Post Reply
Page 14 of 20  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 20 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Supreme Court upholds individual mandate
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 11:06AM #131
christzen
Posts: 6,569

Jun 30, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Bodean wrote:


You want to cut healthcare cost ... you're going to have to change the treatment paradigms.  If you have diabetes or heart disease, you treat symptoms for 1 years, and prescribe a healthy lifestyle to improve the condition.  IF they don't improve, you stop therapy, unless they are willinbg to pay for it CASH out of pocket.   Same for Smoking.  Stress .... is a big factor as well.  Identify the sources of stress [like being in debt up to your azz to satisfy an entitlement mentality that one must have a house, car, gadgets, etc that go beyond one's means .. money matters being the #1 source of stress]  Taking care of your health, as well, decreases stress.  Come up with a plan for people to reduce stress ... if they refuse, you cut off tx, unless they are willing to pay for it out of pocket.




 


Not necessarily disagreeing with much of what you said, but this part sounds very much like the nanny state that conservatives rail against when states try to pass laws against smoking,salt in foods,supersized sodas,etc. It is the conservatives I see foaming at the mouth against intruding into the lives of Americans with the nanny state principles, not liberals.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 2:10PM #132
Bodean
Posts: 9,581

Jun 30, 2012 -- 11:06AM, christzen wrote:


Jun 30, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Bodean wrote:


You want to cut healthcare cost ... you're going to have to change the treatment paradigms.  If you have diabetes or heart disease, you treat symptoms for 1 years, and prescribe a healthy lifestyle to improve the condition.  IF they don't improve, you stop therapy, unless they are willinbg to pay for it CASH out of pocket.   Same for Smoking.  Stress .... is a big factor as well.  Identify the sources of stress [like being in debt up to your azz to satisfy an entitlement mentality that one must have a house, car, gadgets, etc that go beyond one's means .. money matters being the #1 source of stress]  Taking care of your health, as well, decreases stress.  Come up with a plan for people to reduce stress ... if they refuse, you cut off tx, unless they are willing to pay for it out of pocket.




 NO .. it's nothing like the Nanny State.  Nanny State just bans smoking ... my principle allows you to smoke yourself to death ... and into bankruptcy.  OR .. eat yourself to death ... or bankruptcy.


Not necessarily disagreeing with much of what you said, but this part sounds very much like the nanny state that conservatives rail against when states try to pass laws against smoking,salt in foods,supersized sodas,etc. It is the conservatives I see foaming at the mouth against intruding into the lives of Americans with the nanny state principles, not liberals.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 4:27PM #133
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,890

Jun 29, 2012 -- 6:40PM, christzen wrote:


Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:03PM, MMarcoe wrote:


No, you're not a captive market in these cases. But these cases are different. They arise from your choice to buy a house or car or business. They do not arise from the simple fact of you being alive.


We're talking apples and oranges here.



 


Um, yes I am, for all practical purposes. IF I engage in any of the activities I described, THEN I have to have insurance by law. I am, therefore, a captive market. Unless I choose not to own a home, drive a car, or work.


 


But again, you MISS the point. Since I own a home, I have to have insurance. Since I drive a car, I have to have insurance. Since I choose to earn my living through self employment in a field that requires me to carry liability insurance, I have to have it. I am a captive market to those companies providing the legally required insurances. And yet I have the ability to shop around and get decent rates on all of them, which I have done in all 3 cases I have described.Something that you suggest should not happen when you are forced by your choices to carry such insurance. If I can shop and get good rates on all these coverages now, why should I fear it suddenly working differently with HC insurance?


 


 


 





You're still not getting it. Those things you mention are choices that you make. Notice how you preface them with "if." Well, that's not the same as the ACA law. There is no "if" and there is no choice with those. You have to get the insurance no matter WHAT you choose to do in the healthcare arena. You're being taxed even if you decide to live under a rock and never do anything with your life.


That's the difference. It's a tax on simply being alive.


 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 4:33PM #134
Ed.W
Posts: 9,442

And with a car, only liability insurance is required, you don't have to insure your own vehicle, or even your own bodily injury.

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 4:45PM #135
TENAC
Posts: 26,563

Jun 30, 2012 -- 4:27PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 6:40PM, christzen wrote:


Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:03PM, MMarcoe wrote:


No, you're not a captive market in these cases. But these cases are different. They arise from your choice to buy a house or car or business. They do not arise from the simple fact of you being alive.


We're talking apples and oranges here.



 


Um, yes I am, for all practical purposes. IF I engage in any of the activities I described, THEN I have to have insurance by law. I am, therefore, a captive market. Unless I choose not to own a home, drive a car, or work.


 


But again, you MISS the point. Since I own a home, I have to have insurance. Since I drive a car, I have to have insurance. Since I choose to earn my living through self employment in a field that requires me to carry liability insurance, I have to have it. I am a captive market to those companies providing the legally required insurances. And yet I have the ability to shop around and get decent rates on all of them, which I have done in all 3 cases I have described.Something that you suggest should not happen when you are forced by your choices to carry such insurance. If I can shop and get good rates on all these coverages now, why should I fear it suddenly working differently with HC insurance?


 


 


 





You're still not getting it. Those things you mention are choices that you make. Notice how you preface them with "if." Well, that's not the same as the ACA law. There is no "if" and there is no choice with those. You have to get the insurance no matter WHAT you choose to do in the healthcare arena. You're being taxed even if you decide to live under a rock and never do anything with your life.


That's the difference. It's a tax on simply being alive.


 




+10


Thats it.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 5:16PM #136
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,890

Jun 29, 2012 -- 2:41PM, Jasr wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 2:37PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 1:19PM, Jasr wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 1:16PM, Armwar wrote:


What other "tax" requires a citizen to do something? 





Try withdrawing money from your 401K before you turn 65, for starters.


But there is no requirement to purchase health insurance. You just pay slightly higher taxes if you don't.





In the case of the 401K, you would be taxed on it because you violated the agreement to leave the money alone until a certain age. That's not really the same as the health insurance penalty tax.





It's still a tax which "requires" you to save. Which answers Gail's question. But your point is taken.





No. The tax doesn't require you to save. The fact is that you will get taxed on the money anyway,no matter when you take it out.


I should have clarified that it's really a penalty that you would be assessed (in addition to that tax). In order to get the penalty, you have to break the contract.


Maybe we're talking about two different things here; I don't know.


 


 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 8:56PM #137
christzen
Posts: 6,569

Jun 30, 2012 -- 4:27PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 6:40PM, christzen wrote:


Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:03PM, MMarcoe wrote:


No, you're not a captive market in these cases. But these cases are different. They arise from your choice to buy a house or car or business. They do not arise from the simple fact of you being alive.


We're talking apples and oranges here.



 


Um, yes I am, for all practical purposes. IF I engage in any of the activities I described, THEN I have to have insurance by law. I am, therefore, a captive market. Unless I choose not to own a home, drive a car, or work.


 


But again, you MISS the point. Since I own a home, I have to have insurance. Since I drive a car, I have to have insurance. Since I choose to earn my living through self employment in a field that requires me to carry liability insurance, I have to have it. I am a captive market to those companies providing the legally required insurances. And yet I have the ability to shop around and get decent rates on all of them, which I have done in all 3 cases I have described.Something that you suggest should not happen when you are forced by your choices to carry such insurance. If I can shop and get good rates on all these coverages now, why should I fear it suddenly working differently with HC insurance?


 


 


 





You're still not getting it. Those things you mention are choices that you make. Notice how you preface them with "if." Well, that's not the same as the ACA law. There is no "if" and there is no choice with those. You have to get the insurance no matter WHAT you choose to do in the healthcare arena. You're being taxed even if you decide to live under a rock and never do anything with your life.


That's the difference. It's a tax on simply being alive.


 




 


You still don't get that I'm not arguing it's not a tax for just being alive. do you? I am arguing against your idea that my having to have......oh what the heck. You didn't get it the first two times, there's no reason to expect you to get it the third time around.


 


The point was about whether having to have insurance to engage in an activity drives the cost through the roof when the insurers know you have to have it. Whether it is by a choice or not.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 8:59PM #138
christzen
Posts: 6,569

Jun 30, 2012 -- 4:45PM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 30, 2012 -- 4:27PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 6:40PM, christzen wrote:


Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:03PM, MMarcoe wrote:


No, you're not a captive market in these cases. But these cases are different. They arise from your choice to buy a house or car or business. They do not arise from the simple fact of you being alive.


We're talking apples and oranges here.



 


Um, yes I am, for all practical purposes. IF I engage in any of the activities I described, THEN I have to have insurance by law. I am, therefore, a captive market. Unless I choose not to own a home, drive a car, or work.


 


But again, you MISS the point. Since I own a home, I have to have insurance. Since I drive a car, I have to have insurance. Since I choose to earn my living through self employment in a field that requires me to carry liability insurance, I have to have it. I am a captive market to those companies providing the legally required insurances. And yet I have the ability to shop around and get decent rates on all of them, which I have done in all 3 cases I have described.Something that you suggest should not happen when you are forced by your choices to carry such insurance. If I can shop and get good rates on all these coverages now, why should I fear it suddenly working differently with HC insurance?


 


 


 





You're still not getting it. Those things you mention are choices that you make. Notice how you preface them with "if." Well, that's not the same as the ACA law. There is no "if" and there is no choice with those. You have to get the insurance no matter WHAT you choose to do in the healthcare arena. You're being taxed even if you decide to live under a rock and never do anything with your life.


That's the difference. It's a tax on simply being alive.


 




+10


Thats it.




 


Not really, since that's not what I was addressing.Again, for about the 4th or 5th time, I was addressing the captive market claim. But I think the conservatives are so wound up right now they can't think straight.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 01, 2012 - 2:19PM #139
Armwar
Posts: 12,019

Ask yourself...are you personally better off?  This will again be the big election question, and with this new tax, the answer for the vast majority of Americans, most especially our children, is a resounding NO.  The Budget Office just said recently that Obamacare will cost something like


$1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 01, 2012 - 2:33PM #140
Bodean
Posts: 9,581

Jul 1, 2012 -- 2:19PM, Armwar wrote:


Ask yourself...are you personally better off?  This will again be the big election question, and with this new tax, the answer for the vast majority of Americans, most especially our children, is a resounding NO.  The Budget Office just said recently that Obamacare will cost something like


$1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS 





The latest figure I heard was 1.8 Trillion Dollars just for the "core".  The additional cost will push this thing well over 2 Trillion.


But the real point I've made Gail .. is I have not seen a SINGLE POINT in Obamacare that will actually "decrease" healthcare cost.  Oh sure, there'll be a bigger pool of money to pay for the "charity" work that is happening now, but I see NO decreases in cost.  Healthcare will cost the same, if not more.  When Medicare came on board, heatlhcare skyrocketed.  Just as it did with PPOs and HMOs.  Anytime you have a guaranteed pool of money that must be spent, the price will rise to just above that to demand an increase in the pool.


It's what I keep telling the brain dead.  This is NOT INSURANCE .. this is a pre-paid medical payment plan, where you pay whether or not you need it.  Furthermore, it is yet another sop to specific voting blocks, to make the "rich" [ie., the 52% of the nation that pays taxes] fund the pre-paid money pool to pay for healthcare for everyone .. at the SAME LEVEL.


Only the filthy rich will retain GREAT heatlhcare. ... through Medical Tourism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 14 of 20  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 20 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook