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 3

post #81 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

For starters, being FORCED to buy a product or service from the government!  Wait until they do get 'single payer'.  What if Obama's top supporter was Bill Gates and quid pro quo Obama issued an Executive Order that FORCED everyone to buy a Microsoft computer or tablet or smart phone.

And don't you mean 'trying to go into effect'...

Did you know that some states FORCE all drivers to carry auto insurance?!?

Totalitarian!


Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quote:
It was a sunny day in Philadelphia in 1787, and the Constitutional convention had just finished its work. A woman, watching the esteemed gentlemen congratulate themselves, approached one of the young nation's leading statesmen, Ben Franklin. "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" she asked. "A Republic, madam..." Franklin quickly answered, "if you can keep it."


http://freedom-school.com/a_republic.htm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #82 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post


Thats easy....    Because most (NOT ALL) of those are leeching off the government, do nothing to take care of themselves or their families.   The government has created this mindset in people, especially the food stamp president we have today.     Personal responsibility is lacking.  Why work if its handed to you.   If you are not proud enough to fend for yourself and provide for your family, then you probably are not going to be one that lives and healthy responsible life.

Please save the 1% Story of people who can't work....   It a tired story and doesn't change the other 99%

Sorry for being the Master of the Obvious here....

You know who are leeching off the government? Billionaires like Mitt Romney who pay almost nothing in taxes and move their money overseas to avoid taxes), yet use the commons to a greater extent than the common citizen. Moreover, he and his cronies at Bain drove companies into bankruptcy and left taxpayers holding the bill while he paid ZERO taxes for a decade or more.

F'ing leeches.
post #83 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
It doesn't help that the insurance companies vary across the 50 states, are allowed to be for-profit entities, and are allowed to increase premiums so much each year, 

 

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. 

 

Insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in premiums. Insurance companies, on the insurance business, operate at a LOSS.  And they do so by design- they keep premiums low so more people can afford insurance.  They make their profit on the investment returns between when they take premiums and pay out claims.  This is an extremely efficient form of financing.

 

Compare this to government programs. Welfare pays out only %25 of what it takes in.

 

You think a government program that wastes %75 of the money is better than an insurance program that pays out %110 of what it takes in?  And you complain that they make %5 on the float? 

 

This is how messed up the debate is-- people in america are told this nonsense about "greedy insurance companies" and believe because of their ideological faith-- with no regard to the science of economics or the reality of the situation.

 

PS- you complain about premiums go up. but that's a direct result of Obamacare.  It criminalizes selling private insurance. It includes under "selling" merely  continuing an existing plan at a higher premium. With Obama printing money like the end of days, inflation is driving up costs, which means that once ACA takes full effect, the plans will have to shut down if the costs exceed premiums by too much.  So they are raising them now, in the hopes of being able offer insurance to people at this rate for a longer period of time. 

 

Once again, the results of government action is blamed on the private sector, and used as a justification for a criminal violation of human rights such as Obamacare. 

post #84 of 173

A great example of why healthcare cost so much. 

 

I'm new to my area and I have not seen a doctor in over 20 years. I am calling to find a doctor to discuss a matter. I found out I have to see a specialist. Fine. Called the number and they told me I have to have a referral. What? I have to pay a doctor that I will never see again to write on a piece of paper to go see this other doctor. 

 

Paying 2 doctors to see one! Somehow I have to think government was involved in this!!! 

post #85 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post
Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?

 

Driving is a right, not a priviledge.  Thus these states that require drivers insurance are just as much violating rights.  It's a priori judgement of financial irresponsibility and violates presumed innocents and most other legal precedents.

 

And it's this kind of nanny state BS that lets them go for even more power, such as taking over health insurance with obmacare. 

 

The bottom line is, our opponents don't believe in human rights.  They believe in collectivism.  They believe we all should be slaves to the state - that's why they talk about "social contract " and "the commons" and other nonsense.   

 

They want us all enslaved to profit a few men who run government and get rich off of our efforts.  Somehow they think that is "good" for people.

post #86 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post







Scared to ask ... I assume these aren't a joke?

No... They were accurate at the time of publication... Likely, with all the implementation details, waivers and exceptions, they are much more complex today!

A morbid exercise (especially in the middle chart) is to try and find where the "beneficiary" of the process is (kinda' looks like an afterthought)... Then to guesstimate where the bulk of the taxpayers' money goes!
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 10/1/13 at 2:27pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #87 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?


http://freedom-school.com/a_republic.htm

Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.

Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.
post #88 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?

Driving is a right, not a priviledge.  Thus these states that require drivers insurance are just as much violating rights.  It's a priori judgement of financial irresponsibility and violates presumed innocents and most other legal precedents.

And it's this kind of nanny state BS that lets them go for even more power, such as taking over health insurance with obmacare. 

The bottom line is, our opponents don't believe in human rights.  They believe in collectivism.  They believe we all should be slaves to the state - that's why they talk about "social contract " and "the commons" and other nonsense.   

They want us all enslaved to profit a few men who run government and get rich off of our efforts.  Somehow they think that is "good" for people.

I think if you review the constitution of any of the 50 states -- you will find that driving is a privilege that is granted by the state and can be revoked by the state.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #89 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Driving is a right, not a priviledge.  

 

Where does it state that? 

post #90 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What a tool our President is.

 

Yep. 

 

But if you had a grandson that is now safe at home because a President had the gumption to get out of a war we should have never been in in the first place…

 

Or a niece that will now get continuing palliative care…

 

And perhaps like the neighbors to the north who after more than 30 years of so-called socialized medicine, have better medical outcomes, lower morbidity, less infant deaths at birth, longer life, etc., at a lower cost, one may start thinking a little different…

 

Unfortunately, our great grandson may never benefit from it because there is a greater chance here that someone will pull out an AK-49 and shoot up his classroom….

 

Yep. If only we let the Tool do what more than 90% of the people wanted to do.

post #91 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 512ke View Post
People also hated the idea of Medicare when it was announced.

 

History has proven those people correct.

 

All of these government programs intervening in the market have the result of making people poorer...which the politicians turn around and use as an excuse to take more power and money from the economy.  It's a vicious cycle. 

 

LOL. I've got news for you: 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2012/Jul/Medicare-v-Employer-Insurance.aspx

 

It was in Post #47, but since you seem to have missed it, I thought I'd help out.

post #92 of 173
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.

Just watch Kimmel's video where he asks people if they are for the ACA or Obamacare and everyone responds "Oh I am definitely against Obamacare, but I support the ACA." They are the same thing!! SMH
post #93 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
It doesn't help that the insurance companies vary across the 50 states, are allowed to be for-profit entities, and are allowed to increase premiums so much each year, 

 

1) 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.

 

2) Insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in premiums. Insurance companies, on the insurance business, operate at a LOSS.  And they do so by design- they keep premiums low so more people can afford insurance.  They make their profit on the investment returns between when they take premiums and pay out claims.  This is an extremely efficient form of financing.

 

3) You think a government program that wastes %75 of the money is better than an insurance program that pays out %110 of what it takes in?  And you complain that they make %5 on the float? 

 

4) PS- you complain about premiums go up. but that's a direct result of Obamacare.  It criminalizes selling private insurance. It includes under "selling" merely  continuing an existing plan at a higher premium. With Obama printing money like the end of days, inflation is driving up costs, which means that once ACA takes full effect, the plans will have to shut down if the costs exceed premiums by too much.  So they are raising them now, in the hopes of being able offer insurance to people at this rate for a longer period of time. 

1) You should look up the legislative debate (leading up to Obamacare) on who actually squelched the idea of allowing people to buy insurance across state lines: you'd be surprised to discover that it was both Republicans and Democrats. The concern was that allowing competition across states will drive out a lot of smaller and/or less efficient insurance companies. The industry was dead set against this, and lobbied quite heavily and successfully. These are all facts that you can look up.

 

2) Investment returns come from assets under management (AUM). AUM, after adjusting for cumulative investment gains/losses and payouts, are the same as  cumulative historical premiums. In other words, investment returns come from financial assets that have been bought with premiums that people have paid in over time.

 

3) No one here was comparing welfare to insurance, as I could see. This point is irrelevant.

 

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! Here are the facts: http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health-benefits/?special=exhibits.

 

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

post #94 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?


http://freedom-school.com/a_republic.htm

Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.

Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.

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:
Quote:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


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:
Quote:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Edited by Dick Applebaum - 10/1/13 at 3:02pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #95 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

 

Actually, I had stated the facts on UPS in a post above, which Macboy Pro apparently failed to read, or simply ignored: their decision only affects working spouses whose employers offer their own health care. Non-working spouses, or spouses whose employers do not offer health care, are not affected.

 

And....   It is affecting them, PERIOD.   The government should not be involved in healthcare.   It is affecting me as my rates have grown DRAMATICALLY and I received a call today indicating my coverage is changing.   WHY?  The UNAFFORDABLE care act.

post #96 of 173
Let's face it, there are many millions of people in this country that do not deserve to have any healthcare. They are leeches upon society, and those who do not pay their fair share should not be entitled to any benefits. Their well being is not my concern at all. I don't really care about what happens to them, to be honest.
post #97 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


You know who are leeching off the government? Billionaires like Mitt Romney who pay almost nothing in taxes and move their money overseas to avoid taxes), yet use the commons to a greater extent than the common citizen. Moreover, he and his cronies at Bain drove companies into bankruptcy and left taxpayers holding the bill while he paid ZERO taxes for a decade or more.

F'ing leeches.

 

At least he pays taxes which is more that those forcing higher taxes on us are doing. And if you don't like the law that allows less taxes to be paid on capital gains, make efforts to change it. Romney and others are not breaking the law, but following it. 

 

What is hypocritical is billionaire Buffett that stated he should not be paying less taxes then his secretary when he has the ability to tell his accountant to pay taxes on all his money as if it were earned income rather than cap gains. But he does not and pays the lower tax while complaining about it.  That's hypocrisy! 

post #98 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.

Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.

 

You have to be kidding.   First of all, Driving is a PRIVILEGE in all 50 states.  Nowhere is it a right.  NOWHERE!    If you want the privilege to drive, you can follow the rules.      Heath insurance is OPTIONAL.       


Is Applecare a right you are entitled to?   LOL.   OMG the left is clueless.   This explains why we are here and why we need to educate people and test them before they can vote.

post #99 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


You know who are leeching off the government? Billionaires like Mitt Romney who pay almost nothing in taxes and move their money overseas to avoid taxes), yet use the commons to a greater extent than the common citizen. Moreover, he and his cronies at Bain drove companies into bankruptcy and left taxpayers holding the bill while he paid ZERO taxes for a decade or more.

F'ing leeches.

 

OMG.   First of all using the phrase F'ing shows your education level and the reason why you need the government.    Second of all, if you do not have a dictionary, go down to the public library (that my taxes pay for) and lookup the word leech.    Since when does NOT giving the government your money make you a leech.    I GUARANTEE Mitt Romney has contributed 100 times what you could possibly have contributed in your life to the government.   My guess is that you VOTE for a living.

 

Just so you know, YOUR president has driven MANY MANY MANY companies to bankruptcy, leaving all the employees holding their bills and mortgages.     Get a clue, then a job.

post #100 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

It's funny how opposing theft, and opposing the destruction of a large swath of the US economy is spun as "rooting for failure".

The ACA violates people's rights, it criminalizes sales of private insurance, it forces people to buy plans that are a worse deal than they would be able to get in the private sector, and it is a naked attempt for the government to nationalize the healthcare industry.

If, as they claim, insurance companies were being too greedy, then the government could have created their own legitimate insurance system, that didn't take any profit, and just paid out claims from premiums, and offered it as a competitive choice for people.

That's what they would do if they actually wanted to help people.

But they just want power, so they criminalized the competition (eg: private insurance) because they knew they couldn't compete if people had freedom of choice, and eliminated the right for the young and healthy to have very light or no-insurance forcing people to buy their plan.

This violates rights all around... it's unconscionable. And it shows their intentions, unlike their rhetoric, are not noble in the least.

 

"Criminalizes"? Hell it PROMOTES sale of private insurance. What do you imagine is for sale in the exchanges???? Oh and purchasing from the exchanges isn't required. Oh and since there's ZERO in the law regarding governmental takeover of the healthcare delivery system that's one more ovetrsimplifying echo of some bumpersticker slogan in my view.

 

Just like "Death Panels"

Just like "Pulling the plug on GranMa"

Just like Palin's "Death squads for the unproductive".

Just like "Socialized Medicine".

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

Read the laws, they're really not all that long (really wide margins that GPO uses...)

post #101 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post
 

 

You have to be kidding.   First of all, Driving is a PRIVILEGE in all 50 states.  Nowhere is it a right.  NOWHERE!    If you want the privilege to drive, you can follow the rules.      Heath insurance is OPTIONAL.       


Is Applecare a right you are entitled to?   LOL.   OMG the left is clueless.   This explains why we are here and why we need to educate people and test them before they can vote.

 

"Optional"? Not when the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney have their way eh?

post #102 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.

Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.

 

The gov forces you to have auto insurance, but does not force you to drive. If you don't want to pay it, walk. This is to protect those who do pay willingly. For if you hit someone and they don't have insurance, or money, or possessions, you are out of luck. If you want the privilege to drive, you have to be covered for wrongs you may cause. 

 

If you don't want to pay for the ACA, your only choice is to give up citizenship. So congress passes a law that requires you to own something to be a citizen. 

post #103 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post
 

 

"Criminalizes"? Hell it PROMOTES sale of private insurance. What do you imagine is for sale in the exchanges???? Oh and purchasing from the exchanges isn't required. Oh and since there's ZERO in the law regarding governmental takeover of the healthcare delivery system that's one more ovetrsimplifying echo of some bumpersticker slogan in my view.

 

Just like "Death Panels"

Just like "Pulling the plug on GranMa"

Just like Palin's "Death squads for the unproductive".

Just like "Socialized Medicine".

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

Read the laws, they're really not all that long (really wide margins that GPO uses...)

 

Death Panels: Yes, there will be people making medical decisions for you outside of you and your doctor that may deny you care. Sure, your options is to pay for it yourself, and I recommend that, however, that does not remove the fact. 

 

Pulling the plug on GranMa: Yes, there will be those that will make decisions based on quality of life that you may not agree with, thus pulling the plug. Sure, your options is to pay for it yourself, and I recommend that, however, that does not remove the fact. 
 

Death squads: same as above

 

Socialized Medicine: socialized medicine |ˈsoʊʃəˌlaɪzd ˈmɛdəsən|

noun

the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.

Yep, that is what the ACA is. And I'm sure you read every page of the what, 3' stack of law and regulations? 

 

To prote private insurance, congress only needs to lift the law that restricts them from selling across State lines. However, insurance companies love the ACA as they will raise rates on most everyone $50k income and above to pay for those below that. Does not get much more socialized or unfair than that. 

post #104 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

The gov forces you to have auto insurance, but does not force you to drive. If you don't want to pay it, walk. This is to protect those who do pay willingly. For if you hit someone and they don't have insurance, or money, or possessions, you are out of luck. If you want the privilege to drive, you have to be covered for wrongs you may cause. 

If you don't want to pay for the ACA, your only choice is to give up citizenship. So congress passes a law that requires you to own something to be a citizen. 

Hmm. . . Are you suggesting that one can never use the health care system? That one can choose to never get sick? Ok, then I can see why one would not need health care and should not need to purchase it. For mortals, though, they (like drivers who don't pay insurance) they are FREELOADERS if they don't buy health insurance.
post #105 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


You know who are leeching off the government? Billionaires like Mitt Romney who pay almost nothing in taxes and move their money overseas to avoid taxes), yet use the commons to a greater extent than the common citizen. Moreover, he and his cronies at Bain drove companies into bankruptcy and left taxpayers holding the bill while he paid ZERO taxes for a decade or more.

F'ing leeches.

 

I also love when peope attack the rich. Romney pays how much? Millions of dollars each year into the government, and he gets what in return? Drives on the same roads, has the same vote, gets the same mail service, and so on and so on. Yet, probably 30% or more don't pay any taxes and they get these same benefits. 

 

So why do the rich have to pay so much more for the same government services? Plus the rich pay 90% of the US taxes, which I think is very unfair, don't you? 

post #106 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


Hmm. . . Are you suggesting that one can never use the health care system? That one can choose to never get sick? Ok, then I can see why one would not need health care and should not need to purchase it. For mortals, though, they (like drivers who don't pay insurance) they are FREELOADERS if they don't buy health insurance.

 

I agree that those that don't pay and use are freeloaders. But I have not had health insurance or seen a doctor in over 25+ years, but now I have to pay just to be a citizen of this country? I choose to pay to stay well, not pay to get better. 

 

But to your freeloading point. I guess you agree then that all should pay some taxes as all get benefits from the government? Roads, mail, military, etc.? 

post #107 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post

OMG.   First of all using the phrase F'ing shows your education level and the reason why you need the government.    Second of all, if you do not have a dictionary, go down to the public library (that my taxes pay for) and lookup the word leech.    Since when does NOT giving the government your money make you a leech.    I GUARANTEE Mitt Romney has contributed 100 times what you could possibly have contributed in your life to the government.   My guess is that you VOTE for a living.

Just so you know, YOUR president has driven MANY MANY MANY companies to bankruptcy, leaving all the employees holding their bills and mortgages.     Get a clue, then a job.

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?
post #108 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I agree that those that don't pay and use are freeloaders. But I have not had health insurance or seen a doctor in over 25+ years, but now I have to pay just to be a citizen of this country? I choose to pay to stay well, not pay to get better. 

But to your freeloading point. I guess you agree then that all should pay some taxes as all get benefits from the government? Roads, mail, military, etc.? 

I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?

Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?
post #109 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?

 

Romney paid no taxes? Which years? When he ran for president, he had to disclose his taxes and it showed he paid taxes. 

 

How about the 30% plus people in this country that don't pay any taxes at all? 

post #110 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?

Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?

 

If I do, and need a doctor, I will pay for it, just like I pay for everything else in life that I want or need. 

 

If you libs are so concerned about people's welfare, then why not make food free as eating is more of an emergent need? 

 

If you want to drive, you need insurance. That is so much different than if I want to be a citizen I need to buy healthcare. You can choose not to drive, but I have to leave the country? Very different. 

post #111 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

It's funny how opposing theft, and opposing the destruction of a large swath of the US economy is spun as "rooting for failure".


The ACA violates people's rights, it criminalizes sales of private insurance, it forces people to buy plans that are a worse deal than they would be able to get in the private sector, and it is a naked attempt for the government to nationalize the healthcare industry.


If, as they claim, insurance companies were being too greedy, then the government could have created their own legitimate insurance system, that didn't take any profit, and just paid out claims from premiums, and offered it as a competitive choice for people.


That's what they would do if they actually wanted to help people.


But they just want power, so they criminalized the competition (eg: private insurance) because they knew they couldn't compete if people had freedom of choice, and eliminated the right for the young and healthy to have very light or no-insurance forcing people to buy their plan.


This violates rights all around... it's unconscionable. And it shows their intentions, unlike their rhetoric, are not noble in the least.

"Criminalizes"? Hell it PROMOTES sale of private insurance. What do you imagine is for sale in the exchanges???? Oh and purchasing from the exchanges isn't required. Oh and since there's ZERO in the law regarding governmental takeover of the healthcare delivery system that's one more ovetrsimplifying echo of some bumpersticker slogan in my view.

Just like "Death Panels"
Just like "Pulling the plug on GranMa"
Just like Palin's "Death squads for the unproductive".
Just like "Socialized Medicine".
etc.
etc.
etc.

Read the laws, they're really not all that long (really wide margins that GPO uses...)

Here's the revised text... All 2408 pages of it.

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/patient-protection.pdf


Why don't you follow your own advice and "read the law"?

Get back to us when you've read and understand it -- then you can explain its costs and benefits to all of us!


FWIW, I wouldn't even attempt to do what the President or any member of Congress haven't done: Read the law!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #112 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Romney paid no taxes? Which years? When he ran for president, he had to disclose his taxes and it showed he paid taxes. 

How about the 30% plus people in this country that don't pay any taxes at all? 

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.
post #113 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?

Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?

 

And I think you are missing the point of the ACA. We, the tax payers, are paying for those who don't have the money, but do use the service, such as emergency rooms. So who is the leach (your term). 

 

It is mandated so the youth will pay into a system (ponzi scheme) to pay for the services of the old. Would it not be better to have everyone set up a health savings account that they can gain interest on, use, and will to their family when they die? 

post #114 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

If I do, and need a doctor, I will pay for it, just like I pay for everything else in life that I want or need. 

If you libs are so concerned about people's welfare, then why not make food free as eating is more of an emergent need? 

If you want to drive, you need insurance. That is so much different than if I want to be a citizen I need to buy healthcare. You can choose not to drive, but I have to leave the country? Very different. 

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.
post #115 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

If you don't want to pay for the ACA, your only choice is to give up citizenship.

 

You could say that about any individual government program. For example, if I don't want to pay for the war in Afghanistan, my only choice is to give up citizenship. I think unless you want to be a hermit in the woods, that kind of compromise is a fact of life.

 

In this case, I can understand the underlying principle of smaller government, or cutting government programs that help poor people, or whatever. I can't understand the absolute fervor to stop at all costs what basically amounts to a set of new regulations on the insurance industry. Yeah, go out and protest whatever you disagree with, that's fine. But maybe the reason this law is moving forward is that it's actually better than the socialist, government takeover, bankrupting, corrupt boondoggle it has been made out to be.


Edited by arlomedia - 10/1/13 at 3:31pm
post #116 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

And I think you are missing the point of the ACA. We, the tax payers, are paying for those who don't have the money, but do use the service, such as emergency rooms. So who is the leach (your term). 

It is mandated so the youth will pay into a system (ponzi scheme) to pay for the services of the old. Would it not be better to have everyone set up a health savings account that they can gain interest on, use, and will to their family when they die? 

Sounds like you're calling all insurance a "Ponzi scheme"

I agree. Lets enact single payer, like the Pope has suggested and every other first world nation has! They pay less than half of what we pay, and they have far better outcomes, based on actual FACTS!
post #117 of 173
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.

 

Um, sales tax is a State tax and some States don't have it. Those not owning homes, probably don't pay property tax huh? So, more police are called to rich neighborhoods that poor ones? The military is used the same, how could one use it more than the other? Courts? Do you think there are more poor people in courts using free public defenders or rich people hiring their own lawyers? Do you think poor people use more public education than the rich who send their kids to private school, yet pay school tax all the same? You really think rich people use roads more than the poor who use subsidies public transportation that the rich don't? 

post #118 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post


Sounds like you're calling all insurance a "Ponzi scheme"

I agree. Lets enact single payer, like the Pope has suggested and every other first world nation has! They pay less than half of what we pay, and they have far better outcomes, based on actual FACTS!

 

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

post #119 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by arlomedia View Post
 

 

You could say that about any individual government program. For example, if I don't want to pay for the war in Afghanistan, my only choice is to give up citizenship.

 

In this case, I can understand the underlying principle of smaller government, or cutting government programs that help poor people, or whatever. I can't understand the absolute fervor to stop at all costs what basically amounts to a set of new regulations on the insurance industry. Yeah, go out and protest whatever you disagree with, that's fine. But maybe the reason this law is moving forward is that it's actually better than the socialist, government takeover, bankrupting, corrupt boondoggle it has been made out to be.

 

The difference here is, the government already has a standing military and collects taxes for it as per the constitution. If you don't like the war in [enter arena] then you can vote for someone who does not like war. Like when you voted for Obama, and oops, he went to war anyway. It is not as if Obama was creating a new tax to fund wars for other countries who did not want to pay for their own wars. 

 

Its not if Obama through the IRS is saying, hey, did you donate to the war effort, no, then you get penalized! 

post #120 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

FWIW, I wouldn't even attempt to do what the President or any member of Congress haven't done: Read the law!

 

Reading the bill? What an outrageous idea!

 

Video of the Week: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/

 

I guess that people are finally finding out what's in it, and I'm sure that there are plenty of more "surprises" to come. :)

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