Bad News for Republicans: Obamacare to Cost Americans Much LESS Than Expected (Page 3): Nope. Never even heard of it. I've spent some time on Political Crossfire which unlike this...

straightUp Loc: California

Yankee Clipper wrote:

Hey Straightup, were you ever on another site called the Partisan Dialogs? I exchanged comments with someone with a similar background as you. That site has been down about a year or so and I don't remember the user name.

Nope. Never even heard of it. I've spent some time on Political Crossfire which unlike this site has a good balance of different views. I think it's mostly run by Libertarians... such philosophical people.

straightUp Loc: California

lightfoot wrote:

Straight up has probably never held a job in his life so he knows all about free..Straight up did you get a free phone also ..You sound like the lady that was screaming he gave us a phone that is why we should vote for him..He gave a free phone!!

Ur, ur, ur, ur... you so funny!

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

straightUp wrote:

LOL - You don't even know what a Marxist is. And yes, taxes and regulation does play a part in job loss, but only a small part. Many other factors come into play... our standard of living is probably the biggest factor. We can't sustain our standard of living on 50 cents an hour, but the Indonesians can. So a smart business leader is going to go offshore. So I guess we can blame smart people too and the poor people in Indonesia too. You can even blame people like me for building automation systems and robotic systems that outperform human workers. Yes, innovation can also be blamed. I bet it would be fairly easy to build a rail-based distribution system that would put thousands of truck drivers out of work too making the roads safer for everyone else. What do you think of that?

Let's see, smart business leaders, innovation, the American standard of living... And all you can think of is taxes and regulations?

Do you know what a Double Irish system is? It's the system by which U.S. companies have figured out how to cut their taxes from 35% (the normal corporate rate in the U.S.) to 0.3% by establishing a company in Ireland where the corporate rate is 12% and another one in the Cayman Islands or Bahamas where there IS no tax. Then they transfer their copyrights or patents to the company in the Cayman Islands. The U.S. company then arranges to pay enough royalties to the company in the Cayman Islands for using their rights that it consumes almost all of their profit (less for the IRS to tax). But since the IRS charges a special tax for doing business with a tax sheltered company, the company in Ireland is made the parent company of the company in the Cayman Islands. Now the U.S. company pays royalties to the company in Ireland which is charged by the Irish government at 12% and the IRS withdraws. Meanwhile, Irish law says a company only pays taxes to the country where it's headquarters are, not necessarily were the charter is, so now the 12% Irish tax is also circumnavigated.

And you think a simple tax cut is going the bring these U.S. companies back? Get real.

LOL - You don't even know what a Marxist is. And y... (show quote)

maybe you should go back an see what happened in jan 07 thats when every thing started to go to hell

straightUp Loc: California

oldroy wrote:

You say that the only mandate in ACA is that we have to be insured and go on to say it can be by anybody we choose.

Yes, that's the only mandate applied to us as consumers. Other's on this site (I apparently ruffled some feathers) think I missed the point about mandated procedures, but that applies to providers and has no bearing on a consumers freedom of choice.

oldroy wrote:

However, in so saying you miss out on the Obama words about being able to keep what you have, if you like it.

Keeping what you have if you like it means you're insured right? How does that conflict with a rule that says you have to be insured?

oldroy wrote:

Can you do that if your employer decides to drop the legally forced program he has for you?

"The" legally forced program? Roy... the mandate is simply to be insured. ACA doesn't care WHO you are insured with or what program you or your employer choose. There is no forced program. Maybe you need to look at the actual bill and stop listening to these clowns that I'm arguing with... LOL.

oldroy wrote:

Hey, Straight, you may have spilled some of the beans with your statements that included the words, public option. I always wondered what the left leaners meant by that and here you are telling us that those exchanges amount to some kind of public option.

Well, the term "public option" is in the language of the bill. It's not something the "left leaners" came up with. The term "option" means you can take it or leave it, as in "optional". Pretty straight forward really.

oldroy wrote:

I thought that the term meant that the government would pay for all of us.

The "government" has no money, so they can't pay for all of us... You might be thinking of "publicly funded health care" which is funded by tax payers... we see this in Canada, but it's not part of the ACA.

The public option will be paid for by the people who choose that option, just like any other insurance program. The difference is that the public option will not refuse anyone and it's premiums will be cheaper because the government will have greater leverage (force) when negotiating with providers and it will pay less for overhead... kind of like what we all wish regular insurance companies would do.

Of course this will give regular insurance companies some tough competition... something they hate the idea of and it's driving them bonkers which us why they're rattling cages to get the conservatives all agitated. They are hoping that they can misinform and infuriate enough voters to somehow stop the train.

oldroy wrote:

Public option, government pays? That does sound so much like the same thing.

but it's not.

oldroy wrote:

Thanks for telling me what it is all about. You being so adept at medical insurance may well make you better informed about ACA than the rest of us.

I'm just not caught up in the propaganda circus. Anyone can read the bill or read about the bill - there are plenty of objective arguments worth reading that cover the pros AND the cons. You're just not going to find them on Glenn Beck.

My personal feeling is that it's too soon to tell if this is going to be a disaster or not. But I KNOW that we have to do something. We pay far more for health care than any other developed nation, including those with socialized medicine and although we have *some* outstanding hospitals and we do excel in a *few* areas such as cancer treatment, overall, we get substandard service and the insurance companies are really making things worse for the patients. I say we go for it. See what ACA can do - give it a run. If it fails we can always go back to the abysmal state it's in now.

straightUp Loc: California

alex wrote:

maybe you should go back an see what happened in jan 07 thats when every thing started to go to hell

And when I go back to Jan 07... what am I looking for?

Yankee Clipper

straightUp wrote:

LOL - You don't even know what a Marxist is. Would you like to define on for me?I bet it would be fairly easy to build a rail-based distribution system that would put thousands of truck drivers out of work too making the roads safer for everyone else. What do you think of that? I think that is what should have been done 40-50 years ago. Only local truck freight deliveries. The train is a more efficient way of moving over the road freight.

Let's see, smart business leaders, innovation, the American standard of living... And all you can think of is taxes and regulations? Maybe our corporate taxes should be 12% too. Where did you come up with the 0.3%?

Do you know what a Double Irish system is? It's the system by which U.S. companies have figured out how to cut their taxes from 35% (the normal corporate rate in the U.S.) to 0.3% by establishing a company in Ireland where the corporate rate is 12% and another one in the Cayman Islands or Bahamas where there IS no tax. Then they transfer their copyrights or patents to the company in the Cayman Islands. The U.S. company then arranges to pay enough royalties to the company in the Cayman Islands for using their rights that it consumes almost all of their profit (less for the IRS to tax). But since the IRS charges a special tax for doing business with a tax sheltered company, the company in Ireland is made the parent company of the company in the Cayman Islands. Now the U.S. company pays royalties to the company in Ireland which is charged by the Irish government at 12% and the IRS withdraws. Meanwhile, Irish law says a company only pays taxes to the country where it's headquarters are, not necessarily were the charter is, so now the 12% Irish tax is also circumnavigated. If it's legal, I don't see the problem. I owned by own corporation, all be it small, and paid myself a modest salary along with all the members of my family who also worked for the corp. I have now retired and it takes 10 years to close down a corp or you lose all you accumulated to taxes. Almost 60% is what the taxmen want if I don't carefully close the corp. down. I don't think that's fair either.

And you think a simple tax cut is going the bring these U.S. companies back? Get real. It would help and would entice some of them back. I agree there's a lot of corporate greed out there and many a ceo would screw their mother out our her last cent. You sound like you work for a large company so you know what I mean.

LOL - You don't even know what a Marxist is. b Wo... (show quote)

I do have an education, however probably not a well educated as yourself. I learned a lot of engineering in the heat transfer industry by working with engineers or by applying my years of experience to the problem. I designed many in the field repairs that are still in use today and was very good a determining why cooling systems failed (leaked or failed to do the job). I left that field because of too many regulations and rules by either OHSA or the EPA. I moved to other areas of endeavor and them retired. Now none of that is most likely impressive to you, but it is what it is.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

straightUp wrote:

Whatever makes you feel better Dave.

I never said insurance companies profit from disaster - I said they are profitable because they provide a service - that service is spreading the risk of large losses over a larger base and reap a profit from providing that service.

I said the health care insurance, particulalry as mandated in Obamacare, is not insurance by any reasonable evaluation of the term insurance.

Funny how what you make as an agrument becomes what I supposedly said

straightUp Loc: California

Yankee Clipper wrote:

b I do have an education, however probably not a ... (show quote)

No, actually I find that rather impressive. I'm not one of those people who thinks you have to have a masters degree to be considered intelligent and I think learning on the job can be as challenging as any academic matriculation... and certainly, any technician who is good at what he does is in my mind a valuable thing.

I do understand the frustrations of regulation. Sarbine-Oxley had a direct impact on me when I was brought in to advise staff on the management of a business intelligence system at a major bank, which meant I had access to production data and because of that I was not allowed to see any of the code because the bank (in order to comply with the regulation) insisted that those who had access to data could not have access to code that could manipulate the data. That actually impeded my ability to DO my job. The joke at the time was how the regulation was in reaction to the bad behavior of high-level executives and yet the only people really having to deal with the consequence were way down in the ranks.

So, I do understand the concept of too much regulation. But I would prefer it if people would approach the issue objectively and case-by-case, rather than issuing blanket statements about how bad regulation is. Because a lot of the regulations DO benefit our safety and our quality of life and none of which presents any financial advantage to the companies.

I think far too much industry is driven exclusively by profit and it's not the greedy guy that liberals talk about... In most cases, there IS no greedy guy. The worker has to answer to the manager, the manager has to answer to the director, the director has to answer to the stock holder, the stock holder has to answer to the fund manager, the fund manager has to answer to the worker. Over simplified, I know, but what I am saying is that ceaseless pursuit of profit has become a runaway a train that no human is control of and government is one of the few braking systems we have that is still controlled by humans.

Corporate policy is slaved to profit and for that reason there is no human rights in corporate policy. Every single expression of human rights, is embodied in government policy, from the U.S. Constitution to the UN Charter.

For this reason, I think people all around the world need to reestablish faith in democracy. All I see today in this country - from the right in any case, is disdain for government and enthusiasm for corporations.

straightUp Loc: California

Dave wrote:

I never said insurance companies profit from disaster

Here's what you said...

"Perhaps you think auto insurance or homeowner's should involve more government mandates - so we can punish those damned P & C inusurance companies profiting from disasters."

maybe you were being factious.

Dave wrote:

- I said they are profitable because they provide a service - that service is spreading the risk of large losses over a larger base and reap a profit from providing that service.

Correct and spreading the risk of large loss over a larger base is precisely what ACA and even the more socialized versions of healthcare found in other countries is based on... just minus the profit. But opponents turn that into this... "I don't want to have to pay for someone else". Well, that's what you do when the risk of large loss is spread over a larger base.

Dave wrote:

I said the health care insurance, particulalry as mandated in Obamacare, is not insurance by any reasonable evaluation of the term insurance.

I disagree. But I'm willing to hear your rationale.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

straightUp wrote:

And when I go back to Jan 07... what am I looking for?

gee i don't know maybe who was elected to congress

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

straightUp wrote:

I disagree. But I'm willing to hear your rationale.

Requiring insurance coverage for first dollar loss is unique to health care insurance when comparing to any other type of insurance. Requiring no deductable or copay to so called preventative procedures and birth control is also not insurance. Further, government managed anything is clearly less cost effective than non-government managed. The only place, in my opinion, where government should be actively involved in providing goods and services are where it is necessary for them to do so - thinks like national defense, public safety and protection of private and public properties.

The Dutchman

Dave wrote:

Requiring insurance coverage for first dollar loss... (show quote)

Insurance in this country is nothing more than a government mandated rip off and getting worse all the time.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

The Dutchman wrote:

Insurance in this country is nothing more than a government mandated rip off and getting worse all the time.

Not sure I understand what you mean but am pretty sure I disagree with it. Insurance, when done properly, is a solid economic good that in a free market provides real value to its customers and the overall comminity.

The Dutchman

Dave wrote:

Not sure I understand what you mean but am pretty sure I disagree with it. Insurance, when done properly, is a solid economic good that in a free market provides real value to its customers and the overall comminity.

The government mandates that you have to have insurance to drive.
You have to have insurance to finance home auto etc.
and now they are mandating that you have to have health ins.
You have to have insurance to be in business, and if you are you have to have insurance to apply for a government contract plus a bond which is just more insurance.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

The Dutchman wrote:

The government mandates that you have to have insurance to drive.
You have to have insurance to finance home auto etc.
and now they are mandating that you have to have health ins.
You have to have insurance to be in business, and if you are you have to have insurance to apply for a government contract plus a bond which is just more insurance.

but the state govt. not the fed govt.