Page 77 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 770 of 1220

Thread: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

  1. #761
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    THIS IS NOT A FLIP FLOP OR A LIE. He just evolved on the issue!
    Evolved? Is that what a lie is being called now? I'll have to add that growing list of words we use when a politician has flat out lied : I/he/she misspoke - I/he/she misundertood.

  2. #762
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    I think American liberals desperately want to pocket their victory and enjoy peace from the American right. I don't think American liberals want permanent political struggle.

    I also think that's why liberals are making such an effort to persuade conservatives. This is interesting to observe.

  3. #763
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yes on both counts.



    They were more than "floated as a GOP idea." These were the bread and butter of Republican health care reform plans for at least 20 years.



    There certainly is. Republicans were content to talk about these ideas in order to pretend like they actually wanted to do something, but the minute a guy with a (D) next to his name tried to make it policy they abandoned the idea. Not just as an idea they'd changed their mind about. Not just as an idea that they respectfully disagreed about. Not even as a bad policy. But as a horrible, tyrannical, socialist, unconstitutional, illegitimate policy that would bring about the destruction of America.



    A charming version of history...if only it were true. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, spent MONTHS negotiating with Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Olympia Snowe. Many/most of their ideas found their way into the Affordable Care Act. This negotiation didn't stop until the fall of 2009 when it became clear that the Republicans were simply stringing Baucus along and had no intention of supporting anything.
    Ok, I am outside my knowledge here. I know that Republicans did everything they could to derail a D win. Assholes. But the result is nothing to be happy about either. More assholes.

    I think we agreed earlier that a single payer, private service, UHC solution was best, but we disagreed on the timing of implementation. That is just because I do not know how many more 1200 page healthcare bills we can afford to process and implement, with all the loopholes and exceptions and whatnot.

    Just a straight up tax for single payer and UHC with private sector service is all that is needed. Let's just do it.

  4. #764
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    The law is some 2,700 pages, with 21 new taxes in it so far uncovered. If you don't think your taxes are going up to pay for this monstrosity, then you are fooling yourself.

    Well unless you're part of the 48% that pay nothing now.

  5. #765
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The data from every other developed country in the world suggests that you are wrong.



    I support allowing both as factors, within restrictions. Smoking is limited to 1.5-to-1, which seems fair. Obesity should probably be a bit less than that since it isn't entirely behavioral like smoking is. But yes, I agree it should be a factor.



    Neither should be allowed as factors, since people have no control over them. Age discrimination was heavily curtailed, but not eliminated by PPACA. There wasn't enough political support to eliminate it entirely. We can fight that battle another day.



    Well of course. It's a huge piece of legislation; those inevitably involve some horse-trading among legislators to get it passed. It doesn't need to be perfect.



    Because if you don't have insurance, chances are you won't actually have enough cash to pay your medical bills. This tax pays for the likelihood that you'll stick the public with the bill.



    Nope, but you should pay taxes on it like you do with the rest of your income. There's no reason to give preference to employers who compensate their employees with generous health benefits instead of generous salaries.



    I agree. PPACA opens the door to that possibility by taxing "Cadillac plans"; hopefully that can be expanded to ALL employer insurance plans in the future.



    You aren't taxed for not getting insurance from your employer, as long as you get it from somewhere else.
    Are you aware what a single, 60 year old, smoking, male must pay annually for a "PPACA approved" medical care insurance plan? It will surely exceed my rent ($300/month) so I will simply no longer file a FIT return in 2014 and let them wonder if I was insured or not, since the tiny refund I am normally due is not worth the bother to "self incriminate" and file as "self insured", which is then, basically a crime. I am quite willing to let the medical care facility, should any volunteer to treat me in an emergncy, and should it arrise, have ALL of my assets and declare bankruptcy, go on the dole and accept medcaid until I am 65 and get SS/medicare. USA, USA, USA...
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-01-12 at 07:56 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #766
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    LOL. Ok then, the dealer says "no, this SUV is a car, not a truck", but then the DMV says to check the "truck" box. Is the dealer a liar?

    Seriously, this is just too stupid. Sit down and think for a second before you reply.

    What did the Supremes call this "fee". I do believe it was called a TAX. The JD lawyers argued it was a TAX, the Supremes agreed. It's a TAX.

  7. #767
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Do you think software could be a contributing factor to causing an oil spill or a nuclear disaster? Isn't this why DOD is making Cyber Command a top level warfare command?
    Hey, that's an interesting point. It is true that software is steadily becoming a larger part of all those kinds of higher risk endeavors.

    But, that said, those riskier endeavors are when they work with industries that are heavily regulated. For example, if you try to sell software to a company for use in a nuclear reactor, the regulations of the nuclear industry will apply to you and they certainly have some requirements related to stability and security and whatnot. But still, the software industry as a whole isn't very heavily regulated, since most of the time they're not working on things with huge risks of externalities.

    It isn't so much like how regulated an industry is can be specified on a scale of 0 to 10 and politicians occasionally say "lets move mining up from 6 to 7". Regulations deal with specific actions that are regulated. For example, maybe they have a regulation about releasing CFCs, a regulation about porcupine habitats and a regulation about pesticides. Some industries tend to run into more regulations that others because of the nature of their work. So, software companies run into them some, but mining companies run into them more because they work with more things that have the potential to cause major externalies more often.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Good question. I have in mind co-ops between industry, government, university R&D and environmental groups. And all data is public.
    Well only government has the authority to regulate anything. We aren't answerable to universities or environmental groups. They aren't elected. So, should government take input from those kinds of entities, absolutely yes, and of course it does. But they don't have the authority to regulate anything. We don't give up our freedom to unelected organizations, we only agree to give it up to our own elected representatives.

    And why would unelected entities be LESS prone to corruption? They would be more prone to it since they don't have to worry about voters voting them out.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  8. #768
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy the Kid View Post
    He lied. Or if you don't like that . . . . . then he was to stupid to know what was in the bill he signed with much fanfare. Either way he needs to go; we don't have the time to train the OJT president anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy the Kid View Post
    What did the Supremes call this "fee". I do believe it was called a TAX. The JD lawyers argued it was a TAX, the Supremes agreed. It's a TAX.
    Honestly man, if you still don't understand, you just aren't even trying. Just really concentrate:

    Imagine that you buy a small SUV. Maybe it is built on a car chasis, but it has four wheel drive and in some ways looks more truck like. The dealership refers to it as a "car", but then when you go to register it at the DMV they say that because it is over a certain weight, they classify it as a "truck". You go back to the dealership and he says, "nah, it's more like a car". Is he "lying"?
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  9. #769
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    By that definition, every bill ever passed is done through concessions to he other party. If that is what you are saying then you are stating the obvious and adding nothing to the conversatio.
    That's right. It is totally obvious. That's why I was a bit baffled when you got so confused. Not every bill. Some bills are non-controversial enough that the majority party doesn't need to make any concessions at all. But, yes, pretty much all major bills, and certainly all major controversial bills contain many concessions to the other side. Health care is, of course, no exception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    But your original claim was the democrats made concessions to the GOP. You are saying something different now. What you are now claiming is that democrats made concessions to the political reality that there was not enough public support for any other course of action.
    That's right. They made concessions to the GOP on those issues. The GOP/insurance industry/Tea Party managed to bring enough public pressure that the Democrats in swing states could only sign the bill after those concessions had been made. That is no different than what I've been saying over and over.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  10. #770
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Are you aware what a single, 60 year old, smoking male must pay annually for a "PPACA approved" medical care insurance plan?
    It's unclear what the general premiums will be, as they will be governed by supply and demand...but it will not be more than 4.5 times what a 20-year-old nonsmoker would pay.

    It will surely exceed my rent ($300/month)
    Wow, maybe I should move to Texas.
    In any case, paying more than $300 per month for health insurance, for a 60-year-old smoking male hardly seems like a bad deal. And if you can't afford it, you'll be eligible for subsidies and your premium will be capped at a certain percentage of your income. I don't want to ask your income, but if it's below 400% of the federal poverty line, you can estimate the maximum you might have to pay here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPACA_Premium_CRS.jpg

    so I will simply no longer file a FIT return in 2014 and let them wonder if I was insured or not, since the tiny refund I am normally due is not worth the bother to "self incriminate" and file as "self insured", which is then, basically a crime.
    Just FYI, if you earned more than $9,500 last year you'll need to file a FIT return, whether you're expecting a refund or not.

    I am quite willing to let the medical care facility, should any volunteer to treat me in an emergncy, and should it arrise, have ALL of my assets and declare bankruptcy, go on the dole and accept medcaid until I am 65 and get SS/medicare. USA, USA, USA...
    Thank you for illustrating exactly why we need the individual mandate.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-01-12 at 08:11 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 77 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •