Yankee Clipper

[quote=straightUp]First of all, according to a study at Harvard University, 45,000 deaths per year in America are caused by a lack of medical attention.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

Harvard is a liberal bastion, why should I trust their study? And look at the mess many of their law school graduates have made of our laws and our county. Obama is a prime example, a fucking Marxist graduate.



Secondly, I'm so tired of people using charity as the "magic excuse" to be selfish. I have the right to be selfish if I choose to be, you do not have the right to use the government to force me to be charitable through taxes. "I give to charity - so I don't need the state to take my money by force." I hear this all the time from the right, like it's a practiced mantra. I bet most of them are lying about their donations anyway because with charity it's easy to lie and SAY you gave, when you didn't and I think that's why they like it as opposed to a tax system they HAVE to pay into.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

If someone is truly charitable they would not have a problem paying tax to cover the less fortunate because covering the less fortunate is what matters. When someone get's annoyed about having to pay for someone else, it's really hard to believe they are being genuine when they casually mention charity as a better solution.

“…The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

But forget about my opinion for a minute, let's go to the bottom line which is very simple (and I've studied this at length)... In the U.S., the total sum of charity falls waaay short of the total sum of need.

This is WHY 45000 Americans die each year for a lack of service.

Why don't you devout your entire wealth and money into the welfare of these individuals, rather than in efforts to use the tax man to force me to do the same. It took me my entire life to acquire a small retirement which I hope I can keep the government away from. You know Marxists like Obama are working hard to steal the cash from retirement plans and use it to buy dead beat v**es to remain in power, if they can not do so by a junta.

Not only that but if we went with a simple tax plan, charitable giving would be even less because aside from the nickles and dimes that good people can afford to give up, most significant and effective charitable donations are motivated by tax avoidance. Pray tell, what did we do before Wilson, FDR, Carter (who single handily almost destroyed the country), and now the last of a line of Marxist, Obama. People weren't dying in the streets. Oh, how did we ever manage to care for most of those indigents. You've done the studying, tell me and the others how it was managed then, and cannot be now.

I think charity is a wonderful thing, but it's not enough. Most Americans really aren't as generous as they pretend to be. And I find the use of "charity" as an argument for not having to pay tax, simply revolting.[/quote]

First and foremost get the i******s out of the country, now. They create a drain on our resources and take available jobs that many on wellfare could fill if wellfare didn't pay so well. I read a study somewhere that many wellfare recipeints receive about $60,000 in total benefits. I never on my own made that much tax free in a year, in fact, at my top income I only made slightly more than that and had to pay taxes on it too.

You will most likely say there are no jobs available, while there are not as many as there once was there are jobs out there. Just the trucking industry alone needs something like 4 or 5 million new drivers now. These are good paying jobs. I know, I drove a truck over the road recently, but quiteto help care for my mother-in-law.

Too many rules, regulations, and taxes has caused many jobs to go away and has harmed job creation at the same time. You Marxist/democrats are destroying what built this country.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

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. However, in so saying you miss out on the Obama words about being able to keep what you have, if you like it. Can you do that if your employer decides to drop the legally forced program he has for you? Only if that company will go along and then only if they want to hold down the cost he charges you as an individual.

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. I thought that the term meant that the government would pay for all of us. Public option, government pays? That does sound so much like the same thing. 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.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Unaware that Obamacare mandates procedures deemed preventative to be provided without co-pay or deductables - as well as birth control under the same mandate doesn't exactly qualify you as an expert - only either malinformed or purosefully deceitful. - It wasn't me who said these things were free - it was Obama. Obviously they aren't free, and if they are paid by insurance companies they are also not insurance.

You may have done all kinds of work with insurance companies, but somehow missed they are meant to be profitable - and as such need to take into consideration the risk and cost of disasters. Otherwise they'd be like the government run flood insurance - otherwise known as another drain on taxpayers.

You have an overly inflated sense of your knowledge and a foolish understanding of real world businesses of any kind.

You are hardly informed enough to provide any real arguments for anything doing with economic activity.


I can understand your impressions - which are obviously based on a complete lack of understanding the issue in front of us.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Do you suppose? Well he says he has done a lot of work for insurance companies so maybe he understands the ACA a bit better with that name than as El Chardo. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

He may or may not have done work for insurance companies, but if he did his work was narrow in focus and not requiring an overall understanding of the business model.

I've managed manufacturing and distribution companies for over 40 years, and I've had people doing work for those companies that required expertise in an area, but prudence required you kept them out of P & L decisions.

straightUp Loc: California

Fair enough.


That sounds good. But I doubt that these practices will be able to cover any significant percentage of the nations needs while maintaining such a cozy relationship with their patients. It's an unfortunate reality I'm afraid... 314 million people, of which roughly half make less than 22,000/year. That's a very heavy burden for a federal government that doesn't want to turn it's back on the less fortunate. But for the smaller percentages of people who can find services like what you describe, I am very happy.


Seems obvious to me... A young person who is not gainfully employed and not paying taxes seems to have two choices. ACA coverage or no coverage.

Squeezing blood from a stone seems more like a concern for people like me who want to know how this system is going to work. Personally, I agree with Winston Churchill, my favorite conservative of all time, that taxes should come from wealth, not income. First of all, wealth is where most of the money is. There is enough to cover everything in our budget AND our national debt without forcing ANYONE into hardship. But wealth has become the stone that can't be squeezed because wealth itself is what directs this country, so the politicians, who are the pawns in this game will continue to press pennies from single moms struggling to feed their children while issuing sermons about how wrong it is to ask a billionaire for anything at all.


They already are.


Yeah, that doesn't sound right.


I agree. Fortunately, ACA does not intend to be a one-size fits all solution. It features a public option, but people still have the choice of that or wh**ever else they want.


I did the same thing with the dentist last year... I paid cash and got a better deal. The reason, as I understand it is that providers will ask for more if you use insurance in much the same way a merchant in Tijuana will ask more for something if you look wealthy - in both cases they are setting the bar high for the subsequent bargaining that happens. This is one those things ACA is trying to reduce.


Or be a psychologist and charge 100/hr to sit around, chat and write a few prescriptions.
:)

The Dutchman

:thumbup:

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

and the c*******t party the same ones that passed it

Yankee Clipper

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.

lightfoot

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 v**e for him..He gave a free phone!!

Slingblade68 Loc: Charleston SC

Straight up- You Obviously have not read the "fine print" regarding the Budget proposal that is going to pay for the Omnipotent Ones "Affordable Care Act" . Just the word "Affordable " in conjunction with anything the Government undertakes , should have been a huge red F**g for any Tax paying American. First the rippling effects from tax increases alone are going to be experienced by all Americans. Excise, VAT, Carbon, Gasoline, I could go on , but why do your homework. Read the PDF for yourself. The government has made it available for anyone to read. There is nothing affordable about it. This "Act" was supposed to benefit all Americans , furthermore decrease the eventual, inevitable cost of staying healthy.
Now you add the fact that the IRS will be implementing and enforcing the same.. and you seriously believe Americans are not going to pay for it.. Not Bloody likely..

The Dutchman

And it will lay mostly on the sholders of the working class.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

You might want to go to the forum titled "In California, Obamacare to INCREASE Individual Premiums by 64% - 146%.

As I posted earlier, I think I will stick with CBO and OMB.

straightUp Loc: California

Maybe you should have gone to school.


Caring for your mother-in-law was a noble decision.


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 t***sfer 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.

straightUp Loc: California

What part of risk assessment did you not understand? You are the one who said insurance companies profit from disaster. I'm the one who said they profit from avoiding disaster.


Wh**ever makes you feel better Dave.