|
Forum: General Stuff Topic: Let's talk health care started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Jul. 15 2009,12:20
So under Obama's proposed health care plan, EVERY American HAS to sign up, right?I mean, this is not something you can turn down? That's how the MSM has been reporting it. (Yes, I'm going somewhere with this...just waiting for confirmation that the above is correct.) Posted by GORDON on Jul. 15 2009,12:24
I heard something about how if you choose to have private insurance instead, you are going to lose some tax breaks. Or something like that.Basically, penalties for not being on the public plan. Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 15 2009,12:50
Yes.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 15 2009,13:03
(GORDON @ Jul. 15 2009,14:24) QUOTE I heard something about how if you choose to have private insurance instead, you are going to lose some tax breaks. Or something like that. Basically, penalties for not being on the public plan. What breaks? Posted by GORDON on Jul. 15 2009,14:14
(Malcolm @ Jul. 15 2009,16:03) QUOTE (GORDON @ Jul. 15 2009,14:24) QUOTE I heard something about how if you choose to have private insurance instead, you are going to lose some tax breaks. Or something like that. Basically, penalties for not being on the public plan. What breaks? Right now income tax is calculated after health insurance is deducted (IIRC). That'll be gone. Also... that other thing where you take out money from your paycheck and put it aside for health costs, and it isn't taxed. Can't remember what that is called. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 15 2009,14:43
Christ. I'm just trying to think of how large the gov't would get if it did this. It'd at least double in size. & that's just the first decade I'm anticipating.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 15 2009,15:23
I said a long time ago that in the future of America, 50% of the people will be working for the government, and every one of them will be assigned to directly take care of/keep an eye on one person in the other 50%.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 15 2009,15:35
Look what your typical Farkers think about universal health care.Summary: hundreds of people saying "Shut up you rich leech, you don't deserve what you have." < http://www.fark.com/cgi....2763070 > Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 15 2009,16:37
(GORDON @ Jul. 15 2009,17:23) QUOTE I said a long time ago that in the future of America, 50% of the people will be working for the government, and every one of them will be assigned to directly take care of/keep an eye on one person in the other 50%. I'll put mine thru all kinds of hell. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2009,13:39
No new enrollments in private insurance once obamacare is in effect.This can't be true. < http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009....th.html > Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2009,14:33
Eh, I don't care either way. The whole insurance industry is a monstrosity propped up by bad regulations and legislation. It makes no difference to me if our scam insurance comes from an industry that is supported by bureaucracy or one that is a direct bureaucracy. Both will be essentially corrupt and useless.Honestly I think we have way too much health care already. There are a whole lot of people walking around that should be dead. The worse the system gets the more that problem will be corrected. As an added bonus, if being a doctor becomes an underpaid pain in the ass of a job, we'll see more of our bright young minds doing other more useful things with themselves when they grow up. Posted by Vince on Jul. 16 2009,16:04
(TPRJones @ Jul. 16 2009,16:33) QUOTE Eh, I don't care either way. The whole insurance industry is a monstrosity propped up by bad regulations and legislation. It makes no difference to me if our scam insurance comes from an industry that is supported by bureaucracy or one that is a direct bureaucracy. Both will be essentially corrupt and useless. Except that you'll now be forced to participate in and fund the corrupt and useless. Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2009,16:06
I already am by my employer, so it's the same either way.The only potential difference I see is in the amount of the expense. But the current system is pretty crappy and essentially non-competitive already, so I'm not convinced it will get much worse. Probably some, though. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2009,16:24
(TPRJones @ Jul. 16 2009,18:06) QUOTE The only potential difference I see is in the amount of the expense. But the current system is pretty crappy and essentially non-competitive already, so I'm not convinced it will get much worse. Probably some, though. Blue Cross doesn't have fucking Harriers & FBI troops to back up their policies. If this is funded thru taxes, then that's your new premium. Don't want to pay? < Some men would like to speak to you >. QUOTE It makes no difference to me if our scam insurance comes from an industry that is supported by bureaucracy or one that is a direct bureaucracy. Both will be essentially corrupt and useless. More players = more things that can cause a scam to fail. They're attempting to streamline the process, if this bullshit regulation is genuine. The fact that they're taking it upon themselves to ... outlaw? ... an entire industry of anything causes me concern. Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2009,20:49
There is no way in which I consider this a good thing. But it's not surprising. And < it's not > < the first > < time an > < industry has > < been outlawed >.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 18 2009,06:41
(TPRJones @ Jul. 16 2009,22:49) QUOTE There is no way in which I consider this a good thing. But it's not surprising. And < it's not > < the first > < time an > < industry has > < been outlawed >. This isn't just outlawing an industry. This is government seizure of an industry. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 18 2009,06:48
I remember when Putin seized the Russian petroleum industry. Ditto Chavez.Good times. Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 18 2009,07:59
(Vince @ Jul. 18 2009,08:41) QUOTE This isn't just outlawing an industry. This is government seizure of an industry. True, this is different in nature in that it's not just outlawing activities by certain parties, it's then also providing those services itself. But then I'm sure messenger companies were upset when the Post Office was first founded as well. And there's a few other industries that used to be private enterprise as well before various levels of government took them over "for the public good": firefighting companies, for example. I don't like it, I just don't see it as being a completely new and unique situation for the government. It's certainly much larger than any similar things they've done in the past, though, that I'll admit to. And it's going to suck tremendously. But other than being larger scale this is not a new violation of the basic principles on which the nation was founded. Posted by Vince on Jul. 18 2009,08:19
(TPRJones @ Jul. 18 2009,09:59) QUOTE True, this is different in nature in that it's not just outlawing activities by certain parties, it's then also providing those services itself. But then I'm sure messenger companies were upset when the Post Office was first founded as well. And there's a few other industries that used to be private enterprise as well before various levels of government took them over "for the public good": firefighting companies, for example. I don't like it, I just don't see it as being a completely new and unique situation for the government. It's certainly much larger than any similar things they've done in the past, though, that I'll admit to. And it's going to suck tremendously. But other than being larger scale this is not a new violation of the basic principles on which the nation was founded. But the government didn't outlaw FedEx. Or private fire departments for that matter. That's the thing many don't seem to recognize (not here... we're pretty pragmatic). The reason FexEx and UPS do so well is because the government version (USPS) isn't up to business standards. What they're proposing is more like outlawing 401k plans (along with every other private retirement plan) and offering a new and improved social security program. And like controlling retirement, they have a hook into our lives in an intrusive way never before seen. When they control if you live or die, they have you by the balls. Posted by Alhazad on Jul. 20 2009,12:15
(GORDON @ Jul. 18 2009,06:48) QUOTE I remember when Putin seized the Russian petroleum industry. Ditto Chavez. Good times. Heh, that's a funny tangent. You know the media arm of the government-controlled gas company Gazprom was important in the promotion of Medvedev as Putin's successor and the discrediting of his opponent? Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 20 2009,13:19
(Alhazad @ Jul. 20 2009,14:15) QUOTE (GORDON @ Jul. 18 2009,06:48) QUOTE I remember when Putin seized the Russian petroleum industry. Ditto Chavez. Good times. Heh, that's a funny tangent. You know the media arm of the government-controlled gas company Gazprom was important in the promotion of Medvedev as Putin's successor and the discrediting of his opponent? I don't think Putin needs an ordained heir until he's dead. By that time, someone more competent than Club Med will have stepped up. |