Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill UpheldFollow

#102 Jun 30 2012 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Demea wrote:
Quote:
... that could be adjusted.

Adjusted how? Do you even understand how insurance works, or is this another "I don't like it, so it must be broken" rant?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9148130.jpg
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#103 Jun 30 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Almalieque wrote:
For clarification, I hate insurance of all kind but believe it's a necessary evil that could be adjusted.


All of the countries not in grey disagree on the "necessary" part: Clicky
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#104 Jun 30 2012 at 5:47 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Demea wrote:
Any particular reason why?


Because I literally spent thousands of dollars on car insurance and if I receive $100 worth of damage on my car, I still have to pay money. Then if you use your insurance money, your payment might increase.

Most insurance prefer to only cover stuff that wont likely happen. That's why people of certain ages or health conditions have to pay much more.

EDIT: That's why your age, location, sex, previous driving history, etc. all pay a part in your insurance prices. Companies only want to insure the people who wont need it.

Demea wrote:

Still not following you.


Because the likelihood of you actually needing it or even breaking even is not likely at all. However, if or when you need it, you need it. If not you, then the next guy. Somebody will need that money

Demea wrote:
Adjusted how?


Like State Farm decided to give back money to people each year who don't get in accidents. Insurance companies can easily make it where the consumers can get more bang for the buck, but they wont because they know people will suck it up and drive on.

Demea wrote:
Do you even understand how insurance works, or is this another "I don't like it, so it must be broken" rant?


Yes, I do and if you took more than 5 seconds to think before typing, you would understand as well.

Edited, Jul 1st 2012 1:56am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#105 Jun 30 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Right, so you don't understand how insurance works. Smiley: nod
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#106 Jun 30 2012 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
Car insurance protects you from other people and from yourself to a certain extent. I agree that it's a necessary evil. However, it's still affordable for most people, ie the vast majority of people who drive. I pay about $70 a month, for a $1000 deductible to replace my car if it gets totaled. I'm not sure of the other logistics, but I'm pretty sure the rest is just bare bones what my state requires, plus free towing and road side assistance.

My mom pays my health insurance for me, because she can afford it and it helps her sleep better at night. I don't even know what my deductible is, but it's probably more than $1000 for the year. I don't get dental, vision, or any sort of mental health coverage. My co-pay for doctors visits is $30, and prescriptions are only covered by 50% in most cases. This plan which does me very little good, costs my mom about $150 a month. Even with this insurance, I wracked up over $1200 in doctors visits trying to get my ADHD diagnosed and then get the medication dosage figured out.

I strongly disagree with the idea that health insurance is a necessary evil. Health insurance helps increase the cost of health care, and it is a complete and utter waste of money. I wish we just had single payer health care already. Obamacare is a step in the right direction, but it's not anywhere near where we should be.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#107 Jun 30 2012 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
It's too bad we don't have a mid-level insurance manager on the boards to tell us all how wrong we are...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#108 Jun 30 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
For clarification, I hate insurance of all kind but believe it's a necessary evil that could be adjusted.


All of the countries not in grey disagree on the "necessary" part: Clicky


That doesn't contradict my statement. I'm referring to the concept of insurance, not particularly in one instance. Not everyone has to participate in insurance to make it necessary. There just has to be a source of money available. That source can easily come from a percentage of the population and not 100% of the population. This is why I argued if a person is likely to use it, then that person needs to pay as well. Since health affects everyone, then everyone should be putting money into the pot.

Demea wrote:
Right, so you don't understand how insurance works. Smiley: nod I put my foot in my mouth and I'm too stubborn to admit it


This isn't charity. Insurance companies are out to make money just like every other business in the world and they make their money from people who don't use the insurance company's money. They do not make money from people who are constantly in the hospital, wrecking vehicles, losing phones, etc. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise, but that's reality. Smiley: schooled

P.O.D wrote:
Car insurance protects you from other people and from yourself to a certain extent. I agree that it's a necessary evil. However, it's still affordable for most people, ie the vast majority of people who drive. I pay about $70 a month, for a $1000 deductible to replace my car if it gets totaled. I'm not sure of the other logistics, but I'm pretty sure the rest is just bare bones what my state requires, plus free towing and road side assistance.


My point is that the amount of money you spent in insurance doesn't play a factor in your replacement. That can be good or bad, but more likely bad than good. If you just got a car and only paid one months insurance, then you come out on top. If you've been paying insurance for years with no accidents, you having to pay $200 for a fender bender is no bueno.

P.O.D wrote:
I strongly disagree with the idea that health insurance is a necessary evil. Health insurance helps increase the cost of health care, and it is a complete and utter waste of money. I wish we just had single payer health care already. Obamacare is a step in the right direction, but it's not anywhere near where we should be.


It's not exactly the same but It's the same concept. As of today (assuming my assumption is accurate), I fully support Obamacare based off the concept that it is a "necessary evil". As I said, most people don't want to overlook a person having a stroke because they are not insured; however, individuals not dumping their money into the insurance pot, makes it worse on others who pay. As an individual, you should have the choice not to have dental check ups, prostate check ups, breast exams or go to the doctor for anything and be comfortable with dying on the side of the road. We don't live in that type of society. If you get hurt, someone will treat you and the expenses have to be paid.

Edited, Jul 1st 2012 4:47am by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 1st 2012 6:10am by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 1st 2012 6:18am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#109 Jun 30 2012 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
For clarification, I hate insurance of all kind but believe it's a necessary evil that could be adjusted.


All of the countries not in grey disagree on the "necessary" part: Clicky


That doesn't contradict my statement. I'm referring to the concept of insurance, not particularly in one instance. Not everyone has to participate in insurance to make it necessary. There just has to be a source of money available. That source can easily come from a percentage of the population and not 100% of the population. This is why I argued if a person is likely to use it, then that person needs to pay as well. Since health affects everyone, then everyone should be putting money into the pot.


You mean like the National Health Service? That's why it's called single payer healthcare. Cuz everyone puts money into one big pot.

Or are you saying those who can't afford to contribute as much as you should be left to die? 'Cause that's kind of the only alternative.

Edited, Jun 30th 2012 11:03pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#110 Jun 30 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Excellent
It doesn't sound like that's what he's saying. It sounds like he supports Obamacare, but I'm not really sure what point he's trying to make.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#111 Jun 30 2012 at 10:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
For clarification, I hate insurance of all kind but believe it's a necessary evil that could be adjusted.


All of the countries not in grey disagree on the "necessary" part: Clicky


That doesn't contradict my statement. I'm referring to the concept of insurance, not particularly in one instance. Not everyone has to participate in insurance to make it necessary. There just has to be a source of money available. That source can easily come from a percentage of the population and not 100% of the population. This is why I argued if a person is likely to use it, then that person needs to pay as well. Since health affects everyone, then everyone should be putting money into the pot.


You mean like the National Health Service? That's why it's called single payer healthcare. Cuz everyone puts money into one big pot.

Or are you saying those who can't afford to contribute as much as you should be left to die? 'Cause that's kind of the only alternative.
Edited, Jun 30th 2012 11:03pm by Nilatai


Our society doesn't let people just die, therefore, everyone needs to have some form of insurance. The alternate would be allowing people without insurance to die.

P.O.D wrote:
It doesn't sound like that's what he's saying. It sounds like he supports Obamacare, but I'm not really sure what point he's trying to make.


Maybe you didn't see my previous post to the one you responded to.

I support Obamacare. People with the funds complaining about having to pay for insurance need to suck it up. I'm against the practice of insurance, but it's a necessary part of life, especially with health care.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#112 Jun 30 2012 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I strongly disagree with the idea that health insurance is a necessary evil. Health insurance helps increase the cost of health care, and it is a complete and utter waste of money. I wish we just had single payer health care already. Obamacare is a step in the right direction, but it's not anywhere near where we should be.

Structurally, there's no difference between private health insurance (whether obtained individually or employer-provided) and a single-payer government system. Except that with the former, you have the option not to participate. Or, at least, you used to.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#113 Jun 30 2012 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Right, so you don't understand how insurance works. Smiley: nod I put my foot in my mouth and I'm too stubborn to admit it


This isn't charity. Insurance companies are out to make money just like every other business in the world and they make their money from people who don't use the insurance company's money. They do not make money from people who are constantly in the hospital, wrecking vehicles, losing phones, etc. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise, but that's reality. Smiley: schooled

I won't bother explaining the mathematics behind insurance because I'm positive that you either wouldn't understand them, or would willfully ignore them.

Just because you don't, or choose not to, understand it doesn't make it "evil."
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#114 Jun 30 2012 at 10:50 PM Rating: Good
Demea wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I strongly disagree with the idea that health insurance is a necessary evil. Health insurance helps increase the cost of health care, and it is a complete and utter waste of money. I wish we just had single payer health care already. Obamacare is a step in the right direction, but it's not anywhere near where we should be.

Structurally, there's no difference between private health insurance (whether obtained individually or employer-provided) and a single-payer government system. Except that with the former, you have the option not to participate. Or, at least, you used to.


If you look at the two on the most basic of levels, sure. Beyond that, there's a huge difference between the two. Especially the way health insurance companies currently operate in this country.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#115 Jul 01 2012 at 5:31 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Right, so you don't understand how insurance works. Smiley: nod I put my foot in my mouth and I'm too stubborn to admit it


This isn't charity. Insurance companies are out to make money just like every other business in the world and they make their money from people who don't use the insurance company's money. They do not make money from people who are constantly in the hospital, wrecking vehicles, losing phones, etc. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise, but that's reality. Smiley: schooled

I won't bother explaining the mathematics behind insurance because I'm positive that you either wouldn't understand them, or would willfully ignore them.

Just because you don't, or choose not to, understand it doesn't make it "evil."


I highly doubt that you will be able to provide any mathematics that I wont be able to understand. I don't care if you're the CEO of Geico, the concept of insurance is widely understood. If I have to pay a deductible of a price LESS than the amount of money that I have already paid in insurance, then my argument stands. Your only counter argument would be that insurance is a charity where people only donate if they want.

Just because you don't understand the terminology "necessary evil", doesn't make you right. I suggest looking it up before becoming offended and making ridiculous accusations that you obviously can't defend.

P.S. You double posted, I demand a mute!
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#116 Jul 01 2012 at 5:51 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
How can they make me pay a "tax" for not buying something?


Whether it was intended as a tax or not, you could certainly reach the same result with a tax and a conditional reprieve.

Demea wrote:
Congress does not have the power to regulate interstate commerce where there is no commerce to which to apply regulation. In other words, they do not have the power to compel commercial activity of the citizens who are not engaged in commercial activity


Your government creates financial incentives with tax breaks all the time.

I'd hate to be tasked with upholding such a phantom distinction.

Quote:
That doesn't contradict my statement


Of course it does. Not everything that affects the distribution of risk is insurance. Maybe you don't know what insurance is? That's fine.

Everything's fine.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#117 Jul 01 2012 at 5:57 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,164 posts

Structurally, there's no difference between private health insurance (whether obtained individually or employer-provided) and a single-payer government system.


There's a massive structural difference between all three, actually. Single payer government health care is vastly cheaper and more effective by orders of magnitude. "Employer Provided Insurance" in the US, for most people, is code for "my employer chooses to become my insurance company" the premiums involved for most employer provided insurance are literally arbitrary amounts created by the company involved. The "employer contribution" side is particularly comical. Buying health insurance on the open market resembles either of the other two options in virtually no way. Not in cost, not in structure, not in efficacy.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#118 Jul 01 2012 at 6:08 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Quote:
Of course it does. Not everything that affects the distribution of risk is insurance. Maybe you don't know what insurance is? That's fine.

Everything's fine.


Actually it doesn't contradict anything. I was referring to insurance in a general sense and I was provided with a link specifically referring to universal health care. As I said, regardless if YOU are actually paying for insurance or not does not negate the concept of insurance. Hence, a country that does not mandate insurance does not counter my argument. You would have to provide and contrast countries that have NO insurance policies in order to begin to contradict my statement. Unless you believe people ENJOY paying for insurance for the sake of paying and not to actually be insured, then my statement remains valid.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#119 Jul 01 2012 at 6:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
Of course it does. Not everything that affects the distribution of risk is insurance. Maybe you don't know what insurance is? That's fine.

Everything's fine.


Actually it doesn't contradict anything. I was referring to insurance in a general sense and I was provided with a link specifically referring to universal health care. As I said, regardless if YOU are actually paying for insurance or not does not negate the concept of insurance. Hence, a country that does not mandate insurance does not counter my argument. You would have to provide and contrast countries that have NO insurance policies in order to begin to contradict my statement. Unless you believe people ENJOY paying for insurance for the sake of paying and not to actually be insured, then my statement remains valid.


Ah, yes, everything makes sense now.

I feel so foolish.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#120 Jul 01 2012 at 7:07 AM Rating: Decent
**
485 posts
Kavekk wrote:
CoalHeart wrote:
How can they make me pay a "tax" for not buying something?


Whether it was intended as a tax or not, you could certainly reach the same result with a tax and a conditional reprieve.



My comment was 90% tongue in cheek. My only issue, what I found humorous, was the word "tax". What we're doing is buying health insurance, not paying a tax. I (vaguely) understand it can't be put that way due to laws about Congress and commerce, but it comes across as talking sideways, "It depends on what the definition of "is" is" crap.

I have no problem with everyone buying insurance. I see it as no different than the Government saying "We can't afford to keep supporting you broke ass old folks that didn't save any money, from now on, you sorry, sagging sacks of unproductive sh*t are going to pay a "tax" into Social Security before the burden of supporting you bankrupts the Country".


IMHO much of the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is less about the Constitution and more about "Goddammitt, I'm broke enough already!, Inflation up, gas up, food up, everything's going except my wages and here's a new "tax". FFS when does it start getting better?
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#121 Jul 01 2012 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,604 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
IMHO much of the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is less about the Constitution and more about "Goddammitt, I'm broke enough already!, Inflation up, gas up, food up, everything's going except my wages and here's a new "tax". FFS when does it start getting better?


I think that's giving most of them too much credit.

I think the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is just "We don't (understand) like it! We're told not to like it! It must be unconstitutional!".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#122 Jul 01 2012 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
**
485 posts
TirithRR wrote:
CoalHeart wrote:
IMHO much of the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is less about the Constitution and more about "Goddammitt, I'm broke enough already!, Inflation up, gas up, food up, everything's going except my wages and here's a new "tax". FFS when does it start getting better?


I think that's giving most of them too much credit.

I think the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is just "We don't (understand) like it! We're told not to like it! It must be unconstitutional!".



You may be right. Not that I'm one to talk though. Even though I'm a middle aged man, I do not fully understand the Constitution either. Primarily because I've never read the entire thing. Oh, I've started to many times, but it's dreadfully dull. There's a serious lack of boobies and explosions. It's also oddly verbose to be so vague. They use a whole lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing. I think back then they got paid by the letter.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#123 Jul 01 2012 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
TirithRR wrote:
CoalHeart wrote:
IMHO much of the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is less about the Constitution and more about "Goddammitt, I'm broke enough already!, Inflation up, gas up, food up, everything's going except my wages and here's a new "tax". FFS when does it start getting better?


I think that's giving most of them too much credit.

I think the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is just "We don't (understand) like it! We're told not to like it! It must be unconstitutional!".

Quote:
Tax (v) - to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.

Based on the definition of the word, lack of health insurance provides no possession or occurrence on which the government can collect. Regardless of your personal feelings about the individual mandate, Obama, Republicans, and the Supreme Court, there is no logical way to conclude that the individual mandate is a "tax."
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#124 Jul 01 2012 at 8:28 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Demea wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
CoalHeart wrote:
IMHO much of the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is less about the Constitution and more about "Goddammitt, I'm broke enough already!, Inflation up, gas up, food up, everything's going except my wages and here's a new "tax". FFS when does it start getting better?


I think that's giving most of them too much credit.

I think the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is just "We don't (understand) like it! We're told not to like it! It must be unconstitutional!".

Quote:
Tax (v) - to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.

Based on the definition of the word, lack of health insurance provides no possession or occurrence on which the government can collect. Regardless of your personal feelings about the individual mandate, Obama, Republicans, and the Supreme Court, there is no logical way to conclude that the individual mandate is a "tax."


That depends on which definition you use.

to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one's resources
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#125 Jul 01 2012 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
You people are talking to Alma again. Stop it.
#126 Jul 01 2012 at 9:03 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You people are talking to Alma again. Stop it.


Envious?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#127 Jul 01 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You people are talking to Alma again. Stop it.

He's the only one to argue with since gbaji is MIA.

The rest of the bleating sheep just link to Huffington Post articles and say stuff like "you hate poor people!"
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#128 Jul 01 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Demea wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You people are talking to Alma again. Stop it.

He's the only one to argue with since gbaji is MIA.

The rest of the bleating sheep just link to Huffington Post articles and say stuff like "you hate poor people!"


You guys are proficient at arguing with me even when I agree with you.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#129 Jul 01 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,874 posts
Iirc demea is against Obamacare (at least as its currently structured)
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#130 Jul 01 2012 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Iirc demea is against Obamacare (at least as its currently structured)

I'm against the idea that the federal government can penalize citizens for not engaging in economic activity.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#131 Jul 01 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,604 posts
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Iirc demea is against Obamacare (at least as its currently structured)

I'm against the idea that the federal government can penalize citizens for not engaging in economic activity.

Then think of positive! Instead of penalized for not doing it, you are being rewarded for doing it! (Problem solved!)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#132 Jul 01 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Iirc demea is against Obamacare (at least as its currently structured)

I'm against the idea that the federal government can penalize citizens for not engaging in economic activity.

Then think of positive! Instead of penalized for not doing it, you are being rewarded for doing it! (Problem solved!)


This...

This reminds me of a conversation that I had with one of my Chinese friends about China's law on multiple children. I can't say if it's accurate, but her explanation was that you can have as many children as you want. If you live in the city, you will get taxed/fined for having more than one child and rewarded for having only one child. If you live in the country, you are not penalized. Alternatively, a friend of mine living in Japan said that the government and society promote sex due to their low birth rates and high death rates. No one likes to be told what to do (unless you're just lazy), but sometimes the scenario doesn't show any promising alternatives.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#133 Jul 01 2012 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Iirc demea is against Obamacare (at least as its currently structured)

I'm against the idea that the federal government can penalize citizens for not engaging in economic activity.

Then think of positive! Instead of penalized for not doing it, you are being rewarded for doing it! (Problem solved!)

My taxes will not go down because of this bill, ergo I'm not being rewarded in any way for having health insurance, but rather avoiding a penalty. Which is how the law was written. Which, bringing us full circle, is why it's complete bullsh*t to label the individual mandate a "tax."
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#134 Jul 01 2012 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
Demea wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Iirc demea is against Obamacare (at least as its currently structured)

I'm against the idea that the federal government can penalize citizens for not engaging in economic activity.

Then think of positive! Instead of penalized for not doing it, you are being rewarded for doing it! (Problem solved!)

My taxes will not go down because of this bill, ergo I'm not being rewarded in any way for having health insurance, but rather avoiding a penalty. Which is how the law was written. Which, bringing us full circle, is why it's complete bullsh*t to label the individual mandate a "tax."


Hm. So if they introduced a tax in a separate bill and then, in another, offered a tax break to anyone who got insurance, that would be acceptable? The net effect of the two bills could be the same as this one, but it would pass your test. Even if there were otherwise good reasons to hold the two could not be introduced in the same bill (there definitely aren't, taxes are never unconditionally applicable) and you hadn't just pulled it from your arse, one might conclude it would be pointless to do so. It doesn't serve to restrict the government's power in any meaningful way. Do you see the loophole in your arbitrary stipulation?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#135 Jul 01 2012 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
The rest of the bleating sheep just link to Huffington Post articles and say stuff like "you hate poor people!"

That's nonsense. I link to Mother Jones to prove that you hate poor people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#136 Jul 01 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
643 posts
Will I be able to buy insurance directly from the government? The only issue i have would be paying a tax for not giving money to a private company. I live in the US and would be OK with paying them, but I don't think any company should make a profit just because I'm alive.
#137 Jul 01 2012 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
xantav wrote:
Will I be able to buy insurance directly from the government? The only issue i have would be paying a tax for not giving money to a private company. I live in the US and would be OK with paying them, but I don't think any company should make a profit just because I'm alive.

Better stop buying food, water, electricity, shelter, internet service, televisions, and all other forms of consumer products, then! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#138 Jul 02 2012 at 6:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,524 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
How can they make me pay a "tax" for not buying something?

Taxed when I buy, taxed when I don't. This is seriously cutting into my hookers and blow fund.
Had you been a tax paying adult in the 50's, if you could have still afforded the hookers and blow, you'd have likely been taxed on them as well.

Over-all tax rates are not anything remarkable at the moment.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#139 Jul 02 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Demea wrote:
The rest of the bleating sheep just link to Huffington Post articles and say stuff like "you hate poor people!"
So, what? You're poking at the lobotomized goat instead? He doesn't even understand how dictionaries work.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#140 Jul 02 2012 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,790 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Demea wrote:
The rest of the bleating sheep just link to Huffington Post articles and say stuff like "you hate poor people!"
So, what? You're poking at the lobotomized goat instead? He doesn't even understand how dictionaries work.


There were way too many multi-syllabic words with more than one sound in that post for Alma to understand it.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#141Almalieque, Posted: Jul 02 2012 at 1:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No need to project your lack of an ability to sagaciously differentiate common use of words and phrases. It's blatantly obvious that I'm right or most of the thread is also wrong. Then again, I'm aware that I'm just your entertainment, which only negates the previous "movements" of wanting me gone.
#142 Jul 02 2012 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,428 posts
Because I was afraid to speak, when I was just a lad
My father gave me nose a tweak and told me I was bad
But then one day I learned a word that saved me achin’ nose
The biggest word I ever heard!
And this is how it goes: Oh...

Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jul 2nd 2012 12:31pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#143 Jul 02 2012 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
It's blatantly obvious that I'm right or most of the thread is also wrong.


False, but don't let common sense spoil your delusions. You never have before.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#144 Jul 02 2012 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
***
2,790 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No need to project your lack of an ability to sagaciously differentiate common use of words and phrases. It's blatantly obvious that I'm right or most of the thread is also wrong. Then again, I'm aware that I'm just your entertainment, which only negates the previous "movements" of wanting me gone.

Wow... in any case, I win....as always...Smiley: nod Carry on..


Dear Mr. Almalieque,

I'm really not one to beg, but I am dying for either a)some of the drugs you're on, or 2)an invitation to whatever fantasy land you're living in.

Sincerely (ok, not REALLY sincerely),

Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#145 Jul 02 2012 at 2:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It's blatantly obvious that I'm right or most of the thread is also wrong.


False, but don't let common sense spoil your delusions. You never have before.


Oh, so most of this thread is AGAINST Obamacare?

Are you implying that the people on this thread are incapable of realizing that a word with multiple meanings can be used in different ways and that one definition doesn't necessarily negate the other?

So, I guess that most people on this thread love paying thousands of dollars for insurance only to still have to pay a deductible, with possibly higher insurance rates?

Ha.. If anyone is dwelling in illusory thoughts, 'tis you. Don't let this forum's ability to transform any thread into a tumultuous thread against me deceive you.

Bigdaddyjug? wrote:
Dear Mr. Almalieque,

I'm really not one to beg, but I am dying for either a)some of the drugs you're on, or 2)an invitation to whatever fantasy land you're living in.

Sincerely (ok, not REALLY sincerely),

Bigdaddyjug


I'm sorry, but WTFRU?

Jus' sayin'



Edited, Jul 2nd 2012 10:10pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#146 Jul 02 2012 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,524 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Wow... in any case, I win....as always...Smiley: nod Carry on, while imagining me as a long-haired Rock and Roll Star in the band Kansas
Hah, I almost forgot about Kansas (the band not the state)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#147 Jul 02 2012 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They named a state after the band?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Jul 02 2012 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,524 posts
Jophiel wrote:
They named a state after the band?

Umm, where do you think Chicago got it's name?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#149 Jul 02 2012 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
******
43,157 posts
From Frank Sinatra, of course.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#150 Jul 02 2012 at 2:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
They named a state after the band?

Umm, where do you think Chicago got it's name?



So that means "America" came from....*gasp*...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#151 Jul 02 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
**
485 posts
Elinda wrote:
CoalHeart wrote:
How can they make me pay a "tax" for not buying something?

Taxed when I buy, taxed when I don't. This is seriously cutting into my hookers and blow fund.
Had you been a tax paying adult in the 50's, if you could have still afforded the hookers and blow, you'd have likely been taxed on them as well.

Over-all tax rates are not anything remarkable at the moment.



I think the 50s version of Hookers and Blow was Caffeine pills and a hand job.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
BeanX, Jophiel, lolgaxe, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (50)