If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Affordable Healthcare Act, "The IRS will enforce the mandate." IRS, "No we won't"   (cnbc.com) divider line 169
    More: Interesting, IRS, individual mandate, obamacare, Ways and Means Committee, Charles Boustany, Asian Tigers, House of Representatives  
•       •       •

13593 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Sep 2012 at 9:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-12 11:10:54 AM

bukketmaster: Endive Wombat: FTFA: "By 2016, that will rise to $695 per person, with a cap that equals the greater of $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of household income."

I would assume the majority of people who lack insurance will be due to the fact that they have a shiatty job that does not offer it and or they are poor and cannot afford the premiums.

Federal Government: Go buy insurance for your family or we will charge you a tax!

Dirt poor guy: But I cannot afford it and my employeer does not offer insurance.

Federal Government: Fine, that will be two grand!

Dirt poor guy: Whaaaaa?


Yeah, this whole situation makes a whole bunch of sense.

You forgot the part where forcing people to buy their product magically makes insurers lower premiums.


The part where insurance companies have to spend 80% of their revenue on actual health care for their customers is what lowers premiums. If they don't, they have to issue refunds to policyholders. This actually happened in very big numbers, and premiums went down.

The shady loophole in this is inflating actual-coverage spending with the "but it goes to cover uninsured people" argument. That is (part of the reason) why there is a tax on people who can afford insurance but choose not to -- it helps close up the loophole and enforce the rule, and bring premiums down. Which -- I will repeat -- already actually happened.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-12 11:11:15 AM

The Homer Tax: Endive Wombat: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Then you pay a penalty for increasing the risk pool but not contributing.

Next stupid question? Or is this one of those things where you're going to pretend that because you make a good living now there's no risk that will ever stop and you'll have to go on the public dole?

I am not saying that not buying insurance is a good idea. I've got insurance and am overwhelmingly thankful that I've got it. I am just saying that there is another way to look at this situation.

I think one of our two major candidates for President put it really eloquently:

Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.


It is a silly argument anyway. You can't require insurers cover pre-existing conditions without having some way of preventing people from waiting until they are sick to get insurance, it simply won't work. Insurers would all go out of business if only sick people buy insurance.
 
2012-09-12 11:12:11 AM

flsprtsgod: bukketmaster: Endive Wombat: FTFA: "By 2016, that will rise to $695 per person, with a cap that equals the greater of $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of household income."

I would assume the majority of people who lack insurance will be due to the fact that they have a shiatty job that does not offer it and or they are poor and cannot afford the premiums.

Federal Government: Go buy insurance for your family or we will charge you a tax!

Dirt poor guy: But I cannot afford it and my employeer does not offer insurance.

Federal Government: Fine, that will be two grand!

Dirt poor guy: Whaaaaa?


Yeah, this whole situation makes a whole bunch of sense.

You forgot the part where forcing people to buy their product magically makes insurers lower premiums.

And the part where adding some factor of 10 million new users to the primary care system doesn't cause it to crash and burn. It's almost like the people that wrote this think laws of human behavior don't apply to Americans.


Wow, its almost like there will be increased consumer demand for products and services. I hope this doesn't interfere with all the jobs created by trickle down.
 
2012-09-12 11:12:36 AM

KimNorth: vpb: KimNorth: austin_millbarge: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans have only been pretending to oppose Obamacare, to look anti-tax to their dunderhead tea party constituents, because it sure seems like this law benefits a lot of their major corporate donors.



Um...maybe I can help clear that up. They don't oppose Obamacare in full just the parts like where it adds a tax of 10% on top of all the other taxes you already pay when you sell your home so that is and extra 20 thousand in taxes on a 200 thousand dollar home, I don't like that one either. They do like making insurance take pre-existing cases but think it is not enough when the law does not cap insurance from charging crazy prices until 3 years later so why bother.

Wow. You right wingers really do live in your own fantasy world. Your imagination is so active that Snopes can't even keep up.

Link

WTF!!! REALLY! You think the bull is much better holly crap dude just bend over now and say thank you! If you sell a home for over 200 thousand because the kids are grown and your retired And got it in 1960 for 16 thousand AND planned on that being your retirerment money then your srewed OR if you and your wife each make 50 k a year and your home sells for 100 thousand more than you paid for it because you fixed the dump up you lose that money as there is no way to write that off.

God you libs sure like it up the back side!


ok, you must be trolling. but whatever, i'm bored. if you sell a house for 200K that you bought for 16K, you owe nothing. same with the 100K profit due to home improvements. here's the deal individuals can make up to 250K PROFIT on a primary home sale without a dime in federal taxes (married couples can make 500K). so if a couple bought a house for 16K in 1960, they can sell for $515,999.99 and keep that 499,999.99 for themselves with ZERO due in taxes.

/it's like people don't read.
 
2012-09-12 11:14:20 AM

KimNorth: fracto: EnviroDude: How long will it be before they start enforcement? I am reminded of the seatbelt laws. At first, it would be a secondary offense with only a warning. Then it turned into a secondary offense with a fine. Then it turned into a primary offense with a fine. There is only one thing you can count on about the government, when you try to deprive them of their money that they want, you will be punished for it.

I give it until 2018 before the first person that refuses to pay a fine for not having insurance ends up in jail (where he will have insurance).

/remember, your taxes are "voluntary". What happens if you don't pay them "voluntarily"?


If you also stop consuming services paid for with these taxes, by leaving the US and abandoning your citizenship, nothing at all. If you continue to take advantage of services I am paying for and refuse to pay your share you would be prosecuted.

Ha! Ya right! Tell that to all the millions of illegals using then now!


Ahh, now we see your true colors. That's right just blame all your problems on those damn illegals. Please leave your victim mentality out of the discussion the grown ups are having.
 
2012-09-12 11:17:45 AM

KimNorth: madgonad: GORDON: This government is spending trillions of dollars a year. Nothing like this has ever been seen in the history of the planet.

This government is so far past bloated that it will take the light from "Bloated" a thousand years to reach it.

This government can't seem to keep the post offices open.

What is wrong with this picture?

I guess they just need more taxes.

You must love Obama then,

Because he has actually shrunk the size of government , cutting many tens of thousands of government jobs. Something no Republican has ever done.

"Government at all levels now constitutes 38% of the economy, and if Obamacare
is installed, it will reach almost 50%"


He has implemented lay off's but Government spending has increased to cover pensions etc, most lay off's you are thinking of are state. Obama has stated in June he would like very much to shrink the size of Government but needs the votes??


Seriously? That's what you're going with? Completely False (but yet repeated daily by Dittoheads)Link
 
2012-09-12 11:18:04 AM
I am curious, there are a lot of homeless people out there, will they be forced to pay or do the subsidies cover all the cost?
 
2012-09-12 11:19:10 AM

EnviroDude: How long will it be before they start enforcement? I am reminded of the seatbelt laws. At first, it would be a secondary offense with only a warning. Then it turned into a secondary offense with a fine. Then it turned into a primary offense with a fine. There is only one thing you can count on about the government, when you try to deprive them of their money that they want, you will be punished for it.

I give it until 2018 before the first person that refuses to pay a fine for not having insurance ends up in jail (where he will have insurance).

/remember, your taxes are "voluntary". What happens if you don't pay them "voluntarily"?


It boggles my mind that some of you Americans are actually this dumb yet can still operate a compulator.
 
2012-09-12 11:20:16 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: KimNorth: vpb: KimNorth: austin_millbarge: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans have only been pretending to oppose Obamacare, to look anti-tax to their dunderhead tea party constituents, because it sure seems like this law benefits a lot of their major corporate donors.



Um...maybe I can help clear that up. They don't oppose Obamacare in full just the parts like where it adds a tax of 10% on top of all the other taxes you already pay when you sell your home so that is and extra 20 thousand in taxes on a 200 thousand dollar home, I don't like that one either. They do like making insurance take pre-existing cases but think it is not enough when the law does not cap insurance from charging crazy prices until 3 years later so why bother.

Wow. You right wingers really do live in your own fantasy world. Your imagination is so active that Snopes can't even keep up.

Link

WTF!!! REALLY! You think the bull is much better holly crap dude just bend over now and say thank you! If you sell a home for over 200 thousand because the kids are grown and your retired And got it in 1960 for 16 thousand AND planned on that being your retirerment money then your srewed OR if you and your wife each make 50 k a year and your home sells for 100 thousand more than you paid for it because you fixed the dump up you lose that money as there is no way to write that off.

God you libs sure like it up the back side!

There is almost nothing in this post that is correct.

If you paid 16k for a home and sold it for 200k, there is no taxable gain.
If you are married and sold your house for 100k gain, there is no taxable gain.

This is the way it was before ACA, and the way it is afterwards.

Single or Married, Filing Separate filers can exclude gain from the sale of their principal residence up to $250K. That means that the profit of the sale is non-taxable (both regular income and new ACA taxes)

For Married, Filing Joint, it's a $500k gain cap.

Please, educate yourself before typing.


I looked it up you are right I am wrong, need to check on the crap I read sorry.
 
2012-09-12 11:21:19 AM

A Fark Handle: KimNorth: vpb: KimNorth: austin_millbarge: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans have only been pretending to oppose Obamacare, to look anti-tax to their dunderhead tea party constituents, because it sure seems like this law benefits a lot of their major corporate donors.



Um...maybe I can help clear that up. They don't oppose Obamacare in full just the parts like where it adds a tax of 10% on top of all the other taxes you already pay when you sell your home so that is and extra 20 thousand in taxes on a 200 thousand dollar home, I don't like that one either. They do like making insurance take pre-existing cases but think it is not enough when the law does not cap insurance from charging crazy prices until 3 years later so why bother.

Wow. You right wingers really do live in your own fantasy world. Your imagination is so active that Snopes can't even keep up.

Link

WTF!!! REALLY! You think the bull is much better holly crap dude just bend over now and say thank you! If you sell a home for over 200 thousand because the kids are grown and your retired And got it in 1960 for 16 thousand AND planned on that being your retirerment money then your srewed OR if you and your wife each make 50 k a year and your home sells for 100 thousand more than you paid for it because you fixed the dump up you lose that money as there is no way to write that off.

God you libs sure like it up the back side!

ok, you must be trolling. but whatever, i'm bored. if you sell a house for 200K that you bought for 16K, you owe nothing. same with the 100K profit due to home improvements. here's the deal individuals can make up to 250K PROFIT on a primary home sale without a dime in federal taxes (married couples can make 500K). so if a couple bought a house for 16K in 1960, they can sell for $515,999.99 and keep that 499,999.99 for themselves with ZERO due in taxes.

/it's like people don't read.


You're right sorry.
 
2012-09-12 11:24:05 AM

austin_millbarge: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans have only been pretending to oppose Obamacare, to look anti-tax to their dunderhead tea party constituents, because it sure seems like this law benefits a lot of their major corporate donors.



Well... it doesn't really. It DOES add new customers, but that isn't where the major profit margins come from. The biggest margins come from denying coverage to premium payers, and now that 80% of collected premiums have to go to actual coverage, insurance companies that collect premiums and then do everything they can to deny claims end up having to refund the premiums. A lot of good insurance companies really arent affected by this -- providing actual coverage tends to gobble up that 80% very quickly. Its just a limit on the profitability of farking people over, and farking people over has been VERY profitable for the last decade or two; there is a lot of money left over for lobbying against the act.
 
2012-09-12 11:24:11 AM

KimNorth:
WTF!!! REALLY! You think the bull is much better holly crap dude just bend over now and say thank you! If you sell a home for over 200 thousand because the kids are grown and your retired And got it in 1960 for 16 thousand AND planned on that being your retirerment money then your srewed OR if you and your wife each make 50 k a year and your home sells for 100 thousand more than you paid for it because you fixed the dump up you lose that money as there is no way to write that off.

God you libs sure like it up the back side!


Did you ever find out how is babby formed? 

Also, one of the gayest men I know is also a conservative and a birther, so I'm getting a kick etc.
 
2012-09-12 11:24:42 AM

Lawnchair: Endive Wombat: Say I make $90,000 a year and just do not want insurance? What then?

Move to Somalia. We'll help you pack. Because you really don't have any place in a civil society.


Simply because they want the freedom to fail?
 
2012-09-12 11:30:52 AM
mod3072:

The car insurance mandate is a STATE law, not federal. Not all states require it. I also have a problem with your "I should be free to be stupid" argument as well. You can drive around without insurance that will cover YOUR car in the case of accident, and nobody has a problem with that. Most states only require you to have liability insurance. You don't have to cover yourself, you have to have coverage to pay for the damages when you destroy someone else's property and/or injure them. Yes, you have rights, but you also have responsibilities. Why should you be allowed to slam into my car/house/person whatever, and not be responsible for compensating me for the damage that you caused?


I'm not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the compensation via insurance should not be mandated by law. Obviously, killing or injuring someone by accident should require significant compensation, up to and including forced labor for as long as required. Harsh, but then not insuring yourself at all or putting money aside for this eventuality is an extreme step with extreme consequences.

As far as health insurance, I kind of agree with you a little bit, but not really. I'm not a fan of the individual mandate without a government option. Your plan, however, is to run around not paying a dime while you are healthy, and then have the taxpayers and/or people who were responsible enough to buy health insurance when they didn't need it pick up the tab when you end up in the emergency room after plowing your uninsured car into my family. If you had used the phrase "personal responsibility" in your post, I think my irony meter would have blown up in my face.

No, my plan is for people to not pay a dime while healthy and then be out of pocket or required to get a loan to pay off their care when sick. It goes hand in hand with the government limiting profiteering on medical care and supplies. I worked for a medical device company once. They charged $50k for a pacemaker that cost $700 to make "because they could". Likewise the government needs to limit liability awards in car accident cases to some level below "insane".

What the government needs to do is create a program that rewards public service with things of value like good health care. Want a root canal and blood pressure medication? Volunteer one day a month to clean up a national park.

The government is still paying for it. Now they're also paying for people to supervise the people who are work ...

The idea here is to get an equal value out of the work done vs. the cost of doing it so that the books balance. It's hard to lay out an exact modern equivalent, but the WPA in the 1920s is a good example. They built infrastructure with mass manpower that still stands usable today in exchange for essentially minimum wage.

The supervisors, too, could be volunteering time. Or, even if they're paid, it's still lower cost than the government just taxing the heck out of everyone in order to get enough cash to pay for universal health care they way they're trying to do.

As far as the poor people having babies comment, I don't have time to look up references at the moment, but here's a quick example: Link
 
2012-09-12 11:31:59 AM

rumpelstiltskin: I'm really liking the Republican version of Obamacare. We get all the benefits, and no one has to pay for anything. Who said there's no such thing as a free lunch? NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM


That's their philosophy for EVERYTHING: nobody pays any taxes, we all get everything for free and the deficit goes away!
 
2012-09-12 11:34:16 AM

machodonkeywrestler: KimNorth: madgonad: GORDON: This government is spending trillions of dollars a year. Nothing like this has ever been seen in the history of the planet.

This government is so far past bloated that it will take the light from "Bloated" a thousand years to reach it.

This government can't seem to keep the post offices open.

What is wrong with this picture?

I guess they just need more taxes.

You must love Obama then,

Because he has actually shrunk the size of government , cutting many tens of thousands of government jobs. Something no Republican has ever done.

"Government at all levels now constitutes 38% of the economy, and if Obamacare
is installed, it will reach almost 50%"

He has implemented lay off's but Government spending has increased to cover pensions etc, most lay off's you are thinking of are state. Obama has stated in June he would like very much to shrink the size of Government but needs the votes??

Seriously? That's what you're going with? Completely False (but yet repeated daily by Dittoheads)Link


Seriosly? Below is from YOUR link, I was not pointing fingers and did not get this info from FOX it came from wait for it MSNBC. It is fact not mud slinging and I did agree Obama was trying to shrink Government so anyway I try to be fair am wrong alot am more right leaning but what I posted was not completely false..."this time"

"49.2 percent - according to the most recent annual projections by the acknowledged authority on the subject, the Office of Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (See table 16.) Furthermore, much of that 5.6 percentage point increase will happen with or without the new law as the post World War II Baby Boom generation reaches age 65 and goes onto Medicare."

But if you click on table 16 under forcast: "In 2014, health spending is projected to grow 8.3 percent. This projected acceleration in the growth rate, up from 5.5 percent in 2013, is primarily the result of the Affordable Care Act's coverage-related expansions. Medicaid eligibility is set to increase to persons under age 65 in families with income up to 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level in 2014. As a result, Medicaid enrollment is expected to increase by 19.5 million people and spending is projected to grow 20.3 percent. The new Health Insurance Exchanges are expected to cover 13.9 million people in 2014 and contribute to 9.4-percent growth in private health insurance spending. Because people gaining coverage through the Medicaid expansion and the Exchanges are expected to be younger and in better health than currently insured persons, on average, it is anticipated that a relatively higher share of their new costs would go towards physician and clinical services and prescription drugs and a lower share towards hospital and long-term care services."
 
2012-09-12 11:35:07 AM
austin_millbarge:
Please, educate yourself before typing.

This should be hardcoded to appear at the top of every Fark submission form and comment blank...
 
2012-09-12 11:37:49 AM

stampylives: austin_millbarge: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans have only been pretending to oppose Obamacare, to look anti-tax to their dunderhead tea party constituents, because it sure seems like this law benefits a lot of their major corporate donors.


Well... it doesn't really. It DOES add new customers, but that isn't where the major profit margins come from. The biggest margins come from denying coverage to premium payers, and now that 80% of collected premiums have to go to actual coverage, insurance companies that collect premiums and then do everything they can to deny claims end up having to refund the premiums. A lot of good insurance companies really arent affected by this -- providing actual coverage tends to gobble up that 80% very quickly. Its just a limit on the profitability of farking people over, and farking people over has been VERY profitable for the last decade or two; there is a lot of money left over for lobbying against the act.


Thank you, Al Franken, D-MN
 
2012-09-12 11:38:01 AM

AccuJack: I don't mind the idea of everyone being able to get health care, but I oppose vehemently the idea that the government will require us to buy insurance. Silly as it sounds, we have a right to not insure ourselves, and the government has no right to force us to spend money. I feel the same way about required insurance for cars. Sometimes freedom means the right to be stupid.

What the government needs to do is create a program that rewards public service with things of value like good health care. Want a root canal and blood pressure medication? Volunteer one day a month to clean up a national park.

They also need to stop providing incentives in welfare for people to have kids they can't afford.


How can you be against required car insurance? You aren't required to buy insurance to pay for your OWN car but to pay for the poor grandma that you hit when you plowed through a red light because you were too busy sipping your Starbucks. I don't think you should be required to wear seat belts to protect yourself but I have no problem with them requiring me to use them for my kids (again, protecting a third party). Protecting yourself from anything (or choosing not to) is NOT the same as required liability car insurance.
 
2012-09-12 11:40:30 AM

KimNorth: machodonkeywrestler: KimNorth: madgonad: GORDON: This government is spending trillions of dollars a year. Nothing like this has ever been seen in the history of the planet.

This government is so far past bloated that it will take the light from "Bloated" a thousand years to reach it.

This government can't seem to keep the post offices open.

What is wrong with this picture?

I guess they just need more taxes.

You must love Obama then,

Because he has actually shrunk the size of government , cutting many tens of thousands of government jobs. Something no Republican has ever done.

"Government at all levels now constitutes 38% of the economy, and if Obamacare
is installed, it will reach almost 50%"

He has implemented lay off's but Government spending has increased to cover pensions etc, most lay off's you are thinking of are state. Obama has stated in June he would like very much to shrink the size of Government but needs the votes??

Seriously? That's what you're going with? Completely False (but yet repeated daily by Dittoheads)Link

Seriosly? Below is from YOUR link, I was not pointing fingers and did not get this info from FOX it came from wait for it MSNBC. It is fact not mud slinging and I did agree Obama was trying to shrink Government so anyway I try to be fair am wrong alot am more right leaning but what I posted was not completely false..."this time"

"49.2 percent - according to the most recent annual projections by the acknowledged authority on the subject, the Office of Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (See table 16.) Furthermore, much of that 5.6 percentage point increase will happen with or without the new law as the post World War II Baby Boom generation reaches age 65 and goes onto Medicare."

But if you click on table 16 under forcast: "In 2014, health spending is projected to grow 8.3 percent. This projected acceleration in the growth rate, up from 5.5 percent in 2013, is primarily the result of the Affordable Care Act' ...


You need to reread carefully.

All government spending on health care amounted to 43.6 percent of total spending on health care in 2009, before the new law was enacted in March 2010. And by 2020, after several years of full implementation, it will still account for just 49.2 percent - according to the most recent annual projections by the acknowledged authority on the subject, the Office of Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (See table 16.) Furthermore, much of that 5.6 percentage point increase will happen with or without the new law as the post World War II Baby Boom generation reaches age 65 and goes onto Medicare.

It is 50% of healthcare spending, not 50% of the economy, as you stated above.
 
2012-09-12 11:41:35 AM
Jesus there's a whole lot of uninformed stupid in here.
 
2012-09-12 11:42:52 AM

KimNorth: machodonkeywrestler: KimNorth: madgonad: GORDON: This government is spending trillions of dollars a year. Nothing like this has ever been seen in the history of the planet.

This government is so far past bloated that it will take the light from "Bloated" a thousand years to reach it.

This government can't seem to keep the post offices open.

What is wrong with this picture?

I guess they just need more taxes.

You must love Obama then,

Because he has actually shrunk the size of government , cutting many tens of thousands of government jobs. Something no Republican has ever done.

"Government at all levels now constitutes 38% of the economy, and if Obamacare
is installed, it will reach almost 50%"

He has implemented lay off's but Government spending has increased to cover pensions etc, most lay off's you are thinking of are state. Obama has stated in June he would like very much to shrink the size of Government but needs the votes??

Seriously? That's what you're going with? Completely False (but yet repeated daily by Dittoheads)Link

Seriosly? Below is from YOUR link, I was not pointing fingers and did not get this info from FOX it came from wait for it MSNBC. It is fact not mud slinging and I did agree Obama was trying to shrink Government so anyway I try to be fair am wrong alot am more right leaning but what I posted was not completely false..."this time"

"49.2 percent - according to the most recent annual projections by the acknowledged authority on the subject, the Office of Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (See table 16.) Furthermore, much of that 5.6 percentage point increase will happen with or without the new law as the post World War II Baby Boom generation reaches age 65 and goes onto Medicare."

But if you click on table 16 under forcast: "In 2014, health spending is projected to grow 8.3 percent. This projected acceleration in the growth rate, up from 5.5 percent in 2013, is primarily the result of the Affordable Care Act' ...


This is why I will discuss topics with you unlike some lurkers on here that would swear to your that the sky is purple.
 
2012-09-12 11:44:40 AM

KimNorth: fracto: EnviroDude: How long will it be before they start enforcement? I am reminded of the seatbelt laws. At first, it would be a secondary offense with only a warning. Then it turned into a secondary offense with a fine. Then it turned into a primary offense with a fine. There is only one thing you can count on about the government, when you try to deprive them of their money that they want, you will be punished for it.

I give it until 2018 before the first person that refuses to pay a fine for not having insurance ends up in jail (where he will have insurance).

/remember, your taxes are "voluntary". What happens if you don't pay them "voluntarily"?


If you also stop consuming services paid for with these taxes, by leaving the US and abandoning your citizenship, nothing at all. If you continue to take advantage of services I am paying for and refuse to pay your share you would be prosecuted.

Ha! Ya right! Tell that to all the millions of illegals using then now!



I support deporting illegals who won't pay share, and I also support a path to citizenship for those who want to. If he doesn't want to pay his share then yes, I want him treated as an illegal and kicked out of the country. Since that isn't an option for a US citizen I'll settle for the penalties in out current tax law.
 
2012-09-12 11:46:59 AM

What the Fark Wizzbang: AccuJack: I don't mind the idea of everyone being able to get health care, but I oppose vehemently the idea that the government will require us to buy insurance. Silly as it sounds, we have a right to not insure ourselves, and the government has no right to force us to spend money. I feel the same way about required insurance for cars. Sometimes freedom means the right to be stupid.

How can you be against required car insurance? You aren't required to buy insurance to pay for your OWN car but to pay for the poor grandma that you hit when you plowed through a red light because you were too busy sipping your Starbucks. I don't think you should be required to wear seat belts to protect yourself but I have no problem with them requiring me to use them for my kids (again, protecting a third party). Protecting yourself from anything (or choosing not to) is NOT the same as required liability car insurance.


Let me be clear: I'm not against requiring compensation for damages caused by someone at fault in a car accident. I'm also not against the government requiring either proof you can pay or a signed agreement to take out a loan in the event money is needed from you for compensation in an accident.

I am against the government requiring that a private insurance company has been paid some amount of money, which the government does not regulate, in order to obtain the legal right to use infrastructure (roads) that my taxes have already paid for. It's my own damn money and I'll spend it how I like, assuming I have anything left after the government has taken a huge chunk of it when I get paid it and when I spend it or when I increase the amount I have by investment.

In this case "the government" can be the states or the feds, they're in each other's pockets anyway.

You know why there are only the so called 1% and the other 99% as opposed to any groups in between? Until you get wealthy enough that your interest income exceeds the constant drain from the government, you're just living hand to mouth with more zeros, and any drop in your income slides your net worth back toward 0. Until you climb over that hill, you're always getting pushed back toward homeless and indigent...
 
2012-09-12 11:47:56 AM

AccuJack: Let me be clear:


I feel like this has become a popular phrase in the base few years.
 
2012-09-12 11:59:47 AM

What the Fark Wizzbang: AccuJack: I don't mind the idea of everyone being able to get health care, but I oppose vehemently the idea that the government will require us to buy insurance. Silly as it sounds, we have a right to not insure ourselves, and the government has no right to force us to spend money. I feel the same way about required insurance for cars. Sometimes freedom means the right to be stupid.

What the government needs to do is create a program that rewards public service with things of value like good health care. Want a root canal and blood pressure medication? Volunteer one day a month to clean up a national park.

They also need to stop providing incentives in welfare for people to have kids they can't afford.

How can you be against required car insurance? You aren't required to buy insurance to pay for your OWN car but to pay for the poor grandma that you hit when you plowed through a red light because you were too busy sipping your Starbucks. I don't think you should be required to wear seat belts to protect yourself but I have no problem with them requiring me to use them for my kids (again, protecting a third party). Protecting yourself from anything (or choosing not to) is NOT the same as required liability car insurance.


Mandated car insurance has the same problem as mandated health insurance - it's forcing you to buy something from a private company.

A better solution would be for the government to simply provide the minimum required coverage as part of your car registration fee. If you wanted additional coverage, you'd be able to buy that separately. Everyone would pay the same fee for the basic liability coverage (or even better, a fee determined by your income), none of the wildly different prices between insurance companies, and most importantly NO ONE would be making a profit from a required purchase.

The same should be true of health insurance, and the best way to do it would be to simply expand Medicare to cover all citizens, covered by an increase in income taxes. We could probably pay for it simply by eliminating the separate capital gains tax, and taxing all capital gains as what they are - regular income.
 
2012-09-12 12:01:31 PM

snocone: KimNorth: austin_millbarge: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans have only been pretending to oppose Obamacare, to look anti-tax to their dunderhead tea party constituents, because it sure seems like this law benefits a lot of their major corporate donors.



Um...maybe I can help clear that up. They don't oppose Obamacare in full just the parts like where it adds a tax of 10% on top of all the other taxes you already pay when you sell your home so that is and extra 20 thousand in taxes on a 200 thousand dollar home, I don't like that one either. They do like making insurance take pre-existing cases but think it is not enough when the law does not cap insurance from charging crazy prices until 3 years later so why bother.

Obamacare??? WTF?
Great trick by GOP to hang that name on what amounts to Romneycare on Steroids as approved by insurance lobby.
The health package is pretty much what the GOP demanded, but they maintain the charade for their moneygivers.


And then to have no single republican vote for it making Obama bribe two dems to get passage only to have the bribes thrown out later. Goddam GOP are a bunch of evil geniuses I tell ya.
 
2012-09-12 12:07:49 PM

AccuJack: What the Fark Wizzbang: AccuJack: I don't mind the idea of everyone being able to get health care, but I oppose vehemently the idea that the government will require us to buy insurance. Silly as it sounds, we have a right to not insure ourselves, and the government has no right to force us to spend money. I feel the same way about required insurance for cars. Sometimes freedom means the right to be stupid.

How can you be against required car insurance? You aren't required to buy insurance to pay for your OWN car but to pay for the poor grandma that you hit when you plowed through a red light because you were too busy sipping your Starbucks. I don't think you should be required to wear seat belts to protect yourself but I have no problem with them requiring me to use them for my kids (again, protecting a third party). Protecting yourself from anything (or choosing not to) is NOT the same as required liability car insurance.

Let me be clear: I'm not against requiring compensation for damages caused by someone at fault in a car accident. I'm also not against the government requiring either proof you can pay or a signed agreement to take out a loan in the event money is needed from you for compensation in an accident.

I am against the government requiring that a private insurance company has been paid some amount of money, which the government does not regulate, in order to obtain the legal right to use infrastructure (roads) that my taxes have already paid for. It's my own damn money and I'll spend it how I like, assuming I have anything left after the government has taken a huge chunk of it when I get paid it and when I spend it or when I increase the amount I have by investment.

In this case "the government" can be the states or the feds, they're in each other's pockets anyway.

You know why there are only the so called 1% and the other 99% as opposed to any groups in between? Until you get wealthy enough that your interest income exceeds the constant d ...


AccuJack: What the Fark Wizzbang: AccuJack: I don't mind the idea of everyone being able to get health care, but I oppose vehemently the idea that the government will require us to buy insurance. Silly as it sounds, we have a right to not insure ourselves, and the government has no right to force us to spend money. I feel the same way about required insurance for cars. Sometimes freedom means the right to be stupid.

How can you be against required car insurance? You aren't required to buy insurance to pay for your OWN car but to pay for the poor grandma that you hit when you plowed through a red light because you were too busy sipping your Starbucks. I don't think you should be required to wear seat belts to protect yourself but I have no problem with them requiring me to use them for my kids (again, protecting a third party). Protecting yourself from anything (or choosing not to) is NOT the same as required liability car insurance.

Let me be clear: I'm not against requiring compensation for damages caused by someone at fault in a car accident. I'm also not against the government requiring either proof you can pay or a signed agreement to take out a loan in the event money is needed from you for compensation in an accident.

I am against the government requiring that a private insurance company has been paid some amount of money, which the government does not regulate, in order to obtain the legal right to use infrastructure (roads) that my taxes have already paid for. It's my own damn money and I'll spend it how I like, assuming I have anything left after the government has taken a huge chunk of it when I get paid it and when I spend it or when I increase the amount I have by investment.

In this case "the government" can be the states or the feds, they're in each other's pockets anyway.

You know why there are only the so called 1% and the other 99% as opposed to any groups in between? Until you get wealthy enough that your interest income exceeds the constant d ...


It depends on the state. In states where you are required to get insurance, the state does regulate insurance rates. Where I live, there isn't an alternative, but we also have some of the cheapest rates in the country. I know in Ohio you can deposit (I think) $30,000 with the state treasury instead. Your taxes paying for the roads doesn't give you a right to use the road. You still have to abide by safety rules, and you are liable for any damages you cause. These laws, even the insurance mandate, are there to protect people. Just because government is involved doesn't make it a huge conspiracy to steal your money.
 
2012-09-12 12:22:53 PM

KimNorth: Seriosly? Below is from YOUR link, I was not pointing fingers and did not get this info from FOX it came from wait for it MSNBC. It is fact not mud slinging and I did agree Obama was trying to shrink Government so anyway I try to be fair am wrong alot am more right leaning but what I posted was not completely false..."this time"

"49.2 percent - according to the most recent annual projections by the acknowledged authority on the subject, the Office of Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (See table 16.) Furthermore, much of that 5.6 percentage point increase will happen with or without the new law as the post World War II Baby Boom generation reaches age 65 and goes onto Medicare."


yeah that 49.2% is the government portion of healthcare spending, not 49.2% of the total economy. and the only way that number is coming down is if you end medicare. but if you end medicare old people won't have insurance because no one wants to insure the old. they are sick (expensive) and they die (can be expensive, but then 0). we all get sick and die, but it tends to happen a lot more in older folks.

well, i guess we could go with the ryan plan and make the elderly try to pay out of their pockets for the cost of health insurance for a 70 year old man with 7 chronic medical conditions. of course we then end up with a bunch of broke elderly folks who can't avoid healthcare or food. which i view as a sort of negative outcome. i'm not a huge fan of the current state of healthcare or medicare in this nation, but there has to be a better solution. personally, i like the idea of a va-style system (nationwide electronic medical records, evidence based medicine, etc) for all, but that's just me.
 
2012-09-12 12:30:35 PM
i1253.photobucket.com
That's what they're telling the obamorons in the press. It's a new TAX and they will collect it. Thanks for the new burden obama. Screw the middle class!
 
2012-09-12 12:31:09 PM
Know what would be easier?

Universal, single payer healthcare.

How are those inalienable rights working out for you?
 
2012-09-12 12:32:01 PM
This whole "forced to buy" thing is farked up.

Why did you guys not just extend Medicare to everyone and make supplementary health insurance optional?

None of this makes any goddamn sense.
 
2012-09-12 12:33:47 PM

snocone: KimNorth: austin_millbarge: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans have only been pretending to oppose Obamacare, to look anti-tax to their dunderhead tea party constituents, because it sure seems like this law benefits a lot of their major corporate donors.



Um...maybe I can help clear that up. They don't oppose Obamacare in full just the parts like where it adds a tax of 10% on top of all the other taxes you already pay when you sell your home so that is and extra 20 thousand in taxes on a 200 thousand dollar home, I don't like that one either. They do like making insurance take pre-existing cases but think it is not enough when the law does not cap insurance from charging crazy prices until 3 years later so why bother.

Yea, 'bout that. Since all the middle class homes got stole, this is a problem.

All this posturing over redistribution of costs that have to and will be paid by someone, sometime.
Obscene.
The human animals on this continent need and cost "X" dollars each year for health care.
You will pay for this.
The mystery is how much the 1% contributes.

IMHO, the 1% should provide health care for the mass of humans that make them 1%. They only exist because of society.
Surcharge any tax return over $500K whatever it takes to give the same farking health insurance to every farking citizen that farking Congress has seen fit to give themselves with YOUR FARKING MONEY.
Go


I like the cut of your jib.
 
2012-09-12 12:34:10 PM
Under the law, Americans who lack health insurance will have to pay an annual fee to the IRS of $95, or 1 percent of taxable household income, starting in 2014.

By 2016, that will rise to $695 per person, with a cap that equals the greater of $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of household income.


So does that mean the government will pick up the tab for my hospital bill? Because that's cheaper than buying health insurance. They can't just take the money and give me nothing in return. At least with other taxes, I get municipal services, roads, military protection, police protection, etc.

Mandatory car insurance certainly hasn't lowered rates. Hell, I have to pay twice. Once for me and again for "uninsured motorist" coverage. It's completely absurd to mandate the purchase of services from private, for-profit companies. Medical insurance is already insanely expensive and it's optional.
 
2012-09-12 12:34:33 PM

Endive Wombat: I am just saying that there is another way to look at this situation.


No, there isn't. If you're stupid enough to not buy insurance when you only make $90,000 a year then you're stupid enough to be a huge risk to the government's insurance pool and you should have to pay into it.

That's the only way to look at it because it's the only way it makes any sense.
 
2012-09-12 12:36:07 PM
Never Believe Anything Until It's Officially Denied™
 
2012-09-12 12:37:53 PM

EnviroDude: How long will it be before they start enforcement? I am reminded of the seatbelt laws. At first, it would be a secondary offense with only a warning. Then it turned into a secondary offense with a fine. Then it turned into a primary offense with a fine. There is only one thing you can count on about the government, when you try to deprive them of their money that they want, you will be punished for it.

I give it until 2018 before the first person that refuses to pay a fine for not having insurance ends up in jail (where he will have insurance).

/remember, your taxes are "voluntary". What happens if you don't pay them "voluntarily"?


Infinite this.
 
2012-09-12 12:39:13 PM

AccuJack: I don't mind the idea of everyone being able to get health care, but I oppose vehemently the idea that the government will require us to buy insurance. Silly as it sounds, we have a right to not insure ourselves, and the government has no right to force us to spend money. I feel the same way about required insurance for cars. Sometimes freedom means the right to be stupid.

What the government needs to do is create a program that rewards public service with things of value like good health care. Want a root canal and blood pressure medication? Volunteer one day a month to clean up a national park.

They also need to stop providing incentives in welfare for people to have kids they can't afford.


The insurance that is required for cars is as such:

If you owe the bank a car payment, the BANK owns the car, not you. Therefore you are required to provide full-coverage insurance to protect the bank's property until it becomes fully yours.

If you car is paid off and you own it outright, you are only required to carry Liability Insurance, which covers the OTHER GUY if you happen to crash into him. You can freely choose to leave yourself unprotected if it is only affecting you and your property, but you do not have the right to negatively affect someone else's property.

This makes perfect sense.
 
2012-09-12 12:41:32 PM

palad: This whole "forced to buy" thing is farked up.

Why did you guys not just extend Medicare to everyone and make supplementary health insurance optional?

None of this makes any goddamn sense.



That would be detrimental to insurance companies. Look at the arguments made when Democrats wanted a public option instead of an individual mandate.
 
2012-09-12 12:41:34 PM

SpectroBoy: EnviroDude: remember, your taxes are "voluntary".

[mlkshk.com image 406x444]
That's NOT how taxes work


Harry Reid disagrees:Link
 
2012-09-12 12:44:06 PM

pdee: EnviroDude: How long will it be before they start enforcement? I am reminded of the seatbelt laws. At first, it would be a secondary offense with only a warning. Then it turned into a secondary offense with a fine. Then it turned into a primary offense with a fine. There is only one thing you can count on about the government, when you try to deprive them of their money that they want, you will be punished for it.

I give it until 2018 before the first person that refuses to pay a fine for not having insurance ends up in jail (where he will have insurance).

/remember, your taxes are "voluntary". What happens if you don't pay them "voluntarily"?

Infinite this.



Getting pizza is voluntary. What happens if I get the pizza and refuse to pay for it? So it is with American citizenship. The first 18 years are free, after that you pull your weight or get out.
 
2012-09-12 12:47:03 PM

jtown: Under the law, Americans who lack health insurance will have to pay an annual fee to the IRS of $95, or 1 percent of taxable household income, starting in 2014.

By 2016, that will rise to $695 per person, with a cap that equals the greater of $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of household income.

So does that mean the government will pick up the tab for my hospital bill? Because that's cheaper than buying health insurance. They can't just take the money and give me nothing in return. At least with other taxes, I get municipal services, roads, military protection, police protection, etc.

Mandatory car insurance certainly hasn't lowered rates. Hell, I have to pay twice. Once for me and again for "uninsured motorist" coverage. It's completely absurd to mandate the purchase of services from private, for-profit companies. Medical insurance is already insanely expensive and it's optional.


Your entire post could have been consolidated considerably had you posted what you really said: I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.

The federal "patient anti-dumping law" already says that any hospital which takes reimbursements from health and human services is obligated to treat or transfer a patient in an emergency condition regardless of their ability to pay. So, yes, if you have no insurance and go to a hospital that accept medicaid reimbursements, the government will pay your tab if you can't (note: can't not won't).

The ACA has provisions that will theoretically provide for low cost insurance plans through health exchanges managed by the states for low income individuals or high-risk individuals who cannot afford plans through regular channels or obtain a group plan through an employer. There are pretty much only two cases where you'd be paying the penalty to the IRS:

1. You're an idiot
2. You're part of a vanishingly small group of people who are both so high-risk that their plans are exceptionally expensive and so independently wealthy that it's actually cost effective for you to pay out of pocket than to buy insurance

Any more dumb questions or would you like to just keep ranting and raving about "teh gubmint" from a position of pure ignorance?
 
2012-09-12 12:47:54 PM
Oops - that's what I get for not refreshing the thread before responding.
 
2012-09-12 12:47:58 PM
That IRS guy's just a big, fat liar.
 
2012-09-12 12:50:01 PM
Of all the reasons to hate the Republicans (and there are plenty) maybe the #1 reason is, they're forcing some of us (who wouldn't otherwise) to defend the farking federal government.

When you look like a bigger group of assholes than the federal government, maybe you should rethink your position. Some of them, anyway.

"fark everybody else, I got mine" is not really a great life philosophy.
 
2012-09-12 12:55:05 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: EnviroDude: How long will it be before they start enforcement? I am reminded of the seatbelt laws. At first, it would be a secondary offense with only a warning. Then it turned into a secondary offense with a fine. Then it turned into a primary offense with a fine. There is only one thing you can count on about the government, when you try to deprive them of their money that they want, you will be punished for it.

The only federal seatbelt law is the one saying passenger vehicles must have seatbelts and what kinds of seatbelts they must be. The rest of your blithering nonsense is a series of gibberish related to state-by-state enforcement of compulsory usage of those belts and a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation works.

Have you ever posted anything on this site that wasn't completely idiotic?


So you are unable to comprehend both the parallel between federal law enforcement saying one thing and then doing another AND the fact that while seat belt laws are written be the states they are mandated by the Feds in the form of 'no seat belt law' = 'no Federal highway funds'.

I think it is perfectly clear you are the idiot.
 
2012-09-12 01:01:58 PM

AccuJack: As far as the poor people having babies comment, I don't have time to look up references at the moment, but here's a quick example: Link


I think you are splitting hairs a bit on the auto insurance argument. I can see your point about not requiring insurance if you can prove up front that you have the ability to pay X amount in the case of an accident. However, we're probably talking about at least $100,000 minimum just on the medical side, and the VAST majority of people are not going to have the resources to just park that kind of cash somewhere to use as self-insurance. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an exemption for those who could, provided there are adequate mechanisms in place to assure that they actually pay.

As for the health insurance, I just don't see how that would ever work. If I go to the ER with a life-threatening injury, what is the hospital supposed to do? How do they know whether or not I have the ability to pay for their services? What if I don't have that ability? Do they just let me bleed out on the floor? Assuming they save my life, what guarantee do they have that I can or will pay? What if I can't/don't? You mention getting a loan to pay for the services, but who is going to loan a janitor who makes $8/hr. and has no assets $100,000 to pay for life-saving surgery? No bank that I've ever heard of. One way or another, the rest of us end up paying for that care. I'd rather it be up front in the form of a tax or insurance premium than added on to the backside when I go in for a doctor's visit. We are always going to have those people who cannot or will not pay, and those costs are going to be covered by you and me. The best solution, in my mind, is an individual mandate with an option to BUY in to Medicare coverage if you can't afford private insurance. Pay a premium based on your income. We're still going to lose money on some people, but at least we're all paying in to the system. We're already guaranteed a certain level of care regardless of our ability to pay, this just requires you put up some cash up-front in order to have that safety net. Obviously the desperately poor will not be able to pay anything in, but those people are always going to exist. The only cure for that is to deny them care and let them die, but most of us aren't comfortable with that idea. I know that it's not a perfect solution, but it's the best I can come up with right now.

As for the link you provided, I really don't see how that shows any sort of incentive to have more children. (I will concede there may be an incentive for an illegal immigrant to have at least one child born in this country to get certain benefits of being a citizen). There is certainly a discussion to be had about illegal immigrants taking advantage of our social programs, but that's an entirely different subject and a discussion for another day. I think these "welfare queens" who sit around all day eating Cheetos on the government dime and popping out more kids to get more welfare are largely imaginary and a bogeyman trotted out by the Republicans to anger us into cutting off our own noses just spite our faces. Nobody can ever provide me with an actual example of this happening, but I hear about it all the time.
 
2012-09-12 01:04:48 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: jtown: Under the law, Americans who lack health insurance will have to pay an annual fee to the IRS of $95, or 1 percent of taxable household income, starting in 2014.

By 2016, that will rise to $695 per person, with a cap that equals the greater of $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of household income.

So does that mean the government will pick up the tab for my hospital bill? Because that's cheaper than buying health insurance. They can't just take the money and give me nothing in return. At least with other taxes, I get municipal services, roads, military protection, police protection, etc.

Mandatory car insurance certainly hasn't lowered rates. Hell, I have to pay twice. Once for me and again for "uninsured motorist" coverage. It's completely absurd to mandate the purchase of services from private, for-profit companies. Medical insurance is already insanely expensive and it's optional.

Your entire post could have been consolidated considerably had you posted what you really said: I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.

The federal "patient anti-dumping law" already says that any hospital which takes reimbursements from health and human services is obligated to treat or transfer a patient in an emergency condition regardless of their ability to pay. So, yes, if you have no insurance and go to a hospital that accept medicaid reimbursements, the government will pay your tab if you can't (note: can't not won't).

The ACA has provisions that will theoretically provide for low cost insurance plans through health exchanges managed by the states for low income individuals or high-risk individuals who cannot afford plans through regular channels or obtain a group plan through an employer. There are pretty much only two cases where you'd be paying the penalty to the IRS:

1. You're an idiot
2. You're part of a vanishingly small group of people who are both so high-risk that their plans are exceptionally expensive and so independently wealthy that it's a ...


Exactly how retarded are you?
 
2012-09-12 01:16:43 PM

fracto: Getting pizza is voluntary. What happens if I get the pizza and refuse to pay for it? So it is with American citizenship. The first 18 years are free, after that you pull your weight or get out.


Not to be pedantic, but I started paying income tax when I was 14. Just sayin'.
 
2012-09-12 01:18:22 PM

BgJonson79: Move to Somalia. We'll help you pack. Because you really don't have any place in a civil society.

Simply because they want the freedom to fail?


Because they're counting on broader society being symps for them when they fall on their face (if nothing else, bailing them out through the bankruptcy code), but don't want any part of the society that they're expecting to give them sympathy when the fall.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report