" A similar case can be made on the insurance side. The tax on expensive, employer-provided health plans doesn’t kick in until 2018. But it’s already having an effect. The New York Times reported, 'Companies hoping to avoid the tax are beginning to scale back the more generous health benefits they have traditionally offered and to look harder for ways to bring down the overall cost of care.' That, too, is cutting costs."
Yay "progressives"!
The bolded part is where I take issue. Insurance is a PONZI scheme...all insurance. It is a crock of crap requiring the able bodied to pay for the infirm if they are not family.If you've got an alternate option that allows for those without family to be cared for I'm all ears.
I want to know how he's going to try all those politicians between, say, 1935 and 1980...
2. I predicted that Obamacare would result in people learning that their health care premiums would go up when they got their 2014 premium notices. Again, the news if absolutely full of stories about people who are in SHOCK about their new premiums.Haven't they continously gone up every year? So what's new about that? If people are in SHOCK about that were they also in SHOCK when it went up this year? Or the year before? Or the year before that?
best question I've heard so far.
Yes, let the hatred flow.
Pile on your envy of those who have earned more than you. After all, they're not sharing, are they? How dare they! They're probably sitting on their piles of money right now, laughing at you.
Yes, let the hatred flow.
Pile on your envy of those who have earned more than you.
Very few of those in the .01% earned it. Most of them inherited it.
ENVY! YES!
More! More!
They're sitting on their yachts right now, plotting how to make you grovel before them. Heck, they're probably drinking duty-free liquor. How dare they not share with you!
The bolded part is where I take issue. Insurance is a PONZI scheme...all insurance. It is a crock of crap requiring the able bodied to pay for the infirm if they are not family.If you've got an alternate option that allows for those without family to be cared for I'm all ears.
Same here. Plus how to pay for health care for those simply too poor to afford it - unless you (Gendo, not TOZ) actually believe they just don't deserve the same quality of health care as people that can afford it.
Perfect!
Greed for the profits of others.
Sloth in not wanting to work for it yourself.
Health care shouldn't be a privilege, it needs to be a basic right available to all the same as being able to call the police or getting your garbage collected (well, I assume trash collection in the US gets covered by taxes, at least, so correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
It's not a luxury for the rich, like giant widescreen TVs, or private jets and yachts. It's something every human being should be entitled to, on basis of need rather than ability to pay for it.
Quite frankly, I can't understand anyone who doesn't at least support that in principle, even if you argue about the means to achieve it.
|
So you would argue that the recent trend is those companies are not leaving massachusetts.I don't need to argue that. That is literally the case.
Point of quibble! It isn't a recent trend. Taxes have been relatively high and businesses have been "not leaving" MA for a very long time now. Among other things, that's where the Rt 128 tech corridor came from. (They might call it I-95 in this millennium?)
How many of these companies have leases that they cant get out of.What the balls?
Be nice, you know what he meant. Bet the leases aren't decades long, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perfect!
Greed for the profits of others.
Sloth in not wanting to work for it yourself.
Yes! Exactly! Damn the sloth of those sick people who can't get to their feet and work for their treatment! Lets make them mop the hospital floors once they get out of the operating theater! They can mop up the blood spilling from their re-opening wounds, too!
And what have you done, Matt, to help the poor with their health issues? Have you paid for another's medical care? Perhaps, as a physician, you have treated a patient without the expectation of payment. Have you actually DONE something directly for a sick person?
Or are you sitting back expecting someone else to do the dirty work? Are you slothful in your expectations that someone else pick up the tab?
I just want the country to work better. I want other people to get to the same place that I've been able to reach. Or at least not fall through the cracks.
And its best if we take those people who have achieved more than you have and bring them down to your level. Because that's "fair." I see.
And what have you done, Matt, to help the poor with their health issues? Have you paid for another's medical care? Perhaps, as a physician, you have treated a patient without the expectation of payment. Have you actually DONE something directly for a sick person?
Or are you sitting back expecting someone else to do the dirty work? Are you slothful in your expectations that someone else pick up the tab?
Lets see. I've paid about 24 years of taxes to the UK government to help fund our National Health System. It may be a crappy system in a lot of cases, but it ensures a base line level of care for anyone that's sick or injured without requiring them having to be able to afford it personally.
So, yeah, I've probably paid for the medical care of quite a few people over the years. I was equally glad of that same system when I had a three-week hospital stay to get a kidney removed.
So, nothing, really. Just gone about your life with no special regard for those who have less. Expecting someone else to take care of things.
So, nothing, really. Just gone about your life with no special regard for those who have less. Expecting someone else to take care of things.
With regards to health care and basic civic services, yeah, that's not something the everyday citizen should have to worry about finding provision for, that's why we pay taxes, to ensure that society as a whole pays for society as a whole.
If you want to reduce inequality, why don't you work harder to earn more money, and then use that money to provide programs that actually lift the poor up? There are all sorts of programs that work to break the cycle of poverty that government programs have created. Generations of the poor have been doomed to continued poverty because they cannot escape with the "help" of government.
It's easier to tear down that build up, isn't it?
Well, I'm not a doctor so I can't do that. And I am kind of lazy, so I don't do as much direct help as I could.
I have covered some minor health care expenses for a friend on occasion. Anything major would bankrupt me in moment though, since my insurance wouldn't cover someone's care.
Charity and those little jars in diners for cancer patients are not the basis of a health care system.
At least you're realizing that the weak cannot help the weak. In order to help, you need someone with strength. In this case, someone with more money. And if they choose to use their money for something you don't agree with (like, funding college for their children, or buying a new car), then you're okay with punishing them.
Makes perfect sense now.
Sure, not envy, nope, no way.
If you want to reduce inequality, why don't you work harder to earn more money, and then use that money to provide programs that actually lift the poor up? There are all sorts of programs that work to break the cycle of poverty that government programs have created. Generations of the poor have been doomed to continued poverty because they cannot escape with the "help" of government.
It's easier to tear down that build up, isn't it?
You're exactly right. Those that have worked harder to earn more money should be providing the programs to lift the poor up, such as treating them when they're too sick to work, so that society as a whole can benefit! So, if those that can afford it are taxed more to pay for nationwide health care, everyone wins! I'm so glad we agree on this :)
And if those rich don't do the things you want them to, then punish them!
I commend you on your arrogance in assuming you know how to spend their money better than they do.
Why don't you pay more taxes, Matt? Don't you think you should care more than you do?
And if those rich don't do the things you want them to, then punish them!
I commend you on your arrogance in assuming you know how to spend their money better than they do.
Letting the poor die for the crime of being poor is a better alternative?
Let's hear your solution to ensuring everyone gets health care regardless of means.
Why don't you pay more taxes, Matt?
And if those rich don't do the things you want them to, then punish them!
I commend you on your arrogance in assuming you know how to spend their money better than they do.Why don't you pay more taxes, Matt? Don't you think you should care more than you do?
The poor are already getting treated over here in the UK. Seems to me the problem is with others not caring enough.
Right, and if others don't care enough, they should be forced to. Because it will make you feel better.
Why don't you pay more in taxes, Matt? It would help the poor get better than the baseline care that they currently receive.
Right, and if others don't care enough, they should be forced to. Because it will make you feel better.
Why don't you pay more in taxes, Matt? It would help the poor get better than the baseline care that they currently receive.
If I did, I'd be one of those poor getting the better treatment.
And yes, they should be forced to. That's kinda the idea of having governments and taxes. Or did I miss the part where the US government are allowing people to opt out of paying the defense/education/[insert category here] portion of their tax bill nowadays?
I'm still waiting to hear your better suggestion than "everyone pays for everyone"