I thought you were talking about the 2004 proposal, but either way the point stands. Democrats proposed healthcare reforms under a Republican President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Printable View
I thought you were talking about the 2004 proposal, but either way the point stands. Democrats proposed healthcare reforms under a Republican President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Terry doesn't let facts get in the way of his partisan rhetoric. You should understand it so he won't call you a RINO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Are you talking about his campaign speech proposals? That's like...just no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Damn right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You're talking about a SotU proposal, aren't you not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Are you not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I'm having trouble parsing that sentence as well. :spaz:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Latrin, can you clarify what you just said?
I went to refresh myself on the Bush 2007 plan, since I didn't remember the details, but it appears it consisted of the following:
1. Taxing the health benefits of Americans who get insurance through their employer after a certain point
2. Subsidies to states to help cover uninsured
This was expected to help cover about 3 million people more, by the Bush administration's estimates.
However, both points ended up in the ACA. 1 is the Cadillac health plan tax (although that's a much higher point for when taxation starts than Bush's proposal) and 2 ended up being the Medicaid expansion.
I don't think you could've tweaked this in any way and made a better plan without incorporating all the other elements of Obamacare.
But yes, Dems killed it for partisan reasons.
I'm not not. Wait, I mean I'm not not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Terrence is a cool guy for arbitrarily dismissing campaign promises and cleaving to State of the Union promises.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Not.
Here's an article about the pros and cons of Bush's plan. Could it be that it wasn't any good and that is what kept it from going anywhere beyond a W daydream? Even Heritage said he didn't go far enough.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...252-9/fulltextQuote:
US President George W Bush has proposed using a tax deduction to make health insurance more affordable. But sceptics say the plan will help only the wealthy and is “dead on arrival” in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Michael McCarthy reviews the pros and cons of the proposal.
This is from a different article comparing health care proposals put forward between 2005 and 2007.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_...lins_image.gif
With the exception of federal–state partnerships, all of the proposals would transform the traditional role of employers by eventually scaling back or eliminating the extent to which they contract directly with health plans for coverage. The president's and Senator Wyden's proposals would achieve this in part by eliminating the tax exemption for employer-provided benefits and replacing it with an income tax deduction. The proposals differ in the extent to which employers would continue to finance coverage.
With the exception of President Bush's proposal, the plans would require individuals to have health insurance and require employers and individuals to share in the cost.
All of the proposals except the president's would provide subsidies to people with lower incomes to help defray the costs of premiums.
All of the proposals except the president's would pool health risks into large groups in order to equalize premium costs across families, regardless of health risk, and increase efficiency in insurance administration.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publ...-Coverage.aspx
This is what I don't understand about your arguments. One minute you're saying Republicans are a bunch of fashion fascists for wanting to repeal Obamacare instead of working with the Democrats to make it better and you say Republicans have offered no healthcare plans of their own then when you have a Republican healthcare plan dropped in your lap all you can do is bash it and says it's worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's exactly what Republicans are saying in regards to Obamacare; it's worthless so let's scrape it and start over but when Republicans do that they are just evil warlords wanting to take us back to the gilded age where everyone was a carpetbaggerr.
I don't often care for British spellings, but "sceptic" really appeals to me for some reason.
Reid corrupt? Surely not. Say it ain't so, liberals.
Ron exposes the $700,000 donated to Harry Reid by a doctor who received the largest Medicare reimbursement in 2012. Also, removing HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius will do nothing to cure a deeply flawed and fraudulent government run healthcare system.
http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/video/...gn=DailyUpdate
I think your version of events is too simplistic. It's too black or white, yes or no. There's a qualitative evaluation you're not making. I'm not even talking about quality of the plans but qualitative in the sense that Bush put this forward in 2007 as a lame duck with bigger fish to fry like the WOT and looming financial meltdown. It's disingenuous to say that the GOP was fighting the good fight for health care reform and the democrats killed it for vulgar partisan politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Thanks, I needed a good laugh today. I had a hard day.
Mandate has been delayed till 2016. They don't want to lose the whitehouse when employers tell their employees "fuck you, buy it yourself".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Except that ACA operated at a Positive the first 4 years. All the costs are in the back end. And those costs will just get worse and worse over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
What they did was (as an example) took a job working construction in NYC. They worked for 4 years while being homeless and saved almost all their money. Then they got a penthouse apartment for 10k a month. But they only make 5k a month. But that's ok, because they saved all that money for 4 years so they could pay for the apartment. AA few years later and they are deep in debt still renting an apartment they can't afford.
That's the ACA. And with so many new medicaid people, it's getting even worse.
...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I keep wondering what will happen if SCOTUS says that the individual mandate is unconstitutional due to the origination clause lawsuit that is pending, I know it is not real likely, but no one saw it coming that Roberts would call it a tax either, ironically, they very thing that kept it alive, may also have doomed a key provision of it.
The extra disingenuous bit? You're now going to the ropes for a Republican plan that would have done even less of what you claim to want and screwed over people in even worse ways. It even featured taxes going up over several years...for the recipients. It certainly wasn't the single payer you claim to want. You either have a painful level of cognitive dissonance or you're merely trolling. I think you're intelligent, so I'll assume trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Shockingly enough there were reasons this plan failed apart from mere partisan politics.
No I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So you brought up a plan you didn't agree with as a better example. Got it. Seems so real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I didn't say I agreed with Bush's plan or that it was better. It was simply in response to cwolff making the argument that no one did nothing for healthcare until Obama came along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Toss on a few outright lies about the Democratic willingness to work with the Republicans and you have a hearty mix of total nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You've got some weird problem with taking everything to an extreme. I think you do it just to argue. Because I said I'm glad a politician finally got off his ass and did something about health care reform you start this whole thing about how the GOP's been trying to do it for years or something. I don't even think you care what people are saying; as long as you can find something to nit-pick you're happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Nitpick is one word, you fucking moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Fuckin' Autocorrect! This will end up on Ellen.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Is that what I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Basically yes. Your position is that the only reason the GOP didn't reform health care is because the dems wouldn't let them get the credit for it but now that the shoe is on the other foot the dems are pissed at GOP obstructionism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
My position is that the ACA is GOP plan that was proposed to counter Clinton's single payer ideas and that Bush didn't do shit or even care to do shit about health care reform. He did do Part D for which he gets credit.
I don't even know what to say anymore, cwolff. It's like you're reading my posts but you're not reading them.
I make an argument and your counter argument basically amounts to "Nuh-uh!"
Maybe he has trouble after you say things that are flatly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is how this conversation started. I think I've provided a pretty good summary (#2456).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What did I say that was untrue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
There was over a year of committee negotiations with Republicans and countless amendments to the bill. All those things you claim to want were stripped out in the process. Max Baucus actually spent 8 months trying to work on just one amendment. And you, in the process of advocating for a party who did all this, want to claim it didn't happen. It's a lie more than adequately revealed by hard evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Nuh-uh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That's interesting. I was living without electricity during this time and didn't know some of these things were going on. I have always wondered why the ACA battle wasn't about single payer vs. private plans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Opposition to single payer health care[edit]
Advocate groups attended a Senate Finance Committee meeting in May 2009 to protest their exclusion as well as statements by Baucus that "single payer was not an option on the table." Baucus later had eight protesters removed by police who arrested them for disrupting the hearing. Many of the single-payer advocates claimed it was a "pay to play" event.[41][42][43] A representative of the Business Roundtable, which includes 35 memberships of health maintenance organizations, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, admitted that other countries, with lower health costs, and higher quality of care, such as those with single-payer systems, have a competitive advantage over the United States with its private system.[44]
At the next meeting on health care reform of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus had five more doctors and nurses removed and arrested.[45][46][47] Baucus admitted a few weeks later in June 2009 that it was a mistake to rule out a single payer plan[48] because doing so alienated a large, vocal constituency and left President Barack Obama’s proposal of a public health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position.[48]
Simple. Dems didn't have the votes to even try to pass single payer. Hell, they used every trick they could to pass this, do you really think they could have gotten single payer through?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
No but I figured it would be a good point to begin negotiating from. It sounds like they made a calculation about how much it would help|hurt and they decided it wouldn't be beneficial to make that fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Begin negotiating? The Democrats had the WH, the Senate and the House. They knew this and didn't bother doing actual negotiating.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Problem is, they knew this was a gigantic sack of shit and they wanted Republicans on board when they opened the sack on the American people.
The ACA is owned solely by the Democrats. This needs to be repeated until election day and every day until November 2016.
First, I always find it funny when Dems ay they want single payer, then say they want Medicare for all. Considering with Medicare you pretty much HAVE to have a supplemental plan. So yeah.. Medicare for all.. raise your taxes, AND you have to buy insurance anyway. Great plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Second.. Dems had 60 votes in the Senate, more then enough in the House, and the Presidency. They didn't even TRY to pass single payer because THEIR people wouldn't have voted for it. Single payer is something the extreme left wants, not moderate Dems. Single payer is one of those things that if you ask Americans one way, they say yes, ask another, they say no. "Would you like free heathcare" - Sure. "Would you like to pay 10% more in taxes and get a medicare like plan?" - No. A dem in a rep state or district isn't going to vote for something that will get him tossed out. Just like a Repub in a blue state/district. That's one reason why the house almost always needs a few people from the other side to cross, so that way some of their people can vote no for political purposes.
Third... The Dem leaders said when ACA was passed that it would "lead to a single payer system". I think THEY expected it to fail on it's own. They want single payer, and if ACA works, there would be no reason to go to single payer.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...-payer-system/
Quote:
"Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”
“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.
When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
You both make some good points. I do think that not fighting for a single payer system was a calculated move. They went with what they could make work and they did it. Maybe this is why the right is floundering so badly. They're pushing ideology over practicality which is alienating them from the people.
You also seem to be making a fundamental mistake in your thinking. There are 300 million people here. It's like turning an oil freighter. It takes time. Someday we'll have single payer but we're not ready for it today.
If a single payer system is so great, why wouldn't we be ready for it today?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I love standing in long lines, waiting for a doctor. What's not to love??
Go for it. If you can't find a long line just meditate. It'll do you a world of good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
An unsurprising "woosh"Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Repeat the lie enough and you even think its true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Are you kidding? He's fixing to double down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
"[B]eliefs can survive potent logical or empirical challenges. They can survive and even be bolstered by evidence that most uncommitted observers would agree logically demands some weakening of such beliefs. They can even survive the total destruction of their original evidential bases."
—Lee Ross and Craig Anderson[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirm...edited_beliefs
Employer mandate was delayed til 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Individual mandate to purchase insurance was not delayed. Surprisingly, there are large numbers of people who work, are offered health benefits via work, but do not purchase insurance. That behavior apparently is being changed by the individual mandate.
Wonder why? It's not like the IRS can come after you to collect the "tax" as they do with real taxes. People just have to change their withholdings to where they don't get a tax refund and they're safe from the fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
We have different ideas about what "negotiating" means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Clue: It doesn't mean "Do what I want or I'll just go around you".
More Good News!
Quote:
Obama: Health care sign-ups hit 8 million
Posted by
CNN Staff
(CNN) – The number of Americans who signed up for private health insurance in the marketplaces has grown to 8 million, President Barack Obama said Thursday during a rare appearance at the daily White House news conference where he talked about the Affordable Care Act.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ion/?hpt=hp_t2
Democrats should run on the success of this program in their re-election campaigns.
It's a sure win.
That represents complete and total ignorance (or purposeful misrepresentation) of that year of negotiation. There were hundreds of amendments, countless changes, and even more text than the often complained about bill itself. It certainly became what you described, but only after it was already passed. The Republicans had already had their extraordinary long run of dismantling it and making it worse because Obama was extraordinarily naive and the Democratic leadership is gullible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
The only ignorance on display is that you honestly and sincerely believe that Obama actively sought after Republican input on the ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Psst: He didn't.
So what exactly were all those amendments, the committee meetings, and all the Republican changes? You're trying to fight documented legislative fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
That's not surprising at all. I wouldn't have health insurance if I wasn't forced to...I'm 33 in great health. The likelihood of me getting as much money out of it as I put in is very, very slim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Just like Social Security, it's a big scam to get responsible young adults to pay for irresponsible older adults.
Well yeah, when you cancel everyone's insurance and tell them they can no longer see their regular doctor...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Not really much other option but to sign up for the new stuff. Way to ignore the cause and blindly tout the effect, though.
Or to get responsible young adults to pay for irresponsible young adults till they get their act together?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
lulwut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I've paid into social security for 30 years.. how exactly am I being irresponsible?
Is that somehow better? Either way it's making me wonder why I bother being responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I want a big sign-up sheet. If I sign my name to this sheet, I will be removed from availability for ACA, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, WIC, EBT, free phones (yeah, it's not "technically" tax-payer money...but you still pay for the universal service charge on your phone, so it still comes out of your pocket), and every other Federal program that I'll never use....but I'll also be removed from having to pay for it.
Let's make this shit optional and see how sustainable it is.
You're usually a little better at understanding English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Protip: You're the responsible one.
I'm talking about your own personal use of social safety nets to get your life back on track... Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Ps no one is forcing you to remain a us citizen... That's kinda like the sign-up sheet...
Sounds like you are operating under an adolescent mentality of invincibility. It's like car insurance. Yeah, we pay a lot of money betting that we don't get into accidents, but we eventually do. The fact that we all pay makes the cost lower for everyone. God forbid something drastic happens but if it does we're covered. Plus... its a normal person who gets themselves checked every once in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I'd like to add here that while I may not need coverage as much as older people do I am happy to pay in to help my older friends and family members be able to afford it. Heck, I'm happy to pay in to help anyone who needs it.
Isn't this why Ayn Rand sucking off the government tit comes up? She was all about individual effort stand on your own two feet bullshit but she ended up on Social Security and Medicare because she smoked herself into lung cancer?
Paul Ryan too.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I used Food Stamps and housing subsidies for a very brief period, and I've said many times that there should be some amount of assistance available for just such scenarios. However, it should be a hell of a lot more restrictive than it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I don't plan on seeing a dime back of what I've paid into Social Security or Medicaid.
lol...what?Quote:
Ps no one is forcing you to remain a us citizen... That's kinda like the sign-up sheet...
