• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama not closing door on possible health care tax

As it relates to Government Managed Health care, what all voters need to ask of Obama and all the politicians in Washington is; will you be under the same plan as the rest of us.

You might be surprised by the answer to this question.

If they exempt themselves from the identical program they wish to foist on the rest of us, the answer is an OBVIOUS no thank you.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Yes, let's eliminate all taxes because parks are bad for us, scholarships are bad for us, and Medicare/Medicaid are bad for us.

Funny story, the other day one guy told me he hated Democrats because by the time he grew up, there wouldn't be any Social Security.
Click to expand...

Yes that's the argument; we want to eliminate all taxes. :roll:

Of course such absurd nonsense is always spewed when Liberals are confronted with the REALITY that the debate is not just about taxes, but about limiting choice, expanding the role of Government in our lives and the FACT that politicians can never get enough of our tax dollars and are incapable of balancing a budget.

This isn't about taxes, this is about the confiscation of citizen’s hard earned wealth so that politicians can pander to ignorant uninformed voters and make them wards of the "State."
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
When you complain to Democrats that they're destroying Social Security, a program that they implemented in the first place- yeah I find that pretty funny.

Also, you know what- I come from a pretty wealthy family (few pharmacists and my father's a doctor) and I also aspire to be a doctor some day. To say that we're well off financially isn't exactly an understatement. I have no problem taxing the wealthy more than taxing the poor. I'm not saying tax the wealthy until they're poor or even middle class. Think about this though, taxing one millionaire one percent is $10,000. That's only one percent, a relative drop in the bucket to a millionaire. However, to somebody who only makes 40k a year, that's 3 months pay.
Click to expand...

So what? Why should he be taxes differently then the poor guy? They are both citizens of the same country.
 
TheHat said:
So what? Why should he be taxes differently then the poor guy? They are both citizens of the same country.
Click to expand...

Because he has extra money that hurts the economy because it's not being spent? Why should one guy have extra benefits because he grew up in a wealthy family? Why should one person have a better education because he lives in a different part of the country? Why shouldn't everybody have universal healthcare? We're all citizens of the same country.
 
Truth Detector said:
Yes that's the argument; we want to eliminate all taxes. :roll:

Of course such absurd nonsense is always spewed when Liberals are confronted with the REALITY that the debate is not just about taxes, but about limiting choice, expanding the role of Government in our lives and the FACT that politicians can never get enough of our tax dollars and are incapable of balancing a budget.

This isn't about taxes, this is about the confiscation of citizen’s hard earned wealth so that politicians can pander to ignorant uninformed voters and make them wards of the "State."
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the argument; politicians are only pandering to ignorant uninformed voters while making them wards of the "State" so that they can "confiscate" their hard earned wealth. :roll:

Of course such absurd nonsense is always spewed when Conservatives are confronted with the REALITY of a debate, but the FACT is that strawman arguments are pretty weak.

Perhaps my hyperbole was a bit exaggerated, but it's obvious that Republicans want to cut taxes as far as they can. It's equally obvious that government spending actually helps the technology and academia sectors. It's pretty hard to lead the world in technology and academia if the government doesn't support them.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Because he has extra money that hurts the economy because it's not being spent?
Click to expand...

I am confused by this statement as it is suggesting that the economy is being hurt because the wealthy guy is not sending enough money to the Government. Is this what you intended to imply???

Smoke[MaxX] said:
Why should one guy have extra benefits because he grew up in a wealthy family?
Click to expand...

He has extra benefits because his hard work provides him sufficient wealth that enables him to AFFORD to BUY more insurance or BETTER coverage.

Smoke[MaxX] said:
Why should one person have a better education because he lives in a different part of the country?
Click to expand...

Because he can afford a better education than someone who cannot afford it; it is called choice.

Smoke[MaxX] said:
Why shouldn't everybody have universal healthcare? We're all citizens of the same country.
Click to expand...

Because Government managed programs are poorly thought out miserable programs that give their citizens LESS choice and MEDIOCRE care and, as is typified by such programs, the only ones who can OPT for BETTER care are once again the WEALTHY.

Which brings us to the main question for people like you; when has the Government EVER managed ANYTHING well or in a cost effective manner? Why would you want to become a dependent WARD of the State and accept a mediocre health care system?

I am always amazed when people make the Marxist statements that because life is not fair, we ALL should suffer under the same pathetic Government managed programs.

Social Security is a joke and going bankrupt do to abuse and the ponzi scheme it was designed from. Medicare is going bankrupt because of Government mismanagement and corruption. The US postal service even with it's vast monopoly cannot make a profit but instead continues to lose vast amounts of money.

So here we have the "fairness" mongers like you who once again instead of arguing for people to do MORE for themselves and GET educated and save money for their education, instead argue that the we all would be better off by having our wealth confiscated by the Government and all be given the same pathetic medical care managed by a Government who can't even balance it's own budget let alone manage something as vast as healthcare.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Perhaps my hyperbole was a bit exaggerated, ....
Click to expand...

It was a "LOT" exaggerated.

Smoke[MaxX] said:
...but it's obvious that Republicans want to cut taxes as far as they can.
Click to expand...

That is NOT what Republicans are wanting. Republicans want MORE responsible Government that manages within the scope of their Constitutional responsibilities and NOT allow politicians to pander to the uninformed masses with Government programs that do NOTHING to make life better but instead allow them to grab MORE political power.

Smoke[MaxX] said:
It's equally obvious that government spending actually helps the technology and academia sectors.
Click to expand...

I would like ONE example of Government spending that actually helps technology and academia that is NOT military related.

I would like ONE example where this has ANYTHING to do with the Health Care debate.

Smoke[MaxX] said:
It's pretty hard to lead the world in technology and academia if the government doesn't support them.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with the government manage health care debate?
 
Truth Detector said:
I am confused by this statement as it is suggesting that the economy is being hurt because the wealthy guy is not sending enough money to the Government. Is this what you intended to imply???
Click to expand...

No. Any economist would tell you that an economy that is spending more is a more healthy economy. If a billionaire died (and I'm not advocating this) and his wealth was "redistributed" to the poorest few percentage of the population, the economy would do better. Why? Because money that probably wouldn't be spent by the billionaire would probably be forced to flow from the hands of the poorest because they can't afford anything BUT to spend it all.

He has extra benefits because his hard work provides him sufficient wealth that enables him to AFFORD to BUY more insurance or BETTER coverage.
Click to expand...
That doesn't match my quote. One person's family has nothing to do with the laziness of an individual. My family is one of the hardest working families that I know. Doesn't mean I'm not really lazy.

Because he can afford a better education than someone who cannot afford it; it is called choice.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? You don't always choose where you live. This is especially true for children. "Yeah I chose where my parents were moving to. Their job had nothing to do with it." Also, the poor person doesn't have a choice in the matter. What's your argument for that? Either way, he argued why two citizens should be taxed differently. If they're taxed the same, why should they be treated differently?
Because Government managed programs are poorly thought out miserable programs that give their citizens LESS choice and MEDIOCRE care and, as is typified by such programs, the only ones who can OPT for BETTER care are once again the WEALTHY.
Click to expand...
So because a government owns something it is automatically a failure? That's laughable at best and sad at worst. Second, would you support a plan where anybody who wanted to be covered under a government health care plan would be able to, but others may do as they please and choose a private provider?

Which brings us to the main question for people like you; when has the Government EVER managed ANYTHING well or in a cost effective manner? Why would you want to become a dependent WARD of the State and accept a mediocre health care system?

I am always amazed when people make the Marxist statements that because life is not fair, we ALL should suffer under the same pathetic Government managed programs.

Social Security is a joke and going bankrupt do to abuse and the ponzi scheme it was designed from. Medicare is going bankrupt because of Government mismanagement and corruption. The US postal service even with it's vast monopoly cannot make a profit but instead continues to lose vast amounts of money.

So here we have the "fairness" mongers like you who once again instead of arguing for people to do MORE for themselves and GET educated and save money for their education, instead argue that the we all would be better off by having our wealth confiscated by the Government and all be given the same pathetic medical care managed by a Government who can't even balance it's own budget let alone manage something as vast as healthcare.
Click to expand...

I guess this all falls into the above. Would you support a plan where people, who wished to be, were supported under a government health care system that provided for them but could opt out for private health care instead? I don't understand how we have millions of Americans dying of preventable illnesses every year and you could care less.
 
Truth Detector said:
It was a "LOT" exaggerated.
Click to expand...
What? If it was a "LOT" exaggerated then I guess you don't mind a "LOT" of taxation. It was a little exaggerated because you want little taxation.

That is NOT what Republicans are wanting. Republicans want MORE responsible Government that manages within the scope of their Constitutional responsibilities and NOT allow politicians to pander to the uninformed masses with Government programs that do NOTHING to make life better but instead allow them to grab MORE political power.
Click to expand...
Lol, this is about political power? With all that Republicans have been telling me that Obama's doing to the country, how is any of this even popular? Apparently he's destroying America and yet Democrats will keep enough votes to remain in office? Also, that's not what Republicans want. Republicans throw around these words like "responsible" "Constitutional responsibilities" and "uninformed masses" whereas Bush drove us into this recession into the first place. If you really wanted those things, you wouldn't have re-elected the guy.



I would like ONE example of Government spending that actually helps technology and academia that is NOT military related.
Click to expand...
Scholarships. Grants for research. That's two things. Care for more?
I would like ONE example where this has ANYTHING to do with the Health Care debate.
Click to expand...
He was talking about taxes (or as he calls it "confiscation of wealth") in general. Taxes don't only go towards health care. They also go towards financing scholarships and grants.

What has this got to do with the government manage health care debate?
Click to expand...

Same thing as above. It doesn't specifically go towards health care, although I guess grants given to research institutions would lead to cheaper methods (and thus, cheaper health care).
 
TheHat said:
What? There is a huge difference b/w getting paid in cash and getting paid in health benefits.

A healthy person, 18-30, may never go to a doctor, but he will have been paying for something he never used for 12 years. How much cash would that give him on hand over that 12 year period that he could used on other things in life that counted?

Tell ya what, start paying for the internet at $50 a month. Dont ever actually hook up to it, and do this for the next 12 years, while never actually using it. Then come back and tell us there is no difference. Lets figure out what you could have been buying in place of a $50 a month throw away that you never used.
Click to expand...

You are being paid something of value instead of cash. The fact that you don't choose to use it is irrelevant; there is a monetary cost associated with your employer providing you with health insurance.

If your employer gives you something valued at $10,000 it should be treated exactly the same as if your employer had gave you an extra $10,000 in cash.

TheHat said:
Eliminating the income tax isnt going to send us back to 1913. Sorry, that was just ridiculous to even state.
Click to expand...

Wind the clock back to 1913 was a reference to the year that the income tax was passed. A hundred years later, most of us aren't really looking to return to debates that have been settled long ago. But if you want to keep tilting at windmills, be my guest. It only discredits your views in the eyes of most people and makes you look like an extremist.
 
rivrrat said:
****ing brilliant. Tax the people who actually have private healthcare and aren't costing the system money. So the people WITH insurance now have to pay even more money. Who's the brainiac that thought up that wonderful idea?
Click to expand...

What is your rationale for treating wages in the form of health insurance as different from wages in the form of cash?
 
Kandahar said:
What is your rationale for treating wages in the form of health insurance as different from wages in the form of cash?
Click to expand...

First off, every time I've had health insurance with a company, I paid for it. I paid hundreds of dollars a month for it. I got a DISCOUNT because it was a group rate.

Now, you think that because I get a group rate discount with my employer that I should be taxed on top of my insurance costs? Just BECAUSE I have insurance? No offense, but WTF kind of retarded idea is that? Tax the folks with insurance even MORE?

Secondly, I don't agree with income tax to begin with, so I'm sure as **** not going to agree with increasing that income tax.

Lastly, having employer supplemented insurance makes it more affordable for people since they are group rate policies, which means you have more people with insurance, which means you have fewer people without insurance, which means you have fewer people who run out on their bills or milk the government assistance, which means that they save all of us money. And now to reward them for saving everyone money, you think they should PAY MORE?

I mean seriously... It has to be one of the more retarded notions put forth that I've heard in some time.

Sorry... but this kind of **** absolutely infuriates me to no end.
 
rivrrat said:
First off, every time I've had health insurance with a company, I paid for it. I paid hundreds of dollars a month for it. I got a DISCOUNT because it was a group rate.
Click to expand...

So what? How is that my concern?

rivrrat said:
Now, you think that because I get a group rate discount with my employer that I should be taxed on top of my insurance costs? Just BECAUSE I have insurance? No offense, but WTF kind of retarded idea is that? Tax the folks with insurance even MORE?
Click to expand...

So you think that making people completely dependent on their employers for those cushy group rate discounts is a wise economic policy? You think that government subsidies to encourage people to stay at ****ty, dead-end jobs that they hate and that they suck at - instead of getting a better job or going back to school - is a wise economic policy? No offense, but WTF kind of retarded idea is that?

rivrrat said:
Secondly, I don't agree with income tax to begin with, so I'm sure as **** not going to agree with increasing that income tax.
Click to expand...

Then let's not pretend that this has anything at all to do with taxing health benefits specifically, when in reality you just don't like paying any taxes on anything.

rivrrat said:
Lastly, having employer supplemented insurance makes it more affordable for people since they are group rate policies, which means you have more people with insurance, which means you have fewer people without insurance, which means you have fewer people who run out on their bills or milk the government assistance, which means that they save all of us money. And now to reward them for saving everyone money, you think they should PAY MORE?
Click to expand...

That is absolutely the opposite of how economics works. Employer-funded health insurance means that everyone who ISN'T employed (or is employed by someone who doesn't provide health insurance) can't get it at all, because it drives up the costs of individual plans since group rate discounts are the norm. It makes people dependent on their employers and unwilling to change jobs. And it makes people extremely vulnerable if they suddenly get laid off or get fired or whatever.

rivrrat said:
I mean seriously... It has to be one of the more retarded notions put forth that I've heard in some time.

Sorry... but this kind of **** absolutely infuriates me to no end.
Click to expand...

What infuriates me to no end is when people who obviously have no understanding of economics try to pose as experts on economic policy.

Suppose I was earning $100K in income and was sick of paying taxes on it. So my employer agreed to not pay me anything, but just give me a $100K house each year as a "gift" or a "benefit." Do you think the government would look fondly on THAT? How is this any different?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
So you think that making people completely dependent on their employers for those cushy group rate discounts is a wise economic policy? You think that government subsidies to encourage people to stay at ****ty, dead-end jobs that they hate and that they suck at - instead of getting a better job or going back to school - is a wise economic policy? No offense, but WTF kind of retarded idea is that?
Click to expand...
Who the **** is encouraging anyone to stay anywhere? And what government subsidies are you talking about? I'm talking about group rate insurance.

Having insurance options at a job sure as **** never encouraged me to stay there if the job sucked.

Then let's not pretend that this has anything at all to do with taxing health benefits specifically, when in reality you just don't like paying any taxes on anything.
Click to expand...
Who the **** does like it? And, it DOES have to do with taxing benefits specifically. It has to do with increasing taxes when we're all already paying far too much.

That is absolutely the opposite of how economics works. Employer-funded health insurance means that everyone who ISN'T employed (or is employed by someone who doesn't provide health insurance) can't get it at all, because it drives up the costs of individual plans since group rate discounts are the norm.
Click to expand...

Well, my experience working with Humana Insurance says differently.

It makes people dependent on their employers and unwilling to change jobs. And it makes people extremely vulnerable if they suddenly get laid off or get fired or whatever.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't extremely vulnerable since your big government offers COBRA. So no, if they get fired or quit or laid off, they get COBRA that will tide them over until they get a new job.

And if people stay at crappy ass jobs they hate just for insurance purposes, that's THEIR problem, not mine, and certainly not the governments. If those people are so hard up they can't figure out how to quit one job with benefits and find another with benefits, then how is forcing them to pay more money going to help them?

What infuriates me to no end is when people who obviously have no understanding of economics try to pose as experts on economic policy.
Click to expand...
Actually, I know quite a bit, and I also have bit of knowledge about insurance. But I never, not ONCE insinuated that I was an "expert" on economic policy. So, you may now apologize for misrepresenting what I actually HAVE stated.

Suppose I was earning $100K in income and was sick of paying taxes on it. So my employer agreed to not pay me anything, but just give me a $100K house each year as a "gift" or a "benefit." Do you think the government would look fondly on THAT? How is this any different?
Click to expand...
Why do you think that the government deserves to have a cut of every goddamn cent or benefit or anything positive in our lives? We pay a ****ing income tax. That is enough. Forcing us to pay taxes on insurance is only going to make a situation worse. It's not going to change a goddamn thing except make people's wallets even smaller and the government's even bigger. ****ing lovely idea. :doh
 
rivrrat said:
Who the **** is encouraging anyone to stay anywhere? And what government subsidies are you talking about? I'm talking about group rate insurance.
Click to expand...

In effect, the government is allowing you to exclude some of your income on your taxes, if that income is in the form of health insurance rather than cash. If the government was neutral and didn't encourage one form of income over the other, the whole reason that employers provide health insurance would disappear. As it should.

rivrrat said:
Having insurance options at a job sure as **** never encouraged me to stay there if the job sucked.
Click to expand...

Good for you. But there are lots of people who it DOES encourage to stay there, because they are terrified of losing their benefits.

rivrrat said:
Who the **** does like it? And, it DOES have to do with taxing benefits specifically. It has to do with increasing taxes when we're all already paying far too much.
Click to expand...

Just hypothetically, would you be OK with it if it was revenue-neutral? If the government cut the overall income tax rates by a proportionate amount?

rivrrat said:
Well, my experience working with Humana Insurance says differently.
Click to expand...

And from previous conversations I've had with you, I'm not inclined to believe much of what you say about your health care. Your story just doesn't add up.

rivrrat said:
No, they aren't extremely vulnerable since your big government offers COBRA. So no, if they get fired or quit or laid off, they get COBRA that will tide them over until they get a new job.
Click to expand...

Would you eliminate "my big government" COBRA if you could? If so, spare me the bull****.

rivrrat said:
And if people stay at crappy ass jobs they hate just for insurance purposes, that's THEIR problem, not mine, and certainly not the governments. If those people are so hard up they can't figure out how to quit one job with benefits and find another with benefits, then how is forcing them to pay more money going to help them?
Click to expand...

It is your problem because it's horrendously inefficient from an economic perspective, which affects GDP, which affects overall wealth and well-being.

rivrrat said:
Why do you think that the government deserves to have a cut of every goddamn cent or benefit or anything positive in our lives? We pay a ****ing income tax. That is enough. Forcing us to pay taxes on insurance is only going to make a situation worse. It's not going to change a goddamn thing except make people's wallets even smaller and the government's even bigger. ****ing lovely idea. :doh
Click to expand...

Health insurance IS income. Where did you get this strange idea that only cash is income? Employers would start paying people in silver coins, cars, and trinkets if they could get away with it.
 
Kandahar said:
And from previous conversations I've had with you, I'm not inclined to believe much of what you say about your health care. Your story just doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Since you have called me a liar, the conversation is over.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Where is my $2500 reduction in my health care costs Mr. Obama?


Anyone?
Click to expand...

It'll come once your taxes go up $5000. But we don't count taxes as cost apparently so you've saved $2500! What a deal!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom