or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Obama, Sebelius compare Apple's iOS 7 launch to Healthcare.gov rollout issues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama, Sebelius compare Apple's iOS 7 launch to Healthcare.gov rollout issues - Page 4

post #121 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


It's no different at all. Everyone I know was born and will die in a hospital. Many of them require emergency care at some point in their lives. I guess if one can prove that one has millions of dollars in case of an auto accident or medical calamity, then it would make sense to not "force" them to buy insurance. For everyone else who couldn't afford cancer treatment or killing another motorist, insurance should be required.

Moreover, if you are really "pro life" and "Christian", you would be pro-universal health care. Children shouldn't die just be because their parents are poor, lazy, etc. Heck, Christ himself would never have turned anyone away because of an inability to pay.

The GOP loves the fetus but hates the child.

 

Then you know a lot of very sick people. Most of the people I know, died at home. 

 

Your auto rhetoric does not work. Rich will pay for auto insurance anyway to protect them from other people. You don't buy healthcare to protect yourself from others. And if they require emergency care, they should pay for it or have insurance. But if I can pay for it out of pocket, why then should I have insurance? What am I insuring myself against? 

 

Children don't have to die, they can go to the emergency care as ALL are excepted by LAW! Again, your analogy is not based in reality. I don't know any Christian, or GOPer, that hates the child, not one! 

 

I think everyone should have access to competitive healthcare insurance, which is why I fight for allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State lines. Then, you will see on TV them competing like that auto insurance companies do (and life, home, etc.).  

post #122 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

LMAO, please, please show me these facts of yours. 

The WHO rates US health care as #37 in quality of care and outcomes. Meanwhile, in terms of costs, we are #1.

Right wingers used to be frightening, but the sexist, racist, homophobic, idiotic party is in serious decline. It's funny how the "red states" are the real leeches in that they take more in tax money from the Feds than they pay, but the Blue states pay more in taxes than they take back.

I smell the fear of Obamacare being successful, like Social Security and Medicare. Why else are the asinine Republicans engaging in unconstitutional methods to try to defund it? If its implemented and fails, then people will soon vote in politicians who want to repeal it.

The GOP is in a death spiral. And they are a bunch of fucking idiots. Racist, sexist, hypocritical, homophobic fucking idiots. The John Birch society has overtaken the GOP.
post #123 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


Look it up, troll boy. The WHO rates US health care as #37 in quality of care and outcomes. Meanwhile, in terms of costs, we are #1.

Right wingers used to be frightening, but the sexist, racist, homophobic, idiotic party is in serious decline. It's funny how the "red states" are the real leeches in that they take more in tax money from the Feds than they pay, but the Blue states pay more in taxes than they take back.

I smell the fear of Obamacare being successful, like Social Security and Medicare. Why else are the asinine Republicans engaging in unconstitutional methods to try to defund it? If its implemented and fails, then people will soon vote in politicians who want to repeal it.

The GOP is in a death spiral. And they are a bunch of fucking idiots. Racist, sexist, hypocritical, homophobic fucking idiots. The John Birch society has overtaken the GOP.

 

A) look up what a troll is

 

B) If the US healthcare is so bad, why do people fly here from all over the world to see out doctors, including those from Canada? 

 

Yes, our cost our out of control, but that is due to government intervention and stopping the free market as I have pointed out many times already. 

 

Social security is billions of dollars in debt as with the medicare, hardly a success! 

 

Now you are down to name calling? And bringing in all sorts of crazy stuff. 

 

Thank you for the debate, all the best to you. 

 

PLUNK! 

post #124 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Then you know a lot of very sick people. Most of the people I know, died at home. 

Your auto rhetoric does not work. Rich will pay for auto insurance anyway to protect them from other people. You don't buy healthcare to protect yourself from others. And if they require emergency care, they should pay for it or have insurance. But if I can pay for it out of pocket, why then should I have insurance? What am I insuring myself against? 

Children don't have to die, they can go to the emergency care as ALL are excepted by LAW! Again, your analogy is not based in reality. I don't know any Christian, or GOPer, that hates the child, not one! 

I think everyone should have access to competitive healthcare insurance, which is why I fight for allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State lines. Then, you will see on TV them competing like that auto insurance companies do (and life, home, etc.).  

Really? They die at home and are buried in the backyard without going to the hospital mortuary? Where do you live?

The emergency room does not provide preventative care. Nor do they clean teeth, AFAIK. In what state do you reside that people get these preventative services in the emergency room? And . . . Spoiler alert. . . We ALL pay for uninsured people who visit the ER, just like we ALL pay for those who get in accidents without auto insurance.

You really think that the ER provides pre-natal care? Immunizations for kids? Check ups?
post #125 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

A) look up what a troll is

B) If the US healthcare is so bad, why do people fly here from all over the world to see out doctors, including those from Canada? 

Yes, our cost our out of control, but that is due to government intervention and stopping the free market as I have pointed out many times already. 

Social security is billions of dollars in debt as with the medicare, hardly a success! 

Now you are down to name calling? And bringing in all sorts of crazy stuff. 

Thank you for the debate, all the best to you. 

PLUNK! 

The facts are the facts. The US is #37 in outcome and quality of care. Yes, RICH people seek out the best treatments wherever they can- Israel, Switzerland, and the US. They are not typical patients, though.

I'm sick of right wing tactics. They lost 2 elections in a landslide, the law was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It was also upheld by SCOTUS. None of this matters to the GOP, they are behaving in an anti-democratic and ultimately, anti-American way to EVERY issue.
post #126 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by muadibe View Post

Speaking of dumb, so what specifically is it about the Affordable Healthcare Act that you don't like?
Remember, you are calling something, most of which goes into effect today, a failure.

Before answering, keep in mind the following:

1. Polls show that people, on average, favor The Affordable Care Act, but oppose Obamacare - even though they're the same thing. Much (perhaps most) of the opposition is politically motivated.

2. The ACA is essentially the same thing that Romney put into place in MA a number of years ago - with one major exception. ACA focuses on cost reduction while Romney's plan did not - so ACA is arguably more conservative.

3. In 1992, Hillary proposed a single payer health insurance plan which was basically DOA (and for good reason, IMHO). The Republicans proposed an alternative - which is essentially the same as the ACA. Why was it a good plan when the GOP proposed it, but suddenly became a terrible plan today?

4. In case someone has forgotten, Congress actually passed the law with the participation of the GOP. In spite of all the whining, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of most of the plan. So why the complaining?

It's all a big political game for the GOP. They passed the plan 3 years ago and now want to fight it - simply for political reasons.

For a summary:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-shreds-gop-over-obamacare-utter-insanity-its-a-fcking-law/


Oh, and btw, I just got my new policy. The old one was $660 for my family with horrible coverage (high deductible plan with lifetime caps). The new one is $436 for far better coverage. So much for the "it's going to bankrupt American workers" argument.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #127 of 173

Except that no one forces you to buy and iPad or iPhone or Mac.  You have no choice with obamacare you will own it or be insured or be fined on your income taxes.

post #128 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Insurers are not allowed to offer national insurance plans.  Them "varying" across the 50 states, is due to regulation.  Let insurers offer national plans and premiums will go down.  Let insurers offer plans tailored to specific markets (eg: people with diabetes, for instance, could benefit from a national plans buying peer) and premiums will go down.  Both of these are forbidden by governments.

 

As to complaining that they are "for profit" you don't seem to be aware of the reality.

The "reality" consists of what the legislators, led by Obama, chose to promote and that which they chose to suppress.

 

Healthcare premiums began skyrocketing several years ago, long before Obamacare was written (let alone enacted), because the government allowed premiums to be raised so much. Most of the high prices we face today have nothing to do with the Obamacare legislation.

 

You can bet the government will amend the ACA legislation if it looks like too many insurers are going to fail, so don't waste your time crying for alligators. They will be assured a handsome profit from here on out.

 

You neglected to mention insurers make a ton of money from people dropping off the books--the people who lost the gamble.

post #129 of 173
Obama's comparison is a bit like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes. iOS 7 has a few glitches that'll quickly be fixed. Several of the mandated deadlines for Obamacare have already been put off for a year and much of the software is likely to be buggy for many years, that is if it ever works. And with all the various governmental databases not talking to one another, its going to be riddled with fraud.

What should have been done was what was done with welfare reform. Allow states to test various schemes, comparing them to one another, and then adopt what actually works. Instead, we got a scheme that various powerful special interest groups would sign off on, but that screws those without well-connected lobbyists: small businesses, young adults, and the like.

Even the unions aren't happy about it. The unions got shortchanged in the original plan to make the finances look good, with amendments that would favor them put off until later. Now, those amendments may never come.

Even more telling is all the squirming and wiggling Congress in engaging in to escape from being a part of it. That's a near-perfect illustration that those who gave us Obamacare know its awful.
post #130 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Except that no one forces you to buy and iPad or iPhone or Mac.  You have no choice with obamacare you will own it or be insured or be fined on your income taxes.

Don't some states "force" all drivers to carry auto insurance?
post #131 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post

Don't some states "force" all drivers to carry auto insurance?

Most states do.

You are also forced to contribute to Social Security and Medicare.

You are forced to pay taxes.

You are forced to obey posted speed limits.

You are forced to pay tolls on toll roads.

You are forced to do a lot of things. The argument that this is somehow a unique extension of government powers is a losing argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it's Constitutional. If you don't like it, blame Congress - they're the ones who passed the law.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #132 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Most states do.

You are also forced to contribute to Social Security and Medicare.

You are forced to pay taxes.

You are forced to obey posted speed limits.

You are forced to pay tolls on toll roads.

You are forced to do a lot of things. The argument that this is somehow a unique extension of government powers is a losing argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it's Constitutional. If you don't like it, blame Congress - they're the ones who passed the law.

I'm pro-ACA and pro-auto insurance. It's the only way to bring down costs and to make sure that folks are gaming the system and sticking taxpayers with their medical and/or auto accident bills.

Ironic that the while idea of the ACA was from the Heritage Society and was based on "Romneycare". I guess the right wing no longer believes in personal responsibility.
post #133 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muadibe View Post

Speaking of dumb, so what specifically is it about the Affordable Healthcare Act that you don't like?
Remember, you are calling something, most of which goes into effect today, a failure.

Before answering, keep in mind the following:

1. Polls show that people, on average, favor The Affordable Care Act, but oppose Obamacare - even though they're the same thing. Much (perhaps most) of the opposition is politically motivated.

2. The ACA is essentially the same thing that Romney put into place in MA a number of years ago - with one major exception. ACA focuses on cost reduction while Romney's plan did not - so ACA is arguably more conservative.

3. In 1992, Hillary proposed a single payer health insurance plan which was basically DOA (and for good reason, IMHO). The Republicans proposed an alternative - which is essentially the same as the ACA. Why was it a good plan when the GOP proposed it, but suddenly became a terrible plan today?

4. In case someone has forgotten, Congress actually passed the law with the participation of the GOP. In spite of all the whining, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of most of the plan. So why the complaining?

It's all a big political game for the GOP. They passed the plan 3 years ago and now want to fight it - simply for political reasons.

For a summary:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-shreds-gop-over-obamacare-utter-insanity-its-a-fcking-law/


Oh, and btw, I just got my new policy. The old one was $660 for my family with horrible coverage (high deductible plan with lifetime caps). The new one is $436 for far better coverage. So much for the "it's going to bankrupt American workers" argument.

Spot on.

But I think that trying to convince a bunch of ill-informed wingnuts with actual facts is a somewhat pointless exercise.
post #134 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Obama's comparison is a bit like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes. iOS 7 has a few glitches that'll quickly be fixed. Several of the mandated deadlines for Obamacare have already been put off for a year and much of the software is likely to be buggy for many years, that is if it ever works. And with all the various governmental databases not talking to one another, its going to be riddled with fraud.

What should have been done was what was done with welfare reform. Allow states to test various schemes, comparing them to one another, and then adopt what actually works. Instead, we got a scheme that various powerful special interest groups would sign off on, but that screws those without well-connected lobbyists: small businesses, young adults, and the like.

Even the unions aren't happy about it. The unions got shortchanged in the original plan to make the finances look good, with amendments that would favor them put off until later. Now, those amendments may never come.

Even more telling is all the squirming and wiggling Congress in engaging in to escape from being a part of it. That's a near-perfect illustration that those who gave us Obamacare know its awful.

So, I assume you're pro-union?

/s
post #135 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Obama's comparison is a bit like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes. iOS 7 has a few glitches that'll quickly be fixed. Several of the mandated deadlines for Obamacare have already been put off for a year and much of the software is likely to be buggy for many years, that is if it ever works. And with all the various governmental databases not talking to one another, its going to be riddled with fraud.

What should have been done was what was done with welfare reform. Allow states to test various schemes, comparing them to one another, and then adopt what actually works. Instead, we got a scheme that various powerful special interest groups would sign off on, but that screws those without well-connected lobbyists: small businesses, young adults, and the like.

Even the unions aren't happy about it. The unions got shortchanged in the original plan to make the finances look good, with amendments that would favor them put off until later. Now, those amendments may never come.

Even more telling is all the squirming and wiggling Congress in engaging in to escape from being a part of it. That's a near-perfect illustration that those who gave us Obamacare know its awful.

Let me get this straight. Since police unions are exempt from laws restricting usage of cell phone while driving, I guess they realize that anti-texting laws are "awful"? Since Congress is exempt from breathalyzer laws, I guess they think drunk driving laws are "awful", too? Since military personel can use fully automatic weapons and anti-aircraft weapons. . . And even nuclear weapons. . . I guess the prohibition of these items being bought by the general public is also "awful"? Congress doesn't have to take random drug tests or even pre-employment drug tests. They are therefore acknowledging that these are also "awful" laws, I guess?

Interesting logic.
post #136 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post

I'll tell you what I don't like

%u2022 a 75% subsidy for Congress
%u2022 the "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude
%u2022 the over 1,800 exemptions given to businesses, many to union members
%u2022 lies like Obamacare will "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year"
%u2022 those who don't see the correlation between classifying 30 hours as full-time and employers cutting worker's hours below that number

It makes me sick to think that those of us who have made correct choices all our lives, done without when we couldn't afford and worked hard to get where we are, basically have to support the other half of the population.

It's not enough that we provide an ungodly amount of entitlements, the kicker is you're branded as uncaring if you dare question it, despite what you do in your personal lives through church or other means.

Where else in life do you get so much with no strings attached? I'm subject to drug testing, but if you ask someone on welfare to be drug tested, you're discriminating. Say that voters should have to have a photo ID and you're racist. Politicians must cater to the tens of millions of illegals if they want to have a chance at getting elected. Somehow it's unAmerican to actually follow the law and come to this country legally the way my wife and her family did. Asking people to work hard and better themselves is out-of-line.

I've said it once and I'll say it again - except for the very small percentage of people who are truly unable to work, all handouts need to come with stipulations. You can volunteer, clean up the community, go to a vocational school, but you have to do something. If you want to have kids, then you better be sure you can provide for them. The government is not your nanny. If you can't feed, clothe, provide shelter and be an involved parent, then you should not have kids. And there definitely should not be any incentives for you to do so.

But, even good people often suffer hardships. So let the programs help those TEMPORARILY when they are in need. And yes, everything has a price. I don't care how well-intentioned an entitlement is, it costs boatloads of money.

In case you haven't noticed, the United States is 17 Trillion in debt, a number most people can't even begin to grasp. We're currently borrowing 57 cents for every dollar spent. There's no way this can continue. There's no amount of taxes that can cover our asses. Someone has to make the unpopular choice and deal with it or we can just wait until everything collapses.

My distain is not limited to the Democrats. There are many Republicans who are equally guilty of putting their political careers ahead of the people they are supposed to serve. I pray that one day we will have Congressional term limits, put an end to the influence of lobbyists and somehow rebuild our country.

Rant done.

Well said.

But you can't possibly have ideas contrary to the extreme left, you provided facts, which I've been told people who don't support the left leaning view don't like /s
post #137 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


Let me try again:

Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.

FUCKING leeches. . . Is that better?

 

  Once again,  your language explains your education level and probably your social economic level too.   I recommend you clean your mouth up and then maybe someone will hire you.

post #138 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post

  Once again,  your language explains your education level and probably your social economic level too.   I recommend you clean your mouth up and then maybe someone will hire you.

Instead of complaining about his language, why not address the facts he presented? Here, I"ll post them for you again:
Quote:
Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #139 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post

  Once again,  your language explains your education level and probably your social economic level too.   I recommend you clean your mouth up and then maybe someone will hire you.

I admit to being frustrated with this manufactured crisis by those who claim to love this country. As I recall, VP Cheney used some pretty salty language on the Senate floor in speaking to Sen Leahy. I also remember GW Bush calling someone a "major league asshole" on the campaign trail.

I respect your right to watch PG films and to listen only to "clean" songs, but some of us adults use "bad" words when frustrated. Like, say, when a political party tried to circumvent the Constitutional process by shutting down the government to the cost of $300 million lost by the economy per day. All because they can't win at the ballot box.

Sorry to offend your tender eyes and ears. So please lay down on the fainting couch for a minute to gather your thoughts before addressing the actual issues.
post #140 of 173
I knew that Rush Limbaugh uses Macs. I guess I didn't expect him to be quite so active on this forum, though.
post #141 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post

I knew that Rush Limbaugh uses Macs. I guess I didn't expect him to be quite so active on this forum, though.

 

Well, I got news for you.

 

Plenty of different kinds of people use Macs and Apple products. George Bush used Macs too.

 

Meanwhile, Obama has trouble operating an iPhone.

 

On the campaign trail, President Obama is constantly talking about the importance of technology, but he met his match in an iPhone Sunday.

The president had stopped at a campaign office in Port St. Lucie, Fla., to thank volunteers. Then, for the cameras, Mr. Obama was supposed to call two campaign workers who were out working on his behalf.

But when White House trip director Marvin Nicholson handed the president his personal iPhone, Mr. Obama couldn’t get it to work. A reporter who witnessed the scene said the president looked “befuddled.”

“It’s not clear he knows how to dial on an iPhone,” the reporter wrote in a pool report.

Finally, Mr. Obama said, “Oh, I got to dial it in. Hold on, hold on. I can do this. See, I still have a BlackBerry.”



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/9/tech-challenge-obama-has-trouble-iphone/#ixzz2gWQiyCKj 
 

post #142 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadFlounder View Post

Most of you haters on here are simply uneducated about what you hate. Learn the facts about the ACA before spouting off against 30 million people receiving affordable healthcare. Folks like you are what is wrong with this country

Have no problems with finding a way to allow everyone to be insured. Would love to find out how it will impact me specifically, but, alas, site never lets me finish the registration process. That's ok, I'll keep trying and form my opinion once I have the facts for my situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

4) Insurance premiums in employer-based health care (which is all I have data for; but that accounts for a vast proportion of the private health insurance in this country) have risen substantially faster than inflation in the past couple of decades. In 2012 and 2013 -- since Obamacare was passed and then became law -- the growth has actually slowed!

Look, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Well, like others have said, it isn't in effect yet, so if it can't be responsible for premiums increasing, it likewise can't be responsible for them decreasing. I will find the link and edit this comment after, but I thought I read something this week about the reduction being more attributable to the poor economy thank any policy.

But bravo for blaming both parties. That is a start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The preamble to the Constitution states the purpose of (and reasons for) the Constitution -- it does not enumerate any rights.


Show me where in the Constitution that "Health Care" is an enumerated right!   It is not.

You can read it here:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


The Constitution does provide a mechanism to enumerate rights:
The enumerated rights are made in amendments to the Constitution. The first 10 amendments are the ones the founding fathers felt were most important for a start:

And the fact that health care is not in the constitution and is a state right is exactly the point the media never let Romney make. He was not against the idea of the ACA, he was against the idea that it was a federal issue. Huge difference that no one seemed to care about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post

That's a myth, since they pay property and sales tax. But I'm pretty sure they don't use the courts, the military, the police, the firefighters, the roads, the educational system, etc to the same extent that these billionaire leeches do.

Are you saying billionaire leeches use more public schools and other services than the commoner? Um, have to disagree with you there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

2. The ACA is essentially the same thing that Romney put into place in MA a number of years ago - with one major exception. ACA focuses on cost reduction while Romney's plan did not - so ACA is arguably more conservative.

4. In case someone has forgotten, Congress actually passed the law with the participation of the GOP. In spite of all the whining, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of most of the plan. So why the complaining?

It's all a big political game for the GOP. They passed the plan 3 years ago and now want to fight it - simply for political reasons.

Couple counter-points.
2. As I stated above, Massachusetts (my home state) is just that, a state (well, technically a Commonwealth, but why split hairs?). The PPACA is a federal program. Not surprising that a Republican (which Romney is actually far from ultra conservative) would favor something at a state level, but oppose it at a federal level. It is in no way hypocrisy, flip flopping, or anything other than completely acceptable and Constitutionalist.

4. Yes, it is nothing more than a political game, but not just on the GOP side. And, to be fair to the GOP, they have been fighting is since it was introduced, this is nothing new.
post #143 of 173
I just heard this about the complete insanity of Government law writers and regulators...

This is Medicare Law (about 1/5 the size of Obamacare Law):

It seems there is a rising health care hazard caused by belligerent ducks turkeys attacking people -- so much so that the Feds saw the need to regulate the amount a doctor could bill Medicare depending on the type of duck turkey attack... some ducks turkeys bite people while others merely peck people.

The Feds, in all their wisdom, set up a different Medicare reimbursement rate for duck turkey biters than for duck turkey peckers...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/312451-citing-turkeys-house-republican-seeks-to-change-medicare-policy


In the words of Yakov Smirnoff: "The USA -- what a wonderful country!"


Edit: My bad... I corrected it above it wasn't ducks, rather turkeys. IDK, but there may be different regulations for ducks!
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 10/1/13 at 6:19pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #144 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I just heard this about the complete insanity of Government law writers and regulators...

This is Medicare Law (about 1/5 the size of Obamacare Law):

It seems there is a rising health care hazard caused by belligerent ducks attacking people -- so much so that the Feds saw the need to regulate the amount a doctor could bill Medicare depending on the type of duck attack... some ducks bite people while others merely peck people.

The Feds, in all their wisdom, set up a different Medicare reimbursement rate for duck biters than for duck peckers...


In the words of Yakov Smirnoff: "The USA -- what a wonderful country!"
There are also diagnosis codes (ICD-9,ICD-10, which Medicare bases reimbursement on) for collision with a space craft, amount other things. Can't be too careful!
post #145 of 173
Feels like iPhone activations right after a new model comes out. They said on the news that they were getting millions of hits in the first 90 minutes in single states.
post #146 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

Have no problems with finding a way to allow everyone to be insured. Would love to find out how it will impact me specifically, but, alas, site never lets me finish the registration process. That's ok, I'll keep trying and form my opinion once I have the facts for my situation.
Well, like others have said, it isn't in effect yet, so if it can't be responsible for premiums increasing, it likewise can't be responsible for them decreasing. I will find the link and edit this comment after, but I thought I read something this week about the reduction being more attributable to the poor economy thank any policy.

But bravo for blaming both parties. That is a start.
And the fact that health care is not in the constitution and is a state right is exactly the point the media never let Romney make. He was not against the idea of the ACA, he was against the idea that it was a federal issue. Huge difference that no one seemed to care about.
Are you saying billionaire leeches use more public schools and other services than the commoner? Um, have to disagree with you there.
Couple counter-points.
2. As I stated above, Massachusetts (my home state) is just that, a state (well, technically a Commonwealth, but why split hairs?). The PPACA is a federal program. Not surprising that a Republican (which Romney is actually far from ultra conservative) would favor something at a state level, but oppose it at a federal level. It is in no way hypocrisy, flip flopping, or anything other than completely acceptable and Constitutionalist.

4. Yes, it is nothing more than a political game, but not just on the GOP side. And, to be fair to the GOP, they have been fighting is since it was introduced, this is nothing new.

Are you suggesting that billionaires don't benefit from a taxpayer-educated workforce, taxpayer-funded police force, taxpayer-funded roads for customers & employees, taxpayer-funded military, etc?

The fact is that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. Which is fine, as long as they are paying their fair share and not stashing their money in offshore accounts.
post #147 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


Are you suggesting that billionaires don't benefit from a taxpayer-educated workforce, taxpayer-funded police force, taxpayer-funded roads for customers & employees, taxpayer-funded military, etc?

The fact is that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. Which is fine, as long as they are paying their fair share and not stashing their money in offshore accounts.

 

Let's keep going round and round on this, shall we? Billionaires benefit from an educated population, yes. But that is a long way to go to try and make your point. You can't honestly believe that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. The only way your argument works is if they are the ONLY ones to benefit. Guess what? They aren't. We all do. I benefit from the billionaire starting a company, and employing me. The Fed benefits by getting taxes from the billionaire on his income, from his business income, from my income (money that was taxed when the billionaire earned it, but that's ok, let's keep taxing it every time it changes hands). Then, I spend that money. I pay taxes on the purchase. And the business owner pays taxes on that income. Round and round we go.

 

And please stop with the "fair share" party line. It has been stated many times, and even in this thread (Post #97) that people like Warren Buffet, who claim to want to pay more taxes, that they aren't paying their "fair share" have zero obligation to take every deduction allowed by the laws we have in place. They are more than able to claim the standard deduction. Yet it would not rile up the masses. So that point not only makes their argument moot, it does the same for anyone who follows suit.

 

Want to talk about "fair share"? Let's not even count the people who pay zero income taxes. What about those that receive a refund in excess of the amount they paid in? If you want fair, you must be for a flat tax, or a consumption based tax, correct?

 

No, I doubt you are, because then the political agenda of class warfare goes away. 

post #148 of 173

Oh, I found that article I mentioned earlier.  

 

Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four

 

Medicare’s actuarial experts confirm that the lion’s share of the slowdown in health spending could be chalked up to slow growth in the economy and greater cost-sharing. As AEI scholar Jim Capretta pithily put it:

An important takeaway from these new projections is that the CMS Office of the Actuary findsno evidence to link the 2010 health care law to the recent slowdown in health care cost escalation. Indeed, the authors of the projections make it clear that the slowdown is not out of line with the historical link between health spending growth and economic conditions (emphasis added).

post #149 of 173

Threads like these make me glad I'm not in Marvin's shoes.


Edited by DroidFTW - 10/1/13 at 8:38pm
post #150 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by 512ke View Post
 

".... Sebelius went on to compare the instances of motion sickness caused by iOS7 to the wrenching stomach upset caused in some citizens by the very idea of government helping citizens get health care."

 

People also hated the idea of Medicare when it was announced.

 

Some people hated the idea of iOS7 when they saw those first Kandy Crush icons.

 

People hate the _idea_ of radically altering what they already know. 

 

Whether they love or hate it once they experience it, is another question.

 

People on crack have a hard time giving it up, too. 

post #151 of 173
ha! If the government designed a smartphone it would cost $10,000 and have only a few crappy apps and two hours of battery life.
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
post #152 of 173

It's unfortunate that, even here, right wing ignorance is alive and well.  

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply
post #153 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post
 

 

I benefit from the billionaire starting a company, and employing me. The Fed benefits by getting taxes from the billionaire on his income, from his business income, from my income (money that was taxed when the billionaire earned it, but that's ok, let's keep taxing it every time it changes hands). Then, I spend that money. I pay taxes on the purchase. And the business owner pays taxes on that income. Round and round we go.

 


It's too bad that you haven't had the opportunity to understand how this system works.  All money that a business pays to employees are not double taxed, as you claim.  The salary paid to employees are a tax deduction!  If the owner also takes a salary, it's also a tax deduction for the company.  It's part of the operating costs.  Business are get taxed on the profit, not revenue.  Those salaries then have income taxes.  Maybe when you start your own business, you will get to learn more about this instead of sitting in front of your TV all day long watch Fox "News" and getting mad at the world.  Sales taxes are completely different and are typically local taxes. 

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply
post #154 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


I admit to being frustrated with this manufactured crisis by those who claim to love this country. As I recall, VP Cheney used some pretty salty language on the Senate floor in speaking to Sen Leahy. I also remember GW Bush calling someone a "major league asshole" on the campaign trail.

I respect your right to watch PG films and to listen only to "clean" songs, but some of us adults use "bad" words when frustrated. Like, say, when a political party tried to circumvent the Constitutional process by shutting down the government to the cost of $300 million lost by the economy per day. All because they can't win at the ballot box.

Sorry to offend your tender eyes and ears. So please lay down on the fainting couch for a minute to gather your thoughts before addressing the actual issues.

 

I didn't say I was offended.  I said it shows your education level.   Very few successful people in life use that word in public.    With respect to the issues, you have been provided the facts and you choose 3rd grade arguments that fall flat on their face when confronted with history books and facts.

post #155 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification View Post

ha! If the government designed a smartphone it would cost $10,000 and have only a few crappy apps and two hours of battery life.

 

And the hard working folks would have to buy two.   One for themselves, and one for a irresponsible liberal who WON'T (not can't) provide for themselves.    Why not make it an entitlement. :-)

post #156 of 173
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post
Did you know that some states FORCE all drivers to carry auto insurance?!?

Totalitarian!

 

Since when does “drivers” equal “every man, woman, and child in the country”? I can choose not to have a car, and therefore not pay for auto insurance.


“Nebulous”, indeed. I make no comment as to the ACA, but please use analogies that actually make sense.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #157 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post
 

 


It's too bad that you haven't had the opportunity to understand how this system works.  All money that a business pays to employees are not double taxed, as you claim.  The salary paid to employees are a tax deduction!  If the owner also takes a salary, it's also a tax deduction for the company.  It's part of the operating costs.  Business are get taxed on the profit, not revenue.  Those salaries then have income taxes.  Maybe when you start your own business, you will get to learn more about this instead of sitting in front of your TV all day long watch Fox "News" and getting mad at the world.  Sales taxes are completely different and are typically local taxes. 

 

Well, I don't watch just one news cast. I try and get information (I won't call it facts, because both sides taint things) and make my own decisions.

 

And, perhaps you are right on all of that, and I wasn't trying to imply double taxes, etc. I was trying to make a point. Fact is, we all benefit from the services, which is how it should be. But to pull the "fair share" argument and because someone disagrees with that statement (as I do) doesn't make me right-wing. Stop being so black and white, and admit that our government, on both sides, is to blame for the mess we are in. They are too concerned with getting re-elected, or protecting their party, and not helping the people they are supposed to work for, us.

 

Also, I don't sit home all day watching the news getting mad at the world. 

 

Yes, sales taxes are different. I was presenting a counter point. One that, if people really cared about fairness, more would be on board with. 

post #158 of 173
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #159 of 173

To top it off, no one is forced to purchase an iPad or iPhone... not so much the case with the ACA.

post #160 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Well, I got news for you.

Plenty of different kinds of people use Macs and Apple products. George Bush used Macs too.

Meanwhile, Obama has trouble operating an iPhone.


So? What's your point? I don't recall being able to use an iPhone as being one of the Constitutional requirements for holding that office. He was elected by the US populace via the Constitutional rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

And the fact that health care is not in the constitution and is a state right is exactly the point the media never let Romney make. He was not against the idea of the ACA, he was against the idea that it was a federal issue. Huge difference that no one seemed to care about. .

Of course people care about it. They care enough that the issue was already taken to the Supreme Court which decided that it's Constitutional.

You keep forgetting - there is a system for creating laws. The US Congress passed ACA in 2010. It was signed into law. The Supreme Court says it's Constitutional. Congress has the right to repeal it at any time they wish. So what's the problem?

And I love the meme going around that Obama is at fault for the shut down. Under the Constitution, The House has to create spending bills and the budget. They have not done that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

Oh, I found that article I mentioned earlier.  

Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four


So we have a magazine with an enormous right wing bias making up numbers that look bad for ACA. Big deal.

The only actual number I have is my own case. My insurance premium is dropping 30% under ACA - and I have much better coverage (60% reduction in deductible, elimination of lifetime cap, and a lot of preventative services will be paid at 100% under ACA). So I'm somewhat skeptical of the numbers that someone pulls out of thin air.

Let's see some actual data.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Obama, Sebelius compare Apple's iOS 7 launch to Healthcare.gov rollout issues
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Obama, Sebelius compare Apple's iOS 7 launch to Healthcare.gov rollout issues