Wait a minute. You sucked the government tit too? Now you're all about "Let me opt-out, I don't need that shit and won't be using it." Good Grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I'm operating under the mentality of I can take care of myself. If something happens that I need to pay for it, I have money to pay for it. I don't live paycheck to paycheck and drive the newest leased vehicles and wear the hottest new designer clothes and eat out at fancy restaurants every day and go "oh, it's cool if I get cancer, my medical bills will be paid for!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I see a doctor regularly, I see a dentist regularly. I get my vision checked once a year. I would gladly pay 100% out of pocket for these services, because I'M the one using them.
I'd most certainly help my friends and family pay for unexpected medical expenses. That's what friends and family are for. I'm not friends and family with the entire population of the US.Quote:
I'd like to add here that while I may not need coverage as much as older people do I am happy to pay in to help my older friends and family members be able to afford it. Heck, I'm happy to pay in to help anyone who needs it.
Speak for yourself. YOU pay a lot... Some of us have figured out that we don't have to have car/health insurance. If you and the other sheeple are happy to pay for others, then go right ahead. That doesn't mean I should have to as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
"...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
-Ayn Rand
Back, can you please send me a check to pay for my medical bills. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Are you going to pay for your own fire department, police force, army, road pavers, lights along the roads to your house, power to your house?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Yeah, you go ahead and claim you don't have to pay anything but you enjoy the amenities that all tax payers pay. STFU.
Can we just have a brief time out to acknowledge the fact that this convo is clearly out of control when someone associates Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Take 5 guys.
HahahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
How bad is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Aren't we already sending checks to Jarvans sisters?
They both needed welfare and both hate welfare for other people. That's the association.Quote:
Originally Posted by leifastagsweed
No government run on optional contributions is sustainable, but most recognize that the governed world is far better than the ungoverned. Your claim to responsibility is not firmly grounded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Yeah but he's really just mad cause they don't get the cash soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Well, apparently I am a Republican sympathizer, which I would figure you would classify as having a mental disorder. So fairly bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Sounds to me like liberals embrace Jesus's teachings more than conservatives do.
Is it bad? I am willing to help a fellow American. Heck, I'll help anyone who is having hard times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
lol, keep your money, apparently you need reading lessons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
UM. Okay. Ayn Rand was a writer and Paul Ryan is a career politician. Other than the word scramble, the association is invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Why would I pay for those things when others already pay for them? You don't sound very "happy to help", Back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
What did I miss?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Wow. Ok dude. Revolution! and all that bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
What is your objection here? Are you saying that she was just some writer like John Grisham of Jackie Collins and can't be compared to someone in politics? I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by leifastagsweed
This isn't about Ayn Rand. She wasn't 'just' anything. Paul Ryan is 'just' a bunch of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Wow, the PC is rich today... R U serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
As I stated before, it was not immoral to receive welfare once you'd already been forced to pay into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
According to every source I could find on the issue, Ayn Rand and her husband, combined, received a total of roughly $14,000 dollars in social security benefits. No Medicare information could be found.
This would be a very small fraction of the amount she paid into those programs over 50 years of working in Hollywood and writing several best-sellers.
These are both people that advocated/advocate the destruction of social programs yet benefited from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by leifastagsweed
Rule number 1 of the PC. Do not take it too seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Ayn Rand did not benefit from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I don't know about Paul Ryan, never bothered looking in to his past.
She was on Social Security and most certainly did benefit. Paul Ryan's college tuition was paid by parental Social Security benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Dude, Ayn Rand collected Social Security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Learn about what you think you know about anything. Please. For yourself.
You sure qualify the shit out of your libertarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Exactly what was the benefit of her receiving back a very small portion of the money taken from her in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You are assuming she received a small portion. She also had cancer and was on medicare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Wrong? Most certainly not. A benefit? Most certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I never said she didn't receive Social Security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Trust me, in this, I am VERY well learned.
ok, so...what was the benefit to her?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
If I take away $50,000 from you, wait 30 years, and give you back $14,000 of it....exactly how did you benefit?
Really? Oh, a check every week to pay for perhaps food, medicine, living quarters... I dunno... bubble gun she could not afford in her old age?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Prove it?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Where did you get those numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Her estate was worth well over a million dollars when she died...Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You really should take your own advice sometimes.
$30,000 pays for more than just bubble gum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
1.2 million. I don't think any millionaire would consider 30 grand not a benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
So why did she cash those SS checks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
"Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits. A similar FOI request was unable to either prove or disprove the Medicare claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Between December 1974 and her death in March 1982, Rand collected a total of $11,002 in monthly Social Security payments. O’Connor received $2,943 between December 1974 and his death in November 1979."
Her estate was worth about 1.2 million. In modern money, that 13 grand is about 30,000. In short? A benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
She didn't. A lady named Mrs. Pryor, who had power of attorney for her estate, did. A quote from an interview with Mrs. Pryor....Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
"Winding down the interview, McConnell asked: “Would you say that Ayn Rand practiced what she preached?”
Pryor replied, laughing: “Yes, that’s why I had so much trouble with her.”
“You mean the Social Security issue and all that?” McConnell said.
“Yes,” Pryor said."
Now work out the amount she paid in before receiving that money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I pay in quite a lot of taxes compared to some folks. It doesn't mean that if I suddenly get a refund it isn't a benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Wow. You really believe that if I take a lot of your money and give you back a little bit of it....you've benefited?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You must be a hit in Vegas.
Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane didn't. They stuck to their guns. Ayn...well she folded like a cheap suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Quote:
Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand , McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.
“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.
The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”
A little knowledge really is worse than none at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Don't worry, I went ahead and posted some of the facts you left out, for obvious reasons.
So when you fall into bad ends beyond your control you expect people to just walk past not giving a fuck?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
You really think your tax refunds aren't a benefit to you? I have a microbrew habit you could finance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
"Some people can’t afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off—charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the ’60′s got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
But the fact is: You don’t abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not any politician, lobbyist or activist calls it a “right.” To call it a right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still—though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name."
-Leonard Peikoff
...sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Too bad you got this religion after you were on welfare. It could have saved us some money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I had this "religion" well before taking food stamps for a few months. I used them because they were there, and I had a right to a refund of my money that was taken from me against my will in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I've paid in WELL more than I've taken, even if you only count the 4 years of taxes I paid prior to receiving benefits...it wouldn't have saved you anything.
This is a new development. Is he the first Republican to admit this?
Quote:
“I think one of the most unfortunate things my party did the last three years was not offer an alternative to health care,” Ross responded. “I’ve always felt that way. I think it’s absurd when I tell people that this isn’t what you should do, but I don’t have an alternative for you.”
Ross continued by explaining that he had proposed a patient healthcare bill that would cover pre-existing conditions, permit the interstate sale of insurance, and allow for health saving accounts saying, “I think these are good ideas, I would support them.”
Ross then admitted, “My party decided to not bring anything up.”
article
There's a whole lot of interesting concepts here. The first is the idea that tax money is taken "against your will." You enjoy the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. You have no "right to the refund of your money" just because you think you're special.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
If you get money and other people do not, that is another benefit to you.
Let's do the math. How much did you pay in federal taxes for those four years and how much did you receive in various welfare programs? It will be interesting to see the rates of pmnt vs. withdrawal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Cliven Bundy lives in the world of "some taxes shouldn't apply to me because I disagree with them" too.
The United States existed for over a hundred years before we had an income tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I enjoy the Rights and Freedoms (what few are left) that the United States affords me...this has nothing to do with taxes. These are principles that exist regardless of economy or situation. I enjoy the benefits of my own hard work in an environment that allows hard work to make me prosperous.
I gain no benefit from Federal taxes over the benefit I would gain from not having them.
As a side note, I have no problem at all paying local property taxes and other municipal taxes, since these provide services I actually use.
So paying taxes = freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
We do have to pay for the freedom we enjoy, hence taxes. However, the fact that our government sucks when it comes to spending that money wisely is another matter. In many ways we have no one to blame but ourselves though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You seem to be woefully unaware of the tax structure that existed before the income tax. You also seem completely unaware of all the benefits you get from the federal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
On top of both of those, you're still deaf to the miserable failure the Articles of Confederation was.
Stepping up and doing your part rather than being a freeloader is actually a rather conservative idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The single largest source of income was trade tariffs, which I'm totally cool with. Naturally I would be completely against poll taxes...I've said before I have no problem with municipal taxes. There is very, very little that I'm "unaware of" when it comes to US history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
To the other I must declare my ignorance...what benefits will I receive that I wouldn't otherwise have without paying an income tax?
No, I just usually ignore you when you bring it up, because it's what you always fall back on when your arguments falter. I have never once said I wanted to go back to the Articles of the Confederation, but keep it up. :deadhorse:Quote:
On top of both of those, you're still deaf to the miserable failure the Articles of Confederation was.
This is an absurd statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
-military
-civil rights
-infrastructure
-law enforcement
All gone or catastrophically undermined without a powerful federal government. Do you think it's a coincidence we became the greatest and best country in the world only after we implemented a federal income tax? You should, because to some extent it is. But it really, really, really helped.
There's this tiny little problem where the entirety of your political party is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The failure of your system doesn't actually represent a dead horse.
As Latrin explains, the history of America under the income tax actually does an excellent job of illustrating why it is still relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
...okay, this is an absurd statement. Mercantilism? That's your plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
We were the greatest and best country in the world the day we ratified our Constitution. We became the most powerful country in the world because of the aforementioned Constitution, our diverse background, abundant natural resources, and strategically excellent global position. None of these things require a federal income tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
That's a slippery slope. Anyone who comes along and writes a better constitution automatically jumps ahead of us in the greatest and best category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
"my party" doesn't want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. That is the far extreme...right now we're getting very near the opposite extreme. We're trying to get back a little closer to the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Hey Thond, If you remember, can and are so inclined, please put up those numbers on the 4 years of taxes paid vs. limited benefits received. If you don't want to, that's A-OK. I don't like to get personal here either. What I want to do is look at the benefits as a % of total taxes and % of taxes collected which were earmarked towards those social programs.
You're certainly deaf to why the tax happened, much like your deafness to why the Federal Reserve happened. It's convenient to ignore our success since they've occurred and hyper focus on your perceived loss of "freedoms."Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
You don't want to pay taxes. You don't want any useful social programs. You don't want lawsuits to stop corporate actions. You don't want regulations to protect us. Many of you don't even want to fund the military, police, fire prevention, and schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
What does that sound like?
I received roughly $1800 in benefits total...I would have to dig up tax returns from 19 years ago to see what all I paid in. My wife keeps all of that stuff somewhere, I'll ask her when she gets home.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What are your thoughts on how so many of our tax dollars go into the pockets of the freeloaders you refer to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
A fifth of the nation in bondage, gross disenfranchisement, four armed rebellions before the turn of the century, blatant curtailing of the First Amendment. The federal government explicitly said that for anyone "To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it" criticism of the government would be fined $2,000 ($27 grand today) and imprisoned for 2 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Doesn't sound too great to me, bro.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is the most totalitarian and socialist the United States has ever been. Do you really think that we can't be any more so? Really??? Maybe you should spend less time studying US history and look into Germany, Italy, Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The tax happened because the powerful got greedy. Same with the Federal Reserve. We're trillions and trillions of dollars in debt right now...sorry, but I don't consider that a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Also, this is completely unrelated to my loss of freedoms. I wasn't aware the Patriot Act had any clauses relating to taxation or the Fed.
Never said that. Quite the opposite, actually.Quote:
You don't want to pay taxes.
Never said that either.Quote:
You don't want any useful social programs.
I think there should be bigger penalties for people who bring frivolous lawsuits, but I'm not against the idea completely. I do think that busybody lawyers have caused more harm than good in the long term, though it's hard to weight the negatives and positives in any realistic manner.Quote:
You don't want lawsuits to stop corporate actions.
I'm against a lot of regulations that exist under the guise of protecting us, and I think people should be more responsible for their own protection.Quote:
You don't want regulations to protect us.
I think we could stand to cut the budget there by several billion, and change some of the ways we do business with it, but completely defunding it is absurd.Quote:
Many of you don't even want to fund the military
Got no problem paying municipal taxes, already said that.Quote:
police, fire prevention, and schools.
A logical, well-adjusted person.Quote:
What does that sound like?
I don't obsess about other people "taking my share." I know what's in the budget apart from the welfare queen meme. If I wanted to waste my time I could certainly spend all day worrying about my tax dollars going to questionable things that don't even come close to government benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
It laid the foundation for what was to come. You cannot fault the Constitution because the government took it's sweet time to start following it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I didn't say the Constitution was bad. I said that we weren't the greatest and best nation in the world in 1789, and it looks like you agree. Hugs!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Or maybe, just maybe, we have the tax for the purposes of global competition and the Federal Reserve to prevent financial panics and to actually have a monetary policy. Besides. You're a Libertarian. Aren't you supposed to idolize the greedy rich and powerful? What I described sounds quite like the Articles and you stand right up for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
This is a common misconception from those blinded by jealousy and hate. Idolize certainly wouldn't be the right word. I have a lot of respect for people who become rich and powerful by their own hard work...old money doesn't really impress me much. I also understand that leaders of Industry drive our economy and employ our people, contributing to our $50,000 per capita GDP, one of the highest in the world, and that attempting to hinder them only hinders our own citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I'm starting to think you don't actually read anything I type.Quote:
What I described sounds quite like the Articles and you stand right up for it.
How exactly am I blinded by jealousy and hate? You're the one who suggested that the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve exist because of the "greedy and powerful."Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Those are both reasons why our per capita GDP is so high.
When I said greedy, I was referring to politicians. When you said rich and powerful, I assumed you were talking about corporations. I apologize if this caused some confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I was just trying to talk like you. Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Regarding the millions of people losing health insurance talking point.
http://images.dailykos.com/images/79...jpg?1398355491
Quote:
Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually. This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm.
source
Speaking of government run healthcare... I'm sure it's going to be awesome though.. really:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.1767284
Good thing ACA is private health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Uh huh...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Just wait for this behemoth to get rolling.. it's barely even begun.
Medicaid wasn't expanded under the ACA? Medicare didn't have its funds cut in order to make ACA "affordable"?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Come on, cwolff. You know better than this.
Medicaid was expanded not created. There's a means test and the minimum level has changed. Come on Tg, you know this. The exchanges are just private insurance, you know this too. Neither is the VA system. PB's really stretching here and just to be a bitch. Instead of recognizing, commenting or discussing the chart and quote I posted he brings in a non-relevant article. By definition, he's trolling. Don't let him manipulate you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
For now, but Barry did say what he wants and how it will be an incremental process.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
http://youtu.be/fpAyan1fXCE
That's like...exactly what I said...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
No one commented on your chart because your chart icky and you have a tendency to post misleading charts.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The follow chart shows how much Obama's approval rating has dropped in just the past 24 hours.
Attachment 6422
Shit! Look at that direct downwards plunge!
I'd like single payer too. We're not there yet but are heading in the right direction.
That's exactly what you said though it's not really germane to this discussion so I guess I made an assumption that you were thinking Medicaid expansion is somehow equal to the VA. I apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Please don't smash my car.
Umm.. PB said that government run healthcare did GREAT for those 40 people.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Then said wait till this gets rolling.. which Obama, Pelosi, and Reid all said that ACA is a MEANS to single payer.
So.. you are wrong. PB bringing up how GREAT a government run program is makes sense.
ACA's not government run healthcare. Will we eventually go that route? Maybe. Then again, maybe we won't. You're all just talking smack because the information I posted destroys another stupid talking point. You've just about run out of reasons to hate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I only need one reason; that being the government's attempt to strong arm me into paying for it against my will.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Another ACA convert.
Quote:
"I don't read what the Democrats have to say about it because I think they're full of it," he told his friend Bob Leinhauser, who suggested he sign up.
That refrain changed this year when a faulty aortic valve almost felled Angstadt. Suddenly, he was facing a choice: Buy a health plan, through a law he despised, that would pay the lion's share of the cost of the life-saving surgery - or die. He chose the former.
"A lot of people I talk to are so misinformed about the ACA," Angstadt said. "I was, before Bob went through all this for me. I would recommend it to anybody and, in fact, have encouraged friends, including the one guy who hauls my logs."
Testify
So the guy refused to have health insurance and even refused to see a doctor until he could barely walk and when a doctor finally said "You need this surgery or you'll die" he finally decided to get healthcare and this somehow has anything to do with Obamacare?
Yup. On a few different levels yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You sure it isn't a story about a stubborn man refusing to have health insurance for over 5 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It's that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's only that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Tgo01 wins another one. This is too easy.
This guy's the winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
"I probably would have ended up falling over dead" without the surgery, Angstadt said. "Not only did it save my life, it's going to give me a better quality of life."
Angstadt faces a long recovery, but his conversion to ACA supporter is done. The political storm around the ACA, he said, is the political parties "fighting each other over things that can benefit people."
"For me, this isn't about politics," he added. "I'm trying to help other people who are like me, stubborn and bullheaded, who refused to even look. From my own experience, the ACA is everything it's supposed to be and, in fact, better than it's made out to be."
There's nothing in that story that couldn't have been accomplished before Obamacare.
He never said he couldn't afford health insurance, he just didn't want it.
This is a great story about a man getting life saving surgery just in time but all of the credit for some reason is going to Obamacare.
I guess when your law sucks you have to credit it with every good story that comes down the pike.
His ACA payment is 26$ a month. He had a pacemaker and defibrilator installed already and faulty aortic valve that required surgery. This is not a man who can afford the premium on private insurance with that kind of pre-existing condition. What insurance company, pre-aca, would even write a policy for someone who's immediately going in for heart surgery?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
But last summer, his health worsened again. It was taking him 10 minutes to catch his breath after felling a tree. By fall, he was winded after traveling the 50 feet between his house and truck.
"I knew that I was really sick," said the Boyertown resident. "I figured the doctors were going to have to operate, so I tried to work as long as I could to save money for the surgery. But it got to the point where I couldn't work."
How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This happened in New Jersey, right? In NJ health insurance companies could only not cover preexisting conditions for up to 12 months. The man could have bit the bullet and bought health insurance years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Yes, you're absolutely right that if he literally waited until the very last minute to get health insurance to cover his health problems then in most states it probably would have been too late.
I guess this is the way things are going to be in the future; fuck paying for health insurance, just wait until you need it then pay 20 bucks for it. What could possibly go wrong with this plan?
You're crying over spilled milk. We've decided to not let people die in the street here and it's nothing new.
Classic case of appealing to emotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Keep trying. You're still wrong but I don't want to discourage you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
We decided that a long, long, long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This is more like "we've decided to take more of the poor's money because they're too stupid to know we're raping them anyway, as long as we do it with a smile and tell them it's best for them."
Appeal to ridicule.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
None would, because insurance is a business, and taking on massive debt on purpose is about the stupidest business decision possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I know you want it to be a charity, but it's not. These are just basic facts.
Would medicaid have paid for his surgery?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
If it was medically necessary and he was on Medicaid, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
After the deductible, of course, assuming he was on share-of-cost, which he probably would have been if he was on it at all, since he apparently worked.
If not, the surgery would have been performed and he would have been billed afterwards, perhaps having to declare bankruptcy from it. Do I feel bad for the guy? Sure I do. Do I think we should force a private company to become a charity because of it? Hell no.
This is exactly what I'm doing. I don't get a tax refund anyway, so they can shove their little penalty up their ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Under any circumstance but catastrophe I wouldn't reach my deductible in a given year anyway, so I just made my own little HSA (aka separate bank account) and pay out of pocket for checkups and whatnot.
I wonder how many people have really analyzed their shiny new ACA plans.
What happens if you need surgery next month or find out you have cancer and need treatment right away?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Then it looks like I'll have some bills to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So, before Obamacare, people were left to die in the streets. Now that we have it, no one will die in the streets?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'm not sure if it's just sadness I feel for you (or more likely those poor innocent people around you) or pity that people like you actually live.
So cwolff things ACA is a success story because a guy who refused to have insurance, ends up getting insurance to pay for a critical surgery.
Silly cwolff. ACA would not be getting credit if this exact same story happened 5 years ago, but instead it would be a story about how a guy avoided having to pay for insurance for years and then ends up getting 'a free ride' on the premiums of others.
The question is why is the story not about the later?
I'm sure some conservative rags will vilify the subject of this story. Probably not the mainstream ones like Fox but the fringes will. One thing that should scare is that he's a poor white republican and he's having a positive experience with ACA. Kind of like all those Kentuckians. If the right loses the poor whites they're really in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I still don't understand why people like cwolff can't understand the concept of insurance vs. charity.
Like when you're playing Blackjack -- Dealer deals himself an Ace up. When this happens, you get offered insurance that you can pay for, to where you don't lose your bet if the dealer turns out to have blackjack, since there's about a 1/3 chance that his down card is a 10 value.
If the dealer doesn't have blackjack, you lose your insurance money, but the hand continues as normal.
Long version of the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack#Insurance
In the Obamacare world, if the dealer deals himself an Ace up, and once it's revealed that he has blackjack, then you're given the option to buy insurance and not lose anything.
I know cwolff will never answer this because he never answers anything, but how does this make sense in any insurance industry?
cwolff = "irrelevant, ACA is about ensuring people have insurance, no matter what the price is to taxpayers"Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I pay less for better healthcare than I did last year thanks to the ACA.
It's true. Anytime Back needs to see a gynecologist he's covered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You sound like someone who hates poor people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The ACA prevents people from just dying in the streets. And it's called the AFFORDABLE Care Act.. which means it's affordable.
What's not to love???
All people who were too poor or too stupid to have good healthcare prior to this will benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I, on the other hand, have stuck with Blue Cross/Blue Shield because it's less expensive and gives lower deductibles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Are all government social programs charity? All subsidies? All of the various tax loopholes? They are all charity? If that's the case then you are promoting a strict libertarian view that's not how our country works nor will it be and you don't deserve a response so just be grateful when you do get one. Consider it charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The blackjack comparison isn't accurate. In blackjack you are offered the chance to buy insurance immediately. ACA has enrollment periods. The gambling metaphor works though. All the people who refused to get insured are gambling that they will not have major medical issues which require immediate attention this year. If they lose that gamble we all lose. It's not responsible and it's not good citizenship.
How are they not charity?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
By definition they are not charity. You can say that there are similar components like social programs help needy folks and charity also is designed to help those in need. You can draw some comparisons but they are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Another example we can look at is the tax code. You get a mortgage interest credit if you have a mortgage. That's not charity because it's targeted to stimulate growth in housing.
Farmers get subsidies because we want them to not go out of business in a bad year. We say that there is a value to maintaining these farms even if they may not be able to compete in the free market.
You still haven't explained how they are different, you've just explained the reasoning for the charity.
char·i·ty
[char-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural char·i·ties.
1.
generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2.
something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3.
a charitable act or work.
4.
a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5.
benevolent feeling, especially toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.
Sure I did. Farmers don't get subsidies only if they demonstrate need nor do you get tax breaks because you are needy. Social programs may feel like a generous gift but they are pragmatic and our society has recognized the value in making these part of our priorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril