Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 95

Thread: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Are you comfortable with another $2.2 trillion worth of debt?
    That is the estimate price of extending all of the Bush admin's income tax cuts.
    Ya, I know Bush's tax cuts are gone this year... you want my honest analysis :
    - Buy a few years supply of food that won't go bad
    - barter items
    - weapons to protect it
    It would also be a good idea to convince your neighborhood to prepare as best they can as well...

    There is NO SAVING the economy. At best Obama can simply delay the inevitable, however, he's done, like Bush did, just about everything wrong.

    And, yes... your warren Buffet quote illustrates the WHY this is happening.

  2. #52
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Ya, I know Bush's tax cuts are gone this year... you want my honest analysis :
    - Buy a few years supply of food that won't go bad
    - barter items
    - weapons to protect it
    It would also be a good idea to convince your neighborhood to prepare as best they can as well...

    There is NO SAVING the economy. At best Obama can simply delay the inevitable, however, he's done, like Bush did, just about everything wrong.

    And, yes... your warren Buffet quote illustrates the WHY this is happening.
    You might be right about that. There seems to be an upper limit to income disparity before everything collapses in on itself. I know, correlation is not necessarily causation, but still:
    http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/...alitychart.jpg
    This chart ends in 2006, but you can see our current situation mirrors previous crashes. Low tax rates, high income disparity.

    One might postulate that concentrating wealth into too few hands leaves the lower class unable to purchase enough to keep the economy going. Borrowing starts to rise and eventually it all falls under its own weight.

    Edit: Although I disagree that we're coming up on the "stock up on guns for the fall of civilization" state.
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-18-10 at 03:51 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Edit: Although I disagree that we're coming up on the "stock up on guns for the fall of civilization" state.
    Listen, back in the 30's when the economy collapsed, there were about 80-90% of people that were self-sufficient... they could live off the land if need be, while the rest were in cities. Now, it's maybe 90% of the population are urban, and 10% rural, and of the 10% maybe half are actually self-sufficient...

    7 million people starved to death during the great depression, and these were most all hardworking, moral, and honorable people. Today, the population is decadent, cares only about themselves, immoral, slobs, care more about sports, sex and drugs then about the world. Not only that, could not survive off the land if they had to, even with the right tools.

    Finally, after 3 days without food most people will begin to steal... after 7 days they are willing to kill for food... by 15 days cannibalism begins to set in.

    However, there's still the high tech overlay.... to give a movie analogy, I think the world will begin to look something like the world of children with men. What with things like the patriot act, civilian inmate labour camp programs, GIVE act, etc... that's not even so much of a stretch.

    Look, we're headed to the end of this thing... we need to brace ourselves, and really look at what we're heading into, and we need to be preparing. I mean, I used to think that this was coming, but way later on... but the way things are going, it might be as soon as 6-12 months before things really start getting crazy, though there are things that can be done to delay the inevitable. Better to prepare as a community then as individuals.

  4. #54
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Well I suppose you have a point... oh wait, no, no you have no point at all.

    A TAX, cannot force an Average American CITIZEN to purchase a PRODUCT OR SERVICE he may or may not wish to purchase. Freedom, Liberty Trump any thing some worthless "progressive" legal group wants to claim. Obama's so far left he thinks this makes sense, and only those that far left with him would accept such nonsense a mere tax.

    That's the failing of the entire affair. We are "Forced" to purchase a service, whether we WANT IT OR NOT, just to live in this country. That, is not acceptable, and will be struck down by the courts.
    Sure he can. This entire argument of "taxation w/o representation" is inaccurate where health care reform legistlation is concerned. We've all been represented by virtue of having all those townhall meetings and debates in Congress by every Representative imaginable. So, that argument wouldn't hold water since the entire nation knew about them.

    As to the insurance penalty/tax - whatever it's bound to be called - here's how I see it:

    Conservatives/Republicans argue that too many of America's citizens are using emergency rooms as primary care. I won't touch the illegal immigrate issue because the only way to curb that is to either deport every illegal or convert them all into American citizens. Until either happens, we're just gonna have to suck it up because by law emergency rooms can't turn away anyone who walks through their doors who are deemed in need of care. Back to the point...

    If the argument is too many Americans are going w/o health care, what are the solutions to getting them health care?

    1. We enact universal health care. We'll we know how that worked out...

    2. We enact a public option which is sort of a "50/50 mix" of those who can afford health care and those who otherwise cannot w/o goverment assistance. In its basic form, the public option would have allowed consumers to either obtain low-cost health insurance directly through a health insurance exchange* OR it would have provided government subsides to help offset the cost of health insurance offered by the government. Either way, consumers would have paid in whole or in part for their health care. That idea was scraped because Congressional opposition feared that citizens would leave employer-sponsored health insurance in droves for the cheaper, low-cost government sponsored health insurace. The counter argument which I agree with was that the health care plans offered by the government would be base plans that all health insurance providers would have to meet. Moreover, if the private sector could offer health insurance under broader plans that go beyond the minimum base requirement at a fair price, competition via the "free enterprise system" would still be present. Therefore, the argument that was being used w/the bailout of the banks and GM, towit, "let the free enterprise system work" doesn't hold water when this same argument was applied to the public option -vs- private sector health insurance. Unfortunately, we will never know if this concept would have worked as outlined since the public option was scrapped.

    3. We raise the minimum wage to such a degree that people with low-income can afford health insurance on their own. Or we mandate that every employer must provide health care to their employees including part-time employees since it is these individuals, as well as those whose income is based mostly on tips, who are being shafted the most where health insurance or the lack thereof is concerned.

    4. We force everyone to have health insurance and those who do not must pay a penalty that goes toward defraying the cost of health care received via emergency rooms on the public's nickle.

    *Note: Under Part II, Section 1311 of H.R. 3590, Health Insurance Exchanges can be established by the individual States. In doing so, they must meet guidelines as outlined in H.R. 3590; however, the States can opt-out of establishing same per Section 1333(b)(2).

  5. #55
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Meant to add the following to my last post:

    Sidenote: If the claim is true by Republicans that most of the "uninsured" are illegals and H.R. 3590 makes it clear that no illegals will be authorized to participate in any State's HIE, it stands to reason that most Americans will receive their health insurance either through their employer, their State's HIE if they offer one, Medicaid or Medicare or on their own if they can afford to do so. Assuming these avenues of obtaining health insurance holdstrue, I'm curious how many American citizens would face paying a penalty for not having insurance since the States will offer high-risk pools until they can established thier HIEs or Community Health Insurance options within their respective HIE's? Seems to me the People will be afforded several opportunities to gain health insurance including the States being allowed to form intra-state HIEs even if individuals can't afford to do so on their own but using government subsidies until 2015, 1-year after the Exchanges are authorized to form. This is why I continue to argue the importance of the People educating themselves where health care reform is concerned. Alot of what's being stated by Republicans just isn't true, i.e., the penalty on individuals. Per Part II, Section 1311(d)(4)(H):

    subject to section 1411, grant a certification attesting that, for purposes of the individual responsibility penalty under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, an individual is exempt from the individual
    requirement or from the penalty imposed by such section because—

    (i) there is no affordable qualified health plan available through the Exchange, or the individual’s employer, covering the individual; or
    (ii) the individual meets the requirements for any other such exemption from the individual responsibility requirement or penalty;
    H.R. 3590 provides several opportunities for individuals to obtain exemptions due to their inability to afford health insurance. As such, if citizens follow the rules and qualify for an exemption, there really shouldn't be a problem with this mandate.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-18-10 at 08:59 PM.

  6. #56
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You mean uninsured people will have to start paying for some of the health care they receive in the emergency room? Dang. That's terrible.

    I'm also not sure I'd describe $695/year for the uninsured as "big" or "fat" or "everyone."

    But yes, there's a $695 tax penalty for not carrying insurance. Is this a surprise to you? Did you not pay any attention at all during the last 18 months?
    What a masterful strawman Deuce. So well that a bunch of people actually fell for it.

    Too bad this thread wasn't about people having to pay for themselves at emergency rooms, but had to do with outright abject lies and dishonesty perpetrated by the candidate that was going to "Change" politics as usual.

  7. #57
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Well, "Change We Can Believe In" folks.

    What? Obama? No. The change I'm talking about is all the liberals that were all gung ho for that message during the campaign because they were sick of the lies, dishonesty, and political games of George W. Bush and were wanting a more transparent and honest government who now suddenly have no qualms with a President bald faced lying to the American Public to push through legislation beause "hey, he's just a politician".


  8. #58
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Meant to add the following to my last post:

    Sidenote: If the claim is true by Republicans that most of the "uninsured" are illegals and H.R. 3590 makes it clear that no illegals will be authorized to participate in any State's HIE, it stands to reason that most Americans will receive their health insurance either through their employer, their State's HIE if they offer one, Medicaid or Medicare or on their own if they can afford to do so. Assuming these avenues of obtaining health insurance holdstrue, I'm curious how many American citizens would face paying a penalty for not having insurance since the States will offer high-risk pools until they can established thier HIEs or Community Health Insurance options within their respective HIE's? Seems to me the People will be afforded several opportunities to gain health insurance including the States being allowed to form intra-state HIEs even if individuals can't afford to do so on their own but using government subsidies until 2015, 1-year after the Exchanges are authorized to form. This is why I continue to argue the importance of the People educating themselves where health care reform is concerned. Alot of what's being stated by Republicans just isn't true, i.e., the penalty on individuals. Per Part II, Section 1311(d)(4)(H):



    H.R. 3590 provides several opportunities for individuals to obtain exemptions due to their inability to afford health insurance. As such, if citizens follow the rules and qualify for an exemption, there really shouldn't be a problem with this mandate.
    Shouldn't be a problem ???? Are you serious???

    1. How can a family living paycheck to paycheck afford to pay out over $6,000. in insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses each year ??

    2. How can a family living paycheck to paycheck afford a tax penalty of $1,500. every year ???

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  9. #59
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What a masterful strawman Deuce. So well that a bunch of people actually fell for it.

    Too bad this thread wasn't about people having to pay for themselves at emergency rooms, but had to do with outright abject lies and dishonesty perpetrated by the candidate that was going to "Change" politics as usual.
    The OP decided to pursue the derail about mandates and the tax being separate or something. That spun off a whole ridiculous semantics discussion. In case you hadn't noticed, the derail is over. Yet here you are bringing it up again. Read the thread.

    I disagreed with Obama when he said that. I already mentioned this. I've disagreed with Obama on a lot of things. Is this what you do? Reply to a post in the first page without reading the other six?
    Many times on this forum I've called Obama "Bush III," so don't act like I'm trying to deflect attention from his acting like every other goddamned president in history. He's a centrist corporate shill like all the rest.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #60
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Remember that Obama's plan was essentially the Republican plan from the 90s. In effect the only people who pay the tax are the people who don't have health insurance.
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •